Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: ergRTC on June 23, 2004, 08:41:45 AM
-
Hey guys, we need to get this out in the open and decided on. As I see it, 1.5 is way to low. I say we spend this time in limbo here without maps playing with the modifier.
I suggest:
1. Always match it to hysterical/historical limits when possible. Not actual time aloft, but time over enemy territory and so on. So in the BOB, make sure the 109s cruising at normal power will have 10 minutes fight time (near mil or close) over england before they have to return at max cruise speed. Supposedly if the modeling is correct, as long as we have the plane that is most fuel limited historically accurate, then the others should all fall in line.
2. If this does not work... I think we should try 1.8 or 1.75 something in there. Currently planes are full throttle most of the time. On 50% fuel my p51b has 40 minutes of flight time, full throttle. I would be more comfortable with 15 minutes full throttle at 50% fuel.
3. In ahistorical maps there will probably have to be concessions to the luftwhiners, I would hope we can keep those to a minimum, and never ever go beyond known historical limits.
lets here it. Staff, what are your current plans?
-
1. not possible w/th current fuel burn.
2. You would be limiting the LW planes to defence i think.
3. "2 weeks"
-
IMO limiting fuel will normally impact the LW more then the Allies.
If your aim is to discourage people from flying LW in the CT, that would be the way to do it but I'm inclined to see a need to encourage more people to fly LW and balance the numbers.
-
Originally posted by Easyscor
IMO limiting fuel will normally impact the LW more then the Allies.
If your aim is to discourage people from flying LW in the CT, that would be the way to do it but I'm inclined to see a need to encourage more people to fly LW and balance the numbers.
On the other hand, fuel limiter like this also ought to discourage the overwhelming use of Spitfires when they are available. Seems like a worthwhile idea to try it. Historically, Luftwaffe was on the defensive most of the war, and one of the main advantages of planes like the 51 was range.
I think it's worth a try. My guess is that in some setups it will detract from play - Battle of Britain being a good example, with short-range planes on both sides and not a lot of close bases. For most setups, though, it achieve the plane-use-balancing that occurred in real life.
If it doesn't work, how hard is it to change?
- oldman
-
Exactly oldman. I am well aware that the fuel modifier will hurt the 109s alot, but it did historically too. If 109s had free reign over england, bob woulda been a little different. Spit 1 is also a gas hog. Perhaps this will make the 110 a more important plane as well.
Please remember that the 109 carries very very little gas, that is why it cant go far. The p51 handles like a dream when there is only 100 gallons on board. It also has a short range with 100 gallons. you get the idea.
I just want to see if we can try some of these historical BOB setups with actual flight times over target now.
and of course, if it doesnt work let shift it. Currently the fuel model has no impact whatsoever in the CT, all it is good for is knowing when to head home and how slow you can go to get there.
-
I dont know what the number should be set at, but just as a generel rule, planes with short range like the 109, Hurricane and Spit should HAVE to take 100% fuel as a minimum. Planes with longer range abilities like the P-51, P-38, P-47, and 190 should still have to take more than 50%.
Most of the time, you dont need more than 50% even in short legged planes like the Hurrican and 109, which is fine for the MA where historical accuracy is not even strived for. The CT should make you calculate those things relative to your plane of choice since it was a huge factor in RL.
-
easycor nailed it.
-
I wish. I would also like to see restriction of drop tanks to planes with 100% fuel.
This would be a great arena setting.
-
As to easycor's comment, I would like unlimited ammo in my hurricane 2. The historical amount of ammo is limiting my fun, and more people would fly it if it had 400 rounds per gun.
-
While I'm totally opposed to giving it a try. My concern in an open arena especially one where often times the #'s are relatively low. Low loiter times means more time spent in transit than acutally fighting which means bored players.
The problem we run into in the CT is how much of a concession to gameplay we are willing to make in the face of historical accuracy. In this case it's a trade I would be disinclined to make.
Now that doesn't nessesarily preclude a night where I'm planning on being in the CT for a few hours, changing the fuel burn seeing how things go and then changing it back when I leave. But leaving a high fuel burn in an unsupervised enviorment that thrives on air battles and the ability to find a fight limiting time in air doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
-
I fly the 109 most of the time I'm axis (which is 75% of the time) and I never load more than 50% (but I am usually planning for a one way trip so take that into account). Why not set it so a short ranged plane like a 109 or a Hurricane gets the same range with 100% as it gets now with 50%? That way short legged planes are still viable (especially if they have a DT option) but they will be forced to take 100% minimum as a penalty for that short range, and planes that historicly had a fuel range advantage will now be able to see that advantage.
Seems like a good compromise to me.
-
Soulyss, that is a very dissappointing post. The whole reason for the fuel modifier is for realism. If you are cruising across the channel for a fight in england, you currently floor the damn thing and just keep going. This is entirely unrealistic. 109s conserved fuel on the crossing so they could spend more time in the air.
I read a post by a russian pilot once where a person asked him about how on earth he could fight the 109s with his whimpy p-36 or hurri, considering they were nearly 100 mph faster. He said he never noticed the speed difference, since people did not fly around at 350 mph.
we need to make flying at realistic throttle settings a part of the game. For example, the hurricanes cruise speed is abominable. A 109s cruise speed is over 50 mph faster. These kinds of advantages are currently lost due to the little impact of fuel management.
Iets just try keeping it as real as we can in the CT, and this is part of that.
otherwise, maybe we should get rid of blackouts too.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
Soulyss, that is a very dissappointing post. The whole reason for the fuel modifier is for realism. If you are cruising across the channel for a fight in england, you currently floor the damn thing and just keep going. This is entirely unrealistic. 109s conserved fuel on the crossing so they could spend more time in the air.
Do you call it realism when you have a map with a scale from 1:2 to 1:5. There is absolutely no realism in crossing the channel in 5 minutes. Maybe the geographically challenged don't mind.
-
That is why the fuel modifier is not 1:1.
Please dont knee jerk this away, you may be suprised, but there is a reason why the MA is running at 2.00.
-
Realism eh, ok I'll bite then. make it so I can extend my flaps and not have them retract automatically on any AC. Have formations for buffs disabled. Give the allied forces only allied GVs and the axis forces only axis GVs. make all ack manable and no AI ack. allow landings anywhere in green territory to be considered a safe landing or at least anywhere on the base. Shall I continue? realism huh. Psssst It's a game. read your sig line for crissake.
-
Not having flown at all since the release of AH2 I will wait and give you guys my opinion after I spend a few hours in the game seeing what the different throttle/rpm settings can do.
-
Ahhh, but you see, we CANT do most of those things. We CAN now get the fuel consumption of actual aircraft. Previously cruise, rpm, mil, wep were not modeled. Wep used as much as mil and all was odd on linear after that. Now that the fuel consumption is modeled correctly WE CAN HAVE THIS SMALL PART more realistic.
As for your complaints, I would say that most flaps autoretracted (either by sheer force of the wind or a mechanism), Lone bombers are not realistic, and like I said, the rest is stuff we cannot do yet.
-
Storch I only wish we could change the settings to allow a "landing" anywhere near the designated runway to be a good one. In my opinion I think that the only time you should get a ditch is when you have to belly land an aircraft in the game outside of your base. I know it can't be changed without some pretty serious coding changes though.
-
Its quite nice actually. I think it adds another dimension to the game which is always good. Well, it would add another dimension if fuel consumption were upped a little.
As I stated though, this would not be a fixed number, just one which matches the map. The only map where I can think of this as being crucial is BOB. Where, by the way, the bloated gas tanks called blue planes and p51s are not present.
-
realism killed WB.
that is all i have to say
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
realism killed WB.
that is all i have to say
Sorry but that's BS. It wasn't realism, nor an rps that crippled WB3. Delay after delay, piss poor management and half truths were the main factors behind the exodus of many WB players.
-
This is not a "Holy Grail" for me, I just thought it might be interesting to add fuel as an issue in your preflight checklist, but I guess not.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
realism killed WB.
that is all i have to say
That is an incorrect statement there Skull. What killed it was the management pulling things out their arse with the game and never getting the product up to where it should have been.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
As for your complaints, I would say that most flaps autoretracted (either by sheer force of the wind or a mechanism), Lone bombers are not realistic, and like I said, the rest is stuff we cannot do yet.
Ok, I'll bite on this one. The point that lone bombers are not realistic is well taken, I don't think a bomber mission was ever comprised of a "lone" bomber.
But if you are trying to make the argument that it is "realisim" that a single player can launch and control a flight of 3 bombers as a trolling "deathstar", well sir I disagree.
I agree that formations should be disabled. If you want to attack enmass with buffs, then get someone to go with you. Get two more players to fly a buff with you, you will probably do more collateral damage and get more kills. Form a buff squad, whatever.
That (to me) would be more "realistic" :aok
-
it is just what i have heard.
-
Has anybody tried buff hunting yet? With the new model I bet it is a entirely different cup o tea. I have not run into a buff yet, so I have not been able to try.
I dont believe bombers are trolling deathstars by the way. They are tough, but heck, so was a box of 3 in the war. If you climb up to the six of any formation, you deserve what you get. I find good strategy is all that is required, and for that matter, rarely do we see the big bombers in the CT. Now the ki 67, that is a monster.
-
Erg, your points are well taken. Personally it is a flaw in my common sense. EVERY time I see a formation of buffs I can't resist-its like a moth to the flame, or in my case a quick trip back to the tower and boosting someone elses kill streak. Very much like you say-getting what I deserve :D
My point is that it would be more immersive and real to have each buff manned by a pilot. On one hand (for the buffs) if you make too severe of an evasive move-your buddies would turn and move with you not like it is now and you loose your drones and just hand someone 2 easy kills that they might not have earned. Another point is defensive gunnery-3 planes/3 pilots means more defensive gun coverage of the sky around you-not all guns trained to one spot by one guy.
Yeah, what I'm saying would possibly if not probably make it tougher for fighters to shoot down buffs-but it wasn't easy in the first place was it? And wouldn't someting like this be more "real"?
-
Maybe I wasn't clear when I last posted, or maybe I was clear and my answer just wasn't what you wanted to hear. I will probably never (using the BoB as a scenario) limited one side to only 10 minutes of fighting time with 100% fuel. To me the potential drawkbacks outweigh the historical accuracy on this one (more time flying to the fight than actually spent fighting). However if people are loading 50% than I hardly expect them to have a long loiter time in a notoriously short legged plane. To me it would be a matter of finding a happy medium.
The problem is these things are difficult to determine without trial and error. Which would mean a lot of mid-week tweaks to the arena settings to fine tune things, which always seem to get people's panties in a bunch for some reason.
-
Okay... I am going to put my two cents in here..
Everyone is talking about realism... well making a bomber flight only one plane or making GV's for each side correct... I (not trying to tick anyone off) don't think that is step towards realism... Realism would be to turn off the icons... don't make it an option but a CM controled thing.... I actually enjoy flying without Icons... I think that would take the "gamey"ness away... It takes the pilots head out of the cockpit and makes him stay ahead of the plane...
I remember when I first started in the CT they were always talking about turning off Icons... I used to think they were crazy... but now after doing it for a while... I am totally for it...
Make the clipboard just a map not radar... Use the map to navigate off the terrian and not off the dar... Yeah I know you might fly for a while to find a fight.. but isn't that what range channel is for... or text buffer... communication...
Turn kill shooter off...
I know these things will never happen... but I think that would be a step towards realism... There are a ton of things that would make it more real, but that would be a step in the right direction...
I have always thought that the best pilots fly in the Combat Theater, I honestly think we could hack it.
-
Originally posted by Soulyss
However if people are loading 50% than I hardly expect them to have a long loiter time in a notoriously short legged plane. To me it would be a matter of finding a happy medium.
The problem is these things are difficult to determine without trial and error.
You stated the problem well Soulyss and I agree with you completely that we dont want to go overkill on the "realistic" stuff at the expense of playability. I dont want fuel burn set so high that short legged planes cant be effective, but right now it doesnt matter at all. I cant think of ANY plane I load more than 50% fuel, much less 100%, and that is not right. Even in last weeks '40 BoB in the 110, 109, and Hurri MkI, the most I loaded was 50%, and went down to 25% in the 110.
I am not asking for the short ranged planes to be crippled. I am asking that there be a consequence to choosing said short legged plane in the form of having to take 100% fuel and maybe DT's. Right now when you go to the hanger, fuel range has no bearing whatsoever on which plane you choose, only ordinance load/speed/turn performance or whatever, fuel range is irrelevant and it should not be. If your RAF that means taking a Mossie or a Tiffie on a longer strike when you would now take a Hurri IIc or Spit V, or in the case of the LW, a 110G2 or an 190A/F-8 when you would really rather take a 109G-10.
Sooo...nothing crippling, but fuel range should have to be considered in the hangar, which as it is now its irrelevant.
-
I would agree with that assesment Grits. What I can propose is that in the future when it is my week at least I try to have to planeset posted by Wednesday so people can ***** and moan er... "debate" it's merrits. ;) I'll take my best shot at a fuel burn multiplier, but in all honesty I'm not much of a go out and test kinda player so it'll be a guess on my part what will work. Between Wednesday and Friday if someone wants to do some testing and then report back to me what the found in detail (plane, fuel load, altitude, distance, etc.) I'll look at changing the fuel burn. For the sake of simplicity use the aircraft with the shortest legs. If I feel the proposed fuel burn makes how much fuel someone takes when they sortie without crippling one side or the other, I'll give it a go on a trial basis. Sound fair?
-
Yep, OK, I see it now, a hijacked thread.
I saw a comment and replied and it was off subject-sorry
Allright-back to the fuel burn issue :aok
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Getting back on track and to answer the original question...
I'm not a post hore so I'll keep it simple and sweet. :D
The CT staff ALWAYS consider the fuel modifier depending on the size of the map and the distances between bases. It's never been overlooked. Sometimes we'll use 1.2, others 1.5. I've seen setups with 1.75, 1.8, 1.3, etc. Sometimes we forget to announce it.
As a reference, the default fuel burn rate for the CT is 1.5.
-
And that gets more to my point.
Should the default be 1.5 now that we can monitor and adjust our speed/rpm in a realistic fashion.
I do not think it should be so low now. I may be in a minority. I just want this discussed. I am really only pushing for BOB, and early war conditions in the pac where an f4f was a gas hog, as well as the p40b. This would really give the zeros a boost.
As far as bob is concerned, if the lw is flying over england, and its flying a 109, it should have 10 minutes or less of mil power. 5 minutes across the channel or not. This is historical, and this will completely alter the game play of BOB as it is now. If the fuel modifier is set to this, spitfires will also be limited over france.
Seriously, I am just interested in fighting under the circumstances that existed in the war. In know that we cant do many realistic things in this game, but those that we can do, we should. We are not going to be flying on 8 hour missions into germany and back (TOD will be interesting), but at least we can make fuel management an issue, as it was directly responsible for many of the strategies used by the pilots, and the strengths and weaknesses of the planes.
Do you really think a large plane that handled like crap was an advantage? My perfect example is the 109g10 vs the p51b. Both planes were out at the same time. One climbs like a banshee, handles very well and has a good set of guns. The other climbs okay, but not nearly as well as a early war spit, has a reasonable gun set, and handles okay. Why is one plane so mediocre compared to the other? BECAUSE IT IS CARRYING A COUPLE THOUSAND POUNDS OF FUEL!!!! This is a critical issue that needs to be addressed.
-
Using the new E6B feature I ran some tests just to see what I would find. For each plane the first number is flight time in minutes at 50% fuel and 1.5 burn rate, the second number is minutes of time at 100% fuel and 2.0 burn rate, all at sea level and full throttle no WEP.
A6M2: 30-47
A6M5: 27-41
109F-4: 21-32
109G-2: 20-29
109G-10: 17-27
110G-2: 31-47
F4F: 20-31
F4U1: 29-45
F4U1-D: 19-29
190A-5: 18-28
190A-8: 22-34
190D-9: 17-32
HURRIIc: 21-32
Ki61: 36-55 (!)
La7: 14-21 (!!)
Mossie: 44-71
N1K2: 21-32
P-38: 24-37
P-40E: 25-39
P-47D11: 22-33
P-51B: 32-54
P-51D: 34-50 (?)
Spit V: 20-30
Spit IX: 16-24 (!)
Tiffie: 16-24 (!)
Yak9U: 18-28
Interestingly, the Ki-61 is the best single engine fighter on range, better than both P-51's which I did not know, with the F4U-1 right behind the P-51's. The La7 is the worst by far, Spit IX and Tiffie are terrible with the G-10 and D-9 nipping at their heels. Most interesting is that the majority are in the 18-24 range, which is very close all things considered. Of course this is on internal fuel and does not take drop tanks into consideration, and some of the allied planes have multiple DT options that dramaticly increase their range.
-
the fuel burn model hasn't been update on a few of those planes.
KI61?!?! WTF?!?!?!
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
KI61?!?! WTF?!?!?!
Yeah, thats pretty much what I said when I did the test. :)
-
He tested them at military power, not ideal cruise. Hence the planes with more power output at MIL power use more fuel. Considering that the P-51 is making 400 or so HP more than the KI-61 at MIL power, does it really surprise anyone that the P-51 is using more fuel?
Notice how the 109's decrease in flight time as you move to the more modern versions---this is the same thing in action, as the later 109's would be running at higher power settings at MIL power
If he ran them at their cruise settings it would be closer to what you guys would expect.
Also, do not make the mistake of equating "endurance" (what he tested) with RANGE. The Ki-61 might stay in the air slightly longer than the P-51 at that power setting, but the P-51 still has greater RANGE since it's about 70 MPH faster at that setting.
J_A_B
-
I chose MIL power because, unrealisticly, that is what everybody flies at in transit, and my (unstated) point was at 2.0 burn you would be required to use lower throttle settings in route to get decent time on target. In the tests I also noted ranges but I did not put them in the post.
Range for the Ki61 at 1.5 burn and 50% is 173 miles, range for the P51B was 171 and range for the P51D was 183. The La7 range was 70, while most were between 85-120 at 50% and 1.5 burn. The Mossie was the range king at 236.
If anyone is interested, tomorrow I can do all the planes at ideal cruise in both 1.5 and 2.0 burn.
Some other things that caught my eye:
The P-47 uses the same GPH at IDLE (144) as the 109F does at MIL, while the 190A's make nearly the same HP as the P-47 with a bit over half the GPH as the P-47. :)
-
Wow, thanks grits, can you check cruise? Also list cruise speed if you can. I would do it at work but sadly ah2 does not run on my linux machine. not that it would be able to take it anyway.
I think cruise speed is going to be the real issue if we can get the ct up to a good fuel modifier.
-
Sure, I'll run them and post it after I get home. I'll do best cruise minutes of duration, GPH, and speed at best cruise.
Do we want them at 1.5 / 50% and 100% / 2.0 or just one or the other?
-
both if you can, can you change that in flight?
-
You can change any arena setting like fuel burn rate in flight, but you have to go to the hangar to change your fuel load.
-
Fuel stats for AH's "Max cruise" (MC) at 50% fuel and 1.5 burn rate. Numbers are, time in minutes, range, and speed at MC.
A6M2: 43-166-237
A6M5: 37-155-258
109F-4: 30-130-272
109G-2: 28-118-267
109G-10: 25-105-270
110G-2: 44-190-268
F4F: 33-123-241
F4U-1: 62-298-302
F4U1D: 39-183-290
190A-5: 31-136-309
190A-8: 37-167-304
190D-9: 42-194-285
HurrIIc: 34-122-215
Ki-61: 41-190-291
La7: 28-137-317
Mossie: 80-351-265
N1K2: 30-136-274
P-38: 52-229-273
P-40E: 50-181-225
P-47D-11: 47-156-206(!)
P-51B: 67-309-295
P-51D: 68-328-298
Spit V: 34-131-246
Spit IX: 25-107-261
Tiffie: 21-101-300
Yak9U: 28-134-288
Stats at MC, 100% fuel and 2.0 burn, again numbers are time, range and speed at cruise.
A6M2: 65-249-237
A6M5: 58-240-258
109F-4: 45-195-272
109G-2: 40-179-267
109G-10: 37-168-270
110G-2: 64-284-268
F4F: 49-191-241
F4U-1: 91-451-302
F4U-1D: 59-277-290
190A-5: 41-204-309
190A-8: 56-268-304
190D-9: 63-297-285
HurrIIc: 52-184-215
Ki-61: 60-286-291
La7: 42-209-317
Mossie: 123-524-265
N1K2: 46-202-274
P-38: 79-351-273
P-40E: 73-255-225
P-47D-11: 71-242-206
P-51B: 109-526-295
P-51D: 100-497-298
Spit V: 49-201-246
Spit IX: 39-163-261
Tiffie: 33-157-300
Yak9U: 42-198-288
There are some surprizes in there. Some planes like the Ki-61 are only a few MPH slower at MC (291) than they are at MIL (305), while some most noteably the P-47 (206) are very slow at MC. Notice the 190A8 is significantly better than the A5 and both MC speeds are over 300MPH. Look at the P-51's and the F4U-1, all three have outstanding range, each almost 3 times longer MC than the Spit 9 or Tiffie. The P-51's, if given unlimited WEP, even at WEP consumption rate they would still have longer range than all the 109's, the F4F, HurriIIc, both Spits, and the Tiffie do at MC! I expected the twin engine planes to do well, and they did, but notice the P-40E, it is better than the P-47, has higher speed MC and is right behind the P-38 on range. The Zekes, like so many other traits, their range is not as good as the popular myth would lead you to believe, sure they are better than the Wildcat, but they are really only mid-pack.
Soooooo....what does all this mean? It means that we have to do something to give those planes that had up to a THREE times longer range than their opponents an advantage without crippling the shorter ranged planes. Setting the burn rate so that very short range planes like the 109's, Spits, Tiffies, and La7 MUST take 100% fuel minimum (and probably DT's too) will do that. Those planes with longer range see that advantage in not having to load full fuel and/or faster transit to target from not having to run at MC. All aircraft remain just as useful as they were before, but if you want an La7, Spit 9 or a 109G-10 you better not leave the hangar unless you have 100% minimum and you transit to the fight at MC.
-
One problem is that the ranges/times are all goofed up. The 190A had about three times the range of the 109 on average.
Crumpp
-
Couple of things though. Not all of the fuel models are finished, or at least they never anounced it.
I have always heard that the early 190s had a better range. Just as you have heard otherwise I guess.
-
I know Pyro and those guys are extremely busy getting the kinks out of AH2. They also have TD to work on. I'm sure they will get around to fixing it eventually.
Crumpp
-
Yup, I know some are not done, and Im pretty sure you are right that the 190A's have not been done yet, but how much better can they get? They wont get doubled, or tripled, (which is what they would need) they will still have a significant disadvantage to the long ranged planes like the P-51's and the Mossie.
-
Erg and the rest missed a major point in this conversation regarding the whole "10 minutes over England for 109s thing".
In WWII pilots would launch, climb to 20,000' plus, get into formation, hook up with other squadrons, then fly over England!
CT pilots, on the other hand, launch, immediately turn on course to the furball at 50' altitude, punch WEP, climb to maybe 3,000' and arrive over England within 5 minutes of takeoff.
The whole realism thing isn't about the fuel burn rate it is about how everyone flies. The extreme enemy territory loiter times are because of this one fact.
If we all flew in a more reasonable fashion no one would be complaining.
I like flying 109s and 190s but I also rarely fly straight into the furball. More likely scenario as follows.
Launch with 75% or 100% fuel from second echelon base. Climb to 15,000' - 20,000'. At this point I've burned off about 25% of my fuel. Depending on bogey dope maintain my alt or put myself slight nose down and turn to target. Arrive at fight at about 50% fuel with major E advantage. Blow E advantage bailing out first friendly I see in trouble get low on E and get my butt shot off. Repeat.
Fly sorties as described above and you won't have more than 10 minutes of loiter. Increase the fuel burn rate to the point where I have to start flying like the rest of you and I'll be the one who is ticked off.
-
Originally posted by scJazz
Arrive at fight at about 50% fuel with major E advantage. Blow E advantage bailing out first friendly I see in trouble get low on E and get my butt shot off. Repeat.
Lol. Ain't it the truth? Finally I figured that if I were going to end up squandering my energy advantage, it was silly of me spending all that time climbing out in the first place. Now I just motor merrily into the combat zone at an altitude where I can be fairly certain I'll start out with an energy disadvantage. Consequently I don't feel quite so foolish when I get greased.
- oldman
-
True.
But that is not taking into account that the meaning of fuel management is behavioral modification. You are assuming you do all of these things at military power.
I know for certain if the luftwaffe had flown into england at 3000 feet, they would have had plenty of time to play around. I would not be opposed to this. But... if you are going to come in in a historical fashion, the results should be historical.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Lol. Ain't it the truth? Finally I figured that if I were going to end up squandering my energy advantage, it was silly of me spending all that time climbing out in the first place. Now I just motor merrily into the combat zone at an altitude where I can be fairly certain I'll start out with an energy disadvantage. Consequently I don't feel quite so foolish when I get greased.
What I figured out is so few people actually know how to use an altitude advantage that I stopped worrying about grabbing alt. Most of the time as long as I have 3-5k, thats enough.
To get us back on topic, I have been flying in the MA a bit lately (gasp!) and from flying at 2.0 I think the CT default should be set somewhere between 1.8 and 2.0, 1.5 is way too low.
-
As a matter of fact, how have people delt with the 2.0 in the ma? Has it been unbearable? This is not a jibe, this is serious, I have not flown ah1 for months so the fuel modifier has never been a suprise to me. Has MA levels been affecting your normal habits?
-
The only difference I can tell is that you load more fuel. You can still do anything you could before, but even upping at a base being attacked (but not capped) in planes like the Hurricane or F4F I took 75% minimum, and sometimes 100%, 50 was not enough.
-
in the ct I have been taking only 50% in the f4u an have been giggling all the way to the bank, same with the f6f. Seems that perhaps we should raise the multiplier.....