Fuel load outs`

[Delirium]

I know this has been requested before, but I'm not sure if it had this form to it.

I wish we could choose our own custom fuel load outs.

In addition, I wish the fuel load out was controlled by a slider (idea by Soulyss).

In addition, I wish gallons per hour consumed at military power was posted and the slider had the % of the total load on top of the slider and the weight of said fuel load below it.

Ah heck, while I'm here wishing, I wish that 'Uncle Cys Angel' (a P38J skin by Cactus) gets released sometime soon.

[LThunderpocket]

I know this has been requested before, but I'm not sure if it had this form to it.

I wish we could choose our own custom fuel load outs.

In addition, I wish the fuel load out was controlled by a slider (idea by Soulyss).

In addition, I wish gallons per hour consumed at military power was posted and the slider had the % of the total load on top of the slider and the weight of said fuel load below it.

Ah heck, while I'm here wishing, I wish that 'Uncle Cys Angel' (a P38J skin by Cactus) gets released sometime soon.

ive always wanted this idea.

and maybe even custom ords on bombers.I find it weird that the B-29 can carry 40x500 pound bombs but only 12 1000 pound bombs

[Krusty]

I'm against it because it allows for gaming the game. Too many folks taking DTs and 5% fuel, getting 3 HOs in then coasting dead stick while HOing 5 more and crashing. Rinse, repeat. There's far too much of the mindless furballer mentality now, as-is.

On the bomber side I'm against it because the bombers in this game fly too fast and climb too fast already. They should take 100% at all times, and this would only allow them to take off with 1% fuel and still have enough time to climb to 15k, drop, and glide back (probably at 2500 fpm climb rate, with that little gas onboard to weight it down).

Again, only leads to gaming the game.

[LThunderpocket]

I'm against it because it allows for gaming the game. Too many folks taking DTs and 5% fuel, getting 3 HOs in then coasting dead stick while HOing 5 more and crashing. Rinse, repeat. There's far too much of the mindless i like gummy bearsmentality now, as-is.i like gummy bears

On the bomber side I'm against it because i like gummy bears the bombers in this game fly too fast and climb too fast already. They should take 100% at all times, and this would only allow them to take i like gummy bears with 1% fuel and still have enough time to climb to 15k, drop, and glide back (probably at 2500 fpm climb rate, with that little gas onboard to weight it down).

Again, only leads to gaming the game.and i like gummy bears

there could be a minimum of 25% fuel.

[AWwrgwy]

You should be required to take 100% as per "real life". The only time one would not take 100% is where the combined weight of fuel and arms preclude taking off.

 


wrongway

[MaSonZ]

You should be required to take 100% as per "real life". The only time one would not take 100% is where the combined weight of fuel and arms preclude taking off.

 


wrongway

thats how it was done? if so, +1 right there.

[Krusty]

There's a difference though, in how fighters and bombers worked.

Thunder, don't put words in my mouth by editing the quote in retarded ways.

[LThunderpocket]

There's a difference though, in how fighters and bombers worked.

Thunder, don't put words in my mouth by editing the quote in retarded ways.

bombers taking off and climbing to 15k on 1% fuel?thats gummy bears.surviving 3 HOs and still even having a 10% chance of landing?thats gummy bears.

[SmokinLoon]

Bombers in WWII did not take off w/o %100 fuel in WWII.  There were too many things that could go wrong while navigating so going 2-3 hours off course was not uncommon.

I'd be willing to bet the same thing was true of fighters.

I also believe that there is already enough "stacking the deck" BS, otherwise known as "gaming the game" already going on. 

I'd like to see no DT unless you have %100.  And no less than %75 fuel.  The %25 option is 

[B-17]

No DT unless 100%? You would never need that much gas in AH-- the maps are too small, and a 6 hour sortie is ridiculous. Might as well hijack the submarine.

EskimoeJoe?

Fantastic job. Keep at it

bombers taking off and climbing to 15k on 1% fuel?thats gummy bears.surviving 3 HOs and still even having a 10% chance of landing?thats gummy bears.

[AWwrgwy]

Bombers in WWII did not take off w/o %100 fuel in WWII.  There were too many things that could go wrong while navigating so going 2-3 hours off course was not uncommon.

I'd be willing to bet the same thing was true of fighters.

I also believe that there is already enough "stacking the deck" BS, otherwise known as "gaming the game" already going on. 

I'd like to see no DT unless you have %100.  And no less than %75 fuel.  The %25 option is 

Typo?



wrongway

[mechanic]

[snip] taking DTs and 5% fuel, getting 3 HOs in then coasting dead stick while HOing 5 more and crashing.

I fail to see how this would not constitute an epic achievement.

[B-17]

I fail to see how this would not constitute an epic achievement.

[RTHolmes]

I'd like to see no DT unless you have %100.

yes! +1

[Delirium]

I used to be in favor of forcing fuel loads of 100% before taking DTs but Widewing was able to post a few instances where fighters did not take 100%.

Not all fighters took 100% fuel, agreed, I don't think any of them took less than 50% internally.