Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: straffo on May 28, 2004, 03:56:06 AM
-
A thought first :
The annoying fact for me is not the fuel mult wich can stay as is
even if it can be discussed at vitam eternam look at this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117803) for more information.
If it stay as is it's not a problem but more a context I've to manage like others.
The really annoying part is the correlation between field fuel level and fuel loadout.
I'll introduce another mecanim than the one used currently:
- If you want to have DT you have to take 100% internal fuel
- The field fuel percentage will represent now in my proposal a quantifiable amount of fuel availlable
at field and is not linked to the loadout you want.
Example (real values are to be determined)
125% = 500 Gallon
100% = 400 Gallon
75% = 300 Gallon
etc ...
- The hangar fuel percentage will represent a percentage of the amount availlable. It represent how much fuel you want in your plane.
Examples (real values are to be determined)
Field is at 125% (500 Gallon)
100% loadout
-If your plane is a long range fighter you got 400 g
-If your plane is a short range fighter you got 300 g
Because you can't put more in your plane (obvious no ? ;))
50% loadout
- long range fighter you got 200 g
- short range fighter you got 150 g
Field is at 75% (300 Gallon)
100% loadout
- long range fighter you got 300 g and only 300
- short range fighter you still got 300 g
50% loadout
- long range fighter you got 300 g
- short range fighter you got 150 g
Field is at 25% (100 Gallon)
100% loadout
- long range fighter you got 100 g
- short range fighter you got 100 g
50% loadout
- If your plane is a long range fighter you got 100 g
- short range fighter you got 100 g
Now there is the problem of the bomber they need a huge amout of fuel the only solution
I see is to have different fuel reserves for fighter an bomber.
It make sense we already have different hangar for bomber and fighter.
If this is implemented I don't see the need to forbid fuel porking
Critics anyone ?
-
As you see you end up with differing code for different fighters........you then end up with different code for bombers.
Basically the top end availability needs to be approx 3000 gals and the bottom end availability (under attrition) somewhere between 50 and 100 gals.
With the adventof E6b the code now knows the fuel capacities of each plane in gallons this is accessable within the code.
HTC would be reluctant to change the GUI in the hanger.......but they dont have to.
One example of an attrition to fuel availability model is below.
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.
Infact the fuel/unit setting would be an arena setting adjust able to set the best balance of porkage based upon typical arena activity or game play (main or events etc)
You will see that to get a simple "unit = #gals available" balance the total fule staires per field are very large..........but hey that makes the job of porkers harder!!!! whilst not making it impossible.
You will also see (under the above) that porkage hits big buffs way before it hits fuel efficient fighters.............but then why would big buffs be using front line fields???
The disadvanatge of this proposal is that the object count per field is increased...... I do not think its one HTC could not over come. The FR hit due to increased objects is reduced by using drums that are virtually not visible until within a few hundred feet. Plus they would be scattered (near hangers, refuel points etc) probably in small groups of 2 or 3. Drums would not have flames they would simply dissappear when destroyed (again to reduce FR hits)
Re the GUI.........
We could still select 25/50/75/100% plus DT's as we do now. It would now be limited by the actual fuel units available.
An example........
Arena setting of 1 unit = 50 gals
Attrition has left 5 fuel units on the field. (250 gals)
We have a P51 .
When we try to load 100% (269 gals) we are advised (via the same pop up window we have now) that only 250 gals are available.......we can still take the 250 gals and our tanks are filled as they would be if we had taken 269 and used 19.
When we try to load 75% then as per now approx 202 gals are loaded.
Along come s a Typhoon
He can load 100% internal fuel (185 gals) but he cannot take both full drop tanks as well (44 gals each).
If HTC `decides that DT's must always be filled then the typhoon must reduce its internal capacity accordingly.
This would be more simple to code as selecting a DT would cause the fuel available for internals to be reduced always by a fixed amount equal to the capacity of the DT chosen.
Along comes a B17
He is in real trouble he cannot even load 25% of his maximum capacity. Infact he cannot even load 10% but he still has enough fuel to fly 2 sectors.
But going back to the proposal severe attrition has taken place for this to bite...........
In each case considerably more enemy activity has had to occurr and yet every ac is assured 1 or 2 fuel units per load out even when all fuel units are attritted.
-
Hello Tilt !
I don't want to sound rude or harsh but don't you thing it will be better to start another thread to discuss your idea?
Even if they share common principles
I'm affraid the reader will make confusions between the 2 proposal and end discussing a mix of our proposal ;)
-
I dont see any problem with the bombers being independent of the fighter supply. Personally I would love to see the bombers running on the same fuel supply. Nothing more ridiculus than lancasters taking off from a field 25 miles from the enemy base.
I know this will be unacceptable to the quakers... I mean people that like the current game play in the MA though.
for the fighters:
100% = 100% of the planes capacity
75%= 200? gallons
50%= 100 gallons
25%= 50 gallons
Since pyro mentioned porkage will be limited to 75% Really only the top two matter. This wont really affect short hop attacks, but nobobdy will be upping to attack a few sectors out from a base near the line.
-
I prefer the percentage method for fuel availability. Directed gallon amounts wouldn't be fair or effective as a means of porking fuel either.
Case in point...
An La-7 holds 122 gallons of fuel at full internal capacity. At full military power it burns it as a suspiciously low rate but that's an issue for another discussion. Under one of the proposals above at maximum fuel porkage possible, 100 gallons would be available. This would hardly put a dent in the La-7 leaving it with 82% of it's total fuel load.
At the same time a P-47-D30 can carry 370 gallons of internal fuel and another 375 gallons externally. At 125% the proposed 500 gallons would leave it over 200 gallons short of full fuel load. At maximum fuel porkage with 100 gallons it would be in pretty much the same sorry state is in now in the MA with 25% gas.
An even nastier thought...
An Me-262 holds 769 gallons of internal fuel. At max fuel available you wouldn't be able to take off with a full internal load. At minimum it would barely get off the runway before the engines would flameout.
The point is by not distrubuting fuel as a percentage of total capacity you screw over larger gas guzzler planes while leaving a lot of the lightweight planes unmolested.
-
That is exactly the point though.
All of the popular planes are gas guzzlers, currently a p51 is going to get an advantage at a porked base. If you put 100 g in a p51 and 100g in a 109 I bet they go about the same distance. Course it will be nice and light compared to normal flight.
If you upped from a 25% base in a 109 you would have 25 gallons. Enough for like 5 minutes of flight (pulling the numbers out of the air here).
-
So you want the 51 to continue to have advantage at long AND short range ?
My favorite plane is screwed by the current implementation but it doesn't annoy you I guess.
I try to find a FAIR system but as it will ruin your advantage you don't want it ?
-
I still don't see why one plane or type of plane should have available a greater percentage of fuel load than any other plane or type of plane.
Combat radius is a fixed part of the design parameters of every plane. It is a major part of the characteristics of each plane. Planes perform the way they do because of the weight they carry and the power their engines make. Weight is affected by fuel capacity as part of the design. Fuel consumption is affected by power level as part of the design. Overall performance, disregarding aerodynamic design, is greatly affected by power to weight ratio, and that is just part of it. If your plane has a great power to weight ratio and the attending high performance because the designer used a powerful thirsty engine and a small fuel capacity, then that's life. It means you can haul prettythang and kickprettythang for a little while.
Something you conveniently ignore is that planes that have more fuel capacity are larger and heavier, even without the large fuel load. The gas tank itself is inside the plane, it still weighs the same whther it is full or empty. It still takes up as much space in the plane, making the rest of the plane larger and heavier. So it remains a performance factor whether it has fuel in it or not. Size and weight is drag.
The fuselage of a P-51 has to be the size it is because it has a fuel tank in it. The wing of a P-38 is thick because it has a big fuel tank in it. These are things that affect drag, lift, stall speed, and turn radius, regardless of how much fuel is actually in there. These are just TWO examples.
The planes you want to give more range to have less range
BECAUSE they have less weight, less drag, and less size. Giving them more range IS an unfair advantage, because they pay NO penalty for it in weight, drag, size, or any other design parameter. Only the fuel weight is changed and it is not nearly the percentage of weight that would be there if it had greater fuel capacity.
You would have everyone believe that what you want only makes your plane able to fly further and fight longer, but does not give it an advantage, nor does it truly negate an advantage or a disadvantage, but that simply is not true.
If HTC makes changes just so people who want to fly hot rods with great performance and short range can fly longer because they want to, it's going to be real sad. If the settings for all of the planes are the same, then that's as level as the field gets. There's no need for artificially leveling the field to negate the disadvantage of certain planes. The plane you fly is up to you. You choose it on the basis of getting the best balance of performance you can find to suit your flying style and preferences. Live with it. I hope HTC chooses NOT to artificialy level the field.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
-
No I' WON'T leave this .
I suported this stupidity long enought.
so I'll scream now as no one want to answer nor understand
Why for $14.95 per month I've 35 gallon in my Yak when the P51 fans can have 64 ?
I don't pay enought ?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Something you conveniently ignore is that planes that have more fuel capacity are larger and heavier, even without the large fuel load. The gas tank itself is inside the plane, it still weighs the same whther it is full or empty. It still takes up as much space in the plane, making the rest of the plane larger and heavier. So it remains a performance factor whether it has fuel in it or not. Size and weight is drag.
This is not always true............ 25% fuel in a P51 gives it far more fuel and endurance than 25% in a yak.
You could argue that the measure should be endurance and neither % fuel or actual fuel.........
but % is an unreal attrition model ....... if fuel is scarce then its logical that its actual fuel that is "rationed".
to set the logic look at the extreme .......a base has been bombed down to 25% fuel so we give all the B17's that want to fly from it 700 gallons but restrict the Lavochkins to 30 gals per flight.
The B17 can fly across 10 sectors and back ............the Lavochkin only 1.
Many actual fuel attrition models do not really penalise any fighters .
What it penalises is heavy bombers and even then the actual fuel available has to be below 700 gals to effect even the biggest gas guzzling bomber. This when for full tanks the fuel available for a B17 must be circa 2800 gals!!
So really (as we have learnt with the FBM saga in the beta arena) the devil is in the detail.
Straffo's model tries to penalise heavy fighters differently to lighter fighters.......he then goes on to say that bombers would have to be treated differently again.....hence this approach actually ends up with multiple models targetting one plane type or another.... this "detail" I disagree with.
In fact it ends up IMO being far from simple both in the ability to understand and the inconsistancy of application.
Even so my view is very much in support of an actual fuel instead of a % fuel criteria. In this respect I am in total accord with straffo.
I also believe that fuel is both a valid target and its attrition should carry "consequences" however its much too easy to reduce fuel at fields at the moment. I have long believed that fuel stores should be numerous, scattered and at various points very difficult to actually see. But this is more detail.......
-
Originally posted by straffo
Why for $14.95 per month I've 35 gallon in my Yak when the P51 fans can have 64 ?
And yet your Yak will outturn, outclimb, and nearly match the speed of the p51 with near triple the ENY? So what was your point?
Restricting fuel as anything other than a percentage just screws over the heavy planes more and makes the MA even more of a 1944 monster plane furballer paradise. Under that policy anything with an R-2800 would be hosed. It's not like anyone ups a heavy fighter other than the p51 from a 25% fuel field anyway. It's typically all lalas, spits, nikis and hurris already anyway.
-
So the only other way to have a correct fuel loadout is to make the yak perform bad so you will be happy in your 51 ?
Your a joke or what ?
-
Originally posted by Tilt
This is not always true............ 25% fuel in a P51 gives it far more fuel and endurance than 25% in a yak.
You could argue that the measure should be endurance and neither % fuel or actual fuel.........
but % is an unreal attrition model ....... if fuel is scarce then its logical that its actual fuel that is "rationed".
to set the logic look at the extreme .......a base has been bombed down to 25% fuel so we give all the B17's that want to fly from it 700 gallons but restrict the Lavochkins to 30 gals per flight.
The B17 can fly across 10 sectors and back ............the Lavochkin only 1.
Many actual fuel attrition models do not really penalise any fighters .
What it penalises is heavy bombers and even then the actual fuel available has to be below 700 gals to effect even the biggest gas guzzling bomber. This when for full tanks the fuel available for a B17 must be circa 2800 gals!!
So really (as we have learnt with the FBM saga in the beta arena) the devil is in the detail.
Straffo's model tries to penalise heavy fighters differently to lighter fighters.......he then goes on to say that bombers would have to be treated differently again.....hence this approach actually ends up with multiple models targetting one plane type or another.... this "detail" I disagree with.
In fact it ends up IMO being far from simple both in the ability to understand and the inconsistancy of application.
Even so my view is very much in support of an actual fuel instead of a % fuel criteria. In this respect I am in total accord with straffo.
I also believe that fuel is both a valid target and its attrition should carry "consequences" however its much too easy to reduce fuel at fields at the moment. I have long believed that fuel stores should be numerous, scattered and at various points very difficult to actually see. But this is more detail.......
Evidently you did not understand the part of my post you quoted.
Planes that carry large quantities of fuel have to carry it SOMEWHERE ON THE PLANE. Therefore, planes with a large fuel capacity pay a penalty in performance BECAUSE they are capable of carrying more fuel, whether they have full tanks or not. This is a point that cannot be refuted. Planes that carry more fuel for long range are bigger. They have more drag and more weight simply because there is space designed into the plane to put fuel in. Even if that space is not occupied by fuel, the weight and drag of the added area to store fuel affects performance in a negative manner. As such, allowing planes not designed to carry large amounts of fuel to have some sort of artificial range enhancement is wrong, and is not an equitable solution.
If you meant to pick another part of my post to argue, please do so, I'm interested in hearing a new arguement.
-
Originally posted by straffo
No I' WON'T leave this .
I suported this stupidity long enought.
so I'll scream now as no one want to answer nor understand
Why for $14.95 per month I've 35 gallon in my Yak when the P51 fans can have 64 ?
I don't pay enought ?
Screaming won't get your point across better or make your arguement valid.
If 35 gallons of gas in your Yak is the same percentage of fuel capacity as 64 gallons is in a P-51, then that is why you get half the gas.
You're getting an answer, and you are understood. It's just that you aren't getting the answer you WANT. And screaming won't get it for you.
It has nothing to do with how much you pay, and everything to do with the reality of how the plane you want to fly was designed.
Too bad you're losing it. It isn't helping a thing.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Evidently you did not understand the part of my post you quoted.
Planes that carry large quantities of fuel have to carry it SOMEWHERE ON THE PLANE. Therefore, planes with a large fuel capacity pay a penalty in performance BECAUSE they are capable of carrying more fuel, whether they have full tanks or not. This is a point that cannot be refuted.
No its this part....... I dont dispute that of course a P51 with only a small amount of fuel is also carrying a big tank desgned for more fuel.......... and its fuselage is bigger too......... its a long range escort fighter.
And they do carry a penalty because they have these big tanks etc.......so they should................because so they did.
Your observation is correct and its consequences should be applied IMO............. if you are in an ac which requires more fuel then IMO it should be more effected by fuel attrition than those that do not!
Its a simple concept.......... If you drive a Lincoln Continental and fuel is rationed it will hit you harder than it will hit me in my BMW Mini. Even if your Continental has huge tanks so it can drive further between gas stations. You will be limited to the same number of gals per week as I am and I will be able to drive more and further than you. Because I own a fuel efficient car.
I also agree that "artificial" range enhancement is incorrect........
My mini cannot be "magic'ed' into doing more miles per gallon...its stuck with its performance criteria........... its range cannot be artificially enhanced............. its just actually better at mpg than the continental.
Yet under % fuel the Continental can apparantly have more fuel than the Mini....infact the bigger its tank the more it can have!
Under actual fuel its the fuel supply that decides how much fuel and not the size of the tank that some gas guzzler may have in its bowls.............
-
here here tilt.
I say gallons all the way.
Or liters even! ;)
-
The agenda behind complaints/suggestions like these is usually to attempt to change the game in such a way as to give the complainer/suggester's favourite ride some advantage over many of the other planes in the set. I don't see this one as any different. You want to be immune to fuel porkage. But only your plane and planes similar to it. Hmmmm.
That aside, I think most of your points are valid. Gas guzzlers should probably be affected more by lack of fuel, but I really don't think that planes with small tanks should be able to up with full fuel no matter how porked the field is. Of the four most prevalent aircraft in the game - the P51, N1KJ, La-7, and Spitfire (of various types), only the 51 carries a lot of fuel. I think implementing Staffo's idea as he laid it out would just make the other three aircraft even more ridiculously popular.
-
Ecliptik,
The N1K2-J also has quite a range.
Also, not all of us who think that short range aircraft are being over penalized stand to benefit from a 1.5 FBM or other solution. My favorite ride now has the longest range on internal tanks of any fighter, yet I think a system that mandates engine management be used by fans of some aircraft and not by fans of other aircraft is probably not a good thing.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Screaming won't get your point across better or make your arguement valid.
If 35 gallons of gas in your Yak is the same percentage of fuel capacity as 64 gallons is in a P-51, then that is why you get half the gas.
You're getting an answer, and you are understood. It's just that you aren't getting the answer you WANT. And screaming won't get it for you.
It has nothing to do with how much you pay, and everything to do with the reality of how the plane you want to fly was designed.
Too bad you're losing it. It isn't helping a thing.
I'm loosing my temper because some dumb people blinded by their stupid admiration of 2 engine fighter post stupid messages without even trying to use their brain.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I'm loosing my temper because some dumb people blinded by their stupid admiration of 2 engine fighter post stupid messages without even trying to use their brain.
Tell you what Straffo, when you can learn to act like an adult, as opposed to screaming, whining, temper tantrums, and name calling, I'll treat you like an adult. Until then, I'll just laugh at you and your little hissy fit, and probably make fun of you while I pick your idea to pieces.:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Tilt
No its this part....... I dont dispute that of course a P51 with only a small amount of fuel is also carrying a big tank desgned for more fuel.......... and its fuselage is bigger too......... its a long range escort fighter.
And they do carry a penalty because they have these big tanks etc.......so they should................because so they did.
Your observation is correct and its consequences should be applied IMO............. if you are in an ac which requires more fuel then IMO it should be more effected by fuel attrition than those that do not!
Its a simple concept.......... If you drive a Lincoln Continental and fuel is rationed it will hit you harder than it will hit me in my BMW Mini. Even if your Continental has huge tanks so it can drive further between gas stations. You will be limited to the same number of gals per week as I am and I will be able to drive more and further than you. Because I own a fuel efficient car.
I also agree that "artificial" range enhancement is incorrect........
My mini cannot be "magic'ed' into doing more miles per gallon...its stuck with its performance criteria........... its range cannot be artificially enhanced............. its just actually better at mpg than the continental.
Yet under % fuel the Continental can apparantly have more fuel than the Mini....infact the bigger its tank the more it can have!
Under actual fuel its the fuel supply that decides how much fuel and not the size of the tank that some gas guzzler may have in its bowls.............
The problem with your assumption that fuel rationing in military operations is the same as civilian fuel rationing is that it is an invalid assumption.
Military fuel rationing doesn't work that way. And in fact, in World War II there were different ration cards for different civilians as well.
The assumption that you'd simply put the same number of gallons in every vehicle is simply not the reality. They just don't do it that way. Fuel is rationed on the basis of the priority of the vehicle and the fuel requirement for the vehicle.
The problem we have here is that there are players who prefer to fly planes that in real life had SIGNIFICANTLY shorter time over the target than others. But they want that disadvantage removed for their enjoyment. Or at the very least they want that disadvantaged reduced by a large margin. With no other penalty.
The fact of the matter is that planes like the Yak, the La7, the Tempest, and many others simply did not have the time over target that other planes had given equal missions. Therefore, you cannot expect them to be able to have the same time over target here.
On the otherhand, there is the question of planes with plenty of fuel flying around at military power all the time because they have plenty of fuel. This too is WRONG. The liquid cooled planes like the P-51 and the P-38 had limited time at military power due to overheating. I'll have to look, but I'm sure the same applies to other planes.
If the terrain is compressed then there should be less time available at military power.
Planes that could not fly constantly at military power shouldn't be able to cruise endlessly at military power just because they have plenty of fuel.
Planes that had very significant limits in range and fuel capacity shouldn't get a proportionally larger fuel load so they can fly longer either.
-
Again you prefer the status quo because it serve your very own interrest.
You never discussed my proposal , I doubt you even tried to read it.
Plus your rationning post is stupid and irrationnal will any military reserve the best part of his fuel to some ineffiecient planes ?
Just look at the number.
And it's not a question of time over target : this is already affected by the FBM.
It's a question of fairness for the player I'm pretty tired to see this game stay static on some part that are pretty illogic.
I've been waiting 4 years for another beta I'll voice my opinion .
Now just answer this 2 part of this post :
the P51 is a long range fighter
the Yak is a short range fighter
The FBM prevent the use of the Yak as a long range fighter because of the short distance between field in Arena.
This affirmation : The yak is a short range fighter
Is true Yes/No ?
My answer : Yes
Second part (be carefull it's intellectually a challenge)
the P51 is a long range fighter
the Yak is a short range fighter
When there is 50% availlable at a field
This affirmation : The yak is a hangar queen
Is true Yes/No ?
My answer : Yes
Just because by design HTC don't want the Yak to shine in her SPECIFIC role.
-
Originally posted by Ecliptik
The agenda behind complaints/suggestions like these is usually to attempt to change the game in such a way as to give the complainer/suggester's favourite ride some advantage over many of the other planes in the set. I don't see this one as any different. You want to be immune to fuel porkage. But only your plane and planes similar to it. Hmmmm.
No I don't want my planbe to be immune to porkage.
I wan't fairness.
If you give 35 Gallon to the p51 I'll be happy.
I don't see why only my plane should be unusable.
That aside, I think most of your points are valid. Gas guzzlers should probably be affected more by lack of fuel, but I really don't think that planes with small tanks should be able to up with full fuel no matter how porked the field is. Of the four most prevalent aircraft in the game - the P51, N1KJ, La-7, and Spitfire (of various types), only the 51 carries a lot of fuel. I think implementing Staffo's idea as he laid it out would just make the other three aircraft even more ridiculously popular.
Actually you are wrong in the case of the Niki it can carry a lot of fuel.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Again you prefer the status quo because it serve your very own interrest.
You never discussed my proposal , you just stirred the pot.
Plus your rationning post is stupid and irrationnal will any military reserve the best part of his fuel to some ineffiecient planes ?
Just look at the number.
It's not a
First, Tilt showed you most of what was wrong with your idea before I ever saw it. So I didn't see much need to carry it further.
And your reply was to ask him to move his idea to another thread.
Good answer. Typical of your attitude. You want what you want and everyone else should pay the price for your desires. And you ask for critics, and then tell them they should post their ideas elsewhere. :rolleyes:
But one other problem with your proposal, and it is a glaring one, is that at 75% short range planes pay NO penalty, while long range planes do. Of course, that is fair to YOU.
The military will ration fuel based on priority of the vehicle, and the fuel requirement of that vehicle to get the assigned task done. If it uses more fuel to do its assigned task, if that task has priority, that vehicle gets the fuel, and it gets enough to do the job. It really is simple, but of course in is in conflict with your desire. So in your opinion it is stupid.
Like I said, here we go with name calling again. GROW UP. :rolleyes:
Oh, and if you bothered to read, you'd see where I said that no one should be flying around at full military power just because they have the fuel. But since it wasn't a suggestion to give you and your Yak all the range and loiter time you want, you ignored it. Typical. :rolleyes:
The problem with you is very obvious, you want what you want, and don't care how realistic it is and how it affects anyone else. And you say you want input from others, but if it is in conflict with your desires, you either say they are stupid or you suggest they take their ideas elsewhere, depending on how much they differ with what you want. You really are pretty simple, and easy to understand. :rofl
-
Originally posted by straffo
Just because by design HTC don't want the Yak to shine in her SPECIFIC role.
Ooh. Now HTC is out to get you and your plane. Soon, even when there is enough fuel for you to fly, HTC will send the black helicopters with the EMI disrupter beams to your house to crash your computer.:rolleyes:
-
All of a sudden I understand Henning.
1- Tilt idea is not wrong ,it's a different idea needing IMO a different thread just to avoid confusion in this discussion.
For the rest of your post I don't care your a complete waste.
Plus I don't think you play this game.
-
Originally posted by straffo
All of a sudden I understand Henning.
1- Tilt idea is not wrong ,it's a different idea needing IMO a different thread just to avoid confusion in this discussion.
For the rest of your post I don't care your a complete waste.
Plus I don't think you play this game.
You asked for criticism, and he posted valid criticism. You told him he should post elsewhere. Of course, you can ignore that all you want.
Since I don't agree with you I figured you'd say that. I was hoping for a rational discussion and finding middle ground, but you don't want that. There's a big surprise.
I play regularly. I pay the same $14.95 you do. So you are completely wrong. I play and HoHun does not. Most months since I came back I average 30 plus hours. Got it? So don't go thinking you play and I don't and that makes your views the only ones worth considering. Because you are completely wrong.
Oh, and I'm not so paranoid as to think HTC is conspiring against me or my favorite plane. You hold that honor.
-
Oh, and by the way, Straffo, I have been posting AGAINST planes cruising at military power (one of your big complaints) since before there was an AH I, never mind AH II, and WAY back into Air Warrior. There is likely common ground, and I am looking for it. Of course if you aren't, and just want more range and loiter time, well, then so be it.
-
How about percentage of fuel available has no effect on amount of fuel you get.. how about it affectes a percentage of the range available at full tanks?? 125% means you get 100% of your full range plus DT's... 75% means you get 75% of your full range a mil power at sea level worth of fuel.. so if you had a 100 mile range regardless of gallons used you could now go 75.. and so on. That way planes with historical range could go light but not carry DT's.. the smaller planes could go %'s of their range. That way when it's down to 25%.. both can go 25% of their max.. if the P51 can go further than the Bf109 then it's by fault of the designer not by HTC.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Military fuel rationing doesn't work that way. And in fact, in World War II there were different ration cards for different civilians as well.
I think this is a valid point............ but I do not think it is rationalised by the % approach eaither................ neither are able to prioritise mission values.
of the two (actual fuel rationing and % fuel rationing) I believe actual to be more valid........however the detail model should not overly penalise various models.
Infact the ideal "military" system is one that allocates fuel on the basis of endurance....... ( a third option)
eg lets assume that a field with full fuel can grant any ac sufficient fuel for 5000 miles of endurance at cruise speed. (of course this is more fuel than many ac can carry)
At 50 % attrition each plane can have sufficient fuel for 2500 miles
At 90 % attrition each plane can have sufficient fuel for 500 miles.
We might set the max attrition to 95% so that all ac have a cruise range of 250 miles (at FBM 1).
hence our P51 would see the fuel attrition bite into its upper fuel load possibilites before the yak is effected but it would always have the same or greater endurance potential as the yak.
I think this would approach the "military" point you make better than either actual or % fuel allocation models.
(basically as a base loses fuel resources its absolute operational range is reduced equally across all models, although that absolute limit may be actually beyond the range of some models anyway)
I think given the E6B code now exists within the AH code this method is possible........I wonder how easily its application would be understood by the players.
I thought it may be overly complex.........
-
Virgile if you're against MIL getting used all time why are you againts my proposal ?
the 1st line of my 1st post is : multiplier at 2.
Next I don't see your 1st post a critic perhaps it's
because of my bad english but I read it as a rant nothing more.
Btw I tried to expose a design flaw Tilt have seen but you refuse to see.
correction Munkii didn't understood either.
-
Originally posted by Munkii
How about percentage of fuel available has no effect on amount of fuel you get.. how about it affectes a percentage of the range available at full tanks?? 125% means you get 100% of your full range plus DT's...
This is what we have now........... if you base it as a % of the ac's own range then you may as well base it as a % of the AC's max fuel capacity.......
If you were to look at range independant of ac type and allocate sufficient fuel for say 1000 miles or 500 miles or 100 miles then this would be more equitable.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Virgile if you're against MIL getting used all time why are you againts my proposal ?
the 1st line of my 1st post is : multiplier at 2.
Next I don't see your 1st post a critic perhaps it's
because of my bad english but I read it as a rant nothing more.
Btw I tried to expose a design flaw Tilt have seen but you refuse to see.
correction Munkii didn't understood either.
Why? Because you want to use fuel as the limiter and I think it shouldn't be fuel.
The limit keeping planes from cruising at military power should be engine overheating and not fuel.
You read it as a rant for your own reasons. I explained why I think you are wrong to use fuel to attempt to limit use of military power.
I see plenty of flaws in the HTC system, but your system has a big one as well as far as I'm concerned. You suggest the use of fuel to limit the ability of planes with range from using military power for cruise. If your true agenda is not to give your chosen plane a greater percentage of its range when fuel is short, but rather to prevent planes with plenty of fuel from using it to cruise at military power, then the solution is to add a feature to engine management, not to mess with fuel loads.
-
But virgil this has been discussed, and it is the impression of HTC (and RL i guess) that overheat is in fact not the problem with mil. WEP yes, but really it is just engine wear (which they dont model) and fuel consumption. If you would like to read what pyro said about this you can see it here.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/foru...nt&pagenumber=2
-
or here is a snippit
pyro says
"
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."
-
It MAY have been discussed, but it is still WRONG.
I'll do some more research, but just for example, the P-38 is in real life limited to 15 minutes of military power (54" manifold) and 5 minutes of WEP (60" manifold BEFORE the restrictions were removed in mid 1944). The limit was due to overheating.
I'm pretty sure most if not all other liquid cooled planes had the same limits. With regard to air cooled radials I'm not sure.
While they may not WANT to damage an engine due to overheating, the fact is it happens. If you can't read a temp guage you don't have any business flying a high performance plane.
The P-51 also had a VERY limited cooling capacity. With any real coolant leak, the P-51 would quickly overheat, and in fact the engine will sieze very soon. Several P-51s have been lost this way even lately.
While they may not LIKE to, and they may not WANT to, and they may not anyway, they SHOULD be limiting the use of military power by overheating.
It is FAR more fair than doing something messing around with fuel loads to handicap one plane or the other.
With all due respect to Pyro and HiTech, and the rest of their staff, and whether or not this has been discussed and vetoed before, overheating because of excessive use of military power is a fact of real life for many planes. It should be here as well.
Not only would restriction of military power due to overheating stop planes from cruising endlessly just because they can, but it will also stop planes from being able to engage and then run forever, since they will quickly run out of military power even after they run out of WEP. In fact, the engine(s) will be so hot after WEP they won't support military power for long either.
-
I like Tilt's range-rationing. That sounds like a good compromise.
-
Virgil find the information leading to overheating due to mil power, and present it. I am all for realistic engine damage, but I have not found anyone with evidence of engine overheat. I know it happened in mustangs, but only when the auto cowl would sieze closed.
As far as the p38 this is news to me, but I have never heard much about the p38.
The 15 minute limits were all engine wear as far as I knew. This has been tossed around by some pretty big historian types in here, and I have not seen any evidence provided for an overheat model. If you can find some that would be excellent. For example in the stories I have read about linbergh in the pacific with the p38s, overheat was not an issue. His low rpm high manifold treatment worked great, when all of the pilots thought it would blow up the engines.
I went to school with a couple of kids that put a brick on the gas pedal of a 1984 4cyl mustang, and let it go redline for as long as it would run. After an hour it somehow slipped into gear and crashed into a garage. I know there was no load on the engine, but still, its a ford 2.4 liter. Not exactly a good engine.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
Virgil find the information leading to overheating due to mil power, and present it. I am all for realistic engine damage, but I have not found anyone with evidence of engine overheat. I know it happened in mustangs, but only when the auto cowl would sieze closed.
As far as the p38 this is news to me, but I have never heard much about the p38.
The 15 minute limits were all engine wear as far as I knew. This has been tossed around by some pretty big historian types in here, and I have not seen any evidence provided for an overheat model. If you can find some that would be excellent. For example in the stories I have read about linbergh in the pacific with the p38s, overheat was not an issue. His low rpm high manifold treatment worked great, when all of the pilots thought it would blow up the engines.
I went to school with a couple of kids that put a brick on the gas pedal of a 1984 4cyl mustang, and let it go redline for as long as it would run. After an hour it somehow slipped into gear and crashed into a garage. I know there was no load on the engine, but still, its a ford 2.4 liter. Not exactly a good engine.
It really wasn't the pilots who thought high boost low RPM auto lean would hurt engines, it was the mechanics. The mechanics felt it would melt the plugs and burn the valves. What they didn't realize was that actually, the settings they used before were in fact fouling plugs and causing other problems. PJ Dahl said the engines ran MUCH better with high boost, low RPM, and auto lean.
-
I can give you an actual story where the reverse was tried.........
My farther was flight engineer with the Canadians on Halifax Mk III's and VI's with the Hercules radial engines. (the Canadians brought over full crews except for flight engineers who were always Brits)
Any way the forward cowl of the Hercules was also the exhaust collector and it could on occasion give off a slight glow....... which for night bombers wasa disadvantage............
The fuel system was the soul responsibility of the flight engineer indeed the pilot could not even reach the fuel mixture control systems. In fact they were usually preset during preflight and not touched again.
Some where over Germany (on a return leg) dad had an engine unexpectedly lose power and begin to sound really bad.
He shut it down a feathered it.
Then another started to go the same way and eventually he had to shut it down too.
AS a third began to show the same signs.. the crew was understandibly concerned that dad should find the fault and rectify it.
It was then that he remembered being approached by the pilot and some of his fellows from their mess about enriching the fuel to run the engine cooler and so not have "glowing" exhaust pots..........
So he checked the mixture controls and sure enough they were not set to std they were set to rich...... the engines were being "choked"......... ressetting them he was eventually able to fire up all the Halifaxes engines and make it home.
The only other crew member who could have reached these controls (easily)was the navigator, who by co incidence was a close freind of the pilot. Both denied doing such a thing and the pilot denied ever hearing of such a theory to reduce the pots glowing...............
-
hehehe. I wouldnt want a glowing plane either. My opel used to run cold and run bad after a few hours driving as well. In this case it was a bad dwell setting on the distributor, but half burnt fuel and oil will do terrible things to a spark plug after a while.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Why? Because you want to use fuel as the limiter and I think it shouldn't be fuel.
Wrong, you didn't read closely.
Did you notice that in AH the short range fighter are not long range fighter becasue of the multiplier and not short range fighter because of the inequity/unjustness/ bias/one-sidedness/partiality of the percentage system ?
If your true agenda is not to give your chosen plane a greater percentage of its range when fuel is short, but rather to prevent planes with plenty of fuel from using it to cruise at military power, then the solution is to add a feature to engine management, not to mess with fuel loads.
It's in the tittle of the thread : (simple)
In my proposal there is a little code to add to AH to make it work ,
something like a 1 hour work (unit test included).
It's not it's technicaly impossible to implement I needed less than 10 min to do the pseudo code.
-
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 ????
-
You still find this rationnal and FAIR, JUST, EQUITABLE, IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, DISPASSIONATE, OBJECTIVE ????
Yes I do.
Straffo, 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
-
1st I'm sorry to have writen in caps screamed and so on ...
Nothing more frustrating then having the impression of pissing in the wind.
For this and my outburst I apologise (even to Virgil :p)
2nd in my reasonning the fuel multiplier is here to take into account the range differences as it exacebate (put emphasis on ?) the difference range.
What make me scream is the double punishement the short range fighter have when fuel strat is destroyed in this current setup.
I think it's not fair because I'm reasonning not in percentage but in quantity of availlable fuel.
Imagine the following :
A after their father death the 4 sons have to resolve the inheritance (the father had an infinite fortune)
Son 1 and 2 have each one a car with a 100 gallon.
Son 3 and 4 have each one a car with a 50 gallon.
The Will of their father is : each one of my sone should recieve 25%.
Your interpretation is :
sons 1&2 should have 25 gallon and sons 3&4 should
have 12.5.
my interpretation is each son should have 25 gallon.
-
Forgot : whatever I'll say or write it's your game and you make the design choices.
-
Ht simple question
Is the fuel mod staying at 2?
-
If you're asking whether consumption will remain higher than in AH1, the answer is yes. If you're asking whether it will remain specifically at 2.0, the answer is it might, it might not. But that will be determined through observation and analysis rather than what initial kneejerk reaction people have to it.
-
but but....
think of the cartilage!!
:p
-
I'd like to see how it works with the FBM at 1.75 or 1.5.
-
I note that this thread started on the subject of fuel attrition models and Pyro and HT have now had to answer re fuel burn multiplier.(basically cos the thread drifted........)
HT has touched on an analysis that % fuel attrition is fair because it affects all AC (it has consequences for all)
In fact it does not now have a consequence for all......... many ac have ranges far greater than gameplay requires and so initial % attrition stages do not affect them.
So a model where differing amounts of absolute fuel (or absolute range) attrition affect different ac differently would not be unusual.....% does that now.
Ignoring all this however we can refer back to the logic of the implementation of better fuel management systems and an FBM that forces critical fuel management in short legged ac.
So we note that fuel management and FBM is (in actuality) selective (in terms of ac types) in its gameplay application. So why should attrition not be selective? (as it is any way it seems),and why should attrition not reward those ac that are more economical with fuel?
Regardless of what we think of the FBM chosen here we see an AC's fuel consumption rate and capacity characturistic being brought into game play to add challange to those ac with limited endurance.
However the fuel attrition model does not look at fuel consumption rate and capacity it looks only at capacity as a % of each ac's maximum.
And this is what IMO seems so unreal. If your airfield was short of fuel would you really be sending gas guzzlers (which happen to have very big tanks) up (to defend it or counter attack) instead of more economical ac? and yet this is the result of the % only fuel attrition model.
-
yeah tilt. That is the problem. Personally, at least for the ct, I believe gallons should be the determinate. e.g. we can only give each aircraft 100 gallons, you figure out the best way to use it. Otherwise it is arbitrary and just a little odd.
IF you up with a p51 with 50 gallons of gas, well, your the fool. Maybe a hurri 1 would be better.
-
Imagine the following :
A after their father death the 4 sons have to resolve the inheritance (the father had an infinite fortune)
Son 1 and 2 have each one a car with a 100 gallon.
Son 3 and 4 have each one a car with a 50 gallon.
The Will of their father is : each one of my sone should recieve 25%.
What if sons 3 and 4 have cars that are twice as fuel efficient? Then the 12.5 gallons they have is just as good as 25 gallons for 1 and 2. If you give them both 25 gallons then 3 and 4 can go twice as far.
-
True Ecliptik
I forgot to specify the car were strictly identical except for the amount of fuel.
-
Originally posted by Ecliptik
What if sons 3 and 4 have cars that are twice as fuel efficient? Then the 12.5 gallons they have is just as good as 25 gallons for 1 and 2. If you give them both 25 gallons then 3 and 4 can go twice as far.
But is this not the actuality..............?
The resource has been equally divided...........how the beneficiaries use it is upto them........... should your fuel be cheaper at the gas pump because you own a car with a big fuel tank? should your fuel be cheaper at the gas pump because you own a car with high fuel consumption?
or should the fuel be the same price for every one?
-
Tilt that discision has nothing to do with AH. Because there are lots of other choices to be made on where to send the gas, not just a simple is it fair with the same amount of $ for gas.
Think of what would realy happen. If gas was short the kids wouldn't get any gas for the cars, so the planes could still fly. The planes with large tanks would still be filed if the mission required a long range. No mater what the short range plane still couldn't be used for that roll.
You say the long range planes are not effected. Well they are effected just not when flying a short range roll.
In fact short range planes are not effected either if you are just looking at field deffence.
HiTech
-
any thoughts on restricting DT to planes with 100% fuel loadout? Perhaps an arena setting for this?
-
Originally posted by hitech
In fact short range planes are not effected either if you are just looking at field deffence.
HiTech
I agree that the $ analysis is not a military model.........my responce to Ecliptik was a bit tongue in cheek the whole "tale of talents" analogy is misleading in this context.
I think short range air craft are effected.........in fact more accurately small tanked aircraft are effected..........I would point out that in the military model small tanked aircraft would not have been limited to an arbitary % of their max fuel capacity.........they would have been given the fuel to do the job .............particularly if that fuel was less than would have been required by larger tanked gas guzzlers.
I believe that a form of absolute fuel attrition would represent this more than a simple %....I need to do some maths to check for myself..............
-
Originally posted by hitech
Tilt that discision has nothing to do with AH. Because there are lots of other choices to be made on where to send the gas, not just a simple is it fair with the same amount of $ for gas.
Think of what would realy happen. If gas was short the kids wouldn't get any gas for the cars, so the planes could still fly. The planes with large tanks would still be filed if the mission required a long range. No mater what the short range plane still couldn't be used for that roll.
You say the long range planes are not effected. Well they are effected just not when flying a short range roll.
In fact short range planes are not effected either if you are just looking at field deffence.
HiTech
You said it yourself, but if it's a pinpoint defense like an interception the best tools for this job can't be used because the long range fighter are filled in priority.
Depending of the tactical situation IRL fuel will be affected(assigned ?) to the correct tool to handle the job.
Actually a long range fighter is a better tool to defend a field because it can climb to combat altitude a short range fighter can't.
-
OK an "Actual absolute fuel attrition model" with maths for each plane type is here.
http://www.tilt.clara.net/data/fuel.xls
If I knew the mpg for each ac at cruise I could plumb those figures in the spaces provided and show the range ramifications.
It uses existing shapes but 2 new object types
It assumes the large silo in each town can be a fuelk silo of considerable capacity and hardness.
The fuel bunkers are as they are.
A tank next to (or part of) the present re arm pad becomes a refuel tank.
What we see is that considerable attrition has to take place before any fighter is heavily effected although some are effected before others.............
A comparison with the present % figure is shown in the last column............ we can see that heavy bombers are most effected by complete attrition of a field.
-
I've heard stuff about the engine overheating when missused... Will that be put into effect at all? I mean, from a realistic view it seems pretty sweet. Just wondering if HTC is considering that idea?
-
pyro has stated that overheat at mil is not realistic. I tend to believe him. I think mil is 'as far as you can push it for a length of time (probably measured in hours) without causing engine failure'.
There is no base of facts behind this. Just makes sense to me. If it was going to cause your plane to overheat in 10-15 minutes, I would have to consider that 'emergency' power.