Fuel

[Pyro]

I don't think we've mentioned this yet, but one of the things we'll be doing in the main arena is running a fuel burn multiplier.  

This will give long-range planes an advantage over their short-range counterparts that otherwise wouldn't show up.  This also gives drop tanks a good purpose.  Bombing fuel supplies can also have a very adverse effect on the enemy because of this.

[SC-GreyBeard]

Ahhhh,,
So how well my pretty b-17's bomb them to the stoneage, will have a corresponding adverse affect on how many of those LW junkies get in the air huh??
Oh Goodie!!!!!!!!   LOL..
Way cool!!!


------------------
GreyBeard
Flt Ldr
Skeleton Crew

[Downtown]

Er, uh, Er,

I noiticed four grouping of barrels on the ground.

And er, I noticed they were grouped like.

Er,, Uh,,,

1 barrel, then two Barrels, then 3 barrels, then four barrels.

Will this mean like 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%.

No more typing in 35% for fuel in the aircraft.

Or will we be able to get Variations like 35%?

------------------
"I could feel the 20MM Cannon impacting behind me so I made myself small behind the pilot armor" Charlie Bond AVG

[hitech]

You only get those 4 percentages plus selecting drop tanks. Difference is with the increase fuel multiplier you normaly wont be loading small fuel loads so small percentage changes realy are not needed.

HiTech

[Quasar]

And what if we bomb the 20 mm ammo factory? The enemy will have only MG ammo to fight with?

[Duck]

Pyro,
  Does this mean you're going to scale
altitude as well  

Regards,
Michael Carney aka duck

[fats]

--- Duck: ---
Does this mean you're going to scale altitude as well
--- End ---

It would only be fair. Those planes well adapted to high altitudes will not be getting the advantages they deserve in your average arena cause no one flies at 13km. So make the planes perform at 5km like they were at 13km.

Can't say I am very convinced by this fuel multiplier setting idea. Does it really make for better game play? I'll have to land N times more often than 'usually'? I am looking forward to fights not take offs and landings.


//fats

[hitech]

Fats in WB what fuel load do you normal take?
My guess would be around 35 in most planes.
If we run a 3 times multiple (not sure where it will be set yet) you would just take 100% and still have the same flight time.

Btw scaling Atmospheric effects is somthing that never crossed my mind before. Will have to give it some thought what all the effects would be but i can see where it might be a good thing.

HiTech

[Kats]

Fats, it's no fair that a zeke can out turn an FW - should we change that too?

Shouldn't a/c that sacrificed performance for range be rewarded? If not, we should then just model one a/c and go at it if we can't accept advantages and disadvantages in flight models.

[-bmbm-]

I almost always fly with 100% fuel, and never seem to have enough still  
Fuel multipliers are evil IMO. An F4F (for example) should be able to stay aloft for 4-6 hours depending on your cruise settings, not 50 measly minutes.

------------------
-bmbm-, XO 56th FG

[Buzzer]

Fuel modifiers for buffs (B17) is not a very good idea...(like in WB HA)...u take some 80% of fuel and u spend the whole day trying to reach a "safe" alt (25k+)...if u go direct to the tgt u will maybe have reached 15k as u approach enemy territory, as u operate with a "real-fuel burn" on a map that is 3(?) times smaller than the real world (ie reaching enemy territory 3 times faster)...

[This message has been edited by Buzzer (edited 09-20-1999).]

[Duck]

Actually,
  What would be nice is to scale time and
leave all other factors unscaled.  However
once in combat things happen too bloody
fast anyway without being accelerated  

The problem is that in order to get decent
action vs time ratio required to keep
people interested, distance between fields
is unrealistically close. (based on that
other sim).  If fuel consumption is scaled
without scaling altitude effects, it takes
an inordanent amount of fuel to reach
a given altitude.  If one scales altitude
without scaling velocity, then zoom and
climb performance is all hosed.  

If you scale only one aspect, then you end up
with an unrealistic environment.  And if
you scale all aspects your right back with
the at ground zero with the problem that
caused one to scale in the first place.

I would suspect that if it took 2 hours of
flight time to reach an enemy base, then
most pilots would arrive at that base with
realistic altitudes.  In addition, people
would be a bit more concerned with living
since setup time for combat was so long.
However I doubt such an arena configuration
would generate much pilot interest.

Regards,
Michael Carney

[-bmbm-]

Make no mistake, on several fronts (like the Eastern one for instance) flight distance could be as little as 5-10 minutes between the opposing fields. There are any number of accounts to support this. I'd be surprised however, if aircraft fighting at such fronts were not fully fueled none the less.

I wish QuakeBirds would die together with The Other Sim, but fear we'll see just another incarnation in QuakersHigh.

[fats]

--- Hitech: ---
Fats in WB what fuel load do you normal take? My guess would be around 35 in most planes.
--- end ---

In WB I flew the Bf 109G-6 towards the end, and for that plane I took 66% as pretty much the minimum. Some folks in our 109 squad loaded 100% every time. I would RTB after MG 151 gone, but those loading 100% were also spending the machineguns.

Back in my Fw 190A-4 days, if I was feeling very aggressive 44% was enough to spend all MG 151 ammo and land. 55% or 66% was otherwise my usual load out. As for the rest of the planes I dunno, as I hardly ever flew them.

The problem with scaled fuel consumption is that fights are not 'scaled'. It still takes N seconds to down a plane no matter how fast the fuel burns. In WB for me flying the Bf 109G-6 MG 151 ammo lasted 2 - 3 1 v 1 fights in turn-and-burn kind of sittuations. Which was also around 66% fuel with to and fro flights included. With 3 time multiplier 109 becomes good for ~1.5 kills with 100% fuel gone and with 50% MG 151 ammo still left. At least that seems so for me based on WB stats.

That certainly makes 109 seem short legged like it was. But it wasn't perhaps as short legged that you wouldn't have time to spend 100% of ammo with 100% fuel in as target rich environment as WB.

--- Hitech: ---
Btw scaling Atmospheric effects is somthing that never crossed my mind before.
--- end ---

I wish you would think of ways to get fights up to altitude rather than bringing the 'altitude' to the fights. And away from airfields, cause that is what brings them down the most IMO. Getting fights to altitude will make fuel endurance more important in a less 'hack' way.


//fats

[fats]

--- Kats: ---
Fats, it's no fair that a zeke can out turn an FW - should we change that too?
Shouldn't a/c that sacrificed performance for range be rewarded?
--- end ---

Now how did you manage to mangle my words to me suggesting planes shouldn't be modelled correctly?

My altitude suggestion was sarcasm. I came up with what I thought to be equally silly as scaling fuel consumption.

Scaling fuel consumption will be just another 'feature' that brings fights to low altitudes, leaving planes with great alt performance into environment that encourages low alts. Right now the environment might not encourage the use of long range capabilities, but that is IMO less minus than the loss of alt performance.


//fats
p.s. And you know my Fw out turns zekes anyway. So there.