Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Anaxogoras on December 03, 2008, 09:51:33 PM
-
We did a fun Luftwaffe bombing raid tonight, Ju-88s escorted by 190s and a couple 152s. Even with 100% fuel and a drop tank, I was nearly out of gas by the time we reached the 2nd target about 3+ sectors from our starting airfield. Granted, a lot of that burn was from running WEP defending our bombers from attacking fighters, but it would be nice to have the actual, historic range of our 190s and 109s to make these raids practical (the enemy enjoys them too!) :salute
-
Second. The fighter cover of the MoM missions often has to turn back (even the ponies!) due to fuel.
-
Having the actual historic range would imply your missions ran the actual historic ranges. Most airfields are 1 sector apart. Sectors are only 25 miles square.
You want historic fuel, make it so you have to fly 2 hours before seeing the enemy. Oh, wait, people won't pay to do that in an MMO flight sim.
If you're interested in historic ranges try historic throttle settings (read: not FFS).
I regularly take 100% and DTs in 190s of all types, and I usually can fly around (assuming I'm not killed early on!) for 40-mins and more on internal fuel only, including multiple engagements that require WEP. This is in the MAs with 2x fuel burn.
If your mission ran 2-3 hours long, it's your own fault for not getting to the point faster. If you ran out of gas in under 30 minutes with 100%+DT you didn't take full fuel in any 190 variant. Even if you ran full WEP as much as you could as long as you could, the 190s with DTs will still give you over half an hour of full throttle. This increases GREATLY by easing back off the throttles by the smallest margins.
-
Anax, the 2x fuel burn in the MA is the only thing which makes the historically critical attribute of an airplane's range relevant to the MA. Without the fuel-burn, most planes would fly far longer than anybody wants for a single sortie, long-ranged planes would not be used, or would be flown with insanely light fuel loads. Without it, the over-use of what are supposed to be short-range point interceptors would get crazy. You'd have Spixteens and Lalas and the like roaming all over the map at full throttle and climbing to 20K if they wanted, instead of more or less being used for base defense and the like. The only counter would be to greatly extend distances between bases, which would be too unpopular to be implemented.
-
Having the actual historic range would imply your missions ran the actual historic ranges. Most airfields are 1 sector apart. Sectors are only 25 miles square.
You want historic fuel, make it so you have to fly 2 hours before seeing the enemy. Oh, wait, people won't pay to do that in an MMO flight sim.
If you're interested in historic ranges try historic throttle settings (read: not FFS).
I regularly take 100% and DTs in 190s of all types, and I usually can fly around (assuming I'm not killed early on!) for 40-mins and more on internal fuel only, including multiple engagements that require WEP. This is in the MAs with 2x fuel burn.
If your mission ran 2-3 hours long, it's your own fault for not getting to the point faster. If you ran out of gas in under 30 minutes with 100%+DT you didn't take full fuel in any 190 variant. Even if you ran full WEP as much as you could as long as you could, the 190s with DTs will still give you over half an hour of full throttle. This increases GREATLY by easing back off the throttles by the smallest margins.
Amazing but this time i agree krusty. :D
-
I know the Yak flyers would like to see 1.0
-
No way. There are already too many pilots that up fighters with %50 fuel and bombers that up with %25 of fuel.
If anything... I'd vouch for a 2.5 burn rate. Or... inhibit the ability to take less than %75 fuel for aircraft and I might consider supporting the 1.0 burn rate for the MA. Otherwise, no way. You really think someone's going to take %100 fuel in a Spitfire if it last 55 minutes? Drop tanks will be used even less. The longest ranged fighter currently in the AH2 MA is the P47N, iirc.
Aircraft in WWII did not take off for combat operatons without %100 in their tanks and a DT if able. Stop gaming the game.
-
Variable base distances could allow it. You'd have player density biased to the closest bases; could be a way to get some novel map dynamics.
-
Amazing but this time i agree krusty. :D
I was thinking the same thing. :aok
Fuel burn imho should be slightly higher than it is now and they should only allow DTs on an aircraft if you are already carrying 100% internal.
-
I was thinking the same thing. :aok
Fuel burn imho should be slightly higher than it is now and they should only allow DTs on an aircraft if you are already carrying 100% internal.
I do not necessarily agree with a fuel burn change, but the drop tank idea is a good one Delirium. Drop tanks were used to extend range, not to give you gas to get to a fight and then go super light to improve aircraft performance.
-
As if they wouldn't have done it if they had the opportunity?
-
I used to think I wanted the fuel burn back at 1 like it was early on but then there'd be no use for drop tanks in the arenas and porking fuel would mean even less than it does now which is almost nothing. Leave it alone.
-
I do not necessarily agree with a fuel burn change, but the drop tank idea is a good one Delirium. Drop tanks were used to extend range, not to give you gas to get to a fight and then go super light to improve aircraft performance.
yeah, they were worried about silly things like returning to base :lol
In the arena as it is, I'd support a reduction in the burn- maybe not to 1.0, but there's bound to be some middle ground that allows 109's to actually escort bombers for more then 3 measley sectors.
-
We will need to deal with La7s, 109s, Spits that much longer, and we'll see them further away from their bases
I say no
-
I posted a new topic in regards to drop tanks, rather than hijack this one anymore than I have already.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,253551.0.html
-
I say the number of Spitfire 16s, La7s, etc etc really does not matter, and that we should have a 1.5 fuel burn as a compromise.
-
Having the actual historic range would imply your missions ran the actual historic ranges. Most airfields are 1 sector apart. Sectors are only 25 miles square.
You want historic fuel, make it so you have to fly 2 hours before seeing the enemy. Oh, wait, people won't pay to do that in an MMO flight sim.
If you're interested in historic ranges try historic throttle settings (read: not FFS).
I regularly take 100% and DTs in 190s of all types, and I usually can fly around (assuming I'm not killed early on!) for 40-mins and more on internal fuel only, including multiple engagements that require WEP. This is in the MAs with 2x fuel burn.
If your mission ran 2-3 hours long, it's your own fault for not getting to the point faster. If you ran out of gas in under 30 minutes with 100%+DT you didn't take full fuel in any 190 variant. Even if you ran full WEP as much as you could as long as you could, the 190s with DTs will still give you over half an hour of full throttle. This increases GREATLY by easing back off the throttles by the smallest margins.
I think hell is freezing over... or something.
:noid
-
I say the number of Spitfire 16s, La7s, etc etc really does not matter, and that we should have a 1.5 fuel burn as a compromise.
I would be happy with that. I'm really not scared of La-7s or Spit XVIs.
-
I say the number of Spitfire 16s, La7s, etc etc really does not matter, and that we should have a 1.5 fuel burn as a compromise.
An Excellent idea
Helm ...out
-
I like x2 multiplier.
-
Cruise settings are your friend.
-
What about a burn of 1.7 or so. This way it gives planes that deserve it a little more range, but not completely letting Ponies fly the whole map on 25%
-
I don't like the idea because the lack of range of some planes is what keeps people out of planes like the lala and slpit
-
I've never had a fuel problem doing bomber escorts, but I also enjoy the challenge of flying a mission where my biggest enemy is myself (the plane I'm flying, how I fly it and especialy how much fuel I burn while doing it all) followed by the guys trying to shoot my bombers.
First, as a fighter, you can safely take off 10-15 minutes after the bombers have, or much later from a closer airfield and then rondevou with them. This isn't hard but it does typicaly take more coordination than you'll find on the MA (bombers take off a A1, escort takes off at A11 at T+20, escort waits for bombers to arrive at A22, everyone heads to target A33 after the rondevou).
The main thing though as a fighter is to get above the bombers and then cut back your fuel consumption to often less than maximum cruise. You want to match the bombers speed as closely as you can (communication between the escorts and the bombers for matching speeds and headings makes this a lot easier). Not only do you save fuel by burning it at a much lower rate, but you save time/distance by not having to waste fuel for circling around the bombers (as you fly ahead of them when going faster). When enemy contacts show up, throttle up and drop down to the bomber's alt as needed.
Something I've recently experienced with most of my sorties in the BoB '08 scenario (flying 109s, we had maybe one sortie where we weren't escorting JU88s or JU87s), the thing that struck me the most this scenario wasn't that we were burnning so little fuel while escorting (just matching our escort's speed and heading, 5k above them as they cruised and climbed to target), but that we would burn up so much fuel when we weren't cruising above our buffs and had to engage the enemy. WEP or no WEP, more than 10 -15 minutes at full throttle and I would have to calculate breaking formation early for fuel while escorting the bombers back home (ontop of whatever fuel I would need to rejoin and catch-up with the formation flying ahead to it's target, since our combat engagements with the RAF rarely if never continued to follow our escort (and often this was a much larger waste of fuel than the brief combat engagements we had to chase the RAF away from our bombers)).
-
I have been switching to flying the Spitfire Mk14 and even on cruise settings, its extreemly difficult to have enough fuel to climb to combat altitude for an extended mission.
Several times, I have tried escorting bombers and have not been able to engage the intercepting fighters due to critical fuel shortage.
The Mk14 needs to be flown at 18,000 feet or above 23,000 feet for maximum effectivness. A full power in a climb that is 5 minutes to 18k and another 2 to 23k. To acheive 400 mph requires full power. Fuel burn at x2 is around 270 GPH
The spitfire's small belly tank at x2 multiplyer is nealy exhausted by 18000 feet.
May I suggest that perk planes be given a 1x multiplyer?
-
That would work if all the perk planes had tiny gas tanks. But you're forgetting the F4U-4 which has good range on internal fuel as it is, and also carries too LARGE 150-gallon external tanks.
Try reducing power on your climb.
-
Reducing power on climb out generally results in an aircraft consuming more fuel by the time it reaches the desired altitude.
-
I'm going to be rude and not read past page 1...............
Second. The fighter cover of the MoM missions often has to turn back (even the ponies!) due to fuel.
But... As in the "real" war, is what we have. The same fighter squadron never went a full mission. In the Pacific you had Ponies bring the bombers up to alt and then go home. Jugs, from a separate base now meet the bombers at drop alt and follow along with them. Same Jugs never escorted them all the way home.
On long missions, another group of Jugs may be needed.
2.0 keeps the game close to the truth.
-
Cruise settings are your friend.
Heretic. All aircraft in WWII were flown balls-out full throttle all the time (even when starting the engine). Lindbergh was in the PTO teaching fuel management only in so far as the throttle was safety-wired to the firewall.
I used to fly virtual long range jets; did an around-the-world tour in a Lear once (X-Plane) over the course of two weeks. I'd take off, get on course, set the auto-pilot, then go do something less boring (like watching grass clippings decompose). I still do that in bombers...take off, set the auto-pilot...back to the compost heap until it's time to line up for the bombing run. Why on earth would anyone want to fly two hours to get shot down in a fighter?
I can see the log books. Total flight time: 2:15:02. Total combat time: 00:00:02. Result: Popped by a BnZ cherry picker immediatly after contact with the enema.
-
For a P-51D, you can fly for about two hours at Max Cruise Settings.
In real life, they didn't fly around with the throttle at full.
-
I have been switching to flying the Spitfire Mk14 and even on cruise settings, its extreemly difficult to have enough fuel to climb to combat altitude for an extended mission.
Several times, I have tried escorting bombers and have not been able to engage the intercepting fighters due to critical fuel shortage.
The Mk14 needs to be flown at 18,000 feet or above 23,000 feet for maximum effectivness. A full power in a climb that is 5 minutes to 18k and another 2 to 23k. To acheive 400 mph requires full power. Fuel burn at x2 is around 270 GPH
The spitfire's small belly tank at x2 multiplyer is nealy exhausted by 18000 feet.
It's almost as if it is designed in an historical manner. Spits didn't escort bombers much past the coast of France because they didn't have the range.
The secret to everyone's range 'problem' is to throttle back. Fuel management. I regularly fly a Yak and often take 3/4 of a tank if I'm not going over 2 sectors away. Aside from the fact that I don't expect to live long enough to run out of gas, barring a fuel hit, with 5-7 minutes of fuel left at full throttle, if I'm not being chased, I can reduce power to max cruise and make it back to base.
If you can't make it back to base or running out of fuel faster than you think, you are simply not using all the resources that are available to you.
wrongway
-
I'm going to be rude and not read past page 1...............
But... As in the "real" war, is what we have. The same fighter squadron never went a full mission. In the Pacific you had Ponies bring the bombers up to alt and then go home. Jugs, from a separate base now meet the bombers at drop alt and follow along with them. Same Jugs never escorted them all the way home.
On long missions, another group of Jugs may be needed.
2.0 keeps the game close to the truth.
Everyone is so obesssed with the pony and forgets the 38! :cry
Many times 38s would escort the bombers to the target, and jugs would meet them on their way back to escort the rest of the way, or vise versa
-
Darn..... You're right! My bad!!!
Everyone is so obsessed with the pony and forgets the 38! :cry
Many times 38s would escort the bombers to the target, and jugs would meet them on their way back to escort the rest of the way, or vise versa
-
I've flown for 3 sectors in total (with a couple of fights) in the Yak-9T with 100% fuel, just used the throttle at 60 %, btw there are no differences between going full power or 80 % throttle in leveled flight.
2.0 keeps the game close to the truth.
Amen bro'
-
I've flown for 3 sectors in total (with a couple of fights) in the Yak-9T with 100% fuel, just used the throttle at 60 %, btw there are no differences between going full power or 80 % throttle in leveled flight.Amen bro'
Actually there is, but power curves are a CUBED function, so for half the specific fuel burn you loose a few knots of airspeed. If you take some time to experiment you can go twice as far on a tank of gas at (nearly) the same speed and all you need to do is actually pay attention to the throttle.
This is fodder for the "realism" guys, of which I'm one. Fuel management just adds to the immersion and gives you something else to think about. Now all I need is mixture control... :)
-
Now all I need is mixture control... :)
:pray That would be awesome!
-
I'd like to see buff burn bumped up to say 4.0 or even 5.0.
-
I'd like to see buff burn bumped up to say 4.0 or even 5.0.
Bostin III with 100% fuel= 17mins of flight time at fb 4.0
-
Bostin III with 100% fuel= 17mins of flight time at fb 4.0
Ok, then just the 4 engined buggers. :P
-
Ok, then just the 4 engined buggers. :P
-1
then would take me forever (if I could) to take my b17 up to 25k .. nobody will fly buffs then lmao
-
-1
then would take me forever (if I could) to take my b17 up to 25k .. nobody will fly buffs then lmao
But the you can be like the rest of us. You actually have to consider the fuel load out for the task at hand. No more fft at 25% going anywhere you like.
-
But the you can be like the rest of us. You actually have to consider the fuel load out for the task at hand. No more fft at 25% going anywhere you like.
When flying a B-17 you don't take only 25% when planning to get to alt, to your target AND back. It's 37mins of fuel at takeoff.
25% is for the 10k one-way trip guys only. ;) It's definitely not a "go anywhere you like"
-
Lusche I'm not going to dispute your numbers. That would be foolish.
As for game play though... If many fighters are forced to carry 100%. Why not force many buffs the same?
People cry about the short duration of many fighter ac. I've yet to read one cry about buffs being short on fuel. Give them a taste of having to throttle back.
-
A Lancaster is surely a 25 percenter and the B24 is not far behind. I dont agree with multiple fuel burn rates tho. You would basically encourage people to low level bomb. The ones that climb up to 15 to 20k really wont be effected much anyway. If they take the time currently it might just take them a little longer in the future. Personally I would like to see the bases farther apart and the fights higher. Once the fight gets above 15k the La-7s and the uber turn planes tend to get weeded out. Everyone wants to furbal and turn fight in the weeds but thats hardly even realistic. If its one thing I hate its starting a fight below 7k or so. All to often the fight heads for the deck (some good sticks take it up tho). I would love to see a furbal at 25k in the DA/MA one time. For me that would be reliving history (only if a little).
Steel
-
Everyone wants to furbal and turn fight in the weeds but thats hardly even realistic.
Steel
Eastern front?
-
Eastern front?
Key word....hardly.
:D
For the most part its not I feel...
Steel
-
Key word....hardly.
:D
For the most part its not I feel...
Steel
lol :aok
-
I'd say the average height of action in the MA is a little bit low even by the standard of the Russian front.
-
So does fuel burn rate affect Me-163? It doesn't seem to in offline mode.
-
So does fuel burn rate affect Me-163? It doesn't seem to in offline mode.
Nope.
-
But the you can be like the rest of us. You actually have to consider the fuel load out for the task at hand. No more fft at 25% going anywhere you like.
me and my whole squad never carry B-17 with 25 % because among what lusche said about the fuel duration the brobability of being hit in the AUX fuel is very high and it is the "primary" fuel tank used with that fuel-loadout.
Lusche I'm not going to dispute your numbers. That would be foolish.
As for game play though... If many fighters are forced to carry 100%. Why not force many buffs the same?
that could reduce the little realism this game barely have IMO.
Hvy Bombers had/have got a fuel capacity that is far beyond any fighter possibility, why reduce it going again against the realistic stuff?
People cry about the short duration of many fighter ac. I've yet to read one cry about buffs being short on fuel. Give them a taste of having to throttle back.
Who and why are they crying about it ? How long they been playing ? what do they really know about WWII planes and their engines fuel consumption ?
Once the 100th lift off with 50 % fuel and went for a very long bomb run, we throttled back, flown for about 12 sector (honestly I cant remember how long we flown but I guess for 2 hours), had got many cons to fight against, somebody had fuel leaks; we landed with 3 mins left in the tanks. We could have carried more fuel to keep the throttle at Military Power all time long but we didnt. We wanted to TO light in order to reach altitude fast, to survive... -- parenthesis: I dont know this, but, could the bombers in WWII really keep the throttle at 100% like we do in game? and the fighters?
2.0 is a good throttle setting for MA
1.0 is the optimum for the historical SE
<S>
chewie
-
That's a shame, 10 minutes of full rocket boost would be great.