improved engine/aircraft model

[Peyton]

If you want super duper realism tavelr..have HT make an arena for it.  As for implementing it in the game.  My vote is no way.  There is aleady a steep learing curve for the game.  Why make it harder to learn? 

LMAO...you'll have every new person blowing an engine before they get off the runway.  GRIZZ will fly over in his 262 and get all the kills and won't even have to fire a bullet.

[gyrene81]

If you want super duper realism tavelr..have HT make an arena for it.  As for implementing it in the game.  My vote is no way.  There is aleady a steep learing curve for the game.  Why make it harder to learn? 

Steep learning curve? Where? Doesn't take much to read a little.

[Karnak]

Steep learning curve? Where? Doesn't take much to read a little.

New players get shot down over and over and over and over and over and over with almost no reward for their efforts.

I remember, many years ago, flying around in my Mossie about halfway between two fields where there was a small brawl going on.  I kept killing the same guy's La-7 in very short engagements and after doing so for the third time I intentionally stopped targeting La-7s there because it had to be sucking for him to up, fly twenty miles only to have this Mossie blow him apart in a few seconds when he arrived.  He wasn't getting any maneuvering time at all, just repeated demonstrations of what four nose mounted Hispanos do to a WWII fighter.  If people like him feel they have no chance, and against me he had no chance, they don't stick around to pay for the game.  If the game is made harder so that while they are trying their feeble, initial ideas on how to avoid being shot down they also now have to fiddle with, and memorize, a bunch of abstract key presses in order to not knock themselves out of the sky, well, it would just mean fewer of them would stick around to subscribe.

[RASTER]

There is aleady a steep learing curve for the game.  Why make it harder to learn?

I've said that myself, heard it said and I think its fairly well understood and has been since the days of MS Fighter Ace and so on. But do you really know what your saying. Fighter Ace today is very much like it was over a decade ago. It still has a lot of people online going from furball to furball and honestly the action is fast and without any of the additional pilot controls you might find in TW or AH. It's fairly simple to just jump in and go. Once you learn the UI there is not much you need to know about aircraft. It's a great place to learn air combat basic maneuvers and has an rather good AI instruction system. You know and I think everyone here knows that learning the UI is the hardest part of getting into flight simming. People can do the flight simulation skills with a keyboard so it can not be that hard.

Maybe there should be a standard for UI controls and to some extent there has been, such as trim IKJLNM , E for go and G for stop. The pilotage comes fairly easily and why shouldn't it. There is basically nothing more than move the stick the direction you want to go. Less complicated than learning to use a mouse. The skills come from being able to land and take off and these are not even needed in AH because it is done for you. Point and shoot. I think you are confusing UI (user interface) controls with pilotage.

However, it has been said and it will be said and I think what is being said is true. You don't just jump into the major leagues on the first day. For a sport or hobby to have any kind of continued interest it has to go major league. It's got to grow up. Do you think AH has grown to its full stature. It's like all the others, they find a winning system and they stick with it. Thats good business but is that what some of you want. Certainly not. Some of us want more and good or bad, there are not that many who want it to change towards greater difficulty.

[gyrene81]

Karnak, that's not a learning curve attributable specifically to AH...situational awareneess, aerial combat maneuvers and aerial gunnery are things flight sim gamers learn as they play the game...each game is different as far as what interface the players are given to control their cartoon planes...and AH has an easy mode. With the information in the clipboard, it's just a matter of familiarizing yourself with the controls and picking your plane. Adding something simple like cowl/radiator flaps to cool an engine down would not increase the difficulty of the game to any degree worth noting...nor would making it necessary to have cowl/radiator flaps after the wep has been engaged for an extended period of time rather than the current feature of just losing the ability to engage the wep until the engine cools down...the players on the servers are the most difficult thing in the game.

Think about it...I see people every time I'm on talking smack to someone in a runstang or temp weped up for as long as it lasts and they keep flying until they can land...re-engaging the wep every chance they get the entire time...what if a variable was introduced that made it a 1 in 1000 chance that the engine would quit if wep remained engaged past the overheat point for 10 minutes...but you might be able to prevent it if you disengage wep and open the cowl/radiator flaps to let the engine cool?

That doesn't add anything out of the realm of possibility to the game...leaves the possible end result in the hands of the player...and new people would learn just like they learn about the auto climb function.

[Karnak]

Karnak, that's not a learning curve attributable specifically to AH...situational awareneess, aerial combat maneuvers and aerial gunnery are things flight sim gamers learn as they play the game

That learning curve in MMO flight combat games is much higher than it is in FPSs or things like MMORPGs like WoW.  There is a lot of complexity that is hidden from casual observers and it allows veteran players to dominate new players much more effectively than in other games.

It isn't specific to AH, but it is specific to AH's genre.

[guncrasher]

just so everybody knows, ht included a fail safe into every throttle so as not to damage the engine. ok I am just kidding, but wow I wish stall limitter was either on or off but the same for everybody.

semp

[Old Sport]

WEP automatically shuts off after five minutes across the board, for planes with WEP.

Presumably MP could be coaded so that after ?ten minutes? in MP the software would reduce engine power to some high speed cruise setting, and like WEP, require a cool off time.

But that seems to me a tough one, because in AH, WEP is an on/off setting, while throttle is variable. So if you leave your CH throttle pegged, as in MP, the software could enforce a uniform ?five minute? cool off.

But what if you have a somewhat reduced throttle, like 93%, below MP? Then the S/W would have to start calculating for temps. Probably could be worked out fairly, but it would be a chore.

In any case, in WWII combat, if your engine was red line and you got bounced, you doubtless were not worrying about temp restrictions, at least not until after you are clear and on the way home.

So, in a theoretical AH engagement, you use up your MP time and you are in an imposed ?five minute? MP cool off. Would you be able to use WEP if you get bounced or not? In R/L I am sure a pilot would firewall and WEP when applicable.

On the other hand, if you are not going to automatically impose a ?five minute? cool down, then, as several have already mentioned, how do you penalize the MP throttle setting, when engines could run at high power for longer periods than recommended? Ten demerits? (Hey, there's an idea, negative perks!  )

Just to mention, the P-38L, from what I understand, and I may be mistaken, is not modeled with actual WEP "power" since engines apparently did not use WEP operationally, even though in game it has a "WEP" setting. IF this is the case, then even though you are actually only reaching MP power when you apply WEP, you are limited to 5 minutes of MP until automatic cool off.

best

[gyrene81]

That learning curve in MMO flight combat games is much higher than it is in FPSs or things like MMORPGs like WoW.  There is a lot of complexity that is hidden from casual observers and it allows veteran players to dominate new players much more effectively than in other games.

It isn't specific to AH, but it is specific to AH's genre.

I think I understand where you're going with that but I'm going to disagree on the basic level...with the exception of aerial combat maneuvers, flight sims are no more difficult to learn than long distance non-scoped sniping or proper room clearing in an FPS...the only "hidden complexity" in AH as with any multi player game is the human opponent...and what I'm talking about is the level of skill and knowledge that human opponent has...otherwise AH is no more difficult to learn than Total War. Learning how to execute a scissor, yo-yo, immelmann or accurately dive bomb are things a person can learn in pretty much any combat flight sim...it's not exclusive to MMO flight sims.

The majority of the players in AH are gamers...all they want to do is pick a plane, find a battle, take off and dogfight or drop bombs...the fastest, most expedient way to do that is preferred over anything more realistic than what exists...and the very small number of people who desire more realistic characteristics have many different ideas and motivations. HT doesn't have the time and most likely zero desire to incorporate anything more complex than what exists now.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having to monitor engine temperature more closely than I do now...if it was done in such a way that didn't push the limits of reality, unlike games like IL2 where engine failure occurs 100% of the time if the temperature gets too high and you continue to push it...engine temp and engine failure in AH are already programmed factors, incorporating a few additional realistic factors would be more programming but doable. Add cowl/radiator flaps to those planes that had them...a few mathematical equations to calculate a probability of say somewhere in the range of 1 in 1000 if critical temperature is reached...and rather than full engine failure occurring 100% of the time that probability hit, add factors like blowing a cylinder, popping a gasket that causes a critical oil leak, destroy a turbo charger so military/wep power can no longer be used, destroyed bearing/bushing, maybe even an engine fire...it would force people to think about the risks a little more before grabbing a plane then running it full wep until the wep turned off then re-engaging it repeatedly until they landed safely or got shot down...even the bombers would be affected...and the end result of a successful sortie would probably mean more than the points gained by doing what's being done now.

[Saxman]

I disagree...

Simply wanting different heat/overheat for different engine settings isn't a problem. I'd love to see that realistically modeled someday. He's not asking for instant engine explosions if you use wep for 5.0001 minutes, or anything (like another thread).

Many folks do use throttle/rpm settings in-game, but currently only for range/fuel issues. I'd like to see bombers limited to historic power settings. Until we get engine over-heats (and some form of engine wear if levels are exceeded that HTC comes up with and we all accept), bombers run around at speeds comparable to many fighters' top speeds.

Overall it's a decent wish, but given current gameplay limitations and (from what I can tell) given HTC's current line of focus, I don't think we'll see it soon.

Krusty,

The problem is that imposing this sort of restriction to force aircraft to reduce power is probably even LESS realistic and totally artificial. The only ACTUAL effect real pilots saw after exceeding the manual's safety restrictions was it took the engine out of operation as it was disassembled and checked for damage. Something that is NOT reflected in our .ef and get a new plane environment.

Unless you want HTC to impose a "you ignored your safety restrictions, so must sit in the tower for an hour while we check your engine" restriction, there's no way to accurately reflect the real consequences of doing so.

Now, I WOULD like to see some more complex engine management: Fuel mixture, changing the supercharger speeds, and WEP that can permanently run out if appropriate, but overheats cannot be done in a way that's in any way realistic.

[jdbecks]

the very small number of people who desire more realistic characteristics have many different ideas and motivations. HT doesn't have the time and most likely zero desire to incorporate anything more complex than what exists now.

That is the exact reason why it wont be added, if someone really desires to play something with " Complex Engine management" they should play another game as well as Aces High

[Traveler]

WEP automatically shuts off after five minutes across the board, for planes with WEP.

Presumably MP could be coaded so that after ?ten minutes? in MP the software would reduce engine power to some high speed cruise setting, and like WEP, require a cool off time.

But that seems to me a tough one, because in AH, WEP is an on/off setting, while throttle is variable. So if you leave your CH throttle pegged, as in MP, the software could enforce a uniform ?five minute? cool off.

But what if you have a somewhat reduced throttle, like 93%, below MP? Then the S/W would have to start calculating for temps. Probably could be worked out fairly, but it would be a chore.

In any case, in WWII combat, if your engine was red line and you got bounced, you doubtless were not worrying about temp restrictions, at least not until after you are clear and on the way home.

So, in a theoretical AH engagement, you use up your MP time and you are in an imposed ?five minute? MP cool off. Would you be able to use WEP if you get bounced or not? In R/L I am sure a pilot would firewall and WEP when applicable.

On the other hand, if you are not going to automatically impose a ?five minute? cool down, then, as several have already mentioned, how do you penalize the MP throttle setting, when engines could run at high power for longer periods than recommended? Ten demerits? (Hey, there's an idea, negative perks!  )

Just to mention, the P-38L, from what I understand, and I may be mistaken, is not modeled with actual WEP "power" since engines apparently did not use WEP operationally, even though in game it has a "WEP" setting. IF this is the case, then even though you are actually only reaching MP power when you apply WEP, you are limited to 5 minutes of MP until automatic cool off.

best

Every aircraft that I fly in AH and I haven’t flown all of them, but all that have WEP, appear to have it tied to engine temp.  I’ve noticed that once WEP shuts down, if the engine cools, you can run WEP again until the engine reaches max temp.   It also appears that you can do this again and again. 

Perhaps someone from HighTech Creations  can chime in and answer the following question.  Is WEP based on Time or Engine Temp? or a combination of both?

I think the r/l pilots of WWII did what was necessary to stay alive, I know my Dad did.  But they didn’t abuse the equipment, there lives depended on it.  They didn’t zip around the country with the throttle fire walled.     No one did.  They were all faced with the same restrictions on engine performance. 

I am not asking for a more complex engine then already exists.  I’m asking for operational restrictions on that engines performance.   

I don’t believe that new players will fined  it a problem.  They currently have an Engine Performance restriction on WEP and they all seem to manage.   

[Simba]

Realistic WW2 flying in Aces High? It'll never happen.

 

[RASTER]

I would to some small degree agree with gyrene81. Where I depart from the general reasoning is that any improvement should be done is very small steps. None of this Monday morning we changed everything kind of stuff. Perhaps giving the pilot some...."some" control over the cooling flaps to have a portion of control over the cooling time from using wep. Currently I just throttle back for a while and imagine this increases the cool down down.

As far as control over the supercharger gears or the turbo settings...actually I found in other sims I did not enjoy it very much. Could be because they didn't provide any kind of pilots manual with the planes so not only did you not know if the plane had chargers, you had no idea of the altitude settings.

[gyrene81]

jdbecks, you should have quoted the first part of that, where it mentions the gamers, which is more the exact reason why nothing complex would be added...if the tables were turned and more people wanted more complex attributes it would be a different story.

Krusty,

The problem is that imposing this sort of restriction to force aircraft to reduce power is probably even LESS realistic and totally artificial. The only ACTUAL effect real pilots saw after exceeding the manual's safety restrictions was it took the engine out of operation as it was disassembled and checked for damage. Something that is NOT reflected in our .ef and get a new plane environment.

What exactly would you consider within the realm of realistic in forcing toon pile-its to do what real life pilots had to do? You honestly believe airplanes were flown full throttle from the time they took off until they landed hours later? It's not done now with modern airplanes, military or civilian...throttle up to take off, continue until you have attained assigned altitude, level out, throttle back and maintain safe cruising speed.

Safe operation was taught for a reason, because in testing prior to production, and sometimes on the front lines...failures occurred...not 100% of the time but enough to make it into flight instruction manuals as a warning. Aside from the well documented engine failures on the B-29...September 2, 1943, TBD-1 #0353 ditched eight miles off the coast of Miami. Again the cause was engine failure...27 airmen lost in the June 1945 crash of RAF Liberator JT985 flown by a Canadian crew. Bound for the Pacific battlefront, the Liberator went down with engine failure along the Dorset coast...Flight Leader Robert Nelson of the 29th Troop Carrier Squadron who led his flight of three C-47s into combat all alone. They were delayed by an engine failure...(excerpt from a published radio interview with WWII era WASPS - Women Airforce Service Pilots) ETHEL MEYER FINLEY: Thirty-eight women were killed in either training or assignments. Evelyn Sharp out in Oklahoma, that was an engine failure-a P-38. There was one out of Shaw Field. She was out testing a BT-13. They found her; she had crashed. Some of them were pilot error and some were engine problems, and some were collisions. And it was rather a sobering thing, but I don't know that it affected anybody's desire to go out right away again...

I can find this stuff all day long...  

Unless you want HTC to impose a "you ignored your safety restrictions, so must sit in the tower for an hour while we check your engine" restriction, there's no way to accurately reflect the real consequences of doing so.

Now, I WOULD like to see some more complex engine management: Fuel mixture, changing the supercharger speeds, and WEP that can permanently run out if appropriate, but overheats cannot be done in a way that's in any way realistic.

Yes there is, and I've posted it enough times that I'm not going to repeat it again...and I agree, some small changes in engine management would be nice.