Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SAS_KID on January 02, 2006, 09:15:33 PM
-
How come or all the planes they have reduced ranges like I read someonewhere that the LA-7 can go like 800 miles or something like that and in this game they can only go about 3 sectors or so.(75miles)
-
climb out, reduce manifold pressure and rpms to max cruise and an LA7 will go a long way.
-
Ranges are decreased because we have an increased fuel burn, or fuel multiplyer....not really sure why we have it though, would be interested to hear why
cav
-
Probably because of limited map size.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Harry
See Rule #5
LOL conspiracy theory at its best
-
Increased fuel burn is to give differentiation between long ranged and short range aircraft. If fuel burn was at real levels there would be no reason for the long ranged American and Japanese fighters.
-
What Karnak said.
-
See Rule #5
-
:noid
-
Unfair advantage? .. no, as it was said before: the compressed ranges on our maps (and we need to have that, who wants to fly 60min before he may see an enemy) call for compressend (=increased) fuel burning rates. See it as a part of flight model. Some planes turn well, some dive better than others, and some have more endurance. Sometimes paid for with somewhat lower performance. If you delete the fuel rate multiplicator, you are just deleting one of the characteristics of a given plane. I am not an American customer, nor do i fly american planes. I have to break of combat more often than an mustang pilot while flyin my Lala or 109. But that´s a part of the planes "character". I would certainly demand this if it was not implemented. Hey, you could even say: "The Thunderbolt is better diving than XXX. Put an end to this, as it´s just an evil way to please American customers!"
By the way: ever noticed how many Americanos fly LW planes? ;)
-
Originally posted by Harry
See Rule #5
You're a tool.
Move fuel burn back to 1, and I will still burn yer arse in anything with a b pony or 1d. I'll only need to haul 25% fuel to do it instead of 75%.
-
The maps are not compressed in altitude or time. Climbing to combat alt or loitering is all but impossible in some aircraft.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Harry
The maps are not compressed in altitude or time. Climbing to combat alt or loitering is all but impossible in some aircraft.
Now THAT is complete nonsense. I fly Lala. Never have problems to climbing to combat. Always able to loiter for 30min+.
-
about the unfair advantage that is said to be given to american planes, yeah american planes can fly longer (we all know why, no reason to explain) but everything still works out. Most planes can fly for around over half an hour anyway, which is generally more than enough time to get from A to B.
Besides fuel burn rate really has no effect on peoples choice of plane, many people still fly the la-7 wich probably has the least flying time.
Oh and I suppose the reason fuel burn rate is changed is because if everyplane had actual burn rate there would be no reason for loading on more than 25% of fuel, ultimately meaning the effect of weighted planes would not have as large an effect.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Now THAT is complete nonsense. I fly Lala. Never have problems to climbing to combat. Always able to loiter for 30min+.
5k is not combat alt. 20k+ is. By the time to get to 20k you've expended half your fuel.
-
5k is not combat alt. 20k+ is. By the time to get to 20k you've expended half your fuel.
The La7's optimum combat altitude is 20K??
-
The may trouble is it twist reality as it transform long range fighter into tactical fighter and tactical fighter in something wich never existed.
-
Originally posted by FTJR
The La7's optimum combat altitude is 20K??
Yes, 19-20k for the La-7.
-
Originally posted by straffo
The may trouble is it twist reality as it transform long range fighter into tactical fighter and tactical fighter in something wich never existed.
Exactly.
-
Harry keep that La7 under 8k, you'll find it performs better and its more fun.
Above 12k a P51 or P47 is going to have a definate edge.
-
Harry is a pretty good troll... look at everyone fall for his bait.
No thanks Harry, I just ate.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Harry keep that La7 under 8k, you'll find it performs better and its more fun.
Above 12k a P51 or P47 is going to have a definate edge.
I only meant the La-7's best altitude is 19-20k, not its best altitude compared to other fighters. I don't fly the La-7. Sometimes I fly the La-5. Over the Russian front the VVS and LW normally operated in the 10-20k "medium alt" range. Bombers around 10k with fighters on top.
-
I actually think they should model Luftwaffe fighters in there own Uber arena where they have unlimited fuel and ammo and when they have damage they can fly through giant floating pictures of the Fueher which will re-arm and re-fuel your plane.
Conversley all American aircraft will have to fly with full fuel tanks and 100% ammo all the time and all Spitfires will have to fly with drop tanks while towing a glider filled with napalm (it's only fair).
That should set the realism about right for everyone:aok
-
I don't fly LW either. I usually fly F6F or Spits.
-
Originally posted by Harry
See Rule #4
the US fighters dont need to be mauverable to win dogfights there fast heavly armed great highspeed control hog will beat most planes without having to be more mauverable
its like the P47 its a great plane but turning and burning may not be the smartest thing to do
but of course you can allways call it the pilot when you lose so as not to lose the debate
-
Anyone else think it's funny that he's railing against the unfair advantage of range in American rides, but one of his preferred mounts IS an American fighter?
-
BTw I still wonder how it influence the behaviour of planes as they are loosing some weight twice faster as they should ...
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Harry is a pretty good troll... look at everyone fall for his bait.
No thanks Harry, I just ate.
lol, yeap, you are correct.... (swims away missing large portion of lip)
-
Originally posted by Harry
They increase fuel burn to give the US planes an unfair advantage. Customer satisfaction is more important to them than accuracy.
Harry: You are full of dog dodo. And a true conspericyest.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Harry
Yes, 19-20k for the La-7.
BZZZZ WRONG! La5 and 7 were low level intercepters and are the best when they are under 7k but hold thier own up to 15 anything higher then that is just retarded. Most american planes are for high alt because in the war they escorted flgiths of bombers. LW is kindy stuck in the middle 5-20k is good for most sept the Ta152 25+ only unless you have the numbers.
-
Originally posted by Larry
BZZZZ WRONG!
You should get that twitch looked at. The La-7 reaches top speed at 20k. Just as the P-51 at 25k, Dora at 18k etc. This is commonly known as full throttle height, and is the designed "combat altitude" of the aircraft.
-
I think Harry forgot his oxygen mask climbing through 10,000ft in that La-7. Harry...from now on anytime you're above 3000 don those cannulas buddy...there's certainly not enough oxygen getting into your brain, your coordination and logic is going down the tubes and you're for some reason euphoric about it.
-
Perhaps you should check you own oxygen Golfer, perhaps you're flying that imaginary P-51 of yours again :rofl.
The La-7's Shvetsov M-82FN engine has a two-stage blower. The second stage kicks in at 5000 meters or approx 16k with a full throttle height of 19,5k. Pretty much a waste of weight and engine power if the La-7 was meant as a "low altitude interceptor" (which is an idiotic and fictional term).
-
As the airfields are approx 25 miles apart on average wheres the need for a 1x fuel burn?
The fuel multiplier is a result of the airfields being so close. Without it a lot of aircraft would be flying around on only 25% fuel.
The only aircraft it really hurts is ones that have no DT option, or ones that have the option of DT or ord but not both.
Personally I'd be happier with the previous setup of 1.5x and fuel pork down to 25%, (25% would also limit spit XVI's as a side affect).
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
As the airfields are approx 25 miles apart on average wheres the need for a 1x fuel burn?
Alternatively where is the need to have a 100% loadout availlable ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Alternatively where is the need to have a 100% loadout availlable ?
Very true, but where would you find aircraft going into combat carrying only 25% fuel?
It's a good compromise, I just think the current 2x is too much and that we should go back to old system. (1.5x and min 25% fuel at airfields)
-
What I don't understand is how having historical fuel endurances somehow detracts from the fun? If you fly a P-51 and I a Spit, does it bother you that my Spit has the range it's supposed to have?
All I see is the unnecessary increase in running from fights by people who are low on virtual gas. More running = waste of time = less fun. If you want to do a lot of T-O, landings and fuel management FS2004 is the game for you. I play in the main arena to dogfight and have fun, not looking for the nearest fuel truck.
-
Originally posted by Harry
They increase fuel burn to give the US planes an unfair advantage. Customer satisfaction is more important to them than accuracy.
lol you're not too bright are you.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
lol you're not too bright are you.
What an intelligent and mature response. Next you’ll insult my mother?
-
About as bright as....
They increase fuel burn to give the US planes an unfair advantage. Customer satisfaction is more important to them than accuracy.
Its pretty sad people like you are so lonely that you sink to trolling the A/C and Vehic. Forums for AH. I feel bad for you, almost.
-
Don't feel bad, I don't.
It's the only logical reason for limiting the range of planes in a completely fictitious game arena. It adds nothing to the enjoyment of the game unless you get some perverted pleasure of wasting other people’s time. Next you can explain how being able to take 25% fuel + droptanks somehow is historical and/or "realistic". :rolleyes:
-
You should start doing your homework.
Range in planes is all relative. The maps are no larger than 512 miles... So you wouldnt need the range that a pony or even an La7 could go in real life to traverse an AH map. It would just be silly.
Stupid trolls.
-
Harry,
I will give you the benifit of the doubt and take a legit shot at answering the question you are posing. It seems like a troll but what the hell, it is a new year.
Question: You would like to know why we have a fuel multpier because in your opinion it gives the Allied planes an unfair advantage.
Answer: Because in real life these aircraft either had to fly long distance to meet each other or they were limited to short range missions. The fuel multiplier allows HTC to avoid making ALL of it's customers stay online for hours to fly one mission by reducing the flight distance/time. But in order to regain some sense of realism they added the fuel multiplier to level (make even) the real life advantage enjoyed by longer range aircraft of loiter time and range.
You are free to disagree on this point but you have ask your self this question.
Why should a La-7 with 122 gallons of internal fuel have the same range as a Hellcat with 250 gallons of fuel? They both have 2,000+HP and the La-7 designers knew very well when they built it that it could fly very fast but not for very long. So isn't it a bit gamey to make some aircraft carry twice as much fuel to get the same range as a smaller A/C that couldn't fly very long at all?
If it seems like the allied aircraft have an advantage in this area it is because they did have an advantage in this area. They were purpose built for it just as the Axis aircraft were built for short range and fast climb.
Or of course we could fly real time over the English channel but then the short range aircraft won't have any fighting time and the long range A/C will always be on the offensive... Oh wait that is how it really was...........
-
Who the **** is this Harry.
Well, I just saw him point out that banning Kuffie would be pointless. Maybe he's showing us why that would be....futile
:noid
-
Originally posted by Harry
Perhaps you should check you own oxygen Golfer, perhaps you're flying that imaginary P-51 of yours again
Would be great if you had the first clue about what you were talking about :aok Darn, wrong finger.
Since I actually think what we have is fair I'll ask what's the big deal? And why I think it's fair is:
All airplanes are modeled to be "close enough" to their true ranges that you could say the fuel capacity is accurate and true when compared to real life.
Given that on our largest maps it's only 512 miles from one side to the other (262,144 square miles) compared to the ETO of well over 1000 miles in either direction (well over 1,000,000 squre miles) we do not need the full capacity of fuel for long range aircraft designed to operate. Because our maps are "about half" the size of the ETO for instance...what's so wrong with "about doubling" the fuel burn? It's not done to a selective few airplanes it's done to all of them. They're all affected and they still operate true to life when compared with one another. The P-51 flies longer than the Bf-109...which it did. Not because HTC wants an uber American plane set, but because he is shooting for and tweaking for a playable yet historically accurate game.
What's not fair and why?
Our maps are half the size...our burn is twice the rate. The little Apache I scoot around holds 108 gallons for 6 hours of fuel until the engines stop making noise. That's great if I need to fly down to Georgia or out to Nebraska. Sounds like not much fun wasing 6 hours of my day doing nothing while sitting at my computer not getting paid. If you want realism...go fly an airplane. If you want fun...fly aces high.
-
F4UDOA,
I'd actually not phrase it Axis vs Allied, but rather European vs. non-European. The two non-European nations, the United States and Japan, both included generous ammounts of fuel in their fighter designs compared to the European powers of the United Kingdom, Germany, the Soviet Union, Italy and France. Given the distances Japanese and the United States militaries expected to fight over that design priority is hardly a suprise. The European nations had a much more concentrated field of conflict and so had other priorities.
-
Let rephrase some of the post above.
The MA is more like the East front than the West
But WE long range fighter dweeb don't care of it and want to twist reality to our exclusive use.
-
Originally posted by Harry
Don't feel bad, I don't.
It's the only logical reason for limiting the range of planes in a completely fictitious game arena. It adds nothing to the enjoyment of the game unless you get some perverted pleasure of wasting other people’s time. Next you can explain how being able to take 25% fuel + droptanks somehow is historical and/or "realistic". :rolleyes:
:rofl This guy is funny and simple minded first you say you like the MA for fun and dogfighting then on the other hand you talk about historical and realistic. Since Iv never seen you in the CT and you kinda look like the guy who is a LA7 dweeb useing WEP trying to get to the vulched field before it gets taken then whine when you run outa gas I dont think your the guy to talk about historical.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
I actually think they should model Luftwaffe fighters in there own Uber arena where they have unlimited fuel and ammo and when they have damage they can fly through giant floating pictures of the Fueher which will re-arm and re-fuel your plane.
:aok :rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
Straffo,
You are half right, the MA is East vrs West. But it doesn't mean I should have to tow a battleship behind my Hog because the mini-cooper squadron has an inferiority complex.
Why don't we just model every single fighter with 100 gallons of fuel which is 600LBS and they can all have the same range. The P-51, P-47, P-38, F4U and F6F will all be light as feather since they don't have to worry about dragging 1500lbs of fuel to fly 5 feet away and the C205 will have it's historic range and fuel load.
While we are at it why don't we do the same for ammo. I have no choice in my Hog but to fly with 750lbs of .50 cal bullets everytime I takeoff unless I want to shoot them off on the runway. Why don't we make everyone's ammo load the same to? At about 10,000lbs I should be able to climb with the 109K-4 and turn with Spit V's, sounds great!
-
FD, your mistaken ,I don't want the long range plane to be overweight nor overloaded.
I just want to have a realistic fuel loadout according to the environement.
IE :
In the Maps where the distances are small : less fuel availlable.
In the Maps where the distances are normal : normal fuel availlable.
In the Maps where the distances are normal : normal fuel availlable + drop tank.
Btw I still have trouble understanding how the overall behaviour of a AH plane can be realistic if a part is not correct
-
straffo: That is a somewhat valid way of looking at it, but there is a trade off. And would benifit the hi consumption planes.
Take a plane with 2 hours fuel load. And lets say he reaches the fight in 30 mins.
Now with a fuel burn rate of 2. He would reach the fight at 1/2 tank. And close to the same wieght as he would have reached is max range in real life.
If we would change it to a max of 50% load instead he would reach the fight at 1/4 tank. And hence be lighter than normal engagement weights.
HiTech
-
You are half right, the MA is East vrs West. But it doesn't mean I should have to tow a battleship behind my Hog because the mini-cooper squadron has an inferiority complex.
You don't have to, you can fly around as long as you like burning off fuel.
However, even if the FBM was set x1 that would only mean you could fight longer in a 25% gassed up F4U. The fuel mod does nothing except limit the range of those planes that are already limited even more. A climb to 20k in a La-7, or 109, or Yak 9u etc.. requires twice the amount of fuel. While the same may be true of the longer range planes they are rarely ever flown with 100% fuel regardless of the FBM. When flying aircraft with limited fuel capacity this effect on climb is a real disadvantage in terms of 'combat time'.
No one said all planes should have the same range, but some planes in AH have only 20 - 21 minute flight time at full boost. Having the FBM set at x1 doesn't force you to fly a P-51 or F4U with 100% fuel. Why are you creating such a ridiculous strawman?
About the 512 x 512 maps,
That doesn't have anything to do with a specific FBM of x2. When the maps were 256 x 256 (4 times smaller) the FBM was at one time x1.5 then x2.0. If we follow that logic then the FBM should have been at x4.
When AH2 was first released the FBM wasn't at x2. It was at x1.5. When it was increased to x2 there were several long threads about this very subject. At that time HTC was tooling around with rpm and proper fuel consumption. At x1 or x1.5 no-one would bother with 'fuel management'. At x2, as I said above, only those planes already with a limited RL fuel capacity are affected. Planes like the 9u, and Las are now limited to just front line combat (which they weren't in RL, they flew any number of mission profiles, from intercept to escort to freie-jagd etc...) while the P-51 can up at a front line field with 50 or 25% fuel and run full boost from take-off to landing. So 'fuel management' is only an issue with some planes.
If those who fly longer range planes don't want to fight 'heavy' then they can always take less fuel regardless of what the FBM is. Or they can just fly around touring the map as long as they like. Back in the day the 9u used to be flown quite a bit. Now only a handful of players still fly it due to the very limited range.
FYI,
For those that think the La-7 / La-5FN only were flown at low alt don't have a clue as to what they are talking about.
-
Originally posted by hitech
straffo: That is a somewhat valid way of looking at it, but there is a trade off. And would benifit the hi consumption planes.
Take a plane with 2 hours fuel load. And lets say he reaches the fight in 30 mins.
Now with a fuel burn rate of 2. He would reach the fight at 1/2 tank. And close to the same wieght as he would have reached is max range in real life.
If we would change it to a max of 50% load instead he would reach the fight at 1/4 tank. And hence be lighter than normal engagement weights.
HiTech
Ok HiTech,if the goal is to have fight with a normal engagement weight as you said I do understand the purpose of the FBM.
-
Ok HiTech,if the goal is to have fight with a normal engagement weight as you said I do understand the purpose of the FBM.
But your not. If you are fighting Ami planes with a constant 25 - 50%who says this is real? Luftflotte 3 was engaging long range Ami fighters over France and Belgium, long before they penetrated deep into enemy territory. Not all 38s, Jugs, and 51s had time to burn off sufficient amounts fuel before being engaged some did, some didn't. Same in the Pacific. There was considerable 'randomness' in fuel load when combat began.
But even if you accept that no Ami plane ever got in a fight with more then 50% fuel the FBM does nothing to address that. The Ami pilot can still load what ever amount of fuel he wants, whether the FBM is at x1 or x2. Just as easy as he can up from a deeper field.
The problem isn't that you fight Ami planes with light fuel loads, that will happen no matter what the FBM. The problem is the arbitrarily limited flight time of some really fun aircraft in AH.
-
Hi Hitech,
>Now with a fuel burn rate of 2. He would reach the fight at 1/2 tank. And close to the same wieght as he would have reached is max range in real life.
Maybe it would be better to look at actual mission profiles.
A while back, I prepared an example for the Spitfire F. XIV, based on the Pilot's Notes for the type:
At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 25000 ft: -26 gals
Cruise out: -15.5 gals
5 min combat power: -15 gals
10 min climb power: -22 gals
Climb from 10000 ft to 20000 ft: -6 gals
Cruise back: -15.5 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals
The 15.5 gals for cruise each way yield a combat radius of 73 miles.
The same mission with a consumption multiplier of 1.5 would be impossible. If you'd give up the 11 gals reserve, you'd have a remaining combat radius of 18 miles.
Now a less demanding mission profile:
At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 20000 ft: -23 gals
Cruise out: -20 gals
5 min combat power: -15 gals
10 min climb power: -22 gals
Cruise back without climb: -20 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals
Combat radius: 94 miles.
With a fuel multiplier of 1.5:
At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 20000 ft: -34.5 gals
Cruise out: -5 gals
5 min combat power: -22.5 gals
10 min climb power: -33 gals
Cruise back without climb: -5 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals
This would leave the Spitfire with just 10 gals for cruise (5 in, 5 out), equating a combat radius of 16 miles at the higher fuel multiplier - though the 10% reserve is worth less, too.
And looking at the mission profile - who could hope to survive a maximum economy cruise back from a furball? :-) The Spitfire actually has no choice but either to run away at full throttle (might work for a XIV), or to climb above all bandits in the area before going to maximum economy.
And it's all non-linear. Just look at the combat radius:
Fuel multiplier 1.0: 94 miles = 100%
Fuel multiplier 1.5: 16 miles = 017%
I don't like this fuel multiplier stuff. My personal priority is on flight time anyway, and I'm not happy if I don't get realistic flight times regardless of map size.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by hitech
conspericyest.
hehe.
:D
-
Henning,
AH's fuel multiplier is actually 2.0, not 1.5, so the impact will be ever larger. In practice I doubt anybody ever takes a Spit XIV without the 30 gallon slipper tank.
-
I don't like this fuel multiplier stuff. My personal priority is on flight time anyway, and I'm not happy if I don't get realistic flight times regardless of map size.
I agree 100%...
The 'I am to heavy to fight' cry is really only related to Ami planes. These can always take less fuel and/or take-off from a base deeper in their own territory.
If you like to fly a Yak 9u your stuck 30 min or so flight time...
-
You can already load 1/4 - 3/4 fuel for short missions, how is any of this specific to US planes, which, btw, had no greater range than most others save they went to Germany with 2 large oversize drop tanks?
I can load a Jug with 50 fuel and roll. Doesnt matter what the burn is. If they made the burn 1.0 a lot of P-51 guys would just roll at 25-50 fuel and go. Spit pilots would take 75 maybe, same with 109s. Yaks would take 100 probably. B-26s would take 25.
The players aren't stupid.
I don't follow the burn rate = something to do with US planes thing. Makes no sense on the face of it.
I say make the burn 1.0 and let them do what they want. Once you take 100 fuel you cant get rid of it, so a player who rolled with that load to get more air time will also pay the price in air combat. Seems fair to me.
You also need ammo to fight, which no matter what will run out.
I like to fly Yaks sometimes, and you can hardly find a fight before your fuel runs out. Thats a bummer.
-
You can already load 1/4 - 3/4 fuel for short missions, how is any of this specific to US planes, which, btw, had no greater range than most others save they went to Germany with 2 large oversize drop tanks?
There is a difference if the FBM is at x2. It has nothing to do with Ami planes they will always take less then 100%. If thats not good enough to can take off from a deeper field. At x2 or even x1 a Yak will always take 100% and take off from the closest field. They only way a Yak gets more flight time is by reducing the FBM. No matter what the FBM the Ami pilot will just adjust his fuel load however he wants. With the FBM at x1 it doesn't mean the F4U pilot:
should have to tow a battleship behind my Hog
I can load a Jug with 50 fuel and roll. Doesn't matter what the burn is. If they made the burn 1.0 a lot of P-51 guys would just roll at 25-50 fuel and go. Spit pilots would take 75 maybe, same with 109s. Yaks would take 100 probably. B-26s would take 25.
That's exactly correct. For a Yak pilot there's a huge difference in 10 extra minutes of flight time. It means he isn't limited to hovering between two fields watching his fuel evaporate. The Yak was not just a 'point defense fighter'. It flew many different mission profiles. With the FBM at x2 its mission profile in the main is limited.
The players aren't stupid.
I don't follow the burn rate = something to do with US planes thing. Makes no sense on the face of it.
Correct again.
The Ami planes are the only planes in which the FBM basically has no affect. Whether it be x1 or x2 the Ami pilot will just adjust his fuel load. Or he can can fly around burning off fuel, something a Yak pilot can never do.
I say make the burn 1.0 and let them do what they want. Once you take 100 fuel you cant get rid of it, so a player who rolled with that load to get more air time will also pay the price in air combat. Seems fair to me.
I agree, the maps are big enough. An FBM of x1 has no impact on Ami planes, they will just take 25% etc... At x1 some of the funner planes in the game will get more usage and not be limited to point defense.
You also need ammo to fight, which no matter what will run out.
I like to fly Yaks sometimes, and you can hardly find a fight before your fuel runs out. Thats a bummer.
Sure is, some how that's fair. If you don't agree then you just want:
every single fighter with 100 gallons of fuel which is 600LBS and they can all have the same range.
-
Its definately hard on the 109E, Yaks, and Spit V. No DTs and small tanks.
-
Gents,
Here is why I believe a 1 to 1 fuel burn is a quick trip to "Relaxed Realism".
Why, because I don't believe this discussion has anything to do with the amount of time you can fly a Yak-9U in the MA. This is about not wanting to take 100% fuel so you have a greater performance advanatge over longer range aircraft which is the perceived outcome of these action. The Yak-9U has a 139 gallon tank and the engine is approx 1650HP at mil power giving it a flight time at full power of around 40minutes (estimate) in real life and 20 minutes in AH2 at a 2 to 1 fuel burn.
I don't think that 10% of the total flights in AH2 last 20 minutes and I bet that is more like 5% when you exclude bombers. What this really is about is that if you had a 1 to 1 ratio in the MA you could fly the Yak (or other small high HP A/C) with 50% fuel or less and zip around for the entire ride of the same or less duration but with greater performance from less fuel. IE this is about a competitive advantage not about endurance.
Also
I can load a Jug with 50 fuel and roll. Doesn't matter what the burn is. If they made the burn 1.0 a lot of P-51 guys would just roll at 25-50 fuel and go. Spit pilots would take 75 maybe, same with 109s. Yaks would take 100 probably. B-26s would take 25.
This statement is just not true. Currently if you fly a P-51 you take 25% fuel and 50% if you are climbing to 30K and leaving your computer for a while. If it where a 1 to 1 fuel burn you would need a 1/8 fuel setting for fighters and a 1/32 fuel setting for bombers. Is this closer to realism or to an arcade game?
All fighter A/C in AH may not have DT's but they all have MAP and RPM controls. So maybe the key is to manage your fuel instead of changing your envirement?
Here might be your best reason why this is a bad idea. What is the point of having enough fuel for a half hour if you only have enough ammo for 15 seconds of trigger time? Should we have an ammo multipier for small aircraft as well?
FYI, The F4U-4 has one of the shortest durations in AH2. About 20minutes flat and it is perked.
-
My main concern re the FBM @ 2 was the way field fuel attrition was modeled against % of capacity instead of actual fuel quantity.
Ht disagrees.
However with 25% and 50% levels of the fuel attrition model disabled it makes less difference.
-
I just checked out the Yak-9U flight time, it is better than I thought. 27 minutes roughly at 100% fuel. Are you kidding me? The F4U-1D only has 29 minutes? The F4U-4 has 21 while carrying 100 gallons more fuel.
I should be the one screaming.
BTW, the P-51D has 50 minutes at 2:1. It would need a 1/5 fuel setting to fly in the MA to be competitive.
-
For the most part I think the fuel burn mod is appropriate. It provides differentiation between the short range and long range aircraft, that otherwise wouldn't exist in the MA. Keep in mind that typical battles take place at 10,000ft and below, and within a 25 mile radius of your base. Even the shortest legged fighters have enough fuel to climb up to 15k, get to the enemy base, fight for 10 minutes or so and rtb. All this does is limit the shorter range fighters (generally the RAF, VVS, and LW planes) to around a 1 sector radius, while the longer legged planes (generally the US and IJN/IJAAF planes) can range out farther.
Can these longer ranged planes gain some sort of performance advantage by taking off at 50% fuel or less? I suppose they could, but keep in mind that because of the FBM the shorter ranged planes have burned their tanks down this far by the time they get to the fight in most cases anyway. IMO that makes it a wash. A look at fighter useage will tell you how "biased" the system is - the two most common fighters are two of the shortest ranged in the game.
-
There is always the CT. Normal fuel burn right?
This is an admin decison for the benefit of gameplay. The short legged aircraft would get the benefit of 1-1, so I rather do understand HTC'S poilicy.
-
I just checked out the Yak-9U flight time, it is better than I thought. 27 minutes roughly at 100% fuel. Are you kidding me? The F4U-1D only has 29 minutes? The F4U-4 has 21 while carrying 100 gallons more fuel.
The F4U-4 has 25 min on Emergency power (ADI) but the F4U-4 has the option of carrying one or two 150 gal DTs. At 50% and a single DT the F4U-4 has 28 min.
What the DT allows for is an 'instant' fuel dump upon entering combat. Carrying the DT while on climb out increases the combat time of the F4U-4 significantly. And that is in fact what most folks do unless the CV is close enough to a field.
I should be the one screaming.
You are but mostly about the strawmen you created.
with 50% fuel or less and zip around for the entire ride of the same or less duration but with greater performance from less fuel.
Are kidding me? That's exactly what the high FBM does now. 50% and a DT for Ami planes gives them the ability to dump fuel weight at will. There's your 'relaxed realism'. This won't change if the FBM is lowered.
Setting the FBM to 1 or 1.5 would have little affect on the F4U-4. If the FBM were at 1 or 1.5 folks may or may not give up the DT and keep their 50 or 75% fuel. However, the F4U-4 doesn't instantly gain 10000lbs of weight because the FBM is lower. That plane, like all others, would still have the same options to take 25, 50, 75% fuel as the player sees fit. The Yak 9u doesn't miraculously get lighter if the FBM is lower either. In fact with a higher FBM you fight the Yak at lower weight, due to higher fuel consumption, then you would if the FBM was set at 1.
An F4U-4 taking 75% gets a far better 'weight savings' then a Yak taking 75%. Assuming the Yak will always take 50% if the FBM is at x1 while the F4U pilot will be stuck with 100% is ridiculous, as Squire said players aren't stupid. No one forces you to take-off with 100% fuel and no one forces you to take-off from the closest airfields. All the options would remain the same as they are now.
Your right the discussions isn't just about the Yak, its about every other plane with limited flight time and range including the Yak.
Back on the 'compressed game world':
The maps in the main have 'no scale' they are just made up. Those that claim 'well the maps are only 512 x 512, what are we to do...' need to realize that maps have been made at or near a 1 to 1 scale in the past. The first BoB map was 1.1 to 1. In fact we could lay actual LW navigation/grid maps over the clipboard map and the LW grid lines almost fit with in the clipboard map grid. IIRC the FBM was 1 or 1.2 but ranges were realistic enough. The Kurland map was 512 x 512 but the scale was set to .8 or .9 to 1 with an FBM of 1. Again realistic ranges and flight times were achieved.
Because the airfields on the main maps are just 20 - 25 miles a part has nothing to do with map scale or realism. It's a game play decision, the main isn't a scenario. However, claiming that an FBM of x2 is the only way to get 'realism' is nonsense. Even on the 256 x 256 maps (4 times smaller then the 512s) the FBM wasn't higher it was actually the same or lower (1.5).
-
Originally posted by Sable
For the most part I think the fuel burn mod is appropriate. It provides differentiation between the short range and long range aircraft, that otherwise wouldn't exist in the MA. Keep in mind that typical battles take place at 10,000ft and below, and within a 25 mile radius of your base. Even the shortest legged fighters have enough fuel to climb up to 15k, get to the enemy base, fight for 10 minutes or so and rtb. All this does is limit the shorter range fighters (generally the RAF, VVS, and LW planes) to around a 1 sector radius, while the longer legged planes (generally the US and IJN/IJAAF planes) can range out farther.
And so ?
Following your reasonning I propose to divide climb rate by 2
After all if we can do it for fuel why can't we do it for altitude ?
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>Why, because I don't believe this discussion has anything to do with the amount of time you can fly a Yak-9U in the MA. This is about not wanting to take 100% fuel so you have a greater performance advanatge over longer range aircraft which is the perceived outcome of these action.
Nonsense. I'll gladly take 100% in any fighter, and I'd take 200% doubly gladly if it were possible. Heavy weight is a disadvantage I can easily overcome by good tactics (I'm an energy man all the way and back - I force the other guy to manoeuvre, for me it's full steam ahead and damn the torpedos ;-) but an unrealistic fuel multiplier is resistant against tactics, and in fact has multiple negative effects an the realism of online tactics.
Exaggerated fuel consumption encourages one-way missions, with everyone trying to score a quick kill before running out of fuel. To score the quick kill, greater manoeuvrability and lower weight are an advantage ... a vicious circle ...
And the shorter the flight time, the greater is the share of that time that I have to spend shuttling back and forth between a vulch-safe second-line airfield and the front-line. This is another factor that encourages one-way missions if fuel consumption is exaggerated.
>I don't think that 10% of the total flights in AH2 last 20 minutes
If it were so, that would only prove that exaggerated fuel consumption has already taken the "trip towards Relaxed Realism".
I consider everything less than 60 min a short hop. There might be satisfying short hops if I'm forced to re-arm because I spent all my ammunition quickly, but generally, my hunting passion is not satisfied by flights of less than an hour.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Bruno,
The F4U-4 has 25 min on Emergency power (ADI) but the F4U-4 has the option of carrying one or two 150 gal DTs. At 50% and a single DT the F4U-4 has 28 min.
What the DT allows for is an 'instant' fuel dump upon entering combat. Carrying the DT while on climb out increases the combat time of the F4U-4 significantly. And that is in fact what most folks do unless the CV is close enough to a field.
The F4U-4 could carry up to three drop tanks as could the -1D. This is an historic option. Did the Yak have DT's?
You are but mostly about the strawmen you created
Sorry I can't take credit for designing AH2. But I am not the one complaining about not being able to buzz around endlessly at full mil power in an aircraft with a fuel tank the size of a Cessna.
50% and a DT for Ami planes gives them the ability to dump fuel weight at will. There's your 'relaxed realism'. This won't change if the FBM is lowered.
Since you mentioned the dumping of fuel isn't that what DT's are? Droppable/detachable Tanks? When American planes saw the enemy they dropped their tanks. That is there design purpose, hence realistic. Did the Luftwaffe make their pilots leave a deposit on the tanks? <== Humor!!
The size and scale of the map is not important. What is important is how long you need to fly to find an enemy airbase and how much fuel was used to reach that location. In AH it barely takes 5 minutes to move between bases and barely 25% use of fuel in any fighter in AH and that is without using any fuel management. I don't hear anyone saying they even try to conserve fuel. Have you ever used the E6B in the cockpit?
HoHun,
You said
Exaggerated fuel consumption encourages one-way missions, with everyone trying to score a quick kill before running out of fuel. To score the quick kill, greater manoeuvrability and lower weight are an advantage ... a vicious circle ...
and
If it were so, that would only prove that exaggerated fuel consumption has already taken the "trip towards Relaxed Realism".
Both of these statements are because the fields are close together as is the vulching you mentioned which is exactly why we have a fuel multplier. Maybe your answer in to move the bases further away from one another? If not for the multplier you would just have hordes of La-7's and Spit XVI's flying over the same CAP'ed base endlessly vulching. Is that "realistic"?
I consider everything less than 60 min a short hop. There might be satisfying short hops if I'm forced to re-arm because I spent all my ammunition quickly, but generally, my hunting passion is not satisfied by flights of less than an hour.
Dude, where are you flying for an hour?
The F4U has 2400rounds of ammo that weight 750LBS and only has 30 seconds of total trigger time which is more that any BF109 ever built. What are you doing for 59 minutes and 30 seconds?
-
The F4U-4 could carry up to three drop tanks as could the -1D. This is an historic option. Did the Yak have DT's?
And folks carry them in AH, something that you left out when you did your fuel endurance comparison. You said the F4U was limited to 22 minutes, which is false. There's a whole range of load out options that the F4Us can carry. In rl the Yak didn't need drop tanks because its range was significantly farther then what it is in AH.
Sorry I can't take credit for designing AH2. But I am not the one complaining about not being able to buzz around endlessly at full mil power in an aircraft with a fuel tank the size of a Cessna.
Why don't look up the definition of 'strawman argument'. You create a false position like 'how about unlimited ammo' as if anyone but you has mentioned that.
Since you mentioned the dumping of fuel isn't that what DT's are? Droppable/detachable Tanks? When American planes saw the enemy they dropped their tanks. That is there design purpose, hence realistic.
They didn't fly around with 50% fuel and multiple DTs. Hence it is no more or less realistic then an FEM lower then x2. Which is your position.
What is important is how long you need to fly to find an enemy airbase and how much fuel was used to reach that location. In AH it barely takes 5 minutes to move between bases and barely 25% use of fuel in any fighter in AH and that is without using any fuel management. I don't hear anyone saying they even try to conserve fuel. Have you ever used the E6B in the cockpit?
It only takes '5 minutes' between bases because you choose to up at a front line field, you aren't forced to unless you fly a plane like the Yak.
Now tell us how bad it will for the F4U folks if the FEM is x1 or 1.5? It won't be, they can still take whatever load out they want. Planes like the Yak will just get a few more minutes in the air. Anything you try wrap into the discussion, from unlimited ammo, to flying around with a battleship strapped on your F4U is pure BS nonsense.
-
Here is an idea stop flying with the throttle at the fire wall. All this talk about realism and no one mentions this. Drop the yak into cruse and see how far it goes sheesh. But the people screaming gamey want to be able to fly at top speed AND still have the range as advertized.
Some of you realy make me laugh.
Bronk
-
There's a point that FD keeps bringing up that for some reason everyone is ignoring:
USE FUEL MANAGEMENT.
NO aircraft, not even the long-legged American and Japanese birds, flew to target and back at full combat power. Pilots cut back the throttle, RPMs and MAP to increase their aircraft's endurance for transit.
That SAME capability is modelled in the game. So like FD suggested: Instead of b****ing about a perceived imbalance, (range was a HISTORICAL advantage of American and Japanese fighters. Deal with it already) try looking up those extra buttons on the keyboard.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Exaggerated fuel consumption encourages one-way missions, with everyone trying to score a quick kill before running out of fuel. To score the quick kill, greater manoeuvrability and lower weight are an advantage ... a vicious circle ...
And the shorter the flight time, the greater is the share of that time that I have to spend shuttling back and forth between a vulch-safe second-line airfield and the front-line. This is another factor that encourages one-way missions if fuel consumption is exaggerated.
Exactly. Give a look at the threads talking about "RTBing or not?" and you'll have a good idea of the induced Main Arcade attitude.
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>Both of these statements are because the fields are close together as is the vulching you mentioned which is exactly why we have a fuel multplier.
And is it successful in stopping vulching?
>If not for the multplier you would just have hordes of La-7's and Spit XVI's flying over the same CAP'ed base endlessly vulching. Is that "realistic"?
Does it get more realistic if the endless vulchfest is carried out with a proportion of long range planes mixed in?
>Dude, where are you flying for an hour?
Sadly, there are no games today that support my flying style. AW and WB in the past did.
>The F4U has 2400rounds of ammo that weight 750LBS and only has 30 seconds of total trigger time which is more that any BF109 ever built. What are you doing for 59 minutes and 30 seconds?
If you use realistic tactics and take your time to set up the attack, you can kill with a burst of 3 s or less. Just don't take any low-probability shots, and you'll have no problem landing 3 kills after an hour with ammunition to spare.
(Technically, many Me 109s actually beat the F4U's trigger time. If you're talking about useful firepower, you're discounting the 7.92 mm cowl guns with good justification, though ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Here is an idea stop flying with the throttle at the fire wall. All this talk about realism and no one mentions this. Drop the yak into cruse and see how far it goes sheesh. But the people screaming gamey want to be able to fly at top speed AND still have the range as advertized.
Some of you realy make me laugh.
Bronk
NOPE , I want to do exactly like a P51 dweeb.
Nothing more nothing less.
Originally posted by Saxman
There's a point that FD keeps bringing up that for some reason everyone is ignoring:
USE FUEL MANAGEMENT.
NO aircraft, not even the long-legged American and Japanese birds, flew to target and back at full combat power. Pilots cut back the throttle, RPMs and MAP to increase their aircraft's endurance for transit.
That SAME capability is modelled in the game. So like FD suggested: Instead of b****ing about a perceived imbalance, (range was a HISTORICAL advantage of American and Japanese fighters. Deal with it already) try looking up those extra buttons on the keyboard.
Like we waited for you to post your infinite wisdom about how to play the game.
WE ARE AT 25 MILES FROM EACH OTHER WHY IS THERE THE NEED TO MAKE RANGE AN ADVANTAGE ?
We are at 25 REAL miles from each other why is there the need to make range an advantage ????
We are CLOSE.
If it was only for realism if would be a DIS-ADVANTAGE.
-
Hi Bronk,
>All this talk about realism and no one mentions this. Drop the yak into cruse and see how far it goes sheesh. But the people screaming gamey want to be able to fly at top speed AND still have the range as advertized.
You seem to have missed my analysis of the real-world Spitfire XIV which addressed exactly that point.
And the critical issue is flight time anyway, not range. You might not have thought about that, but if the fuel multiplier is cranked up, flight times will never reach the status "as advertized" no matter if you push the throttle all the way forward or pull it back to maximum endurance settings.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
If not for the multplier you would just have hordes of La-7's and Spit XVI's flying over the same CAP'ed base endlessly vulching. Is that "realistic"?
Well fast, light, highly manouverable aircraft optimised for low and medium alt performance with moderate endurance and a reasonable gun package would seem ideal for the job!
These aircraft are the best choice and therefore the most "realistic".
Unlike heavier long range multi functional aircraft designed to carry significant ordinance and or fuel stores optimised for higher alts.
FBM2 is a game play modifier................ on balance a sensible one IMO, but to argue that it enhances realism is a falsehood. It adjusts gameplay balance to bring more aircraft into effective play.
or is the question..............Is vulching realistic?
Vulch tendancy has nothing to do with FBM2.
and vulching is very realistic...........what is unrealistic is the tendancy for a pilot to repeatedly attempt to take off whilst having a large number of enemy fighters over his field.
You can be sure that during the many LW raids on VVS fields around Leningrad that the LW "vulched" if given the opportunity.
Further if pilots continued to attempt to launch and a pattern of no counter attack from neighbouring fields was common practice then those LW pilots would have hung around to enjoy the feast if AA suppression permitted.
Same was true on the Crimea peninsular and was true in the reverse as the LW was pushed back in 44/45 thru Courland and Prussia.
Same was true over Belgium and Holland and Germany in late 44/early 45
Indeed in 45 the majority of LW Me262's taken out of action due to enemy fire were to "Vulching" activities over LW airfields by Allied aircraft.
-
"NO aircraft, not even the long-legged American and Japanese birds, flew to target and back at full combat power. Pilots cut back the throttle, RPMs and MAP to increase their aircraft's endurance for transit."
"Here is an idea stop flying with the throttle at the fire wall. All this talk about realism and no one mentions this. Drop the yak into cruse and see how far it goes sheesh. But the people screaming gamey want to be able to fly at top speed AND still have the range as advertized.
Some of you realy make me laugh."
You both seem to forget that the opposing a/c can still climb at max power, and cruise at much higher speeds for longer, wether the Yak cruises or not.
A P-51B can go max MIL power from the word go, and either climb like hell, quickly, or cruise to the battle area and face a merge doing 90 percent its rated level speed, right off the mark.
Yes, the Yak can drop to a cruise and face a merge while trying to accelerate to combat speed or be bounced from on high, or both, and then when combat is joined, must go to 100 power and watch the gas tank go dry in record time.
It also does not address the issue of fights taking a while to get to sometimes, which they do. They arent always 1/4 sector away.
Going to cruise isnt some magic fix all that the rest of us have not figured out.
-
Originally posted by Squire
[B
You both seem to forget that the opposing a/c can still climb at max power, and cruise at much higher speeds for longer, wether the Yak cruises or not.
A P-51B can go max MIL power from the word go, and either climb like hell, quickly, or cruise to the battle area and face a merge doing 90 percent its rated level speed, right off the mark.
Yes, the Yak can drop to a cruise and face a merge while trying to accelerate to combat speed or be bounced from on high, or both, and then when combat is joined, must go to 100 power and watch the gas tank go dry in record time.
It also does not address the issue of fights taking a while to get to sometimes, which they do. They arent always 1/4 sector away.
Going to cruise isnt some magic fix all that the rest of us have not figured out. [/B]
Squire I think that is the price you pay for lighter and more nimble bird.
Didn't mean for my last post to seem so sarchastic but it was late and i had a few.:D
I still say leave the FBM alone.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Squire
You both seem to forget that the opposing a/c can still climb at max power, and cruise at much higher speeds for longer, wether the Yak cruises or not.
A P-51B can go max MIL power from the word go, and either climb like hell, quickly, or cruise to the battle area and face a merge doing 90 percent its rated level speed, right off the mark.
Climbout is not the time to reduce throttle, you won't save much there. After you got some alt THEN you switch to cruise setting as cruising at alt is both faster and more efficient.
P51s or even more, P47/38 that cruise at full throttle is loading too much fuel to start with. The only thing that matter is total sortie time and as long as it is within your plane capacity, you want as little fuel as possible on board. If a P38 and a yak want to fly for 25 min. The 38 will have to load about twice the fuel load of the yak. Meaning, if the yak takes 100% P38/47 takes 200% in yak terms. The high fuel burning planes are the ones that require more throttle management to be efficient in terms of load, or show up heavy to the battle. The only advantage they get is longer potential sortie time - much too long for AH gameplay (several hours sortie ?!).
Several planes, such as P51 and A6M have both a large fuel capacity and relatively low GPH rating. It is an historical advantage.
Reduce FBM to 1.0 and most planes will never need more than 25% plus throttle management will become unneeded. Which is more historical? none is - this is an entirely game-play related issue.
Bozon
-
There's a point that FD keeps bringing up that for some reason everyone is ignoring:
USE FUEL MANAGEMENT.
He only brought that up after all his other silly arguments failed.
What you and he ignore is the fact that 'fuel management' is only a concern for planes other then Ami, which in RL fuel was one of their greatest concerns.
Here is an idea stop flying with the throttle at the fire wall. All this talk about realism and no one mentions this. Drop the yak into cruse and see how far it goes sheesh. But the people screaming gamey want to be able to fly at top speed AND still have the range as advertized.
Some of you realy make me laugh.
As Straffo said:
NOPE , I want to do exactly like a P51 dweeb.
Nothing more nothing less.
Which goes directly to what Harry said early on:
They increase fuel burn to give the US planes an unfair advantage. Customer satisfaction is more important to them than accuracy.
I don't necessarily agree with it but you can see how some one would arrive at such conclusions. AH earned the nick name 'Allies High' a long time ago.
Squire I think that is the price you pay for lighter and more nimble bird.
And what price do the those flying the 'long range planes' face? They take 50% fuel and a DT, fly around at max power all the time, dump fuel weight at a push of a button...
Reduce FBM to 1.0 and most planes will never need more than 25% plus throttle management will become unneeded. Which is more historical? none is - this is an entirely game-play related issue.
What difference does that make? Ami pilots fly around with minimum fuel weight now. A Yak running at 50% fuel rather then 100% doesn't get that much of a 'weight savings'. Most who would fly the Yak would still take 100% fuel. Those who fly Ami planes will still take 50% fuel. They might just skip the DT, big deal. The only thing lowering the FBM does is increase flight time. This mostly only affects those planes that currently have less then 30 minute flight times.
The FBM wasn't always at x2 btw, it was at x1.5. When they changed it several long threads just like this took place.
-
Ok if this is a big american conspericy, how do you explain japaneese aircraft?
They to can alter fuel loads to mission at hand.
Also most german aircraft use drop tanks also.
I guess HT just doesn't like the Italions and russians then.
:noid :noid :noid
Bronk
-
Stop being grotesque.
I hardly see any Japanese plane in the MA perhaps 1 niki per evening and often none but I see countless of P51 spit lala 190 etc ...
-
What difference does that make? Ami pilots fly around with minimum fuel weight now. A Yak running at 50% fuel rather then 100% doesn't get that much of a 'weight savings'. Most who would fly the Yak would still take 100% fuel. Those who fly Ami planes will still take 50% fuel. They might just skip the DT, big deal. The only thing lowering the FBM does is increase flight time. This mostly only affects those planes that currently have less then 30 minute flight times.
It was said above that the yak has 29 min at full throttle. Manage it a little and you can go over 35 min. How long do you want to fly?
A P51 with 29 min of fuel has about the same amout of it as a yak. It might show 50% on the gauge but it's the same amount in gallons and lbs. No advantage what so ever regardless of FBM. P51 can fly longer than 29 min, an option which a yak dont have. Unless you claim a maximum of 29 min at full throttle and ~35 min managed fuel time is too short to make sense in the MA than FBM is a non issue.
Long range fighters have the option to be flying pigs but fly long or be light and nimble but manage the fuel like everybody else. High FBM means heavier average fuel loads in ALL planes. Too low FBM means low average fuel load to the point that they don't matter any more and no fuel management is needed at all - just load a few lbs on the plane and firewall the trottle.
Somehow the second option sounds less realistic than the first to me. But that's just me.
Bozon
-
Hi Bozon,
>It was said above that the yak has 29 min at full throttle. Manage it a little and you can go over 35 min. How long do you want to fly?
As I said, at least an hour, and then land with a reserve.
And I'm not ever going to believe that if the Yak had 58 min of flight time at full throttle in real life, it's more realistic if it gets 29 min in the game.
Try to take that Spitfire XIV example and apply a fuel multiplier of 2. You'll notice that you won't even have enough fuel left to fly that mission profile even at a combat radius of zero.
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 20000 ft: -46 gals
No Cruise out: -0 gals
5 min combat power: -30 gals
10 min climb power: -44 gals
No Cruise back: -0 gals
No Reserve: -0 gals
Fuel used: 120 gals, fuel available: 111 gals
So the Spitfire XIV, able to fight a 15 min fight with a combat radius of 73 miles and then land back with a 10% reserve in real life, can not even sustain 15 min of combat at 20000 ft right above its base with a fuel mulitplier of 2.0 even if I cut down the reserve to nothing.
It might be possible to fly standard MA mission profiles in 29 minutes, but if we are talking about realistic mission profiles, these need a realistic fuel multiplier.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
So far in IL2 where there is no fuel multiplier none seems to have trouble with it ...
Are we different player ?
-
Straffo Thats the price you pay for flying a smaller lighter more nimble aircraft.
A yak is around 7000 lbs while a p51 is some around 9600 lbs.
Simply stated the p-51 is bigger and thus can carry more fuel.
Bronk
-
Explain the Cosair then.... 13000 lbs and it carries 200 gallons inside....
Kind blows the logic of bigger and heavier means more fuel.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Straffo Thats the price you pay for flying a smaller lighter more nimble aircraft.
I dropped the yak years ago because of the FBM...
btw I won't qualify the A8/typhoon as small ... and certainly not nimble :D
Bodhi I think the Corsair would benefit from a 1 FBM and I don't see any problem with it I'm not an Ami plane hater.
-
Gentelmen
I just did a little test op off line with FBM set to 2.
I upped a yak with 100% fuel load. Set direction to a base approx 25 miles away. [bases for the most part are 25 apart] Set my climb rate to approx 3.5k fpm. Climb to 10k once there set engine to normal power. [ plane flew at 305 indicated ] Once at base resumed mil power . It had 24 min of fuel left.
I figured that was the average hop in the ma . You all can now say what you like but to me that seems fine.
BRONK
-
In AH1 where fuel was porkable and fuel burn rate was at 1, planes would have plenty of fuel to go the extra sectors and still get plenty of alt. Lgay7s could climb to 20k and still have plenty of alt to go many sectors. Now them little lgay7s cant do what they used to being able to climb while travelling across 5 or so sectors to get to a fight and BnZ everything to death. Now just more likely to see high spit 16s cause of its slipper tank. If that tank was taken away we probably wouldnt see as many spit 16 so high up.
-
Originally posted by Hoarach
In AH1 where fuel was porkable and fuel burn rate was at 1
FBM was not at 1 in AH1 I don't remember the value but it was not 1.
-
Straffo I am so sorry that the mustang could carry 269 gal of internal fuel.
While the much malighned yak could only carry 139 gal.
But we play with scaled down maps thus we scale down fuel to balance it out.
Bronk
Ps tiffy 185 gal with huge motor,fw190 a8 170 gal internal and was some 9800 lbs .(mustang 9600 lbs) The numbers were taken from HTC aircraft section. I figured thats the way he modeled them in game .
-
Originally posted by straffo
FBM was not at 1 in AH1 I don't remember the value but it was not 1.
Fuel burn in AH1 was 1.5, was later upped to 2.0 a few months after AH2 came online.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Straffo I am so sorry that the mustang could carry 269 gal of internal fuel.
While the much malighned yak could only carry 139 gal.
But we play with scaled down maps thus we scale down fuel to balance it out.
Bronk
Why balance anything ?
And why balance in favor of the plane having the more fuel ?
If I HTC had decided to set a FBM at 0.5 you will also scream about the unfairness of the setting.
-
As to your comment on the Corsair benefitting from a 1x modifier:
Yesterday I played with the RPM settings a bit in an F4U-1 w/50% internal and a drop tank (this would be roughly equivilant to a C/D/4Hog at 75% internal w/ single drop tank). I climbed at full power to ~10k feet (avg 2500fpm ROC) then dialed down RPMs to ~1700-2000. When I pulled up E6B the magic numbers were...
Flight time: ~90mins
Range: ~300mi (~150mi combat radius)
Now, consider that this is NOT full internal fuel, and the-1 only has the single drop tank option (later Hogs carrying TWO 150gal drop tanks).
Do we REALLY want American and Japanese planes to have a 1x modifier, doubling or more that range? If you think that it'd give people more incentive to fly the lighter birds just remember how much extra loiter time the vulch dweebs will have over what they do now.
Maybe a better option would be to adjust the FBM on an INDIVIDUAL basis to approximate the comparative combat radius (IIRC, on Page 1 someone posted math showing that if Plane A had a range 50% greater than Plane B IRL, when the 2x FBM was applied that range difference was INCREASED rather than remaining equal). That way Plane B is given a bit of a performance boost, without sacrificing the historical advantage in range and flight time of Plane A by extending Plane B's out so far that Plane A is unnecessarily impacted by its own endurance
-
Hi Bronk,
>I figured that was the average hop in the ma . You all can now say what you like but to me that seems fine.
I'm not going to take off from a front-line field, climb straight towards the nearest base and arrive there at a mere 10000 ft.
And if I do, I won't call that a realistic mission profile.
Here is a realistic mission profile that yields realistic chances for survival (and for bringing back the aircraft intact):
As you have to expect bandits between two front-line fields that are just 25 miles apart. Accordingly, a realistic mission profile would call for a take-off at a second-line field and climb to 20000 ft (at least) before even reaching the friendly front-line field. Then cruise over to the enemy field.
Don't plan on using cruise power on the way back from the engagement. There is a good chance that the buddies of the guys you shot down will pursue you, and reducing fuel consumption will not be an option with enemies in hot pursuit.
On the way back, landing at the front line field is not safe because front-line fields are often vulched. Plan the mission to include a landing on the second line field, and arrive there with enough reserve to be able to divert to another second line field in case the enemy carries out a raid on the field you have planned to land on.
Put a ten minute emergency reserve on top of that.
With a fuel multiplier of 1.0, I get an absolutely realistic mission time for that. What do you get?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Why balance anything ?
And why balance in favor of the plane having the more fuel ?
If I HTC had decided to set a FBM at 0.5 you will also scream about the unfairness of the setting.
Ahh but it is not in favor of any one we all fly at the same scale.
Lets say that ht decided the maps had to ave bases 50 miles from one another to give it a more realistic scale. Then he would set FBM to 1.
then you would have 2 complaints .
1 My plane still doesnt have enough flight time over target.
2 I have to fly to far to my target.
Its all a compromise. And just so you know I fly spits more often than not. And i dont see a problem with having to manage engine settings. I cant speak for you but i like to fly from one base back. Even with DT i still cut power at cruise alt just to have more time over target.
Bronk
-
But we play with scaled down maps thus we scale down fuel to balance it out.
The AH main main maps are made up, and made to no 'scale'. If you have read the thread I already stated where some 512 x 512 scenario maps have been made to near 1 to 1 scale. Go back an read it.
They could easily make 'realistic' maps at 1 to 1 scale if they like. However, they choose to make made-up maps and add lots of bases close together to facilitate game play. The FBM has nothing to do with 'map scale'.
In AH1 when the maps were mostly 256x256 (thats 4 times smaller then 512 x 512) the FBM was at x1.5. It was at 1.5 once the 512s map came online. It was x1.5 the first few months of AH2. The bases have always been 20-25 miles apart. An FBM x2 does nothing to 'address scale'.
Do we REALLY want American and Japanese planes to have a 1x modifier, doubling or more that range? If you think that it'd give people more incentive to fly the lighter birds just remember how much extra loiter time the vulch dweebs will have over what they do now.
In the case of vulching players can take their 'lighter planes' from deeper fields and won't be locked to the front line to be vulched if the FBM were lower.
It was said above that the yak has 29 min at full throttle. Manage it a little and you can go over 35 min. How long do you want to fly?
That question has been answered several times. As Hohun said some want to fly a 'realistic mission profile'.
High FBM means heavier average fuel loads in ALL planes.
It also means they burn that excess fuel twice as fast. Thus during combat most of the excess fuel weight has been burned, or in the case of Ami planes dumped away with their DTs. All the high FBM does is limit overall flight time. It does nothing to change the relationships between aircraft 'fuel weight'.
Flight time is the whole point, not weight or range.
Somehow the second option sounds less realistic than the first to me. But that's just me.
Nothing about the main is 'realistic' or even 'believable'.
Straffo brought up IL2. In Il2 the maps are much smaller then AH. Some much smaller then even the 256 x 256 maps and there is no fuel multiplier and no one thinks twice about it. Every one has the ability to fly their particular aircraft for as long as it could in rl. While lots of Ami folks do the 25% or 50% and DT in Il2 (just liek they do everywhere) the only real difference it makes is that when I fly axis aircraft I almost never take a DT just 100% internal. I fly on a particular server that has a cap of 125 folks. Pro-longed vulching is never an issue due to long flight times. Thats with each side having just 2 or 3 airfields to up from.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Ahh but it is not in favor of any one we all fly at the same scale.
Lets say that ht decided the maps had to ave bases 50 miles from one another to give it a more realistic scale. Then he would set FBM to 1.
then you would have 2 complaints .
1 My plane still doesnt have enough flight time over target.
2 I have to fly to far to my target.
Its all a compromise. And just so you know I fly spits more often than not. And i dont see a problem with having to manage engine settings. I cant speak for you but i like to fly from one base back. Even with DT i still cut power at cruise alt just to have more time over target.
Bronk
where there is a scale ? 25 miles is not 25 miles in your part of the world ?
-
Geez...
The fuel burn multiplier just makes it so fuel load is actually a factor in most MA engagements. Without the multiplier you will almost always run out of ammo or die before you run out of gas. Some planes had better range/duration, the fuel burn multiplier just highlights them.
It's perfect now. Anyone who can't stretch their fuel to cover a very long and successfull mission isn't doing it right.
g00b
-
Hi Goob,
>Without the multiplier you will almost always run out of ammo or die before you run out of gas.
*I* won't.
And my opinion of the fighting skills of someone who needs a fuel multiplier to save him from certain death is rather unfavourable.
>Anyone who can't stretch their fuel to cover a very long and successfull mission isn't doing it right.
Up there is my mission profile. It's not even "very long", but rather the minimum. Tried to stretch your fuel to meet that before you posted here? If you didn't, *you* aren't doing it right.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi HoHun,
I believe the FBM contributes to gameplay and in an indirect way, to realizm too. It seems to be HT's view as well.
If you claim FBM = 2 is too much, the claim may have some merit, but FBM = 1 is too low. Nobody said 2 is the golden number and must be so. It used to be 1.5, but after remodeling the fuel consumption on all planes HT changed it to 2 - most likely since you could also stretch your endurance better than before.
A good FBM compromise should be low enough to allow a reasonable typical mission profile in the MA in the shortest legged plane (lets assume a yak) taking into account reasonable fuel management (aka, not firewalling the trottle from takeoff till landing). It should be high enough as to require 100% fuel on the smallest tank planes (this will NOT make them heavier than the opposition measured in lbs). Higher FBM will also require fuel management from gas hogs like the american radials and twin engined planes unless they want to be extra heavy (and that "extra" grows linearly with FBM, for the same flight duration).
I for one would not like to see P51/38/47s on 25% fuel flying for 40 min at full throttle.
What do you suggest? 1.8 1.6 1.5? Give a good reason for the value chosen and I will support it. Maybe even HT will listen if you give a good argument for the exact value.
Bozon
-
Hi Bozon,
>I believe the FBM contributes to gameplay and in an indirect way, to realizm too.
What it takes for realism:
1.) Boelcke's Dicta: Secure all possible advantages before attacking.
2.) Darwin's Dicta: Don't die.
Subtract all of the missions that violated one of the two Dictae, and there won't be any "typical MA mission profiles" left because adherence to the most basic real-world tactics will be enough to make your mission profile *un*typical.
Now what does the fuel multiplier do? Simple - it eliminates the player's choice in the matter of what mission profile he prefers.
>What do you suggest? 1.8 1.6 1.5?
I'm not here to haggle. When it comes to primary flight parameters, there is only one way to achieve realism, and that's "make it like it was in real life".
If you were interested in exactly how much quantified unrealism I might let you get away with, you could simply figure it out with the mission profile I outlined above ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
OK so by your mission profile you fly around a 100 mile round trip + loiter/fighting time over target.
As your talking about 'real mission profiles' -
Squadron ups from a base in England flies 100 miles to target in Germany, does their stuff and flies home.
Thats a 200 mile round trip + loiter/fighting time.
Where's the difference?
Yours is 100 miles @ 2 FBM
Theirs is 200 miles @ 1 FBM
Yours is 1/2 the distance at double the fuel burn, sounds right to me.
200 miles is probably under estimated, it wasn't until D-Day and beyond that this would have been dramtically shorter.
Oh, and I fly a Tiffy in the MA which with it's ord or (but not both) DT's is really hamstrung with the current 2 FBM.
If bases were 100+ miles apart, there'd be even more complaining.
Think you'll be more happy playing T.O.D. when it comes out.
-
So basically, your argument comes down to "I want to be able to fly the way *I* want to fly and to hell with everybody else."
There HAS to be a trade-off. Would I PREFER things to be more sim than Air Quake? Heck YES. I'd LOVE to have 1:1 scale maps with a 1 FBM, with high-altitude engagements, and real historical use of fighters and bombers (bye bye Buff-stuka's and airborne AAA). The problem as has been mentioned ad nauseum is that SOME things HAVE to be altered for playability. A 1:1 scale map would be prohibitively large for the casual players (how many Air Quakers would want to fly for an hour just to REACH the target). That reason ALONE is why the FBM is a necessary concession. Play on a condensed map, condense endurance
There's also not a whole lot of action at 20,000ft to begin with. Except for the odd high-alt buff raid I've seen VERY little consistent fighting around 20k in the time I've been here (maybe three or four times I've been patrolling high against buffs in the stratosphere and while ranging out I've encountered another fighter). All that means is when you get to target you've got a LONG descent before you're engaging (by which point you're also in serious overspeed).
It's a fact that serious sim people HAVE to deal with.
-
HoHun,
With the current fuel multiplier I have no problem expending all my ammo and racking up numerous kills every flight. I like the fuel multiplier because it forces people to fight, to be more aggressive. Which is what the MA is all about.
This statement I do not understand?
"And my opinion of the fighting skills of someone who needs a fuel
multiplier to save him from certain death is rather unfavourable."
No multiplier is easier I think. FBx2 you have to make every drop count. How a FB multiplier saves one from certain death is beyond me.
Anyhooo... I understand what you are saying. I too want a full realism arena. I love SEA events. I like the MA too, but I can't wait for TOD.
-
What do you suggest? 1.8 1.6 1.5? Give a good reason for the value chosen and I will support it. Maybe even HT will listen if you give a good argument for the exact value.
1 but absent that 1.5 was used for sometime and there's no comment on it at all. It wasn't until they increased the FBM to x 2 that these threads popped up.
-
I think 2 x FBM came in with AH2 Beta and stayed.
Shortly after AH2 went 'live' the min fuel pork of 75% was introduced, up from its previous 25%.
Even though seperate I have always felt they went hand in hand, and were intended as such.
After all how long would an La7 last with 25% fuel at 2 x FBM.
-
btw, I just tried the Yak9u offline with FBM=2. with 100% fuel at full throttle it's 27 min. With settings rated as "normal" it's over 33 min. Cruising this way, range is over 160 miles.
What amazed me is that even with "normal" setting it still climbed better and flew faster that my jug (D11) at full throttle and 75% fuel - that last only 25(!) min at full throttle. In addition 75% of D11 is 228 gallons, while 100% of yak is 139 gallons. That's 89 gallons or 800 lbs of extra fuel, for less flight time and less performance...
Thank you very much, now my sweat D11 really seems like crap! :furious
Bozon
-
Bozon try something more difficult : the Typhoon.
-
Hi Kev,
>OK so by your mission profile you fly around a 100 mile round trip + loiter/fighting time over target.
I don't even talk about distances. When you're out hunting, you don't care about distances - there's you, your target, and the speed difference to the target.
To catch your target, you need time. How much time you need doesn't depend on the size of the map at all.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Saxman,
>So basically, your argument comes down to "I want to be able to fly the way *I* want to fly and to hell with everybody else."
You can't be possibly talking about my argument? This would be a major misunderstanding as I pointed out that I prefer to have the *choice* of opting for realistic mission profiles. It would be those who limit endurance who limit the spectrum of mission profiles.
>There's also not a whole lot of action at 20,000ft to begin with.
This doesn't really mean anything as it might well be caused by the current endurance limits :-) Besides, I'm not flying at 20000 ft because I expect the main furball to be up there.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Goob,
>With the current fuel multiplier I have no problem expending all my ammo and racking up numerous kills every flight.
If your handle is "g00b", you landed 4 out of 13 sorties last Tour. You rack up the kills, yes, but you violate Darwin's Dicta: "Don't die".
>This statement I do not understand?
>>"And my opinion of the fighting skills of someone who needs a fuel
multiplier to save him from certain death is rather unfavourable."
It means that I think that if you expect to die before you run out of fuel at FBM 1, you're not a good fighter pilot.
>Anyhooo... I understand what you are saying. I too want a full realism arena.
Glad we have something to agree on :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Bozon,
>Thank you very much, now my sweat D11 really seems like crap! :furious
The Soviets got about 200 lend-lease P-47D aircraft and did not like them at all. I'm not sure about the reasons, but the thirst for high-octane fuel and the need for long, firm runways probably had something to do with it, but of course they also compared performance to the light Soviet fighters they were used to.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Not being an aircraft expert, I do know that the Japanese and American planes all had much more endurance overall than the European planes. During the Battle of Britain, the LW could only fight over England for a very short time before they were in trouble with fuel.
They didn't have the range, and the Brits didn't need it to fight at home.
Fighting in the Pacific, and escorting bombers in any theater needed endurance, and they had it. So, the fuel multiplier makes sense in a reduced size war zone like the MA. Who wants to fly for 2 or 3 hours to get to the battle area? Not me!
-
Hi Rapier,
>Not being an aircraft expert, I do know that the Japanese and American planes all had much more endurance overall than the European planes.
They still have more endurance at 1.0.
>Who wants to fly for 2 or 3 hours to get to the battle area? Not me
This has nothing to do with the fuel multiplier.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
The Soviets got about 200 lend-lease P-47D aircraft and did not like them at all. I'm not sure about the reasons, but the thirst for high-octane fuel and the need for long, firm runways probably had something to do with it, but of course they also compared performance to the light Soviet fighters they were used to.
I was just kidding with that remark. One has to take into account that the operational altitudes of the jug and yak are seperated by about 20,000 feet. Also the D11 is similar in performance to early D models which are late 1943 aircrafts while the yak9U is late 44. Hard to compare.
Bozon try something more difficult : the Typhoon.
Already on my todo list. I do remember taking it for a ride last tour and found the endurance with DT quite reasonable. Got one kill, died twice and the roll rate made me park it right back in the hangar till it finishs a 360 roll.
Bozon
-
Well the Typhoon is a better exemple than the yak of the problem generated by the FBM set at 2.
It climb slow and so had lot of trouble reaching an altitude where fuel is used more efficiently andso use a lot of fuel.
IRL one of the key tactical advantage of the Typhoon was her high cruise speed but in AH any plane not having to manage fuel can cruise faster (afaik typhoon cruise speed is lower than P51 MIL speed).
Plus don't forget the P51 will be lighter faster than IRL.
Give this choice to the average MA pilot :
Between a short ranged fast plane having to monitor fuel and a longer ranged fast plane not having to monitor fuel .
We know the answer ,as the weight difference is a important factor the MA is not a dueling environment you will allways find someone with more or less E in the same of different plane.
A FBM at 1.7 would be IMO be better giving longer legs to tactical fighter without penalizing to much the long range fighter.
-
Thank you very much, now my sweat D11 really seems like crap!
Don't feel bad, he only has enough ammo for a few kills if he is a good shot.
When you reduced MAP did you reduce RPM?
-
A Little history: When AHII came out it was set at 2.5. A few weeks into it we changed it to 2.0.
Why it exist is because fuel load and range are major trade offs in Airplane design, just like power/weight/climb rate/speed/armor/lift/fire power. With the reduced ranges we fly, for range to be a tradeoff, the fbm had to exist.
I would still like to see it higher. The resone is map scale, not the exact scale mutiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often. This has the effect of makeing bounces from above totaly different than the way they happened.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Why it exist is because fuel load and range are major trade offs in Airplane design, just like power/weight/climb rate/speed/armor/lift/fire power. With the reduced ranges we fly, for range to be a tradeoff, the fbm had to exist.
Or in other words; you want to give longer ranged planes an advantage they shouldn't have given the distances involved. An unfair advantage.
The ranges in the MA is very similar to those on the Russian front, and later Western front after the Allied invasion. Only the Americans and Japanese developed long range fighters because of the distances involved in operating in the Pacific. The P-51 was developed to operate from a fortress island (UK) and escort bombers to Germany and back.
ALL other fighters have very similar range on internal fuel because they were designed to operate in very much the same environment we do in the MA. Luftwaffe and VVS fighter airfields were usually no more than 10-20 miles from the frontlines, much like what we have in the MA.
Originally posted by hitech
I would still like to see it higher. The resone is map scale, not the exact scale mutiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often. This has the effect of makeing bounces from above totaly different than the way they happened.
That may be well intended, but in reality what the fuel multiplier does is force people to fly longer ranged planes for anything except base defense and furballing. No one will fly on cruise in hostile airspace and be bounced from above like you want. In the MA speed is life, and if people can't fly a plane like they want they will switch to a plane that can. In real life pilots didn't have that option.
-
Originally posted by hitech
A Little history: When AHII came out it was set at 2.5. A few weeks into it we changed it to 2.0.
Why it exist is because fuel load and range are major trade offs in Airplane design, just like power/weight/climb rate/speed/armor/lift/fire power. With the reduced ranges we fly, for range to be a tradeoff, the fbm had to exist.
I would still like to see it higher. The resone is map scale, not the exact scale mutiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often. This has the effect of makeing bounces from above totaly different than the way they happened.
HiTech
Would create a real problem for aircaft without DT's or ones that can only have DT's or ord but not both, if the FBM was higher.
Tiffy is already hamstrung with this exact problem. When carring ord I usually find my self RTB after a very short time over target.
Given its relatively poor climb you are starting usually 50 miles back from the front line, upping the fuel multiplier would create a real problem.
Will also create real problem for all the Spits, but especially the XIV, unless at least the 45gal slipper tank is added. At FBM of 2.5 by the time you reach the XIV's best alt your DT would be dry. Be yet another reason not to use it.
I understand your reasoning though, it's just not going to work for all planes, even at 2.5.
Would even suggest the old AH1 1.5 FBM and min 25% fuel pork was better.
The 2.0 FBM and min 75% pork has created the mass La7 and Spit XVI numbers, at least the old way there were 'artificial' means to control them.
-
That may be well intended, but in reality what the fuel multiplier does is force people to fly longer ranged planes for anything except base defense and furballing.
Where are you flying? Here are the kill stats for tour 71 top 10.
Rank Type Kills Deaths K-% K/D
1 Spitfire XVI 43991 38519 10.85 1.14
2 La-7 36721 30634 9.06 1.20
3 N1K2 30032 25117 7.41 1.20
4 P-51D 25777 24621 6.36 1.05
5 Typhoon IB 22640 15014 5.58 1.51
6 Bf 110G-2 17592 22214 4.34 0.79
7 SeaFire 16085 18221 3.97 0.88
8 Hurricane IIC 15793 12328 3.89 1.28
9 F4U-1C 12379 5346 3.05 2.32
10 Fw 190D-9 12332 8245 3.04 1.50
How many of these are long range American fighters.
No one will fly on cruise in hostile airspace and be bounced from above like you want. In the MA speed is life, and if people can't fly a plane like they want they will switch to a plane that can. In real life pilots didn't have that option.
In real life pilot used cruising power to fly into hostile areas and only used mil and WEP power when in combat. It is not realistic to fly at Mil power all day, that IS why we have an FBM.
What are you flying that you do not get enough flight time out of?
The answer to realism is to make the FBM higher not lower, or just move the bases apart.
-
Would suggest that the FBM and the ability to pork a field go hand in hand and should not be treated as seperate issues.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Where are you flying? Here are the kill stats for tour 71 top 10.
Rank Type Kills Deaths K-% K/D
1 Spitfire XVI 43991 38519 10.85 1.14
2 La-7 36721 30634 9.06 1.20
3 N1K2 30032 25117 7.41 1.20
4 P-51D 25777 24621 6.36 1.05
5 Typhoon IB 22640 15014 5.58 1.51
6 Bf 110G-2 17592 22214 4.34 0.79
7 SeaFire 16085 18221 3.97 0.88
8 Hurricane IIC 15793 12328 3.89 1.28
9 F4U-1C 12379 5346 3.05 2.32
10 Fw 190D-9 12332 8245 3.04 1.50
How many of these are long range American fighters.
Most of those planes are used for base defence and furballing. What part of that did you not understand earlier?
Originally posted by Harry
That may be well intended, but in reality what the fuel multiplier does is force people to fly longer ranged planes for anything except base defense and furballing.
We both know the furballers make most of the kills and deaths in the MA. Those who actually play the war game don’t affect killstats as much. Or I should say I choose to believe you’re intelligent enough to understand that.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
In real life pilot used cruising power to fly into hostile areas and only used mil and WEP power when in combat. It is not realistic to fly at Mil power all day, that IS why we have an FBM.
Again I choose to believe you’re just playing stupid.
Originally posted by Harry
… IN REALITY what the fuel multiplier does is force people to fly longer ranged planes for anything except base defense and furballing. No one will fly on cruise in hostile airspace and be bounced from above like you want. In the MA speed is life, and if people can't fly a plane like they want they will switch to a plane that can. In real life pilots didn't have that option.
How are you going to force people to fly short-ranged planes if they don’t want to? It doesn’t take a major in psychology to see that people will migrate to those planes that are more survivable and doesn’t waste their time with unnecessarily frequent RTBs. Furballers will always skew the statistics since they don’t really care about any of this, and we all know how realistic THAT is. Oh my! What will Hitech do about the totally unrealistic furballing?
Players WANT to fly on mil power because its safe. IF a given plane does not have the fuel for it they will pick another that does. OMG! Isn’t that dreadfully unrealistic? Shouldn’t Hitech simply FORCE people to fly short ranged planes so that we all can achieve this UTOPIAN main arena where everybody flies like it was real, and not actually do what THEY WANT?
Remember what happened to Warbirds.
-
Originally posted by hitech
A Little history: When AHII came out it was set at 2.5. A few weeks into it we changed it to 2.0.
It went to 2.5 for like 2 weeks but before the rpm/fuel consumption adjustments (beta?) the FBM was 1.5
Why it exist is because fuel load and range are major trade offs in Airplane design, just like power/weight/climb rate/speed/armor/lift/fire power. With the reduced ranges we fly, for range to be a tradeoff, the fbm had to exist.
What you trade is flight time for the rest of the plane set to do what? Lighten the Ami planes?
I would still like to see it higher. The resone is map scale, not the exact scale multiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often. This has the effect of makeing bounces from above totaly different than the way they happened.
HiTech [/B]
You want to do what? Give to some planes a max of 15 min flight time? This will do nothing to Ami planes. They will just take a DT and 75% fuel instead of 50%. No 'fuel management' required... And you wonder why some folks claim the so-called 'Allied-conspiracy'. Some Ami planes were specifically designed for long range for a reason. If want to make 'fuel management' and 'range' an 'issue' why not force some Ami planes to fly long distances by only enabling those planes at rear bases?
We all know that won't happen because the majority of the AH player base will have fits.
At 2.5 the only planes that will have to 'reduce' power are the same planes that have to do it now. Bombers still fly about at max power all the time, so do almost all the Ami fighters. Players aren't forced to take off from close fields. So 'scale' is meaningless and an artificial creation of player choice. If Ami pilots are so upset about having to fight with 'high fuel weight' they can fly around and burn it off. The P-51 is already modeled to be more maneuverable then most no matter what the fuel load.
If you wanted to force players to fly at reduced power then take a tip from FB/AEP/PF and add an 'overheat scheme' rather then just upping the fuel mod. Neither are 'realistic' but at least with engine overheat all sides have to deal with similiar things. They have to preserve their engine for combat and thus fly at reduced power, ie 'cruise'...
As for bounces not being realistic in AH, it is the icons more then anything else that ensure that 'bounces' will remain unreal. At 6k any player who isn't asleep will just power up at the sight of a high inbound con. But whatever...
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Where are you flying? Here are the kill stats for tour 71 top 10.
Rank Type Kills Deaths K-% K/D
1 Spitfire XVI 43991 38519 10.85 1.14
2 La-7 36721 30634 9.06 1.20
3 N1K2 30032 25117 7.41 1.20
4 P-51D 25777 24621 6.36 1.05
5 Typhoon IB 22640 15014 5.58 1.51
6 Bf 110G-2 17592 22214 4.34 0.79
7 SeaFire 16085 18221 3.97 0.88
8 Hurricane IIC 15793 12328 3.89 1.28
9 F4U-1C 12379 5346 3.05 2.32
10 Fw 190D-9 12332 8245 3.04 1.50
How many of these are long range American fighters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of those planes are used for base defence and furballing. What part of that did you not understand earlier?
Really? So you telling me that the hordes of vulchers that appear over every base are not flying these Aircraft? Oh those poor people, they can't vulch 5 sectors away.
We both know the furballers make most of the kills and deaths in the MA. Those who actually play the war game don’t affect killstats as much. Or I should say I choose to believe you’re intelligent enough to understand that.
What is your point? The MA is already flooded with short ranged aircraft everywhere. Would like all of the A/C to be short ranged? You are making my arguement for me, thanks!
Originally posted by F4UDOA
In real life pilot used cruising power to fly into hostile areas and only used mil and WEP power when in combat. It is not realistic to fly at Mil power all day, that IS why we have an FBM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again I choose to believe you’re just playing stupid.
Are you saying you don't like my use of throttle and RPM or you disagree that in reality pilots managed their fuel? Or maybe you have just decided to call me names because you ran out of bullets and decided to throw the gun at me? That always works.
How are you going to force people to fly short-ranged planes if they don’t want to? It doesn’t take a major in psychology to see that people will migrate to those planes that are more survivable and doesn’t waste their time with unnecessarily frequent RTBs. Furballers will always skew the statistics since they don’t really care about any of this, and we all know how realistic THAT is. Oh my! What will Hitech do about the totally unrealistic furballing?
Force people to fly short ranged aircraft? Have you looked at the kill stats? That is all people fly! The HurriIIC has more kills that any American plane other than the P-51D! Furballs, vulching and defense most people fly Spits and La-7's.
Players WANT to fly on mil power because its safe. IF a given plane does not have the fuel for it they will pick another that does. OMG! Isn’t that dreadfully unrealistic? Shouldn’t Hitech simply FORCE people to fly short ranged planes so that we all can achieve this UTOPIAN main arena where everybody flies like it was real, and not actually do what THEY WANT?
Players want to fly at mil power because it is easy. If the planes didn't have enough fuel they would fly something else but that clearly is not true. HTC wants people to use fuel management, that is why they modeled it in the simm. They even listed cruise power settings in the E6B. I wish we had cowl flaps and overheats but that is just me, I like realism and I do not wish to play games like Fighters Aces or WB.
BY the way Harry, what do you fly?
-
It seems I chose wrong.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Where are you flying? Here are the kill stats for tour 71 top 10.
Rank Type Kills Deaths K-% K/D
1 Spitfire XVI 43991 38519 10.85 1.14
2 La-7 36721 30634 9.06 1.20
3 N1K2 30032 25117 7.41 1.20
4 P-51D 25777 24621 6.36 1.05
5 Typhoon IB 22640 15014 5.58 1.51
6 Bf 110G-2 17592 22214 4.34 0.79
7 SeaFire 16085 18221 3.97 0.88
8 Hurricane IIC 15793 12328 3.89 1.28
9 F4U-1C 12379 5346 3.05 2.32
10 Fw 190D-9 12332 8245 3.04 1.50
It's pretty incoherent to use Kill stat to illustrate a discussion about fuel or range
no ?
-
Straffo,
As even someone with your genius intellent can see the playing field is so badly slanted toward American Aircraft that exactly two of them are in the top ten and one of them is perked.
You should try flying a box of tissues for all of the crying you are doing :cry
Maybe the next thread can be about unlimited ammunition since that is also unfair, no?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Straffo,
As even someone with your genius intellent can see the playing field is so badly slanted toward American Aircraft that exactly two of them are in the top ten and one of them is perked.
Except for the 51 (with the FBM set at 2) you can't pretend I've a bias against the American planes.
So far your beloved F4U would benefit from a FBM at 1.
You should try flying a box of tissues for all of the crying you are doing :cry
Maybe the next thread can be about unlimited ammunition since that is also unfair, no? [/B]
I'm in a good mood tonight so I'll not jump of your butt (in fact I pretty amused by your post :))
-
What a bunch of freakin whiners!
Where's the b*tch slap emoticon?
It all boils down to this...
I can fly any plane, to any conflict, and shoot at guys 'till I run out of ammo, BEFORE I go bingo.
Nope, there's no 3 hour loiter with the current FBM, but who needs it? I think many folks are really confused about what the current MA is all about.
Repeat after me:
It's NOT about realistic engagements.
It's NOT about realistic engagements.
It's NOT about realistic engagements.
Get it?
What it IS about.
FUN!
The MA is set up for those who enjoy the fight! The pure unadaulterated act of furballing. Where you can get into a good fight within 5-10 minutes of logging in and enjoy the highest fidelity flight models of any WWII sim. It's all about the mechanics of the fight itself.
It's for those whose break into a grin as they dive into a whirling mass of lead, flames and aircraft. It's NOT for those who think, hmm, I might die if I go in there, I better just stay out here and pick off stragglers. That's who the the CT, SEA, and eventually TOD is for.
Realism is "long stretches of boredom punctuated by short stretches of sheer terror". Who's going to pay for long stretches of boredom when you can get the sheer terror without it?
g00b
-
we interupt this thread for an unschedule chuckle
You should try flying a box of tissues for all of the crying you are doing :rofl :rofl
we now return you to your regularly schedule thread
-
It's sort of redundant to say the F4U would benefit from an FBM of 1, because, at least as far as range is concerned, EVERY plane does.
Anyway, I assume maybe you're refering to the later Hogs without the extra gas in the wings, so I'll repost what I said on Page 2:
F4U-1 at 50% gas and drop tank is ~ = C/D/4 at 75% gas w/ ONE drop tank. After a climb to 10k alt, dialing down to ~35" MAP and ~2100RPM gives a range of ~300mi (combat radius ~150 mi) and 90min flight time. This would be INCREASED at 100% with BOTH tanks (it would more or less end up equivilant to F4U-1 at 100% with one tank). Either way, that's still an impressive combat radius for the MA.
My point is that:
1) The F4U wouldn't need the 1 FBM
2) FD has already indicated that FBM is inconsequential to him as he already practices fuel management.
So why keep dangling the carrot out there when the rabbit's not biting?
-
Straffo,
Thankyou:aok
You are right, the F4U would benifit from the fbm at 1 but neven fly that way in the MA anyway.
I am off of ranting for a while
==Weenie mode off==
-
Hi Hitech,
>Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often.
For the case the fuel multiplier is raised, I predict that statistics will show a drop in the total number of landings, a slight increase in the number of sorties and a drop in average mission time.
Players will still continue to fly at 100%, but that probably won't show up in the statistics directly.
Obviously, there are many players who do not care about landing after getting a kill or two in their sortie. With the fuel multiplier set high, these players have two to three times the combat persistance of players, which is enough of an incentive to make this behaviour dominant.
If you mean to land your sorties, the higher the fuel multiplier, the greater the percentage you'll have to keep in reserve, and the more time is spent shuttling between combat area and safe second line base. This will strongly discourage players from flying for survival.
(The impact of the one-way players is increased by their relatively higher combat persistance. The time other players spend flying back to their bases to land they spend in combat.)
With a high proportion of the players in combat using full throttle without limitations, those players who would prefer to land their sorties will be left with no choice but to got to full throttle, too, in order to stay competitive offensively as well as defensively.
(Insert eloquent conclusion here.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Requiring players to actually use engine management rather than just leaving the power at full until it runs out of gas would be a good reason to disregard the FBM. Or even keep the FBM as is (which is fine)
That for me would take away from the fun. If I want to manage an engine I'll fly more trips...if I want to have fun and not worry and have a pseudo "relaxed realism" where fighting tactics and aerodynamics play a role...I'll play AH.
Where we are now is a good balance and compromise between ultimate realism and lifelike playable fun.
-
Harry eastern front bases were not normally 25 miles apart and the FBM 2 would be an attempt to simulate fuel management needs at 50 miles.
Actually the GPW air war was mainly over or just behind the battle field not constantly about enemy airfield suppression so 50 miles to combat zone would be a little more reasonable in GPW terms.
F4uDOA..
FBM2 has nothing to do with vulching.................
What has the country of origin got to do with any thing..........should we be configuring stuff to balance Italian planes more?
FBM2 has nothing to do with country of origin...........
No gameplay balancer has/should(IMO) have anything to do with country of origin..............
I also remember AHII beta at FBM 1.5 (maybe before the rpm/MP/fuel consumption was fully set)
I do not rem FBM2.5 and so think it was for a very short period.
I see HT's point re pre combat speed and bounce and the cruise/mil power choice.
I do not think it is the result achieved........what is achieved is shorter endurance at mil power plus maybe the odd limp home at cruise or less to make a landing.
I think that if HT really wants to bring about historic patrol speeds rather than maintained combat speeds then it has to consider some engine temperature managment effects v altitude, rpm and MP. It would certainly strike at the usefullness of the Yaks and Lavochkins as they required near constant alertness to engine temperature
-
Hi Goob,
>It's NOT about realistic engagements.
>Get it?
>What it IS about.
>FUN!
I like the clear message in that :-)
In fact, I suspect that for some people the fuel multiplier realism argument just serves to justify an emotional decision long after it has been made.
However, while I'm not going to believe the rationalization, I'll accept an emotional decision on a gaming issue as fully justified in itself.
Just don't forget that different people have different ideas of fun, and a high fuel multiplier is bad for mine.
>Realism is "long stretches of boredom punctuated by short stretches of sheer terror". Who's going to pay for long stretches of boredom when you can get the sheer terror without it?
Hehe, I might not get the amount of action you get, but I bet you don't nearly experience the amount of terror I do when facing impossible odds :-)
What you see as boredom in my eyes is just the calm before the storm, and what you might see as lack of action to my eyes is the building of suspense before the inevitable crisis :-)
So while we disagree on the fuel multiplier itself, I'd say we both have very similar opinions on what makes a good game, except that we both prefer a different pace of the action.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Harry eastern front bases were not normally 25 miles apart and the FBM 2 would be an attempt to simulate fuel management needs at 50 miles.
Actually the GPW air war was mainly over or just behind the battle field not constantly about enemy airfield suppression so 50 miles to combat zone would be a little more reasonable in GPW terms.
Don't you think that it would be best to let the players make that choice? I mean if they choose they can up from a base or two back and 'simulate' whatever distance to the 'front' they want, as long as the FBM allows them. At x2 it doesn't. Since the AH main has very little to do with actual ww2 air combat it's kind of silly to hear folks use the 'realism' rationalization. It's just as 'unreal' for planes to fly about with 50% fuel and a DT, at max power all the time, as it is with thr front 'simulated' at a consistent 25 miles away.
What has the country of origin got to do with any thing..........should we be configuring stuff to balance Italian planes more?
FBM2 has nothing to do with country of origin...........
No game play balancer has/should(IMO) have anything to do with country of origin..............
You would think that it shouldn't matter. But look at the 'rationalizations' used by those arguing for an FBM of x2:
'its unfair to force the F4u to fly around with a battleship in tow' etc...'
I also remember AHII beta at FBM 1.5 (maybe before the rpm/MP/fuel consumption was fully set)
I do not rem FBM2.5 and so think it was for a very short period.
It was for a short period at x2.5 and that's about the same time these types of FBM threads began.
I see HT's point re pre combat speed and bounce and the cruise/mil power choice.
I do not think it is the result achieved........what is achieved is shorter endurance at mil power plus maybe the odd limp home at cruise or less to make a landing.
I think that if HT really wants to bring about historic patrol speeds rather than maintained combat speeds then it has to consider some engine temperature management effects v altitude, rpm and MP. It would certainly strike at the usefulness of the Yaks and Lavochkins as they required near constant alertness to engine temperature
An FBM of x2 or higher does little to make 'bounces' more realistic. First folks will most likely stay closer to home or won't bother climbing and heading straight to the fight.
Second with icons at 6k yards who will get bounced unaware with reduced power? Only the guy who is AFK, blind or asleep. At 6k yards you have plenty of time to push full power and reach top speed before the engagement.
The only way you could make 'bounces' more 'real' is use some sort of 'overheat scheme' that forces folks to be very conscious of their engine temperature. If you run hot to long you get engine damage. This isn't necessarily real in all instances, but it makes more sense then forcing only part of the AH plane set into 'using' fuel management.
What of bombers under 'fuel management'? They are full power all day and night if they like. If anything this is much more 'unreal' then the 'bounces' in AH.
Hohun,
In fact, I suspect that for some people the fuel multiplier realism argument just serves to justify an emotional decision long after it has been made.
I agree, for some its not so much about the actual FBM as it is about rationalizing the way the FBM is now. If the FBM were at x1.5 some these same folks would be posting here why x1.5 is more 'realistic'.
-
"Overheat scheme"?
And hows that supposed to work, an example -
In AH2 Spit WEP limited to 5 mins because thats what the Air Ministry recommended, but with a proviso that the 5 mins could be exceeded as long as it was reported on landing.
Numerous cases of Spit pilots considerably exceeding '5 mins', in fact the longest one was over 30 mins at FULL WEP.
Yes, he got home without a problem.
So hows your overheat model going to work?
-
Have you played FB/AEP/PF? While not perfect it certainly is reasonable.
An 'overheat scheme' doesn't mean the Spitfire engine should burst into flames at 5 min 1 sec. Most planes could exceed the recommended power limits. Mostly emergency power limits were set to increase time between overhauls, to keep as many aircraft in service as possible. Right now in AH you run the Spitfire at emergency power for 5 min then cool down over and over until you run out of fuel. With the K-4 MW-50 for example you have 26 min / 10 on 5 off. Once MW-50 runs out running at max boost would be hazardous.
All planes had radiator / cowl flaps to manage heat, all planes ran at given power settings to increase range but also maintain engine life. How and when an engine begins to overheat is up the game designer but running an engine for pro-longed periods should result in engine damage, after all we aren't worried about 'engine life' we get a brand new perfectly performing plane every time we spawn. The same arguments being made to justify the high FBM can be made to justify reasonable limits to running while overheated.
As Tilt points out some aircraft were more prone to overheat / engine damage then others. IMHO reasonable balance can be achieved. Not only that, but if we believe that the FBM is being used to bring about more realistic 'bounces' it seems to me you would get better results with an 'overheat scheme' rather then having some planes worry about 'fuel management' while others tool about unaffected.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
"Overheat scheme"?
And hows that supposed to work, an example -
So hows your overheat model going to work?
Well (good idea or not) how would you make one work for a sample Spit?
For sure Spit pilots did not fly around at mil power and engine temperature did figure somewhere in the scheme of things..............
Its got to be simple to coad
Simple to play the game with (auto on off function like combat trim?) overideable with appropriate risk (none or significant) depending upon ac type............... or such like.
You can see what HT wants...........
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Well (good idea or not) how would you make one work for a sample Spit?
For sure Spit pilots did not fly around at mil power and engine temperature did figure somewhere in the scheme of things..............
Its got to be simple to coad
Simple to play the game with (auto on off function like combat trim?) overideable with appropriate risk (none or significant) depending upon ac type............... or such like.
You can see what HT wants...........
Think it was more to do with premature wear than heat, else how could they run for considerably longer than 5 mins. As I said, in one case over 30 mins at full WEP, hardly seems like it was limited by heat.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Think it was more to do with premature wear than heat, else how could they run for considerably longer than 5 mins. As I said, in one case over 30 mins at full WEP, hardly seems like it was limited by heat.
Not every engine is the same. One might exceed 30 min easily, another may crap out after 5. In a game such randomness will produce nothing but whining. As such a reasonable standard can be set by the game designer one that rules out those 'miracle' planes as well as the duds.
-
I think pilots, when being shot at, were much more worried over the pilot lifetime than the engine's. They'd exceed the limits.
In the fuel case, they simply can't exceed the limit, therefore had to conserve. The example I think of was a P47 pilot (Gabi?) that was chased by a 109 on his way home. He could go full throttle and outrun it but then, due to fuel condition, would not make it across the channel. He decided to tangle with the 109, allowing it to take snapshots to run it out of ammo...
Players running at full throttle complaining their sorties are too short remind me of teenagers having sex.
;)
Bozon
-
:D :rofl
-
Players running at full throttle complaining their sorties are too short remind me of teenagers having sex.
Maybe so but that's what Jugs do in AH now. They take less then 100% fuel, a DT and then fly about all over at 100% power and all but unlimited emergency power (limited only by the cool down period). They use the DT to drop 'weight' with the click of a button and only have to worry about the 20-25 miles they need to get back to their lines. They would do that whether the FBM is at x1 or x2.5. For Amis their entry into the WETO until late '44 fuel management was much more a concern for them rather then the say the LW operating over the Reich. That certainly isn't re-created with a high FBM.
So while thanks for taking the time to post all that it's really of no relevance since a high FBM doesn't achieve anything close to ensuring all players run at reduced power, only some.
-
Bruno, have you flown a P47 for A2A lately?
In the D11, 75% internal flies less than a Yak9U. The DT lasts 8 min - at a climb rate of a little over 2kfpm how high will that get you? just about the climbout.
The D40/25 have larger fuel capacity, but still 50%+DT flies as long as a yak (and much heavier than a yak fuel load). 75% will add 10 min (NICE!) but also add over 700 lbs (about 3 250 lbs GP bombs hiding inside the plane...BOO!).
So yes you can be dumb, take 75% internal and go full throttle to you heart content, or 50% and last no better than a heavy yak. You can also choose to cripple yourself and not fold the gears.
since a high FBM doesn't achieve anything close to ensuring all players run at reduced power, only some.
It can't ENSURE all players run at reduced power, but it does ensure that all those that DO will benefit relavite to those that don't. Put FBM=1 and My Jug will hardly ever need more than 50% - meaning, I'm combat light right from takeoff. Most of my fighting will be when I'm 25%. No DT needed and I can go full throttle all the time. P51s will never need more than 25% in MA conditions, DT or no DT.
Actually, not a single plane will need to load 100% fuel unless it plans a 40+ min mission and all just need an on/off button as their throttle.
This sounds better?
Bozon
-
Heat sources are the effects of combustion and friction............
wear would incurr more heat thru friction (eventually)
Heat is removed by air flow around the primary heat exchanger (fins or radiator). wear is agrivated at higher temperatures.
So you can look at rate of engine wear as a function of running temperature, the heat it creates and the ability of the system to dissipate it.
If we took rpm and MP rates (wear/heat inducers) and off set them with IAS (cooling) and set the balance such that temp rose with high levels of heat inducers and cooled with low levels of heat inducers. WE have pretty much what the temperature guage does now.
If we then assumed that rate of wear increased with temperature also then we can make a model to show engine degredation over time as a function of its running temperature because that is a function of rpm, MP and cooling.
From Kevs spit we would be talking about very long periods (possibly) but that does not mean that wear did not exist. It just means that it rarely (if ever) impinged upon the Spits availability of WEP. (Could a Spit be run at WEP for an hour? or given the fuel 2 hours? eventually there is a limit.)
A Lavochkin pilot was consantly worried about his cylinder head temperature guage...............Yak 9T was fairly robust but the Yal 9U was temperature critical.
Should the engine fail......well I guess not ................so lets only look at wear at the piston rings and valve seats.............assuming they are never going to break.
Whats going to happen as they wear? loss of power? burn some oil? increased rate of temprature rise?
The rate of wear against the rpm/MP/IAS and temp would vary from ac to ac........acording to many experts here it would hardly effect some.
So picture the Auto temp control (similar to combat trim control) the max rpm and MP is regulated to keep the temperature always near the bottom of the amber temp band. Or near the bottom of the red temperature band when WEP is chosen but WEP duration limited within the flight book reccommendations.
However you can turn Auto temp control off. (Just as you can Combat trim)
You can push the envelope by taking control of temperature.........there is no limit to how long you can run at WEP rpm............... but keep that engine at full power running hot for too long and a thin grey blue stream of smoke may begin to be evident from your exhaust stacks.............. as your rate of oil burn increases you may begin to lose some of your peak power availability........ eventually the engine may even develop a knock!
Engine robustness should be appropriately modelled.............
You can switch back to auto temp control to stop it getting worse or you may be able to manage it your self..............
But your foes will see the blue/grey smoke.....they will know you may suffer a power limitation.........you may be vulnerable.
Also if you engine took batle damagel its life expectancy may be radically reduced below normal damaged engine life expectancy.
You would be motivated to fly with care and at appropriate rpm and MP or by choosing auto.
In or near combat you will often switch auto off having more regard for your immediate safety than the future effects of engine condition.
-
Originally posted by Harry
The maps are not compressed in altitude or time. Climbing to combat alt or loitering is all but impossible in some aircraft.
harry, in all our maps, the bases are close to each other, to make it more fun to play, without having to fly hours to an enemy base
because the bases are so close, they make fuel burn faster, so that planes that had a poor range in real life also have a poor range in here, otherwise, things like la7's which had a short range in RL (at max power of course), would find it easy to fly about and find kills, being able to fly many sectors. making fuel burn faster means that long range planes can keep their edge that they had in real life.
and its not 'an american conspiracy', because american planes all had fairly long ranges so they could fly over the vast pacific ocean.
-
Hi Bozon,
>Players running at full throttle complaining their sorties are too short remind me of teenagers having sex.
Here is a mission profile that has been posted earlier, though you you appear to have missed its significance:
Real Spitfire F. XIV, based on the Pilot's Notes for the type:
At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 25000 ft: -26 gals
Cruise out: -15.5 gals
5 min combat power: -15 gals
10 min climb power: -22 gals
Climb from 10000 ft to 20000 ft: -6 gals
Cruise back: -15.5 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals
The 15.5 gals for cruise each way yield a combat radius of 73 miles.
Now just have a look at exactly the same mission profile flown at a hypothetical FBM of 2.5:
At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 25000 ft: -65 gals
Cruise out: forget it
5 min combat power: -37.5 gals
10 min climb power: -55 gals
Climb from 10000 ft to 20000 ft: -15 gals
Cruise back: forget it
Equivalent reserve: -27.5 gals
Those parts of the flight that cannot realistically be flown under anything but climb or combat power already use up 200 gallons of the 111 gallons carried.
You are 89 gallons short of being able to include any cruise at all in this mission profile. At what throttle setting you would have liked to cruise does not matter at all because there won't be any cruise with this mission profile.
All the Spitfire can do is to climb to 25000 ft, fight for 5 min at combat power, another 2 min at climb power, and then it has to glide home. Engine management can do nothing to change that as it takes more fuel, not less, to climb to the same altitude at a lower power setting.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Pooface
harry, in all our maps, the bases are close to each other, to make it more fun to play, without having to fly hours to an enemy base
because the bases are so close, they make fuel burn faster, so that planes that had a poor range in real life also have a poor range in here, otherwise, things like la7's which had a short range in RL (at max power of course), would find it easy to fly about and find kills, being able to fly many sectors. making fuel burn faster means that long range planes can keep their edge that they had in real life.
and its not 'an american conspiracy', because american planes all had fairly long ranges so they could fly over the vast pacific ocean.
Your not affraid by contradiction I see.
long range planes can keep their edge that they had in real life.
There was a FBM in real life ?
-
Bruno, have you flown a P47 for A2A lately?
In the D11, 75% internal flies less than a Yak9U. The DT lasts 8 min - at a climb rate of a little over 2kfpm how high will that get you? just about the climb out.
Who cares about the D-11? No ones flies the D-11 in AH any more. Check the past few tours, here's tour 71:
43 - P-47D-11 - 1445 - 1106 - 0.36 - 1.31
With the FBM at 1.5 it used to get more use, or maybe the players that preferred the D-11 just don't fly any more.
43 in kill % is just slightly better then the Ta-152 and 190F-8. The Jug people fly in Ah is the N and with its large internal fuel load and it's ability to take up to 3 DTs (1 x 75 2 x 150 gal) fuel management is never a concern.
As for your 2kfpm in the D-11 with a DT you must be using default speed in auto climb because I can get considerably better then that. Should I film it?
I don't fly Ami planes. I don't care for them but don't build an argument over an aircraft almost nobody flies. Maybe if the FBM was lower some folks might..?
So yes you can be dumb, take 75% internal and go full throttle to you heart content, or 50% and last no better than a heavy yak. You can also choose to cripple yourself and not fold the gears.
There's is no such thing as a 'heavy Yak' At 50% fuel a Yak has no noticeable (well marginally) 'weight loss' in terms of combat and maneuverability then one at 100%. Any idea you have about those lightened Yaks tearing up the sky is ridiculous. A Yak is just as combat worthy at 50% as it is at 100%.
It can't ENSURE all players run at reduced power, but it does ensure that all those that DO will benefit relative to those that don't. Put FBM=1 and My Jug will hardly ever need more than 50% - meaning, I'm combat light right from takeoff.
So what, they are doing that now. What's the difference in whether you take 75% at x2 in your D-11, or 50% at x1, by the time the fight closes you have burnt off that 25%. Or have dumped the DT. All the FBM does is limit total flight time. Who cares about take-off weight. Since almost no one flies the D-11 I bet even fewer use it for base defense.
Actually, not a single plane will need to load 100% fuel unless it plans a 40+ min mission and all just need an on/off button as their throttle.
This sounds better?
Yes, given the one-sidedness of the FBM now. I notice its mostly folks who fly Ami planes that love the FBM at x2. Where were you all when its was x1.5? I mean if things would be so obviously terrible with a lower FBM you think some one would have said something all those years ago when the FBM was lower and the maps much smaller.
For the record I only fly LW planes (in game nik is Wotan), I have DTs available and my range is reasonable with them, fuel management or not. In the end it would make very little difference to me what the FBM is in terms of how or what I fly. However, limiting some planes to 'fuel management' and / or 'unrealistic' flight times and mission profiles is no good for game play overall, unless of course you fly Ami. After all a lower FBM just means Ami pilots will be forced to 'tow a battleship behind them' and we all know how 'unfair that is'.
-
The effect of the FBM for me:
Spits: Conserve fuel when possible by using cruise settings. Usually this means a slow flight home that I will not make if any pursuit is given. Using cruise settings on the flight out isn't worth it as encountering an enemy using full MIL when I am cruising at 260mph is a Very Bad Thing(tm).
Bf109s: See Spits.
Fw190s: See Spits.
Ki-84: Take less fuel for better combat performance and use MIL and WEP power as desired.
Mossie: See Ki-84, also note that cruise settings never need to be used on this flying gas tank.
-
Who cares about the D-11? No ones flies the D-11 in AH any more.
How many Yaks do you see? I only gave the D11 example because that's the one I know. The P47N is a fuel load trap. People see 50% and think they are light on fuel and feel happy, but carry about 275 gallons (way over 2000 lbs) of fuel - P51 at 100% is 269 gallons btw. In the N, performance really kicks in when you are down to 25%, which is the typical 100% fuel load of most LW, VVS fighters. Lower FBM will actually make it easier on the jugs, but that's not what I'm asking for.
There's is no such thing as a 'heavy Yak' ...
You missunderstood me here. Yaks can't be fuel heavy, it's an oxymoron. What I meant was you fly a plane with a yak range but a whole lot of fuel more, like a yak with 165% fuel load.
Where were you all when its was x1.5?
I said above I don't know if x2 is the golden number, but having FBM > 1 does have merit. In AH1 my common P47 loadout was 50% and P51 I took often with 25%. DT were meaningless (and often porked anyway).
HoHun,
I didn't check the numbers but I do fly the Spit 14. That's the only spit I fly, the Only perk ride I fly and pretty much the only non-Jug fighter I take for A2A. I always take 100%+DT and never feel short legged. Even if I take it 2 sectors away. The plane climbs and cruises so fast there's simply no point in flying full throttle.
So while I didn't test the numbers I KNOW there is no problem with it. It's the Spit XVI that has a smaller fuel load and is slower, that feels short legged.
Bozon
-
How many Yaks do you see? I only gave the D11 example because that's the one I know
Many more then the D-11:
24 - Yak-9U - 5014 - 5241- 1.24 - 0.96
1.24% of total kills in tour 71 compared to .36% for the D-11. This is consistent through several tours. I can post that info if you like.
Lower FBM will actually make it easier on the jugs, but that's not what I'm asking for.
Nothing gets 'easier' you just get more time in the air with a lower FBM. A D-11 taking 75% at x2 vs a D-11 taking 50% at x1 means that once combat begins the D-11 will just as light regardless of the FBM. All that happens is the D-11, like the Yak, gets less time in the air or in 'combat' with the higher FBM. In fact a higher FBM means the D-11 burns fuel faster and gets 'lighter' quicker.
Fuel weight in Ami planes is on no concern to me. As Squire said the players are 'stupid'. If the FBM were lower they would just take less fuel or no DT. AT the very least they have the option to take-off at a deeper airfield and tool about the map burning off the fuel weight. No one forces a P-47 or P-51 pilot to fight at 100% fuel, the choice is left to the player.
What I meant was you fly a plane with a yak range but a whole lot of fuel more, like a yak with 165% fuel load.
Range isn't an issue, it's time in the air or 'combat time' as it relates to time in the air while on ingress/egress. A Jug, any of them, can use their DT option to to make fuel consumption on ingress irrelevant. Since the most prolific Jug that you see in AH is the N an FBM of x2 means nothing for it.
Changing the FBM to something lower then x2 doesn't mean the Yak gets 165% fuel, or some unrealistic or game 'unbalancing' range, it just brings the Yaks time in the air closer to what it was in real life. The Yak, like many other aircraft in AH weren't necessarily 'short range' point defense fighters. They flew a whole host of mission profiles even escorting VVS bombers in rotation just like western escort tactics. The only difference between it and the P-51 in this regard is that the Yak didn't have to fly from England across NW Europe to reach Germany. Long range was a necessity, not necessarily a 'design' advantage of Ami planes. In AH it's a clear advantage because it allows players to overcome the high FBM and the 'necessity' to 'manage fuel' (run at max power as long as you want). In fact if anything 'fuel' and 'engine management' was a much higher concern for those long range escort Ami sorties as any other. The chances of reaching friendly lines if engine or fuel trouble is encountered was much lower.
The idea that 'some fuel management' is better then none just doesn't make much sense in terms of game play.
Since this is now one of those never ending circular arguments there's no reason to say much else. Unless of course you have some new insight that shows me how a high FBM is any more 'real' then any other setting. If you do please post it. However, as HoHun said above I think that for quite a few it doesn't really matter what the FBM is.
In fact, I suspect that for some people the fuel multiplier realism argument just serves to justify an emotional decision long after it has been made.
-
Originally posted by Pooface
harry, in all our maps, the bases are close to each other, to make it more fun to play, without having to fly hours to an enemy base
because the bases are so close, they make fuel burn faster, so that planes that had a poor range in real life also have a poor range in here, otherwise, things like la7's which had a short range in RL (at max power of course), would find it easy to fly about and find kills, being able to fly many sectors. making fuel burn faster means that long range planes can keep their edge that they had in real life.
and its not 'an american conspiracy', because american planes all had fairly long ranges so they could fly over the vast pacific ocean.
Here's the thing Pooface: American planes did NOT have a fuel range "edge" in real life. In real life American planes HAD to fly long distances to- and from the battlefield. If AH is to simulate "realistic" WWII combat conditions without using realistic ranges and flight time, it would require American planes to remove a big portion of their fuel capacities (but not the weight thereof) to simulate the fuel spent cruising to- and from the battlefield.
Edit: This would of course apply to ALL long-range fighters, not only American ones.
-
Since this is now one of those never ending circular arguments there's no reason to say much else. Unless of course you have some new insight that shows me how a high FBM is any more 'real' then any other setting. If you do please post it.
Your arguments also support FBM=0 since for a 20-30 min sortie in planes that could fly several hours, the fuel needed will be insignificant anyway.
I see I can't convice you about this and definitly not some of the others who actually think this is a conspiracy. Since I already have it my way, I'll leave it at that.
Bozon
-
Harry,
You said
American planes did NOT have a fuel range "edge" in real life. In real life American planes HAD to fly long distances to- and from the battlefield. If AH is to simulate "realistic" WWII combat conditions without using realistic ranges and flight time, it would require American planes to remove a big portion of their fuel capacities (but not the weight thereof) to simulate the fuel spent cruising to- and from the battlefield.
Could you expand on this please?
1. American planes did not have a fuel range "edge" in real life.
How many European fighters could fly 1000miles on internal fuel?
2. If AH is to simulate "realistic" WWII combat conditions without using realistic ranges and flight time, it would require American planes to remove a big portion of their fuel capacities (but not the weight thereof) to simulate the fuel spent cruising to- and from the battlefield.
How do you burn fuel without losing weight?
-
F4UDOA, I’ve already answered all your questions in my previous post. American planes did not have more endurance over the battlefield than say the Russians or Germans. The American planes did not have 1000 mile ranges over the battlefield since they had to spend most of that range on cruising to- and from the battlefield. In combat the Allied pilot operating over enemy territory with a long way home had to watch his fuel a lot more than the (European) Axis pilot. This is not simulated in AH.
-
Harry,
American planes did not have more endurance over the battlefield than say the Russians or Germans. The American planes did not have 1000 mile ranges over the battlefield since they had to spend most of that range on cruising to- and from the battlefield. In combat the Allied pilot operating over enemy territory with a long way home had to watch his fuel a lot more than the (European) Axis pilot. This is not simulated in AH.
Any conclusion you draw from this statement is wrong because your facts are wrong. The P-51D despite having a range of 1330 miles on internal fuel (Not including warmup, climb and reserve fuel) would still use DT's to arrive at the combat area in Europe. He would also burn first the Aux fuel tank before arriving but he would none the less arrive with more than enough fuel for combat, strafing and a cup of coffee.
What range did the 109/190 have? The 109A8 had a max range of less than 600 miles on internal fuel. The P-51 has far more loiter time even with the drive home.
Also you are drawing the senario were the American fighters have to fly a great distance and the Euro-fighters have to fly base defense. Would you like to draw those limits in AH where you cannot leave your base?
Why not just eliminate the weight of fuel in every aircraft and have unlimited flight time. That way you are not penalized and either are we.
-
Originally posted by Harry
Here's the thing Pooface: American planes did NOT have a fuel range "edge" in real life. In real life American planes HAD to fly long distances to- and from the battlefield. If AH is to simulate "realistic" WWII combat conditions without using realistic ranges and flight time, it would require American planes to remove a big portion of their fuel capacities (but not the weight thereof) to simulate the fuel spent cruising to- and from the battlefield.
Edit: This would of course apply to ALL long-range fighters, not only American ones.
That's so silly it's funny.
In the statement above you say yourself that American planes (P-51D) "HAD" to fly long distance to and from the battlefield. That follows a sentence saying they did "NOT" have an edge in range. How's that work? If the P-51s are flying 3-4x as far as the 109s they're fighting how is that not an edge. It doesn't matter why the fuel is there...it's there. It's the way the airplane was built and designed hence why its modeled so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New point.
Has anyone ever even thought about how much "fun" it would be to fly around for 3 hours without seeing a bad guy? "Real-life" sorties took darn near all day from waking up to flying to debriefing. If you want all the things you've been talking about why not make all AH runs a requirement to do the following for a bomber escort over Germany.
-Take a day off work
-Wake up at 0345
-Eat powdered eggs, SOS and chase it down with some nasty black coffee
-Sit through an hour briefing
-Smoke a pack of cigarettes waiting for takeoff time
-Fly with exact engine management and power limitations
-If hit by flak and bail out...you can't get back to work for the weeks you spend with the French underground because we're so realistic you need to save yourself
-If you're captured you must go spend time in your local prison institution using your laptop to figure out a way to escape from the virtual stalag before you're released.
-If shot down, you're thrown into an alligator pit with tigers on shore with steaks tied to various parts of your body.
The most realistic aces high ever!!!!
-
Putain quelle bande de crétin.
-
Ho Bozon,
>So while I didn't test the numbers I KNOW there is no problem with it.
That only proves that you castrated your own mission profiles.
Cruising at reduced power cannot overcome the flight time restrictions imposed by an unrealistic fuel multiplier, you have to cut out important parts of a mission profile in order to get along with the reduced endurance.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Putain quelle bande de crétin.
lol! You're absolutely correct, but be careful. Skuzzy could whip out his old French dictionary you know ;)
-
So, the long ranged U.S. fighters didn't have the range and yet they did, for they had to cover a long distance to the fight.
Where is this getting???
-
How do you say conspiracy in French?
-
"conspiration" but I never wrote that!
I don't want to see black helicopters over my house !
the french post was an friday outburst because of the high amount of substances (legal ones) I had in my blood.
-
I don't know why some people think most of the fighters being flown are american. Most I run into are of other nationalities.
-
AAAAAAAAAH! Zombie thread!!!! :D
That's a good point, tho. The overwhelming number of Spits, ElGays, and other planes that people have been complaining about being unfairly impacted by the FBM in the MA--defensively AND offensively--seems to suggest that it doesn't have so much of an impact that it's a major argument against flying them.
Anyway...
*Runs away screaming as the undead thread shambles after him*
-
It's gonna getcha.
-
Originally posted by Harry
They increase fuel burn to give the US planes an unfair advantage. Customer satisfaction is more important to them than accuracy.
HAHAHAHA!!!:noid
[SIZE=10]NO SOUP FOR YOU!![/SIZE] :rofl
-
If you have to rely on low fuel loads to win fights you just plain suck!
Go to the TA and learn some acm :lol
ps NO SOUP FOR YOU!
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Here is an idea stop flying with the throttle at the fire wall. All this talk about realism and no one mentions this. Drop the yak into cruse and see how far it goes sheesh. But the people screaming gamey want to be able to fly at top speed AND still have the range as advertized.
Some of you realy make me laugh.
Bronk
:aok
-
Hi Parin,
>All this talk about realism and no one mentions this. Drop the yak into cruse and see how far it goes sheesh. But the people screaming gamey want to be able to fly at top speed AND still have the range as advertized.
You seem to have missed my analysis of the real-world Spitfire XIV which addressed exactly that point.
And the critical issue is flight time anyway, not range. You might not have thought about that, but if the fuel multiplier is cranked up, flight times will never reach the status "as advertized" no matter if you push the throttle all the way forward or pull it back to maximum endurance settings.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by hitech
A Little history: When AHII came out it was set at 2.5. A few weeks into it we changed it to 2.0.
Why it exist is because fuel load and range are major trade offs in Airplane design, just like power/weight/climb rate/speed/armor/lift/fire power. With the reduced ranges we fly, for range to be a tradeoff, the fbm had to exist.
I would still like to see it higher. The resone is map scale, not the exact scale mutiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often. This has the effect of makeing bounces from above totaly different than the way they happened.
HiTech
Nuff said.
Bronk
-
Hi Bronk,
>Nuff said.
You might enjoy castrated mission profiles, but I don't.
I won't promise to join Aces High the second the fuel multiplier drops to 1.0, but it's definitely the most important reason that I haven't joined yet.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Hitech,
>The resone is map scale, not the exact scale mutiple. Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often.
To illustrate my difficulties with that approach, here is a Spitfire XIV mission profile flown at a hypothetical FBM of 2.5. (Due to the non-linearity of the FBM effects, numbers might vary wildly if a different aircraft type and mission profile are chosen. That's part of the problem.)
At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 25000 ft: -65 gals
5 min combat power: -37.5 gals
10 min climb power: -55 gals
Reserve equivalent to 10% at FBM 1.0: -27.5 gals
Drop tank (drag and weight ignored): +85 gals
Total fuel: 196 gals
Available for cruise: 11 gals
Combat radius: 21 miles
A real Spitfire XIV would get a combat radius of 287 miles from this mission profile.
The FBM of 2.5 decreases the combat radius by a factor of 13.7. This is not a minor inaccuracy, and it does in fact reduce the cruising part of the mission to such an insignificant proportion that the original goal of forcing players to reduce power is achieved during only about 10% of their flying time (5.6% of their fuel carried, burnt at a below-average rate).
In other words, missions are cut short by a factor of 2.5, but players still are forced to use high power settings for 90% of the time :-(
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
And yet there's STILL an arena full Spitfire astronauts diving in to vulch the fields.
-
Hi Saxman,
>And yet there's STILL an arena full Spitfire astronauts diving in to vulch the fields.
If you don't plan on making it back, that simplifies the fuel problem considerably.
Don't confuse that with realism, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Harry
Karnak said the same as I. He just sugarcoated it.
Without the added fuel burn the US planes wouldn’t be used so much. Most of the customers are Americans. HTC penalize shorter ranged planes to give their customers the satisfaction of flying their preferred planes (US) and be more successful in them.
:rofl
A n00b with his mind already on conspiracy theories.
Infact Harry, had the fuel burn been set at 1.0 the US long range planes would have been used even more, they would only have needed 25% for the most part (check out the AvA arena) and thus become even easier to fly.
-
So? Suppose they take 50% now and fly 7 - 10 minutes grabbing at max throttle by the time they get to the fight they are down to 25%.
What's the difference? Only the amount of time they have in the air overall. It does nothing to make it any 'harder' for them.
-
Hohun, the climb to 25k is not verticaly or in an upward spiral. Climbing to 25k at, lets say 4000 fpm will take ~6 min. At that time, flying at 180 mph, you advance 18 miles already.
Unless I'm doing point defense, I almost always climb at 200 mph which makes it even more efficient in terms of combat radius.
With FBM=1, Jug will never need more than 25%. If the LW guys complain now that the P47 outturn them, I'm dying to hear them when every single P47/38 they meet will be very light on fuel :)
I remember the "all planes must load 100% before taking DT - for realizm" claims...
Bozon
-
Bozon,
You hit the nail on the head.
The P-47, P-38 and P-51 will never take more than 25% fuel and with that load the wing loading will be so light they will turn like Zero's.
Here is the P-51D-15 performance at Combat and Mil power.
Note: 9700LBS almost a full fuel load and it climbs at 3600FPM at sea level and 3,000FPM at 20K.
Mustang performance (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p51d-15342.html)
Top speed of 375MPH at SL, 400MPH at 5,000FT with bomb racks installed and 417MPH at 10K.
Now suck about 1,000lbs of fuel off of that and you will have a 4,000FPM+ climbing/Accelerating aircraft at about 8700lbs with full ammo and 25% fuel with wing loading at 236SQ FT/8700lbs = 36.7 which is about where the Hellcat is now.
And it will fly endlessly at that load.
-
Will the -51 sustain a 4000 fpm in the arena with 25% fuel? I don't seem to remember it doing that.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Saxman,
>And yet there's STILL an arena full Spitfire astronauts diving in to vulch the fields.
If you don't plan on making it back, that simplifies the fuel problem considerably.
Don't confuse that with realism, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
In five years of AH I havent see so many pilots bailing after having porked a field as in the last months. Even from bombers at 15-20K. Sad to see a Main turning more and more into a Quake on Wings fest.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
I won't promise to join Aces High the second the fuel multiplier drops to 1.0, but it's definitely the most important reason that I haven't joined yet.
Well, geez, HoHun, you can join right now. In Axis v Allies arena we run fuel burn rates of 1.0, sometimes 1.2. Welcome back!
Frankly, I don't see that it makes any difference at all.
- oldman
-
Hi Bozon,
>Hohun, the climb to 25k is not verticaly or in an upward spiral. Climbing to 25k at, lets say 4000 fpm will take ~6 min. At that time, flying at 180 mph, you advance 18 miles already.
18 miles range equate 9 miles combat radius. You'll still be comparing 30 miles in the game to 296 miles in real life.
>Unless I'm doing point defense, I almost always climb at 200 mph which makes it even more efficient in terms of combat radius.
Actually, you are wasting fuel that way and decreasing your combat radius.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Oldman,
>Well, geez, HoHun, you can join right now. In Axis v Allies arena we run fuel burn rates of 1.0, sometimes 1.2. Welcome back!
Wow, thanks, that's great news! And I always liked Axis vs. Allies best, too :-) Where can I learn more about the settings you are using?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Increased fuel burn is to give differentiation between long ranged and short range aircraft. If fuel burn was at real levels there would be no reason for the long ranged American and Japanese fighters.
I don't think people are flying 51s or NIKIs because of their range
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Oldman,
>Well, geez, HoHun, you can join right now. In Axis v Allies arena we run fuel burn rates of 1.0, sometimes 1.2. Welcome back!
Wow, thanks, that's great news! And I always liked Axis vs. Allies best, too :-) Where can I learn more about the settings you are using?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Well, you could browse the threads in the AvA arena, or you could get someone to send you the current MOTD. Generally, we have fuel burn of 1.0 or 1.2; ack reduced to .25 (or below) from the MA's 1.0 standard; and other settings that vary (we're experimenting with killshooter being off, for example, and we often fuss with the number of troops required to take a base, things like that).
- oldman
-
Toad,
I have a chart that shows a weight loss of 1,000LBS = approximately 1 minute of climb time to 20K. The chart is for the F4U but I can reasonably assume that roughly the same would apply for the P-51, P-38 and P-47 etc.
As far as the AH P-51 I am not certain of the climb rates/times because I do not know what weight the performance charts are based on in AH. I would have to test them.
I can tell you that the F4U-1 at Mil power will climb to 20K in 8minutes at 12000lbs at an average of 2500FPM. At 11,000LBS it will make the climb in 7minutes at an average climb of 2857FPM at Mil power. AT combat power this number would reduce close to 6 minutes.
I would expect the same gain of roughly 350FPM from any aircraft loosing 1,000lbs.
-
F4, I guess my question is does in game weight loss equate to your charts?
Does the F4-U in the game increase climb rate roughly equal to what your actual charts indicate?
-
Toad,
I would say yes although not a great result.
Yes you do gain about 300FPM from the loss of 1,000lbs in the F4U which BTW equates almost exactly to 1/2 fuel 1/2 ammo. However the climb time for the F4U-1D in AH is already a bit slow to 20,000FT by about 30 seconds. It may not seem like much but the loss is really above 10K I would say so it is in a short climb span and the thing barely climb anyway so it looks even worse.
So in short it does realize the gain but in the end the times don't quite match the charts although it is very hard to pin point.
F4U-1D 50% Fuel/Ammo -1061lbs
Gross weight= 11,114LBS
Mil power time to 20K= 7:31
Combat power to 20K= 6:38
Test method takeoff fuel burn=1 takeoff immediately retract gear level reach climb speed 150TAS MPH and hit auto climb start watch.
Here is the chart I am speaking of. It is from the manual. It is the second line from the bottom. It really is more than a 1 minute gain, it appears at that weight it should reach 20K in a hair over 7 minutes at mil power. Combat power should be over 1 minute better than that and it is not.
(http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/F4UChrt.jpg)
-
The increased fuel burn is very important. The 2x fuel burn, among other things, ensures that you must choose carefully your loadout. Without the higher burn, you'd be pressed to need drop tanks, unless you were escorting bombers.
Proper fuel management should be something a pilot must think of in AH. It should not be 100% throttle 100% of the time until you run dry. Pilots should be forced to get to know thier aircraft...otherwise this wouldn't be a sim...
-
Hi Republic,
I see you are new to board - welcome and thanks for your contribution! :-)
>Proper fuel management should be something a pilot must think of in AH. It should not be 100% throttle 100% of the time until you run dry. Pilots should be forced to get to know thier aircraft...otherwise this wouldn't be a sim...
Well, I could agree with this goal, but my concern is that the increased fuel burn actually won't help to achieve it.
It's a game, and people will rather fly at full throttle half the time in order to get a kill and die than fly at reduced throttled for twice the time.
(You will have a hard time to convince players that flying straight and level at reduced throttle is a thrill, and most people are in this game for the thrill.)
So the reason that I disagree with an increased fuel burn is not so much that I think people should be flying around at 100% throttle for 100% of the time (I don't!), but that the concept of increased fuel burn will fail to achieve its goal.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
i like the idea of having gas in the flying machines.i like it even better that i can have as much as i want or $14.95 a month.S~ all and remember to tip the petrol truck drivers.
-
leave it as it is. The La-7 is not a long range fighter. Use the P-51 if u wanna go far. If u do wanna go as far as u can in the La-7 stay at 5-10k.