What they say about AH

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Roundeye
I wish it were more like reality.  Pull the plug and WEP your yourself crazy.  Those who do not monitor the engine instruments get a rude surprise in the form of a stopped propellor.


That would add more realism to the game and stop any WEP-a-holics at the same time.

Merlins were run at WEP for more than half an hour with no adverse effect on the engine other than upsetting the maintainance schedule.  The engine did not lock up.  The engines were not as fragile as you seem to think.

[Roundeye]

"those who do not monitor engine instruments......"


Not saying every plane would blow an engine from continuously running WOT with WEP.

It certainly doesn't do some of them any good.  It would be insane to run a real plane WOT for an entire flight, much less add WEP for the entire duration.  It is equally insane to claim it would cause no damage (to the point of diminished performance or even catastrophic failure) to run every model represented here continuously at WOT with WEP.

It would take exhaustive research on the many different types of engines modeled here to determine which ones suffer and which ones don't.  

I sugest this because of a valid point someone brought up about there being no penalty for abusing an engine in this game.  The example of B-24s running WOT for a whole mission rings true....that would not be a fun mission in RL.  

Logic would dictate that certain engines under the correct conditions would eventually see high CHT and oil temps leading to loss of power,  detonation under boost (boom) or seizure from inadiquate oiling.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Roundeye
"those who do not monitor engine instruments......"


...snip....


Logic would dictate that certain engines under the correct conditions would eventually see high CHT and oil temps leading to loss of power,  detonation under boost (boom) or seizure from inadiquate oiling.

But wait --

Is the point of the game to simulate exactly what it was like to fly these birds? To be honest, that level of work would, well, seem like WORK. Only a handful of players would actually ENJOY absolute engineering fidelity, just like only a handful of grognards like playing Third Reich in its boxed version. Most of humanity likes Risk way better, for a reason.

Would be game designers need to realize that these are supposed to be games. The real goal is to BALANCE fun with realism at a point that meets the needs of a good chunk of both goals.

Like the poster said above, players vote with their virtual feet. AH is thriving, which makes it pretty clear that HT got the balance right on for his target audience. If some airborne grognards want more "realism" then they should go to products that they think feel  more realistic. (I emphasize the feel because odds are they aren't likely any closer to reality, but that the compromises were made differently.)

For my money, AH hits the balance right on. Different tastes no doubt make different assessments, but then they shouldn't complain about low numbers wherever they land.

[Roundeye]

Originally posted by Simaril


 Only a handful of players would actually ENJOY absolute engineering fidelity

You are correct.   I guess I want the mechanics too real, but it's what I do. (Licensed Airframe & Powerplant mechanic, Inspection Authorization and Private Pilot).  I am one of those "handful".  Marketing is directed toward the masses who don't know or don't care.

Point taken.

[yanksfan]

Originally posted by Karnak
Engines in AH are artificially limited to unrealistic low durations of WEP because it would be grossly abused if we could run engines like in reality.

Il-2's engines are so grossly mismodeled as fragile as to be an absurd joke.  To see Il-2 players tout this as realistic just reveals their lack of knowledge.  Both AH and Il-2 use a gamey mechanism to control player abuse of engine maintainance schedules.  Il-2's is signficantly more gamey.

 "WEP", was actually a very short, one shot "Emergency use deal", most planes that had it used water injection to boost air density, you had to store water for this but more over if you used it to much you could easily damage the engine.

Also most american planes, not sure about each one, or most other nations, altho i'd guess this would be simalar if you flew inverted for more then  10 or 15 seconds your engine could suffer damage due to oil preasure loss.

it's a sure thing you would not be flying long if you flew at full throttle the entire time.

if you search some of the actual flight manuels of these planes you will find alot of things that a game such as this would not take into account as it would ruin game play.

there are actual reports of ammo actually freezeing at high alt, makeing the guns inop, gun jams are another thing we don't deal with, dud bombs, lots of real world stuff would make the game less enjoyable.

It's a game, it really can't be 100% accurate.

Don

[Strip]

I agree on 1 point.......the graphics in AH2 are vastly inferior to IL2 let alone something like FSX. I understand tho that HTC isnt trying to market or produce a high quality graphics sim.

             One thing that would make AH2 look 1000% better is the square hills and mountains. From 5k up the ground doesnt look to bad.  When you look out to the horizon tho the jagged hills and square sides are almost horrific. This is my number 1 vice with AH.
             
             On the other hand......I fly to have fun and get sweaty palms. Pretty scenery doesnt do much for the excitement factor.  Doing a slow rolling scissor with the stall horn blaring dodging trees trying to get your nose around to kill the enemy is where its at IMHO. Its at times like that the scenery doesnt matter, the guages dont matter, or anything else but that task. This is what AH2 does very well IMHO. My hands still shake sometimes after a flight and I cant recall that ever happening in IL2.

          My main vice with IL2 is that in a 1v1 fight with the difficulty level set to ace and realistic the AI pilots arent really that good. You can even give them a better plane, where they promtly run at the first sign of trouble. In the career mode forget about a real challenge. Most of the wingman blindly follow there leader and ultimately become cannon fodder.

           I would die and go to heaven if you could marriage the best qualities in both games. I'd also turn over in my grave when I got the bill for said game!

Mindless rantings,
Strip(er)

[Karnak]

Originally posted by yanksfan
"WEP", was actually a very short, one shot "Emergency use deal", most planes that had it used water injection to boost air density, you had to store water for this but more over if you used it to much you could easily damage the engine.

Are you saying what you "know" or do you actually have sources?  I ask because that contradicts what I have read.

Oh, sure, some aircraft have additive based WEP, but that is hardly "most".  For example, the minor lines of Hurricane, Mosquito, P-38, P-39, P-51, Spitfire, Tempest and Typhoon all used boost based WEP, no additive at all.  I've read enough pilots and incident comments to know that it was not a "Five minutes and then the engine might blow" limitation, it was a "More than five minutes per sortie and we'll have to do excessive overhauls" limitation.  I've read of R-2800s being run at WEP for more than 24 hours straight without failure or excessive wear.

I'm sorry, but unless you can actuall provide evidence of your claims I can't take your say over these other documented cases.


Strip,

Actually I think AH's graphics are far more functional than Il-2's.

Cockpits: All of AH's cockpits are full 3D allowing custom positioning of views, even in the old AH1 cockpits and the newest AH2 cockpits look better than Il-2's.  Il-2's cockpits are "fake" 3D, meaning that if you could move your head position around you'd see big gaps in the polygons, they save you from this by locking your viewpoint in a very unrealisticly fixed position.  

Winner: AH  

Terrain:  Mixed bag.  Il-2's terrain looks more natural and it has far better rivers and textures.  The trees however look great from high up and are completely non-functional once you get down low.

Winner: Function AH, looks Il-2

Aircraft:  AH1 and early AH2 aircraft look worse than Il-2 and more recent AH2 aircraft look better than Il-2.  Il-2 suffers particularly strongly due to low texture resolutions.

Winner: AH2, but not AH1

Clouds:  Il-2's look and feel far better.

Winner:  Il-2

Damage:  AH2 indroduced a similar, but not as extreme, system to visually representing damage as Il-2.  However there are very few damage textures in AH and they look repetitive quite rapidly.  They also don't work for all aircraft, such as the wooden Mossie.  Il-2's damage graphics are more varried and the dynamic "hole" system looks really good....until it goes too far and your aircraft looks more like swiss cheese.

Winner: Il-2

[Entr0py]

The people who complain about the graphics are missing the point. The flight models(best around as far as I've heard, who cares if a hill looks blocky as long as the kites fly like they did IRL). The ability to read up on ACM's and tactics then directly apply them here. The people/characters around here with the smack talking, egos, personal beefs, the helpful people, the wells of information. Thats whats important to me

[yanksfan]

Originally posted by Karnak
Are you saying what you "know" or do you actually have sources?  I ask because that contradicts what I have read.

Oh, sure, some aircraft have additive based WEP, but that is hardly "most".  For example, the minor lines of Hurricane, Mosquito, P-38, P-39, P-51, Spitfire, Tempest and Typhoon all used boost based WEP, no additive at all.  I've read enough pilots and incident comments to know that it was not a "Five minutes and then the engine might blow" limitation, it was a "More than five minutes per sortie and we'll have to do excessive overhauls" limitation.  I've read of R-2800s being run at WEP for more than 24 hours straight without failure or excessive wear.

I'm sorry, but unless you can actuall provide evidence of your claims I can't take your say over these other documented cases.


 

A good guy to ask would be Widewing, i have seen on these bbs where someone posted parts of an actual P51D manuel, which explain "WEP" limitations and warnings, I'm just pointing out ,that the carefree form of "Flying" we do is not realistic at all, nor should it be.

As far as different birds, well, thats why i said find the actual flight manuels, but if anyone would know, it would be Widewing.

(EDIT)
Just a quik search i found this link, if you look at the first post in this forum the guy posted in pdf format a manuel for the P51b, i didn't have time to look thru all of it, but it looks really cool, you may find more indepth answers here.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/north-american-p-51b-mustang-10365.html

also this one

http://www.tailwheel.nl/n/northamericanp51dmustang/p51trainingmanual/index.html

Don

[bergy]

First of all, I agree with shuffler, that was some briliant jibberish

If we had to fly around with engines that acted like a time bomb waiting to go off does not sound like any fun to me. A game is supposed to be fun and AHII has nailed that. I kinda compare it to the Microshaft air combat game, only I die a lot more...a LOT more! Hitech..P.S. my wife hates you, LOL

[yanksfan]

Originally posted by Karnak
Are you saying what you "know" or do you actually have sources?  I ask because that contradicts what I have read.

Oh, sure, some aircraft have additive based WEP, but that is hardly "most".  For example, the minor lines of Hurricane, Mosquito, P-38, P-39, P-51, Spitfire, Tempest and Typhoon all used boost based WEP, no additive at all.  I've read enough pilots and incident comments to know that it was not a "Five minutes and then the engine might blow" limitation, it was a "More than five minutes per sortie and we'll have to do excessive overhauls" limitation.  I've read of R-2800s being run at WEP for more than 24 hours straight without failure or excessive wear.

I'm sorry, but unless you can actuall provide evidence of your claims I can't take your say over these other documented cases.


Strip,

Actually I think AH's graphics are far more functional than Il-2's.

Cockpits: All of AH's cockpits are full 3D allowing custom positioning of views, even in the old AH1 cockpits and the newest AH2 cockpits look better than Il-2's.  Il-2's cockpits are "fake" 3D, meaning that if you could move your head position around you'd see big gaps in the polygons, they save you from this by locking your viewpoint in a very unrealisticly fixed position.  

Winner: AH  

Terrain:  Mixed bag.  Il-2's terrain looks more natural and it has far better rivers and textures.  The trees however look great from high up and are completely non-functional once you get down low.

Winner: Function AH, looks Il-2

Aircraft:  AH1 and early AH2 aircraft look worse than Il-2 and more recent AH2 aircraft look better than Il-2.  Il-2 suffers particularly strongly due to low texture resolutions.

Winner: AH2, but not AH1

Clouds:  Il-2's look and feel far better.

Winner:  Il-2

Damage:  AH2 indroduced a similar, but not as extreme, system to visually representing damage as Il-2.  However there are very few damage textures in AH and they look repetitive quite rapidly.  They also don't work for all aircraft, such as the wooden Mossie.  Il-2's damage graphics are more varried and the dynamic "hole" system looks really good....until it goes too far and your aircraft looks more like swiss cheese.

Winner: Il-2

See page 14, use WEP only in extreme emergency for no more then 5 minutes
http://www.tailwheel.nl/n/northamericanp51dmustang/p51trainingmanual/index.html

[CAP1]

Originally posted by yanksfan
"WEP", was actually a very short, one shot "Emergency use deal", most planes that had it used water injection to boost air density, you had to store water for this but more over if you used it to much you could easily damage the engine.

Also most american planes, not sure about each one, or most other nations, altho i'd guess this would be simalar if you flew inverted for more then  10 or 15 seconds your engine could suffer damage due to oil preasure loss.

it's a sure thing you would not be flying long if you flew at full throttle the entire time.

if you search some of the actual flight manuels of these planes you will find alot of things that a game such as this would not take into account as it would ruin game play.

there are actual reports of ammo actually freezeing at high alt, makeing the guns inop, gun jams are another thing we don't deal with, dud bombs, lots of real world stuff would make the game less enjoyable.

It's a game, it really can't be 100% accurate.

Don

WEP wasn't necessarily that short.....i think the german planes used nitrous oxide, although i don't know how well it worked. i think planes like the p47, p51, p38, used an artificial throttle stop for "normal" use. if you got into trouble, you hammered the throttle foward through this stop, and forced more rpm, and power out of it, but in the process, you'd also trash the engine....but then engines are much more easily replaced than the pilot, so it was a good trade off. i think the water injected ones were the pacific theater of operations aircraft..the hellkitty, the later f4f's, and the corsairs...they worked i think because the water basicly cooled the incomming charge, thus condensing it, thus allowing more fuel to be injected, creating more power...but again i don't know how long this lasted, or what effects this had on the engine's longevity. i don't think the japanese planes ever had it....they were superior, and didn't need that, armour, or self sealing tanks, as they'd never be shot at due to their super skilled samurai pilots:D

for the oil systems, i'm not sure, but i'd think they would've been equipped with inverted oil systems considering the purpose they were built for......

[CAP1]

Originally posted by CAP1
WEP wasn't necessarily that short.....i think the german planes used nitrous oxide, although i don't know how well it worked. i think planes like the p47, p51, p38, used an artificial throttle stop for "normal" use. if you got into trouble, you hammered the throttle foward through this stop, and forced more rpm, and power out of it, but in the process, you'd also trash the engine....but then engines are much more easily replaced than the pilot, so it was a good trade off. i think the water injected ones were the pacific theater of operations aircraft..the hellkitty, the later f4f's, and the corsairs...they worked i think because the water basicly cooled the incomming charge, thus condensing it, thus allowing more fuel to be injected, creating more power...but again i don't know how long this lasted, or what effects this had on the engine's longevity. i don't think the japanese planes ever had it....they were superior, and didn't need that, armour, or self sealing tanks, as they'd never be shot at due to their super skilled samurai pilots:D

for the oil systems, i'm not sure, but i'd think they would've been equipped with inverted oil systems considering the purpose they were built for......

as for the engine longevity if you were to fly at wide open throttle all the time......go try it with your car........i'd be willing to bet that the engine'll be toasted in less than an hour....much less:D

in game, just pull up your clipboard, and then click the E6B......look in the middle i think..it'll have max rpm max cruise rpm, and max cruise manifold pressure.........fly your plane, leave it WOT till speed stabalizes, then adjust your throttle and rpms to the cruise settings....

<>

[CAP1]

Originally posted by yanksfan
"WEP", was actually a very short, one shot "Emergency use deal", most planes that had it used water injection to boost air density, you had to store water for this but more over if you used it to much you could easily damage the engine.

Also most american planes, not sure about each one, or most other nations, altho i'd guess this would be simalar if you flew inverted for more then  10 or 15 seconds your engine could suffer damage due to oil preasure loss.

it's a sure thing you would not be flying long if you flew at full throttle the entire time.

if you search some of the actual flight manuels of these planes you will find alot of things that a game such as this would not take into account as it would ruin game play.

there are actual reports of ammo actually freezeing at high alt, makeing the guns inop, gun jams are another thing we don't deal with, dud bombs, lots of real world stuff would make the game less enjoyable.

It's a game, it really can't be 100% accurate.

Don

ooo.......almost forgot...you ever see anyone in here fighting with bombs or a belly tank still slung underneath? i think most fighters(including the pony) were not able to fight with any of this still hanging..i think the pony was actually supposed to be flown straight and level with bombs hanging..or tanks........

[Motherland]

Originally posted by CAP1
ooo.......almost forgot...you ever see anyone in here fighting with bombs or a belly tank still slung underneath? i think most fighters(including the pony) were not able to fight with any of this still hanging..i think the pony was actually supposed to be flown straight and level with bombs hanging..or tanks........

The Pony was... just not with 1000 lbs bombs. And certainly with droptanks (though they obviously killed performance)