Engine Management

[ccasey]

I dunno know, but I love the advanced controls as an option. Shoot when I started warbirds about a year and a half ago, I got shot down all the time. However, after my first sortie, I was hooked. (I like challenges). Anyhow, but we need some whay to attract a few players. One of my friends I play H2H alot but when i tried to convince to sign up for the beta when it comes out he said he wouldn't cause he is afraid to get shot down  

------------------
ccasey

[-ik-]

vermillion, I don't think a sim like AH is about attracting people who can't work a mixture and prop pitch control. 18 year olds flew the airplanes we're modelling, and the controls were obviously much more complex, it doesn't take a lot of effort to learn. Leaving out engine controls is like leaving out flaps or landing gear. "we don't want to have to worry about xxxx!" Since flaps don't actively make that much of a difference in stick and rudder combat (in most aircraft), shall we leave them out?

We want important aircraft systems modelled, that includes flaps and engine controls, both are important aircraft systems. Neither one make that much of a difference for just flying around, but it's not an airplane without 'em.

[Spof]

I have to agree with Vermillion. Your average newbie will want to make a difference in the virtual world, not his virtual engine. The moment you make a WW2 sim as difficult as F4, you've strayed from the path of profitablility for the creators and the amount of fun for what ... 70-75% of the players (a guess and a generous one at that).

I'm not the best pilot in WB and never will be. I don't have the time. After a 10-12 hour day at work, then whatever things I have to get done in my personal life, I'm lucky to log in twice a week and then only for 2 or 3 hours at a time. Do you honestly think that I (or the newbie players that AH wants and needs) want to spend my time learning the intricacies of properly maintaining and operating my engine? Or would I rather spend my time learning ACM/BFM and how it is applied in the sim world? I'll take choice number 2.

People want to have a good time in games whether they're chasing demons up a corridor with a boomstick or flying a recreation of BoB with 150+ of their closest personal friends. If you want to challenge the player, do it in a way that's meaningful for the vast majority of newbies: denying the opposite side supplies because you've just bombed a train with your mates or something to that effect.

In short, create a compelling virtual world where's there's a choice beyond flying in circles shooting at people instead of wondering if you're engaging a prop pitch/fuel mix engine master in the same old loop -d- crash you've already seen a 1,000 times.

Chris -Spof- Singleton
 spof@dogfighter.com  
Spof's News @ Dogfighter
www.dogfighter.com

[This message has been edited by Spof (edited 07-28-1999).]

[bod]

Spoof, Vermillion:

I am sorry, but i dont understand the logic here. If you have different settings for how difficult or hard it is going to be, then there will be no steep learning curve. The "complex" engine management, which is not *that* complex will be only a "bonus" for those who want it. If you want "complex" or easy is only your own concern, and should have no effect on gameplay or anything, it will only make it more complex for yourself. Other people will not notice at all.

What is wrong with having the choice? After all, you will only make it more difficult (but more realistic) for yourself.

If it is made as an option, i just cant see how it would affect the overall gameplay, neiter positivie nor negative actually - If you don't want it, don't turn it on. I am convinced that a lot of people would like it, since it adds to the experience.

But of course, i am sure Pyro has his good reasons for not implementing more complex engine management (time, priority, importance etc.).


Bod

[Pyro]

To what purpose do you guys want to see this level of engine management.  Beyond the added immersion you may get, what are you looking for?



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[-jagr-]

Pyro,
     Maybe I'm alone on this but in my opinion the added challenge is what you add.  Once you know how to fly, and what planes can do this and what cannot do that, then basically it becomes a contest of who is the best shot in the best plane.. eventually you want to be challenged again.  So in addition to the ACM you know, and the skills you picked up or carried over from other Sims, you'll need to maintain your engine while doing all those other things for peak performace.

In short it keeps you from easily reaching that plateau and not feeling that same level of interest anymore..

[chisel]

I would like to see more advanced engine controls just for the added immersion.

No penalties for not using it needed ,just personal satisfaction.

[Ivedog]

I'd like to see advanced engine controls just because... well, anything that can bring the simulated aircraft closer to the real aircraft is a plus in my book.  I'm sure that  increasing the attention to detail would only improve Aces High and set it apart from the pack.

That's why a lot of us go to air shows and admire these old planes so much, or why we build models of them in such intricate detail.  IMO, this hobby is a lot more than just shooting and ACM.

Ivedog
The Volunteers!

[This message has been edited by Ivedog (edited 07-28-1999).]

[Spof]

Bod:

The logic is I think it's unfair and potentially game unbalancing to give an edge to a relatively small amount of pilots that enjoy advanced engine management. That was the tone I inferred from posts in this thread earlier to my initial response. If, as you suggest, there is no penalty for not micromanaging your engine then I have no problem with having it as an option.

Of course if micromanaging your engine has no positive flight benefits, I think the coding time could be better spent elsewhere but that's another ball of wax ;-)

------------------
Chris -Spof- Singleton
  spof@dogfighter.com  
Spof's News @ Dogfighter
 www.dogfighter.com

[foggia]

Hmmm....

I've read all the pros and cons posted here.  The stuff about greater immersion and realism, etc.  That's all well and good, and you could probably get more effiency out of your powerplant if you leaned the mixture at altitude and so forth, and so on....  BUT, when the feces hits the ventilator and you're suddenly in a furbal, who has time to monitor his EGT guage and adjust his mixture?

Nobody, that's who.  You may make a few hurried adjustments when you spot the con, but once you're in, you'll make no meaningful changes until the ACM is over.

If advanced powerplant management can be added to the sim without penalty to actual release time and/or overall quality, then do it. But, for crying out loud, let's get this show on the freakin road!  My mean time between discos is down to less than 15 minutes in the other place and I want OUT!

------------------
foggia
XO
457th Bomb Group

[-ik-]

chisel made a good point that maybe i should've mentioned before. Give me the option of manifol pressure, mixture, and engine start sequence, stuff like that, and if someone wants to avoid all that let them. Don't make them suffer any penalty, I want engine controls for the sake of having engine controls!  

Another point of interest, the Fw 190 had automatic prop pitch and mixture, pretty cool eh? Aircraft with fuel injection also did not have manual mixture control. I've tried MSCS and the option to have to maintain the engine with proper fuel flow and prop pitch is very cool. You're diving into the clouds after a 190 and doh! You're mixture is too lean, richen it up and the P-47 comes back to life. Made Warbirds look like an arcade game.

[This message has been edited by -ik- (edited 07-29-1999).]

[Bad Omen]

I would like to see engine/plane management that actually adds to similation more than some of it which would be simply for immersion.
1.) Ability to lean your mixture when you are low on fuel. This could be pretty simple. For newbies, default is optimum for performance. However, you can lean it for longer time in air. Won't help you if you need to get back in combat, but might help from falling just short of your base.
2.) Ability to switch whcih fuel tanks you are drawing from, including exterior tanks. P51 was notorious for poor performance with its main tank fuel, so pilots were supposed to drain some from there before switching to drop tanks. Make it so you have to remember to switch to main tanks after dropping externals. Could cause some anxious moments.;-) Also, if one tank was hit, shouldn't cause all your gas to leak out, just that tank. Then you need to switch to your others.
3.) More realistic throttle management. If you run at 100% most of the time, your engine should heat up differently than if you cruise at 75% when you hit combat.
4.) Master arming switch for ordnance. Only reason so that if you jettison ord, doesn't go off and you are not scored as a 'miss.'
5.) Would be cool to be able to switch on what guns you want firing too, instead of a set pattern(and talking about patterns, how about setting your convergence pattern!). Don't know how realistic that would be, but would be cool.
6.) Guns should individually jam too, but maybe I should start a new Damage Modeling wish list thread.

All I can think of now, time for bed.

[Jinx]

But, but.. but I still want it!  

Good points of course verm, I still think there is a way to make it more in depth interesting for those who wants it, and easier for those who have no wish to go off the deep end. My goal would be to ease the learning curve, not make it steeper, just longer.

And again, the new guy in a furball should not be handicapped by using the engine controls on auto, the benefit should be in things like the on the limit escort flight to Berlin where you need every drop of gas and have nothing but holding formation to do for 45 minutes.. or maybe when you need those extra 5 mph in a tail chase.. or when you are clawing for altitude to get in position for the attack run on a bomber..

I’m talking about the extremes where no newbee will tread anyway.  There is nothing you can do anyway that will make someone with 10 hours flying time compete with someone with thousands, I believe you made that point.  


Pyro, what I ‘m looking for is basically more things to do in the sim outside the fighting, mainly in scenarios but also during longer flights in the main. And yes, I want a simulation with allowance made for game play, not the other way around.

I built a simple sim pod, (http://www.algonet.se/~hk/jinx/cockpit) and would love to ad an engine control panel and go through a prestart checklist, but that is probably nothing that would appeal to more then a few. I want skill to matter more on the edge, and I want to look at zeno’s film about flying the Corsair and have the option to do the same thing in the sim for pure immersion.

I don’t want to force it on someone who doesn’t want to use it, just have it as an option, for more and finer control.

  -Jinx

[fats]

--- Pyro: ---
Beyond the added immersion you may get, what are you looking for?
--- End ---

Mo' gadgets! More differences between planes, more things to consider in your tactics, more ways to be better than the other people flying.


~/fats

[Gazoo]

Pyro.

The immersion is what keeps me coming back to a sim.  The more you can make me feel like I'm really flying, the more I come back.

I'm sorry but the "single engine control" doesn't even feel as realistic as the Fleet Cannuck I used to fly, let alone a WWII fighter.

Throttle Quadrant just stands out as arcadish amongst so many un-arcadish features.  Very much a detractor for me.



------------------
"Just Plane Nuts"
Gazoo
 http://plaza.v-wave.com/SolarStorm/index.htm