Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Kweassa on January 04, 2004, 06:37:51 AM
-
How about this for a new engine overheat scheme?
Everything the way it is, except:
1) get rid of automatic WEP off
2) when needle is in "red zone", it will start to overheat as fast as when radiators are damaged
3) when needle is in "red zone", engine cool down time will be slowed down to 1.5 times longer than the normal rate, depending on plane
....
I think this is a very simple scheme with almost no real programming work(er.. I think..), that can get rid of the drawback of the 'gamey' feeling of planes automatically taking care of their engine temperatures by switching WEP off when entering "red zone".
If we take the example of a Fw190D-9 with 10 minutes WEP duration and 10 minutes cool down time, when the WEP is first engaged, the pilot would be able to use it for 10 minutes.
When 10 minutes have passed, the pilot may choose to leave it on, but upon entering the 'red zone" the needle will start moving at an accelerated rate as if radiators are shot out.
If he chooses to use WEP for 30 more seconds of extra time than the 10 minute duration, it will take 45 seconds to cool down. There is no automatic limit on WEP, and it will be entirely up to the pilot to switch it on or off.
However, if he uses/abuses too much of WEP when the needle is already at the "red zone", eventually, since the overheat rate is way higher than the cooldown rate, he will move closer and closer to blowing his engine.
..
I think it's a good idea.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
How about this for a new engine overheat scheme?
or leave every thing the way it is but with no auto wep switch off and add an orange band on the temp guage.................red line it for more than "x" secs and the engine breaks a gasket giving an oil leak and the usual oil leak/temperature model kicks in.
Actually would prefer rpm control to set WEP for those ac where rpm was the only method of wep provision. Then stick an orange band on the relevant rpm indicator.
-
If you're going to do that, I'd also enable engine overheating with firewalled throttles. If nothing else because the engines stay RIGHT on the red line as is, making it far less interesting.
I'm not sure if your idea would be good in the MA (more so with newbies) but it would rock with firewalled throttle overheating in a scenario. I'm just not sure everyone wants realism in the MA.
-
Very good idea, Kweassa. I'm all for it :)
-
Both ideas are good.
Some kind of full throttle usage limitation would be nice.
-
Well, I'm not necessarily suggesting this idea to limit full throttle usage.
From what I remember of past discussions, I think it has been reasonably estabilshed that practically no WW2 plane would just overheat by using "military power" - the throttle setting we generally set as "100%".
The limitations in time for using maximum throttle w/o WEP, is IIRC something that has to do with engine life span rather than a direct performance hit. That's why there are maximum continuous power settings.. (?)
So, as far as I know, since there are people who simply hate to see planes overheating by just using 100% throttle, I think AH should remain as it is - except, the changes suggested are simply a suggestion to increase a bit of autonomy in throttle control without having any 'automatic' devices simply switch WEP off.
Was there a WW2 aircraft that was known to overheat at military power? If so, maybe something can be separately worked out with those planes.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Well, I'm not necessarily suggesting this idea to limit full throttle usage.
Agreed i would use it to limit full rpm usage............ by moving rpm based WEP to the separate rpm control and disabling the auto cut out.
Max boost is then set by rpm both of which can add red lines to their gauges.
Additive based WEP (water & N2 etc) can then be time limited per flight and only switched on/off manually or when they "run out" (time out)
Engine condition is read off the temp guage. Adding an orange band provides a warning zone through which the needle moves if WEP (either thru rpm or additive) is "engaged".
Once in the red zone then pilot beware!.....an engine temperature warning light could be handy........ (it could replace that beacon thingy)
edit............ I suppose if we had an enginel temperature warning light the orange band on the guage would be a little superfluous.
-
Limiting the use of full throttle in buffs by introducing the possibility of wrecking the engines from overheating would also help end the problems in scenario games of bombers having less of a performance gap relative to fighters than they should.
Limiting the use of full throttle by fighters would help compensate the buffers for their now increased danger.
However, I would want to see this AND the effect of getting increased range by reducing throttle put in together. Ideally, one would have realistic emulation of this on a per plane basis, but even having an across-the-board version would help.
For instance, one could have a direct relationship between throttle and fuel burn rate, but an inverse squared relationship beween throttle and airspeed. For sake of argument, at 81% throttle you burn fuel at 81% of the rate you wou at full throttle, but your level speed is 90% of what it would be at full throttle. You increase teh amount of time you can keep flying by about 25%, but are only going at 90% full speed, so range increases to 1.25*0.9 = 1.125 of what it is at full throttle.
THAT gives us buffers something interesting to play with when planning flights. Add in that fuel can be loaded to any amount up to that available at the field (so if field allows 75% fuel, you can load anything from 1-75% fuel as you please), and us buffers can start looking into all-up weights, and getting the best performance out of our planes by selecting the minimum load that will get teh job done (and having to work out the tradeoff between speed, range and fuel weight, etc). That lot would probably hardly affect the fighter pilots at all, but would make life sooo much more interesting for us bomber enthusiasts.
Esme
-
I don't know about this. It seems overly harsh as it would limit the Allied aircraft to about 2.5 minutes of WEP before the engines entered the "blow any time" area.
I distinctly recall a P-38 pilot saying that they ignored the ground crew's demands that they limit themselves to 5 minutes of WEP and would instead push the throttle through the gates and leave it there for the whole fight under the principal that they were more important than a few hours less on the engine's lifespan.
We are already limited to 5 minutes, lowering it to 2.5 minutes seems like the wrong direction.
There is also the issue about bombers already performing better than the really did in comparison with the fighters. This would simply exacerbate that problem.
-
Originally posted by EsmeNhaMaire
Limiting the use of full throttle in buffs by introducing
We can adjust our manifold pressure (a measure of power) by adjusting both throttle and rpm separately now.
Further by changing both we get different fuel burn rates.
I dont think any one has suggested (here) that full throttle should give any rise to engine wear or in flight engine damage.
The combination of full throttle and WEP (either thru advancing the manifold pressure by revs or by additive or both) will increase the engine running temperature to eventually exceed the specified maximum.
kweassa suggests that WEP should not be automatically switched off but instead continue to cause engine temperature rise. Eventually this will have consequences of some sort or else we may as well stay with auto off.
As Karnak says (he cites p38's) this would not give rise to instant failure............equally the pilot is in the realms of the unkown, he has taken the engine into an zone of performance where it may fail............ suffice to say its on his own risk.
Pilots folk lore does not deny the law of physics.
The upper cylinder head temperature on the Ash 82 (la5 & la7)was considered vulnerable to failure thru over temperature....... One may expect the la7 (actually the la5 more so) to be more sensitive and fail earlier (than the P38) if the engine temperature was ignored. Equally on some occasions it may be the P38 pilots unlucky day.
In both cases a blown oil gasket is not instant death it is most likely an early bath.
Also one would expect that the actual set up would extend the total period of WEP available (except in cases where WEP is limited by the amount of additive that may be injected) however it does this at a certain risk.
The Yak 9U is constantly rated at its max rpm and has no additive WEP system. it would be uneffected.
Each AC engine could be modelled to represent the reality in this respect.
-
HT already models rpm settings why not just go the rest of the way and create the AH version of Il2’s FB CEM. Of course he could allow it to be disabled by the host in the arena settings.
Some random made up "over heated" engine model like wwiiol won't add anything at all to game play.
I suspect he could do it but we all know that unless each aircraft closely matches their "realistic" power band the complaining and whining will go on for years.
Karnak touches on something as well. Air forces needed to keep as many aircraft in service as they could so they set power setting limits. These limits weren't set in stone where if violated the engines heated up and exploded. For the most part running at high boost simply meant reduced engine life and the increased maintenance for ground crews. There is much anecdotal information like what Karnak stated where pilots pushed their aircraft above the recommended power settings.
If in AH you are asking for " over 5 min of "wep" the engine heats up and the gets "damaged" then I don't see the point. There would need to be some level of "randomness" to the effects of pushing the eng to the limit.
-
One problem---under 15k , La7 is fastest nonperk ride withOUT wep....any of the afore-mentioned would only serve to make it even more speed-dominant by limiting wep usage on D9, etc
-
A little misunderstanding Karnak.
You should be aware our aircraft in AH has the "white zone", the "yellow zone" and the "red zone". Full military power rests the needle at the end of the "white zone", engaging WEP pushes it to "yellow zone", and then the WEP switches off automatically as it enters the "red zone".
I'm not entirely sure how fast the engine starts to overheat when rads are damaged, but arbitrarily, let's say it's 2 minutes.
In that case, with your example of the P-38L, with the very first engagement of the WEP the P-38L will be able to actually do 7 minutes(!) of WEP - increased length, not decreased and castrated :)
........
5 minutes of initial WEP time between the yellow zone, plus the extra 2 minutes inside red zone.
However, if, the pilot pushes the WEP to full use, near the brink of engine failure, he will have to rest the engine full 16 minutes(!) before he can use the WEP to full potential again. (I'm aware that the Allied planes in AH most usually use something like a 2:1 ration on cooldown/WEP time.)
1. So, if the P-38L pilot uses the full 7 minutes of WEP, the needle will enter yellow zone and proceed to almost the end of the red zone.
(5 minutes of "safe WEP" + 2 minutes of "unrecommended WEP")
2. After WEP is switched off, since the cooldown time in the red zone is suggested 1.5 times longer than its "normal" cool down, then the cool down time required for the needle to fall back to the beginning of the red zone will be 3 minutes
( {2:1 cooldown ratio} x {1.5 times longer cool down} = {3:1 ratio red zone})
( 3x2 minutes of red zone = 6 minutes to cool)
3. Then, when the needle falls into the yellow zone, normal cool down time applies, so it would require 10 minutes for the needle to fall back to the boundary of the white/yellow zone.
( {2:1 cooldown ratio} x {5 minutes of "normal WEP"})
4. If the P-38L pilot decides to abide by the "recommended" WEP durations of 5 minutes, then he'll need just 10 minutes to cool down, to bring the needle to the start of yellow zone
( {2:1 cooldown ratio} x {5 minutes of "normal WEP"})
5. If the P-38L pilot uses the recommended length of WEP duration, but decides to keep it on for some extra time of 1 minute, then it would be:
( {10 minutes cool down for YZ} + {3 minutes RZ} = 13 minutes cooldown )
6. If the P-38L pilot, who is in the condition described as in section 5., waits only 3 minutes of the cooldown time of the total 13, and then rengages WEP, then the needle will be at the start of the redzone when he decides to do so - he will have only 2 minutes of WEP time before he absolutely needs to cool down.
7. So, if this P-38L pilot initially used all of his WEP potential of 7 minutes, and then engages the WEP in intervals of 3 minuts of cooldown time, then he can use the WEP in intervals of 2 minutes WEP, 3 minute cool down, continuously. During those intervals the needle will be staying in the red zone.
8. This might bring up questions of abuse - in the fact that there's nothing that stops the use of WEP totally except the end of the 'red zone'. However, if the pilot constantly uses WEP in the way described between 5~7, if he ever needs to engage WEP to run away, or climb away, or to do any action that needs a steady, prolonged use of WEP over some time, he won't be able to do it. His choice of continuous, short use of WEP over the red line, comes with a price with no steady WEP time.
A harsher solution may be provided, like making it unable to switch WEP back on when the needle is in the red zone. In that case, the pilot has no use but to wait at least more than 6 minutes, to use WEP again: 5 minutes of normal WEP, 2 minutes of 'redzone WEP' - after using 2 minutes of redzone, he will have to cool it down for full 6 minutes until needle drops back into yellow zone, since with this harsher scheme, he won't be able to switch WEP back on while the needle is in the red zone.
-
Karnak touches on something as well. Air forces needed to keep as many aircraft in service as they could so they set power setting limits. These limits weren't set in stone where if violated the engines heated up and exploded. For the most part running at high boost simply meant reduced engine life and the increased maintenance for ground crews. There is much anecdotal information like what Karnak stated where pilots pushed their aircraft above the recommended power settings.
If in AH you are asking for " over 5 min of "wep" the engine heats up and the gets "damaged" then I don't see the point. There would need to be some level of "randomness" to the effects of pushing the eng to the limit.
I agree, Batz.
I also have a fleeting suspicion that the way WEP is modelled now, is a clever method to get rid of the complications of modelling prolonged engine use under overboost. With the way it's currently modelled, nobdy can use WEP other than 'recommended' durations forcibly. It's the exactly same gameplay approach as flaps and autoretraction issues. An unrealistic gameplay device that forces the players to remain inside realistic boundaries - kinda' ironic :)
Nobody in real life would just dare to do something that was not recommended, prohibited even, when their life is at stake.(unless, a larger, immediate risk of being shot down overcasts the risk of 'not follwing the rules')
So people would generally abide by what they were taught - they'd keep the suggested power settings, and would not try to touch flaps during flight. However, since there's no way of modelling the ultimate, unpredictable outcome based on probability that has infinite range of factors - I admit it becomes a problem when they try the 'realistic approach' with engine overheat and flaps - when's it gonna blow? when's it gonna jam?
So the current approach to overheat issues are adequate and reasonable - I can understand that. But can't help the fact that it feels a bit gamey and uncomfortable :)
So I'm merely suggesting a 'twist' to what already exists.
A different approach may be taken: :)
Get rid of automatic WEP off, and implement randomness in engine failures, but make it foreseeable by use of the temp gauge.
No random failures whatsoever when the aircraft is stayed within the boundaries of its recommended WEP use, but when the needle enters the red zone, implement randomness not by direct spontaneous engine failure, but by randomizing the overheat rate - a factor between 1~5 minutes max of prolonged use, with an increasing chance of faster overheat rate as the needle proceeds through the red zone.
In short, after using up the recommended WEP time, and entering the "red zone", the needle may indicate a steady overheating, but with random possibility of the needle starting to move a bit faster and faster(of course, not so fast as to suddenly rush to the end of the red zone and blow the engine).
This one would be a rather 'contained' randomness which the player can keep track of, so preparations can be made to avoid blowing the engine. Everything is equal amongst everyone with the basic WEP durations, and only the prolonged use in the 'red zone' will be determined by randomnity - he may get only about 1 minute of prolonged use if unlucky, or 5 minutes if really lucky.
I think the discontent with randomness was with the games that used random failures without any warnings - exceed the duration and wham, suddenly, unexpectedly it blows. Maybe a rather contained, indirect randomness in not spontaneous failures, but rather with overheat rates, could yield a more satisfactory response?
-
I've yet to see ANY effect on fuel burn rate in ANY plane that I've tested in AH due to different engine settings.
I'd be most interested if you can tell me some planes and setting to try under test so that I can see the different rate of fuel burn for myself, because i;ve seen no evidence of it so far - and believe me, I;ve been looking. It's the thing I miss most from previous experience of WW2 flight sims.
I'm not implying you're wrong, either Tilt - it's possible I may have overlooked something, but I've looked hard for some effect from engine settings on fuel burn rate in the past, and havent seen it yet.
Everyone else - I'd be surprised if there was much dissent from the buff pilots if buff engines were made so as to tend to pack up if run over-hot for too long (thus getting the fighter-buff performance gap back to something more realistic). What you do with the fighters I'm less concerned about, so long as you're not able to WEP all day without fear of knackering your engine in some way. Just a thought (and not one I;ve thought deeply about, just something to consider) - might it help if rather than have the engine die if run too fast for too long if there were a chance of it simply dropping in power (bust gasket, or something) and running rough of a sudden? (and mebbe staying on teh rearm pad for a minute rather than 30 seconds could fix that)?
Esme
-
Kwessa, wep also includes limited supplies like water injection and nitrious, your sample isn't including those. Other than that your suggestion does have some good points, basicly your saying wep breaks (but not the motor) if used to a limit.
Other than that it always recharges.
HiTech
-
Damn, yes, that's where we were getting confused, all right - the difference between the top end of the engines unaided performance, and its performance when artificially boosted by injection of some extra substance into the fuel.
Hmmnn... due to the fact that we're effectively getting new planes each time we spawn, that might just mean having to treat bomber engine overheat slightly differently to fighter engine overheat, Hitech, so that rogue buffers don't run around on full throttle all day as tends to happen ATM, without overly penalising our fighter friends..
Esme
-
How much damage to fluffs actually DO now-a-days that warrants limiting their abiities further? (Aside from dogfiting A20's)
-
Thanks to Tilt for causing me to check engine stuff again, and thanks to Hitech and crew for putting in what I would've sworn wasn;t in last time I looked.. - apologies, to the software crew, too, for lack of effect on rate of fuel burn by messing with engine controls is something I've long been critical of.
At lest in the case of the Ju88, you;re quite correct, Tilt! Doing a couple of quick tests I found that drastically reducing RPM alone makes about a 10% difference, whilst drastically reducing both makes about 25% difference in the length of time the fuel burns. Mind you, the speed dropped enough that at the settings I chose (at random) I'm not sure the range wouldve been helped, but obviously I need to test further to look into that. Which'll keep me quiet for a while, at least...
Now, if we can just persuade the team to give the AHII Ju88 its proper normal internal fuel tankage, but make it so that if anyone is daft enough to try upping with full fuel AND full bombs that they will find they can barely get off the ground, if at all... :-)
Bj229r, what you;re talking about is MA gameplay, so far as I can see, not what the aircraft could actually do in real life, which is what this thread has to do with. The MA bears no resemblance at all to what happened and what was effective in RL due to teh differences between MA gameplay and the constraints on aircraft usage in real life. There are a number of issues which impact how effective bombers are in the MA, level speed being the least of them.
Esme
-
Roger that, I'm merely saying that buffs (again, with the exeption of dogfiting A-20's) dont need any more 'realism' attached to them in MA...they are quite useless and easy enough to kill enough as it is
-
Good to know there are good points, and it is acknowledged.
Thank you HT! :)
-
I see some effort to force the engine/aircraft model to something that may be more realistic; however, I have seen nothing of adding the rest of the controls to the aircraft...
The only aircraft that had 100% automatic control of RPM, Throttle, mixture (to my knowledge) were the FW190s/Ta152s.
All other aircraft had 3-seperate controls per engine. This would start to clutter up the deskspace.
If we go to a realistic (hmm!) model, we'll need cowl-flap controls, radiator controls, high-blower controls. These things were operated by the pilot, not the onboard computer.
Some did have an "auto" mode, but they also allow for manual control.
I personally believe the game does a very fine job of mixing approximate realism wiht playability. It also allows the room for those with the knowledge of things to experiment with trim, rpm, throttle settings to gain advantage over the uninformed. In your desire for more realistic simulation, keep in mind the new guys that are just starting out. Flying with a twist-stick and a keyboard, or even a mouse.
It really should be fun for everyone who likes airplanes and flight sims without requiring 600-hours of flight/ground school before getting that first kill.
-
A common feature of the German fighter engine controls (post ‘42) was the single lever operation (engine and the propeller function to one control lever). The DB, Jumo and BMW systems were different in detail but they controlled the engine and propeller etc…. The pilot basically moved the "Throttle" to adjust the power at all speeds and altitudes. These “automatic” systems adjusted the mixture, ignition timing, supercharger speed, manifold pressure, engine speed (via prop pitch) and even MW50/GM1. Each version of these engines had their own particular set-up and variations.
This “single lever control” concept was shared among the various aircraft manufacturers worldwide and used by all sides. It certainly would not end up with the average AH pilot
requiring 600-hours of flight/ground school before getting that first kill.
The question is would the work required by HTC to model an accurate CEM add anything to game play and fun to the average player. To the geeks it would be great, for the guy who just wants to pop in and blow stuff up he could careless.
As I said above along with any CEM come those who will find fault and complain unless each plane matches the correct power bands. In the A & V forum you can see something as inane as fuel consumption gets beaten to death. It may be a can of worms HT doesn't wish to open.
-
hey kweassa, how bout tossing a rod out of the cowling or fireall. hits pilot causing a pilot wound?
or better yet, rod goes thwanging out of cowling and wounds your wingman.:rofl