Author Topic: Beating the dead horse  (Read 529 times)

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 1999, 04:06:00 AM »
Hmm... Is there any way you could disable the fuel multiplyer for everyone BUT fats? The sky would be *much* safer, more people would be happy... and well, that's just damn good economics from an HTC point of view. My 2 cents... Uhm... Vote, anyone?  

Offline Duckwing6

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 324
      • http://www.pink.at
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 1999, 07:39:00 AM »
to funked:

well your so called bogus inflated fuel flow rates do have some benefits: there is really NO use of having airplanes being capable of loitering around for 10-14 hours ..

IMHO you should get a range that is compatible with the arena you fly in -> e.g. pony was deep penetration escort and it can cover the whole arena in AH with a bit time left to dogfight around.
109 wan't exactly blessed with a big endurance -> in AH it can cover the forward enemy fields have a few mins left for furballing and then has to RTB due to low Fuel...

To Fats:
Too bad you're a non realistically modelled shot   real world folks had an average shooting of some 2-3% LOL so go SPRAY your ammo around so you can RTB earlier   (and btw who said you can't bring some rounds back home they ain't having an expiry date)

Summary: i think the range and endurance is modelled not bad -> if you fly an interceptor (that's what the 109, Spit and LA5 were designed for) then live with the consequence that you might have to look for yer fuel -> ver realistic indeed!

SCDuckwing6

Offline Minotaur

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 130
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 1999, 09:31:00 AM »
cc Fats;

Mino

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 1999, 09:56:00 AM »
Keep in mind that we haven't implemented the real fuel consumption model yet.  Once that's done, you'll be able to significantly extend your range by using reduced power settings.  The benefits of doing that now are not as great as they will be.

 

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

Offline -lynx-

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 340
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 1999, 10:49:00 AM »
CombatWombat:

No, I wouldn't ask for 190 with turnability of a Spit:

a. I don't fly 190s;
b. it didn't turn like a Spit

I though I put it clearly enough but hey - I can do it again:

a. La-5FN/La-7 had a combat range of ~400 miles (395-425 depending on source);
b. at cruising speed/optimal engine settings that would give at least 3 hours of endurance on full tanks;
c. apparently, multiplier is set to 2.5x, let's see: who's there managed to keep La-5 airborne for 1 hour 12 minutes? C'mon, there must be at least one? No? I rest my case...

fats: you running our of fuel before you running out of ammo in 190? I see the same happening in my La-5 (she has just 15 seconds of firing power on board btw...)

All: The argument that "The P-51 would then become an Extreme UberPlane, flying for a very long time on 25% fuel" doesn't hold any water simply because Pony did not carry a super-economical DOHC mulipoint fuel injection lean-burn engine, it was powered by the same (almost) power plant as the Spitfire!!! It just had bigger tanks.

A few weeks ago I asked if it made any sense to put, say, 50/100/200 gallons of fuel in a plane rather than 25/50/100%. "No" was the answer... There you have it as a result - a "super" Pony  


Restrict fuel availability on forward fields to XXX gallons per plane, reduce it to next to nothing on a field with fuel storage destroyed (or limit it to YYY gallons every, say, 5 minutes), increase it on others and the gameplay problem is solved: you want your 190 to hover in the air for hours? Come up from a back field and enjoy yourself. You want to suppress opposition of a field under attack? Destroy fuel dump and you won't see that pesky La-5 resurrecting every 5 seconds...

It is realism we are after here, right?

------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 1999, 11:33:00 AM »
A real pilot worries about having enough fuel before entering combat.  The online sim pilot has been worrying about having too much fuel before entering combat.

Range and endurance are very important characteristics of planes.  Without increased consumption, any plane can range anywhere they please thus negating any advantages or disadvantages that the real plane had in that regard.



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

Offline Minotaur

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 130
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 1999, 12:18:00 PM »
-lynx-

My apologies, I was not attempting to become inflamatory.  (At least not in my post directly responding to yours   )  My style is rather abrasive, I'm working on that.

Minotuar Quote: This Beta Arena is VASTLY smaller than anything in the real world. IMO, if you want to have real world fuel burn rates, then you have to be prepared to fly (simulatedly) for hours, just to reach the action. :End Quote

That Quote is my take on realism regarding fuel burn rates.

Point defense is another matter, the quote describes patrol or attacking aircraft.  Point defense fighters generally had short legs.  Their function was fast interception, I believe.  Get up there fast, shoot fast, and then get home fast.

I have no clue as to which catagory the LA-5 falls under.  I suspect it had relatively shorter legs than other fighters of the era by the way it is modeled in AH.  

LA-5 drop tanks would be nice for AH,  that must be proven with realistic evidence.  

Good Luck, with your ideas!  

Mino

Offline fats

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 1999, 02:35:00 PM »
--- Duckwing6: ---
Too bad you're a non realistically modelled shot  real world folks had an average shooting of some 2-3% LOL so go SPRAY your ammo around so you can RTB earlier
--- end ---

Actually I have a very poor gunnery%, under 8.5% at the moment I believe. People shooting at 16% and so on, must have tons of ammo left if they flew 190.

--- Lynx: ---
fats: you running our of fuel before you running out of ammo in 190? I see the same happening in my La-5 (she has just 15 seconds of firing power on board btw...)
--- end ---

Prior to 190's release I flew only Spitfire Mk.IX and constantly run out of fuel before ammo, even if I fought the first two or three engagements with the DT on and 100% internal fuel.

--- Lynx: ---
A few weeks ago I asked if it made any sense to put, say, 50/100/200 gallons of fuel in a plane rather than 25/50/100%.
--- end ---

Yeah that is _very_ silly. You give P-51 4 billion gallons with just 25%, but 109 can't take 100% cause it would ammount to a whopping 8 gallons. Oh yeah those are accurate numnbers BTW, they have been checked, re-checked and then checked again from various sources.


//fats


Offline Thorns

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
      • http://members.cox.net/computerpilot/
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 1999, 07:55:00 PM »
Pyro said it correctly......I hate having a full load of fuel when entering a dogfight.  Seems to me if your going to protect buffs your going to need extra fuel.  But if your just looking for a fight you can pick how far you want to fly out and back before running out of fuel.  Now if you had Allied command telling you where and when you "are" going to fly, THAT'S the real difference of cyber flying and real combat flying.  I for one like the way "fuel managment" is setup in Aces High.  Makes it interesting.....

Butchawk

Offline -lynx-

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 340
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 1999, 03:56:00 AM »
Minotuar Quote: "This Beta Arena is VASTLY smaller than anything in the real world. IMO, if you want to have real world fuel burn rates, then you have to be prepared to fly (simulatedly) for hours, just to reach the action. :End Quote

That Quote is my take on realism regarding fuel burn rates."

I think this is quite a popular misconception. Size of the arena does not actually matter. The distances we fly are "real", ie it's still takes 5 minutes to fly across a 25 miles grid box at 300 TAS, right? It's the fields that are closer than they would have been in a real life  



------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF

Offline leonid

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 1999, 05:20:00 AM »
I agree with the present implementation of fuel in AH.  As Pyro has stated it forces sim pilots to deal with the type of factors real pilots were concerned about in WWII: namely, having enough fuel.  The fuel consumption presently in AH may be accelerated, may even be very accelerated, but it presents the very real concern of having enough fuel for a sortie.  In Brand W, such a concern was rather rare, and in most instances it was more a worry of having too much fuel (again, as Pyro has stated).  In AH, unless you fly a N1K2 or P-51D, you'll probably be very tempted to add a drop tank, much less take off with less than 100% internal capacity!

I fly a La-5FN, the shortest ranged plane in the bunch (unless the C.205 is even shorter), but I have no qualms about its range, because it forces me to keep the experience real.  Still, I am capable of climbing to 25k, patrol to two fields away, bag a kill (maybe two), then return safely to my original field.

On thing that used to irk me about Brand W was that fuel was never a premium there, except in the Historical Arena.  People were always flying around with only 35% fuel, something that would have never occurred in RL, if it could be helped.

You have to ask yourself, what am I looking for in a game?  Absolute, empirical measurements that when combined with present restrictions of player base, technology and reality, result in an experience that sadly misses?  Or relative adjustments to empirical measurements for the sake of said limitations, so that the overall experience culminates into a surprisingly real feel for WWII air combat.

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA


[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-24-1999).]

[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-24-1999).]
ingame: Raz

-kier-

  • Guest
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 1999, 07:53:00 AM »
Hey, if I can get the same kill/sortie ratio in the La5 that Leonid has, I'm happy!  

Fuel is fine. Maybe we do have 5 Gazillion P-51's ranging about (and we'll soon have to deal with 5 Gazillion F4U's), but at least they are using a tactical advantage. You only have to deal with the Spitfires once you get relatively close to enemy territory (and who really wants to see 5 Gazillion Spitfires?   ).

At most, the multiplier may need to be tweaked slightly, but they are pretty close for my tastes.

Offline leonid

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 1999, 08:51:00 AM »
I noticed that fats had a question concerning ranges to combat on the Russian front.  Well, hows about 50 miles grab ya?  Yup, 50 miles from forward airfield to the front.  Maybe a 100 miles to the enemy's airfield.  Ranges were so short on the Russian front that VVS pilots customarily fly at full throttle the entire time, something generally unheard of in any other theater.  And if I remember correctly, a La-7 at full throttle has a range of around 150 miles, if that.  But limit its flying to no further than 50 miles, and you actually have a fair amount of time to fly around - at full throttle.  So, you see VVS fighters had no need for range, and therefore generally had no real range to speak of.

Does the La-5FN seem extremely short-ranged?  Yes, and that's because it was.

And one last thing.  The La-5FN was not a point defense fighter, it was an air superiority fighter.  Heck, they even did fighter sweeps, called 'free hunts'.  Yet another indication of just how close-ranged aerial combat was on the Russian front.

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA




[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-24-1999).]
ingame: Raz

Offline Minotaur

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 130
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #28 on: November 24, 1999, 11:56:00 AM »
-lynx-;

-lynx- Quote -----
I think this is quite a popular misconception. Size of the arena does not actually matter. The distances we fly are "real", ie it's still takes 5 minutes to fly across a 25 miles grid box at 300 TAS, right? It's the fields that are closer than they would have been in a real life.      
----- End Quote

I totally missed your point. What misconception?  

I do understand that the Beta Arena bases are much closer to each other than those of WW2.  

Lets say bases in WW2 were 75 miles behind the FLOT.  Beta Arena bases are about 25 miles apart.  My logic would imply that Beta Arena bases are about 12.5 miles behind the FLOT.  The ratio of 75 / 12.5 is 5.  The Simulated Airspace of the the Beta Arena would be at least 5 times smaller than any Real Wartime Arena.

THEREFORE; too simulate REALITY you should burn fuel at 5 times the rate of a real world aiplane.  Could that mean that AH planes should fly 5 times slower and that could be the real issue here?  

I might say that in AH, 25 miles represents 125 miles.  I might also say I have no clue as to the actual size ratio between the real world and AH simulated world, but it seems reasonable to me.

Mino

[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 11-24-1999).]

Offline Minotaur

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 130
Beating the dead horse
« Reply #29 on: November 24, 1999, 12:02:00 PM »
Leonid;

I have been searching, but no luck.

Any evidence LA-5/LA-7 used drop tanks?

Mino