Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Benny Moore on January 12, 2007, 11:59:27 AM
-
Every time I bring up the subject of complex engine managment, someone usually replies something like, "Oh, no one wants that, that's no fun." I'm curious about how many people would. By complex engine management, I mean the following, implemented as realistically as possible: mandatory fuel selection, mixture, blower, overdetonation, over-revolving, correct relationships between manifold pressure and R.P.M., correct R.P.M. control for each aircraft (German aircraft having the kommandogerat, et cetera), and engine failure due to extreme high and low temperatures.
Do you think that complex engine management would make a good addition to the game, if optional by the server host? Please respond with a simple "yes" or "no."
-
No
-
i think it would be a cool addition, but as you say, it should be one of the flight mode flags in the arena setup. that way, the MAs can stay the same, just some quick easy stuff, whereas the AvA and special events would have it turned on for realism :)
seeing as most people fly in the MA though, and don't want total realism, i don't think the system would be worth the effort though. IMHO, an improved damage model would be much more appreciated...
-
No
Oh, no one wants that, that's no fun
-
Some of that might be nice but, No, not that much
-
Nope
-
No.
I like the current setup which gives you some fuel consumption control.
Heck, I can barely remember to switch my secondary back to guns after dropping the exterior tank.
-
For complex engine management I turn my joystick around 180 degrees.
-
Complex engine management for people who aren't pilots wouldn't be a very good "improvement". It might have a role in full realism scenarios, or CT or something, but I don't care for that idea at all in the MAs.
No thanks.
-
NO.
I play for fun. If I wanted that tedium I'd go take a few lessons.
Bronk
-
no
-
Just make it an option like the stall limiter.
-
I vote no
-
Oh, no one wants that, that's no fun.
- oldman
-
Nay
-
Heck yes!
I'd also like my joystick to kick me in the balls everytime I get shot.
That would be really real!
-
Sorry, I'm not much on single yes or no answers :)
No.
Granted, that is fun to do, and I run the ms Flight Sim 04 often, but that's when I want the realism.
Every time I sit on the runway fiddling with the engine controls I imagine what it would be like with a dozen vulchers over my head and it doesn't sound pleasant.
Mostly though, this is a business venture for Hitech, and "most" people in here are not set up with controls to adequately benefit from those complex settings. The market would dry up and the game would have the population of say, a warbirds or something. How does 49 people in the most popular MA sound? Compare to the fact that we had over 800 people in the game mid week last week. (Ya, I was in WB last night, 49 people total)
You could turn it off or on, but then you have players who are Not using it running over the top of those who Are using it, simply because they don't have as much to think about while shooting you as you adjust your engine mixture. Then there would be another massive debate started because the full realism users were getting killed all the time and it isn't fun, so they need to Force the other guys to play with all the knobs and buttons..yada yada..
The effort to recode the entire game to bring this system online would take away from improving the already popular game in front of us, for the sake of a Few people who would actually use it. Doesn't make sense.
Fun? Ya, sure it is. Reasonable to introduce here? Not hardly. Heck, we can already adjust the trim, the rpms etc. The Flight Model is good. At some point, though, you quit playing the game and just fly the plane.
Oh, did I say "No" ?
-
Actually, I think HTs vote trumps us totally :rofl
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
For complex engine management I turn my joystick around 180 degrees.
:rofl :rofl :lol :rofl :rofl
-
no
-
ROC: I was just answering as a player.
HiTech
-
No
gusman44
-
No
-
No
Spend a little time with IL2 and you are glad to come back. It's too much like work.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
For complex engine management I turn my joystick around 180 degrees.
:lol
-
No, thanks. The engine/fuel management we have now works fine for the game.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Heck yes!
I'd also like my joystick to kick me in the balls everytime I get shot.
That would be really real!
No, and I also have a very sneaky cat for complex groin jumping balls impact.
No to balls kicking joystick!
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Every time I bring up the subject of complex engine managment, someone usually replies something like, "Oh, no one wants that, that's no fun." I'm curious about how many people would. By complex engine management, I mean the following, implemented as realistically as possible: mandatory fuel selection, mixture, blower, overdetonation, over-revolving, correct relationships between manifold pressure and R.P.M., correct R.P.M. control for each aircraft (German aircraft having the kommandogerat, et cetera), and engine failure due to extreme high and low temperatures.
Do you think that complex engine management would make a good addition to the game, if optional by the server host? Please respond with a simple "yes" or "no."
Sure, and while were at it, lets wash the oil off our windshields, change the engine oil after every flight, patch all holes shot in plane, air up the tires, and for all you people who love to fly at 20,000+ a de-icing of all flight controll surfaces, and manually load your own ordanance. hmmm that should keep ya busy for about an hour or so.
-
Mandatory (i.e., MA):
No, thank you.
Optional (i.e., SE):
Yes, please!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Heck yes!
I'd also like my joystick to kick me in the balls everytime I get shot.
That would be really real!
Nopoop's solution
http://www.theblueknights.com/files/Finally_found_out_a_way_to_improve_my_skills.htm
http://www.theblueknights.com/files/Part2.htm
http://www.theblueknights.com/files/Part_3.htm
http://www.theblueknights.com/files/Part_4.htm
That will crank up the realism for ya.
Bronk
-
I vote no.... The way it is now, you can concentrate on combat and not be a systems manager. That makes for less realism, but allows for more fun.
My regards,
Widewing
-
No, for lots of reasons. epecially thunderEgg and Ripper's reasons
Are you a pilot Benny? I'm not a pilot, but I do have reprints of the Hurricane II and the Spit V manuals. There's alot more to managing a WW2 aircraft than those items you listed [mandatory fuel selection, mixture, blower, overdetonation, over-revolving, correct relationships between manifold pressure and R.P.M., correct R.P.M. control for each aircraft]
You would spend most of your time playing pilot
-
Nein ;)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I vote no.... The way it is now, you can concentrate on combat and not be a systems manager. That makes for less realism, but allows for more fun.
My regards,
Widewing
Amen, brotha.
-
Originally posted by hitech
I vote no
That's kind of the end all beat all isn't it? I guess there's your answer.
-
Originally posted by 68Ripper
Sure, and while were at it, lets wash the oil off our windshields, change the engine oil after every flight, patch all holes shot in plane, air up the tires, and for all you people who love to fly at 20,000+ a de-icing of all flight controll surfaces, and manually load your own ordanance. hmmm that should keep ya busy for about an hour or so.
You're forgetting about the visual inspections, and preflight checks prior to take off, there's another 10 minutes.
I think that realism is great in games like this, but the problem is, too much realism can ultimately take the fun out of the game. As someone above posted, it would be much to tedious, and time consuming.
-
No
-
Originally posted by Helrazr1
That's kind of the end all beat all isn't it? I guess there's your answer.
Hitech has already stated he was just voting as a player not as a op. so all oppinons are welcomed.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Heck yes!
I'd also like my joystick to kick me in the balls everytime I get shot.
That would be really real!
thats frickin funny, but why you need a stick that does that when i can do it for you hehehehe :D
i vote no main reason is too much work and not enough fun. plus if we added this Hitech might go broke with no one to play the game :lol
-
Originally posted by ROC
Sorry, I'm not much on single yes or no answers :)
No.
Granted, that is fun to do, and I run the ms Flight Sim 04 often, but that's when I want the realism.
Man, you need to get FSX. Makes you drool, hehe.
Back OT;
Wouldnt bother me in the least,and would be cool sometimes, but not necessary for the fun factor.
-
Originally posted by hitech
I vote no
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
It would be a GREAT idea and SHOULD be implemented if HiTech has no interest in making money.
--------------------
Here is my prediction of what would happen if complex engine management were implemented.
It is implemented and a new arena is included.
The new arena stays empty with the exception of one or two lonely souls who fly there religiously and then post on these forums about how they just had an AWESOME dogfighting sessions where engine management made ALL the difference and just how completely REAL it felt. Of course, noone would bite and eventually, the arena would gather cobwebs and HiTech would wonder how he would recoup the time and money spent into coming up with an engine for complex engine management.
Seriously, realism is "good", up to a point. Past that point, you begin to lose players because the inclusion of more realism begins to seriously screw the "fun factor".
I think complex engine management is up there with modeling the effects of malaria and poor quinine substitutes on how a person flew in the Pacific theater. They're interesting and some people might find it informative and fun to fly under such conditions, but since most players don't want nausea and explosive diarhhea modeled into their flight sims, you would eventually lose players, which is bad for anything run as a business venture.
-
Negative. Its hard enough to drink a beer and fly. Combined with the trim settings, radio jabber, Belching Bob telling me to "Check Six", I would need a Co-pilot. I would like some napalm bombs for shore batteries. Or some flame thrower tanks.(would use them on the troops dropped from goons)
Good thought though.
-SR-
-
Originally posted by HomeBoy
No
Spend a little time with IL2 and you are glad to come back. It's too much like work.
The IL-2 series does not have complex engine management. The only things it has that Aces High II does not is different methods of R.P.M. control for different countries. It doesn't even have fuel tank selection, something Aces High does partly have.
I see I am nearly the only one! I confess I'm somewhat surprised. Still, I think a lot of people in here didn't read the post quite thoroughly enough; it was a server-side setting I was speaking of. At any rate, with so many people who don't want it, it definitely wouldn't be worthwhile for anyone to code it in ... kind of sad.
-
yes
-
Ironically, this would be about the biggest nerf to Benny's favorite fighter that HTC could do as overly complex engine managment was the P-38's worst feature. Things like the P-51 and Spitfire were a lot easier for the pilot and the Fw190 was on a whole different level of ease.
-
Originally posted by hitech
I vote no
Heh, there ya go.
-
I think it should be available as an option, just like stall limiter. I would very much enjoy it. As it stands, I play with RPMs constantly. I cruise at max cruise, I climb (In all but bombers) at normal power, and such, and I would like to be able to do more. I particularly enjoy making takeoffs as realistic as possible, even running a pre-flight check, even though I KNOW everything will work right.
-
no, the allieds would never get off of the ground for me to kill them
-
the only addition i want for the engines in a Fire Extinguisher on the Bombers, We got the switches in the Cockpits but not able to put fires out :eek: :confused:
-
Originally posted by storch
no, the allieds would never get off of the ground for me to kill them
How do you fit that ego into a Bf109?
-
No.
The game is hard enough for newbs, what advantage is there making it impossible?
If you want accurate get X-Plane and an epic card and go to town
-
Originally posted by Serenity
I think it should be available as an option, just like stall limiter. I would very much enjoy it. As it stands, I play with RPMs constantly. I cruise at max cruise, I climb (In all but bombers) at normal power, and such, and I would like to be able to do more. I particularly enjoy making takeoffs as realistic as possible, even running a pre-flight check, even though I KNOW everything will work right.
I could go for that if turning it off nerfed the performance a little like the stall-limiter does.
Put me down for a yes, I'm used to being in the minority though.
-
Negative
-
Sorry, that would require lghey and spit "pilots" to actually think a bit and....well.....we will CERTAINLY have NONE of that non-sense.:D
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Do you think that complex engine management would make a good addition to the game, if optional by the server host? Please respond with a simple "yes" or "no."
H*ll no.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Ironically, this would be about the biggest nerf to Benny's favorite fighter that HTC could do as overly complex engine managment was the P-38's worst feature. Things like the P-51 and Spitfire were a lot easier for the pilot and the Fw190 was on a whole different level of ease.
I am quite aware of this. I love the P-38 exactly the way she was.
Originally posted by Puck
If you want accurate get X-Plane and an epic card and go to town
X-plane is a joke. Aces High II, as it is, is more realistic than X-plane.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
The IL-2 series does not have complex engine management. The only things it has that Aces High II does not is different methods of R.P.M. control for different countries. It doesn't even have fuel tank selection, something Aces High does partly have.
They have cowl flaps and radiator flaps (in applicable rides) as well as mixture settings that we don't have. I think it would have it's place in TOD for the reality crowd but probably not in the MA-quake game most AH customer prefer.
-
No
Wasn't it HT that once said "this is a game" well lets keep it that way as an enjoyment for a majority rather than an indulgence for a minority.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
At any rate, with so many people who don't want it, it definitely wouldn't be worthwhile for anyone to code it in ... kind of sad.
Yea, I'm all broken up about it :cry
-
No.
-
No
-
Mhai , Nei , Không , nyet , Bo, Iie , Yox , Nope , Uh-uh , neg ,
NO :p
-
um no:rolleyes:
-
If I had a cockpit at home: yes
But I have only a keyboard: So it's no.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
They have cowl flaps and radiator flaps (in applicable rides) as well as mixture settings that we don't have.
Oh, I forgot about the cowl flaps and radiators. But they do not have mixture settings for the majority of the aircraft that did in reality.
-
Yes..I would like engine overheat like back in EAW days...was much fun.
-
no... it would be like those british commando games where you gotta pack all the guys lunchboxs before you go on a mission. ...just a little too much
If im buzy with engine micromanagment when would i get time to run to fridge for another beer?
-
Yes - but only for the La7 :rofl
-
Originally posted by Max
Yes - but only for the La7 :rofl
What he said---actually... engine NOT overheating or something after running it at 100% from takeoff for 20-30 min (or 19 min for you LA7 pukes):D is a lil....I dunno, cartoonish--would be interesting tweak to the game I'd think
-
Having done complex engine management in one of the most complex ones to manage without a flight engineer I can chime in a definite 'no'.
There isnt anything fun about.
Its remarkably similar to getting the temperature right in the bathtub faucet, only the faucet has 12 knobs.
I'm not really sure why people believe they would enjoy this other than some sort of ego thing.
They must believe they would be so much better at it it would give them an advantage.
Here is a real life story about that.........
A friend of mine flew for a company that believed they could tweak some more efficiency from their Pratt and Whitney Wasp Jr. engines. So instead of following the established guidelines they routinely flew extra lean. They convinced their pilots that this was a good operating practice.
My friend bought into this and used to preach to me about it.
About 2 am on a morning nearly 20 years ago, my friend learned the fallacy of this thinking.
He was hauling a load of hybrid chicks (of the chicken variety) from upstate New York down to Mexico. In Northern Louisiana the number one motor started losing power and quit. The number 2 engine would not develop enough power to maintain altitude.
My friend headed for the nearest airport but the plane was heavy and the number 2 motor was too damaged to develop full power.
An engine teardown of both engines later revealed extensive valve damage resulting from the loss of cooling from the fuel (excess fuel cools a reciprocating gasoline engine). This damage likely resulted in the failure of number one and likely contributed to the unavailable power to maintain altitude in number two.
At least the NTSB thought so.
My friend tried to land on a small road in the dark. He managed to to do so but the left wing struck a telephone pole.
My friend died in the resulting post crash fire.
All because he believed he could manage an engine better than anyone else.
Engine management isnt about the here and now. Its almost impossible to so badly mismanage the motor that it would fail on THAT flight. Managing a motor is about saving it for the next guy so it won't quit on him but you still get the mission done.
There are a few management tasks that if neglected could kill you like fuel tank selection or manifold heat but it isn't a big deal.
Certainly not 'fun'.
Not without lots of surrounding external factors.
If you wanna simulate some real flying in Aces High get rid of the autopilots and make the weather below 6000 feet lousy. Get rid of maps and make folks navigate (not that I'm advocating this stuff). The real fun in flying is flying the plane and navigating...not knob twiddling.
The real fun in AH is blowing things up while drinking with your virtual buddies.
-
my vote : NO and NEVER.
I checked your handle "benny" there is no score for the last 3 months.
So basicely you're a freeloader and want another options in AH for free.
Belch .
-
NO
-
Widewing put it correctly.
I am here to have fun, not be a systems manager.
NO
-
NO
Its great how it is now.... WW2online I seem to remember has engine management of some sort, go over there and play with engines... Then when you want to dogfight come back over here...
-
Dont be silly
NO.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
What he said---actually... engine NOT overheating or something after running it at 100% from takeoff for 20-30 min (or 19 min for you LA7 pukes):D is a lil....I dunno, cartoonish--would be interesting tweak to the game I'd think
During durability testing of the C series R-2800 by Republic, it was decided to find out at what manifold pressure and carburetor temperature caused detonation. The technicians at Republic ran the engine at extreme boost pressures that produced 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more amazing. They ran it at 3,600 hp for 250 hours, without any failure! This was with common 100 octane avgas. No special fuels were used. Granted, the engines were largely used up, but survived without a single component failure.
Somebody should have told them the engine wouldn't do that.
-
No. Too much hassle, the new AH has enough of that going already.
-
From a player perspective: No. I have a hard enough time getting the plane down the runway as it is (cue Furball).
From a support perspective: OMG!!! ARE YOU INSANE!!!!!!
-
Noob: How do I start this thing?
Helpful Vet:What are you in?
Noob: Spit.
Helpful Vet: Set the fuel valve on. Ignition switch off. Open the throttle just a bit. Set propeller control full forward. Set idle cutoff full back. Set supercharger switch to auto. Set carburetor air intake closed. Switch on main tanks booster pump for 30 seconds then switch off and set idle cutoff forward to Run position. Switch ignition on and push starter and booster coil buttons, thats ctrl-alt-S and ctrl-alt-B, at the same time.
Noob: No really, how do you start this thing?
Helpful Vet: ...
Noob: Can I fly with a mouse or do I need a joystick?
-
Originally posted by FLS
Noob: How do I start this thing?
Helpful Vet:What are you in?
Noob: Spit.
Helpful Vet: Set the fuel valve on. Ignition switch off. Open the throttle just a bit. Set propeller control full forward. Set idle cutoff full back. Set supercharger switch to auto. Set carburetor air intake closed. Switch on main tanks booster pump for 30 seconds then switch off and set idle cutoff forward to Run position. Switch ignition on and push starter and booster coil buttons, thats ctrl-alt-S and ctrl-alt-B, at the same time.
Noob: No really, how do you start this thing?
Helpful Vet: ...
Noob: Can I fly with a mouse or do I need a joystick?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Bronk
-
For me, the more realism, the better. I would like more-realistic engine control, for the same reason I like the game also modelling stalls, spins, blackouts, redouts, trim, etc.
However, I don't know if I'd make it mandatory -- perhaps being able to turn it on and off like the stall limiter.
I'd like the planes to have flight and operation characteristics that are as realistic as possible.
-
Originally posted by Gumbeau
I'm not really sure why people believe they would enjoy this other than some sort of ego thing.
I would enjoy it because my great desire is to fly real World War Two fighters. Obviously, I am never going to get to do this. Therefore, I seek a simulator which is as close as possible to flying a real warbird.
And it is fun; imagine getting bounced from up on high, and as your enemy's ship hurtles by you hear his engine screaming. He has forgotten to lower his R.P.M., and his propeller is overspeeding. Or when you're doing the bouncing, he firewalls the throttle from cruise settings and his engine konks out. I'd love it! And best of all, you're in a classic sustained turn fight, throttles wide open, and one of you has his engine go boom because you've been flying around all day on full throttle.
Anyway, I just wanted to see how many people would go with this. In parting, I would love to make a jab at you all by accusing you of being gamers with no desire to fly real airplanes. Unfortunately, some of you who don't want the complex engine management are actual pilots. I just don't understand it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
"During durability testing of the C series R-2800 by Republic, it was decided to find out at what manifold pressure and carburetor temperature caused detonation. The technicians at Republic ran the engine at extreme boost pressures that produced 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more amazing. They ran it at 3,600 hp for 250 hours, without any failure! This was with common 100 octane avgas. No special fuels were used. Granted, the engines were largely used up, but survived without a single component failure."
Somebody should have told them the engine wouldn't do that.
Toad, I am fairly certain that these engine tests were done without propellers. It makes a big difference when there is no load. The same tests were done to the Allison V-1710 (the engine with the reputation for failing at high altitude) with the same results.
-
No.
AH already has a couple of things that give "full realism" players an edge, namely prop rpm control, changes in fuel burn at various altitude, and the ability to not use the easy-mode stall limiter. A player who uses the rpm control, uses a climb/cruise profile instead of just motoring around everywhere at low alittude, and turns off the stall limiter will (if they do it right) have an edge over a player who doesn't pay attention to such things.
Additional optional realism features might be nice, but only if they are optional and their proper use will give the players that actually use them a very small additional edge over people who just go with the default easy options.
-
What is prop rpm control?
-
Originally posted by Angry Samoan
Mhai , Nei , Không , nyet , Bo, Iie , Yox , Nope , Uh-uh , neg ,
NO :p
in translation ME ANGRY ME FUNNY LOOKING ME LIKE ME SISTER Hhahahahahaha:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :noid
-
No. Even if I was sober I'd vote no. But, for a full, undamaged case of 60yr old Aberlour shipped to me cost free within the next three days I might be convinced to reconsider. For an unlimited lifetime's supply of said scotch I am prepared to promise you my vote in favour of your proposal.
asw
-
Originally posted by Toad
Somebody should have told them the engine wouldn't do that.
Yeah, I remember a Spit pilot running his Merlin at WEP for half an hour straight after he panicced too. You know, that "Do not exceed 5 minutes" setting?
The engine was fine.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
How do you fit that ego into a Bf109?
:lol :rofl
-
As an option I think it would be great to incorporate more functions of engine management, and flight control. But I don't think it would fly as standard operating procedure for each plane. And to model each plane's engine management peculiarities would be, as Skuzzy hinted, a nightmare. Doubt if it's gonna happen.
Originally posted by FLS
Noob: How do I start this thing?
Helpful Vet:What are you in?
Noob: Spit.
Helpful Vet: Set the fuel valve on. Ignition switch off. Open the throttle just a bit. Set propeller control full forward. Set idle cutoff full back. Set supercharger switch to auto. Set carburetor air intake closed. Switch on main tanks booster pump for 30 seconds then switch off and set idle cutoff forward to Run position. Switch ignition on and push starter and booster coil buttons, thats ctrl-alt-S and ctrl-alt-B, at the same time.
Oh, and by the way, after takeoff you must pump the carriage retract handle 16 (?) times.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
From a player perspective: No. I have a hard enough time getting the plane down the runway as it is (cue Furball).
From a support perspective: OMG!!! ARE YOU INSANE!!!!!!
Well put Skuzzy :D :aok
-
Originally posted by Gumbeau
I'm not really sure why people believe they would enjoy this other than some sort of ego thing.
They must believe they would be so much better at it it would give them an advantage.
Not necessarily... the reason I want it is because it would just be fun to do a REAL startup. I find things like that FUN. I ENJOY complex, realistic processes.
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During durability testing of the C series R-2800 by Republic, it was decided to find out at what manifold pressure and carburetor temperature caused detonation. The technicians at Republic ran the engine at extreme boost pressures that produced 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more amazing. They ran it at 3,600 hp for 250 hours, without any failure! This was with common 100 octane avgas. No special fuels were used. Granted, the engines were largely used up, but survived without a single component failure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasnt 100 octane fuel used ONLY by the Americans?
Also, those RPMs are easy to maintain WITHOUT a load, as was stated above. The engine has to work harder to maintian those RPMs when you have a MASSIVE propeller on the front. I dont know any pilot what so ever who doesnt cut RPMs at least slightly, even those who tow ENTIRE GLIDERS cut it back And immidiatly get as much cold air over the engine as possible when they release to cool things down.
-
(http://www.mgroves.com/images%5Cdo_not_want.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Old Sport
Oh, and by the way, after takeoff you must pump the carriage retract handle 16 (?) times.
Yes, but the real fun part would be using the emergency extension system after a hydraulics failure. I'd love to spend five minutes pecking away at a key trying to lower the landing gear. Of course, everyone else would just belly it.
In the pathetic IL-2 series, manual undercarriage retraction for the F-4F was modelled, but incorrectly. You had to repeatedly tap a key to simulate the hand crank, and it took roughly the proper time to raise the gear. However, you only had to tap the key for half of that time. After that, the gear would continue to rise. So what I would do was keep tapping to key until the gear was fully up, since in the real thing the pilot had to keep cranking.
-
F4f had a hand crank to drop gear, but some pilots just rolled plane and used centrifugal force to do same ( I'm guessing that went against the manual)
-
Yes
-
NO!
-
b-17
check fuel transfer switch to make sure in off position or waste fuel.
check intercoolers are in the cold position.
make sure fuel shut off switches are all open.
cowl flaps must be in the open position.
Make sure turbos are off during engine start.
fuel mix should be in the AUTO-RICH position.
move throttles to the 1000 rpm setting.
propeller controls in high RPM.
Master switch ON!
Check parking break is on.
Ensure 4 fuel booster pumps are in the on position.
Engine 1!
turn ignition switch on.depress starter switch 10 seconds.
now depress mesh switch for about 6 seconds judge by ear when engine has started correctly.
turn the starter and mesh switch to there nuetral spots.
now guess what 3 more engines
and thats the dumbed down way.
-
Yes - I have far too many buttons on my stick as it is! 3 modes available and I only use one for dogfighting. The 2nd one is coms and intel so there's a whole 3rd mode free as far as I can see.
To futher the realism aspect of this superb game, which surely can be the pure intent of the OP, I suggest he adopt like many true AH's, a simpit, trackir, stereoscopic goggles, that chair that's like a g simulator, as well as "shoot.exe" for vox comms (radio only).
Then again maybe not.
I appreciate the sentiment of the post, which I read as something to do on the way to combat, but during - no way. And I don't reckon THEY didn't either. If you're bored on the fly-in then make some friends on the country channel - or even better, some enemies on 200.
-
No
-
Originally posted by Serenity
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During durability testing of the C series R-2800 by Republic, it was decided to find out at what manifold pressure and carburetor temperature caused detonation. The technicians at Republic ran the engine at extreme boost pressures that produced 3,600 hp! But wait, it gets even more amazing. They ran it at 3,600 hp for 250 hours, without any failure! This was with common 100 octane avgas. No special fuels were used. Granted, the engines were largely used up, but survived without a single component failure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasnt 100 octane fuel used ONLY by the Americans?
Also, those RPMs are easy to maintain WITHOUT a load, as was stated above. The engine has to work harder to maintian those RPMs when you have a MASSIVE propeller on the front. I dont know any pilot what so ever who doesnt cut RPMs at least slightly, even those who tow ENTIRE GLIDERS cut it back And immidiatly get as much cold air over the engine as possible when they release to cool things down.
That series of tests performed by Republic (overseen by P&W) used a "club prop" which is designed to load the engine without generating the thrust and prop wash associated with a normal propeller installation. Aircraft engines are never run at max power without a load.
The fuel used was standard grade AN-F-28 100/130 avgas. All Allied fighter aircraft were using at least 100 octane fuel in combat zones by 1941. By mid 1944, the 8th AF was using 150 octane fuel in their fighters.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by CHECKERS
He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.......George Bernard Shaw
He who cannot teach, teaches gym........ Corollary by Widewing
-
I thought that was Jack Black :)
-
Originally posted by opiewon
b-17
check fuel transfer switch to make sure in off position or waste fuel.
check intercoolers are in the cold position.
make sure fuel shut off switches are all open.
cowl flaps must be in the open position.
Make sure turbos are off during engine start.
fuel mix should be in the AUTO-RICH position.
move throttles to the 1000 rpm setting.
propeller controls in high RPM.
Master switch ON!
Check parking break is on.
Ensure 4 fuel booster pumps are in the on position.
Engine 1!
turn ignition switch on.depress starter switch 10 seconds.
now depress mesh switch for about 6 seconds judge by ear when engine has started correctly.
turn the starter and mesh switch to there nuetral spots.
now guess what 3 more engines
and thats the dumbed down way.
I think you faileda t your intent with this because I actually look foreward to doing that! As it stands I start engines one at a time, making things more complicated also makes them more fun! at least to me...
-
Originally posted by Widewing
He who cannot teach, teaches gym........ Corollary by Widewing
Thats sig material
-
I like that I just have to hit a button and its already done.
I don't even want to have to hit a button and wait for all that stuff to automatically happen.
I personally don't have the time or patience to fly a 3 hour mission everytime I log in to play. And even if I did I'd be through with the 10,000' checklist by the time you were ready to taxi if you wanted to take the "real time" procedures for starting your B-17.
I can see where that would be fun for some. Not fun for most. In fact the vast majority.
No thanks for me.
-
Usually the crews would have the airplane hot for the pilot. Just because we like real engine management doesn't mean we want to cold start our ships every time we spawn.
-
hot starts are bad :O
I don't like that. It takes away from the realism.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
[BThe fuel used was standard grade AN-F-28 100/130 avgas. All Allied fighter aircraft were using at least 100 octane fuel in combat zones by 1941. By mid 1944, the 8th AF was using 150 octane fuel in their fighters.
My regards,
Widewing [/B]
Good lord. What compression?
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
Good lord. What compression?
No change in the engine's designed compression ratio... What was increased was maximum boost from the supercharger. For example, the following charts courtesy of www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org) shows the substantial increase in speed and climb resulting from a P-51B at 75" MAP.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-level.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-climb.jpg)
There were problems associated with this fuel, including burned valves and fouled spark plugs. Nonetheless, the 8th AF used the fuel until Germany's surrender. It was not used in the MTO or Pacific.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yes..I would like engine overheat like back in EAW days...was much fun.
No to complex engine management, YES to engine over heat. Overheating would add a great game play element. I really enjoy those games where you have to glance down at the temp guage during a fight to see just how much time you got and what you can do with it, and knowing how much time the enemy has from your own expirience with his type of plane.
Complex engine management like start up procedures is a $#@#ing awfull idea for AH!
-
We've got got overheat allready with wep... you seriously reccomend that guys manage the engine en-route to a fight; we got enough problems with guys avoiding a fight as it is without additional excuses.
-
I have not read the entire thread. IL2 does an excellent job of CEM. It would be a great addition to Aces High.
-
Originally posted by 68Ripper
Sure, and while were at it, lets wash the oil off our windshields, change the engine oil after every flight, patch all holes shot in plane, air up the tires, and for all you people who love to fly at 20,000+ a de-icing of all flight controll surfaces, and manually load your own ordanance. hmmm that should keep ya busy for about an hour or so.
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol :rofl :eek: :D
-
Originally posted by Golfer
hot starts are bad
I don't like that. It takes away from the realism.
What are you talking about? How can hot starts be unrealistic when it was done in real life?
-
No, targetware tried this and frankly IMO it sucked.
We have manifold & Rpm, more than that is just going to be too many things to mess with in a fight.
-
IMO if I want complex engine management, I'll go learn how to fly a plane for real.
-
how about it being an option. if you choose that option it also includes the realism that if you get killed you dont get to play anymore?;)
if yu bail successfully you must walk back to base to fly again .. if you are captured you must spend 3 years hitting the "S" key to indicate yur are tunneling with a spoon to escape captivity.
that would all be super fun!
and it would deter bomb n bails
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
IMO if I want complex engine management, I'll go learn how to fly a plane for real.
That's not an option for most people. If it were, I wouldn't be here explaining to you why real engine management is fun. I did try to learn a plane for real (and believe me it was fun, engine management and all), but it costs over a hundred dollars an hour and requires good health - neither of which I, or most people, have. Therefore, it should be fairly obvious why I would want a simulator to be as close as possible as the real thing.
Ah, yes, Fbplummer, the droll "shoot yourself" argument. Very well, I'll play along. Sure, let's do that. And if a player intentionally or through carelessness kills my player, then they will be prosecuted for murder for real. And I'd also insist that everything else be exactly like real life, too, including perepherial vision and feel. And by then we'd have real life flying of warplanes in mock combat, which is exactly what I want.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
........... And if a player intentionally or through carelessness kills my player, ......
now there is an option I could lean twords!:rofl
-
I'm getting the feeling this thread has kind of gone off the deep end, so I'm gonna bail out and get a new plane.
-
The analogy you make between getting killed in game and murder charges is incredibly stupid. Plummer's not telling you to shoot yourself, he's simply suggested that it would also be much more realistic for you to be unable to play the game again after your cartoon avatar dies. That's perfectly logical, as well as being extremely realistic.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
He who cannot teach, teaches gym........ Corollary by Widewing
not to steal your thunder WW, an excellent corollary btw, :)
but I remember a slightly different verison.
Those that can do, DO; Those that cant do, Teach; Those that cant Teach, Administrate
-
As a pilot myself, I like the idea of CEM in my airplane. However, the flight model in AH is so close in comparison to other sims, I feel that too much realism might turn away those that have never flown an aircraft in real life, especially those that are just coming in. The learning curve for AH is already pretty steep with the planes as they are, but imagine if you incorporated something as complex as CEM into these aircraft.
All in all, I would like to see some SEA or AVA scenarios that incorporate this feature, but I feel the main arenas would suffer from the fallout. Great idea, though!
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
For complex engine management I turn my joystick around 180 degrees.
:rofl x 1000 :aok
<> Drunky
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
What are you talking about? How can hot starts be unrealistic when it was done in real life?
Preheats are one thing but hot starts are another.
Well we need Hot and Hung starts in the 262 and Ar-234.
The 163 needs to blow up randomly.
We need some random catastrophic engine failures for a myriad of reasons.
Rough running engines so when you climb to 20k settling in for your 3 hour mission you have to return to base because your supercharger won't engage or you have fouled plugs that you can't correct.
Lets not forget when you drop in from 20-25k and descend into the lovely warm tropical air of most of our maps your windshield fogs up and you can't see anything.
Same goes for the guy who chops their throttle at 20k and rolls down into a dive supercooling the engine.
Random system failures. Backwards rigged ailerons...you do check these prior to flight, right?
Lets have weather systems, fog and the like that cancel missions. It'd be realistic to have to stand down for a day. I'm know I'd be happy that when I come to log in we're in our 3rd day of being socked in by fog which doesn't allow anyone to fly :rolleyes:
Benny, where does your quest for realism end? One could sit here for 40 hours a week typing about what's "real" and what's Aces High. I don't want to (and you don't want to) cancel flights because there's hydraulic fluid leaking or a burned out light bulb on my AH airplane.
I can see where you're coming from and why you can see them as neat features. This just isn't the place for them in my humble opinion. MSFS and X-Plane are where you can find those. It's flat out not fair to new players to ask them to have to do things beyond the level of even a certificated private pilot when it comes to engine managment on a very high performance airplane.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
The analogy you make between getting killed in game and murder charges is incredibly stupid.
Not at all. In reality, people die when they slam into the ground. But in reality, people are careful in mock combat not to kill each other. If you're going to imply that realism would be to not be able to play after dying in game, then you have to allow extreme penalties to ensure that players are as careful not to kill each other as people are in reality. No one's asking to not be able to play after we die in game, or anything remotely similar. So it's your side's analogy that's stupid, not mine. Get off my case, Hubsonfire.
Originally posted by Golfer
Preheats are one thing but hot starts are another.
Well we need Hot and Hung starts in the 262 and Ar-234.
Benny, where does your quest for realism end? One could sit here for 40 hours a week typing about what's "real" and what's Aces High. I don't want to (and you don't want to) cancel flights because there's hydraulic fluid leaking or a burned out light bulb on my AH airplane.
I can see where you're coming from and why you can see them as neat features. This just isn't the place for them in my humble opinion. MSFS and X-Plane are where you can find those. It's flat out not fair to new players to ask them to have to do things beyond the level of even a certificated private pilot when it comes to engine managment on a very high performance airplane.
I still don't know what you're talking about when you say that hot starts are unrealistic. As I said, ground crews would often have the ships ready to go, or at the most two minutes away from it.
As I also said, what I want (and I'd have thought more people would want) is to fly real warbirds in mock combat. Since I cannot have that, I want a simulator that mirrors that as closely as possible. I don't see why I get bombarded with accusations that I'm asking for relief tube usage and stuff. This "well why don't you never play the game again if you die" argument is the dumbest thing since gun control.
Microsoft Flight "Simulator" and X-Plane pale in realism compared to Aces High. Oh, they've got better graphics and sounds or cockpit fiddling. But as someone who has flown one of the actual airplanes Flight Simulator and X-Plane claim to simulate, I can say with some authority that the flight models are terrible.
Lastly, note that I've never suggested forcing this option on the player base. The original question concerned a server side option, so that it would be up to the host. Obviously, the vast majority of servers (including the official ones) would not use it. I understand why such a system will not be implemented. Most people don't want it, as they prefer gaming to flying. Moreover, it would be, as Skuzzy pointed out, a nightmare to program and such. I only wanted to see just how many would like to see flying made more like flying. I didn't expect there to be so few.
P.S. To those of you who accuse me, I am demanding nothing, have taken nothing that was not offered me, and remain grateful for what I have.
-
A hot start is a malfunction.
Having an airplane ready on an "alert" if you will with a warm engine is something else.
Thus far you're asking for cockpit fiddling. You want the engine management...fiddle away in flight sim.
Again I understand where you're coming from. Just give some thought to how much fun that actually having to work to keep your airplane purring would be.
For me and many many many others it's the opposite of fun.
If you need your realism fix you could rent an airplane every so often with an instructor. You don't need to work toward a rating to just go flying around.
I understand what you want...but at the same time it's not really practicable. How real is it for you to click keyboard buttons or move a moust to do what you want to do. Many flight schools and FBOs have simulators with all of the cockpit switches and displays you're looking for at a fraction of the cost of renting the real airplane. An instructor to teach you some real things about real flying situations at real airports I think would suit your fancy much more than sitting in an office chair.
-
Where in Ohio are you? I'd spend a day with you either in an airplane or in a sim anytime to help you find what you'd like to do. When you leave after learning something you'll have more questions than when you came. That's the bug...feeding the bug and the thirst for knowledge is the fun part about the whole aviation game.
I have access to sims, basic airplanes and advanced gee whiz gadgetry equipped airplanes that would suit your every fancy. Computer based simulators for GPS units and most every training aid you can fathom.
Surely there has to be something I can do to alleviate the headaches caused by some of these ideas on the boards. And I sincerely would be happy to.
-
I'm in Chardon, perhaps an hour away from you. Right now I can't drive, however. I had hand surgury three months ago and I've got another coming in perhaps two. I also cannot fly anymore, probably ever. My ears bleed from the pressure changes with even relatively small altitude changes. Lastly, I cannot afford to fly anymore. I can't even afford an Aces High subscription. The offer is appreciated, however, and I will keep it in mind. Really, though, I know what I want to do. I want to fly airplanes, warbirds in particular. It's just not a realistic goal. For the present, I'm looking forward to Gennadich's Knights of the Sky and the open cockpit week at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Random system failures. Backwards rigged ailerons...you do check these prior to flight, right?
Yes actually, I do.
Originally posted byscottydawg
IMO if I want complex engine management, I'll go learn how to fly a plane for real.
I do. But each flight is expensive. Where do I go to practice the basic stick-control, aircraft-control, and just to mimic real flight as much as possible without having to fork over a couple hundred bucks an hour? Aces High and Microsoft Flight Sim. Maybe not complex engine management, because it will make life hard for HTC, but at LEAST make engines overheat if they are run at full RPM and full manifold. There are reasons other than fuel that pilots flew at max. cruise during the war.
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Yes actually, I do.
That was to Benny in his never ending quest for AH realism and was intended for sarcastic content related to in-game aircraft only.
-
Thanks Widewing; I wonder how many even know what a club prop is?
Here's a Pratt 4360 with a test club prop that is a C-130 Hercules prop cut down to nine feet, with manually adjustable pitch.
(http://www.enginehistory.org/Gallery/Lofthus/R-4360-59B_3.jpg)
So, yes, they did run "under load".
-
And a couple more quotes from links gone by:
The Government had specified a particular test regime to qualify an engine at “War Emergency Power”. This was a rating higher than take-off power and usually assumed anti-detonation injection. First the engine was run for five hours in five minute cycles alternating between War Emergency Power and a fast idle. Then it was run for two and one-half hours at a steady War Emergency Power rating. The Government thought this was a tough test, but Pratt & Whitney routinely ran its engines for 100 hours straight at War Emergency Power. The seven and one-half hours required by the Government was no problem whatsoever.
Ultimately, the maximum power achieved on the “B” series was 2800 HP at 2700 RPM. Maximum power ever achieved on the “C” series was 3800 HP at 2800 RPM. The maximum manifold pressure ever recorded was a staggering 150 inches of mercury (inHg)! This was up from dramatically from the 49-inHg maximum manifold pressure originally allowed in the R-2800 “A” series of engines.
Water injection worked by reducing cylinder inlet temperature, thereby delaying the onset of detonation. As the water evaporated in the induction passages of the engine, it providing a prodigious amount of cooling to the fuel charge due to the latent heat of vaporization of the water. Cylinder inlet temperatures went from about 350°F to about 100°F. This increased the detonation margin to the point that up to 150 inHg of manifold pressure could be used.
When water injection was in use, the engine was markedly smoother, and the interior of the combustion chambers stayed extremely clean with no carbon or varnish build-up on the piston crowns, valves, or ring packs. Frank remembers that “There was no hard carbon whatsoever. You could clean the top of a piston down to bare metal by wiping it with a cloth”.
Doesn't sound too fragile to me.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
That was to Benny in his never ending quest for AH realism and was intended for sarcastic content related to in-game aircraft only.
Ah, well, I really do run a quick controls check before flight in game, as a habit I brought with me from real life.
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Ah, well, I really do run a quick controls check before flight in game, as a habit I brought with me from real life.
Good on you then. When they program that into the game you'll be a step ahead of everyone else.;)
-
lol. I use it as a time filler to justfy my reducing RPMs down to less then half on the runway. All I do is lower flaps, and it feels stupid to power up, reduce RPMS, lower flaps, move RPMs back up and take off. So I tossed a control check in right after flaps.
-
Originally posted by Serenity
lol. I use it as a time filler to justfy my reducing RPMs down to less then half on the runway. All I do is lower flaps, and it feels stupid to power up, reduce RPMS, lower flaps, move RPMs back up and take off. So I tossed a control check in right after flaps.
I feel like I'm trying to follow a bouncy ball through a pinball machine.
You do what?
-
And it still won't necessarily save you.
A buddy of mine flying F-4's out of Lakenheath did all his proper checks, rolled down the runway, rotated, became airborne, found the stick locked and unmoveable, punched out and watched the aircraft burn down the Queen's woods.
Turned out a wrench had been left in the stab pivot area and upon rotation it slid into the mechanism and locked the stick.
Maybe HT could model wrenches left in the wrong places.
-
lol. Now that I have taken to taxiing from the hangar, my preflight is (With a fighter, for example Spitfire mk I):
Spawn in hangar.
Start engine.
Run engine at full RPM for 5 seconds
Reduce to around 1,500 or less
Taxi at that RPM out of hangar, onto taxiway, and to the runway at the point I think is necessary for porper takeoff. Enter runway, and take up position either in the middle (If alone) right side (If with Overlag or nonsense) or left side (If I am the lowest person in the flight)
Reduce RPMs to near cutoff, wait for anyone else in my flight. to catch up.
Once flight is assembled, lower flaps.
Run control check to insure that I didnt get a "Dont move your controls too rapidly" message during taxi.
Stand by for flight readyness
Bring RPMs to full
Bring manifold to full
Takeoff.
At 50ft AGL retract gear
at 200ft AGL retract flaps
at 500ft AGL reduce RPMs and manifold to normall
Upon reaching desired altitude bring RPMs and manifold to max cruise.
Uppon reaching enemy space return to normal power so as to be ready for fight.
Go to military power when enemy is sighted. Engage.
Return to desired altitude.
Go back to max cruise.
RTB
upon sighting friendly field, lower flaps to full deflection, make altitude 1,500 AGL
Lower gear when speed is proper
Enter 'downwind' at 1250 ft AGL
Enter base at 1,000 AGL
Enter final at 800ft AGL
Make proper landing
Retract flaps, reduce RPMs to 1,500 or less
Taxi off of runway
end sortie
Thats my flight, assuming I am not upping from a base under attack. If base is under attack, ommit the taxi to and from runway. All pre-takeoff and in flight procedure remains. If base is capped, ommit all above.
-
You must've been the squeaky kid I heard trying to call the tower requesting permission to land the other day.
Best I have thus far Toad is in a C-550 shortly after a phase inspection. Elevator attach points were missing one bolt altogether and the other one didn't have a nut (castle nut where in a perfect world you'd see a cotter pin too)
Made ya wonder how the plane would fly with one side trying to shake itself off of the airplane.
I check those now.
I also like the story of a good friend of mine discovering the parachute in a Lear 35 wasn't attached to the airplane.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
You must've been the squeaky kid I heard trying to call the tower requesting permission to land the other day.
Im offended! :(
Ive never done that before and never will!
-
Well, before I even go out the AH hangar, I sit in the tower for a half hour and pretend I'm getting a 30 minute mission brief.
Top that one!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, before I even go out the AH hangar, I sit in the tower for a half hour and pretend I'm getting a 30 minute mission brief.
Top that one!
lol. Do you do yours on a regular basis? I do :D
(I know YOU were just joking, mine was serious though.)
-
And hey! If we add prop control, cowl flaps and mixture, just IMAGINE how much longer I can make my checklist!
-
Yeah...since they changed the GUI settings I've been waiting for a mechanic to walk from the hangar to the ramp to fix my nav light for 3 months.
-
lol. Im being mocked, arent I?
-
Originally posted by Serenity
lol. Im being mocked, arent I?
No not at all.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D
Bronk
-
lol. Well, at least I have fun! Sometimes I feel I have more fuin taxiing to takeoff than I do actually fighting...
-
Originally posted by Serenity
lol. Well, at least I have fun! Sometimes I feel I have more fuin taxiing to takeoff than I do actually fighting...
I'd post a pic confirming this for you.
But I don't want you thinking I'm pickin on ya.
I'll let you guess what pic I'm talking about.
Bronk
-
Serenity, what airplanes do you fly in real life that require flaps for takeoff? Are you a carrier pilot?
-
lol. I know which one. Like it shows, I knew the second those shots started pinging me, I would never see the end of that film... All that confirms is that I royally suck at fighters.
No benny, I fly gliders, but we find we get best effiency on auto-tow with the lark if we drop 10 degrees of flaps (as it says in the manual). But I almost always fly heavy, meaning a drop tank, because all of the fighters I fly are gas guzzlers, and even if I dont, I put out flaps because my flights with CAP have directed that 1-2 flap settings are good for takeoff regardless of weight situation. Weight only desides if flaps should be extended farther.
-
everyone has fun different ways...... i do that check where u move all control services while im bored waiting for everyone else to spawn on runway.....lol
i only ever run at wep power once in a fight...... where as before i would use wep to GET to the fight faster.
more realism is "cool" but can be too extreme too.... engine overheat would be cool for the likes of TOD, but messing around in MA? no thanks....
-
lol. Prectetive about your MA arent you? ;)
0verlag!