Wep and cooling.......

[hitech]

Wilbus, why do you wan't to know why we choose those numbers?

I could be totaly incorect in my assumtion, but all I see is you searching for arguments to make the planes you like better. Both in mg151, and wep arguments.  While this is not a bad thing, it does tend to slant all your views one side. It changes the type of research you do from wanting to understand, to looking for needles that show your plane should be better.

Wep is somthing that has many liberal modeling assumptions in it. Use of wep on many planes realy didn't have a per flight limit but was related much more to the long gevity of engines. We choose to limit these, not because the engine could not handle it, but because in a envorment where you get unlimited planes, they cost nothing, your crew chief won't jump down your throught, there has to be choices made to look at the big picture.

Just like your arguing for a change in Wep on the FW (and btw I belive it's not a quest for a more accurate model, but wrather wanting more of an edge for your plane), other people could make arguments just as valid that there planes should have unlimited wep.

There is no perfect answere to these type of questions, in the end we chose the numbers because it was resonable.

Unlike certain peoples assumtion, we realy are not biased towards any paticular planes, we just make the choice based on the information we have at hand.

HiTech

[HFMudd]

We choose to limit these, not because the engine could not handle it, but because in an environment where you get unlimited planes, they cost nothing, your crew chief won't jump down your throat, there has to be choices made to look at the big picture.

In other words, concessions to game play will be made regardless of information found in published sources.  

This is of course both expected and good.  But it also means that no amount of research will yield results unless one can argue that the application of that research will be beneficial to the overall gameplay.

[Wilbus]

Hey Hitech, thanks for the answer again

I could be totaly incorect in my assumtion, but all I see is you searching for arguments to make the planes you like better. Both in mg151, and wep arguments. While this is not a bad thing, it does tend to slant all your views one side. It changes the type of research you do from wanting to understand, to looking for needles that show your plane should be better.

You ARE wrong in that asumption

Sorry if I made you think that, it's not what I want AT ALL. I just want it accurate. Your new answer gave me the kind of answer I wanted and I understand why you choose to do this now and I agree with it, we don't have any bad engines etc.

Mg151, not whining about it at all, if you saw my new thread you'd understand that I don't try to say that it is undermodelled, i just wanted to know if my calculations were right, which they were except I used too much weight (which sort of threw off the whole thing). I know the Hispano has highr velocity and should be better. Don't think the Mg151 is undermodelled nor do I think that HTC have some kind of stupid thing against LW planes. Many players want to make YOU think LW players think conspiracy, most of us don't.

I am not at all looking for needles to change my planes, but some things are obvious when looking at WW2 charts (Ta152 35k+ speed, handeling and climb rate). I did have one sided views on these subject before, that was quite long ago however and I now argure both for and against all planes.

If I wanted, and needed an advantage in AH Hitech, I'd be flying a really great plane that gave me that advantage, a P51 comes to mind (NOT SAYING IT IS OVERMODELLED!!!). But I don't, I like it challenging, I like taking a 190 A8 into a furrball and turn with spits and P47's and P51's and La7's etc, it's fun, I like it hard, almost everything I do in life I do the hard way.

So YES, happy to say, you ARE totally incorrect on your asumption

However, there are some things that I think need looking into, you've answered the WEP question for me, and answered it good and made me happy.

One thing that I think is wrong, posted evidence of it, is Ta152 speed and climb rate over 35k, looks to me like the Gm1 isn't modelled at all or undermodelled. Quite easily seen when looking at WW2 charts.

I don't want it to be an uber plane that beats everything hands down, that's why we have the 262. I just want it to be right and match charts somewhat closer then the Ta152 does.

To finnish, if you've read my post, although long and boring, I have to make it clear once again that I don't want any uber LW planes, I don't want uber LW guns, I don't think LW planes were better then allied planes nor do I think LW guns were better then the allied guns.

I hope you understand what I mean with this post...

[Wilbus]

There is no perfect answere to these type of questions, in the end we chose the numbers because it was resonable.

Unlike certain peoples assumtion, we realy are not biased towards any paticular planes, we just make the choice based on the information we have at hand.

THAT IS The answer I wanted!

And mind you, I AM NOT one of those people who think you are biased towards any country in particular. I've argued both for and against different planes, I've argured for the Mossie and for the F4u lately etc.

[Wilbus]

Just like your arguing for a change in Wep on the FW (and btw I belive it's not a quest for a more accurate model, but wrather wanting more of an edge for your plane)

Not at all, don't think I am arguring for a better WEP either, all I wanted was a good answer which I got now. For all I care you can remove the WEP totally IF the 190's didn't have them (they did have them) as long as it is realistic.

I want realism, I am a realism freak, I fly in R/L and I've chosen AH over all other flight games thanks to the much superior FM.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by hitech
Wilbus, why do you wan't to know why we choose those numbers?

er i realise this is directed at wilbuz, but i assume this is also in answer to my requests?.Personally my veiw on this subject is this: if HTC chose the 1 min wep 2 min cool ratio then fine im happy with it, although slightly dissapointed, as it is constantly claimed by many in here that everything in AH is based on data charts.At least every time i question something i am immediately accused of whining and asked to produce figures/data/hard facts.
If we have a situation where there is no hard facts(as in cooling?) and HTC are forced to make their best guesstimate or invent a ratio they deem fair then why on earth isnt this mentioned? If at the start of this thread that was said I would have dropped the subject because hey its your game and you make it how you want it to be.But at least we would know the reasons behind it.
I can only assume that there are no figures obtainable on the rates of cooling for (many?) WW2 fighters and so HTC were forced to choose a suitable alternative,ie what we have.I think the system we have works well but as ive tried to point out here in this thread i feel the dora (from anecdotal evidence i admit) seems to be rather punished by its long cool time BUT given an EXCELLENT representation (in terms of the system we have) of the wep capability they did have.As in 10 minutes of boost rather than 5 minutes.double the lentgh of time most have is absolutely fine with me.Even if it turns out they had 20 or 40 mins etc whilst others had 30 seconds to 5 minutes it would hardly fit in with the game if there were such huge differences.if they way it is is how HTC wants it? ok by me but please next time dont leave me hanging out there like ive had to in this thread for questioning something which seemed not to add up.

I could be totaly incorect in my assumtion, but all I see is you searching for arguments to make the planes you like better. Both in mg151, and wep arguments.  While this is not a bad thing, it does tend to slant all your views one side. It changes the type of research you do from wanting to understand, to looking for needles that show your plane should be better.[/b]

Whilst you are right in that I would like to see the dora improved this isnt for some sort of personal gain in scores.I also fly almost every type of aircraft in the game but have flown the 190d9 because in the MA it is one of the few truelly survivable types ie perk rides or p51d,p38,la7,109g10. I dont want an easy time of it in anything i fly BUT I DO want the aircraft to be AS CLOSE a representation of the real thing as possible.
If the LW had the best wep systems during the war then I really dont see why you would object to me or anyone else asking for it.
You say our veiws are one sided and changes the type of research we do? I say its because we happen to have more books about the planes we LIKE to fly. I can swear to you here and now if i happened to fly spitfires in AH i would research them JUST as hard.I/we cant help what planes we like HT, and i feel its a little unfair of you to brand stuff we do as biased purely for the intent of making the game easier to win in.
Check our stats HT, see how many times ive flown P40E's in the last few tours.It also happens to be one of my favourite planes from WW2 but only because i bought a model of it as a kid.I can assure you i have also checked its performance vs the AH one.Sure i was hoping to find something to ADD to it but comon thats what its all about isnt it?
This is not to say i wouldnt post anything negative that i find that points to a mistake in AH modelling that may REDUCE the ability of some of my favourite rides.
I have to say though HT, if this comment above is aimed at me also, i do resent you thinking this of me.I want ALL planes to be close to their real counterparts as i fly ALL at one time or another.

Wep is somthing that has many liberal modeling assumptions in it. Use of wep on many planes realy didn't have a per flight limit but was related much more to the long gevity of engines. We choose to limit these, not because the engine could not handle it, but because in a envorment where you get unlimited planes, they cost nothing, your crew chief won't jump down your throught, there has to be choices made to look at the big picture.

[/b]

ok now you have said this i can accept there has to be either a compromise or no wep modelling at all right? I think you have made a good decision in putting it in in its current form.
(however i still feel you have been harsh with the dora , but its the way you want it and deem fair then so be it)

Just like your arguing for a change in Wep on the FW (and btw I belive it's not a quest for a more accurate model, but wrather wanting more of an edge for your plane), other people could make arguments just as valid that there planes should have unlimited wep.

[/b]

sorry but i have to assume this is also aimed at me as i did post the thread in the first place and i have to say i find it quite offensive that you assume Im NOT doing this in the quest for a 'more accurate model' but rather for a personal gain of some kind.well i am telling you here and now im certainly not, but if the dora was a better performer in real life than the model in AH then i for one would like to see it match it.If it makes it too good then perk it!.BUT at least we would see it for how it truelly was.if we fly a spitfire and fight a dora that doesnt quite fly like the real thing then how can we claim its a simulation?.I have often said that id be prepared to have the dora become a perk ride along with several of the other late war rides in order to see more of the lesser types flown (more often), and i FULLY supported the perk idea.Now does this point to me wanting an easy time of it in the dora? i dont think it does. Do i fly it solely? I certainly dont, sure, i fly it a lot but then I happen to like it and fighting LA7's,p51ds and other late war planes in the MA generally forces my hand into flying it.I do fly the other planes but when i start to lose too often i switch back to the dora so i survive the engagements a bit more.I really dont see how that makes me somehow greedy or biased or always wanting an easy time with what i fly or surely id fly nothing but the top 3 types right? my scores would be mostly La7s, P51ds, niks, doras, spits etc whereas if you check out my scores i fly many of the least survivable types (tour 30 i flew the p40e more than i did the dora)
(btw some tours i have gone for a pure score and tried to fly just the best types but i often get bored and desire a challenge in one of the rare early war planes)

There is no perfect answer to these type of questions, in the end we chose the numbers because it was resonable.

[/b]

so they arent based on any actual figures but rather what you think was fair and or better for the game?(or based as closely as you can to what you do have in data?).Well thats fair enough but
what id like to know is, do you think I as a customer/player cannot question your decision or post in the hope you would review your decision on those numbers? ie point out that the 190d9 was also water cooled the same as other planes?
After all if i hadnt asked about this in the first place and got an answer from you most of the people on this board would have called me handsomehunked names because i even dared questioned you guys.Well they arent too vocal in this thread are they?

Unlike certain peoples assumtion, we realy are not biased towards any paticular planes, we just make the choice based on the information we have at hand.

HiTech

I can only assume you mean me here HT but im sorry I cant say i have been persuaded that there isnt a slight bias personally.
Im quite happy to drop the subject or go through point by point why i feel the way i do.I leave this one to you guys.If you like private email me and ill explain my 'gripes' rather than do laundry in public which im sure you'll agree only lowers the tone of the BB's.I'll just say this, if you arent biased you should be aware that there are many parts of this game that make it 'appear' that you are.
If im wrong in my assumptions then i truelly do appologise but im only telling you what im feeling and id rather be honest and tell you than suck up and say i dont think it. sorry but im a bit of a stubborn person and once i get a notion in my head it tends to stay there.
anyhow like i said ill answer any emails you care to send and i hope this doesnt get me banned or anything

thanx for the answer and like i said the subject for me is closed(with slight reservations )


hazed

[Naudet]

I can only second everything Hazed says.
As every quote he pointed out could also be aimed at me.

[RRAM]

Originally posted by hitech
Wep is somthing that has many liberal modeling assumptions in it. Use of wep on many planes realy didn't have a per flight limit but was related much more to the long gevity of engines. We choose to limit these, not because the engine could not handle it, but because in a envorment where you get unlimited planes, they cost nothing, your crew chief won't jump down your throught, there has to be choices made to look at the big picture.

Just like your arguing for a change in Wep on the FW (and btw I belive it's not a quest for a more accurate model, but wrather wanting more of an edge for your plane), other people could make arguments just as valid that there planes should have unlimited wep.

There is no perfect answere to these type of questions, in the end we chose the numbers because it was resonable.

Magnific answer. Clear, informative and 100% understandable

Thanks, HT!

[GScholz]

I second Hazed.

[hitech]

If we have a situation where there is no hard facts(as in cooling?) and HTC are forced to make their best guesstimate or invent a ratio they deem fair then why on earth isnt this mentioned? If at the start of this thread that was said I would have dropped the subject because hey its your game and you make it how you want it to be.But at least we would know the reasons behind it.

Reread this post in light of my 2nd.

An argument about reality where none exist. Anyone have any idea what the temp is supose to be on the fw's? If you realy wish I can change the gauge to read higher on the fw so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board.

guess it doesnt matter really, HTC seem unbothered by it but personally i feel it has spoiled AH for me.Where i used to think it was cool because it was so close to the real thing now i just consider it the same as any game out there.Battlefield1942 (new multiplayer WW2 game from EA)has rediculous behaviour for damage and quite silly FM but at least it doesnt 'claim' to be super accurate like most of the people on these BB's seem to claim AH is.

In this post you have just called us a bunch of liers.

These type of post, are nothing about flight model spefics. These type of post are so ignorent of what it takes to model airplanes that it realy does cause any further questions to be taking in a totaly different light, and tend to get you ignored.


HiTech

[Urchin]

HT, I know I'm ignorant, so you can call me ignorant and I won't be offended.

The 109G-10 has 10 minutes of WEP and then a 10 minute cool down.  Shouldn't it be 10 minutes of WEP and 20 minutes to cool down like the 190s?  Or should the 190s be 10 minutes of WEP and 10 minutes to cool down?

[Bombjack]

Since the G10 and D9 are completely different aircraft, there is no reason I can see to suppose that their WEP systems should be modelled identically. HT has said that the modelling is a necessarily compromised abstraction of reality, and this kind of analysis is therefore rather futile.

[MANDOBLE]

Originally posted by hitech
 you realy wish I can change the gauge to read higher on the fw so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board.

This is something I cant understand at all. If D9 is cooling down at the same rate as the P51, but it takes 20 mins to cool down and the P51 takes 5 mins, then D9 reach four times the temperature of the P51, but along 10 mins, so it increases its temperature twice the rate of P51 but cools down at the same rate.

It seems it is one or other:
1 - D9 heats up twice the rate of P51 and cools down at the same rate than P51. Also D9 reach twice the max temp of P51.
2 - P51 cools down twice the rate of D9.

[hazed-]

originally posted by hazed:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we have a situation where there is no hard facts(as in cooling?) and HTC are forced to make their best guesstimate or invent a ratio they deem fair then why on earth isnt this mentioned? If at the start of this thread that was said I would have dropped the subject because hey its your game and you make it how you want it to be.But at least we would know the reasons behind it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by hitech Reread this post in light of my 2nd.

An argument about reality where none exist. Anyone have any idea what the temp is supose to be on the fw's? If you realy wish I can change the gauge to read higher on the fw so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board.

seems we must continue HT. This statement makes no sense at all UNLESS you have accurate data concerning the time it took for the 190d9 to cool down as well as accurate data concerning the cooling time of the p51d.If you are sitting in a position where you DO know the times/temprtuure then your arguement is justified.if Like us you DONT have data then i'll ask you on what basis have you decided the cooling times in your game?
From you answer(later) i was of the opinion you had made a guesstimate or decision for gameplays sake and like i said i can accept it as it is your game.I will not however be accused of making an 'arguement about reality where none exists' (whatever this means?) when the REALITY is i tested YOUR game and timed the cooling.As i posted it takes 10 minutes for a p51 to cool and 20 minutes for the 190 to cool.You made the game this way for a reason and i am merely trying to find out why.
now from your statement:

Originally posted by hitech 'I can change the gauge to read higher on the fw so it looks like it's cooling the same rate as the p51. But in the end all that would change is the lable on the dash board.

it can mean 1 of 3 things as far as i can make out:
1) you claim the cooling times ARE the same for both aircraft (ie 10 minutes) and the needle on the gauge is reading wrong
2) the cooling times of 10 min and 20 mins for the p51d and 190d9,respectively, are correct but the dora gauge only goes up to HALF the tempreture it really should and therefore has to move 2x as slow to make up the difference whilst cooling.
3)the dora has cooled off in 10 mins but still reads 'hot' and is therefore missleading us into thinking it is still hot when it is really ready for its next full boost time(ie ten mins)

as mandoble has said I also do not understand what on earth you mean here.but I might suggest if it is answer 1) you time the cooling yourself if you think they are the same.I did it with a stop watch and i assure you they are not.
IF you have set the game so that if a player uses 5 minutes of wep it takes 10 mins to cool or 10 minutes of wep would take 20 minutes to cool (therfore implying a 1:2 ratio on wep:cooling) then we are back to the ORIGINAL query.

has the GM1 and MW50 been represented in AH as an extra 5 minutes longevity of wep(10 rather than the standard 5 minutes) but causes twice the heat and therefore twice the cooling?

this causes me to ask why then is the 109g10 1:1 ratio? and the hurricaneC 1:1.5 ? (109 10 mins wep 10 mins cooling) (hurricane 5 mins wep 15 minutes cooling)

I can only think you have either missed my whole point or I (as well as others) have totally missed yours.

originally posted by hazed:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 guess it doesnt matter really, HTC seem unbothered by it but personally i feel it has spoiled AH for me.Where i used to think it was cool because it was so close to the real thing now i just consider it the same as any game out there.Battlefield1942 (new multiplayer WW2 game from EA)has rediculous behaviour for damage and quite silly FM but at least it doesnt 'claim' to be super accurate like most of the people on these BB's seem to claim AH is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by hitech In this post you have just called us a bunch of liers.

These type of post, are nothing about flight model spefics. These type of post are so ignorent of what it takes to model airplanes that it realy does cause any further questions to be taking in a totaly different light, and tend to get you ignored.

Hitech

HT I have not called you a bunch of liars at all if you read it it is infact AIMED at the people on this board who often call me a whiner for questioning LW aircraft and demand chart after chart.But if you do want to take this as an insult to your game remember please that up until you gave me the answer :
Use of wep on many planes realy didn't have a per flight limit but was related much more to the long gevity of engines. We choose to limit these, not because the engine could not handle it, but because in a envorment where you get unlimited planes, they cost nothing, your crew chief won't jump down your throught, there has to be choices made to look at the big picture.
I was unaware you had done it this way.I was under the assumption that you used the figures for the maximum length of time an engine can be run on war emergency power and figures for the time it took them to cool down based on their individual cooling systems, factored in the MW50/GM1 of the LW planes and arrived at total and then ADJUSTED them in RATIO down to a suitable time to work in this game.Totally acceptable for me.
I ended up with the impression that you had given MW50 aircraft 10 minutes of boost(5 minutes for all other aircraft) to represent their affect but when i tested and found the cooling to be 20 minutes(2x as long as p51d,109s etc) i found it questionable so i posted it, you then proceeded to imply im ignorent because i dont understand your code which you post without explaining exactly what was going on.Well I took offence to it and reacted accordingly.But when i tested and found your times to be double the wep BUT also DOUBLE the cooling time I obviouslt questioned it.
WAS the dora really so poor at cooling? did the mw50 make the engine run twice as hot? etc etc THUS the question to HTC for verification. The only thing im guilty of is assuming EVERYTHING in the game is from charts/tables/data aquired from WW2.
This I'm afraid is solely down to the droves of VOCAL community members that state over and over again that nothing can be questioned without some form of hard evidence or data charts.
IF you do have the data for the cooling times then by all means post some and shut me up once and for all but from what ive gathered in this post and from what you have said (see your posts above) you have had to 'invent' a system because 'Use of wep on many planes realy didn't have a per flight limit but was related much more to the long gevity of engines' and im assuming this means some aircraft could run on wep indefinately? again something i had never heard of.
I asked a simple thing. why did the 190d9 take 20 minutes to cool down and i STILL have not received a clear answer other than you (htc) 'decided it was reasonable'. You have not said if you based your model of cooling on actual data or a system you had to invent. From what you did post i got the impression it was the later which i said i can accept.BUT as you have continued to have a go at me for asking it in the first place and have implied i have no idea about WW2 aircraft etc Im forced to keep asking arent I.If what you mean is no engine ever gets 'too hot' and basically will run untill it explodes (after many flights) and the high tempretures for this cannot be known then what made you decide that the 190d9 will take 20 mins to cool and the 109s will take 10 mins? average engine life? ok you set a limit for the games sake but then how did you arrive at what you deemed fair? the mere fact that various aircraft have differing rates of cooling suggests you took something into account when you decided it.


either its based on real data and performance charts or it isnt.
either im wrong for implying the model isnt totally based on real data or im right.

which is it?
if im right and it isnt based on data/charts then id like to know the reasons behind the present system so that i can understand what you are doing.

[MANDOBLE]

Hazed, at least, your point is crystal clear