Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Simba on November 12, 2009, 02:01:18 PM
-
How's about having a normal fuel burn rate in the main arenas instead of the x2 nonsense?
:cool:
-
So you can fly across the map twice?
wrongway
-
No, so the shorter-endurance fighters can fly more realistic sorties.
:cool:
-
No, so the shorter-endurance fighters can fly more realistic sorties.
:cool:
So we should also want sorties to be of a more realistic duration?
wrongway
-
Translation: Spit gets poor gas mileage :D
-
Translation: Spit gets poor gas mileage :D
Spit VIII does fine.
Really hurts the perked Spit XIV though.
-
How's about having a normal fuel burn rate in the main arenas instead of the x2 nonsense?
How about flying historic throttle/power (realistic) settings?
-
How's about having a normal fuel burn rate in the main arenas instead of the x2 nonsense?
:cool:
I agree completley. Some planes range is so short as to be a joke.
2x burn rate really punishes any plane that does not have a drop tank option.
Back in Air Warrior I used to love flying the La5, I flew it a few runs almost every shift. Yet in Aceshigh with the fuel burn rate at 2x I never fly it. I'm sorry but 21min of fuel is not much.....AND YES I am well aware that you can trim back RPM's and Throttle ....this adds a whoping 4min of flight time!! ....lame
Frankly the whole 2x burn is "Gamey" ....our bullets dont fly twice as fast? ....our planes dont fly twice as fast? ...yet our fuels runs away from us?
lame
Helm ...out
-
Frankly the whole 2x burn is "Gamey" ....our bullets dont fly twice as fast? ....our planes dont fly twice as fast? ...yet our fuels runs away from us?
lame
It will be even more gamey when you see massive hordes of Spit16s and Lgays flying 2+ sectors away, lingering, and dominating a furball and returning back to base. Keep fuel burn rate as is.
-
It will be even more gamey when you see massive hordes of Spit16s and Lgays flying 2+ sectors away, lingering, and dominating a furball and returning back to base. Keep fuel burn rate as is.
No, it won't. How is seeing planes being able to fly 50 miles (like they can IRL!!) more gamey than limiting them to fly 25 miles, UNLIKE real life?
Let's face it, many planes are hampered by this, especially the Non-USA rides. You want to see more planes from countries other than the USA? Then drop the fuel burn. I guarantee the number of 109s will shoot up.
-
Fine move the bases further apart to simulate longer flight times. :rolleyes:
-
drop fuel burn to 1 and bring back fuel porking to 25 % :x
-
Let's face it, many planes are hampered by this,
And this is exactly what fuel burn 2.0 is for. It's there because the distances on map are compressed as well.
There were long range & short range fighters in WW2. The Pony could go where the Spitfire could not That was one of it's main advantages in WWII, and so it is in AH. 109's couldn't effectively protect the bombers in Battle of Britain because of their short combat endurance.
Range is just another performance characteristic of a plane as speed or climb rates are. With "normal" fuel burn, this performance difference will be lost. There will be no more "long range" and "short range" planes in AH when short ranged interceptors can go anywhere.
And I doubt that it would lead to more "variety" either. Spit 16 and La-7 are among the most used planes in AH anyway (check the stats). Double their range and a lot of longer range planes will get dropped by their players - no reason to select them if a 16 or La7 can go anywhere.
-
No, it won't. How is seeing planes being able to fly 50 miles (like they can IRL!!) more gamey than limiting them to fly 25 miles, UNLIKE real life?
Let's face it, many planes are hampered by this, especially the Non-USA rides. You want to see more planes from countries other than the USA? Then drop the fuel burn. I guarantee the number of 109s will shoot up.
You need to realize that the world of AH in the MAs are scaled down! HTC intended for this to be like this. Why did they do this? To confine the fights to nearby bases so people of all backgrounds can find a fight close by. With fights close by, more people are more happy because they dont have to wait so long to climb to altitude and fly for 15+ minutes just to get there.
If you make fuel burn set to normal, youre just going to find more hording spits, lgays, and typhies swarming around the maps. There is already enough of these planes in the cartoon air as it is. The average distance between bases are roughly 25 miles apart. If you want it more realistic, then move the bases further apart to simulate longer flight time in WW2. Then you can have your realism.
-
Not to mention that with a 1.0 fuel burn, planes like the P-51 would never carry more than 25% internal. It would practically boost the performance of one of the best performing planes in the game.
I'd suggest a better technique is to pull some power when you don't need it.
-
I am also in favor of 1x fuel burn. Yes, I do understand the arguments for 2x burn, but they do not convince me.
-
I'd suggest a better technique is to pull some power when you don't need it.
Agree 100%! The mind set that the throttle must be firewalled at all times is what causes folks like the OP to whine about durations. It's amazing the difference in range you'll have if you simply throttle back to cruise power on your way to and from the fight.
-
I agree completley. Some planes range is so short as to be a joke.
2x burn rate really punishes any plane that does not have a drop tank option.
Back in Air Warrior I used to love flying the La5, I flew it a few runs almost every shift. Yet in Aceshigh with the fuel burn rate at 2x I never fly it. I'm sorry but 21min of fuel is not much.....AND YES I am well aware that you can trim back RPM's and Throttle ....this adds a whoping 4min of flight time!! ....lame
Frankly the whole 2x burn is "Gamey" ....our bullets dont fly twice as fast? ....our planes dont fly twice as fast? ...yet our fuels runs away from us?
lame
Helm ...out
I, more often than not, take 75% in a Yak.
How far are you taking off from the fight? How long does it take you to climb your LA to 20K?
:devil
wrongway
-
I take 50% plust extra tank in a spit it will last more than I care to fly
semp
-
It was nice when it was 1.0, but it won't happen again. If you change that, you'd need to change other things. Then people would complain about longer flights. The list goes on.
-
I am also in favor of 1x fuel burn. Yes, I do understand the arguments for 2x burn, but they do not convince me.
I'm guessing your reasoning is that you think this would lead to fighting at higher, more realistic altitudes. I do not believe it would lead to this, due to the nature of the capture system. As the other posters have pointed out, it would lead to some hyper-modeled point interceptors having more dominance than they already do.
-
good arguments for the x2
thumbs down :joystick:
-
And this is exactly what fuel burn 2.0 is for. It's there because the distances on map are compressed as well.
But not altitude.
-
I'm guessing your reasoning is that you think this would lead to fighting at higher, more realistic altitudes. I do not believe it would lead to this, due to the nature of the capture system. As the other posters have pointed out, it would lead to some hyper-modeled point interceptors having more dominance than they already do.
No, that's not my reasoning.
Punishment of the high-performance interceptors is a lousy justification for 2x fuel burn because it equally punishes the mediocre interceptors. It is collective punishment where many of the victims have nothing to do with the guilty.
Basically, I approach these questions by asking whether the initial concession was necessary in the first place. I don't assume that the gameyness of AH is already justified and that the burden is on history to prove its own value.
-
Punishment of the high-performance interceptors is a lousy justification for 2x fuel burn because it equally punishes the mediocre interceptors. It is collective punishment where many of the victims have nothing to do with the guilty.
Yes they do - short range.
If you put fuel burn to 1.0, the distinction between short range & long range fighters is more or less lost when even those with the smallest endurance have a crusing time of 40-50 minutes even without reducing power. You just remove one performance attribute that is setting planes apart from each other from the game.
Then drop the fuel burn. I guarantee the number of 109s will shoot up.
You wanna know which planes numbers will shoot up? Spit 16 and La-7
Fuel is no reason at all you don't see that many 109's. At cruise speed, they can go for long distances even without DT, which is also available. Unlike the La-7, I never had any fuel problems and could easily reach any fight I did want to, even at high altitudes.
-
<---- flies 109's all the time.
I agree with the Snail.
Fuel is NOT the reason you don't see that many 109s
-
How about flying historic throttle/power (realistic) settings?
:aok even the spit XIV is fine if you manage fuel properly. with MA 2x fuel burn after climbing to 20k you can still cruise at 350ish for 50mins.
-
Yes they do - short range.
That was implied when I said they were interceptors. If you read more carefully, you'll see that the "guilt" refers to performance, not range.
Spit16? La-7? Oh noes! :cry Everyone is all for freedom of choice in AH until it means that someone might do something they don't like. Gosh, I love that.
-
It like the old joke ...If Duke Basket ball gets busted with a recruiting violation ....the NCAA punishes Fresno State??
I have no fear of La7 or spit16's .....nor do I fly them ....I have flown 1 spit16 sortie all year ...and maybe 1 La7 sortie all year.
Fuel economy engine settings? ...sure I know how to do this.... but in the case of the la5 it's alot of work for an extra 4min of flight time ....its hardly worth the effort ....when the mustang pilot using the same method can extend his time by all most 15min
.....also using economy settings further handicaps planes with short range .....they arrive at the "battle" doing lower speeds then they are capable of ....yet the P51 driver arrives at the battle doing top speed? .....how is this fair?
stoney mentioned at 1.0 burn rate p51's could up 25% fuel? ....they can do that now ....25% fuel and a drop tank and you have the same situation you wish to avoid? .....yet Yak's, La5's, I16's, c205's and others are all hampered by the 2.0 burn
here is an example: La5 21min flight time at full power ....5 min to get to 10k ....5min to fly to the front ....you have 11min left to find enemy..kill the enemy and RTB ...lets say it takes you 4min to rtb and land ....you basically have 7min of combat time ....that's not much
....ok lets say you saved gas by using economy settings ....your best case scenario is 11min combat time ....still not much time ....most times you spend 5min trying to convince a p51 to even engage you...much less kill it and RTB
Helm ...out
-
Spit16? La-7? Oh noes! :cry Everyone is all for freedom of choice in AH until it means that someone might do something they don't like. Gosh, I love that.
Spit 16 and La7 increase is just my counter argument to those that think reducing fuel burn will lead to more variety - which is exactly the opposite to what is really happening.
Range is just another reason to chose planes beyond other performance aspects than speed, turn or whatever.
My main argument is still the same. Fuel 1.0 will eliminate one very distinct performance attribute. Remove the distinction between short- & long ranged fighters. One tactical facette of AH.
-
Usually I agree with you Lusche but this time I canno't
And so I'll SHOUT a BIT :)
Why should there be a difference between long and short range planes in favor of long ranged planes ?
It transform offensives planes like Yak9 and La7 in defensive planes and the Pee51 become a La7.
Plus the multiplier is not applied to altitude !
Ps :
The main trouble is it twist reality as it transform long range fighter into tactical fighter and tactical fighter in something witch never existed.
-
Last time I checked, LA7's and Yaks WERE defensive planes.
-
Last time I checked, LA7's and Yaks WERE defensive planes.
Sorry ?
not at all they were front line combat planes used as is by the Russians.
-
Spit16? La-7? Oh noes! :cry Everyone is all for freedom of choice in AH until it means that someone might do something they don't like.
I'm not and never have been. :devil
But Anax, really, whether we're talking an La7 or a 109E, fuel burn is the only way we have to make range a meaningful consideration in the MA. Because no one is going to go up in the MA for 4 hour sorties in a P-47N.
-
Why should there be a difference between long and short range planes in favor of long ranged planes ?
Because there was a real world one that had similar influence on operations as it does have now in AH
It transform offensives planes like Yak9 and La7 in defensive planes and the Pee51 become a La7.
La-7 was a short ranged tactical fighter in "real world", and so it is in AH. They didn't roam deep behind enemy lines, as did P-51 for example. Same goes for the Spitfire.
not at all they were front line combat planes used as is by the Russians.
And so it is here.You don't really want to tell me a La-5 or 7 can't fly to the "front" and fight there in Ah2?
Plus the multiplier is not applied to altitude !
Because that's impossible to do. Which didn't prevent me from getting to 20+k and fly & fight over enemy bases in a Spit 14. Because in some respect. the distances in AH are even more compressed than 2.0
Just for the record, my main ride for my first months in AH2 was the LA-7, a definite short range fighter.
-
Plus the multiplier is not applied to altitude
This is not practical to do. We could however, at least change the perk/ENY status to reflect the fact the vast majority of combat DOES take place 0-15K, instead of what he have now, with perked SpitXIVs and unperked La7s.
-
I had this very same discussion with HT and the result was :
go buy a box of tissue
But it won't change one single fact : there was no fuel burn multiplier during WWII the allied and the axis never reached an agreement on this point :D
With tactical maps like we have tactical planes should be more interesting but with the FBM it's not.
PS: during last scenario FBM was set at 1 and no tragedy happened.
-
PS: during last scenario FBM was set at 1 and no tragedy happened.
Scenarios are completely different from MA gameplay wise. Usually considerably longer sortie times and no free choice of planes.
-
How longer sortie are detrimental to game play ?
-
How longer sortie are detrimental to game play ?
Did I say so?
The longer sorties in scenarios are a result and a part of different gameplay.
-
Btw in AH we can do something not realistic :
Up a p51 with 25% internal + DT ,reach the nearest base drop the DT and RTB without taking care of fuel management.
<edit>
it reminded me an old post :
What piss me is the delta between the 25% of the P51 and the 25% of the Typhoon : if he can have 64 gallon for 25% I WANT 64 Gallon for 25% TOO.
-
How longer sortie are detrimental to game play ?
Think about that a little... What do you think is going to happen to the population of AH2 if every new player has to fly 20, 30, 45 minutes or longer to get into a fight? What do you think that that new player is going to do after flying that far for a fight only to get his butt handed to him? Most new players get very few kills and get totally dominated in their early days. How many new players do you really think will stick around past the two week trial?
Get serious...
Of course, I'm sure there are a select group of folks who would prefer a smaller community... I can assure you that Hitech isn't one of them.
-
-1
-
Think about that a little... What do you think is going to happen to the population of AH2 if every new player has to fly 20, 30, 45 minutes or longer to get into a fight? What do you think that that new player is going to do after flying that far for a fight only to get his butt handed to him? Most new players get very few kills and get totally dominated in their early days. How many new players do you really think will stick around past the two week trial?
Get serious...
Of course, I'm sure there are a select group of folks who would prefer a smaller community... I can assure you that Hitech isn't one of them.
where did you read I proposed to make the bases more than 25 miles from each other ?
-
where did you read I proposed to make the bases more than 25 miles from each other ?
Then we return to the point that eliminating the fuel burn multiplier while leaving the map as it is will eliminate range as a consideration in plane choice in the game.
-
I had this very same discussion with HT and the result was :
go buy a box of tissue
But it won't change one single fact : there was no fuel burn multiplier during WWII the allied and the axis never reached an agreement on this point :D
With tactical maps like we have tactical planes should be more interesting but with the FBM it's not.
PS: during last scenario FBM was set at 1 and no tragedy happened.
Another great case of selective realism.
It is a very bad idea to use a simplistic argument I.E. " there was no fuel burn multiplier during WWII the allied and the axis never reached an agreement on this point :D"
That is simply an extremely myopic statement that is completely irrelevant. If you use that argument on every choice, AH would not exist.
Using your logic, Nothing changes a simple fact : After people die, they never flew again in WWII. So using the EXACT same logic as you , once people die, they should never play again.
So now try show me how your statement has anything to do with the discussion at hand. And that your statement has any more relevance to arena design than my statement.
Try taking a much larger view of realism, rather than using the "REALISTIC" argument and think about the advantages disadvantage each plane had.
HiTech
-
Rapidly leafing throught the book of "dweeb", sheez I hate it when the creators come in here and bolix up a perfectly silly arguement with facts :old: :joystick: :airplane: :D
-
Think about that a little... What do you think is going to happen to the population of AH2 if every new player has to fly 20, 30, 45 minutes or longer to get into a fight? What do you think that that new player is going to do after flying that far for a fight only to get his butt handed to him? Most new players get very few kills and get totally dominated in their early days. How many new players do you really think will stick around past the two week trial?
Get serious...
Wow, I haven't seen a more fluffy and puffed out straw-man in a long while.
Another great case of selective realism.
You might think that's a clever phrase to diffuse criticism, but I beg to differ. Everything that does and does go into a flight-sim game is an example of selective realism. You're stating a tautology as if it were something substantive.
What is substantive is that people disagree about what aspects of realism to select and which ones to leave out, and there's room for reasonable disagreement. :old:
-
Wow, I haven't seen a more fluffy and puffed out straw-man in a long while.
Really? Ok. I think it was relevant to the discussion. But whatever. Hitech has already weighed in on the matter, so the discussion is rather moot.
-
Really? Ok. I think it was relevant to the discussion. But whatever. Hitech has already weighed in on the matter, so the discussion is rather moot.
"Straw-man" means that you misrepresented his point of view into something silly so that it's easier to dismiss.
-
Another great case of selective realism.
It is a very bad idea to use a simplistic argument I.E. " there was no fuel burn multiplier during WWII the allied and the axis never reached an agreement on this point :D"
That is simply an extremely myopic statement that is completely irrelevant. If you use that argument on every choice, AH would not exist.
Using your logic, Nothing changes a simple fact : After people die, they never flew again in WWII. So using the EXACT same logic as you , once people die, they should never play again.
So now try show me how your statement has anything to do with the discussion at hand. And that your statement has any more relevance to arena design than my statement.
Try taking a much larger view of realism, rather than using the "REALISTIC" argument and think about the advantages disadvantage each plane had.
HiTech
I think you have smilies desactived on you end or have you missed the ":D" I put at the end of my sentence ?
And my stance still not have changed 25% fuel should give the same amount fuel for all planes not 64 gallon for some and 48 for other etc.
-
Rapidly leafing throught the book of "dweeb", sheez I hate it when the creators come in here and bolix up a perfectly silly arguement with facts :old: :joystick: :airplane: :D
humping HT ankle won't make you look ... well ... ya now ?
-
And my stance still not have changed 25% fuel should give the same amount fuel for all planes not 64 gallon for some and 48 for other etc.
Can you explain that? % fuel would have to be different for each plane because they have different sized fuel tanks.
Still, I'm on your side when it comes to fuel burn. Aircraft like the La-7 were used offensively, not defensively, and the only reason it's different in AH is the 2x fuel burn. Lastly, your point about it taking twice as much gas to get to altitude in addition to horizontal travel is spot-on.
-
humping HT ankle won't make you look ... well ... ya now ?
LOL sorry Straf I just couldn't resist :devil
-
Well I wanted to say instead of a percentage of fuel I would prefer a defined (finite) quantity of fuel.
-
Well I think the 2.0 x fuel burn does make sense in the arenas we have. However touching on the debate that Straffo and Lucine have, and bringing up an old sore that I know HT disagrees with.
It relates to the way that fuel attrition effects aircraft with small tanks
I do not like the use of %'s to calculate how fuel loads are rationed when fuel is attrited. IMO fuel loads should be measured in gallons and when fuel is scarce at a field then it should be rationed in gallons. Not by %'s of fuel capacity.
This can be applied either as a direct correlation of litre/gallon capacity (which becomes very complex across the range of AC AH has, particularly when considering big bombers etc) or more practically a correlation of endurance at max cruise power (e.g some std alt). One can see a methodology where by endurance is set at availabilities of Max, 240mins, 180mins, 120mins, 60mins (a FB of 2 would halve those values).
Fuel in the hanger would be selected from a sliding button (maybe even on the clipboard) and limited to a value set by the endurance relationship as above.
Then AH could remove the false cap on fuel attrition (no less than 75%) introduced to mask this dilemna
-
Ahhh, I get it now. Fuel burn + ability to pork fuel makes for ridiculous favoritism to aircraft with large gas tanks. That's an air-tight argument.
-
And my stance still not have changed 25% fuel should give the same amount fuel for all planes not 64 gallon for some and 48 for other etc.
HT's answer to this in the past is that fuel was not rationed that way either! Well Allied fuel was essentially never rationed but I believe there is some validity in HT's arguement here.
IMO however HT's counter arguement does not make the % system right either!
I think the LW would ensure 10 x 109s had the endurance they needed for the mission rather than 20 x 109's not having the endurance to perform it at all. In effect the correct correlation in AH would be via a zone/field limit! but AH does not have one.
Hence (if it is to change) another way must be found ...actual (rather than %) endurance may be such a way.
-
I think you have smilies desactived on you end or have you missed the ":D" I put at the end of my sentence ?
And my stance still not have changed 25% fuel should give the same amount fuel for all planes not 64 gallon for some and 48 for other etc.
Since when does a percentage represent a static number?
(Random numbers used but accuracy not necessary for demonstration purposes)
If the LA 7 has a fuel capacity of 100 gallons, 25% = 25 gallons
If the P51D has a capacity of 184 gallon, 25% = 46 gallons
On what planet should the same percentage of two different numbers resolve to be the same answer?
-
Since when does a percentage represent a static number?
(Random numbers used but accuracy not necessary for demonstration purposes)
If the LA 7 has a fuel capacity of 100 gallons, 25% = 25 gallons
If the P51D has a capacity of 184 gallon, 25% = 46 gallons
On what planet should the same percentage of two different numbers resolve to be the same answer?
in a planet where a customer paying 15$ per month as the same amount of service of a customer paying 15$ per month.
ps I posted a message just after the math flawed one :)
-
in a planet where a customer paying 15$ per month as the same amount of service of a customer paying 15$ per month.
ps I posted a message just after the math flawed one :)
I didn't know that certain people didn't have access to ALL of the same planes as everyone else. You should call and complain if all you can fly are the short range aircraft. :neener:
-
in a planet where a customer paying 15$ per month as the same amount of service of a customer paying 15$ per month.
ps I posted a message just after the math flawed one :)
Because you pay the same as others, your fuel tank should hold the same amount ?
25% of 100 = 25
25% of 184 = 46
No flaw there.
-
You need to realize that the world of AH in the MAs are scaled down! HTC intended for this to be like this. Why did they do this? To confine the fights to nearby bases so people of all backgrounds can find a fight close by. With fights close by, more people are more happy because they dont have to wait so long to climb to altitude and fly for 15+ minutes just to get there.
If you make fuel burn set to normal, youre just going to find more hording spits, lgays, and typhies swarming around the maps. There is already enough of these planes in the cartoon air as it is. The average distance between bases are roughly 25 miles apart. If you want it more realistic, then move the bases further apart to simulate longer flight time in WW2. Then you can have your realism.
I know...it was just a dream ;)
-
Because you pay the same as others, your fuel tank should hold the same amount ?
25% of 100 = 25
25% of 184 = 46
No flaw there.
If you registered your BBS account when starting AH in 2007 I guess you're too n00b to remember what happened after a fuel porkage to 25%.
Still 25% in a yak/typhoon make you just take off ... (remember I pay the same amount as the other) when 46 make you combat ready.
-
Read the thread guys. Straffo was talking about available fuel quantities when fuel is porked.
This is yet another demonstration of the importance of asking for clarification before you assume someone is irrational.
-
If the LA 7 has a fuel capacity of 100 gallons, 25% = 25 gallons
If the P51D has a capacity of 184 gallon, 25% = 46 gallons
The point under consideration is.......
if there were 71 gallons available between 2 planes how would it be shared?
-
The point under consideration is.......
if there were 71 gallons available between 2 planes how would it be shared?
Fill up my plane first and whatever is left the other Pigs can have? :uhoh
Seriously, I understand the two sides on this one, and both are valid arguments.
-
If you registered your BBS account when starting AH in 2007 I guess you're too n00b to remember what happened after a fuel porkage to 25%.
Still 25% in a yak/typhoon make you just take off ... (remember I pay the same amount as the other) when 46 make you combat ready.
Reaching hard to justify your position, eh?
Insulting me will not change the facts either, although it does serve as a source of amusement.
Using an example of "the way things used to be" as an example to change things to the way you want them to be is hardly a good argument.
If it makes you feel better, I do not remember what happened after a fuel porkage to 25%, and neither do I have to worry about it as it is a non-factor now.
If you wish, I can also build a crucifix for you to nail me to (but you will need to supply the n00b sign for my forehead) but it still will not change the fact that a 25% fuel loadout for 2 aircraft with different fuel capacities will result in different amounts of fuel. One does not need to be a non-n00b, or even play this game at all to do the math.
Regardless of how you feel, I doubt the HiTech will change the fuel capacities of different planes to all be the same.
Perhaps we can model all of the planes to use the same amount of fuel as well, regardless of engine size.
In fact, if we are requesting fantasy items for our planes, I would like the taters on my 109 K4 to fly straight and level for at least as far as the LA's guns do :aok
-
This thread is gonig downhill quickly.
-
This thread is gonig downhill quickly.
Yup - pity "out"
-
Read the thread guys. Straffo was talking about available fuel quantities when fuel is porked.
This is yet another demonstration of the importance of asking for clarification before you assume someone is irrational.
If the fuel is porked to 25% and that's not enough for you to take off with, then get another plane, or is that being irrational too? There is the choice to use another plane, switch sides, etc. No one is ever deprived from taking a certain plane. What has happened is that a certain plane can't be used at a certain field. One could go so far to say "defend the base better and don't let the fuel be porked"
If you have a house party and decide to go to bed for the night, are you depriving your guests of the right to party? No, you are depriving them of partying at your house any more that evening.
-
personally, I am in favour of the x1 FBM. Give the bases an average increase in seperation of about 20 miles or so. Theres way too much - up,fly for 4 mins,ram or ho,then rtb if you manage to bag a couple of kills. Maybe there will be a bit more care taken about your cartoon life if a sortie has to last more than half an hour.As for ride choices, I'm all for defending more bases from a hypothetical increase in la's and spits, as for the pony maybe the extra weight will slow em down, really dislike runstangs.
-
See Rule #4
-
You both need to tone the rhetoric down.
-
You both need to tone the rhetoric down.
Even if it is epistemic rhetoric?
I firmly believe that discourse creates knowledge :D
It would be quite boring if we all agreed.
-
Can you explain that? % fuel would have to be different for each plane because they have different sized fuel tanks.
Still, I'm on your side when it comes to fuel burn. Aircraft like the La-7 were used offensively, not defensively, and the only reason it's different in AH is the 2x fuel burn.
Anax, I hope you aren't claiming that an airplane which basically carried 1.5 hours worth of fuel was used "offensively" in quite the same way an A6M or P-38 was used "offensively". I know you are not, because it would be silly to do so.
The La-7 still can be used "offensively" in the AH MA, if one desires to manage fuel consumption. Pulling the RPMs down to 2100 or so gives you about 30 minutes and leaves you with approximately the same speed/climb performance as a P-47D on MIL.
Anax, 90% of the MA is going to manage fuel for a 20-30 minute sortie. Decreasing the fuel burn will not lead to more realistically flown missions IMO, it will simply lead to proliferation of Spixteens and Lalas in the offense/vulching role, and to every P-plane being upped with no more than 25% fuel. Not to mention buffs being upped with 25% all the time, climbing to 30K, and *still* being able to raid the HQ from virtually any point on the map. Not a net increase in realism, IMHO. 1.0 burn will never work well when the average flight is less than the channel hop and I just don't see the map distances getting longer, because of all the hue and cry THAT would cause.
-
personally, I am in favour of the x1 FBM. Give the bases an average increase in seperation of about 20 miles or so. Theres way too much - up,fly for 4 mins,ram or ho,then rtb if you manage to bag a couple of kills. Maybe there will be a bit more care taken about your cartoon life if a sortie has to last more than half an hour.As for ride choices, I'm all for defending more bases from a hypothetical increase in la's and spits, as for the pony maybe the extra weight will slow em down, really dislike runstangs.
I think I am with the vast majority when I say that 30 mins is about right for the average MA sortie. Longer missions than that are something one feels like on a more weekly basis. And I think most people take sufficient care of their cartoon "life" right now.
-
You can justify the existence of Chimeric plane all day long : common sense and logic still says it's a stupidity.
This simple fact destroy the pseudo-scientific reasoning behind the existence of FBM : is a cube still a cube if I use 1/2 scale for the Y axis ?
I can't understand people having trouble understanding this.
-
The La-7 still can be used "offensively" in the AH MA, if one desires to manage fuel consumption. Pulling the RPMs down to 2100 or so gives you about 30 minutes and leaves you with approximately the same speed/climb performance as a P-47D on MIL.
A few months ago I spent the night flying the La7.
First I thought. "Man this thing sure runs out of gas quick." Then I remembered several times seeing Shane in places that he aught not be let alone fighting there and being able to RTB based on what I was currently seeing fuel wise.
So I started tinkering with the throttle and RPM settings. I was amazed at the legs it grew.
Realistically speaking. Pilots typically didnt fly with the throttle and RPMs fire walled from take off to landing.
And this holds true for most planes. Climb to the desired alt then manage your fuel. Once you get to alt and up to speed. you wil find you can reduce the fuel and throttle settings significantly thus significantly increasing your operating range. And not loose one MPH in airspeed.
In some planes like the D9 you can even enter a slight climb of around 2K without loosing a significant amount of airspeed.
I do this in the D9 all the time. While alot of folks I know and fly with take along drop tanks. I rarely do. I'll do an auto climb to about 5 K Level out and get up to speed then enter a 2K climb for the rest of the trip. I usually get to the area I want to fight in at around 10k. Which is plenty high under most circumstances.
I find for me this is the perfect alt. 90% of the people I see at 20K have no idea what to do with all that alt. And are easy to dodge.
And if I do get jumped. I have alot more E at my disposal then those guys with drop tanks and/or on full auto climb.
I fight and just around the time my bullets run out. My fuel is telling me its time to go home.
If Im being chased and low on gas I dive to the deck, completely reduce my RPMs. cut my throttle by about 1/3 and cruise on home still outrunning my pursuers.
I rarely run out of gas.
Know your plane
Get your aircraft up to max speed then mess with the RPM and throttle settings to find what is the most efficient. Different aircraft handle the settings differently
La's were primarily lower alt fighters. 10K is more then sufficient for the roles they were intended or should be used for.
Shane. The best La pilot I've seen to date. I dont think I ever saw above 5K.
If you insist on taking one to 20K and fighting with it. of fly firewalled all the time and you run out of gas. Thats not the games fault
-
Drediock,
The problem comes in the vertical. Full power settings are often the most efficient climb settings in reality, but that may not be true in AH due to the 2.0 FBM. I know that when I fly a Spitfire Mk XIV its drop tank is dry by the time I reach 25,000ft.
-
You can justify the existence of Chimeric plane all day long : common sense and logic still says it's a stupidity.
This simple fact destroy the pseudo-scientific reasoning behind the existence of FBM : is a cube still a cube if I use 1/2 scale for the Y axis ?
I can't understand people having trouble understanding this.
thats an easy one, they are dumb :rofl
-
I agree that the 2x fuel burn rate needs to be replaced.
Please make it 4x.
Thank you.
;)
-
Drediock,
The problem comes in the vertical. Full power settings are often the most efficient climb settings in reality, but that may not be true in AH due to the 2.0 FBM. I know that when I fly a Spitfire Mk XIV its drop tank is dry by the time I reach 25,000ft.
What is the great need to be at 25K? Bombers rarely go that high. and I dont know about the spit cause you couldnt bribe me enough to get in one. But most fighters dont perform as well that high.
My experience is that after 18-20K. The advantage starts to move in favor of the bombers.
-
And my stance still not have changed 25% fuel should give the same amount fuel for all planes not 64 gallon for some and 48 for other etc.
25% of fuel capacity is not the same for every plane.
-
25% of fuel capacity is not the same for every plane.
Read the thread. He misspoke and meant something different, which is easy to do when English is not your first language.
-
Full power settings are often the most efficient climb settings in reality, but that may not be true in AH due to the 2.0 FBM.
No, its even more important to use full power climbs with the 2.0 fuel burn. In most cases, its best to use WEP even. If you know you want to enter the fray at 12,000 feet, best to climb to that altitude as fast as possible, accelerate to your combat cruise speed, then pull the power back to the most efficient power/rpm combination that will give you that combat cruise speed. The only other way to get better range would be on longer trips, where you have to cross a couple of sectors before you arrive: fly on the deck at the power setting that gives you minimum fuel consumption for the speed you want. Then, only begin a climb to altitude at the distance from the fray that will allow you to get to your chosen altitude and accelerate to your desired speed.
-
A few months ago I spent the night flying the La7.
First I thought. "Man this thing sure runs out of gas quick." Then I remembered several times seeing Shane in places that he aught not be let alone fighting there and being able to RTB based on what I was currently seeing fuel wise.
So I started tinkering with the throttle and RPM settings. I was amazed at the legs it grew.
Know your plane
Get your aircraft up to max speed then mess with the RPM and throttle settings to find what is the most efficient. Different aircraft handle the settings differently
La's were primarily lower alt fighters. 10K is more then sufficient for the roles they were intended or should be used for.
Shane. I dont think I ever saw above 5K.
If you insist on taking one to 20K and fighting with it. of fly firewalled all the time and you run out of gas. Thats not the games fault
Trust me, I've taken the La7 upwards of 35k :aok The rest of what you said rings true about fuel management. And knowing your plane. The EB6 is your friend - it makes it so much easier, especially for RTB.
-
fuel management isnt just about throttle either. Some engines like prop pitch reduction for better GPM, some like manifold reduction, and
some want both. example, P47s F4Us F6s with the R2800 like prop pitch/RPM reduction alot more for better GPM than you
can get with manifold reduction.
-
Being at critical altitude helps as well....
A few thousand feet either way can mean 30-50 mph depending on the plane. I like to fly long range sorties (50/50 short vs long) in a the P-51B/P-47M. Flying at a critical altitude lets you get there faster with less fuel burned. At 375+ it doesn't take long to get anywhere either, and that is in cruise settings. Same techniques apply to the short range birds but I dont fly them much in the long range role.
Strip
-
I would have to go thumbs down on this one. If we were to go to the 1x FBM, and expand the map, the game would be just like flying FSX, and real flying. Hours and hours of boredom, interupted by moments of stark terror. If the 1x FBM multiplier was to be used, take away the computer generated E6B and give me, the guy that has 4 of them on my desk have an advantage. If we had to fly 6 hours to get to a base to bomb it, that would be boring. How many people know the Fuel burn on a C-47 on take off, and when do you make your first power reduction, and to what? Add head winds, that effects ground speed, which in turn effects range, that has an effect on fuel load out. If we did go to the 1xFBM it would open to big of a can of worms, and the game is fine. Fuel burn and time speed and distance, a wind triangle is not biggie to me, but there are non pilots here and they would not be able to figure the math, not that it is hard, they don't know how to do it. Anyone happen to know the fuel burn on a P-39 set to auto lean, turning 2650 at 42 inches, I don't have the manual with me and I would hate to have to go dig it out.
-
I agree that the 2x fuel burn rate needs to be replaced.
Please make it 4x.
Thank you.
;)
right on, shorted rides, more fites. then again the "experts" will find a way to bnz from 35k :devil
semp
-
Why not just climb to 30k? I learned recently from a poster that it's a great altitude to fly at because of how much fuel it saves. :lol :rolleyes:
-
Once upon a time in a place called AH1 there were maps pretty much on the scale we have to day.
In this place the arena ran with a FB of x 1.
Airfields had fuel stores that were rated 100%+ or via attrition could be reduced to 100%, 75%, 50% or 25%.
When this attrition occurred then the fuel capacity in each plane taking off from that base was also similarly limited to 100%+, 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%.
Then the lovers of long legged birds said.
"Hey where is the advantage of upping a long legged bird on these maps? surely if I up a P51 i should get some endurance benefit! yet with these fields so close together its no benefit at all :mad:"
and the Cods :angel: considered this and thought it to be true...........and the Cods :angel: decreed that from hence forth the FB will be x 2.
However as with things of AH the drivers of short legged birds were miffed.
"Hey" They said "if the base is porked to 25% my short legged La7 cannot even reach the next base at FBx2. With FB x2 my short legged bird is over penalised by base porkage :mad:"
and the Cods :angel: considered this and thought this was also true......... and the Cods :angel: decreed that no bird shall ever suffer a reduction in fuel below 75% whate ever the fuel attrition.
However Straffo (and Tilt) were still displeased for they flew birds of low fuel capacity and low fuel consumption
"Hey" They said "This fix is still not right! Birds should be limited by the fuel available not the % of their tank capacity. My Bird should NOT be rationed as a % of the size of its belly. It should be rationed by the size of its thirst! Why should a big bellied fuel guzzeling P47/P51 get more fuel (under rationing)than a small bellied fuel efficient La7 :mad:?"
and the Cods :angel: considered this and thought it was not true........ and the Cods decreed there was no longer any rationing for every one could have 75% fuel and fuel porkage was no more and so the issue was "moot" :neener:.
and did Straffo (and Tilt) go to a dark place to mutter and mumble about the injustices of the world and drag this issue to the fore when given the opportunity............
and the Cods watched :angel:
-
:D
... and BlauK agreed and followed them to the dark place with his sack of issues, to wait and dream together for the opportunities... :cheers:
-
Tilt wrote:
Once upon a time in a place called AH1 there were maps pretty much on the scale we have to day.
In this place the arena ran with a FB of x 1.
AH Has always had a FB rate multiplier of about 2. It may have been 1.75 before we made accurate fuel consumption curves.
HiTech
-
:pray
The reason I get stopped these days is because of that damn fast nasty fuel burn!! Like you know, only reason I start losing is cause I have to look at that darn fuel gauge!!! And when there's only myself standing between a bish horde and a poor unprotected small rook airfield, it always lets me down :cry
I say, lets reach a compromise. Let's keep all other planes at x2, but adjust the spit 16 to x 1, or even less. Whose for? I am! This will also give all newbs a better fighting chance. :D
:joystick:
-
I say, lets reach a compromise. Let's keep all other planes at x2, but adjust the spit 16 to x 1, or even less. Whose for? I am! This will also give all newbs a better fighting chance.
*Facepalm*
-
*Facepalm*
Fixed!
(http://www.opaquelucidity.com/facepalm.jpg)
-
Tilt wrote:
AH Has always had a FB rate multiplier of about 2. It may have been 1.75 before we made accurate fuel consumption curves.
HiTech
HT: Some players may be getting confused with the AvA and the SEA using fuel burn rates of 1.0 and then they encounter the MA at 2.0.
HOWEVER, the 2.0 rate was used, as far as I remember this discussion going back over 9 years ago, because the maps were generally small, and a B-17 fully fueled could fly around for around 4-5 hours crossing the map a dozen timesif the burn rate was set to 1.0 at full throttle. So it was set to 2.0 to match the gameplay and smaller map side. Even with our large maps, it's still a short flight if you're at altitude with any bomber. And if you take in the uber-fuel efficient P-51 Mustang with drop-tanks, you're flying at altitude for a good two hours if you use the cruise setting.
Until they model a 10240 x 10240 map, there is no reason to have 1.0 burn rates.
-
"Until they model a 10240 x 10240 map, there is no reason to have 1.0 burn rates."
Unless you want to fly a halfway-realistic sortie in a Spitfire or other short-endurance fighter, of course. But then this is a game, definitely not a WW2 combat flight simulation.
:cool:
-
So in the real world the La7 had about a 395 mile range. The P51D with 100% and DT had a 1650 mile range or about 1000 miles without DT. With fuel burn at 2 you get 30min at 100% fuel mil power with the La7. The P51D at 100% fuel and mil power, what 55 min, longer even? In the real world are range numbers at cruise speed and not based on mil power like in the game?
So the La7 has short legs. You guys want special air starts over your enemy feild of choice so you can vulch for 25 minutes?
-
So in the real world the La7 had about a 395 mile range. The P51D with 100% and DT had a 1650 mile range or about 1000 miles without DT. With fuel burn at 2 you get 30min at 100% fuel mil power with the La7. The P51D at 100% fuel and mil power, what 55 min, longer even? In the real world are range numbers at cruise speed and not based on mil power like in the game?
So the La7 has short legs. You guys want special air starts over your enemy feild of choice so you can vulch for 25 minutes?
Bustr you are both insulting people and show your complete lack of intelligence in on sentence :aok.
And btw this discussion doesn't matter anyway as I'll delete my AH account for several reasons ,FBM being one but not the only.
-
Whatever straffo....
Simba:
Unless you want to fly a halfway-realistic sortie in a Spitfire or other short-endurance fighter
A realistic sortie in those things lasted over an hour, included hundreds of miles of max cruise fuel settings, and they still had enough gas to take the fight to the LW over Germany....
In this game you're going a piddly frickin' 25 mi to the nearest base, and can climb to 20k before you're there.
-
i think the short ride for those planes is that if you take one up, you agree to actually fight in it. if you wanna just fly around trying to just pick, then up a p plane (p51, p47..) or an f plane (fw190...)then you can just fly around for hours :) and they have unlimited ammo :D
semp
-
in a planet where a customer paying 15$ per month as the same amount of service of a customer paying 15$ per month.
ps I posted a message just after the math flawed one :)
let me get this right,
you think everyone should have the same amount of fuel as each other because we all pay the same amount of money
-
Bustr you are both insulting people and show your complete lack of intelligence in on sentence :aok.
And btw this discussion doesn't matter anyway as I'll delete my AH account for several reasons ,FBM being one but not the only.
Naw Im just too old to enjoy the art of people hideing what they really want behind supercilious rhetoric. It could lead one to wonder if this post is another troll to allow some participant(s) to feel their years of education means something other than old lamb skin dressing a wall. From your tone you may have quite a collection of lamb skins.........
-
i think the short ride for those planes is that if you take one up, you agree to actually fight in it. if you wanna just fly around trying to just pick, then up a p plane (p51, p47..) or an f plane (fw190...)then you can just fly around for hours :) and they have unlimited ammo :D
semp
I wish my Fw 190 had unlimited ammo and decent fuel capacity.
-
let me get this right,
you think everyone should have the same amount of fuel as each other because we all pay the same amount of money
Nope, that's not what he's saying at all.
His point is that when you pork fuel at a base, a P-51D shouldn't be able to load, e.g. 100 gallons of fuel, but another aircraft can only load 50 gallons, all because they have differently sized gas tanks and those quantities are percentages of total capacity. The disparity is also there when drop tanks are disabled, because some aircraft can load more fuel internally than others can load with full internal and drop tanks combined. All of this is to say that if fuel can be limited by porking the base, then fuel should be rationed by absolute quantities, and not percentages of fuel tank capacity.
As for the burn multiplier, the long legs of aircraft like the P-51D aren't used for going places in the arena, but for climbing to ridiculous altitudes. And therein lies the rub of the fuel burn multiplier, it doesn't so much limit range as the ability to get to an altitude where you're not a sitting duck but have fuel left over.
-
Nope, that's not what he's saying at all.
His point is that when you pork fuel at a base, a P-51D shouldn't be able to load, e.g. 100 gallons of fuel, but another aircraft can only load 50 gallons, all because they have differently sized gas tanks and those quantities are percentages of total capacity. The disparity is also there when drop tanks are disabled, because some aircraft can load more fuel internally than others can load with full internal and drop tanks combined. All of this is to say that if fuel can be limited by porking the base, then fuel should be rationed by absolute quantities, and not percentages of fuel tank capacity.
As for the burn multiplier, the long legs of aircraft like the P-51D aren't used for going places in the arena, but for climbing to ridiculous altitudes. And therein lies the rub of the fuel burn multiplier, it doesn't so much limit range as the ability to get to an altitude where you're not a sitting duck but have fuel left over.
Relative equality will not be achieved in this manner either. What arbitrary fuel quantity should be the total gallons available when fuel is porked then? 100 gallons to a Spit pilot is practically a full bag while a Jug pilot will take off with a quarter of a tank... You get rid of the 2.0 multiple, no P-51 pilot in his right mind would ever load more than 50% fuel...even for long escort missions.
-
I wish my Fw 190 had unlimited ammo and decent fuel capacity.
has at least twice the ammo of a spit and the p47's have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than twice and some other planes have something like 500-800 20mm rounds. considering that I normally use about 100 to 150 cannon rounds per sortie in a spit. that's really unlimited ammo unless you like to shoot lots of 2 and 3 second burst like most people that fly them do.
semp
-
has at least twice the ammo of a spit and the p47's have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than twice and some other planes have something like 500-800 20mm rounds. considering that I normally use about 100 to 150 cannon rounds per sortie in a spit. that's really unlimited ammo unless you like to shoot lots of 2 and 3 second burst like most people that fly them do.
semp
Hispano's also fly straight and are about 33% more damaging than MG151/20's. Makes up for the 260 round deficit IMO. Not to mention that the Spitfire is a much more capable aircraft for pulling lead.
I use most of the 500 rounds in the Dora each sortie I fly with it.
-
Relative equality will not be achieved in this manner either. What arbitrary fuel quantity should be the total gallons available when fuel is porked then? 100 gallons to a Spit pilot is practically a full bag while a Jug pilot will take off with a quarter of a tank...
That is the point. It's not logical that when fuel is porked, some aircraft can load up far more gallons of gas than others. I don't have any set ideas about what the threshold should be
You get rid of the 2.0 multiple, no P-51 pilot in his right mind would ever load more than 50% fuel...even for long escort missions.
So? Even now 50% or 75% internal fuel is a good loadout for the P-51D. All 2x fuel burn does is allow some aircraft to go light, and others not.
-
Hispano's also fly straight and are about 33% more damaging than MG151/20's. Makes up for the 260 round deficit IMO. Not to mention that the Spitfire is a much more capable aircraft for pulling lead.
I use most of the 500 rounds in the Dora each sortie I fly with it.
we'll I'll be damned u made me look. I was under the impression that all were using 20mm hispano rounds. I was wrong :uhoh. still 500 20mm is a lot of rounds but that's another thread :salute.
btw guys give it up they already said no, stop trying to convince each other that you are right :D.
semp
-
Relative equality will not be achieved in this manner either. What arbitrary fuel quantity should be the total gallons available when fuel is porked then? 100 gallons to a Spit pilot is practically a full bag while a Jug pilot will take off with a quarter of a tank... You get rid of the 2.0 multiple, no P-51 pilot in his right mind would ever load more than 50% fuel...even for long escort missions.
Thats the point.......fuel attrition should hurt the gas guzzlers ............... not those of little tank.
How ever to apply it rigedly would generate some difficult math to COAD and (more importantly as the debate shows) be difficult for folk to understand............
A simpler approach (and one that folk may understand) is to link fuel attrition/field fuel capacity to max endurance available thru fuel available.............
This would be a HARD cap and could even be applied to vehicles
125% field fuel capacity = no fuel based limit to endurance
100% field fuel capacity = 100 minutes mil power fuel limit
75% field fuel capacity = 75 minutes mil power fuel limit
50% field fuel capacity = 50 minutes mil power fuel limit
25% field fuel capacity = 25 minutes mil power fuel limit
The fuel burn has nothing to do with the outcome other than it has to be factored into the COAD equation. Its only other influence on the debate is that it was when it was increased (or as HT reminds us(me) when the fuel COAD was upgraded) that the desparaity ( under fuel attrition) became more obvious
-
While I understand that there is a need for a method to practically distinguish between long range fighters and short range interceptors in the scaled down main arenas (and i think the concept behind is absolutely correct), but the current system leaves a lot to desire.
The argument that a 1x burn rate makes (powerful) short range interceptors go a much longer distance to a target and then loiter there for ages is quite correct and in some respect "unrealistic".
However, a 2x burn isn't that great either. It robs the endurance option of the short range fighters, but long range fighters are not affected at all. More so, the long range fighters still have the option to give up on endurance for performance, something the interceptors cannot afford. This is contrary to the often cited realism approach, because while the short range interceptor stays what it is (realistic), the long range fighter has a choice (unrealistic). As said before, I'm quite sure all LA pilots go up with 100% fuel (realistic) while most pony drivers may only take 75%, 50%+DT,50%, 25%+DT (unrealistic) to boost performance.
IMO, the best way solve this problem is to keep 2x burn rate and to eliminate fuel load choice, making 100% mandatory. That way you have the clear distinction between short range interceptors and long range fighters, without favoring one over another via loadout "games".
-
IMO, the best way solve this problem is to keep 2x burn rate and to eliminate fuel load choice, making 100% mandatory. That way you have the clear distinction between short range interceptors and long range fighters, without favoring one over another via loadout "games".
That's an interesting idea for compromise.
-
I do believe this discussion is nothing but a disguise for people want to make their plane which has a low fuel capacity better.
Take the current sugestion of 100%
1. This would severely hurt the long range planes, because they normally would have arrived at the fight with much less fuel.
2. It assumes that long range fighters would always load 100% even if they were being used in a short mission roll. (They would not have)
HiTech
-
Thread just got pwned. Sorry, but I agree with HiTech here 100%.
-
As for the burn multiplier, the long legs of aircraft like the P-51D aren't used for going places in the arena, but for climbing to ridiculous altitudes. And therein lies the rub of the fuel burn multiplier, it doesn't so much limit range as the ability to get to an altitude where you're not a sitting duck but have fuel left over.
You hardly ever see anyone over 15K, 20K tops. And if you do, so what? The bandit fifteen thousand feet above you is not a threat, the one five thousand feet above you is.
-
IMO, the best way solve this problem is to keep 2x burn rate and to eliminate fuel load choice, making 100% mandatory. That way you have the clear distinction between short range interceptors and long range fighters, without favoring one over another via loadout "games".
Short range interceptors are already *wildly* favored in this game because of short distances, low altitudes, the nature of the combat, AND the physics of building a long-range aircraft vs. a short range one. Minute of flight time per minute of flight time, they La7 with 10 minutes of fuel a lot better performance than the P-51 with 10 minutes left because empty tankage *still* costs you in weight.
Furthermore, most planes with exceptionally short ranges have short ranges because they have extraordinarily powerful engines in relation to their sizes. But they can also effectively be throttled way down and still have decent performance. For instance, take an La7, shortest legged fighter in the game. Up with 100% internal, and simply reduce RPMs to 2,100. You now have an airplane with basically the range, climb, and top speed performance of an P-47D on WEP with 75% fuel, that can also has a whole hell of a lot of thrust in reserve and can accelerate like a bat out of hell when you go balls to the wall.
Oh, and if you're a Spit pilot, have we never heard of the VIII? 30 minutes, full fuel, balls to the wall. Don't come whining to me about its sluggish roll rate when it has such range while retaining all the other Spit qualities...
-
I do believe this discussion is nothing but a disguise for people want to make their plane which has a low fuel capacity better.
Take the current sugestion of 100%
1. This would severely hurt the long range planes, because they normally would have arrived at the fight with much less fuel.
2. It assumes that long range fighters would always load 100% even if they were being used in a short mission roll. (They would not have)
HiTech
2x fuel burn is a disguise for people who want to make their plane which has a high fuel capacity better.
1. It severely hurts the short range planes, because they normally would have plenty of fuel to reach a competitive altitude.
2. It assumes that long range fighters would always have the luxury of having drained the auxiliary tanks before the chance of combat.
So there. :neener:
-
let me get this right,
you think everyone should have the same amount of fuel as each other because we all pay the same amount of money
I just want the same service as I paid (I'm no more a customer) the same amount as others.
The fbm ,the arena split ,the dismiss of ToD among other reasons made me ending my subscription and tho my support of Hitech Creation
(add to this the only day where AH was like it used to be for me : titanic tuesday is the day I play handball) as I'm not any more concerned by any arena setup as I'll not discuss further this matter.
-
I do believe this discussion is nothing but a disguise for people want to make their plane which has a low fuel capacity better.
Take the current sugestion of 100%
1. This would severely hurt the long range planes, because they normally would have arrived at the fight with much less fuel.
2. It assumes that long range fighters would always load 100% even if they were being used in a short mission roll. (They would not have)
HiTech
I guess the cube metaphor was too complex for you to understand ?
oh btw ... goodbye and thank for the fish.
-
I do believe this discussion is nothing but a disguise for people want to make their plane which has a low fuel capacity better.
Take the current sugestion of 100%
1. This would severely hurt the long range planes, because they normally would have arrived at the fight with much less fuel.
2. It assumes that long range fighters would always load 100% even if they were being used in a short mission roll. (They would not have)
HiTech
It always seems to end up with 3 - 4 discussions criss crossing the debate.
For me blunting the effect of fuel porkage ( to max limit of 75% max internal fuel capacity) resolved any effect that x 2 FBM had on the game play choices. It removed field fuel attrition from game play IMO maybe that was not such a bad idea. But (if field fuel attrition should ever return) there are "other" methods of rationing fuel than the one in use now.