Would 1X Fuel burn rate be good for the game?

[SmokinLoon]

Fuel Burn 2.5X is a highly biased way of trying to enforce throttle controls as it would only do so for a subset of the aircraft in AH.

Thing is though, those very same short range fighters have no reason to throttle back.  The only plane really effected if the throttle is not managed would be the ever popular La7 (La5, too).  Remember, we're still talking 360 TAS and a 3000ft+ climb per minute (below 5000ft altitidue) when throttled back 4-5lbs on the manifold to gain back those 4-5 minutes lost with the 1/8th increase in fuel burn.  Hardly a loss of anything.  It would be the careless that would notice the effect.

I cant remember the last time I ran out of fuel in anything. 

Fuel is NOT even an thought, it is NOT even a consideration unless the fighters are going on long range escort mission. 

Fuel is an after thought.  HTC can make some very small changes to make fuel just as important as ordnance, I've already outlined them in early posts.  Even if HTC would not consider changing the burn rate, they could still change the penalty for destroyed fuel tanks on a field (max penalty at %50 fuel is my suggestion) and not allow DT's unless the plane is fully fueled.

MAKE fuel an issue, I implore HTC to at least consider testing the new fuel settings for a tour.  If it adversely effects the game then switch it back.         

[Ruah]

What effects would a 1X fuel burn rate have on the game?  Would we see more deep mission with aircraft taking the time to form up and such?

Do you think it would be good for the game?  What effects on gameplay do you think it would have?

Ideally yes,

but in reality people will just take less fuel. 

Since I always take off with full fuel a 1x would even entice me to shed some fuel.

[Tank-Ace]

IMO, leave fuel burn as is, but allow fuel to be porked down to 50% as Loon suggested.

[Mister Fork]

To each and every one of you who are slagging the proposed 1.0x burn, never have I seen such a bunch of baloney and hypocrisy in my life.  Really, fuel burn is a big concern?  Frack, I've taken a LA-7 up for an hour at alt in cruise across a map for a mishun in the MA.

Really, it's an issue? Really? You think you'll see more lala's and spitties. Really? Wow.  Let's challenge that assumption shall we?  I really doubt it.  Lagtards will still fly lags and Spitfire lovers will still fly what they love.

The AvA has been running fuel at 1.0 for ummmm... TEN YEARS and the 1.0 multiplier has never been an problem.  It actually increases realism because birds burn what they do in real life.

Bottom line, a good pilot takes what he needs.   And that has been prevalent since WWII, and it's happening in the AvA.   Trust me, I've taken a La7 up in the MA with 50% fuel because it was a local base defend. Why take all that extra weight?  No different if I'm taking up a Mustang - 100% fuel only if I'm doing a long range flight.

The burn rate will just mean players adjust their fuel accordingly. Will it translate into more easy planes at longer ranges?  If so, so what? 

[Tank-Ace]

Sorry, but 1.0 burn rate would be a terrible idea.  Fuel wouldn't be a consideration for most planes. 50% fuel would provide almost 1/2 an hour for a 109 with the throttle firewalled. 23mins for a 109K if he was burning WEP the whole time.

[SmokinLoon]

To each and every one of you who are slagging the proposed 1.0x burn, never have I seen such a bunch of baloney and hypocrisy in my life.  Really, fuel burn is a big concern?  Frack, I've taken a LA-7 up for an hour at alt in cruise across a map for a mishun in the MA.

Really, it's an issue? Really? You think you'll see more lala's and spitties. Really? Wow.  Let's challenge that assumption shall we?  I really doubt it.  Lagtards will still fly lags and Spitfire lovers will still fly what they love.

The AvA has been running fuel at 1.0 for ummmm... TEN YEARS and the 1.0 multiplier has never been an problem.  It actually increases realism because birds burn what they do in real life.

Bottom line, a good pilot takes what he needs.   And that has been prevalent since WWII, and it's happening in the AvA.   Trust me, I've taken a La7 up in the MA with 50% fuel because it was a local base defend. Why take all that extra weight?  No different if I'm taking up a Mustang - 100% fuel only if I'm doing a long range flight.

The burn rate will just mean players adjust their fuel accordingly. Will it translate into more easy planes at longer ranges?  If so, so what? 

You obviously have not read any history on the SOP with regards to aircraft.  Pilots did NOT take up %50 and a DT in to a combat zone, trust me. 

You mean a good "gamer" takes what he needs.      

Given the size of the map and the distances in which those same aircraft have to fly, a 1X burn rate would very much favor the aircraft like the La7, etc.  The P51D would have over 100 minutes in the air w/o DT.  Just how often would they use a DT?  They wouldn't.  La7's would be seen much further radius of operations than the scale.  Remember, aircraft have lots of attributes and fuel range is very important.  The short legs of the La7 is partly what what defines it.

La7's already up with %50 fuel for base defense.  Just ask around. 

A 1.0X burn rate would have an adverse effect on the MA's.  No doubt about it.   

[DeadStik]

I really think the argument which states our maps are compressed in terms of distance holds the most water for the fuel burn. It makes sense to me. Proportionally compressed distances tied into the modified fuel burn. The problem of the vertical not being compressed does hold water, but exactly how would you compensate for that without compromising the accuracy of flight models? I think the 2.0 really makes sense, folks. I'd rather have 2.0 burn than have 1.0 with double the flying distance to get to a fight! I firmly believe that this is a game and a simulator, but the simulator aspect shouldn't be taken into consideration too heavily. Furballs and basetaking are fun and not all of us have the time to travel double the distance! Less action? Fewer subscribers? I'd assume so. Implementing realism at the sacrifice of well-paced gaming doesn't seem progress to me. Not to dis realism of course - I love realism in the game, just not to an extent which puts a limp in the walk of our gameplay!

In a nutshell: Let's leave 2.0 burn rate!

[Vinkman]

Thing is though, those very same short range fighters have no reason to throttle back.  The only plane really effected if the throttle is not managed would be the ever popular La7 (La5, too).  Remember, we're still talking 360 TAS and a 3000ft+ climb per minute (below 5000ft altitidue) when throttled back 4-5lbs on the manifold to gain back those 4-5 minutes lost with the 1/8th increase in fuel burn.  Hardly a loss of anything.  It would be the careless that would notice the effect.

I cant remember the last time I ran out of fuel in anything.  

Fuel is NOT even an thought, it is NOT even a consideration unless the fighters are going on long range escort mission.  

Fuel is an after thought.  HTC can make some very small changes to make fuel just as important as ordnance, I've already outlined them in early posts.  Even if HTC would not consider changing the burn rate, they could still change the penalty for destroyed fuel tanks on a field (max penalty at %50 fuel is my suggestion) and not allow DT's unless the plane is fully fueled.

MAKE fuel an issue, I implore HTC to at least consider testing the new fuel settings for a tour.  If it adversely effects the game then switch it back.        

I run out of fuel in everything. In a 109 it take 25% fuel to climb to 12k and fly to an enemy field 1 sector away. If you take 1/2 a tank of fuel to start that leaves you about 1/8th of a tank to fight with so you have 1/8th to fly back on. Not near enough. So I have to take a drop tank or 75% +.  The drop tank reduces climb rate from 4K to 3K.  That makes a big difference because you assume the same end point in all of these cases. But in reality, I don't know if the enemies have started moving toward my base. With a drop tank there a good chance I will be below them and slow when we meet up.

1x fuel burn, I take 50% fuel, climb out at 4K/min and am above incoming cons with light manueverable airplane for the merge.
2x fuel burn, I take 50% fuel & a drop tank, Climb out at 3K/min and I'm below in coming cons with a light manueverable airplane (after I drop the tank) at the merge.

2x bring drop tanks into the equation for many planes. It makes you think more about climb out strategies and time to altitude. I think 1x would end drop tank use.

So I vote 2x.  

[bozon]

...
The burn rate will just mean players adjust their fuel accordingly. Will it translate into more easy planes at longer ranges?  If so, so what?  

If we switch from x2.0 to x1.0, to achieve the same range and flight time, planes will be carrying half the fuel. It also means half the weight and for many planes and situation it would mean that fuel load becomes meaningless not only in range, but also in effects on the performance (weight). Couple it with availability of DT and you will have planes arriving on DT (that willl last forever) and then fighting with a negligible weight of internal fuel. The american radials will sure enjoy this.

Pilots did NOT take up %50 and a DT in to a combat zone, trust me.  

Usually, the internal fuel capacity of the planes was appropriate for their respective missions. Hence, they typically took off with 100% internal. In AH we use planes for missions very different from their historical ones. If P-51s and P47s would have been used for defensive CAP, I am sure they will not fill the aux tanks and effectively take off at 75%+DT in game terms. If someone had the crazy idea of using the P47N as a short range interceptor standing on alert on the runway, it would not be filled 100% - that would be choosing the wrong tool for the job AND holding it upside down. Bombers did adjust their fuel load according to the range of the mission because in many cases they were weight limited - meaning fuel load came at the expense of bomb load.