Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Delirium on July 31, 2011, 10:37:25 PM
-
I know this has been requested before, but I'm not sure if it had this form to it.
I wish we could choose our own custom fuel load outs.
In addition, I wish the fuel load out was controlled by a slider (idea by Soulyss).
In addition, I wish gallons per hour consumed at military power was posted and the slider had the % of the total load on top of the slider and the weight of said fuel load below it.
Ah heck, while I'm here wishing, I wish that 'Uncle Cys Angel' (a P38J skin by Cactus) gets released sometime soon.
-
I know this has been requested before, but I'm not sure if it had this form to it.
I wish we could choose our own custom fuel load outs.
In addition, I wish the fuel load out was controlled by a slider (idea by Soulyss).
In addition, I wish gallons per hour consumed at military power was posted and the slider had the % of the total load on top of the slider and the weight of said fuel load below it.
Ah heck, while I'm here wishing, I wish that 'Uncle Cys Angel' (a P38J skin by Cactus) gets released sometime soon.
ive always wanted this idea.
and maybe even custom ords on bombers.I find it weird that the B-29 can carry 40x500 pound bombs but only 12 1000 pound bombs
-
I'm against it because it allows for gaming the game. Too many folks taking DTs and 5% fuel, getting 3 HOs in then coasting dead stick while HOing 5 more and crashing. Rinse, repeat. There's far too much of the mindless furballer mentality now, as-is.
On the bomber side I'm against it because the bombers in this game fly too fast and climb too fast already. They should take 100% at all times, and this would only allow them to take off with 1% fuel and still have enough time to climb to 15k, drop, and glide back (probably at 2500 fpm climb rate, with that little gas onboard to weight it down).
Again, only leads to gaming the game.
-
I'm against it because it allows for gaming the game. Too many folks taking DTs and 5% fuel, getting 3 HOs in then coasting dead stick while HOing 5 more and crashing. Rinse, repeat. There's far too much of the mindless i like gummy bearsmentality now, as-is.i like gummy bears
On the bomber side I'm against it because i like gummy bears the bombers in this game fly too fast and climb too fast already. They should take 100% at all times, and this would only allow them to take i like gummy bears with 1% fuel and still have enough time to climb to 15k, drop, and glide back (probably at 2500 fpm climb rate, with that little gas onboard to weight it down).
Again, only leads to gaming the game.and i like gummy bears
there could be a minimum of 25% fuel.
-
You should be required to take 100% as per "real life". The only time one would not take 100% is where the combined weight of fuel and arms preclude taking off.
:O
wrongway
-
You should be required to take 100% as per "real life". The only time one would not take 100% is where the combined weight of fuel and arms preclude taking off.
:O
wrongway
thats how it was done? if so, +1 right there.
-
There's a difference though, in how fighters and bombers worked.
Thunder, don't put words in my mouth by editing the quote in retarded ways.
-
There's a difference though, in how fighters and bombers worked.
Thunder, don't put words in my mouth by editing the quote in retarded ways.
bombers taking off and climbing to 15k on 1% fuel?thats gummy bears.surviving 3 HOs and still even having a 10% chance of landing?thats gummy bears.
-
Bombers in WWII did not take off w/o %100 fuel in WWII. There were too many things that could go wrong while navigating so going 2-3 hours off course was not uncommon.
I'd be willing to bet the same thing was true of fighters.
I also believe that there is already enough "stacking the deck" BS, otherwise known as "gaming the game" already going on.
I'd like to see no DT unless you have %100. And no less than %75 fuel. The %25 option is :headscratch:
-
No DT unless 100%? You would never need that much gas in AH-- the maps are too small, and a 6 hour sortie is ridiculous. Might as well hijack the submarine.
EskimoeJoe?
Fantastic job. Keep at it :aok
bombers taking off and climbing to 15k on 1% fuel?thats gummy bears.surviving 3 HOs and still even having a 10% chance of landing?thats gummy bears.
-
Bombers in WWII did not take off w/o %100 fuel in WWII. There were too many things that could go wrong while navigating so going 2-3 hours off course was not uncommon.
I'd be willing to bet the same thing was true of fighters.
I also believe that there is already enough "stacking the deck" BS, otherwise known as "gaming the game" already going on.
I'd like to see no DT unless you have %100. And no less than %75 fuel. The %25 option is :headscratch:
Typo?
wrongway
-
[snip] taking DTs and 5% fuel, getting 3 HOs in then coasting dead stick while HOing 5 more and crashing.
I fail to see how this would not constitute an epic achievement.
-
I fail to see how this would not constitute an epic achievement.
:rofl
-
I'd like to see no DT unless you have %100.
yes! +1 :aok
-
I used to be in favor of forcing fuel loads of 100% before taking DTs but Widewing was able to post a few instances where fighters did not take 100%.
Not all fighters took 100% fuel, agreed, I don't think any of them took less than 50% internally.
-
I fail to see how this would not constitute an epic achievement.
Epic amongst the lame, perhaps. I didn't say kills, I just said HOs. Basically spraying through a fight til the ammo is gone, bailing, and repeating. Like bomb-n-bail but for fighters.
-
Bombers in WWII did not take off w/o %100 fuel in WWII. There were too many things that could go wrong while navigating so going 2-3 hours off course was not uncommon.
I'd be willing to bet the same thing was true of fighters.
I also believe that there is already enough "stacking the deck" BS, otherwise known as "gaming the game" already going on.
I'd like to see no DT unless you have %100. And no less than %75 fuel. The %25 option is :headscratch:
I can see much more of an argument for less fuel in fighters. I'm not sure I agree with 25%, but in some extreme cases where planes have massive amounts of fuel storage (P-51, P-47N, Mossie) I can understand it.
Fighters did take off less than full sometimes. However they act much more like the real thing in here than bombers do. I'm of the idea that we need different rules for heavy bombers vs fighters. The current system benefits bombers far too much. We need an 8x fuel burn for buffs. Separate fuel burn leaves fighters as-is, but will force bombers to take 100%. You still get the compressed time due to fuel burn, but the climbout phase will be slower (heavier weight) and the handling worse (more historically accurate) or will force most people to cruise at max cruise settings... Something they never do now.
So, fly light, but fly slow and lower, or fly full gas, with worse performance but the ability to run full throttle more. Either way a balance is struck bringing the level bombers back down to a level befitting WW2 bombers.
They are already very well defended, if you look at the .50cal armed planes. It won't stop them. It will simply encourage them to fly slower or lower. Whatever the choice made, the end result is slightly more historic.
-
I can see much more of an argument for less fuel in fighters. I'm not sure I agree with 25%, but in some extreme cases where planes have massive amounts of fuel storage (P-51, P-47N, Mossie) I can understand it.
Fighters did take off less than full sometimes. However they act much more like the real thing in here than bombers do. I'm of the idea that we need different rules for heavy bombers vs fighters. The current system benefits bombers far too much. We need an 8x fuel burn for buffs. Separate fuel burn leaves fighters as-is, but will force bombers to take 100%. You still get the compressed time due to fuel burn, but the climbout phase will be slower (heavier weight) and the handling worse (more historically accurate) or will force most people to cruise at max cruise settings... Something they never do now.
So, fly light, but fly slow and lower, or fly full gas, with worse performance but the ability to run full throttle more. Either way a balance is struck bringing the level bombers back down to a level befitting WW2 bombers.
They are already very well defended, if you look at the .50cal armed planes. It won't stop them. It will simply encourage them to fly slower or lower. Whatever the choice made, the end result is slightly more historic.
Keep in mind that some bombers like the Boston and Ju88 are already limited in their range w/ 2x burn rate.
-
True.. true... They also aren't as affected by the weight going from 25% to 100%.
Then how about anything with 4 engines has an increased burn rate?
Although, Ju88s and B-25s still cruised to and from targets also. The Boston III has a very fast cruise last I recall, For an early war bomber it outruns most fighters from the same time frame when flown full-throttle in this game. It's one problem with the early war setups/scenarios because the bombers are all too fast.
Might bring them down in speed if they are forced to cruise due to shorter range.
So, on second thought I think they probably need it as well.
-
No DT unless 100%? You would never need that much gas in AH-- the maps are too small, and a 6 hour sortie is ridiculous. Might as well hijack the submarine.
I often take 100% plus 3 drop tanks in the P47M. Save for the F4U-4. But then I'm not a "quick action" type guy -- I get some alt before engaging and intend to land when I take off.
-
Krusty,do you even play the game?
-
I'm sorry, I don't feed trolls.
-
I'm sorry, I don't feed trolls.
by answering a simple question?
-
I'm sorry, I don't feed trolls.
-
See Rule #4
-
There's a difference though, in how fighters and bombers worked.
Thunder, don't put words in my mouth by editing the quote in retarded ways.
I agree with you on the fuel thing, but hey you cant discriminate against bombers and say it's different. just leave as it is go by 25% that way no uppng in less than 10% fuel and spoiling my vulches by hoing everything in sight.
semp
-
"breaking the vulch" would also be another area of gaming the game, as you mention. IMO that's just bad planning. If you're being vulched, stop taking off, is what I say. I guess we're in agreement there.
P.S. I wonder how long it takes for trolls to starve to death after you stop feeding them?
-
"breaking the vulch" would also be another area of gaming the game, as you mention. IMO that's just bad planning. If you're being vulched, stop taking off, is what I say. I guess we're in agreement there.
P.S. I wonder how long it takes for trolls to starve to death after you stop feeding them?
i dont know what you think trolling is but heres your answer
Trolling-
Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery, posting incorrect information, asking blatantly stupid questions, or other foolishness. However, trolling statements are never true or are ever meant to be construed as such. Nearly all trolled statements are meant to be funny to some people, so it does have some social/entertainment value.
asking if you played the game was not wise-crackery nor posting incorrect information.or any other of the defined things that explain a troll.
simple question Krusty...simple question.
-
No. Stupid question. Loaded stupid question. Loaded agenda-filled, waiting-to-retort-with-insults, stupid question.
Asking a blatantly stupid question with the intent (clearly so) of replying with snide comments or retorts.
In short you're trolling for a setup to a response you will make that will be inflamatory.
Trolling. Flamebaiting.
Hence why I did not answer.
-
No. Stupid question. Loaded stupid question. Loaded agenda-filled, waiting-to-retort-with-insults, stupid question.
Asking a blatantly stupid question with the intent (clearly so) of replying with snide comments or retorts.
In short you're trolling for a setup to a response you will make that will be inflamatory.
Trolling. Flamebaiting.
Hence why I did not answer.
i was not planning on replying in any manor of that.I just wanted to know if you even play the game and what your handle is..thats all.if i was planning on trolling I'd come up with a better,dumber,unreasonable question.maybe the gummy bears thing.if you think i was planning on trolling by asking you if you play the game then sorry,but that wasnt the plan
-
i was not planning on replying in any manor of that.I just wanted to know if you even play the game and what your handle is..thats all.
Wrong. You've already shown what you intended to type:
I'll just assume that,no you dont play the game.you surely couldnt have the time to play when you have almost 23k post,most of whitch are about how you are always right and someone made a false claim.so have a nice day
You ask because you assume the answer already, and are only waiting for a "set up" to allow you (in your mind) to throw that in my face. Or to do the ever-weak "look up the player stats and then say "You don't know"" in response. It's a pattern on the forums and quite easy to see.
I deny you that set up and call you out on it and you play the innocent card.
So no, I'm not going to answer because you are trolling.
And quite obviously so.
-
im not playing the innocent card.i guess if you decide that im trying to troll that thats automatically what im doing.where could i even start trolling with that question...im not going to bother explaining anymore cause you have a firewall in your brain that no matter what you think,its 100% correct and thats final.so be it.
-
Can you two take it to Private Messages or ask Skuzzy for your own forum?
-
I like this idea. +1
-
I like this idea. +1
Private forum for Krusty or fuel? I'd like to see both :devil
-
I was referring to the OP, but both are good idears. :devil
-
Omgz thunder learn to space. Please?
-
Meh, ignore thunder.
Grizz, why would you want to customize your gas so precisely? Would it be just to get more turn performance, or for some specific reason other than that?
-
Meh, ignore thunder.
Grizz, why would you want to customize your gas so precisely? Would it be just to get more turn performance, or for some specific reason other than that?
Well in the Ta152 for example, I'd prefer to have more than 75% often, but nowhere near 100%, as the full fuel in the aft kills its performance. 85% would be ideal in certain flights.
Ultimately it is not of extreme importance, but it would be nice if you could say exactly how many gallons of fuel you want in your plane.
-
Hrm... I suppose under those conditions I'd take the 50%/DT or 75%/DT, burn off some internal until I had what I wanted then switch to the DT, so that if/when I had to drop the DT prematurely I wasn't heavier than I wanted to be.
I know, not the best solution... Although I think if they ever fix the 152 properly you won't need to worry about fuel state nearly as much.
-
Hrm... I suppose under those conditions I'd take the 50%/DT or 75%/DT, burn off some internal until I had what I wanted then switch to the DT, so that if/when I had to drop the DT prematurely I wasn't heavier than I wanted to be.
I know, not the best solution... Although I think if they ever fix the 152 properly you won't need to worry about fuel state nearly as much.
Well then I have to deal with the 1-2 mph drag penalty that the drop pin induces. It's not much but I still don't want it.
-
I thought there was no drag for them?
Oh well, still 1-2 mph won't make or break a fight especially when you only need to worry about that at top speed.
It has other drawbacks, you most likely already know them :D (drag/weight, slower climb, slower accel, until you pitch the DT)
-
I thought there was no drag for them?
Oh well, still 1-2 mph won't make or break a fight especially when you only need to worry about that at top speed.
It has other drawbacks, you most likely already know them :D (drag/weight, slower climb, slower accel, until you pitch the DT)
I always heard there was no drag for the tracks in planes that already have them installed to the frame, i.g., the american rides, but there is a slight penalty for DT pins on german. I have never tested this though so it's all speculative.
-
I always heard there was no drag for the tracks in planes that already have them installed to the frame, i.g., the american rides, but there is a slight penalty for DT pins on german. I have never tested this though so it's all speculative.
I believe this is correct, planes like the P-38 have the pylons regardless of whether you load bombs or a drop tank, there isn't a penalty to speed to load a DT then drop it. Other planes like the P-39, which are clean if no ordnance or DT is loaded do lose a few mph if something is loaded and then dropped due to the shackles.
-
Is there anywhere where the amounts of fuel (in gallons) is listed for the various tanks in Aces High planes as modeled.
I can't even find total fuel amounts.
It would be nice to have this information handy.
-
I always heard there was no drag for the tracks in planes that already have them installed to the frame, i.g., the american rides, but there is a slight penalty for DT pins on german. I have never tested this though so it's all speculative.
I believe this is correct, planes like the P-38 have the pylons regardless of whether you load bombs or a drop tank, there isn't a penalty to speed to load a DT then drop it. Other planes like the P-39, which are clean if no ordnance or DT is loaded do lose a few mph if something is loaded and then dropped due to the shackles.
The thing with the Ta152 was it doesn't have a pylon. It was a new system where it had these tiny aerodynamic "pins" built into the belly of the plane. They would brace the DT like sway braces but with no drag (or maybe 1mph or so).
Going from memory there was a time when the DT on the 152 added drag after relased as if there was a pylon, but I seem to recall this was brought up years back and corrected so that no drag was included anymore.
Search doesn't work, so you might have to test it in-game or ask HTC about it.
-
I'll test it tonight.
-
Is there anywhere where the amounts of fuel (in gallons) is listed for the various tanks in Aces High planes as modeled.
I can't even find total fuel amounts.
It would be nice to have this information handy.
iirc Precision squad's website has a PDF with all the fuel amounts and durations.
-
Thank you rtholmes
-
Bombers in WWII did not take off w/o %100 fuel in WWII. There were too many things that could go wrong while navigating so going 2-3 hours off course was not uncommon.
Bombers didn't always take off with 100% fuel. Fuel load was based on the mission requirements. For example, for long range missions bombers would obviously load more fuel to make it to the target and back at the cost of taking less ordnance. On the flip side, for short range missions bombers would take less fuel and be able to carry more ordnance.
ack-ack
-
But they always packed every last available pound with gas. And the "reduced" load was usually still more than what we in AH might consider 75%.
If the overload was some 2000, or even let's say 4000 lbs more, that's not much fuel removed.
The B-17 with Tokyo tanks has nearly 22,000 lbs of gas onboard. Trading 2000 lbs or 4000 lbs, even 4000 lbs overload in bombs is 18% reduction in fuel.
So I think it's safe to say that even with fuel reduced for "overload" conditions (not all that common given the abundance of short range medium bombers, but still worthy of note) the amount of fuel reduced is nearly full.
Whereas in AH 25% is the norm.
-
Wouldn't 25% be the norm because you don't need to actually fly for 6 hours to come across an enemy base?
-
Wouldn't 25% be the norm because you don't need to actually fly for 6 hours to come across an enemy base?
here here.
In RL, bases were hours apart, unlike aces high which is about 7-10 mins apart.
Krusty, if you want real fuel loadouts for the bombers, then you better make some realistic scale maps. thus causing the fighters to bring 100% and fly for 45 minutes to get to a furball
-
I think most buff pilots use 50% unless they're flying a very short hop, 25% won't get you far even if it's an attack on a single airbase. One thing you need to remember with bombers is each selection of fuel will (in some cases) drastically change the climb rate of a bomber thus increasing the time needed to get to altitude. Forcing bomber pilots to take 100% fuel would mean instead of flying a 45 minute sortie at 15k I would end up flying a 1hr 30min sortie because of the extra time needed to climb. Heck going from 50% -> 75% in a B29 forces me to take off 2-3 sectors further back than had I taken 50% fuel.
-
Wait a sec, what does this have to do with gummy bears? :bolt:
But they always packed every last available pound with gas. And the "reduced" load was usually still more than what we in AH might consider 75%.
If the overload was some 2000, or even let's say 4000 lbs more, that's not much fuel removed.
The B-17 with Tokyo tanks has nearly 22,000 lbs of gas onboard. Trading 2000 lbs or 4000 lbs, even 4000 lbs overload in bombs is 18% reduction in fuel.
So I think it's safe to say that even with fuel reduced for "overload" conditions (not all that common given the abundance of short range medium bombers, but still worthy of note) the amount of fuel reduced is nearly full.
Whereas in AH 25% is the norm.
-
here here.
In RL, bases were hours apart, unlike aces high which is about 7-10 mins apart.
Krusty, if you want real fuel loadouts for the bombers, then you better make some realistic scale maps. thus causing the fighters to bring 100% and fly for 45 minutes to get to a furball
No need for real scale maps. Instead we need to present the weapons as they could function in the war.
In the war, the bombers functioned along a very set specific envelope. In this game you see them flying acrobatics. In real life they were slow lumbering TARGETS incapable of defending themselves without mutual cover (formations). In this game they fly faster, climb faster, and float on rails at stall speeds as compared to the realities of WW2, while shooting down countless enemies that chase them to no avail. We have had FSOs where the bomber streams racked up the most enemy fighter kills on the allied team. We have had several where bomber gunners alone racked up more kills than the Luftwaffe fighters attacking them (no escorts, just bomber and LW fighters). That's messed up and if you don't think so you are blind or biased towards bombers in this game.
I don't have to present realistic maps. As I've said, full fuel will simply bring them back INTO their normal envelope. Right now they're are WAY outside the envelope (in-game). The point isn't to simulate the actual mission length. The point is to bring it back down to slightly realistic mission performance.
-
I think most buff pilots use 50% unless they're flying a very short hop, 25% won't get you far even if it's an attack on a single airbase.
It will get you to 15k several sectors out to bomb an airfield and back. That's all you need. You only take more if you're climbing past 20K and going across the map.
One thing you need to remember with bombers is each selection of fuel will (in some cases) drastically change the climb rate of a bomber thus increasing the time needed to get to altitude. Forcing bomber pilots to take 100% fuel would mean instead of flying a 45 minute sortie at 15k I would end up flying a 1hr 30min sortie because of the extra time needed to climb. Heck going from 50% -> 75% in a B29 forces me to take off 2-3 sectors further back than had I taken 50% fuel.
That's the very POINT!
That's WHY you make them take 100%. They could never climb to 20k inside 20-30 minutes in real life. Why not strap RATOs to them? Simple: Because that's not how they worked. Taking less fuel is like a constant RATO in climb rate.
Forcing them to take 100% means they will either spend more time climbing (leaving them more vulnerable at auto speed before they level out) or they will level out SOONER to drop on their target in time. The end results are: It slows down the climb rate, and encourages bombers to level off sooner.
No more 35K Lancasters. No more 32K B17s floating so high you can't aim up at them let alone get up there to kill them (and if you do you get shot down 2.0K out because the air is so thin up there). No more climbing 1500fpm with a full bomb load in record time that would have made WW2 pilots drop their jaws. These are not Komets. These are not Ta152s. They are B-17s. They are B-24s. They are B-29s. They are Lancasters. They should at least superficially perform like their real-world counterparts.
Full fuel doesn't get us there, but it's a very large step in the right direction.
-
Krusty you're my squadmate and a good friend, however, one day I will find you and I will slap you in the head with a giant tuna fish. :D :rofl
The problem with that idea is time. I rarely log in for periods longer than an hour and I certainly DO NOT want to be forced to fly hour long bomber missions just because of the fuel load. If this was WW2 or a complete simulator where death mattered then sure, give me 100% every time. However, this is not a simulator, it's a game with accurately modeled WW2 aircraft. I want to have fun with WW2 aircraft and that means not having to dedicate 30-40 minutes a flight climbing to altitude to bomb an airbase 20 miles away.
-
Find myself agreeing with Krusty again. :uhoh
But, it might be fun watching Beefcake slap a squaddie with a tuna fish :devil
-
Krusty you're my squadmate and a good friend, however, one day I will find you and I will slap you in the head with a giant tuna fish. :D :rofl
:aok +1
-
I get a kick out of the players who milk each and every gamey setting they can to get their little name in lights. If they *MUST* have that wee bit less fuel to win their duel then pity for them, they shouldn't have been in the situation to begin with if that wee bit of extra fuel weight got their arse shot down. Boo hoo. Lots of panty waste in this thread. LOL! :lol ;)
As far as a "slider" setting goes, if HTC is going to keep the option for taking less than %100 fuel then by all means give the players the ability to pick fuel loadings in %10 increments.
Ack-Ack... I just spent 45 mins going over flight records of my late grandfather and I found two flights in which his aircraft didnt have %100 fuel. In March of 1945 he flew from Tuscon to Sacramento in a B24D and from Sacramento to San Fran in a B17E, both had "ferry" fuel loads (whatever that means???). But otherwise, each and every aircraft he flew in the PTO had %100 fuel. It was SOP, I have him saying exactly that on audio tape (perhaps only for his Sqdn, but I doubt it). From his B24D to the numerous other aircraft he flew (C45, C47, AT-5C, C3, C87, C87H, UC78, UC61, UC78, B17E, etc etc), they all have a "%100" in the fuel column. I can even give you dates, altitudes, ordnance, and targets of their bombing missions. In the PTO aircraft just didnt "take what was needed", they took all the fuel they could carry because there was too much unknown.
In AH, I believe that %100 should not be required, but %25 is too little and this %25 w/ DT is for the arcade score potatos (did that sting a bit?). I vote to eliminate the %25 option and make it so DT can only be used with %100 fuel. If the aircraft was "handicapped" in WWII because it had large fuel tanks (see range), then why give it an advantage it didnt have (lighter weight up front) in the read deal??? :headscratch:
-
"Ferry" fuel loads likely meant he just had to get there, and drop fuel off. So, filled up with fuel, and replaced bombs with fuel, essentially.
But I'm only 15... what do I know, right?
:D
-
Krusty, every single facet of this game is compressed. Each of us must do the work of tens, sometimes hundreds, of people. Distance to target is shortened, sortie time is shortened, INTERCEPT time is shortened, the list goes on.
Fighters can also take 25% fuel to climb faster and intercept the bombers faster. My favorite intercept loadout is a 109K4 with 25% and a DT. I use the DT to climb and accelerate then ditch it, kill the bombers, and then cruise/coast/glide back to base and land my 3 kills.
Also, you seem to be in a losing argument. Perhaps quit while you still have some digni... some self respec..... well the point is just admit you lost the argument. Realisms gonna take a backseat to gameplay on this one.
-
Fighters can also take 25% fuel to climb faster and intercept the bombers faster. My favorite intercept loadout is a 109K4 with 25% and a DT. I use the DT to climb and accelerate then ditch it, kill the bombers, and then cruise/coast/glide back to base and land my 3 kills.
Have you ever checked the difference in weight between %100 and not DT vs the %25 and DT? Have you checked the difference in climb rate between the 2 options? What is the difference in "time in the air" between the 2? Instead of limiting your range and perhaps rushing your attack, try the %100 and DT and just see how little difference there is in the actual performance (climb, speed) but the benefits of range and knowing you do not have to rush your attacks. ESPECIALLY since you are chasing bombers and not dueling a Spit16.
-
"Ferry" fuel loads likely meant he just had to get there, and drop fuel off. So, filled up with fuel, and replaced bombs with fuel, essentially.
But I'm only 15... what do I know, right?
:D
Good guess, but not. He was not transporting fuel, he was ferrying the aircraft from one base to another. The "ferry load" was the amount of fuel the aircraft had for the flight, it was less than %100 guessing by the rest of his logs.
-
+10 for fuel loadout slider. even if the choice was simply 10 different settings in 10% increments. and *AHEM* i have to agree with krusty here. the buff fuel burn mult should be increased to encourage bombers flying around at cruising speed, not firewalled the whole time. would also keep the 40k "i dont want have to defend myself" dweebs in check :aok
-
"Ferry" fuel loads likely meant he just had to get there, and drop fuel off. So, filled up with fuel, and replaced bombs with fuel, essentially.
But I'm only 15... what do I know, right?
:D
WHAT?!
No, ferry range is a loadout to go a maximum distance one way...to "ferry" the aircraft. The only thing they were "dropping off" so to speak is themselves and their plane.
-
Yes I have, but the 25% and DT lets me ditch the extra fuel when I need to. I also do 50% clean if the bombers are relativly low (10-15k). They're bombers, not armored tanks. Doesn't take a whole lot to kill them.
-
I don't like the slider. I would prefer the ability to select full tanks. For example, on the F4U-1, you have a choice of Main, Aux, and Wing tanks. I think it would be better to be able to choose a full Main and Wing tanks, or a full Main and Aux tank, or just a full Main tank, etc. than a fuel load based on % of total capacity.
Obviously on the bombers, you'd need to simplify it a bit and consolidate multiple tanks into a few sub categories.
-
I like Stoney's idea. Fill certian tanks empty others. Would be a huge help to a plane like the FW-190 becasue the AFT fuel throws the plane off so bad.
-
I like Stoney's idea. Fill certian tanks empty others. Would be a huge help to a plane like the FW-190 becasue the AFT fuel throws the plane off so bad.
Nah. Having more than 1 fuel tank was a blessing. Aside from the F4U "needing" to burn the left wing tank first to help with that nasty stall, Im not aware of any other aircraft that draining certain tanks first/second, etc was such a hot topic. Im sure some did, but not as prevalent as the F4U.
-1 for another gamey game game request. If it is that important do what the real pilots did and manually switch tanks.
-
Nah. Having more than 1 fuel tank was a blessing. Aside from the F4U "needing" to burn the left wing tank first to help with that nasty stall, Im not aware of any other aircraft that draining certain tanks first/second, etc was such a hot topic. Im sure some did, but not as prevalent as the F4U.
-1 for another gamey game game request. If it is that important do what the real pilots did and manually switch tanks.
Aux tank in the Pony. Wing tanks in the P-47N. Pretty much any aircraft with an aft-located aux tank. And, in real life, on aircraft with multiple tanks, it wasn't odd at all for them to take off with certain tanks empty, depending on the mission.
-
Obviously on the bombers, you'd need to simplify it a bit and consolidate multiple tanks into a few sub categories.
In reality Mosquitoes had nine fuel tanks, four in each wing and the aux tank in the fuselage. In AH the Mosquitoes have five fuel tanks, two in each wing and the aux tank. AH merges the out two fuel tanks into one and the inner two fuel tanks into a second tank in each wing.
-
I think I recall a blurb about Hitech or Pyro or somebody saying AH was limited to 5 fuel tanks.
TankAce, you're the only one losing any arguments here. You don't seem to understand the massive weight and drag of a DT. Taking 25+DT will actually hurt worse than taking 100% clean internal. Not only does it weigh you down, lowering rate of climb, it SLOWS you down (when in a climb that's just as bad as extra weight) as well. The DT rack on top of that also adds weight, even after you drop the tank. A full DT with about 70 gallons in it weighs over 400lbs with fuel alone. Then there's the weight of the empty tank itself on top of that.
You might as well try climbing with a bomb strapped under you. The lighter internal load doesn't make up for it, either, and if you can only fly the 109K4 when its on fumes you really need to brush up a lot. The plane is more than capable of contesting and winning most other planes in the game even with 75%+ onboard.
Further, 25% in a 109K4 gives about 6-7 minutes of flight time. Very simple minded of you to up just to die/ditch/bail with no intent of making it back. Otherwise you'd take RTB gas.
-
Aux tank in the Pony. Wing tanks in the P-47N. Pretty much any aircraft with an aft-located aux tank. And, in real life, on aircraft with multiple tanks, it wasn't odd at all for them to take off with certain tanks empty, depending on the mission.
Stoney, often most times planes with multiple tanks had them drain into each other or automatically redistribute (the aux tanks in the 262 automatically refilled the main tanks, things like that), the DTs on Bf109s simply used pressure to "top off" the main internal tank all the time until the DT was empty. In many systems you could not simply "leave the tank dry" because filling a single access point would fill multiple tanks.
It is a sticky situation sometimes. Aux tank on P-51 is an example, but even P-51s took off with this filled on short hops many times. It would be nice in-game to have an option not to load it but if, theoretically, they were locked in always, would it be that horrible?
I suggest this only for the sake of debate, as I don't want to see that myself, but would it be so horrible to force them into their historic combat state? Surely the aux tank burns off before you can climb to 12k and fly a sector to the fight, so you would theoretically only have to worry if bounced before then -- but this also matches WW2 pilot concerns, no?
-
Since we are on the discussion of fuel, why not, what tank gets filled? I choose to fly with X tank and y tank at 100% for xx flight time. I like the slider idea, because on planes like the mustang, sometimes 60% is what you could use (I always run 75%....thats a lot of time).
-
I up with 100% fuel in all planes.
This has helped me many times when I chase a fleeing enemy who didn't bring enough fuel to complete his mission.........except when they race away and dive in/ditch to deny the kill from the person who brought enough fuel.
-
The plane is more than capable of contesting and winning most other planes in the game even with 75%+ onboard.
Further, 25% in a 109K4 gives about 6-7 minutes of flight time. Very simple minded of you to up just to die/ditch/bail with no intent of making it back. Otherwise you'd take RTB gas.
Well duh. Unless intercepting, I hardly ever fly at less then 75% full internal, or 50% and DT.
Further, they're bombers: A couple minutes and they're dead. And the K4 can stay airborne under ridiculously little throttle. I just crank back the ata and half glide, half fly back to base and land 3 kills.