Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: gatt on November 18, 2005, 07:48:27 AM
-
All this posting about the correct loadout for every aircraft (with experts enlightening us about every variant) makes me thinking about drop tanks and fuel loads.
AFAIK, real fighters with drop tanks carried 100% fuel in their internal tanks as well. In AH you can carry a big drop tank and 25% int. fuel. It would be interesting to have the option to carry drop tanks only if you have previously chosen the 100% int. fuel option. This way the loadout would be correct and the "drop tank + 25% fuel" trick would not be possible.
So, the fuel load choice (ext + int) should be made accordingly to the sortie you want to do. If you do a mistake you take the connected responsibilities. It is not different from the armament you choose in the hanger: if you want wing pods, rockets, heavy cannons ... you have to use them and fight heavy ... no matter the enemy you meet, be it a bomber or a fighter. Sure, it would be nice to drop the pods and fight light ;)
-
Ahhh, I guess there are so many people *gaming* the fuel that this thing should not be fixed ... ;)
-
ok, in that case make the ranges between bases fit the fuel burn rate, so La7 won't even make it to the nearest base if it flies on 100% throttle.
This 100%+DT suggestion has been discussed before and it is silly. If a pilot could technically load 25%+DT in real life, no reason to disallow it in the game. It is part of the options of the plane and if it was an advantage in real life it would have been done as well. MA is not real life conditions.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
ok, in that case make the ranges between bases fit the fuel burn rate, so La7 won't even make it to the nearest base if it flies on 100% throttle.
This 100%+DT suggestion has been discussed before and it is silly. If a pilot could technically load 25%+DT in real life, no reason to disallow it in the game. It is part of the options of the plane and if it was an advantage in real life it would have been done as well. MA is not real life conditions.
Bozon
Wrong
Wrong
and wrong
Example :
One of the tactical advantage the typhoon had was her high speed cruise
in AH : no go
In fact all tactical fighters like the Russian or to some extend the brit one are poked.
All is made to make long range fighter tactical fighter so.
-
Originally posted by bozon
ok, in that case make the ranges between bases fit the fuel burn rate, so La7 won't even make it to the nearest base if it flies on 100% throttle.
This 100%+DT suggestion has been discussed before and it is silly. If a pilot could technically load 25%+DT in real life, no reason to disallow it in the game. It is part of the options of the plane and if it was an advantage in real life it would have been done as well. MA is not real life conditions.
Bozon
Perfect example of gaming the game indeed :)
-
P-51 pilots actually made a habit of burning most of the fuel out of the fueselage tank on climbout before switching to the drop tanks - on shorter missions where they didn't need the extra fuel of the fueselage tank it wouldn't even be filled. So pilots really did fly with a fuel load similar to 75% + drop tanks in many cases.
-
Look like you don't know what you're speaking about Sable.
-
Originally posted by gatt
Perfect example of gaming the game indeed :)
and how is that bad?
How realistic are P47s taking off to intercept spitfires 20 miles away?
The only "realistic" part of AH are the technical details of the plane modeling. How the planes are used is as unrealistic as it gets. Planes didn't use flaps for dogfighting, although 50 P51/P38/109 fans will now jump and post some evidence it was used in this or that occasion - it wasn't the norm although very much possible - ban flap use above 170 mph from all planes?. Technically planes can be loaded with 50%+DT. If I find some anacdotal evidence it was done on one ocassion will that satisfy you?
One of the tactical advantage the typhoon had was her high speed cruise.
It can cruise at very high speeds also in AH. Its range is pathetic and so it was in real life. It was not a problem since it was not ment to cruise to berlin.
-
The MA is more close to the way the typhoon was used than long range escort.
And instead of having long range fighter being porked by their design hitech choose to twist reality with fuel burn multiplier to make long range fighter more interesting.
Just because his customer are mostly american and won't stay if the US fighter canno't dominate in a way or another.
-
If you are such a realism fan you must be aware that no plane was cruising at full throttle for long durations - perhaps the only ones that did it for a somwhat longer durations were the high alt, long range fighters (those 51/38/47). As I recall, they were encourged to fly at full throttle while in "danger zone". Definitly not in transit just to get there faster.
Just because his customer are mostly american and won't stay if the US fighter canno't dominate in a way or another.
Are you aware of the dominating planes in the areana?!
La7 - sneaky russkies!
Spits - a great and famous american fighter. ok, at least those who built it speak english.
N1K - as american as Toyota.
P51d - It's such a great predator that it's one of the only planes I never fear.
Bozon
-
The truth is that a Pony with more than 50% fuel is very difficult to ride during a dogfight. A Spitfire with 75% fuel is not the butterfly it is with 25% and so on. People want range *and* a light fighter in the right moment. This means gaming the game in my book.
Our loadout are so accurate that even the fuel load should be the same. This fuel usage seems unfair against fighters without drop tanks (C.205, La-7 and so on) and above all seems unhistorical, AFAIK.
-
Originally posted by bozon
If you are such a realism fan you must be aware that no plane was cruising at full throttle for long durations - perhaps the only ones that did it for a somwhat longer durations were the high alt, long range fighters (those 51/38/47). As I recall, they were encourged to fly at full throttle while in "danger zone". Definitly not in transit just to get there faster.
Did you know the cruise setting speed for the Typhoon is superior to all the planes you mentioned ?
Are you aware of the dominating planes in the areana?!
La7 - sneaky russkies!
Spits - a great and famous american fighter. ok, at least those who built it speak english.
N1K - as american as Toyota.
P51d - It's such a great predator that it's one of the only planes I never fear.
[/B]
See Gatt post.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Look like you don't know what you're speaking about Sable.
Actually I know quite well what I'm speaking about. The fuselage tank in the P-51 was an afterthought that they threw in to help increase the range of the aircraft, but when it was filled completely it pushed the CG past the aft limit and made the aircraft handle very poorly.
From "Mustang Ace" by Bob Goebel - "The standard procedure was to burn the fuselage tank down to about 30 gallons immediatly after takeoff, even before going on the external tanks."
From "To Fly and Fight" by Clarence Anderson - "So you wanted to burn half the contents of the fuselage tank before entering combat. On the shorter missions, you would burn half the tank after takeoff, and then go to the drop tanks."
-
I know that Sable.
I'll help you understanding my post Sable :
1st part of your post.
P-51 pilots actually made a habit of burning most of the fuel out of the fueselage tank on climbout before switching to the drop tanks - on shorter missions where they didn't need the extra fuel of the fueselage tank it wouldn't even be filled.
2nd part of your post (they one who make me believe you are a lawyer IRL :D)
So pilots really did fly with a fuel load similar to 75% + drop tanks in many cases. [/B]
So did they or didn't they ?
More clearly now :
Did the P51 pilot took off with 75% + DT or did they flew with 75% + DT ?
-
Originally posted by bozon
MA is not real life conditions.
Bozon
See I never bought this arguement.
We should either have RL stuff or we shouldnt
when it suits us we make the arguement.
"but this isnt real life"
well the sam thing can be said about everythign else we demand about the game.
We argue "in real life this plane could or couldnt do this or that" performance wise.
IRL the Fw rolled better
IRL this plane had this kind of gun
IRL that plane had a climb rate of..
IRL this other plane had a range of...
IRL this plane had a flight envelope of...
etc etc etc.
And we demand that these planes perfomr as their real life counterparts did.
Yet when we want to be more gamey we make the excuse "this isnt real life"
BS arguement as far as Im concerned.
If it wasnt done IRL it shouldnt be done here.
If planes didnt up with 100% fuel tanks and only 25% fuel. they shouldnt be able to here.
If heavy bombers didnt commonly dive bomb on a regular basis they shouldnt here and so on and so forth.
And just because something could have been done doesnt mean it should be done here
-
Originally posted by Sable
P-51 pilots actually made a habit of burning most of the fuel out of the fueselage tank on climbout before switching to the drop tanks
And the option to do exactly that is already incorperated in the game
-
Touche' .... (sp? Straffo?)
-
So, Drediock, Straffo, etc.,
Since one can deliberately burn the fuselage tank first, then go to drop tanks, why not let them take off that way? Same result in the end, except that it saves wasting player time flying in circles in the rear areas while the fuseage tank is used up.
I see this as yet another effort to restrict the game play of others, in order to gain advantage for one's self. Perhaps analogous to the current effort to perk yet another plane (the Spit XVI).
BTW, these days, I do not usually use drop tanks or take off with partial fuel, and have not yet used the Spit XVI online, so I am relatively impartial. :-)
-
"Touché" Gatt ;)
TDeacon I don't see the link with the game play ?
AH is certainly the best flightsim on the market but some design decision are surprising.
To conclude my next proposition will be to scale down altitude, for pilot not patient enought to wait for combat altitude.
Now in AH for 1 foot climb IRL their will be 2 feet climbed in AH.
Look stupid ?
Probably as stupid as the curent fuel multiplier.
-
TDeacon, not at all. It is just something I'd like to see fixed becouse, again, it is unhistorical and unfair.
A La-7 or C.205 pilot has to t/o with 100% fuel just to be able to get one sector away, fight and come back. Those fighters, if jumped, have to fight with the fuel they got in the hanger. No more no less.
Many other dont have to do that. They simply can drop their ext tank and fight with 25 or 50%.
You can take off and burn whatever you want first. Our marvellous loadout system allows you to do it. *This* is historical.
Restrict the game? C'mon ... this is not a silly perking debate. I've been flying my 1943 C.205 for 5 years, so perking "this or that" has not ever been an issue for me.
EDIT: restrict? Just the opposite: ppl gaming the fuel would have the opportunity to learn how their real heroes flew their rides :)
-
Originally posted by gatt
TDeacon, not at all. It is just something I'd like to see fixed becouse, again, it is unhistorical and unfair.
A La-7 or C.205 pilot has to t/o with 100% fuel just to be able to get one sector away, fight and come back. Those fighters, if jumped, have to fight with the fuel they got in the hanger. No more no less.
Many other dont have to do that. They simply can drop their ext tank and fight with 25 or 50%.
When was a Flight Engineer in the Navy, we never topped off the tanks of our C-118s unless we actually needed the gas. Most of the time we flew with aux tanks empty as well.
As concerns the La-7, there is little difference in performance between 50% gas and 100% gas as they didn't have much capacity. However, for the American fighters, with 5 times the combat radius, it is a severe liability to expect them to fly with full tanks with hundreds, even thousands of pounds of unneeded fuel.
As far as historical goes, the MA is not remotely historical. Plus, we have the fuel burn set at 2 (twice real burn rate). If the fuel burn rate was 1, there would be little or no manipulating fuel loads to maximize performance as 50% internal would more than enough for the long range fighters.
I see nothing wrong with adjusting fuel loads to suit the mission. I suggest it would be better to petition HTC to change the burn rate rather than penalize players because their fighter has longer legs than some others.
My regards,
Widewing
-
No one wants to penalize long range fighters. Actually, they do have 3 internal fuel options plus (in many cases) various types of drop tanks.
Are long range fighter pilots able to choose between *one* of them? Without choosing the unhistorical and, let me say, ridiculous, 25% or 50% + drop option? I hope so. Macchi and La pilots have to choose carefully each take off. Are they more skilled? Dont think so.
Now, it seems to me that the possibility to fight on equal terms is scaring someone :)
-
So if the MA is ahistorical, why do we even remotely expect any of the planes and stuff to even look like WW2 planes in the first place?
Let's get the facts straight -- AH is ahistorical because there's no way to become fully historical in the first place. There's no such thing as an exact recreation so the developers try to pick one or two most representative features of the warring environment and use it to give the feel and aura to the game. However, there's no denying that a certain essential ethos of the game is purely dedicated to the historical WW2, and if it is deemed possible, being realistic and historic is ALWAYS preferred over being unrealistic, 'gamey', or 'dweeby'.
It's a simple thing.
Flying with something like 50% + DT is basically, unreconcilably dweeby and gamey. No matter what kind of wording you use to describe it, it's just as gamey stuff as Lancasters deckbombing at 1k alt and spraying bombs all over the place, or the insta-AA bombers on the ground. Sure, both cases may be technically possible, but they are also situationally very very improbable.
Range and performance is mutually incompatible. It's simple logic. If you want to fly for a long time, you take a heavy fuel load. The pros are the flight time, the cons are the weight. If you want the best performance, you take a light load. The pros is the performance edge, the cons is that your flight time is limited, so you must find a fight quickly, and a lot of climbouts is not optional.
However, a configuration like 50% + DTs is an exploit of a real life "possible, but very improbable" situation which has quickly become the norm in the MA. Basically, it twists the basic logic - a plane can fly long and high, and despite that it can always instantly revert to a fully ideal, low-fuel condition at the touch of a button.
A plane should not carry needless amount of fuel. If you don't want a heavy P-51, then you should up with 50% fuel in the first place, like everyone else. The flight time will be considerably shorter and your range is limited - but that's hardly surprising. Flying with half the normal fuel load is SUPPOSED to be like that. If you want to fly longer, like a true P-51, then up with 100% or 100%+DT fuel load and fly longer, but suffer the problems of weight - like everyone else. People are SUPPOSED to be heavy when they want to fly long distances.
That's basically it.
Making DTs availale only after 100% isn't taking away anything. It's just making the planes that loved such a config, like every other plane. Being able to fly a long distance is already an advantage by itself. Why should such gamey use of DTs give another tactical advantage to long-legged planes - the ability to fly a long distance and still be able to fight at light weight?
It's not penalizing anything. If there's anyone being penalized, it's the short-legged plane users. Not only do they already have a disadvantage of having a shorter flight time, but they also have another disadvantage in that they can't choose to instantly dump fuel to make the plane 50%+ lighter than it initially was, on a whim.
-
I agree that DTs should only be available after 100% internal fuel is selected and this is coming from somebody who does game the current system. Why should I put myself at a disadvanatage right now?
If you want your P-51D to fight at low fuel levels just take off with 50% fuel. Where is this crippling Amerincan (or Japanese) fighters?
It is easy to adjust to and just requires you to plan ahead for combat or loiter time rather than just getting it both ways because you are flying a P-51D or Ki-84. The advantage the P-51D and Ki-84 should have is the choice of either short range combat or long range flight/loiter time whereas the Bf109s, La-7s, C.205s and Spits all are forced to just be short ranged combat aircraft. The advantage should not be the ability to be both at once.
-
Originally posted by TDeacon
So, Drediock, Straffo, etc.,
Since one can deliberately burn the fuselage tank first, then go to drop tanks, why not let them take off that way? Same result in the end, except that it saves wasting player time flying in circles in the rear areas while the fuseage tank is used up.
I see this as yet another effort to restrict the game play of others, in order to gain advantage for one's self. Perhaps analogous to the current effort to perk yet another plane (the Spit XVI).
BTW, these days, I do not usually use drop tanks or take off with partial fuel, and have not yet used the Spit XVI online, so I am relatively impartial. :-)
why not let em take off that way? Im fine with it if thats the way they did it.
But if they didnt then they shouldnt be allowed to here either
Well he could always take off with 50% fuel as opposed to 25% and burn 25% en route to the fight
either way doesnt help or hurt my game play And I could care less about perking the dweeb16. I'd rather see the other ones perked as from my experiance going against them sofar the 16 isnt as good an all around fighter as the others.
-
I guess there is some merit in the argument that the current situation might sometimes create atypical matchups (25% fuel US plane vs. 75% fuel Italian plane).
I still tend to think that the cure (force full fuel with drop tanks) is worse than the disease. Probably because there are so many other variables involved. Once you have dropped the tanks, your options are limited by your fuel load. How can you be sure that you will be in a situation where the slightly increased maneuverability counterbalances the shorter endurance? If someone wants to take that gamble, I would say, let them.
-
I disagree that the 109 and La7 are short range only. Using the cruise settings, their ranges can be greatly increased. True, you cannot fight constantly at WFOTH for 2 sectors, but you aren't absolutely crippled. In addition, to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, plane choice is entirely up to the player. No one is forcing you to take a particular model, nor preventing you from taking a longer-legged plane on longer sorties.
For what it's worth, I regularly take 75% to 100% gas, or 100% +DT, but never a light internal load with a DT. I suppose it's just preference, but I don't know that it really matters all that much for gameplay. I've been playing for years, and I couldn't tell you if the guy I'm fighting has full tanks, or is running on vapors. Moreover, I don't care. I think you're right, in that it would seem a bit silly from a "realistic" perspective, but I don't really think it has a considerable impact on gameplay.
Anyway, YMMV.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
It's not penalizing anything. If there's anyone being penalized, it's the short-legged plane users. Not only do they already have a disadvantage of having a shorter flight time, but they also have another disadvantage in that they can't choose to instantly dump fuel to make the plane 50%+ lighter than it initially was, on a whim.
As I said before, restore the original 1.5 fuel burn and you will see less use of drop tanks.
And please, show me one airplane that carried 50% of its weight in external fuel. Even the ultra-long range P-47N would require 7,000 pounds of external fuel to meet your figure. However, the most it can carry externally is 2,250 pounds. Seriously, get a grip on reality. A P-47N pilot might take 50% and 75 gallons external, or 450 pounds. If he dropped the tank on takeoff while almost full, total reduction is 3% (based upon 15,000 lb takeoff weight with fuel, ammo and ordnance). So, where does your 50% fantasy come from?
My regards,
Widewing
-
some planes have cannons and some planes only mg. Some planes have DT and some only internal tanks. Yes, DT option IS an advantage, but who said all planes are born equal? If the 205/La7 did not have a DT option, take it up with Macci/Lavochkin, what do you want from HTC?
This is more realistic? Find a pilot's book that say that the plane cannot be fitted with DT when the tanks are not full and I'm sure HT will fix that in the next patch.
I find the realism argument in this context extremely ridiculous. In a game where flaps auto-retract, shooting a friendly plane will knock your own bellybutton off, water injection "recharges", pilots swivel their head an owl's 180 degree, buildings get blown up by mg, 3 chess piece countries fight on a map that looks like a pizza with the Mercedes-Benz logo imbedded in it, and spit1 can fight a P47N you find loading 75%+DT, which was historically possible, unrealistic?!!! :D :D
:rolleyes:
You can argue on. This debate has already strated and ended in AHII beta and HT's decision is clear.
Bozon
-
Sometimes we get really silly with these discussions don't we :)
So maybe it's time to get back to fundementals.
Do you have fun when you fly AH?
In the end that's all that matters. No one really dies and planes are free. Relax and enjoy :)
-
Originally posted by bozon
some planes have cannons and some planes only mg.
Ask for the the CM (cannon multiplier) ,any caliber >= 20mm willl make half the damage it used to do.
-
You know, there is no limit to wrong and unhistorical things that make the MA so gameish. Fuel gaming is one of them.
The majority of players seem unable to plan their fuel load in advance. HTC knows and allows it. So be it.
But dont tell me it is right. It is simply a gameish features too difficult or too dangerous (from a commercial POV) to fix.
Well, at least we can keep asking for the 20mm gun pods for the K-4 and F-4 or for the big drop tank for the Spit IX, even to allow level bombers to dive like Stukas :huh
-
As I said before, restore the original 1.5 fuel burn and you will see less use of drop tanks.
And the differences in plane ranges that was apparent disappears in turn.
Quite a simple thing really - leave the fuel multiplier as it is, and get rid of the ability to use unlikely settings. In regards to adjusting plane behavior and fuel selection tendencies to more likely levels, it's a solution that makes much more sense than the foul instinct to somehow defend every bit of advantage a plane may hold be it "gamey" or not.
And please, show me one airplane that carried 50% of its weight in external fuel. Even the ultra-long range P-47N would require 7,000 pounds of external fuel to meet your figure. However, the most it can carry externally is 2,250 pounds. Seriously, get a grip on reality. A P-47N pilot might take 50% and 75 gallons external, or 450 pounds. If he dropped the tank on takeoff while almost full, total reduction is 3% (based upon 15,000 lb takeoff weight with fuel, ammo and ordnance). So, where does your 50% fantasy come from?
It's interesting that among all planes you must go choose a plane which holds the largest amount of internal fuel in the game - but fair enough. Since you insist, I'll admit the "50%" was a gross figurative exaggeration.
However, the point which you are deliberately ignoring to address, is by using an unlikely configuration of 50%+DT, a plane which already holds a distinct advantage of long range, also holds the ability to reduce the fuel amount to combat levels he sees fit. No matter what kind of oddball incident you dig up, the point stands that DTs aren't anything like that.
They are devices used to increase flight range when internal fuel load isn't sufficient - not a combat crutch which you can attach/detach at whim, despite your plane has the ability to cover the distance suited for your flight purpose. People who are flying at 50%+DT or 75%+DT currently, as a matter of fact, should be flying at 75% or 100% internal. Only when they want to fly something like a really long mission deep into enemy territory, fly escort for hour or more, should they use DTs, because, that's what DTs are supposed to be.
Some planes have DTs, others don't, and nobody is arguing about that fact. What we are arguing about, however, is to limit the manner of DT usage to something that reflects reality at least remotely. Increased range must come with a penalty, and that penalty should not be avoided by a game exploit. Because, the other fighters with decreased range already comes with a penalty which they have no way of cleverly avoiding by exploiting the freedoms of the game.
I mean, what does this 'penalize' for anybody? Nobody said you'd always have to fly at 100%. If you want a lighter plane, then choose a lighter load like everyone else. Or, if you want something like a 50%+ DT configuration, you can always choose 75% and burn off the 25% before engaging. If some other plane engages you before you burn the desired amount - well then tough, it's no DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE REST OF THE PEOPLE USING OTHER PLANES ARE ALREADY DOING. Being able to use a longer range is a gift by itself. The second gift, of using the DTs to make the planes fly long distances and still be able to revert to a combat advantageous weight, is something which should never have been given in the first place.
It's a classic case of techincal feasibility vs. reality. The 109K-4 had the ability to use gondolas, but that option was removed since it was not represantative of real life. In that case, why should it be any different with ordnances for other planes, including DTs?
HTC might not have a double standard on this issue, but the players sure do.
-
The only reason the burn rate was put to where it is was to do SOMETHING to knock down planes like the La7 a bit. --the 19 minutes at full throttle is argueably the only weakness it has under 10k. AH can't simulate spending 1-2 hours flying to target, else they would have no subscribers.
(tour 69: P51D: 16,742 kills, 17,356 deaths
LA7: 31,224 kills, 26,245 deaths)
-
Originally posted by bozon
some planes have cannons and some planes only mg. Some planes have DT and some only internal tanks. Yes, DT option IS an advantage, but who said all planes are born equal? If the 205/La7 did not have a DT option, take it up with Macci/Lavochkin, what do you want from HTC?
This is more realistic? Find a pilot's book that say that the plane cannot be fitted with DT when the tanks are not full and I'm sure HT will fix that in the next patch.
I find the realism argument in this context extremely ridiculous. In a game where flaps auto-retract, shooting a friendly plane will knock your own bellybutton off, water injection "recharges", pilots swivel their head an owl's 180 degree, buildings get blown up by mg, 3 chess piece countries fight on a map that looks like a pizza with the Mercedes-Benz logo imbedded in it, and spit1 can fight a P47N you find loading 75%+DT, which was historically possible, unrealistic?!!! :D :D
:rolleyes:
You can argue on. This debate has already strated and ended in AHII beta and HT's decision is clear.
Bozon
Count on a physicist to bring us back to reality ... well said bro :aok
Rotax447
-
Eheh, take a look at how many scared and angry Jug-Pony drivers we have. Dont worry guys HTC cant renounce to such a big number of customers :)
-
You can argue on. This debate has already strated and ended in AHII beta and HT's decision is clear.
The years have shown his decisions change with them.
We'll just see what happens, maybe for as long as five years.
-
Originally posted by Bozon
If the 205/La7 did not have a DT option, take it up with Macci/Lavochkin, what do you want from HTC?
Macchi fighters did have the options of drop tanks. The 202 from the XI batch of production, the 205 since its beginning, had the option to carry under wings 2 drop tank of 100 or 150 liters of capacity. It would be nice if HTC model this option. (they could even load bombs, but maybe too small for the game: 2 50/100/160 Kg, up to 320 Kg)
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
Macchi fighters did have the options of drop tanks. The 202 from the XI batch of production, the 205 since its beginning, had the option to carry under wings 2 drop tank of 100 or 150 liters of capacity. It would be nice if HTC model this option. (they could even load bombs, but maybe too small for the game: 2 50/100/160 Kg, up to 320 Kg)
I swear that WAAAAY back like maybe a year or two after AH1 came out I saw 202s in AH flying SEA practice runs for Afrika Corp, or some such scenario, and they were escorting Ju88s with 2 white/silver DTs (1 under each wing). I was gunning a Ju88 so I had plenty of time to watch.
My memory swears there *were* DTs in AH once for these planes. Don't know why they were removed.
-
AFAIK, AH's Macchi's never had drop tanks (btw Gianlupo, I got your mail, I'll let you know something soon ;)).
Anyway, if we accept game-ish features like the fuel gaming then any quakers will begin to ask for 4x20mm C.202 and DB603 engined C.205s.
Lets see what HTC will do.
P.S.: give the gunpods to the K-4! :mad:
-
Thanks, Gatt! :)
I don't know if this feature is really gamish, but it's seems it's creating some issue among players. This issue could be partly removed with a better research on planes' loadouts.
Krusty, I never saw DT for Macchi, too, but I'm playing since 2003, so you're prolly right... but, then, I wonder why they removed...
-
posted by bozan
I find the realism argument in this context extremely ridiculous. In a game where flaps auto-retract, shooting a friendly plane will knock your own bellybutton off, water injection "recharges", pilots swivel their head an owl's 180 degree, buildings get blown up by mg, 3 chess piece countries fight on a map that looks like a pizza with the Mercedes-Benz logo imbedded in it, and spit1 can fight a P47N you find loading 75%+DT, which was historically possible, unrealistic?!!!
well put !
-
Eilif and Bozon,
if you ppl are happy with gameish features you are obviously entitled to it. However, the present gameish features dont justify more similar features or the "non removal" of them. The effort of the community should be directed towards removing 180° degrees head movements, diving level bombers, kamikazes, absurd CV ack-ack and so on.
Thats what a mature community should do, to make AH more interesting, accurate and enjoiable.
-
With all the saints speaking in my head it's hard to think clearly. Please explain again how a technical detail like using a drop tank when internal tanks are not full, which worked on the real planes, is gamey.
lets break it up so we'll see what are we arguing about:
1. Was it possible in the real planes to load 50%+DT?
2. Is there a reliable historical source that states that this was never-ever done or should not be done? If so, please elaborate why.
4. In case the answer to 1 is YES - Isn't disallowing the technical posibility of taking DT when tanks are not full just as gamey?
Bozon
-
1 yes it's possible as far as I know nothing prevent such loadout.
2 cost and availlability.
A DT is IRL not free like in AH plus it add drag I know for sure that the german DT had were to be salvaged by dedicaced team and even have a marking saying :
it's not a bomb if you find it send it back to the nearest LW base
(or something like that)
3 where is point 3 ?
we are missing point 3 Mayday Mayday ! ;)
4 as gamey as the fuel multiplier.
-
Gatt, Eilif doesn't like gamey features, he plays TW and he made me discover it and the wonderful TT that you guys of 4° Stormo shaped.
I just think that he wanted to say that the realism argument is not of great importance given the general layout of this game (yes, don't forget it, it's a game...)
And, in fact, I don't think that we have to stress the realism aspect: it's not a matter of realism, it's a matter of gameplay, like with the diving buffs. They are flaws (at least for some of the players) that can bug the gameplay, hence the fun: so they should be reported and HTC will consider if the issue is really affecting gameplay or it's just the n-th whine not to be considered.
Of course, gameplay may be designed to create differences between planes, to force players to make choices: but, then, I'd like to see every plane researched in the same manner, given the right loadout, maybe discussing it in the forum to see if it has to be made available in the game (DT in Macchi planes weren't often used).
Incidentally, that's even why I think that the fuel loadout issue may affect gameplay, as it is now: because some plane in the planeset do not force players to make any choice. They can take off with enough fuel to make a long run, and drop they're tanks and be (relatively) light for fighting.
That's my 2 cent, and, mind you, I'm a H2H player (till next December, oh big joy! :) ), so my last statement is made purely on a conjectural basis, not on a direct knowledge of MA situation (I've been there, but a long time ago)... what do you think?
-
Bozon, Saints speaking in your heads? Are they giving good hints and tips ;)
Anyway, the thing is easy to explain.
I take off with a Pony with 25% fuel and drop tank. If I dont engage otw to the operational area, then I keep my tank on and have all the range I want till the moment I decide to engage. If, and only if, I engage, then I drop the tank and voilà I have a light fighter with the perfect fuel load for the dogfight.
If I take off with the 205 I have to load 75% or 100% of fuel if I want get *anywhere*. If I'm bounced or decide to engage otw I've no different choices than fighting heavy. Ppl without DT have to plan in advance and hope to have the right fuel when they engage. Ppl with DT can do whatever they want, no matter the situation.
So, I'd like to see at least a 75% internal fuel for ppl who choose the drop tank. Obviously you'd be free to burn whatever you want first.
Anything else is gamey, IMNSHO ;)
-
Originally posted by gatt
Bozon, Saints speaking in your heads? Are they giving good hints and tips ;)
Anyway, the thing is easy to explain.
I take off with a Pony with 25% fuel and drop tank. If I dont engage otw to the operational area, then I keep my tank on and have all the range I want till the moment I decide to engage. If, and only if, I engage, then I drop the tank and voilà I have a light fighter with the perfect fuel load for the dogfight.
If I take off with the 205 I have to load 75% or 100% of fuel if I want get *anywhere*. If I'm bounced or decide to engage otw I've no different choices than fighting heavy. Ppl without DT have to plan in advance and hope to have the right fuel when they engage. Ppl with DT can do whatever they want, no matter the situation.
So, I'd like to see at least a 75% internal fuel for ppl who choose the drop tank. Obviously you'd be free to burn whatever you want first.
Anything else is gamey, IMNSHO ;)
Small consolation for not being able to have cannons. Is it OURRR fault that U.S. designers were simply smarter than Italians or Russians?:D
-
Originally posted by gatt
Anyway, the thing is easy to explain.
I take off with a Pony with 25% fuel and drop tank. If I dont engage otw to the operational area, then I keep my tank on and have all the range I want till the moment I decide to engage. If, and only if, I engage, then I drop the tank and voilà I have a light fighter with the perfect fuel load for the dogfight.
If I take off with the 205 I have to load 75% or 100% of fuel if I want get *anywhere*. If I'm bounced or decide to engage otw I've no different choices than fighting heavy. Ppl without DT have to plan in advance and hope to have the right fuel when they engage. Ppl with DT can do whatever they want, no matter the situation.
I completly agree with your explanation - I just don't agree wit hthe consclusion. Pony has almost exactly twice the fuel load of an La7. 100% fuel load in La7 is the same fuel load as 50% of P51, 33% fuel load of P47D40 and 21% in P47N. P47N can fuel up almost 5 La7!
On the other hand, fuel burn rate of a P47, at full throttle down low, is more than 50% higher than the La7. It means that in order to have the same flight duration as a fully loaded La7, P47 has to carry about 60 gallons more than the La7 - thats more than 400 lbs. In practice it's even more since it climbs slower and slower to reach the destination. If you compare to planes like 109/205 it's even more extreme.
If you calculate for absolut flight time then the fuel load difference is multiplied by the fuel-burn-multiplier of the areana. So this actually screws the P47 in terms of weight, not help it. But I do not complain becuase I like the fuel management and almost never transit at full throttle. I load the minimum fuel I need assuming I'll save it by flying economically - so there is a decision making even if I decide to take DT (the 75 gallons usualy barely get you to the target). So in practice, a "gamey" feature like fuel-burn-multi actually makes the flight more realistic for me, through forcing some fuel management.
The ability to load DT for short range flight help a little. When I load up 50% fuel, I'm already heavier on fuel than the La7 can ever be AND I'm going to have a shorter flight duration. If you bounce a P47 with his DT still on you can rest assure he's heavier on fuel than your La7. If you got to the fight with 75% fuel in the La7 you have just about the 25% fuel load of a P47 and you will out last it.
Now you can say that it's the P47's problem that it is so fuel hungry - true and accurate. I say use DT on the La7 as well... oh wait, it doesn't have the option - that's the La7's problem and historically accurate
Bozon
-
Originally posted by straffo
1 yes it's possible as far as I know nothing prevent such loadout.
ok we agree here.
2 cost and availlability.
A DT is IRL not free like in AH plus it add drag I know for sure that the german DT had were to be salvaged by dedicaced team and even have a marking saying :
it's not a bomb if you find it send it back to the nearest LW base
(or something like that)
Every flight into Germany used up 2 DT per mustang and 3 DT per jug. I don't think the germans were sending them back. If it would give any advantage, planes would be loaded with less fuel and a DT - it is still cheaper to get a few new DT, than to get a new plane and train a new pilot instead of ones lost. I'm sure that if a long range escort fighter would be used to CAP its own base (not very likely IRL but a regular business in AH) it will not be loaded with internal fuel to make the trip back from Berlin and use DT to extend duration instead. If there was no engagement, you get to keep the DT and save a few bucks.
3 where is point 3 ?
we are missing point 3
I miss it too. If you see it, please tell it to come home, 2 and 4 are lonely.
4 as gamey as the fuel multiplier.
Leave the fuel multiplier out of this If you argue historical loadout. Fuel burn multi is a gamey feature that promote a realistic fuel management feature. For the purpose of game experience, I find the latter superior. Lower the multiplier by much and replace my throttle by an on/off switch. Was flying at full throttle from takeoff to landing a common practice? no, but still you like to disallow 50%+DT due to being uncommon.
Bozon
-
[
-
Originally posted by bozon
If you bounce a P47 with his DT still on you can rest assure he's heavier on fuel than your .....
Bozon
I dont agree at all. Many players take off with a very light Jug or Pony (I mean 25%) and the drop tank. Both the Pony and the P-47N with 25% fuel are a joy to fly and dogfight in.
-
Originally posted by gatt
I dont agree at all. Many players take off with a very light Jug or Pony (I mean 25%) and the drop tank. Both the Pony and the P-47N with 25% fuel are a joy to fly and dogfight in.
Have you tried P47D40 with 25%? it's enough for about 10 min including RTB. For D11 even less. And you'd better save some because you are not really going to outrun anyone on the deck trying to make it back. And for the record, it's equivalent to 75% fuel load in the La7, or 87% for a 109, only lasts less, so It is not "lighter on fuel" then you are - equivalent at best.
The N is the very extreme case and has quantization problem. P47N on 25% is the same fuel load as La7 on 117%. The next fuel loadout 50% will pour in 285 gallons which is 233% of an La7 max fuel load. That is about 160 gallons extra which is about 1200 lbs of fuel more than 100% La7. It will also last for about 30 min on full throttle - meaning too much. How would you like to have over 1000 lbs of weight you don't really need? The sensible fuel load for a P47N is 25%+DT if you plan a short 20-25 min. mission. Loading 35% is not a current option.
Bozon
-
I don't think anyyons saying that the US planes have to leave the ground with full tanks.
I do think that its only fair to make them carry at least 75% internal before DT's would be available.
Like it or not those drop tanks were not free, they had to be paid for, & hung by crew chiefs. If crew chief knows your only going 25 miles & back you really think he'd put DT's on that bird?
No, he'd fill er to 75% and leave the DTs off.
I see gatt's point and its a valid one. OK so you convinced me, some pilots may have flown with 75% & DTs. Ok thats good enough for me. once 75% is chosen DT's should be available.
But not for 25%, ever, and if you want it for 50% pay a perk for it.
Ohhh and can we PLEASE get DT's for any plane that ever carried em.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
I don't think anyyons saying that the US planes have to leave the ground with full tanks.
I do think that its only fair to make them carry at least 75% internal before DT's would be available.
Like it or not those drop tanks were not free, they had to be paid for, & hung by crew chiefs. If crew chief knows your only going 25 miles & back you really think he'd put DT's on that bird?
No, he'd fill er to 75% and leave the DTs off.
I see gatt's point and its a valid one. OK so you convinced me, some pilots may have flown with 75% & DTs. Ok thats good enough for me. once 75% is chosen DT's should be available.
But not for 25%, ever, and if you want it for 50% pay a perk for it.
Ohhh and can we PLEASE get DT's for any plane that ever carried em.
Crew chiefs were sergeants, pilots were officers--the plane is set up the way they want it
-
IRL.. "Not that,that matters at ALL!!!!"
You could load any tank any way you wanted....
IMHO the wing tanks in a TA-152 should never have any fuel in them....
But then again it's so porked anyway.... sorry to bring that up...
We should be able to have much more input on fuel load AND
Engine managment... COME ON..... WIDE OPEN FOR HOURS... stupid
Never never never...
Lets try and get a lttle more realism in the realism....
OH wait if it's to hard the dweebo's will whine and quit.....
RANT RANT....
In another time in another game there was... two arena's one for kiddies and one for folks that wanted more of a challange....
Full and partial realism... What was that game.. ????????
Also would it not be fun to bomb a factory and make those darn LALA's
go away... Heck I would learn how to use a buff for that!!!!!!!
I know I know in another time in another game....
I'll shut up now...
happy holidays men :)
Gatr
81st
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Crew chiefs were sergeants, pilots were officers--the plane is set up the way they want it
Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : I don't have any
...
Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : I don't have any
...
Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : Aye aye Sir ! I don't have any but I'll put one.
PS: your post is stupid and you know it.
-
Originally posted by gatt
...
So, the fuel load choice (ext + int) should be made accordingly to the sortie you want to do. If you do a mistake you take the connected responsibilities. It is not different from the armament you choose in the hanger: if you want wing pods, rockets, heavy cannons ... you have to use them and fight heavy ... no matter the enemy you meet, be it a bomber or a fighter. Sure, it would be nice to drop the pods and fight light ;)
For scenarios, sure, one could make a case for that based on historical accuracy. I don't see it being a good thing for the MA though. Historical anything has nothing to do with the MA. Focus there should be on gameplay, and I don't see a change like this enhancing gameplay in the MA at all.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : I don't have any
...
Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : I don't have any
...
Officer : Put a Drop tank on my plane
Sergeant : Aye aye Sir ! I don't have any but I'll put one.
PS: your post is stupid and you know it.
You are saying the U.S. Airforce didnt have enough drop tanks to go around?
-
The N is the very extreme case and has quantization problem. P47N on 25% is the same fuel load as La7 on 117%. The next fuel loadout 50% will pour in 285 gallons which is 233% of an La7 max fuel load. That is about 160 gallons extra which is about 1200 lbs of fuel more than 100% La7. It will also last for about 30 min on full throttle - meaning too much. How would you like to have over 1000 lbs of weight you don't really need? The sensible fuel load for a P47N is 25%+DT if you plan a short 20-25 min. mission. Loading 35% is not a current option.
Or, you can just take off with 25% or 50% in the first place, instead of try to evade that little problem a high internal fuel load has brought home. Every plane suffers its effects of internal fuel load, be it good or bad. Why should some planes be exempt from it in the first place, through use of highly unrealistic measures? The word 'sensible' you used in this case, directly translatess to 'gamey'. Make no mistake about that.
If you plan a short 20~25 minute sortie in a P-47N, you should take off with 50%, and carry some of the extra weight around until you burn it off. The plane has its pros that it can fly around as much as any other plane on only 50% internal, so the cons of having a lot of fuel weight around its fat belly, must come with it.
Otherwise, going around and saying that there's nothing wrong with 25%+DT options is about as "sensible" as an La or Yak pilot wanting an aerial-refueling during his flight.
-
You are saying the U.S. Airforce didnt have enough drop tanks to go around?
No, he's saying the US Airforce didn't fly 25%+DTs.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
No, he's saying the US Airforce didn't fly 25%+DTs.
That WOULD be a valid arguement, had he SAID that, but that's quite obviously not what he said:confused:
-
Originally posted by bj229r
You are saying the U.S. Airforce didnt have enough drop tanks to go around?
untill summer 44 yes.
-
Originally posted by Vortex
For scenarios, sure, one could make a case for that based on historical accuracy. I don't see it being a good thing for the MA though. Historical anything has nothing to do with the MA. Focus there should be on gameplay, and I don't see a change like this enhancing gameplay in the MA at all.
Vortex,
the fact that MA is not historical due to gamey features is not a reason to justify more gamey things. It is a problem.
Do diving level bombers justify 5K flying level bombers sinking CVs? Do CV's ack-ack hitting 400mph flying fighters at 20K+ and half a sector away justify fuel gaming? Do our "easy-mode" landing/takeoff flight model justify g-force immune bomber gunners? I guess the answer is a big *NO*.
Focus on gameplay? I think that the lack of a rollin plane set is more than enuff to focus on it.
The DT + 75% internal fuel limit would not enhance gameplay it would just avoid double standars and further unfair advantage for some a/c.
-
All of the arguments opposing the use of drop tanks and small loads of internal fuel would be valid IF we were flying long range combat missions as found in the ETO, SWPA and to some extent, the MTO.
However, the MA is far more representative of the Eastern Front than any other theater. Here most combat took place below 10,000 feet, over the battlefields and was fought by short-range fighters.
One glaring exception is that most American fighters, even the relatively short ranging models, were designed for greater range. Thus, they have significantly greater fuel capacity. This comes with a substantial weight penalty.
To insist that aircraft fly with at least 75% internal fuel before being able to load drop tanks is insisting that these aircraft be handicapped should they be bounced shortly after takeoff.
I rarely fly any aircraft with more than 75% fuel. A typical sortie for me would be an F6F with 75%, or just 50% depending upon the distance. Likewise, I'll fly a P-38G with 75%, or 50% with a single drop tank and one 1,000 lb bomb. My usual method is to use the drop tank for takeoff and climb out, pitching it when I reach cruise altitude (usually 10,000 feet). Now I have enough fuel to reach the target, fight for a while and still get back, if need be. Taking 75% would have the exact same result as it will burn off nearly 25% for takeoff and climbout. The difference is if I encounter enemy aircraft before I reach altitude, I can dump the bomb and tank and be at a weight that allows me to get good performance. Either way, when I reach my destination, my aircraft's weight is just about the same.
Most aircraft preclude taking bombs and drop tanks. You either take bombs or drop tanks, not both. Exceptions are the late model Jugs, the later F4Us and the P-38s. Most American planes allow for drop tanks and rockets, although rockets have very limited use, being suitable for soft targets only.
Regardless of arguments, the fact remains that the MA is not representative of history. If you want historical accuracy, then fly TOD when it comes online.
As it stands now, any load-out option available will be used. And why not? This is not an historical arena, HTC has reiterated that many times. In TOD your load-out will be determined by the mission and you will not be able to alter it.
If someone insists on historical accuracy in the MA, you either implement it across the board, or don't even bother. That would mean no dive-bombing buffs. No CVs being sunk by strafing, limited 3 gun La-7s, etc and so on. You can't have it both ways, you sure as hell can't have it just because you prefer to fly one certain type of aircraft. If historical accuracy were a goal for the MA, why would we need TOD?
Each arena has its own purpose. The MA was never intended to be a historical arena, it was intended to be an air combat GAME utilizing WWII aircraft. For more immersive, historical play; we have scenarios, events and snapshots. However, the MA is a free-for-all, as it was intended, and it will remain that way. The MA is all about choices. You make your choices and you will live or die by them.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Ok, I got it. Our Main is gameish. This justify many if not all the gameish things not fixed so far by HTC. So, dont ask for only *some* fix. Accept everything or wait for the TOD.
Thats great! :huh
-
It's basically the typical "it ain't real" cop-out routine.
When all else fails, one can always blow the entire discussion and go back to square one - "hey, this is all a game. The MA ain't like real WW2, so we can do whatever we want and we can use whatever gamey situations to our disposal, and so there."
The MA, or AH itself for that matter, may not be a 1:1 scale representation of the real life conflict, but as game of the simulation genre its strength draws from what kind ethos it takes from the real life experience. Every inch it departs from reality unnecessarily, weakens its existence as a game of this kind.
What's to stop people from wanting a "Sky-Captain" type of wonderweapons in the first place, when all realistic standards are declared null and void, just because "the MA ain't real"? Call me a fundamentalist, I don't care. But the attitudes shown by some people in these types of discussions are just classic hypocrisy at its best. The guys who would go to nut and bolt levels in discussing planes performance or other realism issues, would suddenly go blind on all else when it comes to the defense of their own favorite plane or plane groups.
I mean, it's not even something like an "engine management" issue - an issue like that has reasons to be justified. This is a typical abusal issue - an abuse of an equipment in the wrong manner. It is plain wrong.
Ofcourse, it is a "wrong" which many people are already used to, and take good advantage of - and none who would come to defend it would go as far as to admit like a man that the DTs available is an advantage they don't want to give up.
Noooo - they resort to "it's realistic. Planes could do that.. if they really wanted to" argument, and now, it suddenly comes to "you can't expect realism in the MA" argument. How cheap is that?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Crew chiefs were sergeants, pilots were officers--the plane is set up the way they want it
Where did you get the idea that the pilot or crew chief got to decide what
the loadout for the aircraft was going to be? That was a decision made at
Squadron or Group Operations level. Depending on what the mission for
that day was.
Mike
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Crew chiefs were sergeants, pilots were officers--the plane is set up the way they want it
And the above statement might be true if you are only talking about the
USAAC (United States Army Air Corps) . The Luftwaffe, Royal Air Force
and the Japanese Navy had Non-Commissioned Officers as pilots.
Mike
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Ofcourse, it is a "wrong" which many people are already used to, and take good advantage of - and none who would come to defend it would go as far as to admit like a man that the DTs available is an advantage they don't want to give up.
Noooo - they resort to "it's realistic. Planes could do that.. if they really wanted to" argument, and now, it suddenly comes to "you can't expect realism in the MA" argument. How cheap is that?
I constantly claim that DT are an advantage (or to be exact - less of a fuel load disadvantage for some planes). Planes have advantages over one another in different areas, that is normal.
As to the realism argument, "realism" refers to the plane modeling - not how it is being used. The MA is a fictional scenario so different from WWII that the original use of a plane is almost irrelevant to what is does in the MA. This is most pronounced in american fighters since there is no stratigical war like the 8th AF was fighting. How often are P51s are used as high altitude, long range escort to buffs? Usually they are used as short range low altitude interceptors - much like the original use of russian fighters.
The most extreme example of non-historical usage are the buffs - they've been transfered from strategic command to tactical. They also carry a lot of air in their tanks since they hardly ever need more then 25% fuel. The mossie has no role since every other fighter can carry 2000 lbs of bombs, 30 miles away - they don't need to carry it from England to Germany like in real life (I still love it though). If this was WWII you'd wonder why they even bothered with it when P38/47/51/F4U/Typh would carry the same load or better, faster and also make a better fighter if attacked.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by me62
And the above statement might be true if you are only talking about the
USAAC (United States Army Air Corps) . The Luftwaffe, Royal Air Force
and the Japanese Navy had Non-Commissioned Officers as pilots.
Mike
What he said!
-
"So did they or didn't they ?
More clearly now :
Did the P51 pilot took off with 75% + DT or did they flew with 75% + DT ?"
The 87-gallon fuel tank behind the pilot's seat was ususally not filled all the way up; 60 gallons was about the norm. This was further burned down somewhat prior to using the droptanks. The actual amount that would be burned down depended on the mission profile. Pilots wanted as little fuel as possible in that tank when fighting, but needed to keep enough fuel to get home with. That is, however, a pecularity of the P-51 and not at all representative of other aircraft. In truth, the most accurate way to model the P-51's internal fuel load would be to just treat ~60 gallons in the AUX tank as "full" and more than that as an "overload" condition.
I agree completely with the subject of this threat in that it's a bit silly to permit people to routinely take 25% internal gas and droptanks. Keep in mind that when I'm actively playing AH, I'm a P-51 guy, so I only stand to "lose" from such an implementation (can't accuse me of bias).
For that matter, I also think the MA should use a 1:1 fuel burn rate. The 2.x rate used is downright irritating for many reasons beyond the scope of this thread.
J_A_B
-
The 2x fuel burn ratio matches the MA terrain style that is in place now, if they set fuel burn to 1.0 then the bases and such will have to be moved apart to at least have some sort of reference to real life.
I bet in TOD the bases will be in realistic distances to each other and the warp points will take into account how much fuel you burned covering the distance traveled.
Fuel is a game play element whether your in a realistic style scenario or in an arcade environment. It keeps things moving.
-
"if they set fuel burn to 1.0 then the bases and such will have to be moved apart to at least have some sort of reference to real life. "
Incorrect--the fuel multiplier is an arena setting which is quite unrelated to the terrain. If you LIKE the multiplier that's one thing, but don't falsely claim they'd have to change the terrain when in fact they wouldn't. Heck, the last time I played AH the fields were already too far apart. I don't view the multiplier as "keeping things moving"; I view it as an annoying nusiance.
I'm uninterested in TOD. I have no desire to pretend to be Adolf Galland or Chuck Yeager or re-live any past wars. In any event, it's highly improbable that TOD will use "realistic" distances as not many people want to fly 6 hour missions spending most of that looking at the scenery from 30K AGL. Hopefully the people who like things such as fuel multipliers and distant airfields will all migrate to TOD.
J_A_B
-
Thank for the informations J_A_B :)
-
Originally posted by gatt
Vortex,
the fact that MA is not historical due to gamey features is not a reason to justify more gamey things. It is a problem.
The DT + 75% internal fuel limit would not enhance gameplay it would just avoid double standars and further unfair advantage for some a/c.
Well, I think we're coming at it from two pretty different angles here. I view the MA as more of a gaming area, based rigedly upon historical flight models and gunnery, but very loosely upon the other WWII historical components. So with that it logically follows that for MA play I put gaming criteria on equal or higher footing as other historical aspects. As an example, I'd much rather see ammo loads be scalable, than fuel loads be forced. That would not have any basis in history, but for the Ma I wouldn't see that it is required to.
I think the more general historical parameters you're suggesting fit well in scenarios though. That's where one wants to put into play as many historical restrictions as possible.
I'm not sure about the concept of it being a double standard though, or it providing an unfair advantage to certain aircraft. All the aircraft in AH suffer from great hinderances, or huge advantages. Fuel loads are just one component of that greater equation. That's just a choice one makes when they pick a plane.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
It's basically the typical "it ain't real" cop-out routine.
When all else fails, one can always blow the entire discussion and go back to square one - "hey, this is all a game. The MA ain't like real WW2, so we can do whatever we want and we can use whatever gamey situations to our disposal, and so there."
The MA, or AH itself for that matter, may not be a 1:1 scale representation of the real life conflict, but as game of the simulation genre its strength draws from what kind ethos it takes from the real life experience. Every inch it departs from reality unnecessarily, weakens its existence as a game of this kind.
What's to stop people from wanting a "Sky-Captain" type of wonderweapons in the first place, when all realistic standards are declared null and void, just because "the MA ain't real"? Call me a fundamentalist, I don't care. But the attitudes shown by some people in these types of discussions are just classic hypocrisy at its best. The guys who would go to nut and bolt levels in discussing planes performance or other realism issues, would suddenly go blind on all else when it comes to the defense of their own favorite plane or plane groups.
I mean, it's not even something like an "engine management" issue - an issue like that has reasons to be justified. This is a typical abusal issue - an abuse of an equipment in the wrong manner. It is plain wrong.
Ofcourse, it is a "wrong" which many people are already used to, and take good advantage of - and none who would come to defend it would go as far as to admit like a man that the DTs available is an advantage they don't want to give up.
Noooo - they resort to "it's realistic. Planes could do that.. if they really wanted to" argument, and now, it suddenly comes to "you can't expect realism in the MA" argument. How cheap is that?
I'm just waiting for the perked P-40s that fly under water. :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Just because his customer are mostly american and won't stay if the US fighter canno't dominate in a way or another.
If the customer base was all French they'd only need One button..
Surrender
And before you blast me for my nationalist remarks, I'll ask you to explain why yours are acceptable.
Why is it acceptable to get in here and say that we only play if the American fighters are superior? What a crock of hokum! The best fighters in the MA are British, German and Russian.
Set your nationalist agenda aside and stick with the topic.
-
You should really try the P51 B or D at 50% fuel they are both very nice fighter.
A answer me :
Why should the US planes (and the other) suck fuel twice faster than in real ?
I'll help you , the usual answer is :
- the field are close in the MA
and my usual answer to this :
- why don't they climb twice as fast ? only one of the 3 dimension as been "tuned"/"corrected"
-
Originally posted by straffo
- why don't they climb twice as fast ? only one of the 3 dimension as been "tuned"/"corrected"
Fuel burn is a dimension?
The dimensions I know are
1) Vertical
2) Horizontal
3) Depth
4) Space/Time
Stop ranting like a fool.
The fuel burns are increased because no one flys for 6 hours in AH... And the climb rates are NOT increased because no one needs to get to 60k feet.
Now please, re-insert your pacifier.
-
There was a typo in my previous post :
I intended to write one of the dimension as not been corrected : Z
Btw as speaking of dimension ever heard of vector spaces or topological space ?
And also thank for insulting me twice in 2 posts.
-
Ok, I was harsh and apologize. But I do get very tired of 'You Americans only do things if America wins'
My friend if you start a discussion like that, you're looking for a fight, consider your own words in relation to my response.
Anyhow, returning to your thoughts about Z, its absurd, and here is why...
I'm zipping along at 400 mph horizontal. I pull into a vertical climb and now I get to go 800 mph?
How ridiculous would that be? Have you considered that?
You sure put on a show like you know what you're talking about, but have you considered how inertia is supposed to be modeled in your new scheme? An objects inertia at 800 mph is not simply doubled. So now that I've got my 800mph climb going, it's going to take a while for it to burn off. More than double the time. Speaking of inertia, what about manuvering? If I so much as twitch the stick I'm gonna black out.
And if I go back to straight and level do I magically return to 1/2 of my vertical speed?
Let's try to apply some common sense here. Fuel burn is a constant value for a given throttle setting. It's a simple solution to a flight world that is a lot smaller than the real one.
-
Well I shouldn't have wrote the part about US customer this way , I apologise.
I use all planes in AH ,if you look at my score you will find I'm in love again with the P51B (it happen from time to time that I change my main ride I changed from Yak to Typhoon to D9 to 51 and sometime others :))
I also I know my proposition is stupid :)
please read (if you have a loooooot of time :))
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117803
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10638
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10704
I even made some proposal
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118231
**** fire alarm at work !!!!