Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Vulcan on January 29, 2004, 03:01:33 PM
-
As you might have noticed my sub's still going but I've been playing that 'other' game a lot. Theres a few things I like over there which I'd love to see over here, and visa versa.
One thing I really... really... REALLY like is having engine management. Not super complex, but not as simple as we have now. I like the fact that if you run the engine too hot it starts to 'knock', and that it can eventually sieze. I like the fact that good engine management can give you an advantage in combat. I also like the fact you can nurse the damaged engine and it doesn't blow after a preset 'time'.
Pretty please :)
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105146
-
Bad Idea, you want engine managment...go play that other game...last thing we need is more sim crap
-
Speak for yourself. What's this 'we'?
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by DYGCaps
last thing we need is more sim crap
News for ya Caps, 'Sim Crap' is exactly what I want to see (notice I didnt try to speak for everyone). Quake is straight on, first turn to the left. Have fun there:)
-
Right on Gremlin,
Go play Fighter Ace if you don't care about the sim "crap"
Crumpp
-
no kidding. There are a billion arcade flight games, this one is a nice balance. That balance would be improved with the suggestions listed above. Who the hell is the we?
-
The We? Hmm prolly some cult of the un-named H2H folks... I want loads of the "sim-crap" stuffed in this game... The more, the better! :aok
-
FWIW I did close my account and I don't think that is causing HTC any less sleep. And I am "playing there."
However adding more manual/automatic optional engine/aircraft managment features, beyond the few AH already has, would be key to my reopening it. And TOD being something to knock ones socks off with wouldn't hurt.
-
wow talk about seperating the boys from the men if that get implemented. Took me awhile in the other sim to understand it.. gonna be hell for the masses if it comes.
people have enough problems trying to understand a slower plane catching a fast plane in a dive.
-
Originally posted by DYGCaps
last thing we need is more sim crap
Make it as close to real as possible.
-
Umm the WW2OL engine setup isn't to difficult, its not perfect and I'd bet HTC could come up with a good solution ;)
-
Originally posted by SunKing
wow talk about seperating the boys from the men if that get implemented. Took me awhile in the other sim to understand it.. gonna be hell for the masses if it comes.
people have enough problems trying to understand a slower plane catching a fast plane in a dive.
Why not make it like combat trim? An advantage if you use it and use it well, but you can get by just by turning on the crutch.
I'd love to be able to nurse a damaged engine instead of the toggle on/toggle off garbage when radiator or oil gets hit.
-
Originally posted by DYGCaps
Bad Idea, you want engine managment...go play that other game...last thing we need is more sim crap
I think this is HiTechs alter ego :)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Umm the WW2OL engine setup isn't to difficult, its not perfect and I'd bet HTC could come up with a good solution ;)
It’s pretty half-arsed if you ask me.
3 power settings:
Max
Continuous
Economy
And "boost" i.e. wep...
That’s it.
Take off at max
Combat at continuous
Cruise at economy
Run at max and if needed add wep. (Which I rarely ever use in wwiiol.)
But folks who think it will be too hard to go to a more full representation of engine modeling just need to try FB or go to Zeno's and watch some films.
Most LW fighters functioned with single lever automated systems with the option to operate manually. For the most part it would be like AH except no full power on all the time.
Player adjustments to added functions should not be the overwhelming concern. The player base will adjust and discover it’s not any “harder”. The problem is does HT want to take on this level of workload. Only he can answer that. But I would imagine he would look real hard at the amount of work and determine if it really adds anything to the game.
IMHO I would suggest that if HT is considering this that he go full out and develop a more complete CEM like FB or leave it alone. But then I again I want operating slats, radiator/cowl flaps etc.
-
Okay okay..Last thing I want to see is more sim crap :) ...
Sorry for miswording :D
-
i love flying real like prop planes in a sim
iv allways had trouble playing those super jet sims were you have 50 flight controls
flanker2.5 realy took some time to get used to no screen showing a missile were it was coming you had to look out the window to find the missile and those missiles were deadly
but i would love making aces high more real
-
Batz all that stuff might be cool, radiator flaps and such. But what I'm worried about is going overboard with this whole engine managment thing, better yet, realism in general. At what point does it get too ridiculous and the game looses its fun? After all, this is a game, you play it to have fun. Not all of us have fun having to what our engine temp to make sure it's not overheating and going to seize.
-
Originally posted by DYGCaps
Batz all that stuff might be cool, radiator flaps and such. But what I'm worried about is going overboard with this whole engine managment thing, better yet, realism in general. At what point does it get too ridiculous and the game looses its fun? After all, this is a game, you play it to have fun. Not all of us have fun having to what our engine temp to make sure it's not overheating and going to seize.
some of us are into it as much for the realism ie simulation as the "fun" aspect of it
Im sure if ever came about there'd be an "auto" button for those who don't want to mess with it as "takeoff" has now..
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Why not make it like combat trim? An advantage if you use it and use it well, but you can get by just by turning on the crutch.
I'd love to be able to nurse a damaged engine instead of the toggle on/toggle off garbage when radiator or oil gets hit.
I like this idea, full engine management would let you squeeze that little bit more outta your plane just like turning off combat trim does.
-
Personaly I don't think it would be a good idea for a online sim. Part of the point of playing a online game for me at least is the interaction with the other players. By throwing more management into the sim you'll be spending more time managing the plane and less interacting with the other players. If all you want is the most involved and detailed flight model possible you might as well fly offline as you'd be spending so much of your time managing your plane that comunity interaction would dwindle to even less then it is now.
-
Hiya 345! Hope all is well for you :)
As for your post.....
Well, I felt the same once. Long ago. When all there was were AW, WB's and I did not know better so I just repeated what I heard from the experts in AW. This was years before AH was even on the radar scope and back when everything BB said was accepted as gospel and never questioned :)
As advanced as even AH is over old AW (ala functions and "realiZms") the extra features have not made a dent in interaction or "socializing" one little bit. Contrary to what the genre "experts" said would certainly happen if players had to contend with "chores" such as trim, torque, uncoordinated rudder, etc. The proof is readily seen on channel 1 and 2. ;)
Besides. HTC never added anything that did not have an auto-function. Something people tend to forget when replying with posts that additional management and realism features would hurt the "game" and drive players away. On the contrary, IMO more complexity would be one of those things that could help keep customers around longer.
Westy
-
Originally posted by Eagler
some of us are into it as much for the realism ie simulation as the "fun" aspect of it
Im sure if ever came about there'd be an "auto" button for those who don't want to mess with it as "takeoff" has now..
Hell ya thats it,the auto butten,it allows the guys that want to have to manage something, do it,to a possible slight advantage.The people that dont,push auto,to a probable slight disadvantage.
I think making a game like this more complex,if you want it to be,is a good move for a game developer to keep the long termers from getting bored,Air Warrior comes to mind.Its a tuff ballance for HTC and all game developers i would bet.
Corn
-
If HiTech adds more engine management to the game, then he should get rid of the hand holding auto-retracting flaps as well.
ack-ack
-
I'm not an EM fan being a lazy bastard but there is some cases where the current lack of EM is not that good :
Imagine that in the Ruhr scenario a B17 got the 2 external engines killed over the Ruhr (with no other damages)
.
The engine will be put at full power since this point to the home base of this B17.
I don't think IRL it will have been able to do so without damaging the 2 remaining engines ...
-
Personaly I don't think it would be a good idea for a online sim. Part of the point of playing a online game for me at least is the interaction with the other players. By throwing more management into the sim you'll be spending more time managing the plane and less interacting with the other players. If all you want is the most involved and detailed flight model possible you might as well fly offline as you'd be spending so much of your time managing your plane that comunity interaction would dwindle to even less then it is now.
That's only true if we can say other sims which feature more complex form of engine management, is as you claim. Which of course, is not.
As mentioned, those ppl who're asking for better form of engine management, are not necessarily asking for a 16 step checklist each time you take off.
Take IL2/FB for example: it's in no way anything 'realistic'. It's a simplified form of engine management which is stripped down to some bare essentials. However, by adding a few more features to the generic throttle up/throttle down one-touch system, it successfully captured the fantasy that you're actually managing the plane rather than riding an automobile with automatic transmission that has wings.
It all comes down to adding in a few crucial components which does not hurt the gameplay in anyway, nor effects anything vital, but still its existence alone makes it worthy of having it around. Pragmatism is rarely a virtue in air combat/flight sim games. It lives on fantasies.
Also, it may correct some problems with the planes that due to the game limitations, receive unexpected advantages/disadvantages. Tilt often mentions this - the difference between a WEP system based on overboost, and a 'wet WEP' system relying on injections.
For instance, our Yak-9U reaches its top speed with 100% throttle. It never had a separate WEP system. However, in IL2/FB, you can see that the 100% in AH, is actually 110% in FB. The net effect is that in AH, at 100% throttle you run the Yak-9U forever without overheating problems, which, in reality, is running the Yak-9U at high boost pressures which were as much limited as any other WEP system.
...
If we don't get anything else, still what I'd really like to see implemented, is a system which separates dry WEP and wet WEP.
In planes which didn't have an injection system, like the early SpitI, HurricaneI, the 'WEP' would be an overboost of the engine. Push the throttle over 100% and WEP is engaged.
In planes which had a separate injection system, like the MW50 or the GM-1, you'd first engage the injectors, and then push the throttle over 100%.
It seems like a very small thing, but it would actually effect a lot of planes already in AH.
-
I fully support the idea of engine management atleast somewhat more complex than the current setup.
^ As mentioned above, a one-touch work around similar to the function of Combat Trim would be great. At the very least I'd like to see a fuel mixture prop pitch/RPM configuration.
Perhaps an option to feather the prop in the case of an engine failure would also work.
-
Originally posted by 345
Personaly I don't think it would be a good idea for a online sim. Part of the point of playing a online game for me at least is the interaction with the other players. By throwing more management into the sim
Please don't use "Sim" and "Game" in the same sentence. They are two entirely different things.
A game needs little to no real skill or knowledge to play.
A sim, duplicates the functions,controls and actions of a real plane. Which does take some skill and knowledge.
--- Get rid of combat trim.
--- Get rid of auto takeoff
--- Get rid of killshooter
--- Get rid of auto-flaps
--- Get rid of stall limiter
--- Enable friendly collisions
--- Employ engine management
Then and only then will AH qualify as a sim. Until then, it's a game.
-
--- Get rid of combat trim.
--- Get rid of auto takeoff
--- Get rid of killshooter
--- Get rid of auto-flaps
--- Get rid of stall limiter
--- Enable friendly collisions
--- Employ engine management
Next
--- Get rid of most customers
--- And finaly git rid of AH , because nothing left to build it with.
HiTech
-
i dont play this game to learn how to run engines. i wanna kill stuff! :)
Lots of people have trouble flying here as it is, we dont need 300 more people in the arena struggling to keep airborne instead of putting up decent fights.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Next
--- Get rid of most customers
--- And finaly git rid of AH , because nothing left to build it with.
HiTech
You got a point there, but some engine menagement would be cool.
Just don't get rid of everything (I shouldn't complain since I fly h2h tho...)
-
What are talking about? Staying Airborne? It wouldn't be that difficult. With constant speed props and automated systems most would fly like they do now.
The LW planes in AH would all have automated single lever functions. Most other planes you would just set rpm and throttle. HT already models rpm.
The other things like mixture and supercharger are just button clicks and add nothing and could remain auto.
The biggest difference would be as Kweassa describes it.
110% throttle would be emergency / takeoff
100% climb combat
Then planes with extra boost system like adi, MW50 and C3 injection would have the added "WEP" key.
Then by establishing an engine overheat model HT can set the time limits on each power setting.
It’s not hard in FB (even with its flaws). Go to Zeno's and watch any of the various training films to see its not that complicated.
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/
As I said I am not sure how much of this would enhance game play for the average player in relation to the amount of work on HT's end. That is up to HT to decide.
-
Maybe something for Aces High III? :D
-
Killin stuff is easy enough most times. I wouldn't mind having the option to manage more things.
Engines and flaps jump to mind first.
-
Lets not get rid of the crutches.
Hitech response scares me a little, does this mean no advanced engine management for TOD? I would like to see it continue in the vein of the combat trim and auto-takeoff.
Something you can turn on if you want, but have it auto otherwise.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Next
--- Get rid of most customers
--- And finaly git rid of AH , because nothing left to build it with.
HiTech
Ya really think so??? Well, I did WarBirds for 6 years. I have been here for more than a year. I also do FB.
IMHO, if you could take FB EXACTLY as it is, and make it Massively Multiplayer you could sit anywhere you want, eating and drinking anything you wanted, buy anything you wanted and never spend the intrest for the rest of your life. You'd have the best SIM and Engine ever.
But... that's a big IF
-
Originally posted by hitech
Next
--- Get rid of most customers
--- And finaly git rid of AH , because nothing left to build it with.
The option would be a true "Full Realism" arena. You might be surprised how many people actually would fly in there.
-
I would.
When I started flying airwarrior back in 1995, I only flew rr (relaxed realism). Moved to the pacific map, and eventually moved to the FR pacific (still flew in RR with the RTC though). When I got to AH it was no worse than Full Realism in AW, just a whole hell of a lot better.
AH offers this same potential with the combat trim type toggles. I think adding toggles that allow a very small advantage if used, or perhaps more accurately, a huge disadvantage if you cant figure out what you are doing.
Examples:
-engine cooling- opening the cowl flaps and to what degree
-realistic pitch control
And of course the really tough one....
keeping people from running full bore 24/7. Since nobody gives a flying fart about how the plane will respond tomorrow or what the ground crew thinks, we all keep our throttles at 100%.
I have no idea how to make this more realistic.
and in that same line, better modeling of engine damage due to abuse.
of course i dont want any of this to be so ungodly complicated that I cant fight. That is what makes this game kick arse
-
What I would like to see would be stuff like if you fly inverted for a period of time your engine could suffer some damage. For instance, in real life the P-38 didn't have an inverted oil system and flying inverted for more than a few seconds would cause the engine to start acting up and prolonged inverted flight would end up damaging the engine.
Of course if the plane had an inverted oil system then they wouldn't be effected.
You can add this feature without increasing the difficulty of the game play for new players. This was a feature they had in AW in all arenas and was never an issue.
And of course get rid of the coddling hand holding auto-retracting flaps junk.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by NHawk
Please don't use "Sim" and "Game" in the same sentence. They are two entirely different things.
A game needs little to no real skill or knowledge to play.
A sim, duplicates the functions,controls and actions of a real plane. Which does take some skill and knowledge.
--- Get rid of combat trim.
--- Get rid of auto takeoff
--- Get rid of killshooter
--- Get rid of auto-flaps
--- Get rid of stall limiter
--- Enable friendly collisions
--- Employ engine management
Then and only then will AH qualify as a sim. Until then, it's a game.
:rofl
-
Food for thought for the naysayers: WW2OL currently uses engine management (albeit not as complex as IL2:FB, and we could probably debate its realism all day long). The users there have no problems handling it.
There are a lot of things I miss going from AH to WW2OL. And one of the things I miss going from WW2OL to AH is the engine management. Its just the old 'slam the throttle full forward' WEP til WEP turns itself off is boring now.
-
some engine management would be good...nothing to complex just enough to add some spice to a fight...
-
Originally posted by Westy
Hiya 345! Hope all is well for you :)
As for your post.....
Well, I felt the same once. Long ago. When all there was were AW, WB's and I did not know better so I just repeated what I heard from the experts in AW. This was years before AH was even on the radar scope and back when everything BB said was accepted as gospel and never questioned :)
As advanced as even AH is over old AW (ala functions and "realiZms") the extra features have not made a dent in interaction or "socializing" one little bit. Contrary to what the genre "experts" said would certainly happen if players had to contend with "chores" such as trim, torque, uncoordinated rudder, etc. The proof is readily seen on channel 1 and 2. ;)
Besides. HTC never added anything that did not have an auto-function. Something people tend to forget when replying with posts that additional management and realism features would hurt the "game" and drive players away. On the contrary, IMO more complexity would be one of those things that could help keep customers around longer.
Westy
Hello Westy. :) Doing well. still in the Navy.
On to the sim. I would have to say I disagree. I don't see as much chatter on 1 and 2 as I've seen in the AW films I've been reviewing(desided to check on what your saying so I pulled up some old films from AW4W and AW3MV) and although it seems to scroll by just as fast that's because the text buffer is smaller in AH then it was in AW. But then again AH seems to be more squad focused and unless your in the same squad as someone they don't seem to want to talk to you about anything but telling you what base they are trying to take next.
Now I'll admit the tactical coms are improved with the addion of mulitple vox and text channels allowing you to make ranged vox messages for tactical info.
-
Nhawk:"The option would be a true "Full Realism" arena."
I think it would be nice if there would be an option on the SEA to use this "full realism" setting with complex engine mgmt and all that HT mentioned.
Keeping that to SEA would pobably negate those two last lines he put there also...
-C+
-
I'd like to see engine exhaust. I'd love to be able to judge when the guy cut or firewalled the throttle by the change in the exhaust.
I have to agree that playability for the new folks and the folks that don't want to control or know about the complete systems of every aircraft they fly is the priority. Personally I love a complex sim, the more real the better. Unfortunately its hard to convey full-realism into a monitor, joystick and an office chair. There is some realistic feedback that you can only experience with your own backside in the pilots seat.
I have enough trouble training new folks in BFM/ACM without throwing in engine/aircraft management. Since AH is at a nice playable level now, the management stuff can be left to the advanced guy. The new guy wants to get the general idea of how to kill something. It'd be neat if they could accomplish that during their 2-week period. It leaves them with a warm and fuzzy feeling when they finally have to pony up the credit card.
Keep in mind that every ride is a little different and in addition to different systems, different processes/procedures will be needed. Do you really want to have to control the rate of throttle change when driving your 262 or 234? Compressor stalls would be a neat thing to add.
-
I used to be of the school of thought that more engine management would be a good thing. But as I looked into it more, I found that a lot of my beliefs about the subject were based on fallacies. I think the desire for this is based on a couple of things. The first is more immersion through realism. That’s a good thing as long as it’s balanced. Otherwise, it gets to be more like a poorly edited 3-hour movie that would have been better if it were only 2 hours long. I think the second reason is because people want to be able to get an advantage for putting in extra work into learning something. That’s not a bad thing either, but to do that just for the sake of it is counter to the first reason.
I think there’s a lot of assumptions made about he purpose of engine management and that’s what I would like people to specifically look at.
In the first post, Vulcan states “I like the fact that good engine management can give you an advantage in combat.” I think that is an idea shared by many. But is it true? I have many books on the subject, but off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single account given where the pilot is tweaking his engine controls in combat to give him some perfect combination that results in an advantage. On the contrary, I have discussed a wide range of subjects with vets and when I inquired about what they had to do engine-wise during combat, everybody I’ve asked has said that they just shoved everything on the throttle quadrant full forward until the fight was over. I also get the feeling they consider it a dumb question and won’t ask about it anymore. If anybody knows of combat accounts where the pilot is manipulating his engine other than through his throttle, please post them.
I think there are some who believe that a pilot should be able to pull more power if he knows how to manage his engine better. I would like to see this belief quantified. How is this extra power being developed? If everything is pushed to the max, what exactly can you do to get more power? Label the controls a la Spinal Tap?
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. Is modeling it that way really more accurate? We don’t model the maintenance considerations, you get a fresh plane each time out. Hopefully, we’ll at least be able to take some stabs in that direction with ToD, but that’s not exactly something you can replicate to great effect.
You see a lot of calls for mixture control. Why? In most planes that we’re dealing with, there’s going to be two settings- auto-rich and auto-lean. Below a certain setting, use auto-lean. Above a certain setting, use auto-rich. Does assigning a couple more keys and a cockpit indicator to that really add that much? All it’s going to get you is better cruise efficiency on auto-lean and that can be modeled directly into the lower cruise settings.
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.
-
Thanks for the Post Doug!
I would think that in combat a pilot would mainly be concerned with engine management in the form of getting the max out of his engine without overheating it. I think IL2 does a great job in simulating this. You really don't get much more performance out of your plane but just ignore the overheating warnings. Start overheating in a fight and your are faced with a choice. More drag (open the radiator more) or less power (reduce throttle). You can reduce throttle and decrease prop RPM to maintain for a short period....
And I would like to see a difference between full power, full military power, and WEP.
Example for a USAAF pilot I believe would go something like:
Full power = throttel to the wire
Full Military Power = Break the wire, throtte to full forward
WEP - Water Methynol injection
Supercharger stage 1 and 2 etc..
All are options that do help with immersion.
-
Hi Crumpp,
Well my point is more that running Military is not necessarily going to cause you to overheat unless you're in a slow climb or something.
As to how the throttle would go on a USAAF plane, military would be at full throttle and WEP is beyond the gate after that whether that involves water injection or not.
The clearest explanation I've seen on the use of military power and the limitations imposed is in a P-51 pilot manual. I'll just reprint it here-
USE OF TAKE-OFF (MILITARY) POWER
It is often asked what the consequences will be if the 5-minute limit at Take-off Power is exceeded. Another frequent inquiry is how long a period must be allowed after the specified time limit has elapsed until Take-off Power can be used. These questions are difficult to answer, since the time limit specified does not mean that engine damage will occur if the limit is exceeded. Instead, the limit means that the total operating time at high power should be kept to a reasonable minimum in the interest of prolonging engine life.
It is generally accepted that high-power operation of an engine results in increased wear and necessitates more frequent overhaul than low-power operation. However, it is apparent that a certain percentage of operating time must be at full power. The engine manufacturer allows for this in qualification tests in which much of the running is done at Take-off Power to prove ability to withstand the resulting loads. It is established in these runs that the engine will handle sustained high power without damage. Nevertheless, it is still the aim of the manufacturer and to the best interest of the pilot to keep within reasonable values the amount of high-power time accumulated in the field. The most satisfactory method for accomplishing this is to establish time limits that will keep pilots constantly aware of the desire to hold high-power periods to the shortest period that the flight plan will allow, so that the total accumulated time and resulting wear can be kept to a minimum. How the time at high power is accumulated is of secondary importance; i.e., it is no worse from the standpoint of engine wear to operate at Take-off Power for one hour straight than it is to operate in twelve 5-minute stretches, provided engine temperatures and pressures are within limits. In fact, the former procedure may even be preferable, as it eliminates temperature cycles which also promote engine wear. Thus if flight conditions occasionally require exceeding time limits, this should not cause concern so long as constant effort is made to keep the over-all time at Take-off Power to the minimum practicable.
Another factor to be remembered in operating engines at high power is that full Take-off Power (3000 rpm and 61 in. Hg) is to be preferred over take-off rpm with reduced manifold pressure. This procedure results in less engine wear for two reasons. First, the higher resulting brake horsepower decreases the time required to obtain the objective of such high-power operation. At take-off, for example, the use of full power decreases the time required to reach an altitude and airspeed where it is safe to reduce power and shortens the time required to reach the airspeed that will provide more favorable cooling. Second, high rpm results in high loads on the reciprocating parts because of inertia forces. As these loads are partially offset by the gas pressure in the cylinder, the higher cylinder pressures resulting from use of take-off manifold pressure gives lower net loads and less wear. Sustained high rpm is a major cause of engine wear. It requires more "rpm minutes" and "piston-ring miles" to take off with reduced manifold pressure. In addition to the engine wear factor, taking off at reduced power is comparable to starting with approximately one-third of the runway behind the plane. Therefore, full power should always be used on take-offs.
-
EDIT
I was posting at the same timne as Pyro. Instead of deleting my post I will leave it but I think Pyro answered it.
Why we need 110% throttle setting:
As an example
I will use the spit 5 because its boost was changed for AH2. But this could apply to all planes. I am just offerring these numbers as an example.
Spit V now has 18+lb boost for 5 min
9+lb for max climbing. I have seen 2 limits 30 min and 1 hr. I will let the experts determin which is right.
7+lb Max continous
Wouldn't it better if
110% = 18lb 5 min
108% = 16lb 5min
105% = 12lb 5 min
103% = 9lb 30 min or 1 hour (again I will defer to the experts)
100% = 7lb continous
Get rid of the "wep" button except on planes that had systems like adi, mw50, C3 injection etc....
Running the eng above the limit would eventually lead to overheating. I don't mean that running at 18lbs for 5 min 30 sec your engine should immediatly get damaged but the longer you run over the limit the engine temperature raises until a point where damage occurs unless you back off. I would prefer it to be some variation in the time limits before damage occurs but with "random" anything the whines will be to much.
For the 109E-4 (actually DB601A @ SL; but the numbers are just used as an example and of course will vary with whatever source HT uses.)
110% = 1.40ata 1 min
107% = 1.30ata 5 min
103% = 1.23ata 30 min
100% = 1.15ata continous
Of course we won't have percentage settings visible but we will have to watch mp and temp guage.
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.
All the accounts that I have read about LW pilots never mention micro managing their engines to get "more" out of the engine. They used the autamatic setting. If HT were to do it their wouldn't be a need to have it "turned on or off" because in the case of post 42 german planes an auto setting would be "historical".
Go to Zeno's drive in and watch those training films.
Mixture control, superchargers etc are just simple button clicks. There's no need these shouldn't stay "automatic". The only time these would be an issue is if a nUb forgets to hit the button. Cowl/Radiator flaps are something I would like to see because they add drag when opened but again on germnan planes these were auto as well. Same with the 51.
The only thing that could really make a difference is wep and throttle design. 110% should be max power 100% max continous. "WEP" would be the other boost systems like mw50, adi, c3 etc...
-
"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."
Seeing your posts on this topic was a wost welcome surprise this a.m. :)
I concur with just about everything you wrote. But HiTechs cryptic replies or no replies at all lead myself (and many others I'd wager) to beleive that AH was shunning more features to pursue more AW-like gameplay.
In the past I for one could not fathom why HTC modelled a much faster rate of fuel burn in the MA but didn't do anything to make NOT running around at full throttle appealing.
Any additional features added to help replicate flying a WWII era airplane beyond the very simplistic "E" keypress and shoving the throttle to 100% for the duration of a flight is most welcome by me.
-
IMHO the game already has a nice balance of realism and playability.Adding more chores just to stay airborne is something I personally don't care to see.
If I wanted to practice engine management,I'd go buy Flight Simulator 2004.
Just my .02
-
Thanks for the posts pyro, and I like the new throttle and rpm changes (now I can map the rpm to that other throttle and feel like I am doing something with it).
My question is do you plan on finding a way to keep people from firewalling all day or is fuel going to be the main way?
I have read accounts in p47s (ace of the eighth I think), and p40s (from a history of the flying tigers), that pushing the throttle all the way up was a pretty big thing (at least that is the impression i got from their accounts). Engine shaking, worrying about the transmission, watching the color of the exhaust, nervous looks at the oil pressure, and so on. I dont think this was all because of the chance of a bad engine. Looking at it from a car point of view, when you climb a good sized mountain at a high angle, after 30 minutes or so even new engines start to show they are not too thrilled about the amount of throttle they are getting over such a long time.
I think this is an important part of enjoying the game. As it is now we miss that part of the rush, cause there is nothing keeping us from staying firewalled all day and night.
-
oh yeah, and exhaust ques would really kick ass.
-
Thanks for the (excellent) reply Pyro.
-
Originally posted by Westy
In the past I for one could not fathom why HTC modelled a much faster rate of fuel burn in the MA but didn't do anything to make NOT running around at full throttle appealing.
Just wanted to add my bit of verbage to this to say there is a small reason. I've actually bought the flight manuals for my favorite planes (F4F/FM2, P47) and am still looking for A6M info.
One of the reasons I've done this is to find out the economy and cruise setings and I've actually use them in the MA so I can take off from damaged fields that don't have droptanks and also so I can take off at lower fuel loads. The cruise and max economy setings really do work for extending the range(for both the F4F and P47 they consist of RPM and Manfold pressure changes only). This lets me have a lighter plane incase I get jumped short of the intended destination but still be able to reach where I am going with fuel enough to fight with and return to base.
-
I think they have always kind of worked. Just no audible response from the game. There was a conversation about range and the LA7 that spawned a huge thread on that.
-
Thanks for your excellant response Pyro!
"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."
IS exactly the direction I want to see AH take. There are some great suggestions in this thread.
Crumpp
-
Erg, I think the accounts you're talking about are referring to emergency power which is a much bigger deal than military power. There you are really talking about running the engine at its limit. Like on the aforementioned P-51 where they talk about exceeding military limits as a long term maintenance concern rather than an inflight concern, it's not the same case with WEP. You have to snap a breakaway wire to get to WEP and log the numbers of minutes at WEP after the flight. A different maintenance procedure has to be followed after the flight.
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.
-
I have heard of that cooling flap issue where newbies would overheat their mustangs cause the cowl would get stuck in the up position (and they were not watching, causing the resevoir to pop).
I think your solution will work for places like the TOD, and maybe the CT, and for me that is all that really matters. Do you see fuel consumption ever limiting 'throttle' behavior in the MA? Is that even something you are thinking about?
This is such a tough issue, because realistically these planes had hours of flight time in some cases. I guess the best test bed for this new tech will be in the BOB scenarios in the CT. If 109s really only get 10 minutes fight time over england, IF they behave themselves on the way there.
This leads right to the rush I was talking about, cause if you are ferrying a 109e over the channel trying to watch your fuel, and you spot a group of spitfires.....
Oh I cant wait!
-
Erg, I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't know if fuel settings would 'teach' your average flyer not to firewall the throttle (non-wep) as many do in AH1.
Your description of the BoB setup in another arena (CT, scenerio, future TOD) would definitely 'teach' average flyers to keep an eye on their throttle settings and fuel burn and anything else important. However, in the MA, I believe it comes down to little more than a type of gentlemen's agreement. Other than that, fuel porkage would dictate throttle settings. :cool:
I reduce throttle almost every flight when cruising.
-
Pyro and all..
Perhaps a solution should be simple one?- Running the engine at 100% moves up the heat gauge a certain rate (5° every minute).
- When you get close to critical temperature, you get a heat light flashing in your cockpit.
- When the engine runs at critical temperature for more than one minute, a buzzer goes off.
- After minute two at critical, damage to your engine oil cooler.
- After minute five at critical temperature, damage to the radiator.
- Less manifold or less RPM's means your engine runs cooler.
- There's a sweet spot setting for maintaining a balance of engine heat and performance.
- Regardless if you're using WEP or 100%, running your engine at maximum performance increases engine heat.
- Going into a battle with a cooler engine means you have longer to work your engine heat up.
- A player has ample warning that he's pushing the engine too hard and is able to simply keep himself in the game by backing off.
Thoughts?
-
The problem with that, fork, is that it is not realistic. The issue here is that engines could survive at 100% throttle (I guess) for a long period. If we assume that is the case, which according to the powers that know more than me, it is, than there can be no penalty for 100% throttle other than fuel consumption.
In the MA the bases are so close together, that this is hardly an issue, and beyond that, it would only negatively affect the guys flying up high, and not the conga line furballers. Buttttttttttttt that is neither here nor there, cause if that is where you are playing then this kind of realism doesn really matter I guess.
What a problem.
-
Mr. Fork, I get the feeling that you only skimmed through this thread and didn't read it in its entirety because what you suggest is pretty much the basis of this thread and has been a point of argument. If you disagree with me, I have no problem with that, but present some counterpoints and references to mine instead of ignoring them. Instead, you've just kind of rehashed some suggestions without giving a basis for why you think they're good and have ignored the counterpoints. For me to point out anything wrong with your suggestion is to just cut and paste my previous posts until they are addressed.
-
Not even the planes in Il2/FB overheat at 100% throttle.
It may overheat when it's a hot, summer map, and you very often run the plane at very slow speeds at low altitudes(which disrupts the airflow in many planes, which drags down the cooling efficiency and causes some planes to overheat at military power). But overheating issues aren't a real problem anymore if you are using military power.
...
Ofcourse, that doesn't mean FB is the same as AH.
The key difference with IL2/FB, is the WEP endurance factor.
Whether you have WEP or not immediately effects the performance greatly, and not being able to use WEP when your opponent can, is a tremendous disadvantage. So naturally, you want to save your plane so it can use WEP for a long time when its really needed.
In AH, you can engage WEP for a set time duration. That time does not increase or decrease upon the attitude of flight or throttle management. That means, whether you are climbing or flying level, you can use WEP for X amount of minutes solidly.
However, it's not like that in FB:
* If you engage WEP during a climb, it overheats more quickly.
* If you engage WEP during a low alt furball with lots of slow speed maneuvering, it overheats more quickly.
* If you have kept your plane running at 100% throttle for a long time, and then you engage WEP, it overheats more quickly.
If you have refrained from using full military power all the time, and tried to keep the engine warm and steady, in that case the WEP does not overheat the engine quickly. In other words, the engine temperatures are effected by various factors.
In AH, it's different. You know exactly how long you can use WEP. Thus, you have no reason to refrain from using 100% throttle all the time. Nothing makes the engine overheat quicker or slower.
..
Its just comes down to how many variable are available for the gamer to consider. AH has less variables, which tempts the players to firewall his throttle at 100% all the time.
On the other hand, FB has too many variables which I cannot understand. Sometimes my WEP will endure for full 10 minutes, other times, it'll start overheating after 2 minutes on the same plane.
This forces the player to do everything safely - fly at about 80~85% throttle most of the times, and go upto 100% only when engaging an enemy. And, engaging WEP when its only really necessary.
(However, I personally think that FB has failed to depict the many variables which shows any kind of consistency.
In nature/real life, even with uncountable number of variables, the results are produced in a natural balance and equilibrium of things. In simulated environments, more variables seem to always draw out more inconsistency.
This problem is visible in FB - things like overheating, or damage modelling, keeps bringing up complaints from the gamers on inconsistency.)
...
-
I have no problem adjusting manifold and rpm to conserve fuel.If I find myself devoting more time to gauges than to flying and fighting,I'll have to decide whether or not this is a fun game,or a "sim",and worth paying a monthly fee.
Why some are so worried about realistic manifold pressures,wep,overheating eludes me.This is a FIGHTING game.
-
In FB I suspect the way the engine overheats is a method to keep the planes within time limits @ power.
In my suggestion above I was think along those lines as well. Even now Ah we have time limits for wep, predefined "cool down periods" etc...
Trading one "not so realistic compromise" for another isn't much of an improvement.
I do think that re-doing the throttle to max 110% and placing stuff like mw50, adi, c3 on the "WEP" button would be an improvement.
-
I agree Batz. Your 110 percent throttle suggestion looks like a good compromise IMO.
The exhaust graphics is a great addition too. I read were that was very visible.
Crumpp
-
sox, this affects the game quite a bit if you are interested in the tactics used by pilots in ww2 to fight these planes.
There was a great interview with a russian ace on here not long ago, where he discussed the curtis hawk, and the p39 (among others). I am sure all of us were thinking, how in the hell did that guy fight 109s in those clunky old slow poss'. He responded by saying, sure the 109 'could' go much faster, but in combat rarely did he find them with much of a speed advantage. It just wasnt an issue.
In here it is a very big issue. In a bob scenario, if you are flying a 109 you keep that thing at its top speed all the time, no matter what.
-
You're partly right Pyro; all I did was skim through the last few messages on Engine Management (EM).
Am I correct Pyro that you’re thinking on EM isn't about how long you can last at 100% throttle with WEP in combat without effecting performance; it's about giving the pilot the ability to prolong their flying? (Any argument about engine heat or running at 110%(sorry Batz) is extraneous to EM. )
In addition, if you decide to run your plane flat out on the deck, you'll get the worst fuel economy. Instead of having your La-7 or Spit IX flying around for 30-40 minutes furballing it out, you'll have around 15 minutes of fuel or less. By better managing the engine RPM's and MP and fly at higher altitudes, fuel economy will drastically increase allowing you to fly and engage your opponent(s) on a more realistic level.
That sounds like a really simple way to incorporate EM without worrying about how long your engine will last at max performance. It's about how long you can keep going without running out of fuel.
Arena strategy could focus on fuel - the way it really was in WWII. A lot of good unit positions and supply lines will do if you don't have the fuel to move your army, airforce, and Navy.
-
You got it Mr. Fork.
One note though. You're going to see fuel consumption increase as you go up in alt until you hit critical alt. But that doesn't mean that staying at sea level is best since your speed is lower.
To show you how big of an effect this can have, I'll give you an example. A P-51D flying at 10k at military power (61" 3000 RPM) will do around 400 mph and be using around 180 GPH. By backing down to normal power(46" 2700 RPM), speed drops to around 360 and fuel consumption drops to 98 GPH. So in this example, by reducing your speed 10%, you were able to reduce your consumption by 45%. Those consumption rates are with no fuel burn multiplier. By bumping that up, we can effectively require pilots to do some engine management at least some of the time.
In the real world, a pilot entering combat may be worried about whether he has enough gas. In the sim world, the pilot may be worried about whether he has too much gas. It's pretty backwards, fuel should play a bigger role.
-
Wow, thanks for the example pyro, that is something that I was wondering about. I have never bothered researching actual consumption rates, but that is incredible.
You are right about too much fuel, of course that is for situations like the MA, where the return trip is entirely optional. In our squad ops, the biggest deal is seeing all of the guys make it home. And in the TOD I am sure that will be much more important as well.
An interesting balance between enough energy to have the advantage but enough fuel to make it home. OHHH THE JOY!!!!
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
You're partly right Pyro; all I did was skim through the last few messages on Engine Management (EM).
Am I correct Pyro that you’re thinking on EM isn't about how long you can last at 100% throttle with WEP in combat without effecting performance; it's about giving the pilot the ability to prolong their flying? (Any argument about engine heat or running at 110%(sorry Batz) is extraneous to EM. )
In addition, if you decide to run your plane flat out on the deck, you'll get the worst fuel economy. Instead of having your La-7 or Spit IX flying around for 30-40 minutes furballing it out, you'll have around 15 minutes of fuel or less. By better managing the engine RPM's and MP and fly at higher altitudes, fuel economy will drastically increase allowing you to fly and engage your opponent(s) on a more realistic level.
That sounds like a really simple way to incorporate EM without worrying about how long your engine will last at max performance. It's about how long you can keep going without running out of fuel.
Arena strategy could focus on fuel - the way it really was in WWII. A lot of good unit positions and supply lines will do if you don't have the fuel to move your army, airforce, and Navy.
Yeah I "got it" after Pyro's first post. My "overheat"scheme was more a tool to force folks to fly within power / time ratings. Basically limiting the amount of time on max power". I hadn't realized that the new fuel consumption model does this very thing.
Still I belive the 110% throttle even with out the "overheat" would be better then 100% and a wep button.
-
I don't know that the "fuel consumption" will make people fly within their engine limits. I think they will just take off closer to the action or carry more fuel.
This might be important IF "Tour of Duty" is enacted an you must fly missions to specific locations. For the MA I will be surprised if this works.
The overheat deal while unrealistic for the engine is realistic in forcing the pilot to use real throttle settings and to watch it during combat.
Crumpp
-
Hi Pyro,
>It is often asked what the consequences will be if the 5-minute limit at Take-off Power is exceeded. Another frequent inquiry is how long a period must be allowed after the specified time limit has elapsed until Take-off Power can be used. These questions are difficult to answer, since the time limit specified does not mean that engine damage will occur if the limit is exceeded.
Excellent quote! :-)
>Those consumption rates are with no fuel burn multiplier. By bumping that up, we can effectively require pilots to do some engine management at least some of the time.
Nevertheless, I believe bumping up the fuel multiplier is not a good idea.
The maps are small. OK, so fields are 20 km apart instead of 100 km, but 10 km altitude remain 10 km altitude even if I consume 5 times as much fuel to go up to that altitude.
And going up doesn't get much more economic if you pull back power - in fact, looking at a Tempest V diagram, I note that it's more efficient to climb to high altitude flat-out. Throttling back will actually mean more gallons burnt.
Let's look at an example: Spitfire F. XIV.
At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 25000 ft: -26 gals
Cruise out: -15.5 gals
5 min combat power: -15 gals
10 min climb power: -22 gals
Climb from 10000 ft to 20000 ft: -6 gals
Cruise back: -15.5 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals
The 15.5 gals for cruise each way yield a combat radius of 73 miles.
The same mission with a consumption multiplier of 1.5 would be impossible. If you'd give up the 11 gals reserve, you'd have a remaining combat radius of 18 miles.
Now a less demanding mission profile:
At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 20000 ft: -23 gals
Cruise out: -20 gals
5 min combat power: -15 gals
10 min climb power: -22 gals
Cruise back without climb: -20 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals
Combat radius: 94 miles.
With a fuel multiplier of 1.5:
At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 20000 ft: -34.5 gals
Cruise out: -5 gals
5 min combat power: -22.5 gals
10 min climb power: -33 gals
Cruise back without climb: -5 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals
This would leave the Spitfire with just 10 gals for cruise (5 in, 5 out), equating a combat radius of 16 miles at the higher fuel multiplier - though the 10% reserve is worth less, too.
And looking at the mission profile - who could hope to survive a maximum economy cruise back from a furball? :-) The Spitfire actually has no choice but either to run away at full throttle (might work for a XIV), or to climb above all bandits in the area before going to maximum economy.
In my opinion, the fuel multiplier is not a good solution for our problem.
As a constructive contribution, I'd rather subtract x gallons from the fuel tank each time someone crosses a map grid line :-)
That's not as silly as it may appear at first - it treats distance different from altitude and combat time, something a fuel multiplier can't do.
The Spitfire XIV as point-defense fighter will be able to perform in that role without artificial limitation. The P-51 on the other hand will make a great long-range fighter - not only will it be able to reach far, but it will also be able to spend a realistic amount of combat time over the target without running dry.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Pyro
In the real world, a pilot entering combat may be worried about whether he has enough gas. In the sim world, the pilot may be worried about whether he has too much gas. It's pretty backwards, fuel should play a bigger role.
Defensively, running out of fuel is far less of an issue when you can glide down and land in friendly territory. Offensively, pilots should be sweating about fuel consumption. However, since so many guys have no intention of surviving, they take only enough to get them to the target. Until a real motivation for survival is in place, fuel management will be an issue only for those players for whom landing a sortie is important.
In short, I'm concerned that fuel management will have no effect upon the suicide horde, but adversely impact the players who want to return intact.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Batz
I do think that re-doing the throttle to max 110% and placing stuff like mw50, adi, c3 on the "WEP" button would be an improvement.
I would agree with this but find in pyro's excellent posts some evidence that it may not be a solution alone for all AC.
Actually on VVS ac (barring the yak9U) it was not the throttle but the rpm control that would have the 110% setting. By increasing rpm to its WEP setting the boost was enhanced to give a higher manifold pressure.
Looking at VVS ac there was no "wire". Pilots were taught a crude form of constant engine management which meant they were always concerned with engine temperature,rpm and manifold pressure. Adjusting (in the main) rpm and throttle to set boost whilst playing with two sets of engine air flow controls and mixture settings.
I fully agree with all above that the two latter are not required here.......they have no real consequence other than extra work.
The new rpm/throttle > range model does have a consequence (range/endurance modification) and I for one welcome it greatly.
Hence breaking the wire may be the same as pressing a button but only for those ac that had such wires.
Back to (rpm generated) WEP. In fact still using the button to generate the extra rpm denies the consequence (or assures it depending upon view point) it locks the ac into WEP mode until the WEP button is unlatched. Reducing rpm does not disengage WEP it cannot be reduced until WEP is unlatched.(or the throttle setting changed)
( I have now assumed this is not a bug)
So why keep the WEP button for rpm generated WEP?
Well the great majority of players do not have extra wheels on their sticks...........they fly MS PP's and rely upon the +/_ keys for rpm which would be fumbled over mid combat. We can see that getting rid of the button may penalise the enjoyment of such players.
Its a tight call.........having practiced with the +/- I tend to think it very doable, but I can well understand HTC deciding that removing a function that players are used to would be a backward step
However for those of us that have the rotaries I would ask that rpm have a 110% range and that using it would induce rpm generated WEP reducing rpm will kill WEP just as reducing throttle does now. Ie WEP becomes a true function of manifold pressure.
The button could then be retained as "auto WEP" much as we have many other automated functions. For those AC where the WEP is an additive it would still be used anyway. Further the additive would even be added when throttle and rpm were reduced and only switched off when unlatched.
If some AC used 110% throttle then this should be available similarly.
Basically thottles and rpm would then both have a 0 to 110% band and the FM would make the extra 10% available when it suited the engine model HTC wished to use.
On a Yak9U neither of the two extra 10% bands would be effective. They would be dead zones.
On an La7 the throttle 10% would be redundant but the 10%rpm band (in fact only 4% of it) would be used to induce and reduce WEP.
If P51's and Spits actually increased throttle to gain WEP then this 10% would be used.
When the WEP button is used the two settings must be at at least 100% and will then seem to jump according to the AC model concerned. Any adjustment of those settings will cause the WEP to dissapear, unless it is to actually increase rpm or throttle into the WEP zone, and unless we are modelling an additive which will just give additional power to what ever setting is in residence.
This will give fidelity of control.
This will not (IMO) reduce play options. (to those dependant on the button)
This will allow a pilot with additive injection to use it for range and not just power.
The next debate is how to limit WEP.
Well it would work as now off the engine temperature. There is no limit to WEP other than the time it takes the engine to cycle above and below its highest permitable running setting and the resultant periods where WEP cannot(should not) be engaged.
For additive it is also limited due to a fixed quantity available.......it can be timed.........although would it really be used at the same rate when other settings have been reduced to give a lower manifiold pressure?
Should a damage/penalty model be added?
It seems that a penalty can be added without incurring "end of ride damage". From a thread elsewhere we see that WEP could generate a sort of thermal inertia which effects the cooling period of the engine.
The idea is that when WEP is disengaged the temperature continues to rise for a period prior to starting to cool. Further the amount of subsequent rise is a function of the temperature at which WEP was disengaged.
eg if the temp red line was at 220F. WEP is not available over 240F
Switching WEP off at 220F may incurr no subsequent thermal inertia and the engine would start to cool to a nominal 180F.
Switching WEP off at 230F may incurr a period where the engine continues to heat up to 235F where after it cools.
Switching WEP off at 240F may incurr a period where the engine continues to heat up to 250 where after it continues to cool.
A pilot using WEP re lentlessly would (eventually) suffer a period where the engine heated and cooled thru 20 degrees (+10 > -10)then after a few seconds of WEP have the same wait again.
A pilot using WEP sparingly and maintaining a lower engine temperature would have more access to WEP.
To this we could go further and add the modeling of differing temperature rise rates and cooling rates under differing conditions as keawessa suggested above.
Would such a penalty system /heating and cooling model actually add to the game? I am not sure........... most folk would not even understand the subtlty of the system IMO.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by NHawk
Please don't use "Sim" and "Game" in the same sentence. They are two entirely different things.
A game needs little to no real skill or knowledge to play.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chess, poker, backgammon? We "gamers" love people who reckon games have no skill element!
zanshin
-
In the real world, a pilot entering combat may be worried about whether he has enough gas. In the sim world, the pilot may be worried about whether he has too much gas. It's pretty backwards, fuel should play a bigger role.
Exactly!!
Especialy in the simm world there are no points for dieing with a full tank.
-
Pyro,
Engine temp as a gameplay item:
Handled very well in European Air War from some years ago......
At full power (WEP) engine temp would rise to a point at which the sound wav being played would change, the pistons would start to ring and you'd get engine knock. A minute or so of this and the engine would start to lose power (the actual engineering term is: Power fade due to overheat) and then the wav would change again, the engine would start to tick as the pistons rings melt. Another 20 seconds of this and the engine would blow....and seize.
Any time before the detonation, reducing throttle would stop the process. Running then at mil power (90% EAW cos they didn't model WEP) wouldn't cool the engine much, running at lower power would cool it faster.
Result is, pilots don't fly around on full power all the time since they want their engine to be as cool as possible before entering combat.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
I second that motion, Swoop.
-
I think that a "fall back position" could be to remove the "latch" placed upon RPM by WEP implementation.
ie to engage (non additive) WEP on an AC both Throttle and RPM should be at 100%. Reducing any of these would disengage WEP.
For additives WEP could be available at any setting via a throttle input multiplier (like raising octane).
-
Hi Pyro !
It might be an good idea to include the possibility to open / close the radiator, as it change the way you fight and close counterparts like spit1/109e can get an edge with smart usage of it ,like it did in real life.
Im not for too much engine management , but this simple mechanism
keeps you aware of your engine temp, and with added fuel awareness it has it's place in this sim/game imho.
-
Good post Pyro :aok
However, I'd like to see the WEP differentiated: a/c with real WEP, like USAF fighters, from those who hadnt, like the C.205 and realistic times of use. This could add more realism.