Stiglr,
Let's forget all about engines and the proof and evidence for a second.
You are bashing AH because the programmers decided to make a few compromises in realism (not huge ones mind you - reasonable ones which make a lot of sense given the context).
Guess what? Any simulation must have compromises simply because the simulation is NOT the real thing.
Now, you bash AH because compromises the designers have made are to make a better GAME while sacrificing some degree of realism, right? To you TargetWare is "better" because it makes less compromises as to realism.
Guess what? What is an "Engagement Circle" but a COMPROMISE designed to benefit GAMEPLAY while sacrificing realism? Maybe TargetWare is more realistic, but your whole point is that AH is bad because it makes compromises AT ALL.
I don't care whether you like your sim super realistic or not - it's your choice to fly whatever you want, I can see both sides. But at the end of the day, your preferred sim TargetWare is just as guilty of sacrificing realism for gameplay, making you no more than a hypocrite.
If you want to argue for something, at least be self consistent. Case closed.
This is a good observation. Let me explain.
1) We all know, no matter on what side of the realism fence we're on, that even a detailed sim can't be 100% right. Nor can it model ALL of the variables or be 100% accurate.
With that out of the way, it becomes a judgment call on how much effort to put into "getting right what you CAN" and creating a playable/enjoyable sim OR game.
If we can agree that far...?
Then, we look at the reasons why I say a more realistic approach is warranted, and the reasons you folks and Dale give for minimizing that realism... that's where you see the REAL schism.
Let's put aside for a moment IF you did or didn't have to manage your engine...
Even after that, we have the gauges... I think (actually, I know, as I've used and produced gauges for in-game aircraft) that you CAN make them accurate to type and nationality, and players WON'T get so confused they won't play
Dale says otherwise. He's voting with his cash register, I'm voting with reality.
Now, there are other areas where the decisions become
grayer. There are even times when I'll probably side with Dale on "gameplay" decisions.
I don't feel it's necessary to "go to the nines", realism-wise when it comes to engine STARTING procedures. "E" is enough for both you and me. Why? Because faithfully recreating the "magneto + battery + fuel pump wobble + engage clutch or have ground crew turn the prop + hit start switch" sequence adds nothing to the raison d'etre for both AH and Targetware, that is "combat simulation". that's "detail for detail's sake" much like the MS Civilian Flight Simulator does, since their goal is to make the detail of flying and navigating interesting, because there is no combat in Cessnas. Two different sims, two different sets of gameplay decisions.
Now, going back to the engine management disagreement, I do think that managing cooling flaps, mixture, supercharger, prop pitch (when not automatic), even AWAY from combat and during flight to and from combat IS necessary, because what you DO or FAIL TO DO during the flight to combat affects what kind of performance you'll get out of your engine while you ARE in combat.
Now, I know we disagree to what extent this is true... but can you at least see the difference in simulation and its link to a "gameplay decision"?
We could try and simulate the relief tube... is it necessary? No. I notice that Targetware doesn't actually model hydraulic fluid or oil, at least not directly. The fuel pressure gauges and oil pressure gauges don't "work" in play as systems on their own. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that modeled... but, the other abstractions that create the engine operation/failure model, taken as a whole are, IMO, a good compromise between realism and gameplay. And, they place the responsibility/challenge in the hands of the players, where I think it belongs.
Getting back to the engagement circle idea: classic mix of gameplay vs. realism. If you're attempting to simulate the Battle for Guadalcanal, the Japanese have to fly to and from Rabaul.... 300 miles away
to contest the airspace over Savo Island and Henderson Field. Do you
really want players to have to lean out and fly over 2 hours to and from that part of the Slot? No: even
I wouldn't sign up for that. But do you set it up so that Zeros appear over Guadalcanal with full fuel tanks, no need for drop tanks, or can they actually make it home if during combat they take a hit to a fuel tank? That wouldn't be very realistic. Fact was, if they took a fuel leak to a tank that was mostly full, provided they didn't catch fire from the hit, chances are they wouldn't make it back to Rabaul, because they needed quite a fuel reserve to get back.
Now: one way to create more realism, without needlessly saddling players with 4 hours of "commute time" in Zeros and Betties... is to give them an airstart NW of Savo Island... far enough away to change course or altitude... but no so far that they have to fly hours of eventless flight just to try and find a fight. With Targetware airstarts, fuel consumption to that point is calculated. So, when you "spawn" in the air, your drop tanks are near empty, and the wing and fuse tanks are full. And, when you hit the edge of the disengage circle on the way home, the calculation is made as to whether you have enough fuel to make it home. If not, you're adjudged to have lost the aircraft. If so, you're "gifted" a landing.... and yes, even if you have other battle damage that might make it a bit harder than if you had to do the landing yourself. *shrug* I can't think of a better way to do that other than "randomization" of the result or some teleport device where you "respawn" in mid air near Rabaul and have to make the landing yourself to get credit for the RTB. Now notice, this doesn't sacrifice much realism, even though it definitely IS a "gameplay" device. This rather UPHOLDS more realism while IMPROVING the gameplay and the player's ability to enjoy the sim.
Here's another example of bowing to gameplay and player considerations: auto level. Now, some planes actually had auto leveling (like Sperry autopilots, etc.)... but we allow players to level their wings automatically (actually it's a server setting which can be turned on or off at the server host's discretion). One reason is, during long missions, real players might have to go to the real bathroom.... or deal with REAL wives and kids and dogs and such for a couple minutes... so the autopilot allows them to "fly" for a minute or three, hands off, while they deal with real life and then come back. Or they can even set a course and leave for quite some time.... the risk being, they're pretty likely dead if enemy encounter them unexpectedly during their break. I personally don't have a problem with this arrangement
provided auto level can't be abused as a "get out of a spin free" device.
So, anyway, I hope you see I do realize that there are many, many gameplay vs. simulation decisions that have to be made.
