New engine cooling scheme

[LLogann]

I think about that all the darn time.  I've shut the engine off at 30k going 350mph for 2 minutes later, down to 28k, turn it back on and it's still hot... Meanwhile my pressured cockpit broke and I'm freezing.

And also ambient temperature (it's cold up there), and air speed.

And I hate to say it but m00t's right..... Physics are good for you!   

I'm just saying we ought to have engine temperature that obeys the laws of physics. The same way flaps do, or the same way losing parts like control surfaces does. It's not about adding management.

[Anaxogoras]

Anax:
Good lord man, you have to admit that "reduced throttle"="quicker cool down time" is a simple, intuitive, no-brainer relationship that anyone can easily get. It is nothing like having to fool with mixture, supercharger settings, cowl-flaps, etc.

I agree with you.  Boy do I ever agree with you...but here's the deal: so long as there's any advantage to be gained by doing something extra, it won't fly with HTC.  This position has been made very clear in many of hitech's posts.

[sethipus]

I see what you're saying, and controlling throttle specifically for the purpose of affecting the temperature change rate in the engine is doing something for a purpose it previously would not accomplish, but people already control their throttle settings to achieve various speed-related effects.  Making this throttle control also change the rate of temperature gain or loss in the engine is hardly "pushing a button" to achieve greater realism.

The reason I agree with M00t and Widewing on this, and disagree with Anax, is that people start this game with a simplistic "firewall it!" approach to throttle management, and over time develop a more refined approach, with tangible improvements to their flying performance.  There is no reason why the benefit of more realistic cool-down needs to be seen as a "need" for players to learn something new.  They already are learning to manage their throttles anyway, for benefits they already get from so doing.  Giving them the benefit of better cool-down is just a side benefit.

In fact, giving people the cool-down benefit might in fact result in people learning about, and mastering, purposeful throttle management at an earlier stage in their Aces High career, which would improve their dogfight performance.

There's really no good reason not to do this.

[BnZs]

Seth, throttle control to avoid excess airspeed in ACM is a separate issue from what is being discussed. Currently, the only effect non-WEP throttle settings have is on fuel consumption. Currently, if you are fat with fuel, there is no reason not to cruise on MIL all the time. If Moot's idea was implemented, you would have a trade-off between thrust and engine cooling time, perhaps you would even run WEP longer because your engine began cooler initially.

[sethipus]

Seth, throttle control to avoid excess airspeed in ACM is a separate issue from what is being discussed.

Not really.  Anax is saying that Hitech doesn't want to add realism to the game if the achievement of that realism requires people to push more buttons.  I'm saying that while sure, achieving a higher rate of cool-down for the engine would involve some throttle manipulation, such throttle manipulation is nothing new to the game - people go from not doing much if anything with the throttle at all during flight to manipulating the throttle on purpose while flying to achieve benefits already in the game.  Adding the improvements to rate of temperature change would be just an add-on benefit.  This is hardly the same kind of thing as creating, say, a new button to push, like changing mixture, or cowl flaps would do.

Currently, the only effect non-WEP throttle settings have is on fuel consumption. Currently, if you are fat with fuel, there is no reason not to cruise on MIL all the time. If Moot's idea was implemented, you would have a trade-off between thrust and engine cooling time, perhaps you would even run WEP longer because your engine began cooler initially.

Yes, and that would be a good thing.  Sure, there may be no good "game" reason not to fly around on military power all the time, but it's absolutely horrible from a WWII simulation perspective.  I know this is a game, and not WWII, but it's hardly a good thing that we have aspects of the game that actually encourage blatant departure from more realistic flying patterns.  The bottom line is there is no way in hell pilots in WWII would routinely take off with WEP and then cruise around on military power for the whole flight, throttling down only during actual combat, or when shooting their landing approach.

So making it more attractive not to fly around on military power all the time would be a very good thing, IMHO.  And for those who disregard this, they would get exactly the same behavior they currently see in game.  It's a no-lose proposition.

[Swatch]

I too have wondered about this subject...

I agree with the push to increase the cooldown with throttle reduction and/or engine off.  This added level of complexity to the game can only help, and its not like it really affects those who wouldn't do it all that much.  Somebody could continue flying the way they currently do (bawls to the wall) without noticing any difference.  Alternatively, they'll learn to conserve their WEP, manage their engines, become better fighters and feel more accomplishment, while overall improving the quality of the gameplay. 

Meanwhile, I can see both sides of the arguement on the idea of having an engine overheat...   While I personally would love to see the engine overheat and then explode, catch fire or seize up, I understand how this MIGHT increase the number of button presses one must do.   Alternatively, a knocking sound could kick in at the point where the engines WEP currently cuts off and that could be a cue that you should turn off your wep.  Even if this does kick in, then one could STILL choose to push the engine just a bit harder, if they need to and risk damaging it.  To me, this would GREATLY increase the realism and make it a lot more interesting from a fighters point of view without really changing gameplay for some (most hit the WEP off and on anyway).

Meanwhile, stuff like cowl flaps, mixture, etc would definately increase the amount of micromanaging that goes on in the cockpit and I can definately see the arguement against them.  The previous two points however seem very VERY valid in a WWII Combat simulator such as AH.  Especially when one considers the amount of times engine trouble really played into the outcome of a battle.   Those two little tweaks would go quite far in immersion and realism I think without increasing the learning curve.

[LLogann]

That only applies if it's an independent controller.......  Meaning if only people with a throttle it would help.  However, everybody has a throttle/RPM control mapped.  There is no extra. 

so long as there's any advantage to be gained by doing something extra

The whole thing is actually comparable to the Hurri 1, Spit 1 and whatever other planes have carb issues when inverted.  If the fuel gets cut for that, it only makes sense to allow for faster cooling through reducing throttle.

[33Vortex]

Someone mentioned there were "unlimited" WEP available to some aircrafts. Let's take the FW190D-9 as a example, the one that I do know some details about, it has chemical boost WEP in the form of 50/50 methanol/water injection. The tank holding the MW50 is good for 30 minutes on WEP. At that power setting, the internal fuel on the D-9 will not last you more than 26 minutes (+ a few seconds maybe) at the 2.0 burn rate which is in effect in the MAs. So the MW50 will actually last longer than the internal fuel carried. The engine will overheat after ~10 minutes of WEP though so it's 3 x 10 minute WEP that's available. Never ever flying the D-9 in AH have I ran out of WEP, and this is historically correct.

Other than that, I fully support this motion to make cooling down rates and temperatures more realistic. You have to keep in mind though that while outside temperatures may be low, shutting down the engine will also shut down coolant circulation leaving only the airflow to cool the engine off. So a engine shut down might actually cool down much slower than one running on a low power setting. At the same time, going from WEP to idle power setting would probably damage most of these engines that we have ingame, something that probably never will be modeled (unfortunately).

Engine management would be great to have in this game, where it really matters the most - in combat.

Just my €0.02

 

[Saurdaukar]

100% in favor of a direct correlation between engine speed and engine cool down times.  This is not "engine management" as some have stated.  This is, in my opinion, a much needed correction to a gross mathematical oversight in the design phase.

Did wing mounted radiators on 109's and Spits have similar dampers/ louvres that would change drag coefficients?

Spits, dunno.  109's, yes.

[moot]

I agree with you.  Boy do I ever agree with you...but here's the deal: so long as there's any advantage to be gained by doing something extra, it won't fly with HTC.  This position has been made very clear in many of hitech's posts.

Nope, he said he didn't want any micromanagement taking away from a fight.  Which this isn't, any more than engine torque varies with throttling back and forth.  I said there wouldn't be any changes from right now, but unless we already have it, engine cooling at MIL power would happen quicker at altitude.  Higher fidelity, not management.

[bj229r]

I agree with you.  Boy do I ever agree with you...but here's the deal: so long as there's any advantage to be gained by doing something extra, it won't fly with HTC.  This position has been made very clear in many of hitech's posts.

Lol get over it Anax, HT beat you up like a red-headed stepchild for requesting/demanding something not remotely similar to what is being discussed here

[Anaxogoras]

Lol get over it Anax, HT beat you up like a red-headed stepchild for requesting/demanding something not remotely similar to what is being discussed here

Appeal to ridicule doesn't negate the similarity.  In fact, throttle management determining engine temperature was one of the things I mentioned that Il-2 has that I wish we had in AH.  Your memory is poor.

[moot]

You were bundling it with radiator airflow controls.  We're saying the physics ought to behave differently, not that we ought to have more complex management controls. The same way we might ask for thinner air with altitude. It's not about management.

[BnZs]

Vortex:
My point is that at least some of these engines, starting in good condition, could be abused way, way, way past published limitations without failure. Having an R-2800 fail just because it was run on 70'' MAP for longer than five minutes for instance, would be highly unrealistic. Yet a pilot would be reluctant to abuse his engine under most circumstances, for the simple reasons that you didn't want to take even a small chance of the engine failing over enemy territory...or  failing on the next sortie, or the next, etc. And because tearing down/overhauling/replacing your engine after every sortie would not be feasible, etc. Considerations we don't face in the game. So IMO, HTC's method of forcing you to obey published WEP limits by automatically switching it off is the best solution for this rather knotty problem.

Someone mentioned there were "unlimited" WEP available to some aircrafts. Let's take the FW190D-9 as a example, the one that I do know some details about, it has chemical boost WEP in the form of 50/50 methanol/water injection. The tank holding the MW50 is good for 30 minutes on WEP. At that power setting, the internal fuel on the D-9 will not last you more than 26 minutes (+ a few seconds maybe) at the 2.0 burn rate which is in effect in the MAs. So the MW50 will actually last longer than the internal fuel carried. The engine will overheat after ~10 minutes of WEP though so it's 3 x 10 minute WEP that's available. Never ever flying the D-9 in AH have I ran out of WEP, and this is historically correct.

Other than that, I fully support this motion to make cooling down rates and temperatures more realistic. You have to keep in mind though that while outside temperatures may be low, shutting down the engine will also shut down coolant circulation leaving only the airflow to cool the engine off. So a engine shut down might actually cool down much slower than one running on a low power setting. At the same time, going from WEP to idle power setting would probably damage most of these engines that we have ingame, something that probably never will be modeled (unfortunately).

Engine management would be great to have in this game, where it really matters the most - in combat.

Just my €0.02

 

[LLogann]

I can't believe I'm going to do it again!!!  Agree with m00t 109% ( I do like the 109    )

He illustrates another great point concerning torque... Does a Tempy fly straight?  Does a 190 rotate 6 degrees when you engage WEP?  No & Yes............  Same thing with a Spit1 or Hurri1.... WHOA, I just got de ja vue............

The whole thing is actually comparable to the Hurri 1, Spit 1 and whatever other planes have carb issues when inverted.  If the fuel gets cut for that, it only makes sense to allow for faster cooling through reducing throttle.

...... But I digress.  Torque effects, carburetor effects & air temperature effects are all the same darn thing.   Or at least, they should be!

Nope, he said he didn't want any micromanagement taking away from a fight.  Which this isn't, any more than engine torque varies with throttling back and forth.  I said there wouldn't be any changes from right now, but unless we already have it, engine cooling at MIL power would happen quicker at altitude.  Higher fidelity, not management.