Author Topic: Reduced Ranges (Read 6471 times)

HoHun · « **Reply #180 on:** February 28, 2006, 05:08:15 PM »

Hi Parin,

>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.

You seem to have missed my analysis of the real-world Spitfire XIV which addressed exactly that point.

And the critical issue is flight time anyway, not range. You might not have thought about that, but if the fuel multiplier is cranked up, flight times will never reach the status "as advertized" no matter if you push the throttle all the way forward or pull it back to maximum endurance settings.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Bronk · « **Reply #181 on:** February 28, 2006, 05:11:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
A Little history: When AHII came out it was set at 2.5. A few weeks into it we changed it to 2.0.

Why it exist is because fuel load and range are major trade offs in Airplane design, just like power/weight/climb rate/speed/armor/lift/fire power. With the reduced ranges we fly, for range to be a tradeoff, the fbm had to exist.

I would still like to see it higher. The resone is map scale, not the exact scale mutiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often. This has the effect of makeing bounces from above totaly different than the way they happened.

HiTech

Nuff said.

Bronk

HoHun · « **Reply #182 on:** February 28, 2006, 05:23:45 PM »

Hi Bronk,

>Nuff said.

You might enjoy castrated mission profiles, but I don't.

I won't promise to join Aces High the second the fuel multiplier drops to 1.0, but it's definitely the most important reason that I haven't joined yet.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #183 on:** February 28, 2006, 06:36:54 PM »

Hi Hitech,

>The resone is map scale, not the exact scale mutiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often.

To illustrate my difficulties with that approach, here is a Spitfire XIV mission profile flown at a hypothetical FBM of 2.5. (Due to the non-linearity of the FBM effects, numbers might vary wildly if a different aircraft type and mission profile are chosen. That's part of the problem.)

At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 25000 ft: -65 gals
5 min combat power: -37.5 gals
10 min climb power: -55 gals
Reserve equivalent to 10% at FBM 1.0: -27.5 gals

Drop tank (drag and weight ignored): +85 gals

Total fuel: 196 gals
Available for cruise: 11 gals
Combat radius: 21 miles

A real Spitfire XIV would get a combat radius of 287 miles from this mission profile.

The FBM of 2.5 decreases the combat radius by a factor of 13.7. This is not a minor inaccuracy, and it does in fact reduce the cruising part of the mission to such an insignificant proportion that the original goal of forcing players to reduce power is achieved during only about 10% of their flying time (5.6% of their fuel carried, burnt at a below-average rate).

In other words, missions are cut short by a factor of 2.5, but players still are forced to use high power settings for 90% of the time :-(

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Saxman · « **Reply #184 on:** March 01, 2006, 12:52:25 AM »

And yet there's STILL an arena full Spitfire astronauts diving in to vulch the fields.

HoHun · « **Reply #185 on:** March 01, 2006, 01:19:17 AM »

Hi Saxman,

>And yet there's STILL an arena full Spitfire astronauts diving in to vulch the fields.

If you don't plan on making it back, that simplifies the fuel problem considerably.

Don't confuse that with realism, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Wilbus · « **Reply #186 on:** March 01, 2006, 01:36:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
Karnak said the same as I. He just sugarcoated it.

Without the added fuel burn the US planes wouldn’t be used so much. Most of the customers are Americans. HTC penalize shorter ranged planes to give their customers the satisfaction of flying their preferred planes (US) and be more successful in them.

A n00b with his mind already on conspiracy theories.

Infact Harry, had the fuel burn been set at 1.0 the US long range planes would have been used even more, they would only have needed 25% for the most part (check out the AvA arena) and thus become even easier to fly.

Bruno · « **Reply #187 on:** March 01, 2006, 02:05:55 AM »

So? Suppose they take 50% now and fly 7 - 10 minutes grabbing at max throttle by the time they get to the fight they are down to 25%.

What's the difference? Only the amount of time they have in the air overall. It does nothing to make it any 'harder' for them.

bozon · « **Reply #188 on:** March 01, 2006, 04:02:50 AM »

Hohun, the climb to 25k is not verticaly or in an upward spiral. Climbing to 25k at, lets say 4000 fpm will take ~6 min. At that time, flying at 180 mph, you advance 18 miles already.

Unless I'm doing point defense, I almost always climb at 200 mph which makes it even more efficient in terms of combat radius.

With FBM=1, Jug will never need more than 25%. If the LW guys complain now that the P47 outturn them, I'm dying to hear them when every single P47/38 they meet will be very light on fuel

I remember the "all planes must load 100% before taking DT - for realizm" claims...

Bozon

F4UDOA · « **Reply #189 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:53:03 AM »

Bozon,

You hit the nail on the head.

The P-47, P-38 and P-51 will never take more than 25% fuel and with that load the wing loading will be so light they will turn like Zero's.

Here is the P-51D-15 performance at Combat and Mil power.

Note: 9700LBS almost a full fuel load and it climbs at 3600FPM at sea level and 3,000FPM at 20K.

Mustang performance

Top speed of 375MPH at SL, 400MPH at 5,000FT with bomb racks installed and 417MPH at 10K.

Now suck about 1,000lbs of fuel off of that and you will have a 4,000FPM+ climbing/Accelerating aircraft at about 8700lbs with full ammo and 25% fuel with wing loading at 236SQ FT/8700lbs = 36.7 which is about where the Hellcat is now.

And it will fly endlessly at that load.

Toad · « **Reply #190 on:** March 01, 2006, 10:00:43 AM »

Will the -51 sustain a 4000 fpm in the arena with 25% fuel? I don't seem to remember it doing that.

gatt · « **Reply #191 on:** March 01, 2006, 11:38:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Saxman,
>And yet there's STILL an arena full Spitfire astronauts diving in to vulch the fields.
If you don't plan on making it back, that simplifies the fuel problem considerably.
Don't confuse that with realism, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)

In five years of AH I havent see so many pilots bailing after having porked a field as in the last months. Even from bombers at 15-20K. Sad to see a Main turning more and more into a Quake on Wings fest.

Oldman731 · « **Reply #192 on:** March 01, 2006, 12:07:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
I won't promise to join Aces High the second the fuel multiplier drops to 1.0, but it's definitely the most important reason that I haven't joined yet.

Well, geez, HoHun, you can join right now. In Axis v Allies arena we run fuel burn rates of 1.0, sometimes 1.2. Welcome back!

Frankly, I don't see that it makes any difference at all.

- oldman

HoHun · « **Reply #193 on:** March 01, 2006, 03:15:25 PM »

Hi Bozon,

>Hohun, the climb to 25k is not verticaly or in an upward spiral. Climbing to 25k at, lets say 4000 fpm will take ~6 min. At that time, flying at 180 mph, you advance 18 miles already.

18 miles range equate 9 miles combat radius. You'll still be comparing 30 miles in the game to 296 miles in real life.

>Unless I'm doing point defense, I almost always climb at 200 mph which makes it even more efficient in terms of combat radius.

Actually, you are wasting fuel that way and decreasing your combat radius.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #194 on:** March 01, 2006, 03:19:00 PM »

Hi Oldman,

>Well, geez, HoHun, you can join right now. In Axis v Allies arena we run fuel burn rates of 1.0, sometimes 1.2. Welcome back!

Wow, thanks, that's great news! And I always liked Axis vs. Allies best, too :-) Where can I learn more about the settings you are using?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)