Complex Engine Management

[Saxman]

Ok, so my other thread has derailed into a slap fight over icons, so I'm separating this out into a new one.

A thought for complex engine management:

Most of the "Nays" come from people who believe that this would be a significant turn-off to new players, which probably isn't an inaccurate assessment. More to manage means more to worry about outside of just shooting stuff down. However if you think about it, there's already a couple aspects where AH provides similar assistance for players by simplifying the game:

Auto Takeoffs, Stall Limiter, Combat Trim, and Engine Governor.

Players who can't quite manage getting their machine off the ground can turn on auto-takeoffs, while Stall Limiter protect them from spins they might not be able to get out of. Combat Trim makes it easier to quickly adjust aircraft trim to keep it level for gunnery purposes, while the Engine Governor stops the engines on WWI machines from over-revving in a dive and blowing out.

All of them (well, except Auto Takeoff) also give players who DON'T use them a slight advantage, whether by giving them better control over their aircraft's flight characteristics, letting them push deeper into a stall to get a few extra DPS or shave a few extra feet off the turn, or pushing a little extra speed out of a dive.

So why not make complex engine management the same way: A clipboard option that can be turned on or off. Players who want to use it can, and those who don't won't have to worry about it. Maybe a player might want to risk running his cowl flaps or radiator closed at high power settings to reduce drag for a couple extra mph. Or maybe squeeze a little extra range or power out of their engine by tweaking their fuel mixture at the risk of starving it or detonation.

[katanaso]

Sounds fun.  I like it as an option.

[gyrene81]

i dunno Saxman, at one point in time i thought it might be a fun idea as well but, do you really want to set yourself up for engine failure due to not making the proper adjustment during a dogfight or in a furball? and if it's implemented as a player option, then you're essentially setting yourself up to be at a disadvantage against someone who chose not to implement it. something as simple as cowl flaps or fuel mixture can cause an engine failure in a relatively short period of time and time can go by fast in a dogfight (not talking about cherry picking or anything like that).

[No9Squadron]

In the 1991 Dos game "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" Engine management was pretty complex. Engines took damage over the target and if left running on top settings, would die. Oil temperature, oil pressure were important and you could cool engines down, lose some height and apply more power when needed to reach base. Also if you upped and headed to target on full throttle, the engine would overheat and performance would reduce, pilots needed to travel on cruise settings or damage their engines, if applied for long. I liked that idea of using skill to save  or configure multiple engines that otherwise wouldn't have done the job all the way back from Berlin.

[Saxman]

i dunno Saxman, at one point in time i thought it might be a fun idea as well but, do you really want to set yourself up for engine failure due to not making the proper adjustment during a dogfight or in a furball? and if it's implemented as a player option, then you're essentially setting yourself up to be at a disadvantage against someone who chose not to implement it. something as simple as cowl flaps or fuel mixture can cause an engine failure in a relatively short period of time and time can go by fast in a dogfight (not talking about cherry picking or anything like that).

The idea would also be that turning it on has its own advantages as well. IE the Engine Governor in WWI: Sure, you may risk blowing your engine in a full-power dive by over-revving it, but that might also give you just enough of an edge over an opponent to either escape or turn the tables.

This would be the same thing. You might risk burning out your engine by running your cowl flaps closed, but if it gives you a few extra mph that could mean the difference between a victory or getting shot down, wouldn't you like the option to exploit it?

[Triton28]

Someone will be along shortly to point out that HiTech once told them he doesn't want engine management to be a lame sequential button pushing.

But really, what does he know?  Contra was cool has hell! 

   

 

[titanic3]

As long as its easy to use ala Rise of Flight, then I'm all for it. Il-2 went for the straight up realism and it was a pain to manually manage the engine so I never turned it on. Rise of Flight also had complex engine management but they made extremely easy to use and therefore, it was always more entertaining to fly with complex engine management on. If AH can pull off the same method from RoF, then I would love to see this added.

[colmbo]

I'm all for more realism. (I abhor the use of auto-takeoff or landing gear up) 

Engine management however is so many times blown out of proportion.  Here's how the B-17 and B-24 are handled....

For taxi mixtures are auto-rich (selected at start), prop High RPM, cowl flaps open.  For takeoff the cowl flaps are closed to the "trail" position (just barely cracked open).  After climb established power is reduced to "climb power".  Manifold pressure (throttle) reduced to climb, prop RPM reduced to climb ---- nothing else changes.  Once established at cruise altitude manifold pressure and RPM are again reduced to desired setting, mixture set to "auto lean" (if power setting selected permits) and as engine temps start down cowl flaps are fully closed.  It might sound like a lot but it's not big deal after you've done it a couple of times.  The guy that trained me on the B-17 made me fly the airplane by myself in the pattern -- I had to fly the airplane AND managed gear, flaps and power.  It just isn't that big of a deal.  And in game folks with have everything mapped to their HOTAS system and be able to configure with the flick of a finger negating any "realism" in the complexity of engine management.

Ok that's for a bomber....

Now someone will come along and say "what if you're in a fighter and bounced".  Easy, mixture to auto-rich, prop control forward to high and throttle up as needed.  Can pretty much be done without looking.  Cooling systems changes can wait a bit, the engine won't instantly fail if you don't change them.  With cowl flaps unless you get slow you probably won't need to change them from the cruise setting. 

Being able to climb and cruise at 100% power is silly, but I think will be difficult to fix.  Real life I've overboosted and overheated engines --- never had one fail because of it. It just isn't an "If A then B" type issue.

Saxman, I too would like more "flight sim" and less "game".

[Puma44]

I'm all for more realism. (I abhor the use of auto-takeoff or landing gear up) 

Engine management however is so many times blown out of proportion.  Here's how the B-17 and B-24 are handled....

For taxi mixtures are auto-rich (selected at start), prop High RPM, cowl flaps open.  For takeoff the cowl flaps are closed to the "trail" position (just barely cracked open).  After climb established power is reduced to "climb power".  Manifold pressure (throttle) reduced to climb, prop RPM reduced to climb ---- nothing else changes.  Once established at cruise altitude manifold pressure and RPM are again reduced to desired setting, mixture set to "auto lean" (if power setting selected permits) and as engine temps start down cowl flaps are fully closed.  It might sound like a lot but it's not big deal after you've done it a couple of times.  The guy that trained me on the B-17 made me fly the airplane by myself in the pattern -- I had to fly the airplane AND managed gear, flaps and power.  It just isn't that big of a deal.  And in game folks with have everything mapped to their HOTAS system and be able to configure with the flick of a finger negating any "realism" in the complexity of engine management.

Ok that's for a bomber....

Now someone will come along and say "what if you're in a fighter and bounced".  Easy, mixture to auto-rich, prop control forward to high and throttle up as needed.  Can pretty much be done without looking.  Cooling systems changes can wait a bit, the engine won't instantly fail if you don't change them.  With cowl flaps unless you get slow you probably won't need to change them from the cruise setting. 

Being able to climb and cruise at 100% power is silly, but I think will be difficult to fix.  Real life I've overboosted and overheated engines --- never had one fail because of it. It just isn't an "If A then B" type issue.

Saxman, I too would like more "flight sim" and less "game".

Same for me.  Fighters would be somewhat simpler, less controls and gauges to manipulate and monitor.  The P-51 is similar to what you describe, Columbo, except oil and coolant doors are in an auto position and cycle as necessary to maintain temperatures within required ranges.

[Saxman]

Being able to climb and cruise at 100% power is silly, but I think will be difficult to fix.  Real life I've overboosted and overheated engines --- never had one fail because of it.

This is the problem with the "realism" settings in games like Il-2. They make it so that if you do A, then B WILL blow up in your face and call it "realistic." When more accurately it would be if you do A, there's a CHANCE of B or C happening to ruin your day, but you might be able to get away with it and be fine. It's the latter I'm going for with this: Abuse your engine and there's a chance it will explode, but you might be able to tweak a little extra speed or power which could make the difference in a fight and come home without a problem.

Same for me.  Fighters would be somewhat simpler, less controls and gauges to manipulate and monitor.  The P-51 is similar to what you describe, Columbo, except oil and coolant doors are in an auto position and cycle as necessary to maintain temperatures within required ranges.

And this would work into the advantages and disadvantages of flying one aircraft type over another. Early aircraft might lack constant speed propellers requiring closer management of pitch/rpm when you adjust the throttle. Some might have automatic radiators or cowl flaps while others have to be managed manually. Some aircraft couldn't set their fuel to auto-rich and had to adjust the mixture manually.

[Karnak]

Would it result in increased performance over what we have now?  I don't think so.  I think performance would need to be reduced for those not using it rather than increased for using it.

And then you get to the point that not all aircraft are created equally in terms of needing to be fiddled with.  The BMW Fw190s had a mechanical computer that changed the engine settings to match throttle settings, very sophisticated and helpful in reducing pilot workload.   I've heard the Spit XIV failed as a race plane at Reno because while it is fast initially the radiators automatically open up as the engine gets hot and that creates drag, but it is automatic.

In terms of Mossie management the fuel had to be changed manually and if you didn't change to a new tank the engines would starve.

FWIW, I also eschew the automated stuff in AH, but I think that this isn't as viable as you make it to be.

[Puma44]

And this would work into the advantages and disadvantages of flying one aircraft type over another. Early aircraft might lack constant speed propellers requiring closer management of pitch/rpm when you adjust the throttle. Some might have automatic radiators or cowl flaps while others have to be managed manually. Some aircraft couldn't set their fuel to auto-rich and had to adjust the mixture manually.

Very true.  Complex is the key word.  My guess is HT keeps it in the less complex mode for what is most attractive for the majority of players.

[Saxman]

Would it result in increased performance over what we have now?  I don't think so.  I think performance would need to be reduced for those not using it rather than increased for using it.

And then you get to the point that not all aircraft are created equally in terms of needing to be fiddled with.  The BMW Fw190s had a mechanical computer that changed the engine settings to match throttle settings, very sophisticated and helpful in reducing pilot workload.   I've heard the Spit XIV failed as a race plane at Reno because while it is fast initially the radiators automatically open up as the engine gets hot and that creates drag, but it is automatic.

In terms of Mossie management the fuel had to be changed manually and if you didn't change to a new tank the engines would starve.

FWIW, I also eschew the automated stuff in AH, but I think that this isn't as viable as you make it to be.

True points all around, but it would certainly add to the individual character of the aircraft if more of these minutiae are modeled (I still keep hoping to see the Corsair's blow-up/spring-operated flaps modeled).

Maybe there's a way they can introduce those features more slowly rather than doing them all at once? Say, start by modeling fuel mixture at first. Then after players get accustomed to that, add the cooling systems.

Very true.  Complex is the key word.  My guess is HT keeps it in the less complex mode for what is most attractive for the majority of players.

That's why I'd still make it a clipboard option to turn off or on. Players who want it can use it, those who don't won't have to, but have the same sort of advantage to using it for those who take on the extra work (depending on the plane as Karnak points out).

[2ADoc]

Well there is a way to do this without making it to hard on the nonpilots, that dont understand about manifold pressure, mixture, and RPM.  I doubt that it will be viable but it would be simpler than having to run with complex settings.  Jut make it so that if a pilot runs his engine at 100% for more than 7 minutes there is either a loss of power, or the engine craters, if he or she is in WEP for more than 3 minutes, the engine has a catastrophic failure.  I do like the idea of complex engine management but I also believe it would run some of the noobs off. 

[Saxman]

Well there is a way to do this without making it to hard on the nonpilots, that dont understand about manifold pressure, mixture, and RPM.  I doubt that it will be viable but it would be simpler than having to run with complex settings.  Jut make it so that if a pilot runs his engine at 100% for more than 7 minutes there is either a loss of power, or the engine craters, if he or she is in WEP for more than 3 minutes, the engine has a catastrophic failure.  I do like the idea of complex engine management but I also believe it would run some of the noobs off. 

And this won't? It would be even LESS realistic than what we already have.

I'm reinforcing this because I think some people are missing this part of it: MAKE IT A CLIPBOARD OPTION. It comes with a risk if you don't follow the procedures, but you may get a small advantage out of it as well. Think of it like overclocking your CPU: You can forget about it and leave it be with no risk (Complex Management Off). Or you can fiddle with the settings (Complex Management On). If you do it right you get a bit of extra power. Or you can completely screw up and melt it and your motherboard.