Author Topic: Reduced Ranges  (Read 5662 times)

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #90 on: January 07, 2006, 10:48:37 AM »
Straffo  Thats the price you pay for flying a smaller lighter more nimble aircraft.
A yak is around 7000 lbs while a p51 is some around 9600 lbs.

Simply stated the p-51 is bigger and thus can carry more fuel.



Bronk
« Last Edit: January 07, 2006, 10:50:55 AM by Bronk »
See Rule #4

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #91 on: January 07, 2006, 11:02:04 AM »
Explain the Cosair then.... 13000 lbs and it carries 200 gallons inside....

Kind blows the logic of bigger and heavier means more fuel.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #92 on: January 07, 2006, 11:13:03 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
Straffo  Thats the price you pay for flying a smaller lighter more nimble aircraft.


I dropped the yak years ago because of the FBM...
btw I won't qualify the A8/typhoon as small ... and certainly not nimble :D

Bodhi I think the Corsair would benefit from a 1 FBM and I don't see any problem with it I'm not an Ami plane hater.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #93 on: January 07, 2006, 11:19:23 AM »
Gentelmen
I just did a little test op off line with FBM set to 2.
I upped a yak with 100% fuel load. Set direction to a base approx 25 miles away. [bases for the most part are 25 apart] Set my climb rate to approx 3.5k fpm. Climb to 10k once there set engine to normal power. [ plane flew at 305 indicated ] Once at base resumed mil power . It had 24 min of fuel left.

I figured that was  the average hop in the ma . You all can now say what you like but to me that seems fine.



BRONK
« Last Edit: January 07, 2006, 12:01:30 PM by Bronk »
See Rule #4

Offline Hoarach

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2406
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2006, 11:24:56 AM »
In AH1 where fuel was porkable and fuel burn rate was at 1, planes would have plenty of fuel to go the extra sectors and still get plenty of alt.  Lgay7s could climb to 20k and still have plenty of alt to go many sectors.  Now them little lgay7s cant do what they used to being able to climb while travelling across 5 or so sectors to get to a fight and BnZ everything to death.  Now just more likely to see high spit 16s cause of its slipper tank.  If that tank was taken away we probably wouldnt see as many spit 16 so high up.
Fringe
Nose Art
80th FS "Headhunters"

Secret Association of P38 Pilots

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #95 on: January 07, 2006, 11:29:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hoarach
In AH1 where fuel was porkable and fuel burn rate was at 1


FBM was not at 1 in AH1 I don't remember the value but it was not 1.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #96 on: January 07, 2006, 11:35:16 AM »
Straffo I am so sorry that the mustang could carry 269 gal of internal fuel.
While the much malighned yak could only carry 139 gal.

But we play with scaled down maps thus we scale down fuel to balance it out.


Bronk


Ps tiffy 185 gal with huge motor,fw190 a8 170 gal internal and was some 9800 lbs .(mustang 9600 lbs) The numbers were taken from HTC aircraft section. I figured thats the way he modeled them in game .
« Last Edit: January 07, 2006, 11:59:25 AM by Bronk »
See Rule #4

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #97 on: January 07, 2006, 11:56:03 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
FBM was not at 1 in AH1 I don't remember the value but it was not 1.


Fuel burn in AH1 was 1.5, was later upped to 2.0 a few months after AH2 came online.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #98 on: January 07, 2006, 12:04:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
Straffo I am so sorry that the mustang could carry 269 gal of internal fuel.
While the much malighned yak could only carry 139 gal.

But we play with scaled down maps thus we scale down fuel to balance it out.


Bronk


Why balance anything ?

And why balance in favor of the plane having the more fuel ?

If I HTC had decided to set a FBM at 0.5 you will also scream about the unfairness of the setting.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #99 on: January 07, 2006, 12:11:57 PM »
As to your comment on the Corsair benefitting from a 1x modifier:

Yesterday I played with the RPM settings a bit in an F4U-1 w/50% internal and a drop tank (this would be roughly equivilant to a C/D/4Hog at 75% internal w/ single drop tank). I climbed at full power to ~10k feet (avg 2500fpm ROC) then dialed down RPMs to ~1700-2000. When I pulled up E6B the magic numbers were...

Flight time: ~90mins
Range: ~300mi (~150mi combat radius)

Now, consider that this is NOT full internal fuel, and the-1 only has the single drop tank option (later Hogs carrying TWO 150gal drop tanks).

Do we REALLY want American and Japanese planes to have a 1x modifier, doubling or more that range? If you think that it'd give people more incentive to fly the lighter birds just remember how much extra loiter time the vulch dweebs will have over what they do now.

Maybe a better option would be to adjust the FBM on an INDIVIDUAL basis to approximate the comparative combat radius (IIRC, on Page 1 someone posted math showing that if Plane A had a range 50% greater than Plane B IRL, when the 2x FBM was applied that range difference was INCREASED rather than remaining equal). That way Plane B is given a bit of a performance boost, without sacrificing the historical advantage in range and flight time of Plane A by extending Plane B's out so far that Plane A is unnecessarily impacted by its own endurance
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #100 on: January 07, 2006, 12:15:00 PM »
Hi Bronk,

>I figured that was  the average hop in the ma . You all can now say what you like but to me that seems fine.

I'm not going to take off from a front-line field, climb straight towards the nearest base and arrive there at a mere 10000 ft.

And if I do, I won't call that a realistic mission profile.

Here is a realistic mission profile that yields realistic chances for survival (and for bringing back the aircraft intact):

As you have to expect bandits between two front-line fields that are just 25 miles apart. Accordingly, a realistic mission profile would call for a take-off at a second-line field and climb to 20000 ft (at least) before even reaching the friendly front-line field. Then cruise over to the enemy field.

Don't plan on using cruise power on the way back from the engagement. There is a good chance that the buddies of the guys you shot down will pursue you, and reducing fuel consumption will not be an option with enemies in hot pursuit.

On the way back, landing at the front line field is not safe because front-line fields are often vulched. Plan the mission to include a landing on the second line field, and arrive there with enough reserve to be able to divert to another second line field in case the enemy carries out a raid on the field you have planned to land on.

Put a ten minute emergency reserve on top of that.

With a fuel multiplier of 1.0, I get an absolutely realistic mission time for that. What do you get?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #101 on: January 07, 2006, 12:16:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
Why balance anything ?

And why balance in favor of the plane having the more fuel ?

If I HTC had decided to set a FBM at 0.5 you will also scream about the unfairness of the setting.


Ahh but it is not in favor of any one we all fly at the same scale.
Lets say that ht decided the maps had to ave bases 50 miles from one another to give it a more realistic scale. Then he would set FBM to 1.
then you would have 2 complaints .
1 My plane still doesnt have enough flight time over target.
2 I have to fly to far to my target.


Its all a compromise. And just so you know I  fly spits more often than not. And i dont see a problem with having to manage engine settings. I cant speak for you but i like to fly from one base back. Even with DT i still cut power at cruise alt just to have more time over target.




Bronk
See Rule #4

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #102 on: January 07, 2006, 01:29:12 PM »
Quote
But we play with scaled down maps thus we scale down fuel to balance it out.


The AH main main maps are made up, and made to no 'scale'. If you have read the thread I already stated where some 512 x 512 scenario maps have been made to near 1 to 1 scale. Go back an read it.

They could easily make 'realistic' maps at 1 to 1 scale if they like. However, they choose to make made-up maps and add lots of bases close together to facilitate game play. The FBM has nothing to do with 'map scale'.

In AH1 when the maps were mostly 256x256 (thats 4 times smaller then 512 x 512) the FBM was at x1.5. It was at 1.5 once the 512s map came online. It was x1.5 the first few months of AH2. The bases have always been 20-25 miles apart. An FBM x2 does nothing to 'address scale'.

Quote
Do we REALLY want American and Japanese planes to have a 1x modifier, doubling or more that range? If you think that it'd give people more incentive to fly the lighter birds just remember how much extra loiter time the vulch dweebs will have over what they do now.


In the case of vulching players can take their 'lighter planes' from deeper fields and won't be locked to the front line to be vulched if the FBM were lower.

Quote
It was said above that the yak has 29 min at full throttle. Manage it a little and you can go over 35 min. How long do you want to fly?


That question has been answered several times. As Hohun said some want to fly a 'realistic mission profile'.

Quote
High FBM means heavier average fuel loads in ALL planes.


It also means they burn that excess fuel twice as fast. Thus during combat most of the excess fuel weight has been burned, or in the case of Ami planes dumped away with their DTs. All the high FBM does is limit overall flight time.  It does nothing to change the relationships between aircraft 'fuel weight'.

Flight time is the whole point, not weight or range.

Quote
Somehow the second option sounds less realistic than the first to me. But that's just me.


Nothing about the main is 'realistic' or even 'believable'.

Straffo brought up IL2. In Il2 the maps are much smaller then AH. Some much smaller then even the 256 x 256 maps and there is no fuel multiplier and no one thinks twice about it. Every one has the ability to fly their particular aircraft for as long as it could in rl. While lots of Ami folks do the 25% or 50% and DT in Il2 (just liek they do everywhere) the only real difference it makes is that when I fly axis aircraft I almost never take a DT just 100% internal. I fly on a particular server that has a cap of 125 folks. Pro-longed vulching is never an issue due to long flight times. Thats with each side having just 2 or 3 airfields to up from.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #103 on: January 07, 2006, 03:31:23 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
Ahh but it is not in favor of any one we all fly at the same scale.
Lets say that ht decided the maps had to ave bases 50 miles from one another to give it a more realistic scale. Then he would set FBM to 1.
then you would have 2 complaints .
1 My plane still doesnt have enough flight time over target.
2 I have to fly to far to my target.


Its all a compromise. And just so you know I  fly spits more often than not. And i dont see a problem with having to manage engine settings. I cant speak for you but i like to fly from one base back. Even with DT i still cut power at cruise alt just to have more time over target.




Bronk


where there is a scale ? 25 miles is not 25 miles in your part of the world ?

Offline g00b

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 760
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #104 on: January 08, 2006, 06:04:53 AM »
Geez...

The fuel burn multiplier just makes it so fuel load is actually a factor in most MA engagements. Without the multiplier you will almost always run out of ammo or die before you run out of gas. Some planes had better range/duration, the fuel burn multiplier just highlights them.

It's perfect now. Anyone who can't stretch their fuel to cover a very long and successfull mission isn't doing it right.

g00b