Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: moot on May 06, 2009, 04:53:08 AM
-
Here's something else that I find over-simplified..
P-51D has 5 minutes of WEP before max temperature is reached.
Cool-down time to normal operating temp is 10 minutes. This is a 15 minute cycle.
What I find bothersome is that reducing power does not reduce cool-down time. It should as the engine is making much less heat.
After 5 minutes at WEP, it still takes 10 minutes to cool down to normal temp even with power reduced to 35 in/hg @ 2,200 RPM. Even if you shut off the motor and restart it two minutes later, the temperature jumps up to where it would be if I had left the engine cooling down at MIL power. This doesn't encourage anyone limit power unless fuel is an issue.
I'd like to see cool-down times based upon power settings, for all aircraft.
My regards,
Widewing
And also ambient temperature (it's cold up there), and air speed.
-
Agreed 100%.
I dislike this unlimited WEP supply. I'm no history buff, but I am an engineer. I'm fairly certain fighters would have had a limited supply of additives (methanol or water injection for e.g.) for WEP. WEP should be available for that time limit only and no more.
Plus I also don't like this auto WEP off business. I say let it run till it cooks your engine, like it used to in the old AH1.
Would add another element to a fight and make people actually look at their instruments once in a while.
-
I think if work was ever done to bring benefits to those ready to manage their engines then this would be one of them.
Press button for more power is somewhat simplistic. Unfortunately it would mean creating different WEP mechanisms for differing ac.
There were a myriad of them from enriched fuel injection thru water addition to basic over rev. Even basic over rev can be more complex than first seen. e.g Full Lavochkin WEP was the Combination of over rev (2500rpm) and the reduction of drag enjoyed by closing off the engine cooling vanes/louvres.
Did wing mounted radiators on 109's and Spits have similar dampers/ louvres that would change drag coefficients?
-
Agreed 100%.
I dislike this unlimited WEP supply. I'm no history buff, but I am an engineer. I'm fairly certain fighters would have had a limited supply of additives (methanol or water injection for e.g.) for WEP. WEP should be available for that time limit only and no more.
Plus I also don't like this auto WEP off business. I say let it run till it cooks your engine, like it used to in the old AH1.
Would add another element to a fight and make people actually look at their instruments once in a while.
I agree 100% with that statement, especially the part of "Cooking the engine" I look at my gauges all the time, even in combat. Probable why I only fly a handful of fighters. Eitherway, you should know where your instruments are at.
-
I definitely agree that with the idea from Widewing as well with the idea from Moot regarding ambient temperatures.
-
You guys don't remember what happened the last time I asked for more detailed engine management? :uhoh :lol
-
It's not management.
-
Reducing power to cool the engine down is not engine management? You're fooling yourself.
-
Agreed 100%.
I dislike this unlimited WEP supply. I'm no history buff, but I am an engineer. I'm fairly certain fighters would have had a limited supply of additives (methanol or water injection for e.g.) for WEP. WEP should be available for that time limit only and no more.
Plus I also don't like this auto WEP off business. I say let it run till it cooks your engine, like it used to in the old AH1.
Would add another element to a fight and make people actually look at their instruments once in a while.
WEP in AH has always been just as it is now. There was never a time when you could run it to destruction, at least not since before v1.00.
Also, not all aircraft used additives for WEP. Spitfires and Mustangs for example.
-
Reducing power to cool the engine down is not engine management? You're fooling yourself.
Let me put it this way. It's not management because flying only on MIL or WEP as we do now would make no changes in the cooling times. It's just making the physics higher fidelity. The same way increasing the lift points calculated wouldn't be management.
-
I don't like the analogy to lift points. What widewing proposes asks me to do something. To use hitech's terminology, I would push a button or move something, in addition to what I do now, in order to get the benefit of greater fidelity.
-
It doesn't ask you to do anything. Keep flying just like you do and there won't be any difference.
-
You know, that's the exact same argument we gave to hitech when asking for true engine controls like mixture, cowl/radiator flaps, etc. We said something like "make it so those who don't want to bother won't suffer anything," and the idea was still anathema to him.
-
Anax:
Good lord man, you have to admit that "reduced throttle"="quicker cool down time" is a simple, intuitive, no-brainer relationship that anyone can easily get. It is nothing like having to fool with mixture, supercharger settings, cowl-flaps, etc.
But let me tell you guys something about absolute fidelity in engine modeling. It would have unrealistic results. With absolute realistic engine controls and failure modeling I could and would run an R-2800 for example as high as it would go for most of typical 30 minute sortie, land the engine I just wore slap out, and get to take off with a "new" airplane with a "new" engine to do it again next sortie.
-
I'm just saying we ought to have engine temperature that obeys the laws of physics. The same way flaps do, or the same way losing parts like control surfaces does. It's not about adding management.
-
I think about that all the darn time. I've shut the engine off at 30k going 350mph for 2 minutes later, down to 28k, turn it back on and it's still hot... Meanwhile my pressured cockpit broke and I'm freezing.
And also ambient temperature (it's cold up there), and air speed.
And I hate to say it but m00t's right..... Physics are good for you! :aok
I'm just saying we ought to have engine temperature that obeys the laws of physics. The same way flaps do, or the same way losing parts like control surfaces does. It's not about adding management.
-
Anax:
Good lord man, you have to admit that "reduced throttle"="quicker cool down time" is a simple, intuitive, no-brainer relationship that anyone can easily get. It is nothing like having to fool with mixture, supercharger settings, cowl-flaps, etc.
I agree with you. Boy do I ever agree with you...but here's the deal: so long as there's any advantage to be gained by doing something extra, it won't fly with HTC. This position has been made very clear in many of hitech's posts.
-
I see what you're saying, and controlling throttle specifically for the purpose of affecting the temperature change rate in the engine is doing something for a purpose it previously would not accomplish, but people already control their throttle settings to achieve various speed-related effects. Making this throttle control also change the rate of temperature gain or loss in the engine is hardly "pushing a button" to achieve greater realism.
The reason I agree with M00t and Widewing on this, and disagree with Anax, is that people start this game with a simplistic "firewall it!" approach to throttle management, and over time develop a more refined approach, with tangible improvements to their flying performance. There is no reason why the benefit of more realistic cool-down needs to be seen as a "need" for players to learn something new. They already are learning to manage their throttles anyway, for benefits they already get from so doing. Giving them the benefit of better cool-down is just a side benefit.
In fact, giving people the cool-down benefit might in fact result in people learning about, and mastering, purposeful throttle management at an earlier stage in their Aces High career, which would improve their dogfight performance.
There's really no good reason not to do this.
-
Seth, throttle control to avoid excess airspeed in ACM is a separate issue from what is being discussed. Currently, the only effect non-WEP throttle settings have is on fuel consumption. Currently, if you are fat with fuel, there is no reason not to cruise on MIL all the time. If Moot's idea was implemented, you would have a trade-off between thrust and engine cooling time, perhaps you would even run WEP longer because your engine began cooler initially.
-
Seth, throttle control to avoid excess airspeed in ACM is a separate issue from what is being discussed.
Not really. Anax is saying that Hitech doesn't want to add realism to the game if the achievement of that realism requires people to push more buttons. I'm saying that while sure, achieving a higher rate of cool-down for the engine would involve some throttle manipulation, such throttle manipulation is nothing new to the game - people go from not doing much if anything with the throttle at all during flight to manipulating the throttle on purpose while flying to achieve benefits already in the game. Adding the improvements to rate of temperature change would be just an add-on benefit. This is hardly the same kind of thing as creating, say, a new button to push, like changing mixture, or cowl flaps would do.
Currently, the only effect non-WEP throttle settings have is on fuel consumption. Currently, if you are fat with fuel, there is no reason not to cruise on MIL all the time. If Moot's idea was implemented, you would have a trade-off between thrust and engine cooling time, perhaps you would even run WEP longer because your engine began cooler initially.
Yes, and that would be a good thing. Sure, there may be no good "game" reason not to fly around on military power all the time, but it's absolutely horrible from a WWII simulation perspective. I know this is a game, and not WWII, but it's hardly a good thing that we have aspects of the game that actually encourage blatant departure from more realistic flying patterns. The bottom line is there is no way in hell pilots in WWII would routinely take off with WEP and then cruise around on military power for the whole flight, throttling down only during actual combat, or when shooting their landing approach.
So making it more attractive not to fly around on military power all the time would be a very good thing, IMHO. And for those who disregard this, they would get exactly the same behavior they currently see in game. It's a no-lose proposition.
-
I too have wondered about this subject...
I agree with the push to increase the cooldown with throttle reduction and/or engine off. This added level of complexity to the game can only help, and its not like it really affects those who wouldn't do it all that much. Somebody could continue flying the way they currently do (bawls to the wall) without noticing any difference. Alternatively, they'll learn to conserve their WEP, manage their engines, become better fighters and feel more accomplishment, while overall improving the quality of the gameplay.
Meanwhile, I can see both sides of the arguement on the idea of having an engine overheat... While I personally would love to see the engine overheat and then explode, catch fire or seize up, I understand how this MIGHT increase the number of button presses one must do. Alternatively, a knocking sound could kick in at the point where the engines WEP currently cuts off and that could be a cue that you should turn off your wep. Even if this does kick in, then one could STILL choose to push the engine just a bit harder, if they need to and risk damaging it. To me, this would GREATLY increase the realism and make it a lot more interesting from a fighters point of view without really changing gameplay for some (most hit the WEP off and on anyway).
Meanwhile, stuff like cowl flaps, mixture, etc would definately increase the amount of micromanaging that goes on in the cockpit and I can definately see the arguement against them. The previous two points however seem very VERY valid in a WWII Combat simulator such as AH. Especially when one considers the amount of times engine trouble really played into the outcome of a battle. Those two little tweaks would go quite far in immersion and realism I think without increasing the learning curve.
-
That only applies if it's an independent controller....... Meaning if only people with a throttle it would help. However, everybody has a throttle/RPM control mapped. There is no extra.
so long as there's any advantage to be gained by doing something extra
The whole thing is actually comparable to the Hurri 1, Spit 1 and whatever other planes have carb issues when inverted. If the fuel gets cut for that, it only makes sense to allow for faster cooling through reducing throttle.
-
Someone mentioned there were "unlimited" WEP available to some aircrafts. Let's take the FW190D-9 as a example, the one that I do know some details about, it has chemical boost WEP in the form of 50/50 methanol/water injection. The tank holding the MW50 is good for 30 minutes on WEP. At that power setting, the internal fuel on the D-9 will not last you more than 26 minutes (+ a few seconds maybe) at the 2.0 burn rate which is in effect in the MAs. So the MW50 will actually last longer than the internal fuel carried. The engine will overheat after ~10 minutes of WEP though so it's 3 x 10 minute WEP that's available. Never ever flying the D-9 in AH have I ran out of WEP, and this is historically correct.
Other than that, I fully support this motion to make cooling down rates and temperatures more realistic. You have to keep in mind though that while outside temperatures may be low, shutting down the engine will also shut down coolant circulation leaving only the airflow to cool the engine off. So a engine shut down might actually cool down much slower than one running on a low power setting. At the same time, going from WEP to idle power setting would probably damage most of these engines that we have ingame, something that probably never will be modeled (unfortunately).
Engine management would be great to have in this game, where it really matters the most - in combat.
Just my €0.02
:salute
-
100% in favor of a direct correlation between engine speed and engine cool down times. This is not "engine management" as some have stated. This is, in my opinion, a much needed correction to a gross mathematical oversight in the design phase.
Did wing mounted radiators on 109's and Spits have similar dampers/ louvres that would change drag coefficients?
Spits, dunno. 109's, yes.
-
I agree with you. Boy do I ever agree with you...but here's the deal: so long as there's any advantage to be gained by doing something extra, it won't fly with HTC. This position has been made very clear in many of hitech's posts.
Nope, he said he didn't want any micromanagement taking away from a fight. Which this isn't, any more than engine torque varies with throttling back and forth. I said there wouldn't be any changes from right now, but unless we already have it, engine cooling at MIL power would happen quicker at altitude. Higher fidelity, not management.
-
I agree with you. Boy do I ever agree with you...but here's the deal: so long as there's any advantage to be gained by doing something extra, it won't fly with HTC. This position has been made very clear in many of hitech's posts.
Lol get over it Anax, HT beat you up like a red-headed stepchild for requesting/demanding something not remotely similar to what is being discussed here :rolleyes:
-
Lol get over it Anax, HT beat you up like a red-headed stepchild for requesting/demanding something not remotely similar to what is being discussed here :rolleyes:
Appeal to ridicule doesn't negate the similarity. In fact, throttle management determining engine temperature was one of the things I mentioned that Il-2 has that I wish we had in AH. Your memory is poor.
-
You were bundling it with radiator airflow controls. We're saying the physics ought to behave differently, not that we ought to have more complex management controls. The same way we might ask for thinner air with altitude. It's not about management.
-
Vortex:
My point is that at least some of these engines, starting in good condition, could be abused way, way, way past published limitations without failure. Having an R-2800 fail just because it was run on 70'' MAP for longer than five minutes for instance, would be highly unrealistic. Yet a pilot would be reluctant to abuse his engine under most circumstances, for the simple reasons that you didn't want to take even a small chance of the engine failing over enemy territory...or failing on the next sortie, or the next, etc. And because tearing down/overhauling/replacing your engine after every sortie would not be feasible, etc. Considerations we don't face in the game. So IMO, HTC's method of forcing you to obey published WEP limits by automatically switching it off is the best solution for this rather knotty problem.
Someone mentioned there were "unlimited" WEP available to some aircrafts. Let's take the FW190D-9 as a example, the one that I do know some details about, it has chemical boost WEP in the form of 50/50 methanol/water injection. The tank holding the MW50 is good for 30 minutes on WEP. At that power setting, the internal fuel on the D-9 will not last you more than 26 minutes (+ a few seconds maybe) at the 2.0 burn rate which is in effect in the MAs. So the MW50 will actually last longer than the internal fuel carried. The engine will overheat after ~10 minutes of WEP though so it's 3 x 10 minute WEP that's available. Never ever flying the D-9 in AH have I ran out of WEP, and this is historically correct.
Other than that, I fully support this motion to make cooling down rates and temperatures more realistic. You have to keep in mind though that while outside temperatures may be low, shutting down the engine will also shut down coolant circulation leaving only the airflow to cool the engine off. So a engine shut down might actually cool down much slower than one running on a low power setting. At the same time, going from WEP to idle power setting would probably damage most of these engines that we have ingame, something that probably never will be modeled (unfortunately).
Engine management would be great to have in this game, where it really matters the most - in combat.
Just my €0.02
:salute
-
I can't believe I'm going to do it again!!! Agree with m00t 109% ( I do like the 109 :rock )
He illustrates another great point concerning torque... Does a Tempy fly straight? Does a 190 rotate 6 degrees when you engage WEP? No & Yes............ Same thing with a Spit1 or Hurri1.... WHOA, I just got de ja vue............The whole thing is actually comparable to the Hurri 1, Spit 1 and whatever other planes have carb issues when inverted. If the fuel gets cut for that, it only makes sense to allow for faster cooling through reducing throttle.
...... But I digress. Torque effects, carburetor effects & air temperature effects are all the same darn thing. Or at least, they should be!
Nope, he said he didn't want any micromanagement taking away from a fight. Which this isn't, any more than engine torque varies with throttling back and forth. I said there wouldn't be any changes from right now, but unless we already have it, engine cooling at MIL power would happen quicker at altitude. Higher fidelity, not management.
-
We're saying the physics ought to behave differently
While I'm typically one who argues for more fidelity with real life, there's a problem with this issue in game, in my opinion. This is a very, very complicated facet of engine operation, and I would guess, would be very difficult to model with any sort of fidelity that could be considered credible. There are a ton of issues here. Low powered, rapid decents cause shock cooling which punishes cylinders. High powered, low-speed situations like Military Power climbs and stall fights, that would rapidly overheat the engine in real life, even without WEP settings. Also, the temperature lapse rate would have to be figured in to the equation, so that at higher altitudes, the air is "cooler". Its kind of like saying you should throw less oil by pulling power after your engine is damaged.
Perhaps HTC will say if its easy to implement or not, but it looks like a fairly daunting task to me.
[EDIT] Most of us make fun of the way IL-2 treats this issue, just saying.
-
WEP in AH has always been just as it is now. There was never a time when you could run it to destruction, at least not since before v1.00.
Also, not all aircraft used additives for WEP. Spitfires and Mustangs for example.
Hmm :confused:, I swear I remember having broken engines on too much wep. I'll have to try and remember if and when that was though now.... :o
-
That makes sense Stoney, thanks.
-
I agree with you. Boy do I ever agree with you...but here's the deal: so long as there's any advantage to be gained by doing something extra, it won't fly with HTC. This position has been made very clear in many of hitech's posts.
That's too bad, IMHO, and a valid reason to contest this computer game's claim to be a "simulation".
I'm all for "more real", in whatever aspect is under discussion: flight model, damage model, gunnery model, plane set, etc. I suppose that puts me in the minority. I can live with that, albeit wistfully. ;)
-
Dont believe simulation is in HTC vocabulary.....
HTC himself describes this as a game.
-
Simulation or not? It depends where you come from, line training or Blazin' Angels on Playstation.
Just a matter of perspective and how you percieve it. I think this is the best online WW2 air combat sim available, period. That's enough for me. I would love to see as much realism as possible into this game but there are all sorts of practicality, economical and playability issues preventing this from happening. We could have a state of the art game if everyone were willing to pay $150 instead of the $15 a month but somehow I doubt we'd have the same numbers of players logging on every night if that was the montly fee.
HTC has to strike a balance between playability for new customers/players, realism, system specs, graphics (eye candy) and the monthly subscription fee and it is actually a rather delicate act.
However, I'm sure there are hundreds of potential players out there on the global market if just HTC tried to reach out.
-
HTC has to strike a balance between playability for new customers/players, realism, system specs, graphics (eye candy) and the monthly subscription fee and it is actually a rather delicate act.
However, I'm sure there are hundreds of potential players out there on the global market if just HTC tried to reach out.
Agreed. I have been playing another game for close to 5 years called 'eve' and I remember logging in to find less then 5000 players online - today its grown to a much larger game. If HTC were smart, developed their base community, took in innovation and spread the game over many markets (multi-language support <I don't see a lot of Russians on, which is a huge internet gaming market, or the Germans> for example) and promoted it well, then I am certain it would catch on.
I know I am gonna be around for awhile and I hope to see this game grow like I have watched eve grow over the years. (but 10 years in the biz for HTC means marketing needs a kick in the bellybutton IMO)
-
A WWII flight sim is a bit more of a niche market than an MMORPG. Aces High will never grow that large.
-
That may be, but his comment on the language barrier is a good point.
-
Let me yield the floor after this little addendum. My contention that HT would not like this idea for the same reasons he doesn't like my requests for complex engine management were ill conceived and spurious. I apologize. Can we have this bit of realism, then? I think it's a marvelous idea. With widewing and moot speaking in favor of it...please? :pray
-
Why apologize.. You saw something as right and argued as such.
-
The language issue is a very good point. Translation is relatively easy and doesn't involve a lot of coding, the drawback being that it's time consuming. I'm convinced it would be worth the effort though. If HTC made a move to set up a game server (like 1 MA) in Europe, release versions in German and Russian languages and put out ads on a few select places to reach the right people, I can see this game grow beyond what most of us in here could imagine.
It will never be as large as a vanilla MMOG but I definatly think they could at a minimum double their customer base if they made said investments.
More realistic engine cooling? YES PLEASE!
-
Let me yield the floor after this little addendum. My contention that HT would not like this idea for the same reasons he doesn't like my requests for complex engine management were ill conceived and spurious. I apologize. Can we have this bit of realism, then? I think it's a marvelous idea. With widewing and moot speaking in favor of it...please? :pray
I don't know that this is a management issue. WW's quote that Moot initially posted doesn't necessarily involve any control manipulation other than a power change, which is already in the game. Again, I'd say the problem is modelling. How do you model the different cooling rates? Would all aircraft cool at the same rate, or would you make different rates depending on cooling inlet area? Could this be exploited with a P-51, for example, that could practically maintain full time WEP by manipulating the cooling rates? Finally, as I said before, cooling is a very complex subject, and I don't know that there would be a "simple" method with which to expand its characteristics in-game without it becoming somewhat "gamey". I could be wrong.
-
I read this as a guideline for things to consider in implementation, not as an argument that what we have now is better than WW's idea being implemented imperfectly. Correct?
-
Well, I was making mention of characteristics with this issue that may prevent HTC from being willing to entertain it. I'm usually all about more fidelity with real life. If there's a way to include this and make it as credible as the fidelity of the flight model, I'm for it. But, I just don't see how the complexity of the issue would fit into a "simple" modification within the game. I would kind of approach this with a Hypocratic oath type of attitude--don't make it any worse (unrealistic, gamey, insert your qualifier here) if you change it.
-
We agree then!
Do you think something as simple as a linear equation for engine cooling would be better or worse than what we have now? Assume that it would be the same for all aircraft.
-
What we have now certainly is an already simplified model. Infinitely regenerating wep, and a half dozen standardized heat/cool parameters. Maybe HTC could scale the thermodynamics we have now directly to ambient air? It would be a fair single standard. No special treatment. Just an adaptation of what we already have.