Reduced Ranges

[Angus]

Who the **** is this Harry.
Well, I just saw him point out that banning Kuffie would be pointless. Maybe he's showing us why that would be....futile

[Golfer]

Originally posted by Harry
Perhaps you should check you own oxygen Golfer, perhaps you're flying that imaginary P-51 of yours again

Would be great if you had the first clue about what you were talking about Darn, wrong finger.

Since I actually think what we have is fair I'll ask what's the big deal?  And why I think it's fair is:

All airplanes are modeled to be "close enough" to their true ranges that you could say the fuel capacity is accurate and true when compared to real life.

Given that on our largest maps it's only 512 miles from one side to the other (262,144 square miles) compared to the ETO of well over 1000 miles in either direction (well over 1,000,000 squre miles) we do not need the full capacity of fuel for long range aircraft designed to operate.  Because our maps are "about half" the size of the ETO for instance...what's so wrong with "about doubling" the fuel burn?  It's not done to a selective few airplanes it's done to all of them.  They're all affected and they still operate true to life when compared with one another.  The P-51 flies longer than the Bf-109...which it did.  Not because HTC wants an uber American plane set, but because he is shooting for and tweaking for a playable yet historically accurate game.

What's not fair and why?

Our maps are half the size...our burn is twice the rate.  The little Apache I scoot around holds 108 gallons for 6 hours of fuel until the engines stop making noise.  That's great if I need to fly down to Georgia or out to Nebraska.  Sounds like not much fun wasing 6 hours of my day doing nothing while sitting at my computer not getting paid.  If you want realism...go fly an airplane.  If you want fun...fly aces high.

[Karnak]

F4UDOA,

I'd actually not phrase it Axis vs Allied, but rather European vs. non-European.  The two non-European nations, the United States and Japan, both included generous ammounts of fuel in their fighter designs compared to the European powers of the United Kingdom, Germany, the Soviet Union, Italy and France.  Given the distances Japanese and the United States militaries expected to fight over that design priority is hardly a suprise.  The European nations had a much more concentrated field of conflict and so had other priorities.

[straffo]

Let rephrase some of the post above.


The MA is more like the East front than the West

But WE long range fighter dweeb don't care of it and want to twist reality to our exclusive use.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Harry
Don't feel bad, I don't.

It's the only logical reason for limiting the range of planes in a completely fictitious game arena. It adds nothing to the enjoyment of the game unless you get some perverted pleasure of wasting other people’s time. Next you can explain how being able to take 25% fuel + droptanks somehow is historical and/or "realistic".

 This guy is funny and simple minded first you say you like the MA for fun and dogfighting then on the other hand you talk about historical and realistic. Since Iv never seen you in the CT and you kinda look like the guy who is a LA7 dweeb useing WEP trying to get to the vulched field before it gets taken then whine when you run outa gas I dont think your the guy to talk about historical.

[Mustaine]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
I actually think they should model Luftwaffe fighters in there own Uber arena where they have unlimited fuel and ammo and when they have damage they can fly through giant floating pictures of the Fueher which will re-arm and re-fuel your plane.

[F4UDOA]

Straffo,

You are half right, the MA is East vrs West. But it doesn't mean I should have to tow a battleship behind my Hog because the mini-cooper squadron has an inferiority complex.

Why don't we just model every single fighter with 100 gallons of fuel which is 600LBS and they can all have the same range. The P-51, P-47, P-38, F4U and F6F will all be light as feather since they don't have to worry about dragging 1500lbs of fuel to fly 5 feet away and the C205 will have it's historic range and fuel load.

While we are at it why don't we do the same for ammo. I have no choice in my Hog but to fly with 750lbs of .50 cal bullets everytime I takeoff unless I want to shoot them off on the runway. Why don't we make everyone's ammo load the same to? At about 10,000lbs I should be able to climb with the 109K-4 and turn with Spit V's, sounds great!

[straffo]

FD, your mistaken ,I don't want the long range plane to be overweight nor overloaded.

I just want to have a realistic fuel loadout according to the environement.

IE :
In the Maps where the distances are small : less fuel availlable.
In the Maps where the distances are normal : normal fuel availlable.
In the Maps where the distances are normal : normal fuel availlable + drop tank.




Btw I still have trouble understanding how the overall behaviour of a AH plane can be realistic if a part is not correct

[hitech]

straffo: That is a somewhat valid way of looking at it, but there is a trade off. And would benifit the hi consumption planes.

Take a plane with 2 hours fuel load. And lets say he reaches the fight in 30 mins.

Now with a fuel burn rate of 2. He would reach the fight at 1/2 tank. And close to the same wieght as he would have reached is max range in real life.

If we would change it to a max of  50% load instead he would reach the fight at 1/4 tank. And hence be lighter than normal engagement weights.


HiTech

[Bruno]

You are half right, the MA is East vrs West. But it doesn't mean I should have to tow a battleship behind my Hog because the mini-cooper squadron has an inferiority complex.

You don't have to, you can fly around as long as you like burning off fuel.

However, even if the FBM was set x1 that would only mean you could fight longer in a 25% gassed up F4U. The fuel mod does nothing except limit the range of those planes that are already limited even more. A climb to 20k in a La-7, or 109, or Yak 9u etc.. requires twice the amount of fuel. While the same may be true of the longer range planes they are rarely ever flown with 100% fuel regardless of the FBM. When flying aircraft with limited fuel capacity this effect on climb is a real disadvantage in terms of 'combat time'.

No one said all planes should have the same range, but some planes in AH have only 20 - 21 minute flight time at full boost. Having the FBM set at x1 doesn't force you to fly a P-51 or F4U with 100% fuel. Why are you creating such a ridiculous strawman?



About the 512 x 512 maps,

 That doesn't have anything to do with a specific FBM of x2. When the maps were 256 x 256 (4 times smaller) the FBM was at one time x1.5 then x2.0. If we follow that logic then the FBM should have been at x4.

When AH2 was first released the FBM wasn't at x2. It was at x1.5. When it was increased to x2 there were several long threads about this very subject. At that time HTC was tooling around with rpm and proper fuel consumption. At x1 or x1.5 no-one would bother with 'fuel management'. At x2, as I said above, only those planes already with a limited RL fuel capacity are affected. Planes like the 9u, and Las are now limited to just front line combat (which they weren't in RL, they flew any number of mission profiles, from intercept to escort to freie-jagd etc...) while the P-51 can up at a front line field with 50 or 25% fuel and run full boost from take-off to landing. So 'fuel management' is only an issue with some planes.

If those who fly longer range planes don't want to fight 'heavy' then they can always take less fuel regardless of what the FBM is. Or they can just fly around touring the map as long as they like. Back in the day the 9u used to be flown quite a bit. Now only a handful of players still fly it due to the very limited range.

FYI,
For those that think the La-7 / La-5FN only were flown at low alt don't have a clue as to what they are talking about.

[straffo]

Originally posted by hitech
straffo: That is a somewhat valid way of looking at it, but there is a trade off. And would benifit the hi consumption planes.

Take a plane with 2 hours fuel load. And lets say he reaches the fight in 30 mins.

Now with a fuel burn rate of 2. He would reach the fight at 1/2 tank. And close to the same wieght as he would have reached is max range in real life.

If we would change it to a max of  50% load instead he would reach the fight at 1/4 tank. And hence be lighter than normal engagement weights.


HiTech

Ok HiTech,if the goal is to have fight with a normal engagement weight as you said I do understand the purpose of the FBM.

[Bruno]

Ok HiTech,if the goal is to have fight with a normal engagement weight as you said I do understand the purpose of the FBM.

But your not. If you are fighting Ami planes with a constant 25 - 50%who says this is real? Luftflotte 3 was engaging long range Ami fighters over France and Belgium, long before they penetrated deep into enemy territory. Not all 38s, Jugs, and 51s had time to burn off sufficient amounts fuel before being engaged some did, some didn't. Same in the Pacific. There was considerable 'randomness' in fuel load when combat began.

But even if you accept that no Ami plane ever got in a fight with more then 50% fuel the FBM does nothing to address that. The Ami pilot can still load what ever amount of fuel he wants, whether the FBM is at x1 or x2. Just as easy as he can up from a deeper field.

The problem isn't that you fight Ami planes with light fuel loads, that will happen no matter what the FBM. The problem is the arbitrarily limited flight time of some really fun aircraft in AH.

[HoHun]

Hi Hitech,

>Now with a fuel burn rate of 2. He would reach the fight at 1/2 tank. And close to the same wieght as he would have reached is max range in real life.

Maybe it would be better to look at actual mission profiles.

A while back, I prepared an example for the Spitfire F. XIV, based on the Pilot's Notes for the type:

At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 25000 ft: -26 gals
Cruise out: -15.5 gals
5 min combat power: -15 gals
10 min climb power: -22 gals
Climb from 10000 ft to 20000 ft: -6 gals
Cruise back: -15.5 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals

The 15.5 gals for cruise each way yield a combat radius of 73 miles.

The same mission with a consumption multiplier of 1.5 would be impossible. If you'd give up the 11 gals reserve, you'd have a remaining combat radius of 18 miles.

Now a less demanding mission profile:

At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 20000 ft: -23 gals
Cruise out: -20 gals
5 min combat power: -15 gals
10 min climb power: -22 gals
Cruise back without climb: -20 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals

Combat radius: 94 miles.

With a fuel multiplier of 1.5:

At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 20000 ft: -34.5 gals
Cruise out: -5 gals
5 min combat power: -22.5 gals
10 min climb power: -33 gals
Cruise back without climb: -5 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals

This would leave the Spitfire with just 10 gals for cruise (5 in, 5 out), equating a combat radius of 16 miles at the higher fuel multiplier - though the 10% reserve is worth less, too.

And looking at the mission profile - who could hope to survive a maximum economy cruise back from a furball? :-) The Spitfire actually has no choice but either to run away at full throttle (might work for a XIV), or to climb above all bandits in the area before going to maximum economy.

And it's all non-linear. Just look at the combat radius:

Fuel multiplier 1.0: 94 miles = 100%
Fuel multiplier 1.5: 16 miles = 017%

I don't like this fuel multiplier stuff. My personal priority is on flight time anyway, and I'm not happy if I don't get realistic flight times regardless of map size.


Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Stang]

Originally posted by hitech
conspericyest.

hehe.

[Karnak]

Henning,

AH's  fuel multiplier is actually 2.0, not 1.5, so the impact will be ever larger.  In practice I doubt anybody ever takes a Spit XIV without the 30 gallon slipper tank.