Engine Management

[Yeager]

CC,

I was returning RTB and on final I thought,
now this landing is not a challenge and it should be (every landing should be a challenge).  For advanced users we need advanced features.  Engine management would be a challenge and a hindrance in combat.  Thats as it should be.  The more complicated the better.  I guess its the old relaxed realism and advanced realism arena conundrum.

I know where I would be!

Yeager

[bod]

"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?"

Not much actually except for realistic operation of fixed pitch vs constant speed drives (which wont add to the complexity  . The Spitfire started out with a fixed pitch propeller(Mk I, Ia), then it got a manually operated two-setting pitch (Ib) until it eventually got a constant speed drive. Just the transition from fixed pitch to the two-setting propeller decreased take-off distance with 30% with the same amount of HP. The problem with the two-setting propeller was that pilots forgot two set it right, and it surely was no good substitute for a real constant speed propeller. The problems with fixed pitch is low performance and overspeeding.

Not differentiating and modelling these aspects is like modelling a 262 with Merlins in my opinion.

Otherwise adjusting mixture and propeller speed settings is very much an important role of flying. Surely not much importance in low altitude furballing, but during long jabo missions or escort missions or bombing missions engine management is crucial. Without it you wont even get half the distance, at least not in RL.

Anyway, basicly i think that added immersion (also in the form of engine management) will keep a lot more people interestet for a whole lot longer. If you could turn it off when you dont want all the hazzle would of cource be great as well.

BTW, the 190 DID have adjustable pitch setting. It was a thomb actuated rotating knob on the throttle lever.


Bod

[Pyro]

The reason I asked is because I don't see it adding any depth to the combat side.  The biggest thing that could be done with it is with detailed modeling of fuel consumption in cruise conditions.  But how much is that adding to the game and at what cost?

A further reason I'm against it is because of the cludgy interface required.  For a pilot, he has all the levers right next to each other.  For us we would have to require a bunch of keypresses on some obscure key to manipulate it.  

Basically, if it were a no-brainer to put it in there, we'd do it.  But it would be a major amount of work to try and implement halfway correctly.  I've thought through the implementation of really modeling the effect(not just adding a cheezy system for show) and it makes me cringe.  We can't justify spending that much effort on something that relatively few people would want to use, especially at this point in our development cycle.

Players love to bombard me with with bits of testimony as unrefutable proof of something. I thought I'd put the shoe on the other foot and share this post.  For those of you who read rec.aviation.military, you've probably saw it last year.  It is by George Ceullers, a double ace who flew 38s and 51s.  Here's an excerpt of what he had to say about throttle control in combat:

"REgarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know.  When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely.  When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm.  And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back.  You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more.  
Full power all the time was wanted because maneuvering bled off so much speed and altitude.  What you wanted was more power and more power.  All the prop fighters were underpowered and the only way to keep them turning was to keep them descending.  The more power you had available, the slower the descent and the easier the recovery."
 


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

[Yeager]

Yeah, thats a damn fine observation and reflective of what the average experience is in flight sims.  Sight a con and go wep, staying there throughout the entire engagement.

I have a video commentary of a 38 pilot in the Pacific who was setting up final approach
with a group of 38s escorting a damaged B-24
back to its base.  This guy was the flight leader and had told all the boys to power down for landing.  As they were descending, a lone Ki appeared from on high out of the clouds and headed directly for the 24.  The story continued about all the tasks this guy needed to accomplish to bring his (their) 38s back up to power to try and engage the Ki.

Before they could get everything powered up, the Ki made a single pass and brought the 24 down with all crew lost.  It then flew away at high speed.  The 38s had no hope of interception.  50 years later this guy still blamed himself for the deaths of the bomber crewman due to his relaxing, letting his guard down.

In summary:
I believe this event illustrates the real life complexity of engine management.  However, I understand and have to agree on the points made by Pyro.  His position makes practical sense.

Yeager

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

[Jinx]

Thanx Pyro,
As long as it has been considered and thrown out on good grounds Im satisfied.

I still want it though..  

  -Jinx

[miko2d]

 Jinks:
 I also want the engine management, even though it is impractical now. Hopefully some day...
 Why don't you build the appropriate levers and buttons and pretend you have the engine management! Your attention will be occupied, other players will not be affected, you will get more satisfaction, your computer will not slow down and HTC will not have to do anything.  

miko--

[fats]

--- Miko2d: ---
Why don't you build the appropriate levers and buttons and pretend you have the engine management!
--- End ---

Kinda like asking people who don't wish to pay 2/hour to run around the room and make wrooom -noises with their arms spread out. Somehow it's just not the same as the actual game...


//fats

[Kats]

 

To what purpose do you guys want to see this level of engine management?

The same reason why I don't want landing gear to automatically open when I am below 500 ft, or flaps to come down at 200mph. I think "learning" to fly the plane would add a huge dimension to the simm. Pitch, rpm, and manifold pressure combinations affect performance greatly so much so that an inexperienced P51D pilot could be outperformed by an expert 109g6 pilot.

However your right, it would be a huge undertaking hehehehe. How would the plane perform course with hi rmp compared to a fine setting at high RPM, throw in the manifold pressure and you'll have one huge FM. You gotto admit though PYRO if it could be done, it would be neat  

The interface would be easy enough though, throttle for manifold pressure, 3 prop settings, and a "100" & "1000" key for RPM.

Just for an inside look at your average simmer (me). The most fun I have on Jet simms is aircraft carrier landings, not the bombing etc etc. Being configured right and nailing it is very satisfying.

 

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.

And that is the whole bloody point of it, it will (IMO) bring greater parity among the plane types.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Kats (edited 07-30-1999).]

[-ik-]

I'm a total dweeb at MSCS, i still can't get the Spitfire Mk I past 265mph on the deck in level flight. If I actually owned the game (it's at a friend's house) well then I would learn to adjust prop pitch, mixture and rpm's correctly and I'd get it closer to 300mph. Oh the possibilities.

Question: Should an understanding of engine management influence who wins a fight in a prop sim? What's your answer to this question that pretty much sums up this whole debate.

[7Cav]

Pyro,

At least consider this: When using max throttle settings (including Wep), a chance of engine damage for long durations at high temperatures and lack of airflow (high angle of attack for long periods of time, could result in coolant loss, overtemps with loss of power, or complete engine siezure. Engines even today have oil viscosity problems at high temperatures for extended periods of time. Air flow through an engine  contributes to aiding in cooling, without it you would burn up your engine even faster. High temperature fire warnings, or actual fires wouldn't be that unlikely either for running an engine past it's Military or Max power time ratings.

I know we have limits for a reason in aircraft we fly today. It would be nice to see some included in this great prospect of a new sim you have here.

Just another fellas 2 cents worth.

7Cav (Flight Engineer as a living)
 

[popeye]

Well, as long as we're not gonna have engine management, how about adding manual supercharger controls to the non-list?  

Maybe I'm crazy, (Olive thinks I am), but I get a real kick out of watching the pre-flight in the WWII pilot training films.  I would get a kick out of doing that same stuff in a flight sim.  (Although, I admit that the interface would see a bit clunky.)

popeye

[Mark Luper]

Not being a programmer I cannot fully appreciate the amount of work that would be involved in adding the aformentioned engine management to the sim. If I were designing it it would be there. Why? The immersion factor would be one of the biggest reasons. I too come from a group with a lot of time flying sims, and MS Flight Sim 98 is one of my favorites because of the ability to fly with engine mangagement, real navigation and other things such as that. It would keep the boredom factor WAY down on those long climbouts in a B-17, something I fly as much or more than a fighter. I also beleive it should be an option with no real penalty to those who wish not to use it. As far as using the keyboard for some of the controls, if you have a keyboard mapper in the program you can program those keys you would feel most comfortable using. In MSFS 98 it never has been an issue for me. I use a CH Force FX stick, CH Pro thottle and rudder pedals and using a combination of those and keyboard is just something I live with because of the shortcommings of a sim versus flying a real plane. If it can be done I would really like to see it and I can see it as helping to keep long time enthusiasts interested for a much longer period of time. It would keep me more interested :-). I wouldn't necessarily want it to slow down the release date of the beta test, but if that is what it took, I would be willing to wait. No one is looking forward more to this thing getting off the ground than I am, but I really would like to see it done "right" and the addition of the engine management system would be one more step in the right direction.

------------------
Mark (-mark-) Luper
Fighting Chaplain
500th Bomb Squadron, 345th Bomb Group
Rough Raiders

[Bad Omen]

PYRO said:
(From quote)"REgarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more.
Full power all the time was wanted because maneuvering bled off so much speed and altitude. What you wanted was more power and more power. All the prop fighters were underpowered and the only way to keep them turning was to keep them descending. The more power you had available, the slower the descent and the easier the recovery."

---------------------
I am sure that was the TYPICAL way it was done, but if you read the late Jeff Ethell's article on the flying the P-38, he relates how his father, who flew P-38's in WWII, often set an engine at 25% throttle, full throttle on the other and banked about 45deg. He claimed to use this for very tight cornering when flying against the Germans.

Also, they mention that using a similar technique, Richard Bong would actually go into turning fights with Zeros and win!

I am not sure how hard everything would be to implement, but I was thinking on the fuel mix issue as simply a sliding scale type thing which on default would be for optimum. Pulling the slider all the back to lean would go to like 90% performance and, if you wanted to get really tricky(but not neccesary needed), maybe full rich would give a 1 or 2% boost to performance, but if left there cause damage. In other words, a simple multiplier to the engine ala throttle position, just with a different scale.

The fuel tank switches would be harder, as you would have to model center of gravity. I don't know how that was modeled in WB, but I think it was rather symmetrical. I want to start a Damage Modelling thread and I will go into more detail there, but one of the things that really bug me in WB is when you get shot in the left fuel tank, but ALL your fuel drains out. It always reminds me of PAW when flying the P38 if you got your left engine hit, both would shut down. Man, that always ticked me off!

As far as weird keystrokes: who cares! I can't believe most of us don't use programmable sticks, and a newbie is gonna have a rough time without a full slate of controllers anyway, so he won't be a newbie long. Also: what about clickable cockpits?? Takes care of the problem right there!

Anyway, I think you guys need to try and make this a stand-out sim to really pull the pilots in, to have something different. I am really pulling for you guys, I know you can do it!

Bad Omen
The Royal Knights
OOOooo...~RK^ A Guerre!

[eagl]

Pyro,

How about some "simple" stuff then, like having 2 gauges on the dash. One for manifold pressure and one for actual prop rpm.  Adding or decreasing throttle would affect rpm, and the plane would figure out the optimum rpm.  Also, in a full power dive, have the engine overspeed itself with damage potential if the pilot doesn't pull back the throttle.

This would add engine realism effects (overspeeding) and make the player think about such things.  Have WEP increase manifold pressure and rpm, etc etc.

What would we get out of more engine controls other than immersion?  In the simplest words, I am looking for that tiny extra edge available to someone who is willing to spend the time learning how to manage the aircraft systems.  Even a simple toggle for fine and coarse pitch would have an effect, slightly positive if the player cares to learn how to do it, slightly negative if the player wants to play airborn quake.

For example, selecting coarse pitch on takeoff would increase takeoff roll, increasing vulch-vulnerable time on the runway or making it difficult to take off with bombs or from a carrier.  Selecting fine pitch in a climb would add a bit to climb rate.  Selecting coarse pitch in cruise would add a few knots to top speed and maybe reduce fuel consumption.  You get the drift  

Sure, add a dweebmode to engine control, and give those players performance somewhere in the middle...

If not, just the ability to overspeed the engine would be cool  


------------------
eagl <squealing Pigs> BYA
Oink Oink To War!!!

[Pyro]

We are using separate gauges for RPM and manifold pressure.  What we can do that we consider worthwhile will also change as we get further down the road.  Who knows what gravy features we'll do once we get all the main components are finished?



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