You might want to read this whole thread before you go any further with your wish...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,283332.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,283332.0.html)
Not sure what you mean by "before you go any further with your wish". My wish is posted. I've taken it as far as I can. Also in comparison to the thread that you included. I am not asking for Engine warm up times, cowel flaps or any of that. I'd just like to see the aircraft engine performance limited as stated in my wish.Your wish is highly unrealistic. You want our engines in the game to be unrealistically fragile and limited.
I already adjust throttle and rpm for both curising around and whilst engaged.
But why will this be fun? to have engine failures etc
You'd be shocked at the punishment some of these engines could take. The majority of limitations in the pilot's handbooks are about engine longevity and maintenance cycles, not about preventing engine failures.
Off hand I recall reading of a Spitfire pilot who panicked and ran his Spitfire on WEP for about 30 minutes straight. They pulled the engine and did a thorough check on it, but could find nothing wrong with it so returned it to service.
You'd be shocked at the punishment some of these engines could take. The majority of limitations in the pilot's handbooks are about engine longevity and maintenance cycles, not about preventing engine failures.So what you're saying Karnak, if I'm reading this correctly...is that if I told you that one Ford 428 Cobrajet engine ran for 4 hours straight at 10,000 rpms without any visible signs of damage all of those engines could do the same thing. Is that correct?
Off hand I recall reading of a Spitfire pilot who panicked and ran his Spitfire on WEP for about 30 minutes straight. They pulled the engine and did a thorough check on it, but could find nothing wrong with it so returned it to service.
Your wish is highly unrealistic. You want our engines in the game to be unrealistically fragile and limited.
Not at all, I'm suggesting that the engines were very reliable as operated by the USAAF during WWII. That the operations of the engines was guided by performance manuals that pilots referenced during planning and the actual flight. I know this to be a fact, either that or my Dad was the only fighter pilot in WWII that used them.Ah, you're that Traveler...I was wondering where you were getting your notions. Hate to say it but the "game" side of AH will prevail over the "more realistic" because the game side is the bread and butter of the player base.
I also know for a fact that the T6 and P40 as well as the F4 Corsair will over heat if the engine limits are not respected. I have over 1000 hours split between them and over 400 hours in a B25. I worked for a company that would put these aircraft on display at air shows. I ferried these aircraft up and down the east coast and as far west as Oshkosh for most of the 80,s and 90’s.
Everyone always stresses how accurate the model is in Aces High, well as far as aircraft engine operation goes, its not. But it could be.
Ah, you're that Traveler...I was wondering where you were getting your notions. Hate to say it but the "game" side of AH will prevail over the "more realistic" because the game side is the bread and butter of the player base.
Your wish is highly unrealistic. You want our engines in the game to be unrealistically fragile and limited.
If you want super duper realism tavelr..have HT make an arena for it. As for implementing it in the game. My vote is no way. There is aleady a steep learing curve for the game. Why make it harder to learn?Steep learning curve? Where? Doesn't take much to read a little.
Steep learning curve? Where? Doesn't take much to read a little.New players get shot down over and over and over and over and over and over with almost no reward for their efforts.
There is aleady a steep learing curve for the game. Why make it harder to learn?
Karnak, that's not a learning curve attributable specifically to AH...situational awareneess, aerial combat maneuvers and aerial gunnery are things flight sim gamers learn as they play the gameThat learning curve in MMO flight combat games is much higher than it is in FPSs or things like MMORPGs like WoW. There is a lot of complexity that is hidden from casual observers and it allows veteran players to dominate new players much more effectively than in other games.
That learning curve in MMO flight combat games is much higher than it is in FPSs or things like MMORPGs like WoW. There is a lot of complexity that is hidden from casual observers and it allows veteran players to dominate new players much more effectively than in other games.I think I understand where you're going with that but I'm going to disagree on the basic level...with the exception of aerial combat maneuvers, flight sims are no more difficult to learn than long distance non-scoped sniping or proper room clearing in an FPS...the only "hidden complexity" in AH as with any multi player game is the human opponent...and what I'm talking about is the level of skill and knowledge that human opponent has...otherwise AH is no more difficult to learn than Total War. Learning how to execute a scissor, yo-yo, immelmann or accurately dive bomb are things a person can learn in pretty much any combat flight sim...it's not exclusive to MMO flight sims.
It isn't specific to AH, but it is specific to AH's genre.
I disagree...
Simply wanting different heat/overheat for different engine settings isn't a problem. I'd love to see that realistically modeled someday. He's not asking for instant engine explosions if you use wep for 5.0001 minutes, or anything (like another thread).
Many folks do use throttle/rpm settings in-game, but currently only for range/fuel issues. I'd like to see bombers limited to historic power settings. Until we get engine over-heats (and some form of engine wear if levels are exceeded that HTC comes up with and we all accept), bombers run around at speeds comparable to many fighters' top speeds.
Overall it's a decent wish, but given current gameplay limitations and (from what I can tell) given HTC's current line of focus, I don't think we'll see it soon.
the very small number of people who desire more realistic characteristics have many different ideas and motivations. HT doesn't have the time and most likely zero desire to incorporate anything more complex than what exists now.
WEP automatically shuts off after five minutes across the board, for planes with WEP.
Presumably MP could be coaded so that after ?ten minutes? in MP the software would reduce engine power to some high speed cruise setting, and like WEP, require a cool off time.
But that seems to me a tough one, because in AH, WEP is an on/off setting, while throttle is variable. So if you leave your CH throttle pegged, as in MP, the software could enforce a uniform ?five minute? cool off.
But what if you have a somewhat reduced throttle, like 93%, below MP? Then the S/W would have to start calculating for temps. Probably could be worked out fairly, but it would be a chore.
In any case, in WWII combat, if your engine was red line and you got bounced, you doubtless were not worrying about temp restrictions, at least not until after you are clear and on the way home.
So, in a theoretical AH engagement, you use up your MP time and you are in an imposed ?five minute? MP cool off. Would you be able to use WEP if you get bounced or not? In R/L I am sure a pilot would firewall and WEP when applicable.
On the other hand, if you are not going to automatically impose a ?five minute? cool down, then, as several have already mentioned, how do you penalize the MP throttle setting, when engines could run at high power for longer periods than recommended? Ten demerits? (Hey, there's an idea, negative perks! :D)
Just to mention, the P-38L, from what I understand, and I may be mistaken, is not modeled with actual WEP "power" since engines apparently did not use WEP operationally, even though in game it has a "WEP" setting. IF this is the case, then even though you are actually only reaching MP power when you apply WEP, you are limited to 5 minutes of MP until automatic cool off.
best
Krusty,What exactly would you consider within the realm of realistic in forcing toon pile-its to do what real life pilots had to do? You honestly believe airplanes were flown full throttle from the time they took off until they landed hours later? It's not done now with modern airplanes, military or civilian...throttle up to take off, continue until you have attained assigned altitude, level out, throttle back and maintain safe cruising speed.
The problem is that imposing this sort of restriction to force aircraft to reduce power is probably even LESS realistic and totally artificial. The only ACTUAL effect real pilots saw after exceeding the manual's safety restrictions was it took the engine out of operation as it was disassembled and checked for damage. Something that is NOT reflected in our .ef and get a new plane environment.
Unless you want HTC to impose a "you ignored your safety restrictions, so must sit in the tower for an hour while we check your engine" restriction, there's no way to accurately reflect the real consequences of doing so.Yes there is, and I've posted it enough times that I'm not going to repeat it again...and I agree, some small changes in engine management would be nice.
Now, I WOULD like to see some more complex engine management: Fuel mixture, changing the supercharger speeds, and WEP that can permanently run out if appropriate, but overheats cannot be done in a way that's in any way realistic.
Yes there is, and I've posted it enough times that I'm not going to repeat it again...and I agree, some small changes in engine management would be nice.
jdbecks, you should have quoted the first part of that, where it mentions the gamers, which is more the exact reason why nothing complex would be added...if the tables were turned and more people wanted more complex attributes it would be a different story.
What exactly would you consider within the realm of realistic in forcing toon pile-its to do what real life pilots had to do? You honestly believe airplanes were flown full throttle from the time they took off until they landed hours later? It's not done now with modern airplanes, military or civilian...throttle up to take off, continue until you have attained assigned altitude, level out, throttle back and maintain safe cruising speed.
Safe operation was taught for a reason, because in testing prior to production, and sometimes on the front lines...failures occurred...not 100% of the time but enough to make it into flight instruction manuals as a warning. Aside from the well documented engine failures on the B-29...September 2, 1943, TBD-1 #0353 ditched eight miles off the coast of Miami. Again the cause was engine failure...27 airmen lost in the June 1945 crash of RAF Liberator JT985 flown by a Canadian crew. Bound for the Pacific battlefront, the Liberator went down with engine failure along the Dorset coast...Flight Leader Robert Nelson of the 29th Troop Carrier Squadron who led his flight of three C-47s into combat all alone. They were delayed by an engine failure...(excerpt from a published radio interview with WWII era WASPS - Women Airforce Service Pilots) ETHEL MEYER FINLEY: Thirty-eight women were killed in either training or assignments. Evelyn Sharp out in Oklahoma, that was an engine failure-a P-38. There was one out of Shaw Field. She was out testing a BT-13. They found her; she had crashed. Some of them were pilot error and some were engine problems, and some were collisions. And it was rather a sobering thing, but I don't know that it affected anybody's desire to go out right away again...
I can find this stuff all day long... :neener:
Yes there is, and I've posted it enough times that I'm not going to repeat it again...and I agree, some small changes in engine management would be nice.
Every aircraft that I fly in AH and I haven’t flown all of them, but all that have WEP, appear to have it tied to engine temp. I’ve noticed that once WEP shuts down, if the engine cools, you can run WEP again until the engine reaches max temp. It also appears that you can do this again and again.
Perhaps someone from HighTech Creations can chime in and answer the following question. Is WEP based on Time or Engine Temp? or a combination of both?
I think the r/l pilots of WWII did what was necessary to stay alive, I know my Dad did. But they didn’t abuse the equipment, there lives depended on it. They didn’t zip around the country with the throttle fire walled. No one did. They were all faced with the same restrictions on engine performance.
I am not asking for a more complex engine then already exists. I’m asking for operational restrictions on that engines performance.
I don’t believe that new players will fined it a problem. They currently have an Engine Performance restriction on WEP and they all seem to manage.
Fine. The next time you exceed the book restrictions on your power settings on a sortie, YOU can sit around in the tower for a week while your imaginary maintenance crew takes your plane off the flight line to go over its engine with a fine-toothed comb.Why not have that with every day settings...fact is that when a plane returned from a mission, unless there was a military necessity to immediately return to the air upon refueling/rearming, the aircraft were worked on by the mechanics until they were ready for flight...that included going so far as to tear the engine down and rebuild it...but if a spare engine was available, it was put into the plane and tested.
I'm against introducing such ARTIFICIAL MEASURES as engine overheats into the game to force pilots to do so when they can be easily done with mechanics already existing:How is an engine overheating artificial? Please explain that...how is killing bomber drones, or increasing the fuel burn multiplier not artificial?
Tighten the leash on bomber drones so they pop if you exceed that aircraft's level cruise.
Increase the distance between bases so fighters have longer to fly.
Increase the fuel burn to 3.0 or even 4.0.
Heck, you could even use the Perk system and add a "Crew Chief Lambasting" cost at the end of a sortie.
Oh, by the way, do you have any SOURCES that indicate all these examples of "engine failure" were due to pilots ignoring or exceeding the manual safety restrictions? Engine failure can be caused by any NUMBER or reasons. Like inhaling a bird, or any number of the thousands of parts getting passed over in routine inspection. It could have been poor manufacture, or caused by poor materials. The B-29's engines had KNOWN mechanical faults that caused a large number of the failures. It's VERY poor form to cite these cases as "evidence" in favor of imposing ARTIFICIAL MECHANICAL LIMITATIONS when you don't have ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to ACTUALLY say that a particular case was a matter of pilots not following the book rather than some other source of failure. Because the simple fact is an engine is a complex mechanical object. Complex mechanical objects CAN break even when everything is being operated within its safety limitations.Just so you know - the engine failures on the B-29s came from bad designs on the cowl and cowl flaps that cause engine overheats, particularly during take off and I quote:
These weaknesses combined to make an engine that would overheat regularly at combat weights, particularly during climbs after takeoff. Unseated valves released fuel-air mixtures during engine combustion that acted as a blowtorch against the valve stems. When these burned through the engines disintegrated and caught fire. A fire that was not immediately contained in the forward part of the engine by fire extinguishers became impossible to put out. An accessory housing manufactured of magnesium alloy in the back of the engine would often catch fire and produce heat so intense it burned through the firewall to the main wing spar in no more than 90 seconds, resulting in catastrophic failure of the wing.
This problem would not be fully cured until the aircraft was re-engined with the more powerful Pratt & Whitney R-4360 "Wasp Major" in the B-29D/B-50 program, which arrived too late for World War II. Interim measures included cuffs placed on propeller blades to divert a greater flow of cooling air into the intakes, which had baffles installed to direct a stream of air onto the exhaust valves. Oil flow to the valves was also increased, asbestos baffles installed around rubber push rod fittings to prevent oil loss, thorough pre-flight inspections made to detect unseated valves, and frequent replacement of the uppermost five cylinders (every 25 hours of engine time) and the entire engines (every 75 hours).
but it does not say, the engine failure was due to the pilot using WEP for a minute or more over pilot books recommended usage.You are quite correct sir...but then none of the aircraft I noted in that had WEP...and I never said engaging WEP a minute or more over flight manual specs would absolutely cause engine failure...not even going to delve into the obvious chain reaction thing there.
Fine. The next time you exceed the book restrictions on your power settings on a sortie, YOU can sit around in the tower for a week while your imaginary maintenance crew takes your plane off the flight line to go over its engine with a fine-toothed comb.
What the hells wrong with you.
Plenty.
But in this case that's EXACTLY the effect most pilots would see if they pushed their engine beyond the manufacturer's recommended operating limits. Their crew chief would chew them out and the engine would get torn down for a couple weeks while it was checked and rechecked, then put back together a piece at a time to make sure everything is working normally. The concept of an engine ALWAYS failing over the course of a single sortie when operated outside those limits is by FAR less realistic than leaving things the way they are, and if gyrene INSISTS on having a legitimate penalty for pushing the engine, then well that's EXACTLY what the average result would have been.
It's been discussed time and time again, and no one seems to want to listen to the guys who've spent hundreds of hours with these types of engines (Widewing in particular comes to mind. Who do YOU believe? Someone like WW who actually WORKS on these engines, or the programmer for Il-2 or Target: Rabaul?). The impact of pushing the engine in this matter is NOT something that typically caused it to "break" over the course of a single flight. DID it happen occasionally? Possibly, yes. There's a LOT of moving parts in there and it doesn't take much being out of allignment to blow the whole thing. But that usually indicates that something ALREADY wasn't right with the engine when the plane was warming up, not something that developed when the pilot redlined longer than the manufacturer's recommendations allowed.Exactly what I have been saying all along...and excessive heat would exacerbate the problem to the point where failure would be more likely to occur, but generally it just caused a minor issue and continued to run until a mechanic found it. You seem to believe that aircraft engines were so perfect they could withstand heat better than a modern engine could, regardless of the circumstances...absolutely not the case...hence the reason the regular overhaul maintenance was set to 50 hours of combat operations and ground crews worked on the engines after every mission.
More often than not THAT sort of failure would have been the result of something that would have accumulated over time. As in multiple sorties. Substandard parts, haphazard maintenance, parts not being changed out in a timely fashion whether due to neglect or lack of availability of replacements. The reason that an engine that exceeded its safety restrictions was torn down and checked out was PRECISELY to prevent these sorts of issues in the first place. Damaged or burned out parts would have been repaired or replaced before the engine was released back into service.
You seem to believe that aircraft engines were so perfect they could withstand heat better than a modern engine could, regardless of the circumstances...absolutely not the case...hence the reason the regular overhaul maintenance was set to 50 hours of combat operations and ground crews worked on the engines after every mission.You on the other hand seem to believe that engines exploded the movement the limitations in the Pilot's Handbook were exceeded.
You on the other hand seem to believe that engines exploded the movement the limitations in the Pilot's Handbook were exceeded.I didn't over exaggerate anything about Saxman...or did you miss something.
Or maybe what you said about Saxman is a blatant exaggeration just like my statement is about you.
Unless you want to add this sort aircraft maintenance to the game there's NO place for factors such as overheats or power level restrictions for anything other than fuel economy and formation flying.
Fine. The next time you exceed the book restrictions on your power settings on a sortie, YOU can sit around in the tower for a week while your imaginary maintenance crew takes your plane off the flight line to go over its engine with a fine-toothed comb.
It's VERY poor form to cite these cases as "evidence" in favor of imposing ARTIFICIAL MECHANICAL LIMITATIONS when you don't have ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to ACTUALLY say that a particular case was a matter of pilots not following the book rather than some other source of failure. Because the simple fact is an engine is a complex mechanical object. Complex mechanical objects CAN break even when everything is being operated within its safety limitations.
I would not want random total engine failure to be programmed into AH and I have been blatantly clear about that...actually I wouldn't want anything random at all...it would have to be based on percentages...and things like cowl and radiator flaps would have to be incorporated.
Geez you are full of erroneous information aren't you? Care to try and educate me on how cowl flaps worked and what their purpose was? How about the radiator flaps?You seem to think they magically stopped the extremely fragile engines from breaking, which you think they would do almost immediately on exceeding the limits in the pilots handbook.
It's very obvious you know less than I do about how piston aircraft engines worked...or any engines for that matter.
In other words, you want us to have to baby the engines like they are old, restored warbirds, not front line fighters being used in an actual war.
Also, your comment about cowl and radiator flaps makes it clear you really don't know how these engines worked and just want complexity stuff added, not realism.
You seem to think they magically stopped the extremely fragile engines from breaking, which you think they would do almost immediately on exceeding the limits in the pilots handbook.LOL...like I suspected.
Here's a hint for you, Il-2 is not a valid source of data.
Geez you are full of erroneous information aren't you? Care to try and educate me on how cowl flaps worked and what their purpose was? How about the radiator flaps?
It's very obvious you know less than I do about how piston aircraft engines worked...or any engines for that matter.
LOL...like I suspected.So your source is Il-2.
IL2 doesn't model "magical" engine temperature recovery...I've tried it...perhaps you haven't. And I never once stated WWII aircraft engines were fragile.
So you have the information for future use, cowl flaps were used increase the airflow across the cylinder heads and thus maximizing engine cooling...they were primarily used during take offs, landings, and extended climbs...they did not produce an immediate cooling to normal operating temperatures.
So your source is Il-2.You're not even close. Do you always inject your own meanings to what people say?
You might want to do some actual research on what you are requesting. Il-2's game mechanisms are, if anything, less realistic than AH.
Yes, unlike you I seem to be at least somewhat familiar with the equipment we are talking about and not just parroting a video game's mechanisms.
Do you really think that pilots of WWII fighters were, in the middle of combat, flipping their cowl/radiator flaps open and shut, watching the engine temperature, constantly and such? Not one account I have read described that and not one pilot I have talked to even mentioned it. The only pilot mention I can recall is laughing dismissal of your position by a P-38 pilot. His claim was that in combat you put the throttles through the gate and left them there until the fight was over.Considering most air battles lasted less than 30 minutes and the P-38 used turbos instead of an injection based WEP system, keeping the throttle pushed through the gate during an air battle would pretty much be SOP...but I guarantee you that pilot you're using as a reference did not keep it firewalled all the way back to base...he wanted to survive. Obviously a pilot isn't going to watch his engine temperature in the heat of battle, but as soon as he was clear of the situation, he was definately checking his gauges...and if the gauges told him there was a problem he was calculating whether he could make it back to his base or looking for a safe place to land.
Yes human error would be at the root of any failure...
Do you really think that pilots of WWII fighters were, in the middle of combat, flipping their cowl/radiator flaps open and shut, watching the engine temperature, constantly and such?
You should try reading with some level of comprehension rather than just react and interject what you perceive to be factual...and if you're not going to make an attempt to comprehend, then don't bother replying.
Trying to add anything more in depth than picking a toon plane, taking off and stirring the stick is like Galileo convincing the Catholic church that the earth revolves around the sun.
QuoteQuote from: Saxman on Today at 10:47:27 AM
Krusty,
The problem is that imposing this sort of restriction to force aircraft to reduce power is probably even LESS realistic and totally artificial. The only ACTUAL effect real pilots saw after exceeding the manual's safety restrictions was it took the engine out of operation as it was disassembled and checked for damage. Something that is NOT reflected in our .ef and get a new plane environment.
What exactly would you consider within the realm of realistic in forcing toon pile-its to do what real life pilots had to do? You honestly believe airplanes were flown full throttle from the time they took off until they landed hours later? It's not done now with modern airplanes, military or civilian...throttle up to take off, continue until you have attained assigned altitude, level out, throttle back and maintain safe cruising speed.
Safe operation was taught for a reason, because in testing prior to production, and sometimes on the front lines...failures occurred...not 100% of the time but enough to make it into flight instruction manuals as a warning. Aside from the well documented engine failures on the B-29...September 2, 1943, TBD-1 #0353 ditched eight miles off the coast of Miami. Again the cause was engine failure...27 airmen lost in the June 1945 crash of RAF Liberator JT985 flown by a Canadian crew. Bound for the Pacific battlefront, the Liberator went down with engine failure along the Dorset coast...Flight Leader Robert Nelson of the 29th Troop Carrier Squadron who led his flight of three C-47s into combat all alone. They were delayed by an engine failure...(excerpt from a published radio interview with WWII era WASPS - Women Airforce Service Pilots) ETHEL MEYER FINLEY: Thirty-eight women were killed in either training or assignments. Evelyn Sharp out in Oklahoma, that was an engine failure-a P-38. There was one out of Shaw Field. She was out testing a BT-13. They found her; she had crashed. Some of them were pilot error and some were engine problems, and some were collisions. And it was rather a sobering thing, but I don't know that it affected anybody's desire to go out right away again...
I can find this stuff all day long... neenerQuoteQuote from: Saxman on Today at 10:47:27 AMYes there is, and I've posted it enough times that I'm not going to repeat it again...and I agree, some small changes in engine management would be nice.
Unless you want HTC to impose a "you ignored your safety restrictions, so must sit in the tower for an hour while we check your engine" restriction, there's no way to accurately reflect the real consequences of doing so.
Now, I WOULD like to see some more complex engine management: Fuel mixture, changing the supercharger speeds, and WEP that can permanently run out if appropriate, but overheats cannot be done in a way that's in any way realistic.
that my bladder might overflow, that my backside goes numb,
Do you really think that pilots of WWII fighters were, in the middle of combat, flipping their cowl/radiator flaps open and shut, watching the engine temperature, constantly and such? Not one account I have read described that and not one pilot I have talked to even mentioned it. The only pilot mention I can recall is laughing dismissal of your position by a P-38 pilot. His claim was that in combat you put the throttles through the gate and left them there until the fight was over.
Raster you seem to be not getting it. Some of us don't have the time nor the energy to want to spend on trivial aspects of what in the end is a cartoon game of pretend fighter pilots.
You want talk the history, the pilots, the planes, the ground crews etc, I'll go all day and beyond, but when I get an hour here or there to go fly with the guys who share a like interest in that WW2 aviation history, I don't want to spend it on what would add nothing to the immersion and fun I get from the 'game'.
I'm not a WW2 fighter pilot. I have no interest in getting up in the middle of the night, eating powdered eggs, lousy bacon and coffee, before going to briefing, then out to my bird, going through all the preflight stuff, then waiting for the signal from the tower to taxi, then the form up time with my squadron, followed by fighting weather, sucking oxygen, worrying that my engine might act up, that my guns might fail, that my bladder might overflow, that my backside goes numb, that frost covers my windscreen, that my pitot head might fail, radio might fail, instruments might fail, that the mission might be recalled, that my oxygen might fail, that my control cables might give, that I might spend 7 hours in flight and never see a bandit, that any of the above might force me down in enemy territory or worse yet that I'll really die......etc etc etc.
Oh, and I don't want someone else deciding that I have no choice on what I fly, for which side, and what my mission is.
You get the idea?
I'd suggest that HTC has done a good job letting my imaginary fighter pilot, pretend to fly my cartoon P38G and somehow survive to fly and fight another day.
You should try reading with some level of comprehension rather than just react and interject what you perceive to be factual...and if you're not going to make an attempt to comprehend, then don't bother replying.
Trying to add anything more in depth than picking a toon plane, taking off and stirring the stick is like Galileo convincing the Catholic church that the earth revolves around the sun.
Why is it when someone makes any attempt to bring just one iota of something more realistic than grab a toonplane and become an instant pile-it ace, people (and I use that word loosely) around here have to exaggerate the idea to the point of being a*holes? Try thinking like an intelligent human once before you post something that illustrates a lack of intelligence.
We all know it's a friggin game...and it can be improved upon without going to extremes if intelligent people carefully consider the possibilities and the consequences of change implementations...and the only way to do that is with intelligent conversation.
The next time you diss someone for doing something "unrealistic" in the arenas or shoot someone's wishlist idea down because it's not "realistic"...remember you words of wannabe wisdom here.
It could be argued that even an unrealistic need to watch temp could be immersive , but as far as realistic , which is the argument many are trying to make, it would not be any more realistic then what we have now. But I believe most people would not find it immersive but simply a pain in the but.
HiTech
But I believe most people would not find it immersive but simply a pain in the but.
run at full WEP settings for 40 hours with no failuresThen why limit WEP to 5 minutes. Give us 40 hours.
find data on even 10% of the plane set
Oh, and I don't want someone else deciding that I have no choice on what I fly, for which side, and what my mission is.
Then why limit WEP to 5 minutes. Give us 40 hours.
Only about 10% of the plane set is ever used..
Utter nonsense. Where do you get this number from?
Ok its 11.56% but 10 matches the number of fingers without having to take my shoes off. :rofl earlier quote: Only about 10% of the plane set is ever used..
According to the Scores/Stats page every plane/gv in the game has been used so far this tour
:furious
I don't like censorship
Thats a lie.
Thats a lie.
So, again, I may have missed a few but darn near every plane, if not all, have been used in LW this tour.
you don't fool me, the plane set is not being used and why spend more money making more planes that won't be used.
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett
I understand that Skuzzy. Really, I know what a bastard thing freedom of speach is and honestly you will never see me giving up my life to defend it. I don't think peopls should have the right to say whatever they want.
But how about fixing the film viewer and never mind trolling the MB unless you think beating over a customer is going to put more money in the owners pockets. :frown:
Well I want my film viewer working because its the best part of AH.No offense Raster but...that issue goes here:
You did not miss any 1701E. I went through the list myself.
Well I want my film viewer working because its the best part of AH.
Those statistics are fudged. Put it in your report to the share holders if you think its not misleading.
Yes but the issue has been active for how many weeks and still nothing gets done. If he was working for me I would take his MB away until he fixes whats broke.
it amazes meWhy does it amaze you. Something not jive? :devil
Re: Film viewer isn't playing films...
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2009, 09:31:26 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any chance you could ZIP it up and email it to me? That site will not allow me to download the file unless I open up my security to allow it to plant some stuff on my computer.
Why does it amaze you. Something not jive? :devil
What you just have the extra time?
I think Rasta is playing the wrong game.
Just one last question and I am gone. Scuzzy are you the one that collected the statistics that porked the DH Mosquito? You can put the answer on a new thread. Thanks.
As has been shown in his previous threads, he wants to change the game to make it 'more realistic sim' because he's tired of being shot down by 'gamers'.
ack-ack
Just one last question and I am gone. Scuzzy are you the one that collected the statistics that porked the DH Mosquito? You can put the answer on a new thread. Thanks.As scherf and I pointed out to you, both of us being Mosquito fans, the Mosquito in AH is not porked. It is just modeled to the data of an FB.Mk VI using Merlin 25s with 100 octane fuel and hampered by flame dampers.
Would like to see a more realistic aircraft engine model. Currently every aircraft in AH can is be flown with the engine throttle fire walled. Currently the only time an engine overheats is when WEP is applied or engine oil pressure is lost. This is just not realistic. All the aircraft engines of the time were subject to over heating and had performance limits set that when exceeded for extended periods of time resulted in a engine over heating and or a seized engine.
I dare say that no one in the game limits RPM or Manifold settings currently.
I think it would add a new dynamic to the game, be interesting to see the effects on game play if pilots were unable to just dash about at full power all the time. It would add a degree of reality and make for a more accurate aircraft model.
I don’t know if the program elements are all in place to effect this type of change, but right now it’s possible to control Manifold pressure and RPM and the engine over heating element is present for WEP. I’ve got to think that it could be expended for other RPM settings as well without much trouble.
If you make any more accusations that HTC intentionally miss representations anything, you will never be back.
As scherf and I pointed out to you, both of us being Mosquito fans, the Mosquito in AH is not porked.
The poster attempted to mislead the readership into believing that each plane in the plane set is used equally.
I think Karnak, those who have read your posts on this thread probably know what kind of faith to put into your opinion.
"There is always a small microcosm of people who need to explain away their suckage."
SlapShot
Aptly fits ehhh?
No. You were the one that said: Only 10% of the planes are getting used at all.
Then you were presented facts that did show you are plain wrong.
You called this facts "lies" and the stats being "fudged"
You called this facts "lies" and the stats being "fudged"
It is just modeled to the data of an FB.Mk VI using Merlin 25s with 100 octane fuel and hampered by flame dampers.
Oh come on Lusche I call the stats "lies" and the facts being "fudged". Try and make some effort eh.
HTC is far more tolerant than I would be,if it was up to me many would be gone,but then my business might not be as successful!!!!!
:salute
I'm experiencing random pilot failures.... :(
I've read through this whole thread and decided to put my 2 cents worth in for all it's worth.
I too would like to see a more complex engine management system in place,atleast a mixture control,as I think it would add new and challenging aspect to the game.
Do we need cooling adjustments,mixture control,I think not but I would like to see it implemented at some point. I do think it would need to be a selectable item much like the stall limiter and I do think there would have to be a small benefit from selecting"complex controls",maybe an additional 50% wep duration.
I feel the same way...
I also can't stand how it seems that the most vocal supporters of something like this end up being crazies that think that everyone is out to get whatever plane they like the most... and that HTC is somehow plotting against them...
Without the film viewer AH has nothing more to offer. Too much stuff not working for such a primitive game. I have cancelled my account and hope that those who want something better will do the same before these morons spoil your love of flying. Bye and to everyone I've met this tour, if you see me online flightsimming in some other sim, don't say hello, just bugger off and STFU. :aok
Nobody's flying TW now.. It's gone. Shut down. No more flying. The next version's not even in alpha and it'll probably be years before it's got rudimentary flying capabilities.There goes the neighborhood. ;)
This is just the first wave. Hopefully not everybody from TW that migrates over will be so ignorant. Some folks (way way back when I tried it) were rather nice.
Nobody's flying TW now.. It's gone. Shut down. No more flying. The next version's not even in alpha and it'll probably be years before it's got rudimentary flying capabilities.
This is just the first wave. Hopefully not everybody from TW that migrates over will be so ignorant. Some folks (way way back when I tried it) were rather nice.
I for one am interested Midway and if I am impressed with your expertise I will probably tell you. However, I doubt you can teach me anything.
If I may suggest you set this up correctly. You could do the whole thing on a Sunday afternoon. Post it, have the folks sign up and register for the specific date and time. Get their emails, send out printed material outlining the manuevers, make up a short program and demonstration, expect each pilot to show you the manuevers correctly preformed, then make sure those who have registered are given a written exam. If these pilots pass your written and online test then you email each of them a certificate of successfully completed training. Or a certificate of failure if thats the kind of pilot they are. However, as I said, I doubt you are the one who would be able to competently teach how to pilot the P38 effectively. Your training and your certificate are only as good as you are. In my opinion, your gunnery is excellent, your pilotage only average. If you have the balls to prove yourself competent to train, then ok, I will humbly sign up as your student to pass or fail by your measure.
RASTER
Completely down? When did this happen? Target Rabual and Target Tobruk were up during the Holidays.
BTW- found this little gem from the TW forums. Talk about a hubris...
ack-ack
I've read through this whole thread and decided to put my 2 cents worth in for all it's worth.
I too would like to see a more complex engine management system in place,atleast a mixture control,as I think it would add new and challenging aspect to the game.
Do we need cooling adjustments,mixture control,I think not but I would like to see it implemented at some point. I do think it would need to be a selectable item much like the stall limiter and I do think there would have to be a small benefit from selecting"complex controls",maybe an additional 50% wep duration....
:salute
IIRC Hitech has stated something to the effect that the challenge here is air combat not switchology.
If something was implemented that would give you an advantage it would be more mandatory than optional. If you really just want the challenge of more complex engine management then you don't need additional benefit from it. If it was like trim, where combat trim probably works better than I manually trim, and everybody can easily manually trim on those few occasions when they need too, then more complex engine management could add value for you while not detracting for those not interested in it.
Adding what you ask on the grounds of making it more challenging is a false argument. You seem to miss the fact that everyone plays by the same rules. The real challenge is not flying the airplane but rather out flying your opponent. So adding what you ask would not make it more challenging, because the goal of killing some one does not become any more difficult or easy because your opponent has to deal with all the same items. So in the end what you ask for detracts from the fun part (fighting) and puts more emphasis on plane knowledge and cockpit management.
2nd in many cases what you ask for becomes less realistic when it comes to cockpit management. With most computer setups the easy of flying is far more difficult than flying the real thing in almost all regions of flight. So you are asking to make cockpit management much more difficult than flying the real thing.
3rd it would make it much more difficult for a new person to experience is first fight.
Finally as I have said before, you really are just asking to have to remember to push a few more keys on the keyboard. AH is about flying & fighting, not about having to remember a check list.
HiTech
IIRC Hitech has stated something to the effect that the challenge here is air combat not switchology.
IIRC Hitech has stated something to the effect that the challenge here is air combat not switchology.
Off hand I recall reading of a Spitfire pilot who panicked and ran his Spitfire on WEP for about 30 minutes straight. They pulled the engine and did a thorough check on it, but could find nothing wrong with it so returned it to service.
Would like to see a more realistic aircraft engine model. Currently every aircraft in AH can is be flown with the engine throttle fire walled. Currently the only time an engine overheats is when WEP is applied or engine oil pressure is lost. This is just not realistic. All the aircraft engines of the time were subject to over heating and had performance limits set that when exceeded for extended periods of time resulted in a engine over heating and or a seized engine.
I dare say that no one in the game limits RPM or Manifold settings currently.
I think it would add a new dynamic to the game, be interesting to see the effects on game play if pilots were unable to just dash about at full power all the time. It would add a degree of reality and make for a more accurate aircraft model.
I don’t know if the program elements are all in place to effect this type of change, but right now it’s possible to control Manifold pressure and RPM and the engine over heating element is present for WEP. I’ve got to think that it could be expended for other RPM settings as well without much trouble.
I think its a good idea, also can we have random failure of tyres when landing, which pitches you off the runway into a hangar. I'd also like my guns to jam, especially when factories are moved to the rear and the quality of ammo falls.
We could include careful mixture selection that needs to be maintained constantly in flight (maybe buy and setup 2 throttles). I'd like to see parachutes that have been packed by a half arsed ground crew member that roman candle when you bail.
If guys repeatedly land and rearm instead of taking new a/c, and then repeatedly subject their aircraft to violent dogfighting manouvering, we could have control cables snap randomly.
And maybe in the heat of a big furball we could have an aneurism model under neg g.