Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BaldEagl on February 27, 2007, 11:17:23 AM
-
Did something happen here? It seems every plane i fly now I have to pack along a drop tank to be able to get any distance/flight time. It used to be that I always had plenty of fuel with a full tank no matter what I flew.
Half the planes in the set can't seem go further than one field away now if they expect to get in a fight and fly home.
If true then I guess it all fits into the master plan of allowing nothing but furballing.
Or maybe it's all just my imagination.
-
I'll vote its your imagination :D
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I'll vote its your imagination :D
Ditto.
Bronk
-
I havn't noticed fuel problems, but if there is a problem, I'm fairly sure it can be traced back to Tank Town.:noid
-
Chalk another one up for "imagination".
-
Have you gained weight?
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
Have you gained weight?
Ahhh, thats probably it! That or my computer is getting older and it's not as efficient as it used to be.
-
Originally posted by DREDger
I havn't noticed fuel problems, but if there is a problem, I'm fairly sure it can be traced back to Tank Town.:noid
Nah, its the unperked Spit 16.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Ahhh, thats probably it! That or my computer is getting older and it's not as efficient as it used to be.
oh well, you didnt say that before, how can we properly diagnosis an issue with out all the information. the solution is change the oil and fuel filter, and you probably want to think about upgrading to a purple powerband, gets better fuel performance with out a hit on horsepower...
-
Well actually I feel naked without a drop tank on me spit. I always fight with it on. Never drop it untill it's empty and thats got me home a few times after taking main fuel hits. All but 1 p47 uses more fuel than ammo so again a drops a must.
Nothing has changed with burn rate since AHII came out but climbing over some of the new map mountains may give the appearence that B R is different.:aok
-
HT should stop planes from being able to load DTs without full internal fuel. That'd even the things out quite a bit for some of the planes with a small fuel load that does not have a DT option, especially in a MA which uses 2.0 burn ratio.
-
They are saving gas. Al Gore is happy now:noid
-SR-
-
actually we're not saving, just burning the double quantity of fuel for the same job.
would vote for burn multi 1.0 - just to give the some folk the idea the returning to base is a feature and cure them from acrophobia btw.
:D
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
HT should stop planes from being able to load DTs without full internal fuel. That'd even the things out quite a bit for some of the planes with a small fuel load that does not have a DT option, especially in a MA which uses 2.0 burn ratio.
Then HT should have a per aircraft burn ratio since faster climbing aircraft are artificially favored by any modifier above 1. The point of a drop tank was to have enough fuel to get to the fight, and home again. If I take 50 and drop tank, guess what? I've planned my flight so that I have enough fuel to get the fight, fight, and get home again. I'd only agree that the above were fair if the fuel modifer were always 1.
But it isn't.
-
Then HT should have a per aircraft burn ratio since faster climbing aircraft are artificially favored by any modifier above 1.
How do you figure that?
The point of a drop tank was to have enough fuel to get to the fight, and home again. If I take 50 and drop tank, guess what? I've planned my flight so that I have enough fuel to get the fight, fight, and get home again.
You "gamed the game".
If one needs the flight range/time of a "50% internal + DT" configuration would provide, one would up a plane at 100% internal fuel in the first place. Only when the mission requires the pilot to fly longer than possible with internal fuel loads, would he rack up the DTs as a requirement for the mission.
Ofcourse, that's the real life. Since this game doesn't have economy, nor quartermasters who frown upon people who waste valuable resources without absolute need, people are free to use unlikely fuel configurations to their individual advantage. Heck, HT or Pyro themselves probably would have used those kinds of fuel configurations when they were playing AW or WB or something, so they probably didn't think much of the implications such configurations hold.
The problem is, allowing such configurations such as "50% internal + DTs" penalizes planes with smaller fuel load especially when the fuel burn rate is high. As of the relatively recent changes of the MA which increased the fuel burn rate to 2.0, the differences in flight time became a significant and important factor for determining each planes' strengths and weaknesses in the game. A Spitfire or a La-7 is an excellent dogfighting plane, but its light stature allows it only limited flying time, whereas the 'heavier' US planes such as P-38s or P-47s or P-51s boast significantly longer flight time.
Range of flight is a distinct and significant advantage. However, it comes at a price of increased weight due to larger quantities of fuel the plane must carry. On the contrary, light weight is a factor that directly contributes to the performance of the plane in combat, but it comes at a price of smaller fuel loads and lesser flight time/range.
Thus, a pilot who favors a more nimble dogfighting plane must accept the consequences of its lighter fuel load. He must almost always take off at 100% fuel, and has to endure the effect of the plane weighing much heavier than its optimum levels. On the contrary, a pilot who favors a plane with heavy internal fuel loads, can just take 50% fuel and DTs. Not only is he able to fly as long as when he is at 100% internal fuel, but he is also able to instantly get rid of the extra weight that may hinder combat at the touch of a button. He benefits from the long range, and yet does not suffer the penalty of heavier fuel loads during combat. How fair is that?
To me it's just one of those bullshi* things which people really don't realize until they start thinking about it seriously. The fuel should be loaded in sequence; starting from 25% to 50, 75, 100.. and then the DTs. If the pilot figures he will not fly long enough to require DTs, then he should be getting up with 75 or 100% fuel. The weight of the internal fuel should stay there until the pilot flies long enough to burn all of it, and until that happens, the heavier planes should suffer from the penalties of its weight during combat.
As it is, none of the more lighter planes in the game ever really engage combat in their optimum weight condition. By the time a La-7 or a Yak is lightened enough to show their true potential the pilot must start think of turning back and returning home. This is how it is in the game, and I see no problems here.
However, a pilot using a P-51 or P-47 takes off with only 50% fuel load, climbs to alt on the DTs, drops them at the combat zone, and then flies for 20 minutes worth of combat at a fuel load of 50% and under, in which case the aircraft is considerably lighter than its normal weight. He is able to grab all the alt he wants and travel all the distance he needs to the combat zone, and then when the combat ensues the extra weight of the fuel is suddenly gone and the plane reaches optimum combat conditions.
An La-7 pilot flying at 20k at a combat zone 20 miles away from his home base suffers the disadvantage of draining great amounts of fuel and flying around mostly at cruise settings. A P-51 pilot flying at 20k at a combat zone 20 miles away from his home base suffers nothing, as he arrives at the scene on his DTs, and then instantly reverts to "combat mode" with only 50% fuel weight by dumping the DTs... flies on for another 20 minutes of combat, and then merrily scoots off - this, I have problems with.
The P-51 should have taken off with 100% fuel, and by the time he reaches 20k alt at 20 miles from home he should have burned about 20% and should be flying at 80% fuel, and should start combat at that weight. If he didn't think he needed that much fuel then he should have taken off at 75% and arrive at the target zone at 55% fuel and then start fighting. If he was attacked by an enemy airplane shortly after take off, then he should be fighting with that 75% fuel which he never had a chance to burn off, not instantly go over to 50% fuel and start dogfighting immediately.
-
HTC has compressed horizontal distances with increased fuel burn. As a result bases can be closer to each other.
However HTC cannot compress the vertical distances. It's just not possible without changing the FM or density of the very air itself.
This means that an aircraft flying level gets 1/2 as far on 2x fuel burn, but an aircraft climbing to 20k uses 3-4x as much gas to get to the same alt as it normally would have.
There's no way to fix this, and I wouldn't say it's intentional, but it means that aircraft that climb faster (get to alt faster) use less gas getting up there, and benefit from it more so than slow-climbers. Because they can level off and reduce RPM faster.
That's what he means. Just a byproduct of the game.
-
To think all this time, I've just been taking the fuel I need, and not freaking out about the other guy's loadout, since I cannot possibly know what it is.
-
but thats too easy :cool:
-
Quite simple.
The faster an aircraft climbs, the less of it's fuel store it chews through to get to engagement altitude because the less time it spends at a high power setting getting there relative to a slower climbing aircraft, and the more of an advantage it's rate of climb becomes against slower climbing opponents. Opponents who as the modifier increases have had to commit more fuel to climbing to the engagement altitude to begin with, and may well not have enough left after climbing to engage - or the fuel to get home after they've climbed to alt and then engaged.
And who have to take an increasingly heavier relative fuel load compared to the faster climbing aircraft to begin with, which amplifies the advantage non-linearly - the same way that millions of pounds of fuel are required to put a few 10's of thousands of lbs into orbit.
The same issue applies to cruise speed with respect to the linear distance, although the range of variability isn't as large as the variance in the rates of climb and so the relative factoring is less of an issue.
But with respect to your assertion that using drop tanks to manage your fuel state is "gaming the game", to my mind that's "horse puckey". The point of a drop tank was to get the RANGE required to perform your assigned mission. Yes, having a drop tank available may be an advantage of one airframe over another that doesn't - but so is having rockets, or bomb loadouts, or a better rate of climb, or a better guns package in the first place.
So unless you mean that getting to choose your fuel loadout to begin with - along with maps that aren't to scale, the associated fuel modifers to compensate for scale, and airfields always an average of 12 -15 miles from "the front lines" - is altogether gamey too, then I have to disagree with you.
Frankly, it appears to me that you are focusing on a single element that (I suspect) probably appears to you to be a disadvantage to a particular airframe, and concentrating on it all out of the context of the rest of the "hokey" environment and calling "foul".
At least the fuel loads in AH are in set increments of 25%, so that you don't get what we used to call "the 7% intercepters" elsewhere.
If the modifier were at 1.0 on a to-scale map, and every aircraft had to lift with a fuel state consistent with a historical mission start (which in most cases is 100% to begin with) then I'd agree with you. But until then, the whole thing is so hokey to begin with that worrying about how a person uses drop tanks seems to be nitpicking a tree without seeing the forest.
-
P.S. Krusty said it better!
-
OK, so it is true then. It isn't my imagination. It is all part of the master plan to force nothing but furballs.
On the big maps was the fuel modifyer at 1 then?
I think they need to reduce it to at least 1.5 so I could just go back to a full tank without worrying about drop tanks (I almost got hit when my squaddie dropped tanks in front of me last night... cool effect but if it would have caused damage I'd have been upset) but then again I might go flying around looking for a fight other than in the now mandatory furballs.
-
But with respect to your assertion that using drop tanks to manage your fuel state is "gaming the game", to my mind that's "horse puckey".
I wouldn't expect any different reaction from someone who already heavily benefits from what is essentially a GAME EXPLOIT. or perhaps rather a REALISM BREAKER.
The point of a drop tank was to get the RANGE required to perform your assigned mission. Yes, having a drop tank available may be an advantage of one airframe over another that doesn't - but so is having rockets, or bomb loadouts, or a better rate of climb, or a better guns package in the first place.
No, the point of a drop tank was to get the rane required to perfrom your assigned mission WHEN THE INTERNAL FUEL LOAD WAS NOT ENOUGH. [/i].
Don't try to blur the points being made. Nobody is claiming having a DT itself is an unfair advantage. What is being claimed is that using the DTs with an internal fuel load of less than 100% is technically something that falls into the category of abuse, which its sole purpose is to substitue a significant amount of internal fuel load so it can be arbitrarily removed from the plane's weight in an instant, to gain an advantage that would hardly ever be presented were it in real life.
So unless you mean that getting to choose your fuel loadout to begin with - along with maps that aren't to scale, the associated fuel modifers to compensate for scale, and airfields always an average of 12 -15 miles from "the front lines" - is altogether gamey too, then I have to disagree with you.
Totally irrelevant. The point being made is about problematic attitudes in choosing a plane configurations due to a glaring oversight by which certain planes are given unexpected advantages in their performace. The advantages and disadvantages concerning the scale and distance of the map apply to all planes equally, whereas the problem at hand of funky fuel configurations apply to a selective group of planes. The former cannot be corrected, the latter can.
Frankly, it appears to me that you are focusing on a single element that (I suspect) probably appears to you to be a disadvantage to a particular airframe, and concentrating on it all out of the context of the rest of the "hokey" environment and calling "foul".
At least the fuel loads in AH are in set increments of 25%, so that you don't get what we used to call "the 7% intercepters" elsewhere.
It doesn't "appear" to be a disadvanatge to some planes.
It "IS" an actual disadvantage to some planes.
If the modifier were at 1.0 on a to-scale map, and every aircraft had to lift with a fuel state consistent with a historical mission start (which in most cases is 100% to begin with) then I'd agree with you. But until then, the whole thing is so hokey to begin with that worrying about how a person uses drop tanks seems to be nitpicking a tree without seeing the forest.
Nice try, except there is no "forest" in this case.
All the "hokeyness" of the map scale, has actually nothing to do with the points being made and once again it is totally irrelevant to what is being presented here. Basically you are saying the map scale and fuel burn in the game is a fantasy, so it should mean any kind of fantasy fuel setting can be permitted as well;; Sorry, I don't by that argument.
The point is simple and very clear.
Droptanks in the game are not used as supplementary ordnance to truly increase flight time and range (as they are intended to be). They are being used as substitutes for a significant proportion of the internal fuel load that can be immediately removed on whim, for pure combat purposes.
Thus, your claims that the DTs are being used as intended,and there is nothing wrong with it, is false.
People who uses "50% fuel + DT" configuration does not slap on the DTs because they actually feel they need the DTs for extra range. The small scale of the MA map gurantees that 100% internal is more than enough for the planes with large internal fuel loads in most cases.
Instead, the people who uses such configurations, uses them as an alternative to the "100% fuel" setting for the sole purpose of combat, since with this setting the weight disadvantage of the heavy planes can be eliminated instantly for purpose of combat.
A P-51D with 50% + DT roughly flies as long as a P-51D at 100% internal. Both configurations have about the same flying time. However, the former is a greatly more favored configuration in the MA because unlike the latter, the former has a significant weight advantage when the DTs are dropped upon combat. This is what I am saying is bullshi*. Such a configuration was never used in real life, since it logically doesn't make sense. The only reason it is used in AH is because it is allowed to.
It shouldn't be allowed, and this has got nothing to do with the scale of the map.
-
Whoa, all the hostility!
If you're going to argue fine details like that, you shouldn't allow aircraft ANY control over their gas levels on takeoff. NO matter what the plane. P47Ns would go unused, due to the 1000+lbs of fuel they carry onboard. Bombers would almost never clear the runway, hitting the trees at the far end (ever try 100% in a B17 with 6000lbs of ord?).
Frankly, this is first and formost a GAME. If you know the nearest enemy field is only 10 minutes away, you KNOW that you only want a 10-15 minute fight, then maybe want 5 minutes to RTB. You KNOW you only have 20-30 minutes to fly and that's about how long your sortie will be, you're going to tailor your fuel levels to that amount.
People could take 25% + DT in a P47D11 and make it a wickedly light turn fighter, sure... But you know how much 25% is? That's 7 minutes or less. Not counting WEP. So they see the enemy, drop their DT... and... what? Blow EVERYTHING for a single fight? After 1 engagement they drift down to the deck to ditch, fuel gone?
Frankly it's Darwinism at work. Let the morons do this. It won't help them against anybody that wants to kill them. Hell it will only help in a small area: turn capability.
And we all know turning ain't everything.
-
Mark your calendars, gents; Krusty appears to be 100% correct!
-
I guess I just don't feel that this particular issue is any where near the kind of a "realism breaker" that you feel it is, given the other obvious concessions to realism with respect to fuel usage in arena play (1/2 scale maps, fuel use modifiers, rediculously short flight distances, and the fact that each player chooses his fuel load to begin with, etc).
If someone were to stage a historical event where the goal was realism and were going to allow players to choose less than a full fuel load with drop tanks, I'd be right there objecting to it with you, just as I'd object to letting intercepters launch with only 25%, or enabling in-flight radar, or external views.
But in the main arena, no. We obviously don't see eye to eye on this, and just as obviously, we're not going to.
(If it eases your mind at all, I almost never launch with DT's at less than 100% unless it's squad night and that's what flight lead calls for. And not because I feel it's "an exploit", but because I prefer to avoid the loss in performance that the extra drag that's modeled from the shackles (even after you drop the tank, and rightly so) causes, and the further reduction in climb rate as a result of the drag from the tank itself while you are carrying it. )
-
If you flat at 30k will you burn less fuel than at 5k is that modeled in game?:confused:
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Mark your calendars, gents; Krusty appears to be 100% correct!
Calendar so marked :aok
as for this discussion I'll add my 2 cents
for me it depends on the plane and what I'm doing.
109F 75% and drop tank, gives me about 30-35 minutes I think, normally used to chase bombers and rapid response for VH defense. I usually I can throttle back for extra loiter time near a VH in case they're coming back.
A6M - always 50% and drop tank. gives me about 30 minutes (i think) after take off if I dont need the drop tank I lose it. Begin considering 25% and drop tanks cause I dont usually last more than 10-15 minutes anyway.
Spit V, 75% and oops no drop tank, about 30 minutes, more if you play with the throttle and prop rpms. I'm confused on the drop tank for the Spit V cause repro manual I have says Spit V could use drop tank or 500lb bomb.
Hurri2C - depends, if I got a long distance, 75% and drop tanks, otherwise 50%
Ki84 - same, drop tank and 50% - 75% depends on distance