Author Topic: need fuel burn multiplier turned up a notch (Read 2399 times)

Fester' · « **on:** August 15, 2001, 12:25:00 AM »

players flying on fumes currently in the Combat arena.

fuel burn rate needs to be increased a bit

Staga · « **Reply #1 on:** August 15, 2001, 12:40:00 AM »

How would that help?
They would still fly with almost empty tanks without even try to get back to base.

funkedup · « **Reply #2 on:** August 15, 2001, 12:57:00 AM »

What's the scale of that map? The problem with increasing burn rates is that it gives an artificial altitude advantage to planes which can carry more fuel .

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

Urchin · « **Reply #3 on:** August 15, 2001, 01:18:00 AM »

I'm taking off with a full fuel tank. but maybe it is just me. I'd expect others to do the same though, seeing as it IS supposed to be a historical arena, and how many pilots REALLY took off with less than full tanks? Especially 109 pilots- they only got to fight over England for 5 minutes anyways.

Staga · « **Reply #4 on:** August 15, 2001, 03:04:00 AM »

Always 100% + ext for me.

Wilbus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 15, 2001, 04:09:00 AM »

Yup, using 100% and DT my self too, unless no DT is avalible, or i take off from another field. Changing fuel burn rates would give it a more feel of MA IMO.

Westy MOL · « **Reply #6 on:** August 15, 2001, 07:34:00 AM »

The Spit and 109 didn't have the fuel to really make it across the channel and loiter for a long time. That's RL. In-game most folks won't want that as it will be too restrictive. Fly for 20 minutes to have 5 minutes of loiter/combat so you can make it home? In a scenario sure, but not every day.
But, imo once again, there should be a decent compromise between historical reality and our virtual insanity. It would help for people to show test results other than saying there is a problem becasue some players are "flying on fumes"

What was take off fuel load? With or withouth drop tanks? How far did the fly? How high did they grab to first? Was it on 100% throttle the whole way? How much dogfighting did they do? etc ect

Westy

Toad · « **Reply #7 on:** August 15, 2001, 08:11:00 AM »

Funk,

Wouldn't it be possible to calculate a fuel burn rate that would allow an airplane to perform historically _without_ an artifical advantage?

It should be possible to calculate a burn that would allow (for example) a -109 to takeoff at a historically correct field, climb and fly to say London, remain over London for a historically correct loiter and then RTB in a relatively low fuel state which was also historically correct.

Should be able to do that for about all the planes, I'd think. At least get close.

To enhance the value of a successful RTB... if you don't land at a field or at least ditch in friendly territory.... "No Perk Points for you!"

I don't see where this would provide an "artificial" advantage. Having more fuel was sometimes a real advantage and sometimes a disadvantage. I think this is what you'd get.

Just my .02.

-ammo- · « **Reply #8 on:** August 15, 2001, 08:48:00 AM »

Fuel burn rate is fine right where it is.

R4M · « **Reply #9 on:** August 15, 2001, 10:18:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by -ammo-:
Fuel burn rate is fine right where it is.

I concur. Maybe if you put a lower limit to what is available in the CT will work better. For instance, lower limit is 50%. If the fuel is so hit that it gets down to 25%, the field gets closed for a while.

What about this idea?

To enhance the value of a successful RTB... if you don't land at a field or at least ditch in friendly territory.... "No Perk Points for you!"

NICE idea Toad!!! I agree 100% with it!.

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

Steven · « **Reply #10 on:** August 15, 2001, 12:03:00 PM »

Fuel burn seems about right to me.

Heck, I seem to run out of ammo before fuel anyway. Plus, if people are flying on fumes, I think Fester means decrease the fuel burn rate so that it doesn't go so fast but I think it's perfect right where it's at. I either get shot down or I run out of ammo and have to run and the enemy has to really think about his fuel useage before chasing me.

-Puke
332nd Flying Mongrels

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #11 on:** August 15, 2001, 12:30:00 PM »

Does anyone have any information that might indicate what conditions would necessetate loading less than 100% fuel in WW2?

Maybe the option to take less should be disabled? If that's the case, then its time to assess fuel consumption for strat. Each fuel tank supplies x number of sorties. They must be re-supplied to send up more aircraft. In come the trains with more fuel. With all your fuel tanks in tact, the base doesn't need to be filled that often. With less tanks, the frequency is upped. That's where the trains and trucks come into play.

AKDejaVu

-ammo- · « **Reply #12 on:** August 15, 2001, 12:40:00 PM »

what he wants is more loiter time over England so he can club seals and increase his perk points. At current setting his A5 can stay long as he would like and land his kills.

SKurj · « **Reply #13 on:** August 15, 2001, 01:23:00 PM »

Weell as it is now, a 109 can load 50% fuel and fly to london and back...

When the longer range aircraft appear, they will never need more than 50% fuel

SKurj

Buzzbait · « **Reply #14 on:** August 15, 2001, 03:35:00 PM »

S!

Historically, the 109E`s could fly to London, stay 20 minutes and then have to bail.

Of course, that includes the time they spent assembling, plus the fact they weaved over the bombers en route to London.

190`s with drop tanks and bombs could hit targets in southern England and then return to France. There approach was made at approx. 5,000ft.