Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: funked on December 04, 1999, 11:42:00 AM
-
HTC:
La-5FN is only useful as a defensive fighter in this game.
Read up on WW2.
The La-5FN was used almost exclusively as an OFFENSIVE fighter, performing fighter sweep and close escort for attack aircraft. Not possible in this arcade arena.
-
and boom & zoom isnt possible in 109 when it runs already out of gas quickly.
I'll put my vote on removing fuel multiplier or decreasing it at least..
Kind of boring when P-51s and F4us now flies everywhere between 25-35k hunting for kills and planes like la5 or 109 barely gets that high just to chase P-51 for a minute and glide home. (thats why I have quit using La5 which I used first times and same with 109, bored to quick fuel usage)
-
You guys are gonna hate me, but I like the present fuel multiplier. And I have flown the Lavochkin almost exclusively, since I first started AH.
My squadron has found that raids of up to two airfields away are possible, which is about 80 miles, 160 miles roundtrip. Of course, we throttle down a lot, but only after attaining 20k, using up a 1/4 tank. From that point we throttle down until contact is made. Of course, our combat window gets quite small when we patrol two airfields away, but we do some planning, and pick the 'quiet' sectors for that (makes for lazy targets and quick kills).
In combat, an overriding concern is remaining fuel, and so we know how much fuel we need to get home. When it gets to that minimum amount it's 'rtb' time. Granted, someone on your six might delay that, but then OTOH our method of combat is determined by our fuel status. So, on long raids we keep energy and break against superior bandits, resulting in fewer disadvantageous situations.
Of course, the long-ranged fighters have the advantage of being able to rack up more kills per sortie, but in terms of getting altitude, I disagree. We fly at 25k on those deep raids of ours, long before we meet up with anyone. That's about our ceiling for effective fighting, and if it wasn't we'd be higher. We certainly have shorter windows of combat, but nothing as bad as being unable to get to our 'perch'.
This is an ahistorical arena, I understand that. And because it is ahistorical, there may be an argument for increasing aircraft range, but I prefer it this way, because it keeps me honest. Worrying about fuel has made me a better pilot, curbing classic online flightsim suicidal tendencies(COFST).
AH is just starting out with many issues to be addressed before it is finished, but I'm hoping that the scaling of fuel to the arena size is a sign that we will, indeed, see historical arenas with historical matchups. Why else would you impose such realistic concerns unless it was to prepare us for such an arena?
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
Leonid: my problem here is that I get bored to find myself all the time out of fuel after I get to 20k and do one fight...
It is real boring when can't do any nice patrols and wish for nice return backs to home if goes too far (which is like 50 miles if likes to fight too)
Not to forget about those P-51s who likes to run all the time, cant chase them for even 20 miles..
I am not furballer type myself.
-
Hmmm Leonid you may have a point. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Another thing that occured to my poor little brain is that the fuel multiplier forces everybody to take off with max fuel.
Without it you get people taking off with small fuel loads, which gives planes with a high fuel fraction an advantage in performance.
-
Not everybody needs full fuel. The Mustang especially goes forever on little fuel.
Combine with the "Runstang" style of flying: you can run away from cons, then turn around and catch them when they RTB low on fuel. If they turn and fight, simply run again until they are out of fuel. Once they go glider they become an "easy" kill. The P51D pilot can totally avoid engaging until they want to, by using the plane's superior speed and fuel economy.
Imagine what would happen if they put a Me163B in AH with the current fuel burn multiplier... I think you would run out of fuel before you even got airborne!
-
Juzz: I have bad feeling that they will add Me262, which will barely get climb to 20k and accerlate to full speed with little shallow dive and its about ready to go rtb...
-
I think the multiplier could be tweaked a bit. I've flown the La most of the time and dont have a problem grabing to 20 - 25k, but I do get a little pissed when I want to take off from a field that only allows 50% ....50% in a La, I wont even bother. I also dont like the idea of climbing to alt with 100% fuel only to get into a fight with a pony that took off 2 field away prob with only 25% fuel and I know in the back of my mind he prob still has enough fuel to run me dry (ok maybe I'm streching it a little but you get the idea (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
-
nothing pisses me off more than seeing a 51 or f4u(ya, those bastiges can do it too) run away from me in a la5. however, that is exactly what they did in wwii, and that is exactly what i would do too. in fact, no one is happier than me when i have two spits on my six and with a little dip and some WEP me and my lavochkin are gone (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
Personally I like the Fuel Multiplier
The only aircraft I have any problems with it, in that regard is the La5 and the C.205.
Btw did the Maachi get its droptanks this version?
I don't see why the Spitfire and 109 Drivers, have any complaints, since with full fuel and drop tanks they do quite well.
Hell, I am still waiting for G-Limits for aircraft loaded with external ordinance. IE Spitfires stall fighting with attached droptanks.
I can takeoff, climb to 25K+, and play a careful stalking, conservative style of fighting, until I run outta E or Ammo. No, you can't blow all that E and then climb back up to 25K, and still have alot of fuel, but then again you shouldn't have blown all that E should you? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I say keep it. Just my opinon.
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires ;) "
-
109 eats gas like drunk, if you turn wep on, it burns 25% fuel in 4 minutes, spit does that same in 7 minutes.
109 should be very much able to BnZ its targets, but this kind of drunk sure cant BnZ much.
-
Fuel burn rate multiplier is one of my least favorite features.
//fats
-
I like the fuel multiplier. Finally a sim that actually gives the planes that carried more gas a real benefit. High fuel loads have the big impact on performance that they should. I think most of the "That pony out-turned my Spit!" deals that happen are when a Pony with 25% gas or less runs into a Spitball still lugging his droptank. Even if the Spit drops his tank, he may not have the big turn-rate advantage he would expect.
This adds to the simulation IMHO. The only plane that I don't grab for fuel considerations is the La5. Even so, if I stay off the WEP and conserver, I can get decent range in it. Did the La5 never use a drop tank? I guess not. Maybe a small one could be considered for it in any case.
------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs
-
From my point of view the multiplier ads to the sim, it introduce an aspect of combat flying that was very real and important to the pilots.
The bad part is the way it effects range (as in ground distance covered) and climbs the same way. Distance on the map is scaled and altitude is not, so climbing should really use less fuel then level flight for the multiplier to be fair.
I don’t see a solution for this, other the to average the two and call it a compromise. Anyway, I like that fuel is a factor now, so I want to keep the multiplier in some form.
-Jinx
The Flying Pigs
-
Those planes with low fuel makes even too much realism.
Also note that popularity of other planes than the ones with big fuel load, decreases alot.
If there has to be fuel modifier, I'd suggest to decrease it so that fuel hogs could get it even.
I know 109 had low fuel, but it didn't have THAT low fuel that it couldn't chase someone for 30 miles and fight.
Most thing what makes up for planes with lots of fuel is altitude, because planes with low fuel cannot climb to 25k all the time just to meet co-altitude P-51.
Maybe we should add extra fuel for planes with little fuel tanks? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
A couple things I should like to point out.
1. Only in the Russian front did fighters patrol at full throttle(and AFAIK only Russian pilots). The reason of course was extremely short ranges to combat. In just about every other theater/front, maximum throttle was strictly used for climbing and combat alone due to fuel limits.
2. I flew the 109 a bit online a couple nights ago, and was noticing that it ate fuel about as badly as the la5. Then I looked the speed resulting from my reduced throttle setting and lo! I was pleasantly surprised. You see, a la5 at 20k needs at least 45degrees manifold to maintain enough airspeed for lift, the engine output drops that much. Hence, I had set the 109's throttle to that very setting: 45 degrees. And it was going a cool 250mph IAS, much faster than a la5 at that setting. What a revelation! The 109 could probably patrol around at 35-40 degrees manifold, making a much greater savings in fuel. Add that drop tank and I bet the 109 could range further than anyone's tested it for.
...hmm, maybe I'll see just how far the messer can really go...
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
Maybe this is off the point a little but what is the deal with reduced fuel loads at bases that have been damaged (or is it cos someone hit your city). I can live with the reduced supplies to the front idea but the fuel should be given to planes is equal amounts not percentages. Anyone know the fuel cap of the P51 and say the 109 ? , as a guess shouldn't the 109 get half a tank and the pony only a quarter a tank to be even ?
Just because you have a bigger glass doesn't mean you'll get more beer does it ?? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Laika, I imagine it's that way now because fuel loads (apart from drop tanks) are calculated by % of capacity instead of by the gallon (okay, okay, or by the liter, pipe down back there in the Metric Peanut Gallery(tm) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)). If HTC ever decided to change fuel loadouts to actual volume instead of percentage-of-capacity, then what you suggest would happen. I have no idea whether or not it would be easier to program, or harder, or even whether that's "historical" (in other words, when weaponeering a mission, did the operations staff micro-manage the fuel load, or just say top 'em off and go? Somebody who's more informed than I am please chime in).
PS--I vote to keep the multiplier (maybe tone it down a little. Some aircraft, fortunately or unfortunately, were short-legged and didn't have much combat/loiter time, depending on the mission. That's a fact, not evidence of a conspiracy.
------------------
Flathat
'Black Dahlia'
No10 RNAS "The Black Flight"
Angel on your wing, devil on your tail
[This message has been edited by Flathat (edited 12-07-1999).]
-
Leonid: Me109 still eats alot gas, even if goes 35-40.
Guess have I done so often (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(btw. 109 doesnt keep altitude at 20k without 40-45 MAN if you want to peer little bit around too)
Talk about spitfrie, it goes forever with half throttle. (been doing so)
-
HTC;
Please, give all planes in the set extended range(AW range seems OK). Toss away any of your thoughts on "Relative Realism".
Mino
-
I vote for laika - came up with the same idea in an other post:
<Maximal fuel load on destroyed fields should be calculated in absolut numbers (e.g. liters, gallons or whatever) that would be much more fair to planes with smaller tanks. I mean 1/4 on a pony prolly means full on a macchi (just figuring). So, if a planes with 500 liter capacity is limited to half its tank, a 250 liter plane still could go full!!! Get the point? That would stop 1/4 ponies still flying all over the map while 1/4 La5s only can round trip over their field.>
-
Well, I tried the 109 with drop tank and took off from f18. Got to 22k a little south of f21, then brought throttle down to 45 degrees manifold(drop tanks really drags), cruising at about 175mph IAS. At f8 increased throttle to 50 degrees and climbed up to about 25k, then expended drop tank which was empty. Flew to f4 with approximately 75% fuel in internal tank. Spotted a B17 and bailed attacking it(only had 20mm). However, had I not attacked buff, then could have continued on to f3 I believe, then rtb'ed back to f22 or F21(maybe even f18).
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
Kirin that sound fair to me. But all should remember the sguares are 25 miles acroos arentt they a ten minute flight is a long flight in miles. I did not believe the La5n could fly well at 20k? I allways thought it was a low level 15k and lower fighter.
-
Leonid: Do that same trip again with a two fights, you'll find yourself short of fuel soon.
About Spitfrie, I once took off from f19, flew to f14 at 23k, spotted enemy, climbed to 34k after him, he dived to 15k, I killed him, then I spotted B-17 near by f14, I kicked WEP in again for climb and climbed to 32k, followed B-17 all the way to f10, shot it down bit before, then I cruised back through f14 to f23, spotted there enemy airplane about 30k, followed it just a while, then I flew to f19 to get home (f23 was enemies), bit before home I noticed that enemies up from f23, I wen't to kill one and ran home to f19, had 5-10% fuel left on landing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I guess that Me109 is plane with third worst fuels after macchi and La5.
In combat, I think 109 eats more gas from main tank than La5, with wep on and so on.
(note that La-5 is currently faster than 109 with full power)
-
Hmmm. I didn't understand the fuel multiplier, but Leonid turned on the lightbulb for me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) It forces you to actually manage your fuel. You must determine how much to take (and face it, in most airplanes the answer to that was "full tanks, all the time"), you must decide whether to take drop tanks or not, whether to jettison them or not, and how to set your engine power to maximize your range. And of course, it even rules out certain airplanes for certain missions, just as in real life. What would the Battle of Britain have been like if the LW had been equipped with the long-legged A6M instead of the 109?
Surely that's all good stuff? Now imagine what will happen when the rest of the engine control modeling is completed. You'll have a whole new thing to learn to master: engine and fuel management. (Of course some guys won't want to do that, so I bet we see an "auto-engine" option at some point).
I think this is shaping up as a desireable "feature," although undoubtedly there's a lot of quibbling and whining left before it's completely tweaked (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
--jedi
-
Jedi - My problem is that it rules out the wrong planes for the wrong missions. The La-5FN was an air superiority fighter used for fighter sweeps and escort of CAS aircraft. It was an offensive weapon! In AH, it's a nice point interceptor but useless for taking the fight to the enemy.
-
I have to agree to turn down this fuel multiplier. I fly the 109 or the 190 most of the time, and I get tired of meeting a high spit or Mudstain (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) with a half tank remaining. I'd like to have this turned down more than a tad, down to some place where I can still go after a spit and not have to worry about turning into a glider after 5 minutes. The P-51D can run from F9 to F3 and back to F9 only using the drop tanks at about 50 degrees manifold pressure. I've done it at 27k before. The 109 can barely make it to F3 from F9 without the drop tank at 28k. Even then, I wound up landing in a field somewhere near F6 because I ran outa gas.
Flakbait
Admin, Delta 6's Flight School