Author Topic: Engineheat  (Read 3751 times)

Offline Swoop

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9180
Engineheat
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2006, 04:44:20 PM »
So....which is more gamey, having a failure limit built in or not having any limits whatsoever.


Dont answer that.  You're of the opinion that failures are gamey, I (and a few others in this thread) are of the opinion that dealing with a self inflicted failure adds more to the game.  We're just of different opinions, that's all.


Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Engineheat
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2006, 05:51:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Spatula
Currently, if you've been burning up your WEP and your engine is in "the red" on the temp gauge, does throttling back and/or reduce RPMs help get the engine back down to normal faster???


I've wondered this myself. Also -- does the engine cool off faster at higher alts (lower temp air)??

Quote
Also currently in AH, does MW-50 (and similar) have a finite running period - as it should???? You only have a finite amount of Water/Methanol to inject from a tank of a finite size. This would go for any other form of chemical supercharging in any plane.


No. Currently there is no limit. It is controlled by engine heat. Once you cool down you're good to go again. Your gas is guzzled (in most planes almost up to 200% standard) during wep, and that coupled with 2x fuel burn limits your ability to over-use WEP.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Engineheat
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2006, 07:05:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Swoop
So....which is more gamey, having a failure limit built in or not having any limits whatsoever.

They both are.  It is hard to answer which is more gamey.  I'd not mind the overheating method if the limits weren't always set so absurdly low.
Quote
You're of the opinion that failures are gamey, I (and a few others in this thread) are of the opinion that dealing with a self inflicted failure adds more to the game.  We're just of different opinions, that's all.

Don't suppose to tell me what I think, thank you.  I just don't think that engines should fail as rapidly as most games make them fail.  I certainly don't think that MIL should over heat an engine to failure, though I could see it being used as the point where the engine neither heats beyond a set point nor cools.  Even IL2 and EAW don't have your engine overheat at MIL power.

But if you force people to fly and fight at cruise settings then you are going to far, and that is what the OP was asking for in effect.  There is a reason not as many people want to fly mid war or early war aircraft.  Forcing late war aircraft to fly and fight at cruise power would, essentially, be focing people to fly aircraft that handled like early war aircraft.  That is a good way to lose customers.

Personally I prefer mid-war settings, but I am in the minority in that regard.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Debonair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
Engineheat
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2006, 02:51:15 AM »
The cold air at high alt pretty low density.
I was taught low MP, over rich mixture & high IAS are the ways to cool off your engine, but I have experience with anything like these planes or even anything turbocharged

Offline Loddar

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Engineheat
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2006, 02:52:46 AM »
@Karnak. Please tell me first, what the words "gamey mechanism" standing
for ? I don't know what you mean or understand false.

In all options of improve that game are different meanings and favourites.
But, that engine option is already in the game by using reducing RPMs and
Manifold pressure.

The question is, why we don't use them ? The game is a combatsim,
correct, but, it is a combatsim not with pacmans or spaceships, no, this
combatsim use WW2 flightmodels. I don't think to change much if the designers
put that option permanent in the game with its effects.

I agree with NoBaddy that jams, leaks and rubberbullets and so are features
we don't need because it is not a flightsim. Everbody should use this game
easy. But, if i see most newbie players cannot takeoff or land easy on fields
i don't agree this is only Combat sim. We have flightsim aspects here in the
game, why we don't use all of them ?

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7357
      • FullTilt
Engineheat
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2006, 09:11:50 AM »
My view would be to have an auto temp control to be the equivilent of auto trim that ran the engine (limiting rpm and MP : temp) as much according to the manual that a "temp mechanism" would allow.

WEP becoming part of the throttle setting and not a button.

When auto temp is switched off the player sets rpm and MP and gets what ever he gets.

If he over runs the engine (like running a spit for more than 30 mins on WEP) it starts to lose power much as it might if rings had blown or valveseats were burning out.

Durability would  be part of the model for each ac and unique to it. An arena setting multiplier could then be used like the FBM to adjust game play globally.

In practice some may stay permanently in manual and manage the temperature and others will switch between the two.

Game play would actually shift to a more historical basis for other reasons than just engine management. Engine durability now becomes a factor in choosing your ac. Both from the point of view of tolerable abuse and amount of power loss once once abused...............


besides it will give all hours and hours of endless fun locked into debates about how this or that is missmodelled cos some guy ran his ac for 8 hours at WEP plus 20% or what ever.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2006, 10:04:31 AM by Tilt »
Ludere Vincere

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12384
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Engineheat
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2006, 09:13:38 AM »
Short answere Oddar: In my opinion it becomes less realistic to implement what you ask.

To implement an even close to reality engine temp model is far more than complex then what you are asking for.

2nd Implementing what you are asking for realy adds only nusaince items, not game enancing items.Let alone any resemplance to realism.

Right now you still have the WEP / heating concept. Only difference beeing it shuts it off for you.

Loddar do you always control your fuel tanks manualy when you fly AH?
If the answere is no, what you are asking for is somthing almost identical to manual fuel control. It realy dosn't add much to the game.

HiTech

Offline Loddar

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Engineheat
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2006, 10:06:46 AM »
Hi hitech,

mmh, i don't think fuel control is the same as an engine overheat implement.
As i said before, engine overheat stop that guys knowing only the 0 and the
100 % set of the throttle. Every plane fly in cruise speed set most time not
in warpspeed.

But i sting right into a open wound i think ?

That's not my intention to do that.

Sorry about that.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Engineheat
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2006, 10:09:22 AM »
Loddar,

What I mean by "gamey mechanism" is that it is a gameplay device, not simulating anything real.  It is just a gameplay mechanism intended to get the players to play in a way that the game designer (you in this case) thinks is best.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Engineheat
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2006, 08:46:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Swoop
Once.  

By accident.

In an anecdote.

Not under manufacturers test conditions.


And I'd bet that engine was DAMN hot by the end and not making it's full rated power anymore.


Actually to clear this up -
He didn't panick he was running from a pair of 190's.
He ran WEP for 34 mins without a problem.

Countless pilots reports of exceeding the 5 mins by a large margin without any damage to their Merlins.

Pilots could exceed the 5 mins if they felt it necassary, the only proviso that was they had to report it.
It was nothing to do with heat, so in that respect the current WEP model is inacurate Spit wise.
But lacking any other mechanism for WEP control it's what we have.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2006, 08:51:36 PM by Kev367th »
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Engineheat
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2006, 12:35:32 AM »


Quote
The Government had specified a particular test regime to qualify an engine at “War Emergency Power”. This was a rating higher than take-off power and usually assumed anti-detonation injection. First the engine was run for five hours in five minute cycles alternating between War Emergency Power and a fast idle. Then it was run for two and one-half hours at a steady War Emergency Power rating. The Government thought this was a tough test, but Pratt & Whitney routinely ran its engines for 100 hours straight at War Emergency Power. The seven and one-half hours required by the Government was no problem whatsoever.


Just an aside here:

My father ran a B-25 engine at full throttle for three hours and 20 minutes after another B-25 collided with his right wing while attacking a Japanese destroyer. The other engine was  pulled back to counter the rolling tendency caused by the damaged wing. On approach to his emergency airfield the engine that had been running at reduced power failed. The full power engine kept running. There is AF documentation and other crewmember documentation of this story. This was a war-weary aircraft with two well-used and abused engines.

So....  
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Engineheat
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2006, 06:35:16 AM »
Hmmm.. this reminds me of the suggestion I once made a long time ago.. Yes, it's a 'gameplay mechanism' but IIRC people commented that it had its merits. The wording might have been a little different, but IIRC It goes something like this...

..............


 Currently, the WEP automatically turns off at the "Red Zone" of the temp guage. (Well, in AH1, it used to be like that. I notice that now in AH2, in the renewed planes such as 109s or 190s, the WEP shuts off at a set temperature which may be inside the 'Red Zone')

 Since the engine always always shuts WEP off automatically at the "Red Zone", basically there's no feeling of real control at all. Why even bother making a "Red Zone" in the temp guage when none of the planes can ever get their needle there?


 Thus here are some new set of simple, 'gamey rules':


1) WEP is allowed to run through the "Red Zone", and it will automatically shut off when it reaches the maximum level of the entire temp guage.

2) The WEP duration allowed at the "Red", will be 1/2 of normal, 'safe' WEP duration in the "Yellow Zone".

::: For example, a P-51 running at mil. power, will have its temperature needle at the border line of 'white' and 'yellow'. 5 minutes of 'safe' WEP use will move the needle up to the border line of 'yellow' and 'red'. When the P-51 keeps on using WEP upto 'unsafe' levels in the 'red zone', he will have an extra 2min 30sec duration available in "red" (1/2 of 5 minutes normal WEP)

3) WEP cooldown time, will be doubled, when temperature is at "Red Zone"

::: For example, a P-51 has 5 minutes of 'safe WEP', which use will push the needle to the borderline of yellow and red. It requires 10 minutes of cooldown to bring the needle down to the borderline of white and yellow. The WEP : cooldown ratio is 1 : 2.

 However, if the pilot runs above 'safe WEP' limits, and enters red zone, the WEP : cooldown ratio would be 1 : 4 (cooldown time doubled in red zone) - if the P-51 runs 1 minute longer into red, he will have to wait for 4 minutes of cooldown to get his needle back to the borderline of yellow and red. If the P-51 runs full 2mins and 30secs of 'unsafe WEP' (1/2 of 'safe WEP') in the red zone, reaching the maximum limit of the temp guage, then he will have to wait 10 minutes, to get his needle back to the border line of yellow and red.




 ...

 This is a very simple mechanism. A few conditions have been added to what we currently have - but IMO it's enough to retain the same overall feeling of the WEP system we have now, and yet, still replicate real-life WEP use to a certain 'gamey' degree... not to mention it brings out a feel of little bit more freedom of control when it comes to engine management.

 Bascially the duration of the 'unsafe WEP' allowd in the red zone of the temp guage is 1/2 that of the 'safe WEP' allowed in yellow, and the overall cooldown time required for every second of 'unsafe WEP' use in the red zone, will be double that of the cooldown time required in the 'safe WEP' of the yellow zone.

 At first, it seems like its just plain adding more WEP time to the planes we have. However, what would happen if the pilot gets WEP-happy and just runs his plane at WEP without consideration of the temp guage?

 Soon, after his 'safe WEP' time is expired, the temp will rise to the red levels, and he will be inside 'unsafe WEP' zone. If his engine is running hot in the red zone, the usual bursts of WEP use in combat maneuvering will gradually bring the temperature nearer to the max limit, since the cool down time is double that of 'safe WEP' when temp is at red zone. Every time he uses a little bit of WEP the temperature will come closer and closer to the max limit - where finally, the limit is reached, and the WEP will shut off automatically.

 He will have to wait a very long time to use any kind of steady amount of WEP - he will be limited to pathetic amounts small bursts.

 If he is in a P-51, and he used up all of his extra 'unsafe WEP' of 2mins 30secs worth(1/2 that of 'safe WEP' duration), to use a 30second duration of WEP he has to cooldown 2 minutes flat.

 If he coolsdown for 30 seconds, he will be able to use WEP for only 7.5 seconds.. until it shuts down again. If he cools down for 1 minute, he will have 15 seconds of WEP available.. To use 1 minute of WEP, he has to cool down 4 minutes. Using WEP for a steady amount of time as might be required in emergency climbs, or fleeing from enemy fighters, becomes impossible when the temp is dwelling in the red zone.


 So what's the good point of this modifed version of AH wep?

1) It brings out a little feeling of control, without having to give up our current basic concept of AH WEP.

 Basically, there's no engine breakdown as some might want - the WEP shuts off automatically, like it currently does in AH2. However, a pilot is required to stay in the 'yellow zone' of 'safe WEP' use, to fly in a normal condition. If he doesn't manage his engine temp wisely, the temperature will rise to 'unsafe WEP' red zone... where his WEP use will become severely limited.
 
 We have options now! Use it wisely and you have normal WEP use.. use it unwisely and WEP could become practically unavaliable.

2) It feels more realistic - despite the fact it isn't.

 A real life pilot, for engine maintenance reasons, was limited to certain amount of WEP time. However, when he felt impending danger, he might decide to test his fate and hope the engine holds up, and run his WEP for longer than recommended.

 That becomes possible now, with this setup. Albeit, to a limited level - that 'prolonged, unsafe WEP use' duration, will be available at 1/2 of 'safe WEP' time. So a little more juice goes to all of the planes that has WEP capability... although not without stipulations.



 ...

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Engineheat
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2006, 07:58:14 AM »
HT has it right AND realistic. WEP is and should be limited by the amount of water injection for cooling.

Quote
Ultimately, the maximum power achieved on the “B” series was 2800 HP at 2700 RPM. Maximum power ever achieved on the “C” series was 3800 HP at 2800 RPM. The maximum manifold pressure ever recorded was a staggering 150 inches of mercury (inHg)! This was up from dramatically from the 49-inHg maximum manifold pressure originally allowed in the R-2800 “A” series of engines.

Water injection worked by reducing cylinder inlet temperature, thereby delaying the onset of detonation. As the water evaporated in the induction passages of the engine, it providing a prodigious amount of cooling to the fuel charge due to the latent heat of vaporization of the water. Cylinder inlet temperatures went from about 350°F to about 100°F. This increased the detonation margin to the point that up to 150 inHg of manifold pressure could be used.

When water injection was in use, the engine was markedly smoother, and the interior of the combustion chambers stayed extremely clean with no carbon or varnish build-up on the piston crowns, valves, or ring packs. Frank remembers that “There was no hard carbon whatsoever. You could clean the top of a piston down to bare metal by wiping it with a cloth”.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline mussie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
Engineheat
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2006, 12:20:47 PM »
Ya know reading all this has made it abundantly clear that engine damage from a few minutes overuse of WEP is gamey....

But... And I am only making a point not a whine here, dont you think the high fuel burn rate and close bases are also gamey.....

No HT I dont want the bases further apart.

The only thing that I would change with wep is the limit of its use.

From what I recalll of the thread I posted a while back Wep can be a number of different systems:
- Using higher RPM'S
- No2
- Water /(methanol ?) Injection

A plane can only carry so much water/methanol or No2, I would like to see and actual limit on your WEP time for each flight.

Imagine chasing that LA-7 and finding that he has used all his No2 (IIRC) up. suddenly your gaining on him....

Of course this would not have an effect on those planes that used higher RPM's. So this idea is sort of out the window...

Again after reading things like
Quote
An RS2800 (the engine in the P-47, F6F and F4U) was run at WEP power for 96 hours straight in a factory test


The idea of damage in a few minutes hold no realisim and I have to admit that I cannot see a fairer option than the current system....

Offline Loddar

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Engineheat
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2006, 01:06:08 PM »
:confused:  I think its not my wish only. Many others do think about

Am i wrong ?
Don't think so.
Thanks guys :aok