Reduced Ranges

[Bruno]

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.

I agree 100%...

The 'I am to heavy to fight' cry is really only related to Ami planes. These can always take less fuel and/or take-off from a base deeper in their own territory.

If you like to fly a Yak 9u your stuck 30 min or so flight time...

[Squire]

You can already load 1/4 - 3/4 fuel for short missions, how is any of this specific to US planes, which, btw, had no greater range than most others save they went to Germany with 2 large oversize drop tanks?

I can load a Jug with 50 fuel and roll. Doesnt matter what the burn is. If they made the burn 1.0 a lot of P-51 guys would just roll at 25-50 fuel and go. Spit pilots would take 75 maybe, same with 109s. Yaks would take 100 probably. B-26s would take 25.

The players aren't stupid.

I don't follow the burn rate = something to do with US planes thing. Makes no sense on the face of it.

I say make the burn 1.0 and let them do what they want. Once you take 100 fuel you cant get rid of it, so a player who rolled with that load to get more air time will also pay the price in air combat. Seems fair to me.

You also need ammo to fight, which no matter what will run out.

I like to fly Yaks sometimes, and you can hardly find a fight before your fuel runs out. Thats a bummer.

[Bruno]

You can already load 1/4 - 3/4 fuel for short missions, how is any of this specific to US planes, which, btw, had no greater range than most others save they went to Germany with 2 large oversize drop tanks?

There is a difference if the FBM is at x2. It has nothing to do with Ami planes they will always take less then 100%. If thats not good enough to can take off from a deeper field. At x2 or even x1 a Yak will always take 100% and take off from the closest field. They only way a Yak gets more flight time is by reducing the FBM. No matter what the FBM the Ami pilot will just adjust his fuel load however he wants. With the FBM at x1 it doesn't mean the F4U pilot:

should have to tow a battleship behind my Hog

I can load a Jug with 50 fuel and roll. Doesn't matter what the burn is. If they made the burn 1.0 a lot of P-51 guys would just roll at 25-50 fuel and go. Spit pilots would take 75 maybe, same with 109s. Yaks would take 100 probably. B-26s would take 25.

That's exactly correct. For a Yak pilot there's a huge difference in 10 extra minutes of flight time. It means he isn't limited to hovering between two fields watching his fuel evaporate. The Yak was not just a 'point defense fighter'. It flew many different mission profiles. With the FBM at x2 its mission profile in the main is limited.

The players aren't stupid.

I don't follow the burn rate = something to do with US planes thing. Makes no sense on the face of it.

Correct again.

The Ami planes are the only planes in which the FBM basically has no affect. Whether it be x1 or x2 the Ami pilot will just adjust his fuel load. Or he can can fly around burning off fuel, something a Yak pilot can never do.

I say make the burn 1.0 and let them do what they want. Once you take 100 fuel you cant get rid of it, so a player who rolled with that load to get more air time will also pay the price in air combat. Seems fair to me.

I agree, the maps are big enough. An FBM of x1 has no impact on Ami planes, they will just take 25% etc... At x1 some of the funner planes in the game will get more usage and not be limited to point defense.

You also need ammo to fight, which no matter what will run out.

I like to fly Yaks sometimes, and you can hardly find a fight before your fuel runs out. Thats a bummer.

Sure is, some how that's fair. If you don't agree then you just want:

every single fighter with 100 gallons of fuel which is 600LBS and they can all have the same range.

[Squire]

Its definately hard on the 109E, Yaks, and Spit V. No DTs and small tanks.

[F4UDOA]

Gents,

Here is why I believe a 1 to 1 fuel burn is a quick trip to "Relaxed Realism".

Why, because I don't believe this discussion has anything to do with the amount of time you can fly a Yak-9U in the MA. This is about not wanting to take 100% fuel so you have a greater performance advanatge over longer range aircraft which is the perceived outcome of these action. The Yak-9U has a 139 gallon tank and the engine is approx 1650HP at mil power giving it a flight time at full power of around 40minutes (estimate) in real life and 20 minutes in AH2 at a 2 to 1 fuel burn.

I don't think that 10% of the total flights in AH2 last 20 minutes and I bet that is more like 5% when you exclude bombers. What this really is about is that if you had a 1 to 1 ratio in the MA you could fly the Yak (or other small high HP A/C) with 50% fuel or less and zip around for the entire ride of the same or less duration but with greater performance from less fuel. IE this is about a competitive advantage not about endurance.

Also

I can load a Jug with 50 fuel and roll. Doesn't matter what the burn is. If they made the burn 1.0 a lot of P-51 guys would just roll at 25-50 fuel and go. Spit pilots would take 75 maybe, same with 109s. Yaks would take 100 probably. B-26s would take 25.

This statement is just not true. Currently if you fly a P-51 you take 25% fuel and 50% if you are climbing to 30K and leaving your computer for a while. If it where a 1 to 1 fuel burn you would need a 1/8 fuel setting for fighters and a 1/32 fuel setting for bombers. Is this closer to realism or to an arcade game?

All fighter A/C in AH may not have DT's but they all have MAP and RPM controls. So maybe the key is to manage your fuel instead of changing your envirement?

Here might be your best reason why this is a bad idea. What is the point of having enough fuel for a half hour if you only have enough ammo for 15 seconds of trigger time? Should we have an ammo multipier for small aircraft as well?

FYI, The F4U-4 has one of the shortest durations in AH2. About 20minutes flat and it is perked.

[Tilt]

My main concern re the FBM @ 2 was the way field fuel attrition was modeled against  % of capacity  instead of actual fuel quantity.

Ht disagrees.

However with 25% and 50% levels of the fuel attrition model disabled it makes less difference.

[F4UDOA]

I just checked out the Yak-9U flight time, it is better than I thought. 27 minutes roughly at 100% fuel. Are you kidding me? The F4U-1D only has 29 minutes? The F4U-4 has 21 while carrying 100 gallons more fuel.

I should be the one screaming.

BTW, the P-51D has 50 minutes at 2:1. It would need a 1/5 fuel setting to fly in the MA to be competitive.

[Sable]

For the most part I think the fuel burn mod is appropriate.  It provides differentiation between the short range and long range aircraft, that otherwise wouldn't exist in the MA.  Keep in mind that typical battles take place at 10,000ft and below, and within a 25 mile radius of your base.  Even the shortest legged fighters have enough fuel to climb up to 15k, get to the enemy base, fight for 10 minutes or so and rtb.  All this does is limit the shorter range fighters (generally the RAF, VVS, and LW planes) to around a 1 sector radius, while the longer legged planes (generally the US and IJN/IJAAF planes) can range out farther.  

Can these longer ranged planes gain some sort of performance advantage by taking off at 50% fuel or less?  I suppose they could, but keep in mind that because of the FBM the shorter ranged planes have burned their tanks down this far by the time they get to the fight in most cases anyway.  IMO that makes it a wash.  A look at fighter useage will tell you how "biased" the system is - the two most common fighters are two of the shortest ranged in the game.

[Angus]

There is always the CT. Normal fuel burn right?
This is an admin decison for the benefit of gameplay. The short legged aircraft would get the benefit of 1-1, so I rather do understand HTC'S poilicy.

[Bruno]

I just checked out the Yak-9U flight time, it is better than I thought. 27 minutes roughly at 100% fuel. Are you kidding me? The F4U-1D only has 29 minutes? The F4U-4 has 21 while carrying 100 gallons more fuel.

The F4U-4 has 25 min on Emergency power (ADI) but the F4U-4 has the option of carrying one or two 150 gal DTs. At 50% and a single DT the F4U-4 has 28 min.

What the DT allows for is an 'instant' fuel dump upon entering combat. Carrying the DT while on climb out increases the combat time of the F4U-4 significantly. And that is in fact what most folks do unless the CV is close enough to a field.

I should be the one screaming.

You are but mostly about the strawmen you created.

with 50% fuel or less and zip around for the entire ride of the same or less duration but with greater performance from less fuel.

Are kidding me? That's exactly what the high FBM does now. 50% and a DT for Ami planes gives them the ability to dump fuel weight at will. There's your 'relaxed realism'. This won't change if the FBM is lowered.

Setting the FBM to 1 or 1.5 would have little affect on the F4U-4. If the FBM were at 1 or 1.5 folks may or may not give up the DT and keep their 50 or 75% fuel. However, the F4U-4 doesn't instantly gain 10000lbs of weight because the FBM is lower. That plane, like all others, would still have the same options to take 25, 50, 75% fuel as the player sees fit. The Yak 9u doesn't miraculously get lighter if the FBM is lower either. In fact with a higher FBM you fight the Yak at lower weight, due to higher fuel consumption, then you would if the FBM was set at 1.  

An F4U-4 taking 75% gets a far better 'weight savings' then a Yak taking 75%. Assuming the Yak will always take 50% if the FBM is at x1 while the F4U pilot will be stuck with 100% is ridiculous, as Squire said players aren't stupid. No one forces you to take-off with 100% fuel and no one forces you to take-off from the closest airfields. All the options would remain the same as they are now.

Your right the discussions isn't just about the Yak, its about every other plane with limited flight time and range including the Yak.

Back on the 'compressed game world':

The maps in the main have 'no scale' they are just made up. Those that claim 'well the maps are only 512 x 512, what are we to do...' need to realize that maps have been made at or near a 1 to 1 scale in the past. The first BoB map was 1.1 to 1. In fact we could lay actual LW navigation/grid maps over the clipboard map and the LW grid lines almost fit with in the clipboard map grid. IIRC the FBM was 1 or 1.2 but ranges were realistic enough. The Kurland map was 512 x 512 but the scale was set to .8 or .9 to 1 with an FBM of 1. Again realistic ranges and flight times were achieved.

Because the airfields on the main maps are just 20 - 25 miles a part has nothing to do with map scale or realism. It's a game play decision, the main isn't a scenario. However, claiming that an FBM of x2 is the only way to get 'realism' is nonsense. Even on the 256 x 256 maps (4 times smaller then the 512s) the FBM wasn't higher it was actually the same or lower (1.5).

[straffo]

Originally posted by Sable
For the most part I think the fuel burn mod is appropriate.  It provides differentiation between the short range and long range aircraft, that otherwise wouldn't exist in the MA.  Keep in mind that typical battles take place at 10,000ft and below, and within a 25 mile radius of your base.  Even the shortest legged fighters have enough fuel to climb up to 15k, get to the enemy base, fight for 10 minutes or so and rtb.  All this does is limit the shorter range fighters (generally the RAF, VVS, and LW planes) to around a 1 sector radius, while the longer legged planes (generally the US and IJN/IJAAF planes) can range out farther.  

And so ?

Following your reasonning I propose to divide climb rate by 2
After all if we can do it for fuel why can't we do it for altitude ?

[HoHun]

Hi F4UDOA,

>Why, because I don't believe this discussion has anything to do with the amount of time you can fly a Yak-9U in the MA. This is about not wanting to take 100% fuel so you have a greater performance advanatge over longer range aircraft which is the perceived outcome of these action.

Nonsense. I'll gladly take 100% in any fighter, and I'd take 200% doubly gladly if it were possible. Heavy weight is a disadvantage I can easily overcome by good tactics (I'm an energy man all the way and back - I force the other guy to manoeuvre, for me it's full steam ahead and damn the torpedos ;-) but an unrealistic fuel multiplier is resistant against tactics, and in fact has multiple negative effects an the realism of online tactics.

Exaggerated fuel consumption encourages one-way missions, with everyone trying to score a quick kill before running out of fuel. To score the quick kill, greater manoeuvrability and lower weight are an advantage ... a vicious circle ...

And the shorter the flight time, the greater is the share of that time that I have to spend shuttling back and forth between a vulch-safe second-line airfield and the front-line. This is another factor that encourages one-way missions if fuel consumption is exaggerated.

>I don't think that 10% of the total flights in AH2 last 20 minutes

If it were so, that would only prove that exaggerated fuel consumption has already taken the "trip towards Relaxed Realism".

I consider everything less than 60 min a short hop. There might be satisfying short hops if I'm forced to re-arm because I spent all my ammunition quickly, but generally, my hunting passion is not satisfied by flights of less than an hour.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[F4UDOA]

Bruno,

The F4U-4 has 25 min on Emergency power (ADI) but the F4U-4 has the option of carrying one or two 150 gal DTs. At 50% and a single DT the F4U-4 has 28 min.

What the DT allows for is an 'instant' fuel dump upon entering combat. Carrying the DT while on climb out increases the combat time of the F4U-4 significantly. And that is in fact what most folks do unless the CV is close enough to a field.

The F4U-4 could carry up to three drop tanks as could the -1D. This is an historic option. Did the Yak have DT's?

You are but mostly about the strawmen you created

Sorry I can't take credit for designing AH2. But I am not the one complaining about not being able to buzz around endlessly at full mil power in an aircraft with a fuel tank the size of a Cessna.

50% and a DT for Ami planes gives them the ability to dump fuel weight at will. There's your 'relaxed realism'. This won't change if the FBM is lowered.

Since you mentioned the dumping of fuel isn't that what DT's are? Droppable/detachable Tanks? When American planes saw the enemy they dropped their tanks. That is there design purpose, hence realistic. Did the Luftwaffe make their pilots leave a deposit on the tanks? <== Humor!!

The size and scale of the map is not important. What is important is how long you need to fly to find an enemy airbase and how much fuel was used to reach that location. In AH it barely takes 5 minutes to move between bases and barely 25% use of fuel in any fighter in AH and that is without using any fuel management. I don't hear anyone saying they even try to conserve fuel. Have you ever used the E6B in the cockpit?

HoHun,

You said

Exaggerated fuel consumption encourages one-way missions, with everyone trying to score a quick kill before running out of fuel. To score the quick kill, greater manoeuvrability and lower weight are an advantage ... a vicious circle ...

and

If it were so, that would only prove that exaggerated fuel consumption has already taken the "trip towards Relaxed Realism".

Both of these statements are because the fields are close together as is the vulching you mentioned which is exactly why we have a fuel multplier. Maybe your answer in to move the bases further away from one another? If not for the multplier you would just have hordes of La-7's and Spit XVI's flying over the same CAP'ed base endlessly vulching. Is that "realistic"?

I consider everything less than 60 min a short hop. There might be satisfying short hops if I'm forced to re-arm because I spent all my ammunition quickly, but generally, my hunting passion is not satisfied by flights of less than an hour.

Dude, where are you flying for an hour?

The F4U has 2400rounds of ammo that weight 750LBS and only has 30 seconds of total trigger time which is more that any BF109 ever built. What are you doing for 59 minutes and 30 seconds?

[Bruno]

The F4U-4 could carry up to three drop tanks as could the -1D. This is an historic option. Did the Yak have DT's?

And folks carry them in AH, something that you left out when you did your fuel endurance comparison. You said the F4U was limited to 22 minutes, which is false. There's a whole range of load out options that the F4Us can carry. In rl the Yak didn't need drop tanks because its range was significantly farther then what it is in AH.

Sorry I can't take credit for designing AH2. But I am not the one complaining about not being able to buzz around endlessly at full mil power in an aircraft with a fuel tank the size of a Cessna.

Why don't look up the definition of 'strawman argument'. You create a false position like 'how about unlimited ammo' as if anyone but you has mentioned that.

Since you mentioned the dumping of fuel isn't that what DT's are? Droppable/detachable Tanks? When American planes saw the enemy they dropped their tanks. That is there design purpose, hence realistic.

They didn't fly around with 50% fuel and multiple DTs.  Hence it is no more or less realistic then an FEM lower then x2. Which is your position.

What is important is how long you need to fly to find an enemy airbase and how much fuel was used to reach that location. In AH it barely takes 5 minutes to move between bases and barely 25% use of fuel in any fighter in AH and that is without using any fuel management. I don't hear anyone saying they even try to conserve fuel. Have you ever used the E6B in the cockpit?

It only takes '5 minutes' between bases because you choose to up at a front line field, you aren't forced to unless you fly a plane like the Yak.

Now tell us how bad it will for the F4U folks if the FEM is x1 or 1.5? It won't be, they can still take whatever load out they want. Planes like the Yak will just get a few more minutes in the air. Anything you try wrap into the discussion, from unlimited ammo, to flying around with a battleship strapped on your F4U is pure BS nonsense.

[Bronk]

Here is an idea stop flying  with the throttle at the fire wall. All this talk about realism and no one mentions this.  Drop the yak into cruse and  see how far it goes  sheesh. But the people screaming gamey want to be able to fly at top speed AND still have the range as advertized.
  Some  of you realy make me laugh.



Bronk