Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: straffo on May 24, 2004, 02:28:23 PM
-
it was fine IMO but now it's a bit to much for me (from typhoon yak la5 lover perspective)
Can't it be set to 1.5 or something between 1 and 2 ?
-
Straffo,
Unsure why the rate changed...perhaps HTC is tweaking things to see how they work in the beta...not sure how this will work in the final version though.
Take care!!
-
It's been set at 2 and 2.25. It reset to 1 when the arena was rebooted and the setting didn't save or something.
-
So I guess there is no plan to have a change to the usual setting ?
btw I still don't understand the purpose/need of the fuel multiplier.
I agree it's important for US or Japanese planes but close support plane like the typhoon or the yak have their leg cut pretty short :p
-
I understand the concept of using a 2x burn rate to compensate for the reduced distances compared to real life. However the arena is not "compressed" in the vertical, so the short-legged fighters that need altitude to fight with are at an unfair disadvantage IMHO.
-
Fuel management, the E6B is there to help .
Full throttle all the time is not the only way to fly.
-
Nothing new to me.
But why will pee51 dweeb still be able to firewall throttle when I'm forced to manage fuel just because I don't love flying some avgaz tank ?
Try to up at a 25% field in a Yak or Typhoon then try to rejustify me the need for a multiplier.
-
I think 1.7 is good.
2.0 seems to be a bit too penalizing, 1.0 is too long.
-
Its done because we americans hate french people. We do like french fries though, thats why they aren't perked and their multiplier is $1.89 for a large order at the local fast food chain.
-
Originally posted by 214thCavalier
Fuel management, the E6B is there to help .
Full throttle all the time is not the only way to fly.
Full throttle is the most fuel economical way to climb.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Nothing new to me.
But why will pee51 dweeb still be able to firewall throttle when I'm forced to manage fuel just because I don't love flying some avgaz tank ?
fuel economy IS a major part of combat. modern fighters don't use a lot of afterburner or the run out of fuel in minutes. Long leggged fighters should have an advantage. You want to climb at 5000 fpm and gallop to the fight at 400mph? pay the fuel. else, use the E6B to control it.
Bozon
-
I repeat: Full throttle is the most fuel economical way to climb.
-
GScholz is quite correct. The problem with the fuel multiplier is that it makes altitude rather unpractical for short range interceptors like the Bf109, Fw190, Hurricane and Spitfire where in reality altitude wasn't a problem for those fighters.
Perhaps a better way to do range limitations would be to deduct a number of gallons based on the aircraft's fuel consumption for every 25 miles (or 15 or whatever works best) the aircraft has flown from the base it took off of. This way the Bf109 or Spitfire would be perfectly suitable short range interceptors and the P-51 and A6M would still get the benefit of range from all the fuel they carry.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I understand the concept of using a 2x burn rate to compensate for the reduced distances compared to real life. However the arena is not "compressed" in the vertical, so the short-legged fighters that need altitude to fight with are at an unfair disadvantage IMHO.
That's not as big of a factor now that fuel burn rate changes with altitude. Once you get up to high altitude, you're burning a lot less fuel. With a 2X burn rate, I can climb at mil power in a 109G6 up to 30K and have 20 minutes of fuel remaining at mil power. If I switch to cruise, I have a lot more and that's not even considering what adding a droptank would do.
People will initially be surprised how quickly fuel is burned in AH2, but if they look, they will find a secondary surprise in how well they can conserve it.
-
Pyro, how about adding an additional feature to lower throttle settings to be used advantageously?
...
My apologies for bringing up IL2/FB, but with that game the fuel is not much of a factor as it always uses historical fuel loads.
However, I find myself flying on lower throttle settings to keep my engine cool and prepare it for a fight, rather than do it to save fuel.
Now, I know that AH/AH2 does not use the complicated overheat scheme as seen in IL2/FB. AH fighters don't have a 'breaking point' in engine, as the WEP automatically switches off at the "red zone". But it does take time cool off.
How about, the engine heat cools off faster when throttle settings are lower? IMO that'd provide a tactical advantage(in terms of WEP performance), as well as an economical fuel solution, for people who choose to cool their engines by certain intervals.
In short, lowering the throttle will serve dual purposes, and I think people will feel less penalized if having low throttle settings actually gives a tactical advantage than just fuel economy.
It doesn't necessarily have to be historical or complicated - it could be a little game device as a "generic calculation" - such as something like, "all fighters will cool down 2 times faster when flying around in cruise settings".. and "all fighters will cool down 1.5 times faster when flying in normal power settings".
Now, this won't provide a direct tactical advantage, since AH, unlike IL2/FB, does not allow the engine to detonate itself. However, keeping throttles low will serve a purpose in cooling down the engine faster - and after a fight with a lot of WEP use, flying around a bit with lower throttle settings will pay off dividends.
...
IMO it's a good way to promote fuel management via throttle (while it's not directly associated fuel burn rates, it'll have a positive effect in the way people think about it..)
-
Originally posted by Pyro
That's not as big of a factor now that fuel burn rate changes with altitude. Once you get up to high altitude, you're burning a lot less fuel. With a 2X burn rate, I can climb at mil power in a 109G6 up to 30K and have 20 minutes of fuel remaining at mil power. If I switch to cruise, I have a lot more and that's not even considering what adding a droptank would do.
People will initially be surprised how quickly fuel is burned in AH2, but if they look, they will find a secondary surprise in how well they can conserve it.
I can't disagree with that :)
My concern is more in some planes you don't have the option to go to 30k , the slow climbing Typhoon is a perfect example of this (add to this the fact the typhoon is really not an high alt fighter).
For example a p51 with 75% can have the option to use full power to got to cruise alt using perhaps 25% fuel.
Next he will have plenty of fuel left to patrol.
A typhoon cannot :(
Bozon you're right , but if you look at my example with the p51 you will notice a tactical advantage for it compare to my beloved typhoon.
IRL one of the advantage the typhoon had was is fast cruise speed , this advantage don't exist.
Plus I'm not sure if it has an influence on trimming and so stability intuitively I would say yes,but I'm far to be a real aeronautical ingeneer so I' not sure.
Mathman even if your reason look plausible I won't buy it ;)
-
My preference is for a FBR of 1.0
Then folk can fill up and have long flights but suffer the penalty of heavier AC or folk can put less in the tank and conserve fuel. using the rpm and manifold wisely.
FB's of 2 really penalise short legged (lower alt) rides..........particularly those that now have the correct fuel model in AH2 where they had erroniously longer legs in AH1.
The essence is the same approach to combat trim and manual trimming............you get a benefit if you use the feature (lighter combat weight) but no percieved penalty if you don't.
-
Originally posted by 214thCavalier
Full throttle all the time is not the only way to fly.
Really? Works great for me.
ack-ack
-
I usually have fuelburn 1.5 in my (h2h) room. It works great!
Normally people don't fly very long during 1 flight (about 10 min.) Having fuelburn 1, people only have to take 25%
Then why would we need drop tanks?
Setting abit higher fuelburn will increase the advantage of long range fighters like P-51, P-47 etc and decrease advantage of the spits/other n00b planes' range.
-
Well there must be a better compromise. As it stands you only ever use 75% fuel in a P51D and it still goes on forever. Whereas in a Typhoon you need 100% and it drinks fuel like it's going out of fashion. I often only bother climbing to less that 10k because it's a waste of time climbing higher, if heavy, because you don't have any loiter time.
I definitely would not like to see fuel consumed at a faster rate than AH1.
-
engine overheat shoulda be modeled in. this wouldn't be an issue then.
can we trade a bloody cockpit pilot wound for an engine temp control? :)
-
Originally posted by Pyro
That's not as big of a factor now that fuel burn rate changes with altitude. Once you get up to high altitude, you're burning a lot less fuel. With a 2X burn rate, I can climb at mil power in a 109G6 up to 30K and have 20 minutes of fuel remaining at mil power. If I switch to cruise, I have a lot more and that's not even considering what adding a droptank would do.
People will initially be surprised how quickly fuel is burned in AH2, but if they look, they will find a secondary surprise in how well they can conserve it.
Thanks for the input Pyro.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Thanks for the input Pyro.
i beleive that was output...what we the end users do is input
-
Originally posted by vorticon
i beleive that was output...what we the end users do is input
Wow, someone who likes to argue semantics. Isn't Pyro putting his reasons for the multiplier into the discussion? Isn't that input?
-
The larger fuel burn rate is not just there to give a purpose to managing your engine and fuel. Range and endurance are crucial characteristics of these planes. We want that to be a factor in the game but we don't want people to have to fly for an hour or more just to get into a fight.
-
It's possible to adapt to any fuel burn rate. The most important thing to remember is that it affects everybody in the arena. In AH2 right now I usually set my fuel to a comfortable fighting weight - say 50%, and then add a drop tank which I use until I approach a danger zone. I also use the throttle and rpm adjustments to 'cruise' long distances once I'm at altitude. Once I've dropped my tank(s) I make sure I leave (if I can) for the trip home with enough gas left to ge there. It is amazing how far you can stretch those last few pounds of fuel with a bit of alt, low rpm and patience.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Wow, someone who likes to argue semantics. Isn't Pyro putting his reasons for the multiplier into the discussion? Isn't that input?
Vort never really has anything constructive to say.
He likes to pop into threads and dump some cute witty little **** (in his mind) and then leave.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Wow, someone who likes to argue semantics. Isn't Pyro putting his reasons for the multiplier into the discussion? Isn't that input?
hes putting his reasons into a discussion about what his reasons are...someone asked a question (input) he answered (output)
Vort never really has anything constructive to say.
of course not...i find that when i do try to say something constructive i end up being gangbanged by a bunch of HO dweebs in mosquitos to put it loosely...
-
Vort you never fly :aok
-
Originally posted by frank3
Vort you never fly :aok
correction...i never fly with you
-
Originally posted by Pyro
The larger fuel burn rate is not just there to give a purpose to managing your engine and fuel. Range and endurance are crucial characteristics of these planes. We want that to be a factor in the game but we don't want people to have to fly for an hour or more just to get into a fight.
If so what about forbiding loadout such as 50% + DT ?
When doing this they get all the range they need and at the 1st sight of a danger they have a lighter plane.
Being the stupid user wanting to RTB I've to take 100% and reduce my cruise speed and so put myself in danger,
when some don't have to do so just because they use this kind of loadout...
I think it's both unfair and unrealistic.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
That's not as big of a factor now that fuel burn rate changes with altitude. Once you get up to high altitude, you're burning a lot less fuel.
Flew the 109G-10 today, and I noticed that on the E6B the fuel consumption was 255 GPH at MIL and WEP regardless of altitude. 255 GPH at SL, 255 GPH at 26K. Perhaps the engine/fuel modelling of the G-10 isn't finished yet? Or did I misunderstand you?
-
I think he means that though actual gallons per hour won't change, you are getting better mileage due to higher cruising speed. You are covering more ground for the same ammount of fuel being burned. Thus, you are using less fuel for a given range.
-
There's still some planes that haven't been updated yet, the G-10 is one of them. If you don't see the engine settings listed on the E6B, it hasn't been done yet.
-
E6B and fuel burn rate will have little or no effect at all in all these with no interest into RTB. These will keep with the typical DT + 25% or 50%, and these are a lot. How about a minimum fuel load limit (max fuel available at base - 25%?), and no DT if less than 75% or 100% fuel is loaded. This way all would play the same game instead of having the heavies vs the "ufos".
-
Thanks again Pyro. :)
-
hes putting his reasons into a discussion about what his reasons are...someone asked a question (input) he answered (output)
Hmmm ...
"hes putting his reasons into a discussion" <-- this would be considered input by 99.999 % of the population. The keys here are "putting" and "into".
Pyro never stated "reasons" ... he actually stated facts <-- also considered input by 99.999 % of the population.
"someone asked a question" <-- questions are neither input or output ... they are simply questions.
"he answered" <-- Again, this would be considered input by 99.999 % of the population.
-
f so what about forbiding loadout such as 50% + DT ?
That's actually very good reasoning straffo.. It could solve the discrepancy issues.
Take away the DTs as a loadout option, and include them as a separate fuel option.. could work!
-
Great idea!
25% - 50% - 75% - 100% - 100% +DT
Or simply make the DTs unavailable unless 100% is selected.
-
Kweassa I don't think a single moment this idea will be implemented.
This idea is about 4 year old now.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
hes putting his reasons into a discussion about what his reasons are...someone asked a question (input) he answered (output)
Hmmm ...
"hes putting his reasons into a discussion" <-- this would be considered input by 99.999 % of the population. The keys here are "putting" and "into".
Pyro never stated "reasons" ... he actually stated facts <-- also considered input by 99.999 % of the population.
"someone asked a question" <-- questions are neither input or output ... they are simply questions.
"he answered" <-- Again, this would be considered input by 99.999 % of the population.
so if i walk up to a computer and ask it what 3+3 is and it returns the FACT that the answer is 6 then i have simply done nothing and it answered in the form of "input"???
as long as pyro is simply returning FACTS and no more he is a seperate entity from the discussion between us end users and there fore he is giving output
-
Originally posted by vorticon
so if i walk up to a computer and ask it what 3+3 is and it returns the FACT that the answer is 6 then i have simply done nothing and it answered in the form of "input"???
as long as pyro is simply returning FACTS and no more he is a seperate entity from the discussion between us end users and there fore he is giving output
in·put
a) Contribution of information or a comment or viewpoint: a discussion with input from all members of the group.
b) Information in general.
out·put
1) The act or process of producing; production.
2) a) An amount produced or manufactured during a certain time.
2) b) Intellectual or creative production: literary output; artistic output.
3) a) The energy, power, or work produced by a system.
3) b) Computer Science. The information produced by a program or process from a specific input.
Nice try ... the mere fact that he "contributed" to this thread is input in and of itself. All posts are "input" to the intial root of the thread.
Using your High School logic, I guess we all are inputting "output" ... :rolleyes:
-
"The information produced by a program or process from a specific input. "
proving my point exactly...though it wasnt from a program it was specific information retturned to a person giving a specific input...
any answer to any question from anyone to anyone else is "output"
-
Originally posted by vorticon
"The information produced by a program or process from a specific input. "
proving my point exactly...though it wasnt from a program it was specific information retturned to a person giving a specific input...
any answer to any question from anyone to anyone else is "output"
:rolleyes: ... I'm done
-
Hahemm ... can you step out of this thraed please :)
Btw arguing about Input and Output in bidirectional system is a no go :) it's all relative.
-
... I'm done
I WIN :D
Originally posted by straffo
Hahemm ... can you step out of this thraed please :)
Btw arguing about Input and Output in bidirectional system is a no go :) it's all relative.
<<<<<=PWNED!
jerkface... ruin my fun will you...
-
Originally posted by straffo
I can't disagree with that :)
My concern is more in some planes you don't have the option to go to 30k , the slow climbing Typhoon is a perfect example of this (add to this the fact the typhoon is really not an high alt fighter).
For example a p51 with 75% can have the option to use full power to got to cruise alt using perhaps 25% fuel.
Next he will have plenty of fuel left to patrol.
A typhoon cannot :(
Bozon you're right , but if you look at my example with the p51 you will notice a tactical advantage for it compare to my beloved typhoon.
IRL one of the advantage the typhoon had was is fast cruise speed , this advantage don't exist.
Plus I'm not sure if it has an influence on trimming and so stability intuitively I would say yes,but I'm far to be a real aeronautical ingeneer so I' not sure.
Mathman even if your reason look plausible I won't buy it ;)
I tested the Typhoon with the fuel burn rate at 2.
Took off 100% fuel, 2 x 1000lb bombs and climbed to 14,000ft. This used 2/3 of the Aux tank and took 8 minutes to cover 27 miles. I then dived releases the ordnance and spent 4 minutes on station deacking until the remaining 1/3 aux fuel had been used. I then climbed up to 10,000ft and RTB'd using WEP to a different base that was 50 miles away. I landed with 1/8th fuel left. Total sortie time 24 minutes. Full throttle was used at all times (which was mostly done climbing).
At this rate you'll be lucky if you stick around to engage anything and God forbid if you want to climb to a higher altitude or hit a base further away. High altitude terrains like Trinity and Mindanao are going to be painful!
I tried the same with the P51D, heavy, 100% and it had nearly double the range of the Typhoon.
I don't know how the fuel burn rate affects the other aircraft but all I can see is that it's going to have a detrimental effect on game play. Planes good on fuel can fly around full throttle etc., yet planes with limited range will have to fly reduced throttle and be at a disadvantage if engaged.
Of course we'll most likely get used to it but I'd be more happy with the same settings as AH1.
-
I did test quickly tonight :
50 % yak vs 50% P51 (I'm using the 51 as a example not that I hate this plane :))
One plane is <"easy mode no-brainer"> plane with the other I was just not able to RTB even monitoring my fuel.
I'm sorry to say I think you wasted ressources making the E6B it serve nothing.
The plane that would have took advantage of this cannot .
For the other planes it's just not necessary to bother with fuel management.
I still don't understand the need of the burn multiplier at 2.
If set at 1 the p51 pilots will have the option to put 25%or 50% fuel.
If set at 2 I won't ever have the option to have 150%, 175% fuel
-
Would your test be so different if we ran with no multiplier and a 1:1 scale map? You fly from England to France in a Typhoon, drop some bombs, do some strafing, and come back sucking fumes. You then do the same thing in a P-51 and find that you still have plenty of fuel to spare. Is that a surprising result?
-
re max endurance.........
There are some very long legged ac that will never really be effected even at 2 FBM...........
There are some short legged ac that are effected at 1 FBM............. these same short legged ac are not only affected at 2 FBM...........in my opinion they are penalised
In these ac you simply cannot have more than 1 or at best 2 fights remote from base field before you are forced to rtb......... often if you enter combat with less than half a tank (whilst a sector out) it is more than likely you will not get back............ indeed if combat is extended there is a high likely hood that even entering it with half a tank could cause you to run out of fuel mid combat.
What ever the FBM is, folk will generally (IMO) choose a tank capacity that will allow them to travel a sector have 2 or 3 fights and travel a sector back. Or there abouts (unless defending a base).
Given fuel management they will be able to start lighter, fight lighter and manage fuel to extend their return. All benefits of fuel management.
Hence fuel management still has a benefit at lower (actual) FBM's whether it be a P51 or an La5FN.
However set the FBM too high and some ac cant do this at all.......they are denied the opportunity to enjoy combat beyond a certain non historical range and time of endurance.
Map scaling
Obviously in certain parts of most maps fields are closer than would have ever occurred and this masks the endurance issues at full tank capacities..........i would point out that it applies to part tank capacities as much as it ever did.
It would also seem to me that the reason the fields are closer than historical reality is to enable quicker access to combat (and hence more potential combat time) yet a high FBM (for some ac)forces a quicker end to combat (even at 100% tankage) hence more time is spent travelling to and from combat and less is spent in combat
HTC has gone to considerable trouble to make a more accurate fuel capacity and fuel usage model and now (it seems to me) will modify it to bring about the effect of reducing combat time for a group of short legged ac.
It may be that 1.5 is some sort of compromise but in actuality other parts of the FM (once modelled properly) are sacrisacnt.........so why modify this one for game play when it will be utilised at FBM = 1 any way.
-
So, the complaint is that some planes have a negative characteristic in that they either have a high rate of fuel consumption or a low fuel capacity, or both. And this causes said planes to operate at a disadvantage.
As such, fans of said planes would like this negative characteristic of said planes to be rendered a non issue, or at least somewhat mitigated.
So while they are removing a disadvantage from your favorite ride that was designed in as a negative characteristic in the real palne, what negative characteristics that cause a disadvantage for the other planes should be removed from the other planes?
Oh, I see. It wouldn't be right to make slower planes faster, or less agile planes more agile, but it would be okay to artificially increase the relative operating combat radius of planes with small fuel tanks or high fuel consumption. That makes PERFECT sense.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
The fuel multiplier is the same for every plane. Just like the distance between bases is. Just like the wind. Just like the elevation. Seems reasonable to me.
-
The flight duration is artificially short in ratio for the short laegged aircraft at altitude, other than that you are correct.
-
Kweassa I don't think a single moment this idea will be implemented.
This idea is about 4 year old now.
I strongly think you should start a separate thread to lobby about this. It is a good idea, and a BALANCING idea.
Obviously if "realism", or "realism molded into gameplay settings" is the issue, then as much as short-legged planes suffer from their realistic shortcomings, the long-legged planes should abide by the logic of fuel management.
No plane in real life would fly with a half-empty tank, and use the DTs only on the climb out. The DTs are an aid to a plane's range when it cannot commute the distance with inboard fuel alone.
Having a 50% tank to assist in a fight, and casually dumping off DTs which was not required in the first place, is purely gamey approach.
So, if a long-legged plane wants to fly around with a 50% tank for short range fights - ok, fine. No problem.
But if they want to really fly around some more and still fight, then choose max fuel load. If max fuel load isn't enough(which is a rare thing to happen), then ok, use DTs.
-
I think that requiring 100% fuel before allowing droptanks is a very good idea.
-
Same....
Please make 100% internal fuel a requirement for carrying a DT....
The bigger issue with the high fuel mod is that if like in AH1 the fuel pork and auger mentality manifests itself there will no point to flying aircraft like yaks, 109s, las etc... 25% fuel isnt enough to circle the field
On mil power (100% throttle) w/ 25% fuel
109 F4, G2, G6 = 7 min of fuel
205 = 8 min
190a5 = 6 min
La5FN and La7 = 5 min
Spit 9 = 6 min
Yak 9t and 9u = 7 min
Typh = 6 min.
These are just a few I checked.....
I admit its a double edged sword. The lower the fuel mod the less fuel most Ami planes will take. They will always be at 50 or 25% looking to get the advantage of lighter weight.
I said before I think all planes ought to be forced to take 100% fuel and if they choose a DT. Of course you would have to address fuel porking (ie make it impossible). If thosde who fly US planes wanna fight light let them fly around for a few hours burning off fuel.
I doudt HT would go that way so at the very least force folks to take 100% internal if they want a dt...
With out addressing fuel porking and keeping a high fuel mod we will see nothing but Ami planes in the main...
It would suck worse then the AH main...
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Would your test be so different if we ran with no multiplier and a 1:1 scale map? You fly from England to France in a Typhoon, drop some bombs, do some strafing, and come back sucking fumes. You then do the same thing in a P-51 and find that you still have plenty of fuel to spare. Is that a surprising result?
Cannot disagree it's true.
My concern is more the use of DT to extend the range without the drawback of fuel management.
The fuel porking is not a problem if there is not enought fuel I'll switch field or plane or both.
But why can some have fantasy loadout and so negating fuel management ?
I'll post later my thought and like Kweassa said make another thread.
btw Pyro I hope you don't take my post bad it's not a critic of the game nor a whine (well at least for me :)) it's just some suggestions.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
So, the complaint is that some planes have a negative characteristic in that they either have a high rate of fuel consumption or a low fuel capacity, or both. And this causes said planes to operate at a disadvantage.
As such, fans of said planes would like this negative characteristic of said planes to be rendered a non issue, or at least somewhat mitigated.
So while they are removing a disadvantage from your favorite ride that was designed in as a negative characteristic in the real palne, what negative characteristics that cause a disadvantage for the other planes should be removed from the other planes?
Oh, I see. It wouldn't be right to make slower planes faster, or less agile planes more agile, but it would be okay to artificially increase the relative operating combat radius of planes with small fuel tanks or high fuel consumption. That makes PERFECT sense.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
The fuel multiplier is the same for every plane. Just like the distance between bases is. Just like the wind. Just like the elevation. Seems reasonable to me.
I don't think you've read the posts in this thread closely enought.
It increase the effect of some negative characteristic not make them realistic.
-
having (historical) range limitations to some planes will result in using other planes for long range raids. If you want to fly 2.5 sectors to attack a base and RTB you'll have to use mossies or p-38 or A20 as jabbos instead of a typhoon.
or even better - use bombers and long range escorts.
Bozon
-
Batz,
I don't think that 100% fuel should be required, but 100% fuel should be required in order to take droptanks.
No more P-51s taking 25% and droptanks because they know that using the drop tanks to get them to the target and dumping them leaves them light enough to fight more effectively and still return to base.
If you simply force 100% then all long range aircraft will simply fly around at full MIL power all the time. If you are in a P-51, A6M, Bf110, Mossie, Ta152 or P-38 why not? That would give them an advantage out of the gate over any Bf109, Fw190, Spit or Tiffy that was forced to fly on minimum consumption settings.
-
If you simply force 100% then all long range aircraft will simply fly around at full MIL power all the time. If you are in a P-51, A6M, Bf110, Mossie, Ta152 or P-38 why not? That would give them an advantage out of the gate over any Bf109, Fw190, Spit or Tiffy that was forced to fly on minimum consumption settings.
They do that now. As Straffo said above planes like the Typh with a high cruise speed get no advantage because aircraft with large fuel capacity simply fly at mil power all the time. But they do it with less then 100%. So they get the advantage of less weight, higher cruise and longer range.
The only planes right now that fly at cruise setting are those ac with limited fuel capacity and no DTs....
The fuel porking is not a problem if there is not enought fuel I'll switch field or plane or both
Its not a problem now. In the Ah1 main it is. Of the 3 times I checked in over the past 10 days almost every field had fuel porked. A 50 mile flight with a 100% fuel isnt going to give you any more combat time then upping with 25% fuel at a front line field for 8 min. You just get an added 15 min long boring flight.
In AH2 my clipboard favorites only have 3 planes, F4 G2 and G6. I dont care about flying anything else so it doesnt matter if I switch planes, they all get the same fuel consumption (or close to it).
-
As Straffo said above planes like the Typh with a high cruise speed get no advantage because aircraft with large fuel capacity simply fly at mil power all the time. But they do it with less then 100%. So they get the advantage of less weight, higher cruise and longer range.
This is not exactly true.
The P-47/38 for instance have a great range not because of fuel efficiency. Far from it, they are gas hogs, but also flying tankers. The extra range comes at the cost of extra weight.
The 109 is the only plane (that i fly) in which i take 100% even in AHI. it simply has a tiny fuel tank (106 gallons for the G2). The Jug on the other hand can load up 370 gallons!! that's right. more than 3 times the 109's fuel load. The p-38 takes 410 gallons (that's 205 per engine - twice than the 109).
so the 109 never carries more fuel than the jug, and if they load up the same ammount (in gallons, not presentage) the 109 will probably fly longer than the jug.
Even if jugs load only 50% that's still 80% more fuel than the 109's max fuel load.
Bozon
edit:
just checked the typhoon's fuel tank. 185 little gallons. you can safly load it 100% and have the 50% fuel load of the jug.
-
I dont know what it is you are telling me...?
Far from it, they are gas hogs, but also flying tankers. The extra range comes at the cost of extra weight.
That is what I said....
aircraft with large fuel capacity simply fly at mil power all the time. But they do it with less then 100%. So they get the advantage of less weight, higher cruise and longer range.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Would your test be so different if we ran with no multiplier and a 1:1 scale map? You fly from England to France in a Typhoon, drop some bombs, do some strafing, and come back sucking fumes. You then do the same thing in a P-51 and find that you still have plenty of fuel to spare. Is that a surprising result?
Well, if you want to make it a realistic flight simulator then make it into a real flight simulator with everything else that we're missing. On one hand you're saying how you want to improve enagements and have bases closer together (not realistic) and then the next you're increasing burn rate so the chances of engagements are made even less tangiable.
Any chance of the rockets/DTs available at same time?
I'd go for burn rate x2 in the TOD but definitely not in the Classic.
-
Fuel measured as a arbitrary percentage of storage capacity, rather than an actual measured amount (pound/gallons) is a economical programing method with game play complications.
The problem is the measurement system. Fixable? That is way beyond my pay grade, but it seems to me we should be loading pounds or gallons instead of percentages.
-
Originally posted by Zanth
Fuel measured as a arbitrary percentage of storage capacity, rather than an actual measured amount (pound/gallons) is a economical programing method with game play complications.
The problem is the measurement system. Fixable? That is way beyond my pay grade, but it seems to me we should be loading pounds or gallons instead of percentages.
I agree. By using gallons per plane available on an airfield instead of a percentage the light interceptors would still get the fuel they need to defend the base, but the base would still be heavily reduced in its ability to launch offensive operations. The reason fuel poking is such a menace in the MA is because it destroys the ability to defend the bases with the planes designed for the job.
When the fuel is all up the availability should be "unlimited", and as each tank gets destroyed the availability drops. First it will affect bombers, then the long-range and /or fuel thirsty fighters. Each pilot should be given an equal amount fuel no matter what plane he flies.
-
Most of this comes down to people using planes in ways which they were not intended.
Hopefully the fuel thing will help people understand why a plane that may not have been the fastest or the best cannons was in fact a very competent aircraft during the war.
dogfighting 190s with a typhoon may be possible and even a reasonable thing to do if you have an alt advantage, enough fuel to make it home, and friends around. Dogfighting in a typhoon on fumes over german occupied france was probably not a good idea.
-
I give up.
It's a waste of time.
-
I'm confused. What does this have to do with defining input or ouput? :confused:
Okay, I'm probably going to either get banned or banged over the head for this, but here goes:
I think Pyro (et al) has already thought this through (because this is what he does for a living and I don't believe it was an aribtrary decision...) and is letting you know that it is an intended part of AH2 game play. His only question was a rhetorical one.
We will have to select and adapt to the aircraft strengths and weaknesses as they are/were.
(Please note that I said "I think..." because I am not trying to speak for Pyro or anyone. Please do not stab, shoot, fold, spindle or mutilate me.)
Oh God, I'm going to be in soooo much trouble... :(
-
Pyro - The larger fuel burn rate is not just there to give a purpose to managing your engine and fuel. Range and endurance are crucial characteristics of these planes. We want that to be a factor in the game but we don't want people to have to fly for an hour or more just to get into a fight.
The multiplier begs the question of "is the cure worse than the disease?":
- You want to handicap the flight time of long range aircraft a bit, but the trouble is you also disporportionately hit planes which can ill afford it.
- A multiplier also alters the flight model of aircraft. Planes have a heavier "fighting weight" than they would otherwise have, and the weight changes on a more compressed time curve.
First off this question has to be looked at from the perspective of the MA separately from the perspective of a historical set-up or event - these are two entirely different environments. In the MA I don't think we care where a plane came from or how many miles it flew to get there. What matters is a reasonably competitive fight and not much (anything?) else. It is the feeling of many that the multiplier does not accomplish this, and I tend to agree
If the flight to target is a critical concern, then give the long range aircraft a minimum fuel loading to reflect this. Otherwise I am very much in favor of a return to accurate fuel consumption.
P.S.(as well as loading gallons/pounds not percentages of fuel)
-
I wouldn't mind a restriction on DTs although I think that's a perceived problem more than a real one.
I won't argue about us not using historical distances in the MA. If you don't already understand why that's done, I doubt I can convince you.
It's a mistake to say I want to handicap long range planes. The long range planes are beneficiaries of this, relatively speaking. The planes are going to be short, medium, or long ranged according to what trade-offs the designer made. All I'm doing is redefining what short, medium, and long range is in the game.
-
Originally posted by Batz
I dont know what it is you are telling me...?
"aircraft with large fuel capacity simply fly at mil power all the time. But they do it with less then 100%. So they get the advantage of less weight, higher cruise and longer range."
That is what I said....
read it again. there's no advantage of less weight. the only advantage is the longer range and none more.
planes that did not require any range were designed like hotrods. just take a look at the La7. an unbeliveable preformer, but had hardly the fuel endurance to take off, climb just a little, reach the border and come home.
Bozon
-
Pyro I did the following tonight :
-up in a D9 75% fuel + DT
-climbed with wep to 15K
-at 15K I stopped wep
-over the enemy field I droped my DT
-killed 4 guys
-RTB
Never I had to worry about fuel I never looked the gauge, and was still having gaz after landing.
Now with a lower multiplier I'll have a D9 less nimble/maneuvrable because of fuel overload or I'm mistaken ?
And to avoid flying an overloaded plane I would have been forced to take less fuel and so forced to managed fuel.
What do you think of having multiplier at 1 or 1.5 but in the hangar giving access to some lower loadout like 10%-15%-20% ?
In this case it won't be the arena setting that will force (or not for some planes) the player to manage fuel but more the player that will be force himself to manage fuel or not.
@Bozon : you likely don't have read about the Russian front it was not uncomon for the Russian pilot to see their airfield shelled...
For example in the case of the Normandie-Niemen they had to evacuate their new homefield where they landed the in the morning because some german tank were still near ...
Why would have the russian needed planes able to fly long range when it was not their doctrine ?
-
Straffo, you would be taking away the advantage of long range, that some planes had.
As to the less nimble question, if burn multiplier was less, you would just take off with 25 or 50 instead of 75. After tank drop would be even more nimble.
HiTech
-
Hitech, my problem is not the range difference, but the time difference. Such as it is in AHII now I have less than 20 min in my 109 with 100% fuel. Now with fuel management that can be extended quite a bit, however I can't use fuel management in a climb. The most fuel economical way to climb is on WEP.
A typical 109 flight for me with a droptank would be T/O and climb to 25K (6-7 min) cruise while looking for prey (limited to 10 minutes to reserve fuel for RTB), engage enemy (limited to 5 min), extend and climb to conserve fuel (5 min), RTB and land (10 min). It's the climbing part and actual combat that sucks most of my fuel. The cruising part where I can use fuel management is trivial.
Point interceptors are harshly punished by the burn multiplier because the arena is not "compressed" in the vertical. In real life the P-51 could cruise for ages, true, but the point interceptors like the 109 and Spitfire had plenty of fuel to do their job, namely climb, find the enemy and fight. Now I'm limited to about 5 min combat time. There is no realism in this.
-
Just to compare:
La7 WEP 100% fuel 17 mins
La7 mil 100% fuel 21 mins
La5 WEP 100% fuel 17 mins
La5 mil 100% fuel 21 mins
190D9 WEP 100% fuel 17 mins
190D9 mil 100% fuel 26 mins
190D9 WEP 100% fuel + DT 28 mins
190D9 mil 100% fuel + DT 41 mins
Typhoon WEP 100% fuel 20 mins
Typhoon mil 100% fuel 24 mins
Typhoon WEP 100% fuel + DTs 30 mins
Typhoon mil 100% fuel +DTs 36 mins
109G10 WEP 100% fuel 25 mins
109G10 mil 100% fuel 25 mins
109G10 WEP 100% fuel + DT 43 mins
109G10 mil 100% fuel +DT 43 mins
109G6 WEP 100% fuel 25 mins
109G6 mil 100% fuel 30 mins
109G6 WEP 100% fuel + DT 43 mins
109G6 mil 100% fuel + DT 52 mins
P47D30 WEP 100% fuel 33 mins
P47D30 mil 100% fuel 40 mins
P47D30 WEP 100% fuel + 3 DTs 53 mins
P47D30 mil 100% fuel + 3 DTs 65 mins
La7, D9, Typh and G10, all with 100% are more or less in the same league.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
A typical 109 flight for me with a droptank would be T/O and climb to 25K (6-7 min) cruise while looking for prey (limited to 10 minutes to reserve fuel for RTB), engage enemy (limited to 5 min), extend and climb to conserve fuel (5 min), RTB and land (10 min). It's the climbing part and actual combat that sucks most of my fuel. The cruising part where I can use fuel management is trivial.
Originally posted by GODO
109G10 WEP 100% fuel + DT 43 mins
109G10 mil 100% fuel +DT 43 mins
That leaves me a 6 min reserve in my example above, unless I do a lot of loitering at cruise.
-
Can I have about 40 mph on the hurricane 1? Then I could fight with other planes more easily.
Pyro/hitech, why exactly is land compressed in the horizontal?
I think some people are not realizing that enemy planes will also suffer these issues. Which enemy planes do you worry about the most? la7 g10 yak9u 190d9... so on.
-
I'm not worried about any plane in particular. I'm annoyed because I'm restricted to furballing or hunting with 5 min of combat unless I take a KC-10 along. I'll take the 5 min if that's what I get, but I'd prefer a bit more.
-
My only problem with P-51s and other long range aircraft taking 25%+DTs is this:
A Spitfire Mk IX or Bf109G-10 and a P-51D are on climbout. The Spit/109 has 100% fuel+DT and the P-51D has 25% fuel+DT. During the climbout they meet an unexpected raid and both aircraft drop tanks. Now the Spit/109 is at a fully laden 100% internal fuel load and the P-51 is at a light 25% fuel load. That is a combat advantage that never would have happened as DTs never would have been used without maxing out the internal capacity.
It is fine to offer less than 100% fuel loads and it is mostly fine (except for altitude) to have FBM of 2, but the long range aircraft should suffer their penalties right along side the short ranged fighters. They should not be able to dump DTs in an unexpected combat situation and find themselves in an extremely light configuration where the short ranged fighters cannot do so.
-
Karnak, I have a feeling that the 100% to load drop tanks will be added. It is such a sensible fix for such a gamey problem, there is no way they cannot implement it. Historically you were supposed to bring the empty drop tank back if you could. So I doubt they were as disposable as they are in AH.
As far as furballing and hunting, you should really give it a shot. I found it thrilling and original. I took a 205 up tonight, climbed to 20k (e6b said 17 minutes of flight when I got to alt), then throttled back to 2100 and man 31.4, just as the e6b suggested. This gave me 41 - 50 minutes of flight time. I was able to get myself into a massive furball, get two kills, and then die a terrible terrible death. All together I was in the air for nearly 45 minutes. I was wep and full throttle for the last 8-15 minutes.
I thought it was perfect.
btw
I had to cross 1.5 sectors to get to the fight.
I could have upped closer but I wanted to get some alt. I did climb at wep and mil after 13k.
I think the issue is that 'you' are not learning how to fly the plane, but just gaming the game you knew before.
edit>
I was planning on returning to base by the way. I think I would have had enough fuel if I had really crept along. Not sure though, as I was in it really deep for quite a while and did not look at the fuel gauge.
-
There's no advantage of less weight.
Yes there is, a Jug at 50% fuel weighs less then one at 100%. Relative weight between the 2 is not in question. Some planes just weigh more regardless of fuel load. That’s not what I said at all. If you follow the context of my reply you see I was responding to Karnak when he said
If you simply force 100% then all long range aircraft will simply fly around at full MIL power all the time.
My reply to that specific point was that they do this anyway now but with less then 100% internal by carrying drop tanks.
If you take a dt and 50% fuel, as you said, you get the benefit of longer range(Dt) and once you drop the tank you get the advantage of the reduced weight (50% fuel as opposed to 75 or 100) during combat. With the Dt you can fly at mil power the whole time so you get the advantage of a high speed "cruise".
The typh otoh hand may burn more fuel and have less then 100% when it reaches combat but does so at reduced range and duration (combat time). The only way to gain range is to reduce cruise speed and restrict combat time.
Leaving it at 2 is fine as long as the planes with low fuel capacity can still take off with 100% fuel. If the fuel tanks at the fields stay the target of suicide players then there’s no reason for me to bother flying in the main if the choice is between long flight times from rear bases (effectively limiting combat time but with added boredom of a longer flight; Read GS’s flight profile) or upping for 6 min sorties at a front line field that has its fuel porked.
I was all for what Pyro talked about in Vulcan’s “engine management thread”. But after actually flying under those restrictions I realized that it effects the planes I fly with reduced combat time, and/or slower cruise speeds and the effects of fuel porking on my choice of rides make the AH2 main less attractive then AH1s.
IL2/FB may use the artificial “fly XX min at XX power setting or your eng will over heat” but there’s no fuel mod. Players fly at reduced power settings to keep their eng cool so that when they enter combat they can fight longer at full power. I had thought that the way fuel management was being modeled in AH2 that it would be a better solution and that players would fly at lower power settings to conserve fuel so that when they enter combat they can fight longer at full power. Well the result is only some planes are effected while others are not. The planes affected are the planes I fly.
-
What's it gonna take to make some of you guys happy?
Keep the fuel burn multiplier at 2 for planes with longer range or more fuel capacity than your ride, but make the burn rate 1:1 on your planes?
This has gotten way out of hand, IMO. The fuel burn rate affects all planes.
Guys who took a light Pony with 25% fuel in the AHI MA find themselves out of fuel twice as fast in the new arena. So, they have to load up with more fuel to get to the fight, and watch their fuel more closely than they might be used to. If they fly around at full throttle and don't practice fuel conservation they too run out of fuel. Just like you do in your 109's, but a Pony driver has the advantage of being in a plane that was renowned for it's long range.
You, by your own choice of planes, limit your sortie times. You see it as being unfair to your rides, when in actuality, it just amplifies the fact that your planes were short range planes in real life, and sortie times were generally short. Very short in comparison to the time spent in the air by USAAF fighter pilots on escort duty.
Might I suggest being less flexible in your choice of planes? If you are too stuck in a "I only like to fly 109's" mode, and refuse to fly anything else, you are pretty much the source of your own aggravation, and you can only blame yourself.
-
Might I suggest being less flexible in your choice of planes?
No you cant suggest anything to me...
I fly what I want, you can do the same...
The p51 maybe renowned for long range then make him fly long range to burn off fuel if he wants to fight at reduced fuel weight.
Setting up the arena just so that planes like the p51 are 90% of the players restricts my choice just as much as my own descision in only flying 109s or the guy that only flies yaks, spits or typhies etc... The difference is its fun to fly 109s...
So save the self rightious bs...
-
AHII = Pee51 only sim ;)
-
eddiek,
I fly a long range aircraft. The current settings benefit me.
-
Originally posted by eddiek
Might I suggest being less flexible in your choice of planes? If you are too stuck in a "I only like to fly 109's" mode, and refuse to fly anything else, you are pretty much the source of your own aggravation, and you can only blame yourself.
Why should I be forced to play in a p51 ?
This plane got ZERO interrest for me , nor historical neither the way it fly.
Same for almost all long range fighters like the Japanese or the American.
I'm a interrested only in 2nd TAF planes or Russian planes I did already gave up on the Yak in the AH1 main because of fuel issue.
I'm interrested in short ranged interceptor because it's the way I play or played if this game become a long range fighter only sim
Should I stay or should I go ?
You fail to see the difference I explained in a previous post : one of the advantage the typhoon had was her high cruise speed but this high cruise speed is lower than the MIL of the others ...
-
Originally posted by hitech
Straffo, you would be taking away the advantage of long range, that some planes had.
I'll try to find a proposal to not give advantage to one or another kind of plane (note that I'm sure you already tought of it :)) and not to difficult to implement.
As to the less nimble question, if burn multiplier was less, you would just take off with 25 or 50 instead of 75. After tank drop would be even more nimble.
HiTech [/B]
Thanks :)
Btw it's not a problem I think ,knive fight are rare in the arena.
-
Think the 1.5 compromise would be ok and agree with the 100% fuel to get a drop tank. Even with the 1.5 I think the minimum fuel available at a porked field should be 50% (call them underground tanks) ;) My $.02
-
Straffo, no one is forcing anyone to fly anything. I don't fly Ponies myself.....my ride of choice is the P-47, which is a notorious fuel hog. The fuel multiplier affects me too. I have to load out max fuel internally to get to alt and make it over to a fight, then hope I can rtb before my fuel runs out.
Cutting the multiplier back to 1.5 or so would seem to be the difference, giving the short range planes more sortie time.
I also agree with making 100% internal fuel a requirement if you wanna take drop tanks.
My point is that we seem to have folks who are thinking how unfair things are for them, and they fail to realize that they are being confronted with similiar issues as their heroes of WWII faced. From most accounts of German pilots who went up to confront the USAAF bomber streams, they had fuel to get to alt, get set up, make one, two, maybe three passes, then it was time to rtb and refuel so they could hit the buffs after they were headed home. They didn't have a lot of loiter time either.
-
I don't get it.. 109g6 in Ah2 has longer endurance than in AH1.. using the 2.0 setting, without setting for max cruise. whats the problem?
-
Ok Eddie I perhaps misunderstood.
Sorry I've not the time to make a long post.
Virage try some other plane like a slow climber fuel hog (aka typhoon)
-
I really dont see this as a problem.
How bout we give it a shot, then if there is a problem, htc fixes it.
personally i think the 100% only for drop tank, fixes all of this. If in fact there is a problem.
-
I agree with having the X2 multiplier to fuel burn, however I also agree with what a few others have said about damaged Fuel stores ahistorically hampering shorter ranged fighters.
When a field is restricted to 50% fuel loads,
A P-38 for example can load up on 200+ gallons of fuel in this condition, but a Bf109 is restricted to 50 gallons?? That doesn't seem right to me.
I think it would really balance this out if, instead of the fuel stores limiting % of fuel load. They instead limited gallons available per aircraft. Translating to % for the GUI of course.
This way if a field is really damaged down to 100 gallons per aircraft. P-38's could only get 25% load, but 109's would still be loading close to 100%.
This would compliment the multiplier well I think, and be the best of both worlds. Sure the long range fighters can stay up longer if they can carry 100% fuel, but at front line airfields where damage runs high. They'll be really at near the same limits as short range aircraft.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Great idea!
25% - 50% - 75% - 100% - 100% +DT
Or simply make the DTs unavailable unless 100% is selected.
Thats my vote!
-
Point interceptors are harshly punished by the burn multiplier because the arena is not "compressed" in the vertical. In real life the P-51 could cruise for ages, true, but the point interceptors like the 109 and Spitfire had plenty of fuel to do their job, namely climb, find the enemy and fight. Now I'm limited to about 5 min combat time. There is no realism in this.
point interceptor are point interceptors. they climb and patrol (in cruise settings) and engage the enemy near their own teritory. you have enough fuel for that.
taking 100% fuel while others take 50% is NOT a disadvantage. as I stated before, 100% of a 109 fuel tank is less than 50% of a p47 fuel tank in gallons. People should not be afraid to load up their planes and take DT. the 109 will never be good for long range raids - it's an interceptor, same goes for the La7 and partially to spitfires. that was true historically (109's short legs in BoB, spitfires short legs in 1943).
one of the advantage the typhoon had was her high cruise speed but this high cruise speed is lower than the MIL of the others ...
Yes, and one of the disadvantages of the typhoon was it's short range. You can still cruise in full throttle, but there's a price to pay. loading up 100% fuel in the typhi is not such a big problem since it's only 185 gallons, and you can take DT for the climbout. Just don't expect to fly 2.5 sectors at full throttle fight for 20 min and come back. It's not the planes purpose - and it can't load 8000 pound of bombs either.
Bozon
-
btw, this also means that defenders will have the weight advantage since attackers will have to keep a lot of fuel for the trip back, especially if it's a long range raid.
the "fly under dar 4 sectors and steal a base" missions are going to be hard, or one way only.
Bozon
-
My own opinion, not that it matters much, is that the "problem" is just a matter of perception.
Plane A is a short range interceptor, with low internal fuel capacity.
Plane B is a long range escort fighter, with a large internal fuel capacity.
Seems to me that the 2:1 burn rate would possible be advantageous to the interceptor pilot as he would be much lighter sooner than the heavier escort fighter.
Plane A takes off from base A1 and flies north to Point X.
Plane B takes off from base A22 and flies northeast to Point X.
Both planes take off with 100% internal fuel and one drop tank.
At Point X, Plane A has burned his DT and is on internal fuel, and is at 22K alt, with say 75% fuel remaining.
Meanwhile, Plane B arrives at Point X at 15K alt, he has dropped his DT also, but he is still at nearly 100% internal fuel.
Who has the advantage when they meet?
IMHO, it is Plane A.......he has an alt advantage, he is lighter, and he can translate his alt advantage into speed.
Let's go further.......
Plane A attacks Plane B, makes an unsuccessful pass, and the two begin dogfighting. Let's say the pilots are of equal skill, and neither can really gain an advantage and finish the fight.
Soon, the advantage might swing toward Plane B. He is getting lighter the longer he flies, yet he has a large enough fuel reserve to stay airborne longer than Plane A, who is getting close to the point of having to rtb or risk running out of fuel. He also is lighter and more nimble, but fuel is now a critical issue for him.
To me, there is nothing unfair about any of it.
I choose to fly a Jug, which climbs slow, is not as nimble as other fighters, doesn't have spectacular range, etc....but my choice to fly it MINE alone, and I have to accept the drawbacks of the plane. I stress the point that it is MY choice, I am not forced to fly that plane. I accept the fact that if I want to get to the Jug's "sweet" alt, I will have to take max fuel and start out one or two sectors away from the fight. Again, my choice of plane means I have to accept this.
That was what I meant with my remark about being more flexible in choosing your rides. You only wanna fly a particular plane, fine, your choice, but you need to accept that plane's weaknesses along with it's strengths. If it was range limited, accept that and stop trying to get HTC to cater to you because you perceive things as being unfair to you. I don't come here crying to HTC because the Jug doesn't climb like a 109 (even though I would love to see an M model, which I believe could give a 109 driver fits....lol ) or turn like a Spit or Zeke. I adapt to what my favorite ride can and cannot do and go on.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Virage try some other plane like a slow climber fuel hog (aka typhoon)
straffo, my remark was for those complaining about the 109. However I did check out the tiffy as you suggested:
Mil power
AH1 : 100% = 27 min
+DT = 40 min
AH2 : 100% = 24 min
+DT = 35 min
*(on deck times)
Not much of a difference, which would average out with alt.
-
I think part of the percieved problem here is just as Bozon said...point interceptors being used to prowl enemy territory. That is not the role the aircraft designers had in mind when they mated a high performance engine to a light weight airframe and installed smallish fuel tanks.
If you are a 109 fan, immerse yourself into the historical role of that aircraft (at least the latter models), don't blame HTC for this, blame Willy Messerschmidt.
If you are a Typhie driver, go in low and fast, hit your target and get out hoping the point interceptors don't see you down there (icons range could be lowerd if below 1,000 feet if you ask me). Don't climb to 20K looking for a dogfight, that is not what the plane was for.
I don't see a huge issue here but would also throw my vote to the 1.5 modifier, at least on the long-commute maps.
-
You said what I wanted to without getting all long winded like I tend to do.
I fly just about all the planes in the AH stable, but I do gravitate towards the Jugs. I am flexible enough to fly the plane that suits what I want to do on a particular sortie, and that sometimes means getting into a 109 and grabbing alt in a hurry, even though I have no affection for that ride beyond it's sterling climb rate.
Other's mileage may vary, depending on how fanatical they are about their favorite planes.
-
My point is that we seem to have folks who are thinking how unfair things are for them, and they fail to realize that they are being confronted with similiar issues as their heroes of WWII faced.
No one is talking about the historical context of escorts vs. short ranged interceptors. These issues are dealt with in events and scenarios.
We talking about what the artificial fuel burn rate should be in the non-historical context like the main arena and its impact on fun.
2 versions of your preferred plane, the jug, in AH carry 3 drop tanks. An aircraft like a Yak 9u at 100% internal and with the fuel mod at 2 only gets 28 min of flight time at mil power. At 1 it gets 55 min.
With the fuel mod at 2 the D30 with 3 dts and just 25% fuel gets 24 min. No one cares why or how jugs historically could carry more fuel. No one said take fuel away from the jug or give the yak more.
The point of this thread was about what the fuel mod should be. At 1 or 2 the impact on planes like the p51s and jugs is less then the impact on planes like the 9u. Especially if you consider fuel porking.
No one said give the yak and the 109s more fuel then they had in reality or the jug less, we are just talking about how to balance the fuel mod so that those folks who prefer to fly yaks and 109s can do so.
Virage,
What are talking about?
No one said that the fuel mod set at 2 in AH2 is worse then if the fuel mod is set at 2 in AH1.
We are talking about what the fuel mod should be. I think it should stay at 1.5.
In addition I like the idea of requiring 100% internal fuel to add DTS.
Ideally I think all planes should be required to take off with 100% fuel but we know HT won’t do that.
-
It's fundamentally shakey ground whenever you stray from the path of realism in the flight model. Aircraft losing weight at 2x the actual rate changes things. Having higher initial takeoff wieght changes things. Aircraft fighting with DT's on changes things.
I feel realism is best and messed around with is always less.
(Put to an in arena vote 1:1 would win with 90% of the vote or more.)
-
Originally posted by Batz
No one said that the fuel mod set at 2 in AH2 is worse then if the fuel mod is set at 2 in AH1.
Actually in AH1 the fuel model for the lavochkins (for one) is porked.......it gives them unrealistically longer endurance. Hence higher fuel burn rates in AH1 do not penalise these particular short legged AC as they should.
HTC has just gone to a lot of trouble to get the Fuel consumption model much better than it was..........
Now the higher FBM's will penalise such models in terms of access to combat............. so in this respect FBM of 2 in AH2 is worse than FBM of 2 in AH1.
What surprises me is that this does not seem to follow the usual HTC ethos..........
It is unusual for HTC to modify AH game play (away from reality) to force a negative consequence........... but this does.
It is usual for HTC when modifying game play (away from reality) to permit ease of play.
It is also usual for HTC when modifying game play away from reality to give optional access to the reality with an attached benefit.
I have not seen anything to change my reasoning posted previously above.
Re drop tanks
I would agree that drop tanks would logically only be available when 100% fuel was selected
On fuel attrition.
When a field is porked down to 25% fuel an La5fn can only take up just over 31 gal of fuel yet a P47D can take up over 92 gals of fuel.
Perhaps if HTC are determined to penalise the short legged ac HTC should also consider the gas guzzlers as well????????
An attrition model based on actual gals available per AC would be far more equitable........... to a fuel conservation model.........than one based upon a % of each AC's max internal capacity.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Virage,
What are talking about?
No one said that the fuel mod set at 2 in AH2 is worse then if the fuel mod is set at 2 in AH1.
I am saying that the fuel mod in AH2 set at 2 is better ( longer duration) than the fuel mod in AH1 set at 1.5 for the 109g6.
AH1 @ 100% = 25 min @ 1.5
AH2 @ 100% = 30 min @ 2.0 ( on deck)
I don't know what you are complaining about.
-
just checked a few numbers:
in fuel burb rate of 2, tested the duration and GPH of several planes, both in full throttle and at the "normal" setting for fast cruise:
The short legged:
La7 - 340 GPH, 21 min (only internal).
normal - 232 GPH ~ 45% increased duration, range ~ 150 miles (6 sectors trip).
yak9U - 300 GPH, 28 min (internal only).
normal - 250 GPH ~ 20% increase. range ~ 150miles.
109G2 - 212GPH, 52 min (including DT).
normal - 177GPH ~ 20% increase.
* the G10 doesn't have the new fuel model yet.
Typhoon - 456 GPH, 36min (with DT)
normal - 365GPH ~25% increase.
longer legged ones:
spit IX - 252GPH, 43 min (with DT).
normal - 193GPH ~30% increase ~range 240 miles (about 9 sectors trip)
P51D - 300GPH, 50 min (internal, DT available)
normal - 179GPH ~65% increase(!)
the true flying tankers:
P38L - 668(!)GPH, 36min (internal only, DT available).
normal - 418 GPH ~60% increase (!)
p47D30 - 550(!) GPH, 40 min (internal, DT available).
normal - 415GPH ~32% increase.
mosquito - 456GPH, 71 min (internal only, DT available)
normal - 327GPH ~40% increase which gives amazing 97min(!)
conclusions:
* the "point intercaptors" (as la7 yak 109) have the range to fly and fight up to 2 sectors at most, with little time to stay. They will have to manage the throttle during the flight ib and back.
* the P51 and p38 can considerably increase their flight time by managing throttle in transition.
* the p47 and p38 eat away at the fuel at an alarming rate! the range is achived by loading up an insane amount of fuel. they are always "fuel heavy" if they keep enough (alot) for the trip back.
* the mossie is the new range king on internal fuel.
* since some designers never bothered to leave some room for fuel in their planes, to make them playable in AH, we do have to go easy on the fuel burn rate. So in order to enable the to participate in a 2 sector radius fights I think the modifier SHOULD be slightly less than 2, but over 1.5 to represent the limitations.
how does 1.75 sound?
Bozon
-
Will AH2: TOD have the same burn ratio as AH2: Classic? Can Classic be set to the current AH1: MA settings and AH2: TOD be the x2 burn?
Karnak wrote:
My only problem with P-51s and other long range aircraft taking 25%+DTs is this:
A Spitfire Mk IX or Bf109G-10 and a P-51D are on climbout. The Spit/109 has 100% fuel+DT and the P-51D has 25% fuel+DT. During the climbout they meet an unexpected raid and both aircraft drop tanks. Now the Spit/109 is at a fully laden 100% internal fuel load and the P-51 is at a light 25% fuel load. That is a combat advantage that never would have happened as DTs never would have been used without maxing out the internal capacity.
It is fine to offer less than 100% fuel loads and it is mostly fine (except for altitude) to have FBM of 2, but the long range aircraft should suffer their penalties right along side the short ranged fighters. They should not be able to dump DTs in an unexpected combat situation and find themselves in an extremely light configuration where the short ranged fighters cannot do so.
I very much agree with this. Reality doesn't work here since a P51 in WW2 would not be carrying 25% fuel; it would most likely be carrying 100% with DTs, yet in AH it will have the advantage of being able to load DTs and only 25% fuel and still have more range than other thirsty aircraft.
If DTs are to be used then the aircraft must be loaded with 100% fuel.
Obviously my main concern is the Typhoon. This is about the only plane I really enjoy flying and if we get terrains where the nearest field is more than 35 - 40 miles away (and at alt) and I want to fly as a Jabo then it's hardly worth flying at all since I doubt I'd RTB. Like Straffo I'm only really interested in 2 TAF (RAF) aircraft and that only leaves the Typhoon and the Mosquito. The RAF have already been penalised in having the Spit14 (supposedly equivalent to P51D and 190D9, but hey the Spit isn't American or German right?) and Tempest perked so what's left? I only really fly Jabo sorties and carrying bombs is going to make the plane use more fuel if flying to a suitable altitude (mostly because the terrains are unrealistically too high - an airfield at 500ft ASL in WW2 was high!!).
-
Originally posted by Virage
I am saying that the fuel mod in AH2 set at 2 is better ( longer duration) than the fuel mod in AH1 set at 1.5 for the 109g6.
AH1 @ 100% = 25 min @ 1.5
AH2 @ 100% = 30 min @ 2.0 ( on deck)
I don't know what you are complaining about.
Non-sense, the 109g6 gets 25 min of fuel in AH1 at with the fuel mod at 2, not 1.5. You can test this yourself.
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/FuelAxMA.jpg)
There were a host of fuel consumption issues in AH1, the 109s were one and the la7, as Tilt points out, was another. The Ju88 is yet another.
I don’t fly in the AH1 main because of fuel issues. Mostly because of fuel porking... I have made similar posts about the fuel mod in AH1 saying it should at least be set to 1 on large maps. I even said that in AH1 all planes should up with 100% fuel at minimum.
So don’t act like this is a recent issue, it’s been long standing. It appears that HT has addressed the consumption issues in AH2.
Now this thread is about AH2 and what the fuel mod should be. I didn't start this thread or even reply until 2 pages in.
Complaints? I stated my reasons for wanting a lower fuel mod. If you don’t like that that put me on your ignore list.
-
since some designers never bothered to leave some room for fuel in their planes, to make them playable in AH, we do have to go easy on the fuel burn rate. So in order to enable the to participate in a 2 sector radius fights I think the modifier SHOULD be slightly less than 2, but over 1.5 to represent the limitations.
how does 1.75 sound?
Still better then 2 :)
Its up to HT though....
-
Originally posted by Batz
I don’t fly in the AH1 main because of fuel issues. Mostly because of fuel porking...
I agree with you completely there Batz (although I do still log 99% of my time in the MA), the fuel porking thing is WAAAAY outta hand. What does the burn rate matter if all bases within 3 sectors of your enemy are down to 25%? Even the Pony cannot up, fight, and hope to RTB with that crazyness. Some times the pork-potatos don;t seem to out in too much force, other times one must decide to switch countries or log off it is so bad.
Since this is the AH2 section lets figure out away to ameliorize this aspect of the gameplay. Are the fuel bunkers going to be hardened or anything? Any talk about limiting the porkability to 50% or so?
-
Originally posted by Pyro
we don't want people to have to fly for an hour or more just to get into a fight.
Then build maps with bases closer together... I predict a LOT of pony raids with this setup - In fact, I witnessed a few yesterday.
-
Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Since this is the AH2 section lets figure out away to ameliorize this aspect of the gameplay. Are the fuel bunkers going to be hardened or anything? Any talk about limiting the porkability to 50% or so?
Yeah, we are going to limit the amount of fuel porkage that can be inflicted on a base. No DT's and 75% fuel will be the most that fuel supplies will be limited to.
-
Great news...
Thanks Pyro!!!!
-
Originally posted by Batz
Non-sense, the 109g6 gets 25 min of fuel in AH1 at with the fuel mod at 2, not 1.5. You can test this yourself.
[
I thought AH1 was 1.5.. my bad. But the durations are as I listed.
Doesn't change my point that in AH2 you have a longer duration for the g6 than in AH1.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
My only problem with P-51s and other long range aircraft taking 25%+DTs is this:
A Spitfire Mk IX or Bf109G-10 and a P-51D are on climbout. The Spit/109 has 100% fuel+DT and the P-51D has 25% fuel+DT. During the climbout they meet an unexpected raid and both aircraft drop tanks. Now the Spit/109 is at a fully laden 100% internal fuel load and the P-51 is at a light 25% fuel load. That is a combat advantage that never would have happened as DTs never would have been used without maxing out the internal capacity.
This scenario keeps being brought up, but I think it's not the issue it is purported to be. You're saying the P-51 has a combat advantage. I don't see it that way. I would take the Spit or 109 in the above example. Here's why.
Let's say this dance takes place at and around 10k. When the 51 discards his tank, at 25% he's left with 62 gallons of fuel. With a 2x multiplier at 10k, his 5 minutes of wep will burn 34 gallons leaving him with 28 gallons which equals 5 minutes of military power until he is a glider.
I find it ironic that people can look at a flight profile of an interceptor that is limited to short amount of combat like that before he is forced to RTB as a big disadvantage and then turn around and say it's a big advantage for the P-51 to limit itself in a worse way that doesn't leave him with any gas for the return trip.
Also, a P-51 would never enter combat at 100% internal fuel, even when carrying drop tanks. In a max fuel loadout on the P-51, the aux tank would be drained before the drop tanks.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Yeah, we are going to limit the amount of fuel porkage that can be inflicted on a base. No DT's and 75% fuel will be the most that fuel supplies will be limited to.
Very good news !
It's enought to please me, my beloved Yak won't be anymore a hangar queen.
-
Karnak,
Your point about the combat advantage for the P-51 over a Spit IX or 109G-10 is actually not an advatage at all but an evening of the playing field that was unrealistic in AH1.
Consider this.
25% fuel
P-51D
Gallons 269 total
67.25 gallons at 25%
Spit IX
Gallons 102 total
25.5 at 25%
BF109-G10
Gallons 106
26.5 at 25%
So why should the P-51D be penalized bacause it has a higher fuel capacity?
All three A/C have similar engines and fuel consumption it so happens the P-51 is larger with large wet wings.
Giving the same duration of flight is penalizing the P-51 and eliminating it's historic advantage.
Besides, even at 25% fuel it carrys more weight than either of the short legged A/C. The P-51's advantage would be even more significant if we had a slider bar instead of a fixed percent selection.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
So why should the P-51D be penalized bacause it has a higher fuel capacity?
Because it has an highter fuel capacity.
Your historic advantage is an inconvenient when fighting at short range.
Actually it's not .
And worst it has been transformed in an advantage compared to plane that should be avantaged because of their short range.
Don't forget your are not fling over the Reich you are flying over the MA.
-
Because it has an highter fuel capacity.
Your historic advantage is an inconvenient when fighting at short range.
Actually it's not .
And worst it has been transformed in an advantage compared to plane that should be avantaged because of their short range.
Don't forget your are not fling over the Reich you are flying over the MA.
Actually straffo you have got that backwards.
Three things.
1. The P-51D had the historic advantage. Not the Spitfire or 109.
2. The P-51D had a higher fuel CAPACITY not penalty. There was nothing that said this Airplane can't takeoff with less than a full tank. How much fuel do you think the P-51D took of with when flying from bases in France? Maybe we should make it carry DT's all the time too? Should the 109 always fly on fumes like the BoB?
3. When the P-51D was fighting at close range why would ground crew fill it to the top? What weight was the P-51D fighting at by the time it reached combat? Less than 100% I bet.
The bottom line is that the P-51D had the historic advantage. Turing that into a disadvantage for gameplay reasons is "Gamey".
Saying the P-51 should fly heavy because it did so for long missions is like saying that the P-51 should also have an altitude advantage because it always arrived at 30,000FT.
-
The p51 pilot can fly around in the main until he burns some fuel off, just like they did in rl...
The guy with more fuel can decide for himself when he wants to fight, his combat time isnt adversly impacted by a fuel mod. A yak cant cram more gas in, but a 51 can fly around and burn it off.
See the difference there? Its up to the 51 piltot to decide when he wants to engage....
Also the main is "gamey" after all its a "game". WW2 isnt being fought in the main....
Time to alt is a factor as well, a 109, spit etc burn more fuel with a fuel mod to get to alt... Planes with a large fuel capacity don't suffer to the same degree....
-
Even when flying from bases in France the Ponies would be fully fueled up (perhaps with the exception of the aux tank). I don't think ANY fighter took off without a full tank of gas.
The 109E does fly on fumes in AH.
The point that is being discussed (on the P-51) is that it is extremely "gamey" to bring DTs along while not having a full internal tank. In the MA the Pony driver should of course be allowed to bring less fuel along, as should anyone, but not with DT's.
-
I've three answers :
1 - The P51 and no advantage over the 109 or the spit. just because it's an escorter not an interceptor.
Each one is good in his domain and each one is a nice fighter.
2 - uh ? it pass right over my head
3 - imagine an airbase with p51 and Typhoon
The mecanic give 25% fuel to each and make them pay.
Will be you pleased to pay for 46 gallon the the same amount when your p51 friend got 64
4 - I can't count but you didn't read that thread.
The bottom line is that the P-51D had the historic advantage. Turing that into a disadvantage for gameplay reasons is "Gamey".
Was the historical p51 operating in an arena having a fuel multiplier ?
-
Batz,
The p51 pilot can fly around in the main until he burns some fuel off, just like they did in rl...
I am not aware of pilots flying around aimlessly in real life to get rid of fuel unless he was preparing to crash land. The more realistic solution would be to takeoff with less fuel if he knew he wouldn't need it.
The guy with more fuel can decide for himself when he wants to fight, his combat time isnt adversly impacted by a fuel mod. A yak cant cram more gas in, but a 51 can fly around and burn it off.
See the difference there? Its up to the 51 piltot to decide when he wants to engage....
And that is exactly what is happening in AH2 when the Pony has 25% and the Yak has 25%. The Pony can decide when to engage and disengage. It is realistic.
Also the main is "gamey" after all its a "game". WW2 isnt being fought in the main....
Yes, but the flight models should not be gamey. Otherwise the MA becomes FA.
Time to alt is a factor as well, a 109, spit etc burn more fuel with a fuel mod to get to alt... Planes with a large fuel capacity don't suffer to the same degree....
That's true, however the fuel multplier makes up the differance for the fields being so close. It also forces Spit, 109 and Yak pilots to use engine management that they would use in combat. The F4U-4 burns fuel like crazy and has one of the shortest durations in the game of 21 minutes. But I know I can get to 20K with 25% fuel and still have 75% left for combat. I can either reduce power or carry DT's. Spits and 109's can do the same.
Gsholz,
Even when flying from bases in France the Ponies would be fully fueled up (perhaps with the exception of the aux tank). I don't think ANY fighter took off without a full tank of gas.
I can show otherwise. Besides it's not the takeoff weight that matters. What weight was it when it engaged in combat. Not 10,100LBS fully loaded.
The point that is being discussed (on the P-51) is that it is extremely "gamey" to bring DTs along while not having a full internal tank. In the MA the Pony driver should of course be allowed to bring less fuel along, as should anyone, but not with DT's.
I would agree with not having any DT's allowed with less than a full tank. But for all A/C not just the P-51.
-
Of course, the rules should be the same for every aircraft. Like I said, I don't think ANY fighter took off with less than a full tank in WWII.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
And that is exactly what is happening in AH2 when the Pony has 25% and the Yak has 25%. The Pony can decide when to engage and disengage. It is realistic.
No it's not realistic when the p51 got 64 gallon and the Yak got 35.
In this case the short range fighter become a no-range fighter...
Why ?
But it's solved because as said Pyro the fuel porking we know in AH1 will be gone in AH2.
I would agree with not having any DT's allowed with less than a full tank. But for all A/C not just the P-51. [/B]
Situation is not hopeless, we agree on this point :)
-
Straffo,
1 - The P51 and no advantage over the 109 or the spit. just because it's an escorter not an interceptor.
Each one is good in his domain and each one is a nice fighter.
The advantage the Pony had was descibed as "It won't do what the Spitfire will do but it will do it over Germany" by some unknown fighterpilot.
3 - imagine an airbase with p51 and Typhoon
The mecanic give 25% fuel to each and make them pay.
Will be you pleased to pay for 46 gallon the the same amount when your p51 friend got 64
The only pilot who would be upset is the Tiffy pilot. A pony can fly a long way on 25% fuel. A Tiffy won't make it far past the runway.
Was the historical p51 operating in an arena having a fuel multiplier ?
Yeah but the bases were much farther apart. All the fuel multplier does is simulate the bases being far apart without having to fly for hours.
In reality the fuel multiplier should be much higher than it is to simulate the reduced distance.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
The only pilot who would be upset is the Tiffy pilot. A pony can fly a long way on 25% fuel. A Tiffy won't make it far past the runway.
Which is exactly why using a fuel % is unfair and increases the detrimental effect of fuel porking in the MA. Every "pilot" should be given an equal amount of fuel (up to full tank obviously) no matter what plane he flies.
If you had a Pony and a Spit on the same airfield and needed to launch both to defend the airfield, and only had 100 gallons of fuel available, you'd put 50 in each. Not 80 in the Pony and 20 in the Spit.
-
re the move to limit fuel porkage we can only say thanks...........
It still does not IMHO address FBM issues (@FBM 2 x) for short legged AC and their max time in combat being artificially shortened.......
I still think my original points stand..........
I totally agree with F4Udoa.......i dont see why AC should be forced to take up a max fuel level.....it should be player selectable.........
re attrition
I still think that less thirsty ac should benefit under the attrition model.........
I realise that its a big code change and something for the future......... and there is more than one way to do it.
One way could be to have a mix of fuel supply types
Silo = 10 fuel units (big circular thing we see in towns now)
Tank = 5 fuel units (the old fuel cell or one of the cylinders we see now)
Drum = 1 fuel unit (the old small fuel drum.....very difficult to see)
Large fields 60 fuel units ( 2 silos, 4 tanks, 20 Drums)
Medium fields 40 fuel units (1 Silos, 3 tanks, 15 Drums)
Small fields 20 fuel units (2 tanks, 10 drums)
Every field has a theoretically indestructable drum.......... (or maybe 2!)
Each fuel unit makes 50 gals available to a ride loading fuel.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Straffo,
The advantage the Pony had was descibed as "It won't do what the Spitfire will do but it will do it over Germany" by some unknown fighterpilot.
Hahem... I want to see a fight between a SpitXIV and a P51 with equal pilots and the very same amount of fuel.
I won't bet any money on the P51.
The only pilot who would be upset is the Tiffy pilot. A pony can fly a long way on 25% fuel. A Tiffy won't make it far past the runway.
I'm upset since about 4 years !
This discussion already took place years ago.
What piss me is the delta between the 25% of the P51 and the 25% of the Typhoon : if he can have 64 gallon for 25% I WANT 64 Gallon for 25% TOO.
Is that so difficult to understand ?
Yeah but the bases were much farther apart. All the fuel multplier does is simulate the bases being far apart without having to fly for hours.
In reality the fuel multiplier should be much higher than it is to simulate the reduced distance.
It simulate NOTHING related to distance the altitude is not reduced ,and we are not in a flat world.
If you want to set a historical mutiplier what about using 10 ?
With such a mutiplier I B17 will have to take off at full fuel just to bomb the nearest base.
I will be very representative of the bombing of Germany.
To bad your p51 won't be able to RTB in this case.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Yeah, we are going to limit the amount of fuel porkage that can be inflicted on a base. No DT's and 75% fuel will be the most that fuel supplies will be limited to.
Woohoo! I really do love these guys, there's a reason I've been paying to play their sims since 1996 alright :D
-
My problem with the x2 burn rate is that the Typhoon needs 100% to fly anywhere. Most other planes don't need 100% and that's the difference. Other planes that are thirsty are proper fighters (i.e. fly without bombs), whereas the Tyhoon is primarily a jabo - it's not worth testing the Typhoon light, it has to be tested heavy which it was designed for. It's going to be very boring taking off, climbing, drop bombs and RTB without any engagements. Guess we're talking of a 75 mile round trip if heavy and climbing to a suitable altitude.
Pyro, could you please confirm that the x2 burn rate will apply to the TOD and Classic versions of AH2? I can live with it if it's the TOD but the Classic is more like the MA since that isn't an allied/axis arena it's irrelevent whether things are historical or not.
-
Originally posted by straffo
It simulate NOTHING related to distance the altitude is not reduced ,and we are not in a flat world.
That's the point. Increasing fuel multiplier has a direct impact on that. And we will still be hitting mostly the inmediate enemy base near ours, doesnt matter the plane (P51, La7 ...), each one flying his prefered ride. P51 pilots will keep using their fuel advantage to climb to 30k, but they will be striking the very same base than others flying C205 or whatever else, that is, the closer base. Actually, long range planes are very rarely used as long range planes.
IMO, any fuel mult used should ensure that any player can jump into his favorite ride, climb to 20k, engange for no less than 10 mins and RTB.
As a matter of fact, increasing fuel burn mult is mainly striking the player's fun time. Times needed to travel to the fight area and to rtb from fight area remain the same, fun time will be reduced or increased depending on fuel burn rate.
-
Actually, the fuel burn mult for ToD should be less since the distances will be greater.
-
Pyro, F4UDOA,
I wasn't saying that the P-51 would be better off than the Spit IX or Bf109G-10 as I don't think it would be. I think that it would be closer to even than it should be in that scenario.
That is a scenario in which the short range fighters should really shine, and allowing the long range fighters to take off with 25%+DTs mitigates that advantage to some degree.
The FBM gives the long range fighters their proper advantage of range and the inproper advantage of altitude.
Requiring 100% fuel before taking DTs would help keep the short ranged fighter's proper degree of advantage when fighting.
-
the performance advantage of 25% fuel vs 100% is so small its nearly invisible. I never take less than 100% and I've never felt at a disadvantage for it in airplanes that supposedly only "need" 25% and a DT. forcing people to take 100% fuel with a drop tank is not going to increase your score any over p51's, p38's or any of the other airplanes that supposedly do it. If your spit can't turn with a p51 it has nothing to do with fuel load, its your piloting technique (e.g. you cant out-turn a 51 at high speeds in a spitfire). if two airplanes of the same model meet with different fuel loads, and the pilots are relatively equal, then there might be a performance argument. but since they're the same type of airplane, its a non-issue. I like the gallons of fuel available at a field rather than percentage, good idea there.
-
I kinda agree with flaps737. Most kills in the MA are just kills of opportunity. Flying arround with a 100% fuel in p51 and picking off the stupid ones (i.e., occupied, low e, otherwise disadvantageous position) seems a good plan. There should be more targets for that type of flying since most *performance* type flyers will be out of gas. The point where no fuel begins to negate any perforance advantage will occur much sooner. You get into mesoscale forecasting (high resolution) or planning. Since the performance window is so small, for it to be effective you would have to know exactly where you would find the fight. Otherwise, you would just miss the window where performance outwieghts no lateral e :) A slower burn rate would put more emphasis on performance as its useful area would be larger making predictions of fights need to be less precise.
Easy way to see this is use the extremes. With a 4x burnrate, people flying planes with short legs would forget about performance, as it would be impossible to maintain the state for any useful time (in most cases). With a burn rate of .25 people would be figuring their loadout to the gallon as they could maintain an optimum state for a long time.
Take it further to the extreme with a 15x burn rate. Fights would fall to a matter of luck or having any fuel. With a .000001 burn rate, anyone taking over a gallon (ounce?) of fuel would be a fool, as it would be all about performance.
There is a definite trend that shows the faster the burn rate, the less important matter of performance becomes, and the MORE important luck becomes.
The faster the fuel burn, the shorter the period of optimum performance and the less useful it is in strategy.
Here's a brainstorm. How about making the rate 1.
Although the idea of having fuel maintain a mnimum level of 75% seem great, does it matter if the game plays exactly as if fuel was always porked in every base? Thats what a 2x burn rate is - porked fuel all the time - a p51's dream.
-
flaps737,
Try turnfighting an La-7 in a Mossie with 100% and then try it in a Mossie with 5%.
I've never won such a fight except when I was on fumes. At 100% it isn't even close.
A fully laden Mossie is carrying ~3,600lbs of fuel. The only reason you don't feel it is because it drains slowly. When you drop 2,000lbs of bombs you sure feel the difference and that is less weight.
-
On an aside, the only logical reason I can see for making the burn rate faster is because the average number of kills per hour is too high. So I guess those below average (like me) will gripe more :)
Thing is, it might lose any people way below average. Then again, the increased factor of luck might keep them arround?
-
The modification in fuel porkage is what rocks.
Early and midwar planes are no longer cut off at the knees.
I'm jacked, good show !!
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Yeah, we are going to limit the amount of fuel porkage that can be inflicted on a base. No DT's and 75% fuel will be the most that fuel supplies will be limited to.
WTG Pyro! ;)
-
Originally posted by Virage
straffo, my remark was for those complaining about the 109. However I did check out the tiffy as you suggested:
Mil power
AH1 : 100% = 27 min
+DT = 40 min
AH2 : 100% = 24 min
+DT = 35 min
*(on deck times)
Not much of a difference, which would average out with alt.
Sorry I didn't see your post.
You didn't take into account the historical role of the Typhoon , it's a Jabo plane it's more supposed to be used with DT but more with bombs.
In the case you have 100% + bombs you got to the target climbing at full power because it the only efficient way to climb.
So you will end at 10K over your target any 109 taking off when penetrate the area covered will be over you.
If you survive the bombing (don't forget there is ack :)) and the 109 you can't do anything except RTB .
-
straffo,
I can sympathise with your problem. I like the P-47 and always wondered how such a successfull plane in RL is such a cr@p in every flight sim I played. and how "unknown" planes like the La7 and N1k turn out to be the real hot rods of WWII.
The reasons are based on real world conditions usually not factored in to the sims. The P-47 IS inferior to most WWII fighters if you fight it on the deck, but take it to 25k and it's another story. The La7 really was a hotrod, but it's use was EXTREMELY limited by it's range.
In the case of the typhoon, it was not meant to waste fuel on "grabbing alt". In the "seek and destroy" missions it's famed for, it didn't carry heavy payload, it carried mainly rockets/small bombs and the 4 cannons. And operated from fields close to the front. The RAF had the mossie for strikes, typhoon for close support.
HTC is trying to insert another factor into the simmulation and this one turns out to be the bane of the hotrods. the cost of having a plane that out-accelerates everything and reaches close to 400 mph in the weeds, is a ridiculously short flight time. So now you have to choose, preformance or endurance. Fly around at 400mph or slow down to conserve fuel.
The fuel porkage will be limited as pyro stated, so the only remaining issue is the exact fuel multiplier. too much, and some planes will be unplayable. too little and the hotrods will loose their only disadvantage. I agree that 2 is "on the edge" for some planes. 1.5-2 is the acceptable range IMO.
Bozon
-
I agree with you bozon :)
But there is perhaps something in the E6B actually but I need to test further.
Last night I did up in a typhoon I've seen the consumption drop as expected as the alt increased at 10K it was at a minimun and started to increase again.
Nothing abnormal at one exception between 10K and 11K I've seen consumption increase abruptly from 450 to 550 (approximately and without engaging WEP) then it fall back to 450 and started increase at the same rate as previously.
I need to test further.
-
Straffo,
Good fight :)
However, with fuel porking under control things should be better then the AH1 main.
I do agree Godo that the higher the fuel multiple the less combat time (read as FUN) players flying yaks, las, spits etc will have. Adjusting the fuel mod to somewhere between 1.5 - 2.0 has barely any noticeable effect on the p51 / p38 player.
But for the guy in a yak any added minute to his combat time is another minute of potential fun.
-
Any of you guys bothered trying to manage your fuel a little? Just a small reduction in rpms or throttle doubles flight time. When I have 10min left at full throttle, I also have 50 minutes left at cruising speed.
As long as you have a 2k or so advantage, you can easily, and quickly get a 109 up to the 400 mph you are used to cruising at.
I think it is extrodinarily lame that many of you feel you need to have this crutch for the game to be enjoyable.
It is so much more satisfying to see an enemy aircraft, push the throttle forward, hear the engine open up and dive in, rather than just fly around gamily full tilt all the time.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
I think it is extrodinarily lame that many of you feel you need to have this crutch for the game to be enjoyable.
Thank for your kind words...
Re-read again this thread.
It is so much more satisfying to see an enemy aircraft, push the throttle forward, hear the engine open up and dive in, rather than just fly around gamily full tilt all the time.
Good I've nothing against but why should I be forced to do so if some just don't have to care because they are favorised by the setup.
-
Well, lets take a 205 vs a p51. The 205 outclimbs and out accelerates the p51. It also handles nearly as well as the p51 at high speed, and much much better at low speed. All that leaves the p51 with is high speed handling, high alt handling, and a large fuel tank.
I think the advantages of the 205 are now balanced with the p51, not the other way around. (guns are purely a personal matter with these two planes)
Same goes with the La7. This plane should almost be perked. Why? All advantages and only 1 disadvantage (compression and personnally I cant hit a barn with the cannons). Now that fuel consumption is something you need to worry about, it has a huge disadvantage it would have had historically, but has never mattered in AH.
-
This thread is a about what the fuel mod should be in AH2, not your opinion on how others choose to enjoy their time...
What's extraordinarily lame is your inability to distinguish between fun (combat time) and the time it takes flying around being bored...
If the fuel mod is at 2 or 1.75 it has no effect on players who fly US planes (for the most part), however it has an effect on those who fly other planes.
It is those flying the p51s who take 50% fuel and DT the cruise around at full tilt. Even if the fuel mod goes to 1.5 planes like the yak, etc, will still need to manage their fuel to increase their fun (combat time).
The fact one player prefers a fuel mod at 1.5 over 2.0 has no relation to "realism".
We talking about what the artificial fuel burn rate should be in the non-historical context like the main arena and its impact on fun.
-
The fact that you seem to think my enjoyment does not matter....
As far as I can tell, 2 produces a realistic time of flight, accents the disadvantages of flying gas guzzlers with small gas tanks, and makes the game far less gamey and more interesting.
The real issue, is that people in the war did not fly around at mil power 24/7. The reasons why are a little different (engine wear, as well as fuel economy). This fundamentally changes tactics.
You are afraid that the allies will recieve all of the advantages, but you neglect the fact that US planes do not perform as well axis planes in many circumstances. Why? Because they are flying gas tanks. If the axis had turned the 109 into a flying gas tank, I am sure it would no longer be such an attractive plane. I cant wait to try a scenario with the f6f and zero and nik after ah2 comes around.
This thread has been constuctive though,
The two great Ideas I think so far are...
1) Change fuel % to gallons available to equalize the large vs small tank issue.
2) no DT unless 100% fuel.
-
Your mistaken ergRTC I don't want one of another plane to be dis or advantaged (it's the job of the pilot :))
can you look at this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118231) and input your opinion ?
-
Completely unscientific observations from last night (regarding the short legs of the Bf109)...
I took off at A43 in a 109G2 (1X20) with 100% fuel and no DT, climbed to about 8K at full mill. Levelled at full mill and headed to A42. Engaged a few enemies used some WEP, chopped throttle a few times, grabbed, hunted, attacked, grabbed again, and loitered. I left when I was down to ~15% fuel on low throttle and landed a few kills. Only thing I did "scientific" was watch the clock. It was about a 35 minute sortie and I had some gas left when I landed, though not much. All combat took place in enemy airspace. This was basically not a problem on the Baltic map. When we go to one of those commuter maps it would be. maybe we need to look at modifying the FBM depending on which map is active, but I don't know if thats practical or not.
Nice plane BTW...note to self...
-
but straffo, that is a real disadvantage. This is not some fictional reduction in a planes performance just to even things out. 109s had a very short range. Not including this in the game is giving the plane an advantage it did not have. Something like unlimited ammo in the 202. Historically wimpy guns are an important part of the 202s 'gestalt'.
-
Batz,
The fact one player prefers a fuel mod at 1.5 over 2.0 has no relation to "realism".
Yes it does have a huge effect on realism. It causes the P-51 to weight more than it should and even more importantly it gives the smaller airplane say a 109 more flight time at a reduced weight that translates directly into more performance. It's like adding horsepower.
P-51D
261 gallons internal
1566LBS or fuel at 100%
BF109G-10
106 gallons of fuel internal
636LBS of fuel at 100%
That's 2.5 times more weight in fuel. You can't simply say they should be at parity because the 109 had short legs. It's a fact of the aircrafts perfrormance the same as speed, climb or turn. Changing the fuel multplier for short range aircraft doesn't even the field it gives it an unrealistic bias. That is why the La-7 is such a popular mount in AH1. It flys like a rocket at 25% fuel and people say "how did it do that?" The answer is it could only do that for about 30 seconds in real life.
I can give you a real solution if you want one.
Every A/C starts at it's empty weight. No fuel or ammo.
You choose how much fuel and ammo you whish to carry but everything remains the correct weight. A .50Cal round weights .3lbs, a gallon of fuel weights 6lbs and so on down the line.
So if you want to carry 200gallons of fuel in your 109 or Yak you certainly can but you may wind up with a 10,000lbs airplane. Handling characteristics are effected proportionate to the weight gain.
The fuel consumption (SFC) of each airplane remains historically accurate and everyone pays the same price for gas and bullets.
Fair enough?
-
The p51 can take off from a rear base, its up to the player...
I don’t care about realism in the main and said so at the start of the 3 page of this thread.
All the fuel mod does is arbitrarily limit the amount of fun some planes have over others.
At 1.5 the p51 can take 50% fuel, at 2 it can take 75%, that’s up to the player. Whether 1.5 or 2 the 109 still takes 100% fuel, still has less weight in fuel, and still has a smaller combat radius etc... The only thing that is limited is the amount of time in the air it gets.
The 51 pilot is not forced to take off at a front line field, he’s not forced to fight over weight, these are choices left to the individual pilot. A yak has 28 min of fuel at 2. Virtually assuring it will be a hangar queen.
At either 1.5 or 2 the difference in fuel capacity remains the same, the rate of burn is what changes. The 51 pilot is not at a disadvantage with the FBM at 1.5 anymore then he is at 2. What happens at 2 is a whole set of planes get pushed aside because they have limited combat time.
This effects every one from the score potato to furballer,
Kills per sortie / kills per time become much harder and the furballer spends most of his time going to and from combat being bored.
Erg
The fuel in Scenarios is different then the main. So your Niki, A6M5 vs. F6F scenario means nothing. In Kurland the terrain is 1 to 1 but the fuel mod is 1.2. This is because with out a slightly higher mod the German planes could be in the air the entire 2 hour frame.
In the last BoB event the terrain was 1 to 1 but a higher fuel mod was set to limit the Axis to 15 min of combat over London. The Ruhr map is close to 1 to but again a slightly higher mod was chosen for game play reasons, even in the Ct the fuel mod is manipulated depending on the CM.
Scenarios are where things like fuel matter, in the main all the high fuel mod does is restrict the fun of those who like planes like the yak, spit la etc... That’s why there's no more fuel porking in AH2 because of its impact on fun, not realism.
The main is not ww2, it’s about combat. Limiting a sizeable portion of the players by arbitrarily choosing a fuel mod means these players will leave or you will have an arena filled with very few plane types.
The maps in AH are not real and are not set to a 2 to 1 scale. So a fuel mod at 2 is no more real then a fuel mod at 10.
Combat distances are only closer if you choose to take off from a closer field.
The fuel mod is simply a game play "tool". It’s not a realism "tool" at least how it’s applied in the main.
-
batz I really dont think you understand what the point of the new fuel system is.
It is purely to ruin your life.
get over it.
-
Nice well thought out response...
It doesn't ruin anything in fact with the fuel mod at 2, as pointed out above the 109 gets more time in the air at mil power then at 2 in AH1.
You voluntarily entered this discussion, if you can’t handle it go away... or better yet "get over it".....
This thread isn’t about the "new fuel system" and you clearly can’t understand that.
It's about the unhistorical, unreal fuel mod. It is just an arbitrary setting and can be changed at the blink of an eye. The need to run at a reduced power setting to conserve fuel doesn't change because the fuel mod is at 1.5 or 2. Do the math and see how much time is gained…
Then go try a reading comprehension course or just don’t enter discussions if you don’t know what they are about.
-
Wow batz, are we a little touchy today.
I am suprised you would even mention 'realistic'. The terrain is half size, the altitude is not. All we can do is attempt to get people to fly the planes more like they did in the war.
What gets my goat, is that the only arguement is over something which could be hidden by htc and the arguement would be gone. If we did not know there was a fuel modifier, you would have nothing to ***** about.
Most ma maps have bases within a sector of each other. Thats 25 miles right? The range on the 109 is about 100 right? Where is the issue? The issue is that you do not want to fly at cruise, you want to fly mil power all day and all night. You want to fly for hours without refueling. None of which is historical, and all of which pushes the gaminess (is there a correct spelling to that?) of the MA. If you want gamey you can keep defending your position. People complained just as much about blackouts back when they were introduced in airwarrior. Yet not having them allowed flight that was historically impossible.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
Wow batz, are we a little touchy today.
[/b]Why mention it if you don't care?
What gets my goat, is that the only arguement is over something which could be hidden by htc and the arguement would be gone. If we did not know there was a fuel modifier, you would have nothing to ***** about.
[/b]Planes would fly for 1/2 the time they should and no one would notice.
Most ma maps have bases within a sector of each other. Thats 25 miles right? The range on the 109 is about 100 right? Where is the issue? The issue is that you do not want to fly at cruise, you want to fly mil power all day and all night. You want to fly for hours without refueling. None of which is historical, and all of which pushes the gaminess (is there a correct spelling to that?) of the MA. If you want gamey you can keep defending your position. People complained just as much about blackouts back when they were introduced in airwarrior. Yet not having them allowed flight that was historically impossible. [/B]
Having a fuel mod is gamier than not. Don't think that's the point.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
Wow batz, are we a little touchy today.
Go back and read your own reply...
I am suprised you would even mention 'realistic'. The terrain is half size, the altitude is not. All we can do is attempt to get people to fly the planes more like they did in the war.
The terrains aren’t half, or to any set scale. They are set to what ever scale the mapmaker decides. Go check Baltic map and tell us its "scale".
I don’t care anything about realism in the main; there is none at all to worry about.
What gets my goat, is that the only arguement is over something which could be hidden by htc and the arguement would be gone. If we did not know there was a fuel modifier, you would have nothing to ***** about.
Anyone with math skills can figure out the fuel mod whether HT posts it or not.
Most ma maps have bases within a sector of each other. Thats 25 miles right? The range on the 109 is about 100 right? Where is the issue? The issue is that you do not want to fly at cruise, you want to fly mil power all day and all night. You want to fly for hours without refueling. None of which is historical, and all of which pushes the gaminess (is there a correct spelling to that?) of the MA. If you want gamey you can keep defending your position. People complained just as much about blackouts back when they were introduced in airwarrior. Yet not having them allowed flight that was historically impossible.
All the main maps have fields at or near 25 miles not some. This is a "fun issue" and has nothing to do with "realism".
The issue is fun, as Straffo said he gave up his fav plane in the AH1 main because of fuel issues. A fuel mod is gamey; it’s a game tool that is manipulated to change game play. It’s not a realism setting.
"Hours with out refueling"? Do the math for a fuel mod of 1.5 then 2.0 and tell me how that equates to "hours without refueling"?
Nothing about the main is historical, no one in main cares about historical, the fuel mod isn’t historical so all your talk of "historical" is bunch of bs.
You have no idea how or what I fly. You were an RR AW so don’t tell me about anything related to realism. Historical and realism are what scenarios and events are for. The rest is about having fun...
You want realism fly in one of the online wars at FB, until you experience that then tell me about "realism". No icons, don’t know what the enemy target is, or where they upped from, no gps map etc... I get all the realism I need form Fb and AH events...
The gamey thing here is the defending a fuel mod that arficially restricts the amount of time a particular plane should be allowed to fly. You want realism, demand that the fuel mod be switched to 1.
-
Have you ever looked at the time in the air a 109 had? A 109E could up from france have 15 minutes of fun time over england and then had to rush home on fumes. And that is with nursing it across the channel on both ends of the trip.
What is really at issue here, is your camp wants unlimited fuel. That means fuel modifier goes to 1. If bases are only 25 miles apart, that gives a 109e unlimited time to hang over the enemy base, it also means planes like the 109g10 can become long range escort planes. Niether of which is realistic.
Since the bases are so close (for gameplay reasons) to maintain the short legs of the gas guzzler without an extra gas tank, the modifier must be increased.
What you are asking for is a crutch, nothing else. If you get your 1 modifier, I would like to have cannons on my f6f. I would like a mustang that has a 5k climb rate. I would like a p47 that can climb period. Oh and a spit that does not suffer in high speed maneuvers.
As far as aw, I played all of the arenas, but ended AW in big pac. I was never good enough to handle the full realism (though I tried), and knew it.
-
So?
The fuel mod at 1.5 doesn’t equate to "unlimited fuel".
Here's a clue since I assume from your posts you don’t what the fuel mod is.
If the fuel mod is set to 1 that’s rl fuel consumption.
Set at 2 that means the 109e in AH burns fuel 2 times as fast as rl.
So what if a 109E had 15 min over London....? We aren’t running a scenario in the main. In the 1st BoB scenario in which I was Axis Co the fuel was set to meet historical realism i.e. 15 min at mil/combat power over London. But it required that the we “cruise” at lower power. The fuel mod in that event was lower (meaning burns less fuel) then in AH2.
The main terrains are fantasy made up terrains set up to facilitate game play. They aren’t scaled to match the fuel mod, nor is the fuel mod adjusted to match the terrains scale. Arbitrarily setting a fuel mod at 2 cuts the 109es flight time in half. In AH2 that’s just 25 min with fuel mod at 2. (Right now since the 109e hasn’t had its eng settings redone for Ah2)
Set at 1.5 it would be 33 min, a gain of 8 min at mil power. See how that works. Its not "unlimited fuel", it’s not" flying at mil power all day and all night" or "flying for hours without refueling."
Now at cruise the 8 min gain can be translated into a longer combat time, which is a good thing. The fuel mod effects all planes equally.
Its clear from your ranting that haven’t clue as to what’s being discussed.
Last post from me, I got the main thing I wanted out of this thread, no fuel porking...
-
? 8 min? You moan and groaned for this long about 8 minutes?
-
The issue here is at what point is the fuel consumption restrictive enough to modify player behavior. If bases are only 25 miles apart. Anything less than 2x will not modify behavior.
I am not sure if you followed this conversation at the beginning of the TOD thread, but htc came in on several engine management threads (dealing with engine overheating), and his opinion was something like, overheating is fake, non-realistic, and that the behavioral change we are all looking for could be accomplished by making fuel consumption an issue.
-
Only 8 min?
8 min represents nearly 1/3 of its flight time with the fuel mod at 2. That’s also 8 min at mil power; at reduced power you can get more then 8 out of it. What this does is add to combat time, 8 more min of combat is quite a bit. Its better then the 5 or 6 the Emil has now.
But again what behavior is modified with fuel mod at 2?
US planes still fly around at mil power "all day and night" (using your quote) while its planes like yaks, la, etc are the ones rationing. What will happen is folks won’t fly those planes and jump into something the 51.
So behavior hasn't changed, just more planes become hangar queens and diversity in the main diminishes.
If you had read those threads about engine management you would know I have several posts in each, all supportive of the premise. After flying regularly in the betas (everyday and I don't think I have seen you online in Ah2 yet) the reality is quite different. The only planes really effected but such a scheme are already affected regardless if the fuel mod is 1.5 or 2. Look at the Emil numbers, you still fly at reduced power. As I have said all along in this thread.
Pyro didn’t say he was 100% opposed to eng overheating, here’s a quote of his:
Good points, there is a limit to how much we can use the fuel multiplier due to the fact that you can't scale altitude. Mainly, I think it get can get us better differentiation between something like long range fighters and point defense fighters.
And even though my arguments may make it seem otherwise, I'm really not dead set against using stuff like engine temp as a gameplay mechanism and do agree that it can feel more immersive if done decently. But I also have seen it in a form that I think decidedly takes away from gameplay by being way too restrictive by requiring you to fly your engine more than your plane. I mainly take issue with arguing it as a point of realism.
As I said I supported his view on this, but unfortunately the only planes affected are planes that are already rare in the main as is.
-
I still have not read anything that answers my original points........
I will admit to being someone who enjoys flying Lavochkins and Yaks (or used to)........
I dont mind having a lower endurance than others.......I would love to be able to use the cruise and lower settings to save fuel.........
But flying tonight I have had to seek out defence only related combat!
On the two occasions I went in search of a fight with 100% fuel I climbed to 17K then went to cruise for a good part of a sector then came to combat well below half in the wing tanks..........
5 mins of combat (at wep and mil power) and I am having to break off for home...........
So my fun time is shortened......... my satisfaction is lowered and I would bet those i was fighting were not too pleased either when I turned and ran out of the fight.......... I know I have to leave early cos I am gonna be chased so no cruise control on my exit, I have to leave early enough to Mil power/WEP it home.
Was I being greedy stretching the combat time to 5 mins?
Is a sector too far to wander looking for combat?
Is that what HTC wish to sell?
Should I sacrifice my enjoyment and fight until I have to ditch?
Is that the new fuel model in action....play till we ditch?
Is a development away from arcadia to push us ever further into it by the use of an anomolous arena setting?
and on the subject of Arcadia what will the horde think of this when they cant have the fun they want as long as they want it........is HTC gonna tell the horde this (the end effect) is an improvement?
At lower FBM's I am still gonna have to use cruise etc to conserve fuel........... I might even get the opportunity to use it!
My small tanked AC will still be disadvantaged due to proper range/weight considerations..........
Yet I will have the fuel to actually have decent combat time!!!
Which todate at FBM 2 I have not experienced in the planes I like to fly................
Are these going to be the "no fun planes" now?
I urge Pyro and HT to actually try these planes in the arena at these settings. Try cap'ing an enemy base in one and actually engaging combat more than a sector away from home.........
Frankly I have not seen a single valid arguement for having any other setting other than FBM = 1.
Even a much welcome anti fuel pork measure could be seen (in its method of application) as a minimalist attempt to "paper over" cracks left by use of FBM = 2 and its effect on short legged AC.
In my view a much welcome improvement in the fuel consumption models (that must have used up valuable HTC time) has been corrupted in a very gamey way by the use of FBM = 2 to actually penalise some AC rather than give benefit to others.
-
So my fun time is shortened......... my satisfaction is lowered and I would bet those i was fighting were not too pleased either when I turned and ran out of the fight.......... I know I have to leave early cos I am gonna be chased so no cruise control on my exit, I have to leave early enough to Mil power/WEP it home.
Several us agree with you here...:)
-
But that is exactly the reason to have this 'behavior modification'.
U.S. planes are heavy, over-fueled and climb like slugs. Currently this has no purpose.
With the increased fuel modifier and engine management, this now becomes the advantage that it was during the war. I think you will just have to get used to it. You wanna fly for a few sectors or for a couple hours, you are going to have to put that drop tank on the 109g6 and you will have to keep it around for as long as possible. Base porked? Well, you shoulda kept that from happening. I am sure some of their bases are porked too.
Much ado about nothing.
You do realize that everyone will be working under these conditions right?
-
How about this for the
I NEED MY FUN COMBAT TIME!!!!!!
I want to have my fun combat time in the 163. I cant do that with a fuel modifier of 1 1.5 2 4 5 67l2245 24536436346
Therefore.... I want a fuel modifier of .1
Thank you very much.
-
P51s still have that advantage no matter the fuel mod, they can chose the amount of fuel they want no matter the fuel mod, they can chose what base they up from to ensure they have the proper alt etc... This is already built into the game.
Read Tilt's reply, he only flies a couple of planes in AH. How long do think folks will hang around if they cant fly the planes they like?
The fuel problems in AH1 have lead to players leaving and at least 1 (posted on the game play feedback forum) deciding not to subscribe.
The main isn’t realism, it’s about fun. 8 min more fuel in a 109e or la7 or yak9u doesn’t affect the p51s one bit...
It does however mean something to guy flying those other planes. Or else have an arena full of p51s and p38s and nothing else....
The base porking has already been addressed, your whines late on that. I suspect as more people like Tilt discover they aren’t able to enjoy the planes they want they will voice there opinions as well.
Engine management wasn’t an "advantage" in the war nor will it be in the AH main. In the main it will just mean less diversity.
Right now the only planes that have to worry about "engine management” are those have had their flight times reduced by some arbitrary multiplier. It wasn’t real for p51s to run all out across Europe any more then it was for 109s or yaks. You want selective realism because it’s beneficial to the planes you fly. If you wanted realism then you would want a fuel mod of 1 and planes like the p51 to take off in the rear.
FYI the 163 isn’t affected by the fuel mod, it has longer ranger then the la7 does now.
-
Dude, you have entered crazy land I am afraid.
If you kick your throttle up to mil and see you have 24 minutes of that kind of flying how are you going to behave? I was just up playing around with a mossie, and even with that fuel tank with wings, at mil and 50% fuel I had 22 minutes of wep flying (ignoring the cut off due to over heat). With cruise settings I still only had something like 50 minutes of flight.
I would not take a mossie into combat with 75% of my fuel remaining and hope to survive. Therefore, if I am hitting a close base, I will be under the same disadvantage as the 109 intercepting me.
I think we all just need to wait and see how it all works out. Luckily, you will be forced to do that, while I can enjoy just watching you run out of gas.
ha ha.
-
"Engine management wasn’t an "advantage" in the war nor will it be in the AH main. In the main it will just mean less diversity. "
What was Lindbergh asked to come and help in the pacific for? Why was the zero such a threat. Why didnt the luftwaffe stick it to the brits on day 2 of the BOB.
Why did the allies lose so many UNESCORTED bombers over germany?
crazy talk man.
-
You are full of it; the Mossie has 71 min of flight time at mil power 100% fuel.
At 50% it has 36 min. It also has 2 100 gallon dts.
Your problem is you can’t separate your "choices" from things that are being "forced" on others.
You decide how long you want to fly by the amount of fuel you want. You decided how heavy you want to be when you get to a fight. You chose 50% fuel and a close base because you claim you can’t fight any heavier. That's all on you the player.
If you only take 25% in p51 you only get 13 min of fuel but that doesn’t prove anything. The p51 isn’t limited to 13 min of total flight time. To claim, "well when I fly my p51 with 25% fuel I have less time in the air then your yak with 100% so it all evens out” is utter BS and the argument of some who hasn’t a clue.
The yaks, la7 and the like have their range arbitrarily decided by a random fuel multiplier. That’s completely separate from the choices you made.
Your mossie can run at full power "all day and night" (your words) and according to you that’s "gamey" oh wait its only gamey for other planes and players but not you...
-
You are failing to look at it from a view that is a little obvious.
The planes you love to fly have climb rates that are nearly ufo. THey accelerate like a cannon shell. WHy? Did you ever stop to ask yourself why a 109g10 performs so much better than a f4u1 in these aspects??????
What is happening now, is that the performance you love to have is going to cost you time in the air and you cant seem to accept that. If I choose CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE to drive a 1968 mustang, I also CHOOSE to have crap for MPG. Why cant you accept that there is a trade off for having performance in an airplane? It is childish to expect otherwise.
-
I don't fly a g10. However, the climb rate of the g10 is offset if you take off deeper back and give yourself enough time to get to alt. No one makes you take off at a frontline field and no one makes you fly to the nearest enemy base to fight. No one says they will set the climb rate multiplier to 2 so it takes you 15 min to get to 15k and I can get there in 7.
The G10s fuel consumption during climb is penalized by the fuel multiplier. No matter what the fuel mod setting is it still takes XXX time for the g10 to get to alt. With the fuel mod at 2 it burns 2 x as much gas to get there.
I don’t care how an F4u-1 performs or mossie or spit or p51... It’s irrelevant to the discussion. Nothing about adjusting the fuel mod changes performance, all it does is arbitrarily limit the time in the air of certain planes. Any other issue you try to wrap around this makes no difference if the fuel mod is 2 or 1.5.
At 2 the g10 still climbs better and will always have less fuel weight. Adjusting the fuel mod changes none of that.
I am waiting for you to make 1 solid point, so far you are bouncing from accusations of gameyness to claiming you have to fly planes from close fields. Keep throwing **** on the wall and hope it sticks....?
Your whole argument at the beginning was, "It’s gamey to fly around at mil power". What you really meant was it is gamey for everyone else but you.
Weren't you the one claiming that I just wanted to fly around day and night at mil power and never have to re-fuel?
As I pointed out and if you believe that then do the math and see what planes do what at various fuel mods. Any fuel multiple you pick it’s your favorite planes that will be the "gamey ones" (your words) and "running around day and night at full power".
Adjusting the mod so the 109e has an extra 8 min of fuel will have no effect on how a mossie or p51 is flown....
-
Weren't you the one claiming that I just wanted to fly around day and night at mil power and never have to re-fuel?
Yes I was and am.
Otherwise you would not be complaining about something so trivial.
Thing is if its that extra 8 minutes that keeps you from flying as stated above, that is exactly why I dont think you should get it.
If you still cant find a point, here it is plane and simple:
Planes that had short legs should feel like they have short legs.
a)it keeps pilots flying the planes the way they were historically.
b)it produces a real advantage/use for the bloated U.S. gas tanks with wings that previously were only penalized for having a big tank.
Remember, If you are going for a 50 mile jaunt in the mustang, nobody in there right mind is going to take more than 50% fuel. Now that mustang and the 109 are on equal footing for time in the air (or close to it). This is ignoring drop tanks, which was discussed earlier.
-
8 min doesn’t negate the fact that the 109e pilot will have to cruise to and from battle at a lower power setting.
Regardless of the fuel mod your planes will be at "full power day and night". Not only are you "gamey" but a hypocrite as well. Your gamey hypocrisy is not trivial; it gets to the heart of the matter.
Planes with short legs still have short legs regardless of the fuel mod. Even at 1 the 109e would only have 53 min at mil power. The p51, Mossie etc will still out range it by far...
That doesn’t change with the fuel mod. Don’t tell me "well if I take off at a close field then I will have more fuel and less altitude at the merge", because you can take off a base or 2 back, burn off some fuel and be at alt at the merge. The US planes will only be "bloated" if you choose to engage while "bloated".
51s will still take less fuel no matter what the fuel mod and they will still fly around at mil power “all day and night”. It doesn’t matter if the fuel mod is 2 or 1.5.
You have yet to make any real point.
-
Like I said, I prefer more than 5 minutes of combat per flight. The ironic thing is that this 2x fuel mod, while reducing the range of short-legged fighters and relegating them to defensive missions, is also reducing the performance of long-range fighters. A long-range fighter will have to take more fuel along to effectively carry out their escort/jabo/hunting missions, while the short-legged fighters don't have that opportunity. As a result when a long-range fighter engages a short-range fighter the fuel weight/performance factor will weigh even more in favor of the short-range fighter than at 1xFBM.
-
ergRTC use the Yak in AH2.
Up a yak with 100% go to fight over a enemy base.
Next try with 75%, 50%,25% each time going OVER an enemy base.
Give us your result.
And don't forget whatever will be your loadout 25 mile IS short range.
-
YEs 50 and 25 would be a real issue. Luckily, htc is limiting porkage.
If the allied plane chooses not to be bloated, it will be running out of gas just as quick as the luftwaffe.
If I up close, lets say a sector out, with 100 gallons in a mustang, I am going to have to ration my gas just like a 109 would. If I up a couple bases back, I will not have to ration my gas so much, will be able to run full tilt mil. But... that is the advantage of having a plane with a big tank.
I dont see how the historical construction of these planes is somehow supposed to be 'altered' for you. You like planes that have small tanks. I like them too, but I dont try to use them when I know they dont have the legs, and if I do, I guess I will be very careful with my cruise.
Straffo's point is a good one, but as I said porkage is limited now.
-
You are “altering” reality to compensate for your own inadequacy. As pointed to you 50 times at 1.5 or 2 yaks and the like are forced by game decision into non historical unrealistic shortened flight times.
You will fly from a close with enough fuel to allow you to fly around "all day and night" at full power like the gamey dweeb you accuse others to be..
Don’t sell me any BS about how you will voluntarily take less fuel so as to ration.
How about you quit lying and tell us what you really want, every one else at a non-historical unrealistic disadvantage.
Even so you what will happen is you wont see any yaks and la7s and you will have an arena full of p51s tooling around "gaming each other".
-
ergRTC, I think the point batz and straffo are trying to make is that in FBM = 2 even with fuel management they have only a few min of combat available, for bases in 25-30 miles range.
THESE PLANES SHOULD BE LIMITED. they are unperked super preformers that sucrificed endurance for this. BUT since this is a game, you do want to allow some more leverage. FBM = 2 is right on the edge of playability for these planes with no DT (109Gx can manage fine with DT. I tried it). I hate the over use of La7 and this is the only way to limit them using their only TRUE limitation.
So, FBM should not be over 2. Also, it should be over 1 to make their pilots think before they slam their throttles and go skyrocketing. And limit they use to short ranges ("short" is also a function of map design). The more I fly in the beta areana the more I think 1.5 is the reasonable setting.
Bozon
-
Your stupid or what ????
Is the Yak 9T the ultimate performer ?
The 9T got all the inconveniement of fbm 2 + strat porking without the performance ...
-
Originally posted by Pyro
That's not as big of a factor now that fuel burn rate changes with altitude. Once you get up to high altitude, you're burning a lot less fuel. With a 2X burn rate, I can climb at mil power in a 109G6 up to 30K and have 20 minutes of fuel remaining at mil power. If I switch to cruise, I have a lot more and that's not even considering what adding a droptank would do.
People will initially be surprised how quickly fuel is burned in AH2, but if they look, they will find a secondary surprise in how well they can conserve it.
I tested the Dora, and seeing how the E6B power setting information was there I assume the engine modelling is finished. At SL the Dora consumes 156 gal/h (1xFBR, MIL), at 10K it consumes 161 gal/h and at 20K it consumes 158 gal/h. I see no benefit in fuel consumption at higher altitudes as you stated. The fuel consumption actually increases with alt. Also there was some strangeness between 10K and 12K where the fuel consumption would suddenly jump to 220+ gal/h a couple of times, but only for a second or two.
What am I missing?
-
I was talking about high altitude as in being above critical alt.
-
cc thanks.
Not that it will do me much good considering I spend 75% of my drop tank just getting up there.
-
Sure you dont have historical up time, no one does, it is all 2x fuel multiplier.
The point is how to get people not to run around at mil. I believe this works, you think it is a personal afront to your manhood. We each have our opinions, luckily mine happens to be the one htc is currently doing.
In the CT we normally drop the modifier to 1.2 or 1, as often our maps are scale (kinda) and require long jogs.
Yak 9t is an anti-tank plane. What are you using it for? High alt interceptor? Bomber escort? Try a p51b, p47, 190, 109g6 with a DT, hell there must be 20 planes that are more appropriate for doing something other than ground attack.
I dont think it is particularly 'right' to use the wrong tool for a job and then ***** when it breaks, or doesnt do the job well.
-
Its an affront to my enjoyment of the game. I really hope this isn't set in stone, this may very well be a dealbreaker for me.
-
The Yak-9t isn’t an "anti-tank" plane; search the A & V forum for a better explanation. Or if you press that claim I will be glad to school you on it right here. 90% of its sorties were air 2 air. Let’s just say your ignorance is showing on the issue of the 9t.
80% of Ct maps are 256 x 256 (that’s 4 times smaller then the large main maps).
The point is how to get people not to run around at mil. I believe this works, you think it is a personal afront to your manhood. We each have our opinions, luckily mine happens to be the one htc is currently doing.
A high fuel multiplier doesn’t accomplish this for all planes, just some. They happen to be the planes that are already the least used aircraft in the game. It has no affect on the most common and most used plane in the game, the p51.
-
Yes the maps are small, but the distance to enemy bases is often quite a distance, as in the pacific setups and BOB.
What was the T designed for? Not how they used it. Really I am curious, I always thought it was a ground attack plane. Its performance goes to pot over 10k both speed and climb.
Gsholz is the 8 minutes enough for you or do you want more?
What is the purpose of fuel if running out is going to ruin the game? Maybe they should just make a RR arena.
-
The problem I see is this:
I will run at MIL power and use WEP as needed without ever worrying about fuel.
John Doe who likes short range aircraft X will need to use cruise settings.
I meet John Doe and I am doing 380mph while he is doing 240mph on cruise. I automatically start with an energy advantage simply due to the fact that I carry so much fuel I don't need to use engine managment.
ergRTC,
The Yak-9T was not an anti-tank aircraft. It was an anti-aircraft aircraft. Tony Williams posted about that some months back. Apparently it was never loaded with AP amm, just HE.
-
1.5x was tolerable. At 2x most of the early war planes and some of the late war planes will be useless. There is NOTHING realistic about using a fuel burn multiplier since the arena isn't compressed in the vertical. Using a fuel burn multiplier adds NOTHING to the game except grief for those who's favourite ride has been neutered by an artificially short duration.
-
Tyazhelovooruzhenniy = heavily armed.
There popular misconception is = tankoviy
Just like you see folks refer to the 109F as a "Franz" when it actually is Fritz i.e. Friedrich.
The 9T didn’t typical carry AP rounds; it carried HE and was flown in the a2a role.
The following is quoted from 'Notes of An Aircraft Designer', by Alexander Yakovlev himself -- translated from Russian by Albert Zdornykh and published by Arno Press in 1972.
The large-calibre 37 mm. aircraft cannon was a wonderful creation by the aircraft armament designers and made its appearance in 1942. It was intended to be mounted in fighter-planes and the tanks of the day was to develop a heavy cannon fighter.
We put in a lot of intensive work and turned out the Yak-9T (T stands for heavy) in record time. It was the first heavy fighter armed with a cannon. It went through its official trials and then its trials in the Air Force practically without a hitch and was put into mass production.
It made life hot for the German bombers: direct hit by a 37 mm. shell reduced any fascist plane to a heap of flying rubble.
Its been covered in many thread but here’s one with replies from the author's Tony Williams and Emmanuel Gustin:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104441&highlight=yak9t
As I said all along the with high fuel mod it all but guarantees some folks will quit or those planes affected the most will remain in the hangar. With an arena full of 51s any work done in regards to engine management will be for not because its planes like 51s that aren’t affected at all.
-
*LOL* In the time it took me to write that post my Dora had consumed 1/8th of the drop tank just ideling on the rearm pad.
-
:) but you are a gamey dweeb if you dont like that.....
-
Yeah, it's not like the VVS and LW was fighting a short-range war in the east ... nothing like the MA at all. While in the west the P-51 really was used in the short range role instead of more suitable planes like the Spit. Really!
Talk about using the wrong tool for the job. The P-51 shouldn't be used for anything except escorting bombers to strat targets deep behind the front.
-
absolutely.
-
Yeah I'm a gamey dweeb because I want things to be like they really were back in WWII, 1:1 scale map and everything. Of course the furballers will object to that, and with good reason. So we get an MA with airfields close together (like on the Eastern Front) and the furballers are happy. Ok by me. Then of course we get the fuel burn multiplier to give the long-range fighters an edge in the furball over those planes actually designed for the job. Then we get morons posting that taking an La-7 or a Typhoon to cap a field 25 miles away is "using the wrong tool for the job", you need a P-51 for that job! *LOL!* I hate this crap.
-
Why not just wait for TOD? I have not stepped foot in the MA for nearly a year, and still enjoy the game. Have not even played in the CT for ages waiting for the ah2 release. So far I have not found anything that will cramp my style. It is sad that you find this such an issue, but perhaps you will just have to change the way you play. If, as you say, you want 1:1 then I dont see the problem. I am not financially envolved with the company besides my 12 dollars a month, so if all the gamers leave after the new release, I will just be that much happier.
-
Well that just means every fighter will be taking droptanks. maybe they did for the Bombers in a 17 you can go half around the with 25% fuel. I am not sure if that is realistic
-
If you don't have a vested interest in the game why are you even posting here?! The map IS 1:1 scale compared to the eastern front. The forward airfields of the VVS and LW were mere kilometres behind the front lines, just like in the MA. I however recognize the need for some players to just furball, and this MA lets them do just that without detracting anything from my fun. However this ridiculous fuel burn multiplier is! It should never have been implemented in the first place. If you want to fly a long-range mission, hook up with some bombers and escort them to some strat targets. With the new large maps you will get plenty of opportunity to manage your fuel. The short-ranged planes were designed for close support for a ground war LIKE THE MA!
-
Do you actually understand why the fuel multiplier is so high? Do you understand why there is a new engine management system?
Just tell me what reason HTC gave for adding this to the game, outside of TOD.
After you do that, perhaps there will no longer be an issue.
fyi I just took a spin in the yak9t. Plenty of fuel. Climbed up to 10k, brought it down to cruise had 40 minutes of flight left, traveled 1 sector and suicided myself into a tiger tank. Had enough fuel for 15 minutes of full time mil power with plenty left to get home.
From pyro
"So what is the real purpose of engine management in real life? It primarily breaks down to two reasons. Fuel efficiency and maintenance considerations. Fuel efficiency should be obvious. You will get a lot more range at a more efficient setting. Maintenance considerations are there to extend engine life and time between overhauls. People see a time limit on military power for a plane and assume that that means the engine will overheat or blow up if you run it longer than that and that’s not the case.
Contrary to what a lot of people think, we actually would like to see people use engine management. But not in some contrived only-in-the-sim-world setup. One of the main considerations for any WWII pilot was his fuel and we’ve always wanted that to be central in the game as well. I just haven’t done a good job with that. With the latest beta release, we’re really looking to get that where we’ve always wanted it to be."
-
From pyro (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107449&perpage=50&highlight=engine%20management&pagenumber=2)
"
I would like to see a reason not to use mil power so much but I don't want to blow up or damage your engine for doing it. I don't buy the assumption that it's realistic, because it's not realistic as I've already outlined. It's arbitrary. Yes, there are instances where you turn to arbitrary solutions, but I don't view this as one. So that takes us back to an original idea that we couldn't get working well and left half abandoned, and that is a good fuel consumption model. But now we have it working like we wanted it to and can make it a central feature. That's a big difference. Grab a P-51 manual and setup some cruise conditions in the beta. You'll get the right speeds and the right fuel consumption at the various altitudes and cruise settings.
Engine management lies in the throttle and prop controls. People chase red herrings like mixture control, supercharger control, etc., in the quest for more complexity, but the shocking revelation is that designers didn't want their planes to be complex and eliminated any pilot load they could. To get an insight into how manufacturers and military brass looked at airplane systems design and the capability of the average military pilot, I highly recommend reading the transcripts of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference published by Schiffer. Look at the P-51 and look at all the systems that people request. Mixture- automated. Supercharger- automated. There was manual override, but this was to do ground checks and the switch is spring-loaded to the automatic position. Cooling flap- automated. There was a manual override for this, but that was in the event of a malfunction with the temperature sensing circuit or something. As pointed out, even the Germans didn't want to deal with requiring the pilot to make separate prop adjustments from the throttle. If anybody is really hot and heavy on this subject, do yourself a favor and plop down $10 a pop for some flight manual reprints and re-examine what you think is necessary to the model. Like I said before, I once was in that school of thought but found a lot of my assumptions to be incorrect."
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There is NOTHING realistic about using a fuel burn multiplier since the arena isn't compressed in the vertical.
Very true.
-
Artificially increasing fuel burn is NOT ADDING FUN OR REALISM TO THE GAME. It is DETRACTING FUN AND REALISM FROM THE GAME. If any of you have the misfortune of believing that anyone will be using fuel management to cruise in the MA you are sadly mistaken. They will just have to RTB sooner at MIL or WEP. In the MA the enemy will not let you go if you disengage and run, they will chase you down. Anyone flying at cruise is an easy target for those that are not. The fuel burn modifier is nothing but a gamey attempt at behaviour control over something that cannot be controlled. People will not conserve fuel because in the MA speed is life.
-
I agree with GS above... this is a nutty idea. If you want faster action put fields closer together and leave the fuel alone.
-
The main isn’t realism, it’s about fun. 8 min more fuel in a 109e or la7 or yak9u doesn’t affect the p51s one bit...
It does however mean something to guy flying those other planes. Or else have an arena full of p51s and p38s and nothing else....
This is the most sensible and simplistic thing said in all of these posts, all the rest of the stuff is fluff and BS posturing.
All for the sake of "real" fuel/engine management, we are going to have an arena full of P-51s and P-38s and the like. This is the thing that scares/bothers me most.
Is the fuel burn rate of 2 a way to limit the amount of LAs and Spits that we now see in the MA. People are constantly pissin' and moanin' about these planes, and it appears that they are the ones that are going to suffer the most at the hands of 2 FBM. Could it be ?
The resulting effect will only cause a transfer over to the late war big gas tank planes, so we will have an arena of all big tank BnZ planes while the early war planes and small gas tank planes sit in the hanger and collect dust.
For the MA, leave it as it was or make it 1.5.
For AH II : TOD, CT, or any attempt at realistic reinactment, set it at 2 for those that need the realisim fix.
I don't envy HTC on this one .. damned if you do ... damned if you don't
-
It would be more fun without gravity, inertia, limited ammo....
I have an old commodore 64 with a flight sim fitting that description. Perhaps you guys could share it.
I agree that this is not perfect, but..
I also firmly believe that the game is only improved when players fly in a realistic manner.
-
People will fly in a realistic manner if we have 1:1 scale maps, no dar, no icons, no gps map, realistic turnaround time, ground control, military discipline, chain of command and an overall command effort ... i.e. NEVER.
An artificially high fuel burn rate will only force the short-ranged planes out of the game. Why even bother modelling them?
-
Then do all this garbage in the CT... leave the MA alone.
-
ErgRTC:
The "realism" argument is a common one in simulations (boardgames, miniatures games, computer games, etc.) However, it by itself, is obviously not sufficient justification for a feature. For example, we don't really die in the game. This is not realistic, but is nevertheless desirable.
-
ergRTC,
How is it realistic for you and I to fly about on MIL and WEP, never worrying about fuel or engine managment?
How is it realistic that Bf109s, Tiffies, Yaks, Hurris, Fw190s, P-40s, Lachovkins and Spits have to fiddle with engine managment and P-51s, A6Ms, Mossies, N1Ks, P-38s, F6Fs, P-47s and F4Us don't?
-
In the same thread Pyro also said this,
Good points, there is a limit to how much we can use the fuel multiplier due to the fact that you can't scale altitude.
He’s implying that there’s some discussion and experimentation yet to take place before the issue get settled.
The fuel mod a few weeks ago was 2.25, now 2 hopefully it will be 1.75 or 1.5 at some point. Don't act us if you know what the final outcome will.
I suggested that you start being honest and quit lying to us. The fuel multiplier at 2 has nothing to do with realism. At 2 or 1.5 only some planes will practice “engine management”. A fuel mod at 1.5 doesn’t mean that the yak, la, 109e etc will be flying around at full power. I told you to do the math. These are the planes that be rationing their fuel at either setting. With the fuel mod at 2 or 1.5 the planes you fly will still be tooling around with just enough fuel to allow them to "fly day and night" at mil power being “gamey dweebs” (your quote).
Until you find a way to apply what Pyro is talking about equally to all planes and allow a decent amount of combat time then you have no business claiming 1.5 is less "real" then 2.0 because neither are.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
How is it realistic for you and I to fly about on MIL and WEP, never worrying about fuel or engine managment?
How is it realistic that Bf109s, Tiffies, Yaks, Hurris, Fw190s, P-40s, Lachovkins and Spits have to fiddle with engine managment and P-51s, A6Ms, Mossies, N1Ks, P-38s, F6Fs, P-47s and F4Us don't?
yes they do, unless they want to fly with their entire 300+ gallons fuelload. sure, you can load up 75% in P-51, mossie and P38 and never think about running out of fuel, but it's like flying with the 2*500lb bombs inside the mossie's belly. dead weight.
these planes CAN forget about fuel management at the cost of flying heavy, or manage their fuel like everybody else. loading 200 extra gallons of fuel to allow this, is loading 2000lbs more. If anything, this makes the fuel heavy planes even heavier, relatively, unless they too manage the fuel.
the true problematic planes are the yaks and La5/7. No DT and gas tank the size of a beer can, makes them barely playable in FBM=2. to allow a little more use for these FBM should be lowered BY A LITTLE. 1.5 should be enough (perhaps lower for the larger maps).
Bozon
-
bozon,
In the Mossie, I can't speak to the P-51D, 25% is not enough regardless of how I manage my fuel and 50% is enough for me to ignore fuel management.
-
Bozon,
That is not accurate, if the 51 ups with 75% fuel and climbs to alt and flies to a base he has burnt fuel, if he feels he is too heavy he can take less fuel or take off further back or climb higher or stick to bore and zzzzz until he burns fuel weight. The impact of a lowered fuel mod isn’t that it will force planes like the 51 to fly and fight heavier, those choices remain with the player.
We also need to consider that the 51 can run at any moment not only is he fast enough to get away he's has enough fuel to continue running until his pursuer is out of gas. Also, he is never forced to fly at a lower power setting. As erg accuses me of wanting to fly “all day and all night at mil power”, however it’s the p51 that you will see doing this.
I read above where you claim certain planes are over used, (la7s for instance) well look how many deaths the 51 has every tour and compare that to how many were produced and then do the same for the yaks and 109s...
There were far more planes like the yaks and 109s in ww2 then 51s, they had more kills and were used in as many roles as the 51.
I don’t subscribe to the term "over used". Fly what you want but if we use your terms we can apply that same standard to many other planes.
Most people in this game have no clue about the eastern front. Those battles in the east were epic both in the air and on the ground.
When folks refer to 109s or yaks as simply interceptors or point defense fighters it just goes to show how very little they know. 109s flew everything from escort to jabo to sweeps to defense. The LW didn't need planes with 6 hours of fuel, the US did.
The whole idea that if yaks or la7s or spits or the typhie or whatever plane has more the 30 min of fuel at mil power is unrealistic is just pure non-sense and completely irrational considering other game play decisions made to in regards to the main.
How many fluffers do you see dive-bombing fleets in formation? Or doing 3k suicide runs across a field?
When folks then say well the la7 is over used so it should be limited to 21 minutes of fuel it is just asinine. Not only does it diminish diversity but alienates a whole section of players that don’t play the late war run and die game.
It’s those planes, the spits the yaks and the la7s that make the fight fun. With few exceptions the f4us, p51s, jugs etc are just suicide jabos or timid runners.
Heading into a furbal of 20 spits, la7s and yaks is down right fun. Suffering through a 15 min half arsed p51 bore 'n' zzzz "attack" is utterly boring...
The thought of main full of these types of planes hardly makes it attractive....
The main ought to be a sandbox where all gather and have a good time.
Karnak at mil power and 25% fuel the p51 has 13 min of fuel with the FBM at 2.
-
I agree with your comments Batz!
Also if airfields are too far apart, or limited fuel, and you want to fly Jabo then all you're going to see is:-
P51D
P38L
F6F
maybe F4U
I can't imagine seeing many other Jabo planes, perhaps a Spitfire IX heavy.
I would imagine that players up more Jabo aircraft than Fighter sweep/interceptor aircraft, wouldn't you?
So, fuel, base distances, altitude of bases etc., is a key point, because if these are on the limits of most aircraft capabilities then you're just going to force people into a select few aircraft. I know for sure that engaging P51s all day is going to be boring as hell.
-
CC Batz seems all I kill other than Panzers and Ostwinds is the P-51. I can't imagine the MA will be much fun if I see even more of them :( Also because of the average P-51's pilots LOVE for the "one pass then running home" tactic (if you can call it that) about the only plane to catch the runstangs in is the La7 (or other short legged birds). I now fear the AH2 Classic more than ever. I also agree with you Nexx gonna be a drab place to play indeed. Also what about the IL2??? The Russians (unless I am WAY off) used them to bomb forward airfields. So how much range will they have now? Enough to reach those forward fields going over 150mph? Just a side thought....
-
Lets define long range and then lets tune fuel burn mult. in accordance.
For example, if long range is flying 6 sectors scorting bombers and then rtb, then adjust FBM so that P51s can travel 12 sectors with 100% fuel and DTs.
This way, even short ledged planes will be able to run for 4 sectors.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
What was the T designed for? Not how they used it. Really I am curious, I always thought it was a ground attack plane. Its performance goes to pot over 10k both speed and climb.
Interdiction over front line, IL2 escort and finally ground attack
Like all russian fighters.
I'm not interrested in the 9u because it was never used by the Normandie-Nïemen.
-
Why on earth do you think I am lying?
All I want is mil not to be the cruising speed. Anything that accomplishes that is fine. Do I have some hidden agenda that I dont know about? Please let me know so I can enjoy giving you this anuerism.
Bozon makes some great points.
You guys just want to have the advantage of carrying 2000lbs of gas without having the disadvantage of carrying it.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
Why on earth do you think I am lying?
me ???? :confused:
All I want is mil not to be the cruising speed. Anything that accomplishes that is fine.
same for me
You guys just want to have the advantage of carrying 2000lbs of gas without having the disadvantage of carrying it.
again me ???? :confused:
That's what I'm against
-
All I want is mil not to be the cruising speed.
Because I read where you have typed that but I can’t believe you really think a fuel mod of 2.0 will accomplish that for everyone. Read the thread you quoted from. My replies are there, I was agreeing with Pyro that if via the new "fuel scheme" and in conjunction with the fuel multiplier could create a main where planes don’t fly around at full power all the time then it would be a good thing.
But the reality is different. I then went through and explained that to you in detail. Because the fuel mod is at 2 it only means that planes like the yak and spits and las will be the ones rationing. The p51s and the like wont. The yaks the spits and the las will have extremely limited and artificially created combat time and the planes like the 51 wont.
In response you have called me a gamer who just wants to "fly around all day and night at full power without refueling” yet fail to acknowledge that is far from true. What I am to think then? You cant even take the time to do the math to see what the difference between 1.5 or 2 will be.
Either you are lying to yourself or to me....
The fuel mod at 1.5 or 2.0 isn’t real, neither creates a more real environment. The higher the fuel mod the less real it becomes, the less fun it becomes.
You guys just want to have the advantage of carrying 2000lbs of gas without having the disadvantage of carrying it.
That "advantage" is always there, regardless if the fuel mod is 1 or 10. The 109 will always carry less fuel and the fuel mod doesn’t change that. All the fuel mod does is set how long certain planes can fly. Unless your idea of “winning” a fight is to run around for the 8 min it takes until that “gamey” yak runs out of fuel.
I don’t why you can’t comprehend that, so yeah I will just assume you are lying about your motives.
-
Batz, you really do amaze me. Is it horse blinders? Inborn tunnel vision?
oh, oh I know, you must work for the neo-cons.
Here it is in bullet points so as not to confuse you...
- people should not fly at mil all the time cause it is gamey
- the only way (so far) we can do this is fuel management
- If you want to haul around 2000lbs of fuel you can, but you will be flying around with 2000lbs of fuel.
-
You have no point...
You keep repeating things that are untrue, either on purpose or you are too stupid to realize it.
The fuel mod at 2.0 doesn't accomplish any of those things.
-
I also have a warbirds account.... the only thing i hate about wb is the rolling plane set. it is only 13.95/mo for WB2004/dawn of aces/aromored assault
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
- people should not fly at mil all the time cause it is gamey
They will no matter what you do with fuel management. People will just RTB sooner at MIL or WEP, and/or fly longer ranged planes like the P-51 and P-38. The Early war planes will be gone from the game.
You're trying to control human behaviour that cannot be controlled. Just like you can't stop the hordes, suicide porkers, 1000 ft level bombing, and all the other "gamey" behaviour in the MA. People will fly as fast as they can no matter what because in the MA jungle the high monkey with lots of E is the hunter, the low and slow monkey is the prey.
People will climb on MIL or WEP because that is the most efficient way to climb, then they will accelerate on MIL because with fields so close they are already close to the enemy, then they will engage and fight, and when fuel is getting low they will run for home as fast as they can. The fuel burn multiplier will just shorten the time people will actually fight.
NOBODY WILL USE FUEL MANAGEMENT IN THE MA BECAUSE IT IS A DISADVANTAGE.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
- people should not fly at mil all the time cause it is gamey
P51 can
- the only way (so far) we can do this is fuel management
P51 don't need see next point
- If you want to haul around 2000lbs of fuel you can, but you will be flying around with 2000lbs of fuel.
A P51 guy can put those 2000lbs of fuel in a drop tank he can get ride off at my will.
Note :
I didn't speak about the strat impact I suppose 125% fuel available at field.
The next discussion is when a field is below 50%
-
For me all it's going to do is reduce the interception time of the P-51 runners. With the FBM at 2 there will be nothing with the alt/e to catch that running P-51. Once folks realize that they are more safe than they are now, how long before the Classic arena is dominated by the P-51's? Also one side question...How many of the P-51 sorties in WWII were ground attack and how many were escort? I would just like to know, seeing as HT wants us to fly more historically.
-
Yes Drop tanks are a problem, I am supporting this under the only drop tanks at 100%. I hope this becomes the case, otherwise, that is very true. There apparently will no longer be less then 75% loss of fuel and that is at 90% of fuel objects destroyed.
Many p51 missions were released for ground attack after escort.
I think what may be getting many of your p51 disliking goats, is that the p51 (not my favorite, kinda vanilla if you ask me) was one of the very best planes of the war. You cant avoid this, just as the la7 was one of the very best planes of the war, and the 109g10/k4
This does not take away early planes. The hurri 1 has a suprisingly good range, the spit 1 nearly so. a6m2 is a miser, f4f is okay, p40 has a suprisingly long range, the 110 has a great range. The 109e is at a disadvantage, but so it was during the war. The fact they didnt have enough gas to play around over england probably saved the UK as much as its being ordered to stay low and slow with the bombers.
-
This fuel burn modifier will in no way help the performance of the long ranged fighters. Quite the opposite. The only effect this FBM will have is that the short ranged fighters will spend more of their time flying to and from fights rather than actually fighting. More MS Flightsim and less fun. When Pyro announced the new engine modelling in AH2 I thought "Great! More time to fight", but instead HTC thought up this insult to their customers. As business ideas goes this online social "expuriment" is one of the worst I've seen.
-
Gsholz,
Yes the fuel mod does affect the performance of A/C and giving seperate fuel burn rates absolutely gives the shorter range aircraft an advantage.
It is no different than adding HP and improving wingloading.
To make a long story short the P-51 carry 2.5 more weight in fuel than the 109. Over 1500lbs in fact. To make it carry more weight to achieve the same range is a cheat of the P-51.
There are only 3 solutions other than the current that does not cheat the FM.
1. Eliminate the weight of fuel altogether on all aircraft and have unlimited range.
2. Let any aircraft carry as much fuel as they want to. As long as every gallon they carry weights the same 6lbs. You want to carry 200gallons in a Spit, Yak or 109 go right ahead and fill your tank.
3. Eliminate the fuel multplier for everyone.
Any of those sound ok?
-
Originally posted by Batz
Tyazhelovooruzhenniy = heavily armed.
There popular misconception is = tankoviy
Just like you see folks refer to the 109F as a "Franz" when it actually is Fritz i.e. Friedrich.
The 9T didn’t typical carry AP rounds; it carried HE and was flown in the a2a role.
The following is quoted from 'Notes of An Aircraft Designer', by Alexander Yakovlev himself -- translated from Russian by Albert Zdornykh and published by Arno Press in 1972.
Its been covered in many thread but here’s one with replies from the author's Tony Williams and Emmanuel Gustin:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104441&highlight=yak9t
As I said all along the with high fuel mod it all but guarantees some folks will quit or those planes affected the most will remain in the hangar. With an arena full of 51s any work done in regards to engine management will be for not because its planes like 51s that aren’t affected at all.
Apparently the Bell P-39 doesn't count, as it was in service in 1941..with a 37mm cannon.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Gsholz,
Yes the fuel mod does affect the performance of A/C and giving seperate fuel burn rates absolutely gives the shorter range aircraft an advantage.
Read what I wrote:
Originally posted by GScholz
This fuel burn modifier will in no way help the performance of the long ranged fighters. Quite the opposite.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
3. Eliminate the fuel multplier for everyone.
Yes. It is the only way to give each aircraft its historical advantages and disadvantages without artificially increasing them. The 109s etc. will have their advantage in weight, but not an artificially increased disadvantage in range. The P-51s etc. will have their advantage in range, but not an artificially increased disadvantage in weight.
-
Eliminate the fuel multplier for everyone.
then no one, not even La7 will load 100% fuel, not to mention the use of droptanks which will be expendable fuel and not range aids.
there will be NO short range planes, only VERY long range ones.
is that better?
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
then no one, not even La7 will load 100% fuel, not to mention the use of droptanks which will be expendable fuel and not range aids.
there will be NO short range planes, only VERY long range ones.
is that better?
Bozon
It's just the opposite in the current setup.
The current setup don't annoy you because you don't use short range planes.
You use P-38L,P-47-D25,F6F-5,P-51D,F4U-1D all this planes are flying fuel tank.
You won't ever have to make fuel management except when a field is down to 50% but at 50% all short range fighter are useless
-
guys, maybe its just your useless in short range fighters? Hell if everybody else is in a p38 or p51, give me a nik or an la7.
-
repost to help your brain cells :
Setup :
FBM set at 2
Long Range Fighter (abv : LRV) : 1 gallon per mile and 100 gallon in tank + 25 in drop tank
Short Range Fighter (abv : SRV): 1 gallon per mile and 50 gallon in tank
Manual Fuel Management (abv : MFM)
With a Target at 25 miles
Starting field at 125%
-LRV can choose : 100% + DT , 100% ,75% + DT,75%, 50%+DT in this cases MFM is not necessary
with 50% or 25% + DT MFM is mandatory
Availlable fuel is 125 to 25 gallon
-SRV can take 100% and fuel MFM is mandatory
75% ,50% ,25% loadout are just useless.
Availlable fuel is 50 to 12.5 gallon
Starting field at 75%
-LRV can choose : 75% in this cases MFM is not necessary
with 50% or 25% + DT MFM is mandatory
Availlable fuel is 75 to 25 gallon
-SRV can take 75% and won't make it back
Availlable fuel is 37.5 to 12.5 gallon)
So question is why the LRV can still have 75 gallon when the SRV can't have more than 37.5 ?
You still find this rationnal and FAIR, JUST, EQUITABLE, IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, DISPASSIONATE, OBJECTIVE ????
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
guys, maybe its just your useless in short range fighters? Hell if everybody else is in a p38 or p51, give me a nik or an la7.
If the nik is a short range fighter I'm the next queen of England.
-
You won't ever have to make fuel management except when a field is down to 50%
no, in the P47 which is my main ride I don't take 75% unless I plan on burning all this fuel on the way to the target. getting into a fight with 75% is not too good. This means I carry 270 gallons - that's a little over twice the full fuel load of the La7. the extra 140 gallons are about 1500lb. How well does La7 preform with 100% + 1500lb ?
not to mention that it also means I have fuel in the aux tank which hampers stability a little.
with the 50% option I have 185 gallons of fuel. With full throttle the jug swallows it at an alarming 550GPH (FBM=2) this means 20 min. no better than the La7 is it? and still heavier on fuel. The jug will actually benefit from low FBM.
in order to keep the jug light enough to actually fight (and I turn it, not boring & ZZZ) I do have to manage the fuel once I'm actually light enough to fight.
my entire argument on this thread is not that FBM=2 is too much but that FBM=1 is too low!
A planes range is part of it's preformance and like all other features, planes range comes at a cost. Speed, climb, turning and range - you can improve one at the cost of damaging the others. And planes were designed that way.
I'd like to see it modeled in a sim. with FBM=1, fuel management is meaningless. I will never load my jug with more than 50% and most likely settle for 25%.
Bozon
-
You said you never load over 75% now, so what "fuel management" are you talking about?
You shift up or down depending on the mod without thinking twice.
Fuel mod 1 then I take 50% (or even 25%)
Fuel mod 2 then I take 75%. (or 100)
Is that your idea of "fuel management"?
Are you going to tell me the same thing Erg, that you will voluntarily take just enough fuel as to force yourself into rationing?
You can still fly at "full power all day and night" (as Erg calls it "being gamey"). So what difference does it matter to your jug what the multiplier is?
I read where you claim the La7 is "over used" so maybe you have the same idea as Erg, that fuel management is being able to run the la7s out of their 5 min of fuel during their limited combat time?
It makes no difference what the fuel multiplier is to jugs, 51s, 38s etc.
The la7 will always be lighter; they will always be faster, climb better etc. The fuel multiplier doesn’t do a single thing to change this (actually as GS points out it makes the la7s and such even lighter during combat) except make the la7 flight time "unrealistically" short.
Even at 1 you can take off in your jug at a rear field and burn off gas as needed.
Those choices still are left to you. The yaks, la7s etc have no choice. Their range is set unrealistically short by the arbitrary fuel multiplier.
The maps are 2 to 1 scale; the bases at 25 miles a part don’t represent a 2 to 1 in range.
The fuel multiplier being set at 2 is just some random number picked out of the air, it represents nothing historical.
US planes were designed to be heavier and to carry more fuel. If the problem is you cant fight at its combat weight then pick a different plane. The less folks fly jugs and 51s the funner the arena is anyway. Talk about an over used plane; You see 51 evey where from kamikazi to to suicide base porker.
In the east combat was fought right over the front. Assuming that the only combat in main represents jugs and 51s is non-sense.
La7s were used to chase LW fast jabos (F8s). They were moved right up to the front lines. When troops came under attack la7s ran as fast as possible to get them. In AH neither plane has enough fuel to even meet each let alone have one run the other down.
Yak9u were flying sorties right over Berlin in front of western allied bombing raids. My point here it appears some of you have no clue about ww2 if doesnt involve p51s/jugs/p38s and bombers.
So please lets stop using "history" as basis for some of the claims in this thread. Nothing is historical about the main and nothing is historical about a fuel multiplier.
It's game play tool not a "realism" setting. In MHO the higher the mulitplier the worse off game play is.
-
Batz, you refuse to read through my text:
P47 GAINS NO PREFORMANCE ADVATAGE FROM HI FBM. it's the other way around.
YES I DO USE FUEL MANAGEMENT even now in AHI, taking less fuel. I use 75% throttle when CAP and on the way home. That way I can extend the time in which I'm light enough to knife fight. Jug's advantage is that I can get there on full throttle (+ use it to burn most of the aux tank.)
yes I can fly at "full power all day and night" but I have to be very heavy to do so.
I don't seek to reduce the La7 population. But I do think that La7 drivers should need to consider the consequence of slamming the throttle forward. They will catch anything, but at a cost.
I DO NOT SUPPORT HI FBM. 2 is the max value that is reasonable. 1 as some people here are asking for is too little. I want something in the middle. SO YAKS LA AND 109 (that I do fly btw) ARE STILL PLAYABLE (with their limitations).
I hope I'm clearer now.
Bozon
-
The la7 gains no performance benefit from hi FBM either. Why keep claiming that? No matter what the FBM both planes perform the same as they would regardless of the fuel mod. The jug is heavier, the la7 lighter. With a higher FBM the Jug just spawns with less fuel, if it’s higher he rolls with a bit more.
You have the choice, regardless of the fuel mod, to decide when and where you wish to engage.
You have claimed several times that the la7 was "over used". Well what does that mean, there's too many? There's too many 51s as well. There's "too many" of a lot of planes, so what?
La7s always have less fuel endurance no matter what the FBM. Because the bases are at 25 mile apart in AH isn’t (imho) a justifiable reason to limit certain planes to a few minutes of fuel. You can always voluntarily take off further back and burn fuel to get to your desired "combat weight".
109s aren’t necessarily an issue (except the 109e) since fuel porking has been addressed. However, those short range planes with out DTs (the planes that make the arena fun) are still adversely affected by the high FBM or any FBM for that matter. Altitude isn’t scalable. Let’s say it takes 5 min for a Yak 9u to get to 15k, at an FBM of 2 he has burned twice as much fuel to get to alt. By climbing he losses combat time, where the jug just losses weight.
I know you have stated your support for a multiplier between 1.5 and 2 but even at 1 the only thing that changes is the amount flight time for each plane. Performance doesn't change; the la7s doesn’t end up with 2000 gal of gas and no weight penalty.
A la7 with 75% gas and an FBM at 2 still weighs the same as La7 with 75% gas and an FBM at 1. A jug at 50% fuel and an FBM at 2 still weighs the same as a Jug and an FBM at 1.
The jug can decide to take more or less fuel and to take off closer or further as he sees fit at any FBM.
I thought the main reason of the FBM and new consumption model was to get folks to fly at crusie settings, not to make things easier for overweight jugs :p
-
Originally posted by bozon
no, in the P47 which is my main ride I don't take 75% unless I plan on burning all this fuel on the way to the target. getting into a fight with 75% is not too good. This means I carry 270 gallons - that's a little over twice the full fuel load of the La7. the extra 140 gallons are about 1500lb. How well does La7 preform with 100% + 1500lb ?
not to mention that it also means I have fuel in the aux tank which hampers stability a little.
I was not speaking of you but more of the average AH player
with the 50% option I have 185 gallons of fuel. With full throttle the jug swallows it at an alarming 550GPH (FBM=2) this means 20 min. no better than the La7 is it? and still heavier on fuel. The jug will actually benefit from low FBM.
There is a difference : you still can fly , have access to more fuel than a short range fighter and so are less affected by fuel porking.
A 50% yak is useless.
in order to keep the jug light enough to actually fight (and I turn it, not boring & ZZZ) I do have to manage the fuel once I'm actually light enough to fight
You said it yourself : once light.
Shortrange fighter are light before starting their engine.
my entire argument on this thread is not that FBM=2 is too much but that FBM=1 is too low!
A planes range is part of it's preformance and like all other features, planes range comes at a cost. Speed, climb, turning and range - you can improve one at the cost of damaging the others. And planes were designed that way.
When I posted this thread it was at 2.25 now it's a 2.00 still a bit too hight but I'm used to it ,it's the MA setting since 4 years ...
I'd like to see it modeled in a sim. with FBM=1, fuel management is meaningless. I will never load my jug with more than 50% and most likely settle for 25%.
Bozon
No problem for me it's how it should be IMO.
-
Batz, I see we're not speaking the same language. HTC will decide anyway.
strafo, fuel porking is not an issue anymore. 75% is minimum and you have to kill all the fuel bunkers for that.
Bozon out.
-
Certainly Bozon but a problem stay :
what about the slow climbing fuel hungry planes ?
As it's been said the FBM change the scale only for the X axis ,Y is not affected.
-
Sure we are, you are trying make some argue that any FBM higher then 1 is needed. You claim planes like the la7 gain "performance" the lower the FMB.
Here it is in your language.
P47 GAINS NO PREFORMANCE ADVATAGE FROM HI FBM. it's the other way around.
All the FBM is a way to manipulate how long planes stay in the air. Not how they perform, not how heavy they will be when they fight.
It shouldnt be a tool to control which plane someone feel is over used.
I don't seek to reduce the La7 population. But I do think that La7 drivers should need to consider the consequence of slamming the throttle forward. They will catch anything, but at a cost.
At 1 they have no more range then they had historically. The fact they are in a postion to catch you is not the fault of the FBM but your own. Wanting to restrict their rl range so you can out run them confirms what I expected all along.
-
wow everything is a conspiracy with you batz. DId you lose your meds?
Perhaps the real problem is just behavioral. Now, assuming they fix two important factors that straffo has rattled on about
1. fuel in gallons not %
2. Drop tanks only at 100% fuel load out
I believe the real issue is trying to up from a whacked base to attack another base. If you are upping from a porked base with a Yak9t or 109e trying to attack people a sector away, I am a little dubious about your ability to think straight. If you are at a porked base, you should be upping into enemy planes, not flying to there base (which isnt to smart either). If you are attacking another base, I would suggest doing it from a base that has not been porked. If you cant find one, I would call that sound strategy on the enemies part.
-
finally.
hitech says (incase he doesnt want to read 140 some posts...)
"I've been reading your arguements. It seems to me you are trying to argue that short range should not be a problem for short range fighters, and all you argurments are based on that 1 idea.
Your arguements are that longer range fighters are not effected as much by the fuel multiplier. In a way thats exactly what we want to accomplish. We want to give the detriment or adantages to each plane that they had. Just like we do with performance and weapons.
You discuss one specific case of attacking another field. Thats not all the planes are used for in AH. Lots of times there is deffencive rolls or between field fights.
Could it be you wish to use the short range fighters in a roll that they are not well suited?
Now as to your last post about the damage fuel system fair.
All planes are effected equal. Each has had it range cut the the same %.
Under a limited fuel quatinty i.e. gals system you be hurting the hi fuel consumption planes. Take 2 planes = range but vastly different fuel consumptions and both short range. 1 would not be effected at all the other would. Under the % system all planes are effected, they just are not all effected for the role you discribe.
HiTech
-
Of course I still support straffo on the gallons rather than percent.
totally odd to have it that way.
-
You cant follow the discussion. Everything I have talked deal with planes at 100% fuel after Pyro addressed fuel porking. Fuel porking is a thing of the past, its gone let it go.
An La7 has 21 min of fuel. He cant take off at a rear base...
You need to look up the word "conspiracy". Bozon thinks it should be harder for an la7 to catch him and thus an FBM higher then 1 is the only way to do that. He has claimed through out that La7s are "over used". He doesn't want La7s to be able to catch him. Thats what I suspected and his statement confirms that. Once you look up that definition tell me where is the "conspiracy" in that.
-
Well, it appears to me that you think others are working together to take away your happy happy fun time. That would a group of others (like myself and bozon, who you have accused of having this hidden agenda), conspiring to do something terrible to you.
21 minutes in an la7? You should be thrilled. That is excellent range at full speed. I took a 50% f4u4 and had 15min of full mil, not wep. That is more gas in the f4u4 if I remember right.
-
Don't flatter yourself; I doubt you could conspire to keep a pile of sticks together let alone "do something terrible" to me.
Any judgment I made about you or Bozon are completely separate and based on your statements in this thread. I could quote them for you if you forgot.
Who forced you to take 50% in that F4u? You did that all on your own didn't you?
Fyi you must of took more then 50% fuel or the fuel mod wasnt 2 because the F4U-4 gets 11 min with 50% at mil by my quick test.....
-
Really? I thought there was something whacky. Try it again at wep, I dare say there is a bug. Wep runs at better mpg than mil in the f4u4. I was trying to remember which was which, and chose the logical number for mil.
I took the 50% because I was upping from one sector out and wanted to be able to turn with the mustangs.
the 50% gave me a 325 mph cruising speed with something like 35 minutes of flight time. More than adequate.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
Really? I thought there was something whacky. Try it again at wep, I dare say there is a bug. Wep runs at better mpg than mil in the f4u4. I was trying to remember which was which, and chose the logical number for mil.
I took the 50% because I was upping from one sector out and wanted to be able to turn with the mustangs.
the 50% gave me a 325 mph cruising speed with something like 35 minutes of flight time. More than adequate.
Pyro has already explained that WEP derived from water injection reduces GPM
Edited..I knew what I wanted to say but did not say it.. (j'suis un idiot).......MPG changed to GPM.......fuel consumption goes down when water is injected.........apparantly.
-
sweet. Who woulda thunk it! I could believe a supercharger, but water injection, wow. i guess if you hold the rpm steady, theoretically a denser charge would not necessarily mean more gas.
-
Ignorance uncovered.
-
Use of WEP in the F4U-4 reduces fuel consumption substancially.
In AH2 the F4U-4 has a 21 minute duration at Mil power one of the shortest in the simm. This causes no problems what so ever in climbing to alt, arriving at target or getting kills.
In fact I have been flying it with 50% to 75% in most cases with no DT's and have had more than ample time by merely reducing MAP and RPM on my return trip.
-
is the ah2 fuel burn curve exponential?
ie:
full throttle fuel burn 2.0
cruise throttle setting 1.0?
or is it a linear multiplier?
-
Ignorence? I am full of it. If you every need more let me know.
fester I think it is non linear. I think they mapped it to the books as far as the p51 and the 109g6 is concerned. Hard to tell with the rpm and throttle.
-
Bozon thinks it should be harder for an la7 to catch him and thus an FBM higher then 1 is the only way to do that. He has claimed through out that La7s are "over used". He doesn't want La7s to be able to catch him. Thats what I suspected and his statement confirms that. Once you look up that definition tell me where is the "conspiracy" in that.
Batz, you can relax. I'm not after your La7s.
They will still catch me, so will yaks, 109s, 190s, P51s, typhoons, F4us. At typical MA altidutes they all outrun the Jug. Even the spit IX the jug can barely outrun. Heck, La7 will catch the jug down low even while flying at cruise settings, FBM changes nothing.
Then you disregard me stating that I think FBM=2 is on the edge of playability for yaks and LA7s and I think it should be LOWER, just so these planes are still used. USED yes, that's USED and have enough quality fight that's fight, not just flight) time.
I do want fuel load and management to mean something. Since most MA sorties are around the 20-30 min time, since by then you are either shot down or out of ammo, while real sorties were a few hours long, setting FBM=1 makes any fuel considerations negligible.
the non-compression in the vertical means nothing to low flying planes of the eastern front. 25 miles between bases sounds a little even by eastern front standards - it means about 12 miles from the front line. Perhaps some forward landing strip for refueling but not a base. If you have other info, I'd be happy to learn.
you can relax. La7 will still be the popular plane, Yaks are rare as it is, and P51s will always have the longets range and be called runstags.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Citabria
is the ah2 fuel burn curve exponential?
ie:
full throttle fuel burn 2.0
cruise throttle setting 1.0?
or is it a linear multiplier?
The multiplier (found in the arena set up table) is linear.
The new fuel consumption model (how much fuel is consumed at what power)is modelled (it seems) to be a function of manifold pressure and rpm...........adjusted by certain additives.
-
I have never flown a la7 in the 4 years I have been in AH I could careless about flying one now. But I don’t think it’s over used or that the player who enjoys flying “ought to pay some unrealistic price” because they enjoy it.
So it isn’t my la7. Its just is just more fun to fight most Ami runners. The same with nikis and spits. I never fly those either. I rather fly into 20 spits nikis and la7s then fight 1 boring b n z then run 51 or jug (there are of course exceptions but I am generalizing here).
I didn’t disregard your statement that the FBM should be lower then 2. What I said was that any argument to make the FBM higher then 1 is nothing but a game play issue and has nothing with the fact "la7s are over used" or "La7s should pay the price for low fuel capacity".
None of that has any bearing on "reality". The jug will always have more fuel then a la7, it will always weigh more. Range is an issue that can be left to the player. He can take off further back or adjust his fuel weight as he sees fit at any fuel multiplier. So where we are left with is "how can I use the fbm to my advantage". You said this:
But I do think that La7 drivers should need to consider the consequence of slamming the throttle forward. They will catch anything, but at a cost.
As if the la7 at its historic fuel burn rate is some how wrong or gains more range then it should have. Its just nonsense.
Dogfight a la7 in rl in a jug and more then likely you won’t be able to run away. Creating an artificial situation where you can do that in the main is certainly not "real" or "historic". So what is the basis for such a claim?
An FBM of 1.5 would be fine with me, but I don’t kid myself into thinking its any more real then 2. Its just gives some planes a few extra minutes of fuel.
I do want fuel load and management to mean something.
Mean something to who? It means very little to the p51 regardless of the FBM.
FYI: Planes didn’t all fly "low" on the eastern front. Another misconception some have.
-
Originally posted by bozon
the non-compression in the vertical means nothing to low flying planes of the eastern front.
In comparative terms i think it does..............
Climbing to an altitude where you can travel further for lower fuel loss is a benefit for all ac........... even if those altitudes are different.
Because the arena is not compressed in the vertical it creates a "threshold" phenomenom in the game play model.
Its a sort of double hit on small fuel capacity ac when higher FBM's are chosen........the fuel consumption to a chosen altitude is not alieviated by a smaller map size.
Even Eastern front VVS ac would climb to 15/16k OTW to an area of patrol............ and yes Yaks and La7's did patrol.
They were not primarily rapid reaction interceptors (detection and communications systems on the eastern front were not effective enough for this) .........they were air superiority fighters and short/medium range escorts.
The true (ETO) rapid reaction interceptors we have are the BoB Spitfire/Hurricane and the ME 163.
-
hehe I was flying the hurri 1 last night. Took 50% fuel, gave me something like 60 gallons of gas. hehehehe. Was crusing at 160 mph at 14k, and I thought that might be too much. Still, shot down a p38. Dont ask me how. I think he went into a flat spin and I got a 303 into him.
hurri and rapid. Not two words put together often.
-
whine whine whine and whine :( :( :( :(
Because I ditched at 20 centimeter of the runway out of fuel.
-
FBR at x2 is too much...You barely have fuel in some planes to fly to the closest base and rtb...
I'm with Tilt FBR 1.0
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
FBR at x2 is too much...You barely have fuel in some planes to fly to the closest base and rtb...
I'm with Tilt FBR 1.0
no way not with these stupid 256/256 maps.
the tip is fuel management ;)
a 109 with 100% will fly 200ish miles with EASE.....hell maybe even 300. fact is at alt (15-20k) these planes have ALOT more range than they did back "then" so a FBR of 2 is needed