125% fuel supply

[john9001]

my sliderule says 2 x 2 = 3.999

[Samm]

Originally posted by Fatty
Ahh, so you're measuring vs his maximum capacity.  Why don't I measure vs a6m capacity instead and take 300%?

No Fatty, my argument has allways been that nothing can ever be more than 100% full, with an 8oz cup you can't carry 10oz(125%) it just doesn't work . Doesn't matter if you have a 100 gallon tank or four 25 gallon tanks, they can never be more full than completely full .

On the other hand with a sliding scale as you seem to want to use, are a p51d completely full but with no drop tanks available and a p51d completely full with drop tanks on carrying the same amount of fuel? [/B]

Of course not . The first p51 would be at 100% max capacity, the second p51 could carry 25% more fuel with DT's so he is at 75% max capacity even though his internal tank is at 100% max capacity .

Another perspective: The first p51 that is at 100% max fuel capacity has 125% the fuel that the second p51 has. But the most it's maximum capacity can ever be is 100% .

[FDutchmn]

Samm,

I think we all see your point, but let's be constructive here.  What do you want HTC to do?  We all see that the representation of the concept does not suit your taste.  How do you want this changed?

This is the way I see it.  Fuel supply at the base is not a physical volume.  If it is we should be talking in terms of liters and gallons.  Fuel supply at the base is how much maintenance the base can give to your plane.  The base is like a factory churning up supplies for your plane.  Depending on the status of the facility on the base, it will limit the fuel you can carry on your plane or give you drop tanks.  The "125%" you see represents the status of the facility on the base.  At status 25% the base can only supply you with 25% of the internal fuel tank of your plane.  At status 50%, it will give you an option to load 25% or 50% of your internal fuel tank.  At status 125%, you now have a choice of 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% plus drop tanks.

The percentages used (while it may be confusing) does not represent the same thing which you are claiming here.  One here is not volume.  

Is there something wrong with the way this is represented in the hanger?

Is there something wrong with the way this is represented to say the status of the base in terms of supplying fuel to your plane?

I don't think so.  

To help HTC, please suggest a way to change this representation so it would be less confusing for you.

[Fatty]

Another perspective: The first p51 that is at 100% max fuel capacity has 125% the fuel that the second p51 has. But the most it's maximum capacity can ever be is 100%

Interesting perspective, boy wouldn't it be nice if they used a comparative standard like that in the game so that everyone would be using known quantities....

[Samm]

It's not confusing to me in the least . I recognize when a field says is at 125% it is actually 100%, I just pointed out that it was illogical and that it was kind of funny . And since then I've just been replying to threads that state that I'm wrong . For me this has been one of the best conversations on this board and I'm enjoying it.

[Samm]

Originally posted by Fatty


Interesting perspective, boy wouldn't it be nice if they used a comparative standard like that in the game so that everyone would be using known quantities....

Not sure what you mean here dude .

[Fatty]

Listing the ratio to the static value of a fully fueled plane without drop tanks, instead of the fluctuating local maximum that can change depending on whether you strap extra tanks on or not.

[AKWeav]

OK, figure this one out: Take off from one field with 100% internal, and drop tanks. Land at another field where pilots can only get 25%, taxi to the hotpad, and get a full loadout.

[Samm]

Good point Weav .

[Samm]

Here's an example, sometimes I'll hear a person say something dumb like "puts 110% effort into it" . Well as we all know that is impossible . If today he is exerting 10% more effort than yesterday that means yesterday he was only exerting 90%, not 100% . No matter how much the person increases his effort ouptut it will never exceed 100% .

Thats almost as bad as using a double negative or calling a george a nik, or calling a bandit a bogey .

[bockko]

so if a field is damaged and is down to what htc likes to call "25%", shouldn't it say "-75%"?

[Samm]

No .

[john9001]

it is now considered proper english to use the "double negative "

lemmy see now ..if i load drop tanks and full internal i got 100% cause thats all i can take , but if i drop the drop tanks i have 75% left but i still have 100% internal tanks ,so i started out with 100% got rid of some but still have 100% but if you take 25% from 100% you cant still have 100% unless you are an accountent for enron so if i load internal tanks to 100% then add drop tanks i still have only 100%

some people think it's fun to take something so simple and try to make something complicated out of it. it's called mental mastur******

at least brady makes sense even if i don't agree with him 100%,maybe 16.78%.

if you take 100 and add 100 you have increased the total by 100% but if you now remove the 100 you have reduced the total by 50%, percents is fun to play with

[GunnerCAF]

If your 16.78 percent right, does that mean your wrong?

If you post 300% more than someone else, does that make you right?  We all know now that it is imposible to be more than 100%, so that would be wrong.

Do you not understand what I didn't say?



Gunner

[Samm]

Originally posted by john9001

lemmy see now ..if i load drop tanks and full internal i got 100% cause thats all i can take , but if i drop the drop tanks i have 75% left but i still have 100% internal tanks ,so i started out with 100% got rid of some but still have 100%

 

No you don't .