Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Anaxogoras on January 03, 2009, 12:57:53 AM

Title: Fuel Burn
Post by: Anaxogoras on January 03, 2009, 12:57:53 AM
Who's idea was it to punish me with 2.0 fuel burn? :P  I skipped the AvA tonight and went to the main arena instead.

More fuel burn = more time spent climbing out.
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Shane on January 03, 2009, 02:01:00 AM
Who's idea was it to punish me with 2.0 fuel burn? :P  I skipped the AvA tonight and went to the main arena instead.

More fuel burn = more time spent climbing out.

how you you figure?  because you have to burn fuel some off?  take less and fly lower?  The map bases are standard ma distances sort of, so yeah unless everyone tears a beeline off the deck, fights will be at a more varied alt.  nothing wrong with that.

Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Dawger on January 03, 2009, 06:26:01 AM
I just took off from a rear base as normal and spent the first 10 minutes enjoying the trip. The AvA was better than average last night.
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Odee on January 03, 2009, 08:55:21 AM
LA has around 20 minutes at 100% fuel...  More weight, less turn, climb, fight time.

Yak has around 25 minutes at 75%

P38 with 50% has 20 +/-5 minutes flight...

By the time you reach a comparable altitude where you can compete effectively against the LW 109 and 190, you have maybe 5 to 10  minutes flight time.

Shall I go on?
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: republic on January 03, 2009, 09:45:01 AM
Sauce for the goose...

The concern for fuel adds a nice addition of realism to our little cartoon game.

It's just one week...surely we can all survive.  :)
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Shane on January 03, 2009, 10:06:26 AM
LA has around 20 minutes at 100% fuel...  More weight, less turn, climb, fight time.

Yak has around 25 minutes at 75%

P38 with 50% has 20 +/-5 minutes flight...

By the time you reach a comparable altitude where you can compete effectively against the LW 109 and 190, you have maybe 5 to 10  minutes flight time.

Shall I go on?

Uhhh, LW rides are more thirsty than their US counterparts and comparable to UK/VVS.  I've seen mostly US v LW with a smattering of spits and vvs stuff.   IJN v Allies has mostly been withering on the vine.

The underlying gripe is really distances more than anything, and like I said prior, higher alt fights aren't necessarily a bad thing.
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Anaxogoras on January 03, 2009, 10:19:32 AM
It's just one week...surely we can all survive.  :)

The last setup had 2x fuel burn, also.

All I'm saying is that the lack of 2x fuel burn was appealing to me and was one of the things I liked about the AvA.  Cutting fuel in half works well for the US rides, which seem to be the standard for doing so in the main arena, but for the VVS, British and German aircraft it is too severe.  Wouldn't 1.5 be a nice compromise for the AvA?
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: republic on January 03, 2009, 11:01:22 AM
As generally a LW pilot, I feel your pain.  :)  However, the fuel burn was changed to 2.0 , I believe, because someone asked to try it that way.  I'm sure they'll change it back again if enough people ask them.

Personally I don't mind it.  It discourages running and also makes the less popular planes suddenly more attractive.
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Larry on January 03, 2009, 11:14:59 AM
Um 2.0 fuel burn really isn't a problem with LW rides. Last night I was only upping with 75% fuel in my G14 and not having any problem with range. Mainly because I wasn't climbing to 25K to dive in on the fight. If that is your way then I suggest 100% and DT and not WEPing the whole way. Kinda like they did back in the real war.
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Odee on January 03, 2009, 08:33:01 PM
...Mainly because I wasn't climbing to 25K to dive in on the fight. If that is your way then I suggest 100% and DT and not WEPing the whole way. Kinda like they did back in the real war.
This is true Larry.  The other night I found you at 13k instead of 25k.  thought it was AkAk at first.
 :rofl
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Larry on January 03, 2009, 10:48:35 PM
13K? I dont remember climbing that high in the past week except when jg54 did a ju88 raid.
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: republic on January 04, 2009, 12:39:00 PM
I dunno larry, you were doing about 310 diving down at me from like 12k in your Tiger last night...  You altmonkey tiger tard.  Then you completely HO'ed my panzer.  :(

Altmonkey HO'ing Tiger Tard...

:rofl
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Larry on January 04, 2009, 01:41:46 PM
Naw my best speed was about 183MPH in my panzer. Best part was the Evil Knievel jumps. I think I could have cleared ten panzers end to end with one jump.  :D
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: B4Buster on January 04, 2009, 03:08:28 PM
LOL Larry, I was watching you roll down the hill, At first I thought you were an M3 or something until I looked closer, you were definately hauling  :lol
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Krusty on January 07, 2009, 04:49:10 PM
just as an fyi, 109s have about 25 mins on full internal fuel at 2.0, fw190s have about 30 mins, that's not counting the 50% increase in consumption while running WEP for 10 minutes.

Just seems to me folks learned to pull a gamey super-tight reversal manuver, turn, or split-S, in a hurr1 with 25% fuel, but don't know how to do much else when the plane actually has a realistic weight. (substitute plane of choice for that analogy)

Lotta the baby seals in HTH had the same problems. No fuel burn, ulimited ammo, F3 view, almost none of them ever learned to fly under real conditions.


Surely that's not a problem for you seasoned AvA pilots, right?
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Anaxogoras on January 07, 2009, 04:54:03 PM
Nice straw-man krusty.  Keep it up. :aok
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Krusty on January 07, 2009, 04:59:43 PM
Not a straw man. First, pointing out that LW planes have limited ranges as well. US planes benefit the most.

Second, pointing out that the only reason you're uncomfortable with 2.0 fuel burn is you (you all, not "you") tool around at 25% from takeoff and think you're hot sh** because you out-turn stuff in a turny ride, but maybe it's the fact you have almost no weight, and have to land after 2 minutes of dogfighting.

I agree that the fuel burn at 2.0 is valid because you're not doing anything special. You're not recreating BOB with realistic flight distances, nor spending 40 minutes warming your engine up before rolling down the runway, nor any of the things that really warrant a 1.0 fuel burn. Folks end up gaming the game when you get 15 minutes on 25% and you only need 5 of that to get to an enemy.

1/4 your fuel means your climb rates skyrocket more than the historic rates, your acceleration, turn radius, and many other performance aspects of the ride you are in are artificially increased. Try it like normal for a while. You might appreciate your rides more (assuming you don't already, no offense intended)
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: Anaxogoras on January 07, 2009, 05:04:48 PM
Wow, you have an axe to grind....

With 1.0 fuel burn I used to take a minimum of 75% fuel in the 109 or 190 simply because I enjoy flying for a long time before I have to rtb.  Chew on that.
Title: Re: Fuel Burn
Post by: iTunes on January 09, 2009, 12:31:44 PM
The only time the 2.0 fuel burn would be a problem would in crates like the LA for example and flying up to 15-20k, then swooping down and burning fuel to get back up there again