Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Helm on September 06, 2009, 10:14:30 AM
-
I have often wondered what is the best way to cool down an overheated engine in the game. Since we have no control over cowl flaps or oil cooler openings, what method cools a Hot motor back to normal temperature fastest?
Turn motor off and glide?
Reduce RPM's?
Reduce Throttle?
Reduce Throttle and RPM's?
None of the above, it just takes time, due to the static nature of our cooling systems?
Helm ...out
-
only way I know is to turn off the engine and glide. Once the temperature is low enough, turn engine back on and gain altitude. Don't use WEP though
-
Well, in game nothing accelerates cooldowns. Just running at below WEP is all that works except in the case of an engine overheating due to lack of oil or coolant, in which case turning it off will gradually cool it down.
-
Does reducing RPM's or Throttle ....decrease the amount of heat that is being generated?..... Or does the game match cowl and oil cooler setting to match current RPM Throttle configuration? ....the auto cowl manager must be making changes? ....other wise the engine would run cooler when on cruise or max cruise configuration? ...hmmm
Helm ...out
-
Does reducing RPM's or Throttle ....decrease the amount of heat that is being generated?..... Or does the game match cowl and oil cooler setting to match current RPM Throttle configuration? ....the auto cowl manager must be making changes? ....other wise the engine would run cooler when on cruise or max cruise configuration? ...hmmm
Helm ...out
Nope. This is something Widewing first noticed, I believe. Shut engine off, lower manifold, doesn't matter. When ya turn engine back on, gauge spools right back up to previous indication. Mayhap HT will change modeling of this in future
-
aces high has engine overheatts? :noid :uhoh
dident know that
-
aces high has engine overheatts? :noid :uhoh
dident know that
Lol youve never used WEP/gotten your rad shot out?
-
aces high has engine overheatts? :noid :uhoh
dident know that
When engine is too far into the red, wep wont work...big thing with plane like jug
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/WEP
-
Too much of an advantage for experienced pilots. New players are overburdened as it is. :rofl
-
Too much of an advantage for experienced pilots. New players are overburdened as it is. :rofl
In all frank honesty, engine management probably wouldn't be an overburden for most people interested in this sort of thing. The most frustrating noob experience in this game is *invariably* the gang/run-drag/pick cycle, and trying to deal with the hyper-modeled rides if you're not in one.
-
What hyper modeled rides?
-
I was being sarcastic, of course. It's just fun to use the same retort that's usually thrown at my desire for more engine details. I'm all in favor of Widewing's idea because it would nudge AH closer to my ideal. :aok
-
I was being sarcastic, of course. It's just fun to use the same retort that's usually thrown at my desire for more engine details. I'm all in favor of Widewing's idea because it would nudge AH closer to my ideal. :aok
As long as we dont' have engines that in reality could run 2 days on maximum power settings breaking down in 15 minutes because I accidentally left the WEP on, additional engine management is fine by me. :D
Of course...here is the possible gamey side of that: Picture it: Players hanging out at 22K, power settings as low as will still allow for level flight, diving into the combat with much longer than "normal" WEP times because they started with their engines so super-cool...
-
It's not engine management, it's physics fidelity. No player would need to do anything different from what they do today.
-
It's not engine management, it's physics fidelity. No player would need to do anything different from what they do today.
No, they wouldn't need to, but others would sure as hell have an advantage over them if they didn't. Tell me how that's not "engine management."
Edit: I'm totally willing to admit you're correct, without qualification, if it will further the implementation of Widewing's idea. I have no scruples. :devil
-
Uh.. ok. And moving the stick around is airflow management too.
-
Uh.. ok. And moving the stick around is airflow management too.
Um, that's EXACTLY what moving the control surfaces is...
-
I violated the burden of proof when I asked you to demonstrate a negative. Let's start over and forget whether something is management or not, because that word clouds the debate.
Widewing's idea would not require anyone to play the game differently, but it would give an advantage to those who knew to throttle back when they could to recharge WEP. Agreed?
-
The point is to have more physics to pilot the planes in, not more gadgets to buffer you from the plane and the physics.
-
Answer my question, please.
-
It's not engine management, it's physics fidelity. No player would need to do anything different from what they do today.
There ye go...I think you're saying we don't need real engine management, just have the thing cool off at a realistic rate
-
There ye go...I think you're saying we don't need real engine management, just have the thing cool off at a realistic rate
Which would put players who don't adjust to the change at a disadvantage. I'm ok with that, are you?
-
You're asking me the wrong question Anax. The physics aren't behaving as they ought to, whether or not a fix would enable more management possibilities. That's how I see it. I don't think I care about instrumentation at all anymore. And I'm willing to bet that there's enough to master in dogfighting (ACM, SA, etc) to trump any advantage gained in manually controlling everything. As long as the physics are as good as they can be, I don't care about avionics stuff.
-
How is it the wrong question? Effects on gameplay are legitimate considerations.
-
It's the wrong question because you're looking for any excuse (not meant negatively) more management stuff and I'm looking at it the other way. I'd have complete physics before we ever get to instrumental gadgets.
-
It's the wrong question because you're looking for any excuse (not meant negatively) more management stuff and I'm looking at it the other way. I'd have complete physics before we ever get to instrumental gadgets.
Yes, I understand your viewpoint. I'm also in favor of accurate physics. I'm just concerned that you're contradicting yourself here compared to earlier opinions.
I can set this up like it's a beginning philosophy syllogism:
Universal: Changes to engine modeling that have the pilot do something extra are bad.
Particular: Widewing's proposal would have the pilot do something extra (or suffer a disadvantage).
Conclusion: Therefore, Widewing's proposal is bad.
Now, I would deny the universal premise, that's my personal opinion. You seem to be denying the particular premise, and that's what I don't get.
If you have changed your mind about the universal then we are in agreement. For instance, if you think making physics more accurate, even though it would have the pilot do something extra, is not bad, then you can no longer believe in the universal premise.
-
We're dancing on the head of a pin here... You're not doing anything extra. The throttle is already functional. No one would've noticed for a while if it'd been introduced without being mentionned. It's a flaw in physics, not a new pilot control. And you wouldn't necessarily suffer a disadvantage from staying at MIL when off WEP.
I'd add more physics regardless if it meant making the pilot do something extra; I'd (we're assuming I had a hand in the thing) do the same as AH is now: automate most of it so you could focus on the ACM. I wouldn't add physics just so the pilot could have something extra to do. Manual prop pitch and mixture etc's physics are already there. You could add them if they were missing (the engine wouldn't run) but you wouldn't have to have manual control of it. In fact I can't think of any new physics that'd require new controls.
Sorry but I've been slogging thru a bunch of bio and math non stop and this is all making my brain swim.
edit -That's not supposed to sound rude. I'm just saying I can't think straight.
-
We're dancing on the head of a pin here... You're not doing anything extra. The throttle is already functional. No one would've noticed for a while if it'd been introduced without being mentionned. It's a flaw in physics, not a new pilot control. And you wouldn't necessarily suffer a disadvantage from staying at MIL when off WEP.
The consequences of adding this would be that your WEP would recharge faster than if you stayed at MIL. I also presume it might last longer if you started with a cooler engine to begin with. So yeah, players who didn't manage it to their advantage would suffer. And like I alluded to earlier, you would probably see some folks floating around the stratosphere at minimum throttle settings to enter the fray at high speed *and* with the coolest possible engine. But oh well, they'd be easy pray for someone tooling along at the same alt at military now wouldn't they? Inevitably more complexity is added to the game by this.
-
You're not doing anything extra.
Right now, when I want to cool my engine I just disengage WEP. Widewing's proposal would have me turn off WEP, and also reduce throttle. To me, that's doing something extra. I don't know if we're ever going to see eye to eye on that point. Oh well.
...you wouldn't necessarily suffer a disadvantage from staying at MIL when off WEP.
No, not necessarily, but frequently enough! :P
Sorry but I've been slogging thru a bunch of bio and math non stop and this is all making my brain swim.
edit -That's not supposed to sound rude. I'm just saying I can't think straight.
No worries.
-
It'll depend on the throttle/cooling scaling. It'll be a tradeoff in speed vs temp. I don't see that it'll necessarily be a handicap to stay at MIL, the same way that you can save fuel by limping around - you trade the fuel for vulnerability or lack of competitiveness vs someone that'll have just rolled with more fuel and grabbed at full throttle. You're giving up max performance for fuel economy.
And I don't see at all that it's doing something extra to throttle back. We already throttle back. Something really extra would be a new switch or button. Like radiator flaps.
-
huh never happend to me XD
-
Right now, when I want to cool my engine I just disengage WEP. Widewing's proposal would have me turn off WEP, and also reduce throttle. To me, that's doing something extra. I don't know if we're ever going to see eye to eye on that point. Oh well.
No, not necessarily, but frequently enough! :P
No worries.
I think that viewpoint is incorrect---Right now, it simply isn't coded correctly. Turn your engine OFF for 2 min, or merely back off the wep for same. Turn engine back ON, and your engine is same temp in either case. That is simply WRONG, akin to a fully gassed up jug climbing as fast as an empty one. I suspect the cool-down rate we get currently is the one where the engine is merely at non-WEP. What is being discussed is, IMO, correcting faulty coding on HT's part.
-
I think that viewpoint is incorrect---Right now, it simply isn't coded correctly. Turn your engine OFF for 2 min, or merely back off the wep for same. Turn engine back ON, and your engine is same temp in either case. That is simply WRONG, akin to a fully gassed up jug climbing as fast as an empty one. I suspect the cool-down rate we get currently is the one where the engine is merely at non-WEP. What is being discussed is, IMO, correcting faulty coding on HT's part.
Ahhh, the engine doesn't behave like it would in "real life?" You don't want to go there. :t :lol No, I'm not talking about Stig's paranoia regarding engine life. ;)
Calling this behavior a bug is incorrect because it was intentional on the part of the programmer. You may not like it, but it's not a bug.
-
Ahhh, the engine doesn't behave like it would in "real life?" You don't want to go there. :t :lol No, I'm not talking about Stig's paranoia regarding engine life. ;)
Calling this behavior a bug is incorrect because it was intentional on the part of the programmer. You may not like it, but it's not a bug.
I didn't call it a bug, I simply stated it isn't coded correctly. You are incapable of letting go of that previous thread about engine management (in which HT biotch-slapped you)....in another thread I surmised Krusty was even more bull-headed than my often annoying wife in an argument...I now am of the opinion that you would be a more worthy adversary for her.
Ahhh, the engine doesn't behave like it would in "real life?
That is an incredibly insipid surmisal of what I said...give it up
-
I didn't call it a bug, I simply stated it isn't coded correctly. You are incapable of letting go of that previous thread about engine management (in which HT biotch-slapped you)....in another thread I surmised Krusty was even more bull-headed than my often annoying wife in an argument...I now am of the opinion that you would be a more worthy adversary for her. That is an incredibly insipid surmisal of what I said...give it up
Oh the ignominy of HT disagreeing with me. :lol
Enough of the personal attacks. That's the refuge of someone who can't hang in a debate. All I've been doing is using the logic of past threads that most bbs users supported, but which now doesn't seem so attractive... :uhoh
-
Oh the ignominy of HT disagreeing with me. :lol
Enough of the personal attacks. That's the refuge of someone who can't hang in a debate. All I've been doing is using the logic of past threads that most bbs users supported, but which now doesn't seem so attractive... :uhoh
Actually, they have demonstrated that your logic is quite faulty and not at all analogous to any "engine management" issue you are asserting -- you simply won't admit it.
It is a very simple question. Would an engine that is off cool at a faster rate than an engine that is running? If yes, then it should be coded as such. If not, than it shouldn't. Logic suggests that an engine no longer running does not produce more heat and should therefore cool faster than an engine still at idle.
-
Of course I admit that an engine at, e.g. cruise settings, will generate less heat than an engine at full power.
What I mean by logic is taking the skeleton of an argument against one kind of engine modeling proposal, and applying it to another. I'm talking about the high degree of emphasis placed on consequences to the game from modeling greater realism in anything. In this case, a virtual pilot who did not throttle back after using WEP (if he had the opportunity) would be at a disadvantage when he needed to use it again 2 minutes later vs. someone in similar circumstances who did throttle back. More WEP, more advantage. This point follows by definition from what has been proposed.
Let's not let the subtleties of thermodynamics get in the way of dogfighting.
----------------------
I think HT called it selective realism.
It's not a coding mistake. It is how it is intentionally. Realize what a startling proposition it is that HT left out mixture, manual supercharger stages, radiator flaps and other things intentionally, but left out thermodynamics by accident.
---------------------
Now, go and convince him that I'm wrong so I can fiddle with the engine during combat. :)
-
Like I said, the throttle/cooling scaling need to be known before you can say that it'll be a disadvantage to not throttle back. This tradeoff is math and not philosophy.
Maybe it was made as it is because it was expected that no one would care to fly at reduced throttle. One less stone on the pile of items in the resource budget.
-
At this point, I've made the best arguments I can. To all of you who participated in this thread up to now, remember that I don't mind being disagreed with, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to ask the toughest questions I can think of, or refrain from posing the most challenging objections. I wouldn't be giving you all any credit if I did otherwise.
In the end, this will only be decided one way: either the engine cooling will change, or it won't. Until then, I've had my fill of this discussion. :salute
-
That's what I meant by asking the wrong question/person. I don't really care about instruments. All I care about are physics. Look at it from my pov.. Physics as they are, with instrumentation this slimmed down, is enough to make the AH player base very bottom heavy. Like 75-90% bottom heavy.