Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: ghi on October 07, 2004, 06:04:52 PM
-
I play AH2 since came out, i like it, but i think the fuel burn rate has the worst ,most annoying settings.
If the 8'' gun and SB has better range than some of the planes with 75%-100% fuel, why did they need planes in WW2??
Many times i'm in fun,hot fights, still having amo but have to run because of the fuel.
I feel like having seex, but someone take my fun, b4 the climax.
-
Stop huggin the ground. Your fuel burn rate drastically reduces as you climb altitude.:)
-
But really, fuel burn shouldn't be at 2... Flight times are too damn short in Spitfires, among others.
-
I don't see any problems.
Fuel management is a must for short legged planes, and the roles of the planes differ according to their flight time. It really makes planes with larger fuel load shine out in comparison with the short-ranged planes.
However, I do agree that there should be something done about configurations like 50% fuel + DTs. While some US planes(particularly the Mustang) made use out of such settings, most of the WW2 fighter airforce would never use something like that.
If a certain plane shines out in fuel endurance, then consequentially it should also suffer the problems of having a heavy fuel load.
-
Don't see any issue either, use EB6 to lengthen your "legs"...also learn to fly other planes...in my "normal" ride I take 75% and no DT and never run out of fuel (well almost)...it has the added plus of being able to fight any plane in the plane set 1 on 1 with no problem:).
-
Disappointing whine from an la7 jock. 3/10 :lol
-
Originally posted by Stang
Disappointing whine from an la7 jock. 3/10 :lol
yes,yes i'm La7 dweeb,
but they screw my little plane with fuel burn rate in AH2,
Why to drive a Neon if i can drive a Corvette for the same money?
Fuel management, and that watching E6B takes the fun out of the game, the fuel burning rate is too far from reality ,was perfect in AH1,why to waste soo much time with take off and landings ?
What plane of WW2 did't have better range than 8'' gun?
-
Well alot of flyiers would like to see the LA7 totally gone from the game. Be happy you have one to fly. Shorter time between rearms is better than no LALA at all for ya.
-
I usually fly the P-51B so not that much of a problem...
BUT I live in Europe, meaning that there are much less people logged in when I play, and consequently, I have to fly for longer to find a fight.
I have to say that I liked the AH1 multiplier better.
-
In reality, pilots in WWII could not re-up immediately after being killed either. Do I understand correctly that you also don't want to take off and land?
The game is very much like life in that reasonable people try to find workable compromises. In this case, the game designers try to keep the game fun for as many people as possible. And players try to find or create some fun within the compromises.
There weren't too many on-the-deck furballs pitting La-7s against N1ks, P-51s, Typhoons, Spitfires, F6Fs and now Me-163s (the latest furballing plane on some maps) in WWII anyway. :)
-
Edit for flame.
-
I kill lalas just fine, but I really don't like the fuel burn rate either.
-
I kill lalas just fine
wasnt a personal attack bud, was a general statement :aok
-
I would also like to see HT try a 1.8 or 1.9 fuel burn rate. Uping' a lala, or a spit, and geting 20min flight time sux. If you have to lift off, and protect a field w/ incom. nme's close by, you lift off with 100% and you are at a serious disad. being hvy w/ fuel. I would like to see a slight tweak.
-
Originally posted by Hammy
and i thought the planes were supposed to be modelled like the real thing in flight characteristics! whos been lying to me all this time????????
The fuel burn rate is BS and further from correct modelling as u can get, nuff said.
it was done to appease you whiners who cant kill an la7 :rofl
Well then you have to take it to the next step ...
If all things were modeled correctly, it really should take us a MUCH longer period of time to get to the fighting front. In RL, opposing airbases were not 25 miles or less apart.
So if we were to bring the fuel burn rate back to 1, then to simultate RL fuel modeling, we would have to fly distances like they flew from the UK to France and back to get into some action and then RTB ... sound like fun ? ... not to me it doesn't.
Now if we were to drop the burn rate back to 1, then a P-51 could effectively fly all the way across a map and back with a full tank of gas. So, would that appear to be realistic when one could fly over dozens of airbases on 1 tank of gas ... I don't think so.
Because our fighting area is condensed, so that we don't get bored, the fuel burn rate was also condensed to simulate the real flight time one would have in this ficticious world we fly in.
I am sure that if we all would put up with flights, like from London to Paris and back, HTC would be more than willing to change the burn rate back to 1, but some how I don't think that that is going to happen.
People asked for more real modeling and they got it ... but the world we fly in in not real, so adjustments to reality need to be made ... the change was not due to anyone whining.
-
Also reduce your throttle. that will also increase your range.
Some may find it surprising that on some planes you can reduce throttle a bunch before it even effects your airspeed.
-
In real life in certain theaters..airbases where 25miles apart.
I love the new fuel system. Great addition to AH.
Learn to get up to 8k and throttle that baby back.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Do I understand correctly that you also don't want to take off and land?
Nooo, Rolex i did't mean that, but i get the fun, the juice of game in fights,furballs or vulching over enemy base
Since AH2 came out i find myself wasting more time takeing off and running to the base than in AH1, that means less fun
-
Said it once, I'll say it again: add a mixture knob that works. The multiplier could be left where it is and the short-legged fighters could cruise out LOP (lean of peak). Granted, you wouldn't be going all that fast, but you could go a looooooooong way.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/end_net.gif)
-
Actually I think the fuel burn is realistic, in BOB german 109's had 12-17 minutes combat time. The la-7 was a very short legged point defense fighter optimized for mid/low altitude combat.
-
I fly the La5 predominantly, and while the fuel burn can be a pain in the ass, I really like it.
I can stay up just as long as I could in AH1, I just have to use the proper fuel settings.
...and when I know that its too far, I'll take the p47d25. But I always take too much fuel, 'cause I die in the first few minutes after reaching the target. I blame Nopoop really. He just made them so damn pretty.
-
IMO, the only time it's a problem is on climb out.
-
Originally posted by Furious
I fly the La5 predominantly, and while the fuel burn can be a pain in the ass, I really like it.
I can stay up just as long as I could in AH1, I just have to use the proper fuel settings.
...and when I know that its too far, I'll take the p47d25. But I always take too much fuel, 'cause I die in the first few minutes after reaching the target. I blame Nopoop really. He just made them so damn pretty.
LOL ... the ENY drove me to the P-47 ... it was Nopoop's skins that kept me coming back for more ... ENY or not.
-
ant argue ment here is that whilst horizontal distances are shorter the vertical is still 1:1................
FBM should logically be less than 2 even in the MA.............
It was interesting however that in the recent BoB scenario an FBM of 1 on a full scale map was considered too low...........
-
Originally posted by Tilt
ant argue ment here is that whilst horizontal distances are shorter the vertical is still 1:1................
FBM should logically be less than 2 even in the MA.............
It was interesting however that in the recent BoB scenario an FBM of 1 on a full scale map was considered too low...........
Man those Hurris would almost fly the whole scenario when coarsed out and putting along with min RPM., specially when we were on recon duty. Taught me how to use that for all models in MA, really helps. (although the planes I usually fly have no prob with fuel).
-
The 2x fuel burn was an effect of the fuel being only made 'porkable' down to 75%.
Can't have it both ways, min of 75% fuel, or a lower burn rate, take your pick.
But yup for planes like LA7 that don't have DT's, or Tiffies that carry either DTs or ord but not both, its a bind.
-
75% fuel attrit minimum limit came after FBM 2 was adopted......
indeed it came about because of it...........
btw linking throttle and rpm in set up will extend range when cruising more effectively (then just reducing throttle) and without too much thought...........
-
It's a simulation. Adapt to the settings accordingly. This might mean, dare I say it......take off wep! :eek:
You can easily get enough time to shoot down many planes in a spitfire, la7 and others that burn fuel real fast. Simply switch your rpm's and engine power to normal flight settings and you should easily get another 10+ minutes out of the plane. Ofcourse you have to adjust during combat but when you don't need to get anywhere fast, ease your engine settings down a bit. This isnt the gold rush, this isnt the race for land in Oklahoma.
-
fuel burn rate of 2 and killshooter worst parts of the game!
-
I usually fly SpitV or D-11 and I've ran out of fuel a few times in both. Who's fault was it, mine or HTs? Yup... it was my fault. When I watch my fuel and plan accordingly I return with the engine still running.
I've run out of ammo a few times in both (yes I'm a lousy shot). Who's fault was that, mine or HTs? Yup... you get the picture.
It all adds a bit of fun / challenge / realism I think but it's just my opinion, everybody's got one. ;)
-
Its probably more realistic, but it sure is less fun. No bout a doubt it.
-
Originally posted by Furious
I blame Nopoop really. He just made them so damn pretty.
Thanks Furious but I wish you or Slap would give me a lesson in the damn things, all I do is die in the fuggin thing.
"Look honey, it's MY plane !!!"
"That's wonderful dear, very pretty, but where is the rest of the wing ??"
-
Originally posted by 6GunUSMC
fuel burn rate of 2 and killshooter worst parts of the game!
LMAO nothing wrong with killshooter if you just dont shoot at friendly planes.
Speaking of which. had an instance that made me laugh.
couple weeks ago Im flying and myself and a couple other folks were chasing down a 109. Im in the lead plane and the guy right BEHIND me I can hear shooting and he's talking over the radio telling ME by name ot watch out for killshooter.
really cracked me up. YOUR trying to shoot over my shoulder and your telling ME to watch the way I fly because of killshooter??
Even funnier is I've had 3 or 4 other people say the same thing to me
How bout this instead . Dont try to shoot past me and you wont have to worry about killshooter. I like that idea much better.
Just for the record any subsequent similar requests in the future will be ignored and laughed at.
99% of the killshooters I've witness have been the shooters own fault. including my own.
The other day I had one. first in months and months.
Was on the tail of a NIKI and a friendly was comming in HO on the same NIK I saw him comming yet I tried to squeese in a shot anyway. Blammo Im in the tower.
MY FAULT I knew better
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
The 2x fuel burn was an effect of the fuel being only made 'porkable' down to 75%.
Can't have it both ways, min of 75% fuel, or a lower burn rate, take your pick.
Make the fuel porkable again then.
-
The 2x FMB promote timidity especially in gay planes like the P51.
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
Make the fuel porkable again then.
I'd be all for it if it werent for all the whining about it that would follow.
-
When fuel endurance can be used against the enemy in timid actions, I'd do it. I've got no duties to satisfy someone's combat lust to the expense me being shot down.
-
For me there is no problem with the fuel burn rate because all I pretty much fly is the 38. For me though it benifits me by keeps people flying la7s, yaks, and spits long distances because thats what they did in AH 1. For me seeing a la7 go 2 sectors and back is really annoying. If you want to go long range then get a plane with drop tanks and that has good legs such as the 51 or 38.
Canaris
-
Originally posted by flyingaround
I would also like to see HT try a 1.8 or 1.9 fuel burn rate. Uping' a lala, or a spit, and geting 20min flight time sux. If you have to lift off, and protect a field w/ incom. nme's close by, you lift off with 100% and you are at a serious disad. being hvy w/ fuel. I would like to see a slight tweak.
if i up a spit i up with 100%fuel and droptank
-
You don't have to fly at full throttle all the time, or with RPM high.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
In reality, pilots in WWII could not re-up immediately after being killed either.
I'll let that one speak for itself. Shame on you all for not catching that one!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
You don't have to fly at full throttle all the time, or with RPM high.
Shhhhh dont tell em that. 2/3 of the kills I get is because my opponents are running full throttle:D
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
You don't have to fly at full throttle all the time, or with RPM high.
That's stupid ,historicaly one of the strenght of the Typhoon was her high speed cruise.
Because of the FBM a Typhoon pilot can use this asset when a PeePee51 pilot instead of having an overweight plane just go full rpm playing the alt monkey/cherry picker.
I still prefer the fighting the LA7 in my typhoon because they often fight when the P51 just run away waiting to kill me when I RTB because of fuel.
Don't say just climb to use less fuel ... climbing is not the strong point of the Typhoon as you should know.
This illustrate the weak point of the weakness/stupidity of the FBM it strech the on X,Y but left Z out of the equation ...