Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Karnak on October 23, 2011, 08:03:02 PM
-
What effects would a 1X fuel burn rate have on the game? Would we see more deep mission with aircraft taking the time to form up and such?
Do you think it would be good for the game? What effects on gameplay do you think it would have?
-
See a lot more LA7s around I would think.
-
What effects would a 1X fuel burn rate have on the game? Would we see more deep mission with aircraft taking the time to form up and such?
Do you think it would be good for the game? What effects on gameplay do you think it would have?
2x is perfect. i can get to and from any fight i need to in a 190 or a 109 with 100%, and usually im out of ammo before im out of gas. when it comes to american iron, i rarely ever use 100%. IMO 1x is great for Scenarios and such, but 2x is perfectly suited to the MA environment
-
163s would be able to go 8 grids, instead of just 4, La7s noe to the HQ and P-51Ds crossing the map on a 1/4 tank. No thanks.
-
See a lot more LA7s around I would think.
Yes, that would likely be one effect.
The problem with the 2X fuel burn multiplier is that while bases are closer to targets than they really were, 30,000ft is still 30,000ft away. It makes climbing twice as fuel expensive as it was for a given altitude. For example, a Spitfire Mk XIV, a high altitude fighter, has very little loiter time once it has climbed to 27,000ft and flown to a target area. Just the climb completely consumes its drop tank.
163s would be able to go 8 grids
Me163's are hard coded into the game and the fuel burn multiplier does not affect them. Test it offline.
-
More spit16s is more like it? Almost as short as the La7...
I don't think 1x would encourage "long missions" any more because we have so many planes that have over an hour's duration on 2x as-is. Add 1, 2, or 3 DTs to that and suddenly you can escort B-29s across the map and back with no sweat.
The only thing 1x fuel burn would do is encourage people to fly at 25% fuel all the time gaining substantial acceleration and climb benefits (as seen many times in past AvA setups) over a standard loadout.
-
If anything, I think the fuel burn should be even higher.
It would put the fights lower and fewer people would fly around at full throttle all the time.
-
I say have hitech just change the text from 2x to 1x fuel multiplier, them people will feel better about it. let everything else stay the same.
semp
-
The only thing 1x fuel burn would do is encourage people to fly at 25% fuel all the time gaining substantial acceleration and climb benefits
Exactly my thoughts
-
If anything, I think the fuel burn should be even higher.
It would put the fights lower and fewer people would fly around at full throttle all the time.
Is pushing the fights lower really desirable? Combat at altitude was a very significant part of WWII and many of the aircraft we have in Aces High are optimized for altitude.
-
The only thing 1x fuel burn would do is encourage people to fly at 25% fuel all the time gaining substantial acceleration and climb benefits (as seen many times in past AvA setups) over a standard loadout.
It would be like AW where everyone flew at 29% fuel.
ack-ack
-
29% or is that a typo :headscratch:?
Karnak, big -1. We would probably see a big increase in spit an lala pilots, very few aircraft would require more than 50% fuel for standard furballing needs.
Fights would be pushed lower due to a large influx of Lala-7's and dweeb-16's.
And I'm not sure how, but it would probably result in more NOE hordes. Seems like everything results in more NOE hordes :(.
-
Seems like everything results in more NOE hordes :(.
With one exception, this is frustratingly true. Lowering the radar ceiling to something ridiculously low, say 25ft, would largely erase NOE hordes and replace them with massive numbers of forum whines about bases being to hard to take because they have to actually fight.
-
In reality you had to fly a lot longer to get to combat. Since we don't want to fly 8 hour long missions here the bases are closer, therefore fuel burn is increased. If we set the fuel burn to a normal rate the planes that were designed to fly long missions would be useless, a Spit16 would be able to do their job.
-
In reality you had to fly a lot longer to get to combat. Since we don't want to fly 8 hour long missions here the bases are closer, therefore fuel burn is increased. If we set the fuel burn to a normal rate the planes that were designed to fly long missions would be useless, a Spit16 would be able to do their job.
The flaw in that is that while AH is compressed in the horizontal it is not compressed in the vertical.
-
Oh it is in some ways. Where low might have been considered 10k IRL, the deck is considered low here, and 15k is high, instead of 25-30K being high.
-
What about just giving the 1x to bombers? Or just 4-engine bombers?
-
What about just giving the 1x to bombers? Or just 4-engine bombers?
no. 2x burn on 25% helps my climb. by the time i reach alt, I can throttle back to max cruise and fly a few sectors. if i need long range, or need to get back to base, I can still do so on 25%. shut down the engines and descend.
i know this sounds gamey, but us bombers are at a disadvantage here. bombers are in their prime when we have 250+ miles to climb. not 25. AH is a stricly fighters game. someone should make a map with some bases 3-4 sectors away (bombers) some bases 1-2 sectors away (fighters) and some within the same sector (GVs)
-
lol... bombers are at a disadvantage? In what universe?
If anything I say we need a 4x burn just for 4-engined heavies (maybe even the twins... perhaps just a separate fuel burn for bombers vs fighters), to force them to take more fuel and throttle back.
P.S. In WW2 it took hours to get to altitude, sometimes. They didn't fly at 30K and 320mph TAS. They cruised at max cruise and climbed at much less than "full power"... They also never took off without a full load of gas. Whatever the bomb load was, they maxed out their takeoff weight with gas. They never upped with 25% "to climb fast" even for short hops over the channel and back. In here they have significantly higher climb rates, almost no vices in handling at 30K+ (when they really would be falling out of the sky) and are mostly able to defend themselves once up to speed.
The USAAF would have killed (literally) for bomber capabilities like that in 1942. The war would have been over before 1943.
-
The flaw in that is that while AH is compressed in the horizontal it is not compressed in the vertical.
That's true but because AH is compressed horizontally we have no need to climb high, therefore it's technically compressed vertically. We don't see people flying at 30K that often, but in real life that was pretty common.
-
29% or is that a typo :headscratch:?
In AW you could set fuel in 1 degree increments. The prevailing notion at the time was that aircraft weight was only modeled in 5% increments and would always round down to the nearest 5% so 29% would weigh the same as 25% but 30% would weigh the same as 30% and so on. Not sure anyone ever knew if it was true or not but everyone did it.
-
Flying at 25% everywhere... 109's turn nice that low on fuel... I'm all for it. :banana:
In reality, no, x2 is fine.
-
2x is perfect. i can get to and from any fight i need to in a 190 or a 109 with 100%, and usually im out of ammo before im out of gas. when it comes to american iron, i rarely ever use 100%. IMO 1x is great for Scenarios and such, but 2x is perfectly suited to the MA environment
Agreed 100%
-
29% or is that a typo :headscratch:?
Karnak, big -1. We would probably see a big increase in spit an lala pilots, very few aircraft would require more than 50% fuel for standard furballing needs.
Fights would be pushed lower due to a large influx of Lala-7's and dweeb-16's.
And I'm not sure how, but it would probably result in more NOE hordes. Seems like everything results in more NOE hordes :(.
In AW you could set fuel in 1 degree increments. The prevailing notion at the time was that aircraft weight was only modeled in 5% increments and would always round down to the nearest 5% so 29% would weigh the same as 25% but 30% would weigh the same as 30% and so on. Not sure anyone ever knew if it was true or not but everyone did it.
Like BaldEagle said but fuel weight was modeled in 9/10ths. For example, if you were to take 29% the fuel weight would be the same as taking 20% fuel but with the benefit of the longer flying time the extra 9% fuel gives you without a weight penalty. 19% was perfect for base defense as it gave you about 15 minutes flight time, 29% was perfect for just about any mission withing 3-4 sectors and 39% if you wanted to fly across one side of the map and back.
ack-ack
-
I remember long thread and heated debate about the fuel multiplier during the transition between AH1 and AH2.
The practical consequence of x1 multiplier is that fuel becomes meaningless. All planes could easily fly at full throttle during a typical 20-30 minutes sortie and "RTB fuel" is something you will never hear again - players will get shot down or run our of ammo long before running out of fuel. The typical loadout will be 25%+DT with some very short legged planes going up to 50%.
Surprisingly, the planes that will benefit the most are not the short legged planes, but the ones with the highest fuel consumption - the big american radials. P47s achieve their range by carrying enough fuel to heat the homes of a small country for a year and then guzzle in a bulimic frenzy. Halving the burn rate multiplier means that planes would typically carry half the fuel they do now and this is a significantly greater weight reduction for the big radials than it is to the LA7 with its vodka bottle size fuel tank or the fuel efficient Merlins that often do not need full tanks as it is. Yes, LA7 could go longer, but how often is it really limited in range now, unless you really, absolutely, must, keep the throttle firewalled for 30 minutes?
In real action the fuel economy plays a significant role. It defined the role of planes and influenced their design. Large scale air combat ends when one side must RTB due to fuel, not when everyone is shot down. It would be a pity to completely miss this aspect to tactical combat.
-
:aok
Is pushing the fights lower really desirable? Combat at altitude was a very significant part of WWII and many of the aircraft we have in Aces High are optimized for altitude.
-
Agreed re increase in Lavochkin, Yak & Spit 16 use I think its pretty balanced the way it is.
I dont want to see my ride perked because half the arena is suddenly using it..................
However if burn rate was reduced then airfield fuel attrition should be remodelled IMO to bring back some game balance............
-
wow I think it was unanimous. :)
-
Absolutely not, fuel consumption is already a non-issue in AH. Lets not make it worse.
There are three things I strongly believe would improve or rather make more dynamic with regards to fuel in AH:
A: Increase the fuel burn rate to 2.5X: fuel consumption needs to be an issue. Throttle and manifold pressure control is hardly an afterthought with current settings. Managing fuel consumption should be a concern, it is Piloting 101. Aircraft, even in WWII, did not fly %100 all the time. There is a reason "max cruise" setting are available on the clipboard.
B: Disable DT's unless %100 fuel is selected.
C: Upon the 2nd fuel tank destroyed at a field DT's are disabled, upon the 3rd fuel tank destroyed = %75 fuel, upon the 4th destroyed = %50.
The fuel settings in AH is purely an arbitrary figure in which HTC has settled on. There is nothing stopping them from changing the settings, or even testing new settings and reverting back to the old. I'm told that once upon a more simple time the La7 jocks cried so loud about the original fuel setting that they were the ones who got the %25/%50 max fuel with X number of fuel tanks destroyed upped to %75, well now AH was a much larger plane set so perhaps it is time to revert???
-
I agree with option A and B
C concerns me in the horde case.
-
Fuel porking ruined the game for many players across an entire front (across both fronts sometimes) because dedicated griefers took every field down to 25% fuel. That was with 2.0 burn. You can't increase the burn then add BACK this porkability. It's adding salt to the wound.
Now, if you just look at 2.5x burn by itself, this won't work. Why? Because even NOW some planes are too short on time, even cruising. 2.5x burn would be tolerable and workable on the medium range planes, and the long range planes, but the number of planes we have that only have 20-25 minutes with FULL fuel load would be seriously hindered. Making the fuel burn 2.5 would literally remove them from use.
Spits have short legs, even on cruising. It's the main reason to take the Spit8 (the wing tanks). I-16 has all of (what?) 15 minutes flight time with full internal? LA-7 has all of 20 minutes (WEP) on full internal. I think the Typh only has some 25 minutes or less. The 109K4 has only about 25 or less on WEP. P-39Q is also rather short-legged. C205 I already have to cruise to and from a fight as-is. I'd never make it home with higher fuel burn. Not to mention as pointed out in other threads, fuel burn compresses the horizontal but you still need full power to climb to alt, whatever that alt may be. Even a "normal AH alt" like 10k would require you to burn much of your combat-time gas to get to the fight in a hypothetical higher-burn setting.
I don't think I can agree with something that cripples many of the planes in the game just to make the others use their fuel more wisely. I get that compromises must be made, but I think that's a poor one.
-
B: Disable DT's unless %100 fuel is selected.
Yes, please.
Oh, and what all these other guys said. I was in the AvA for a while a couple weeks ago and it was set to 1x multiplier. I noticed immediately that I could up with 25% fuel for most sorties with no worry about running out. As much as it would benefit my P47 flying, I don't think it would be good for the game at all.
And no to fuel porking, just... no. Krusty hit the hight points.
Wiley.
-
B: Disable DT's unless %100 fuel is selected.
yes! for all aircraft, unless there is very good evidence that less than 100% was used with drop tanks as standard practice.
I'd also make the minimum fuel for all aircraft 50%, 25% is just silly.
-
It's not so silly on P-51s, P-47Ns, P-38s, Ta152s, Mossies, and a few others.
I tend to agree with DTs being gamed. I'm torn as to whether setting that kind of restriction my set a bad precedent, but overall I kind of agree.
EDIT: I'm not totally against fuel porking in some way, but fuel porking *and* higher burn rate? Recipe for disaster.
-
1.0 burn rate with porkable fuel to 25 % :D yeah baby !!!! :banana:
-
Fuel porking ruined the game for many players across an entire front (across both fronts sometimes) because dedicated griefers took every field down to 25% fuel. That was with 2.0 burn. You can't increase the burn then add BACK this porkability. It's adding salt to the wound.
Now, if you just look at 2.5x burn by itself, this won't work. Why? Because even NOW some planes are too short on time, even cruising. 2.5x burn would be tolerable and workable on the medium range planes, and the long range planes, but the number of planes we have that only have 20-25 minutes with FULL fuel load would be seriously hindered. Making the fuel burn 2.5 would literally remove them from use.
Spits have short legs, even on cruising. It's the main reason to take the Spit8 (the wing tanks). I-16 has all of (what?) 15 minutes flight time with full internal? LA-7 has all of 20 minutes (WEP) on full internal. I think the Typh only has some 25 minutes or less. The 109K4 has only about 25 or less on WEP. P-39Q is also rather short-legged. C205 I already have to cruise to and from a fight as-is. I'd never make it home with higher fuel burn. Not to mention as pointed out in other threads, fuel burn compresses the horizontal but you still need full power to climb to alt, whatever that alt may be. Even a "normal AH alt" like 10k would require you to burn much of your combat-time gas to get to the fight in a hypothetical higher-burn setting.
I don't think I can agree with something that cripples many of the planes in the game just to make the others use their fuel more wisely. I get that compromises must be made, but I think that's a poor one.
What do you consider "short legs"? Spifires can go a long long time on max cruiser. The Spit 9 w/ DT is 30 mins at max throttle. That, imo, is hardly what I consider "short legs". The I-16 and La5/7 have short legs with their 20 mins of fuel, imo.
-
I consider less than 30 to be somewhat short, less than 25 to be noticably short, and anything nearing 20 to be extremely short.
This is without DTs, mind you. Spit9 without DT is in the 25 minute range, right? "Noticably short" (going from memory). I know that changes some things, but not all planes have DTs, and some suffer drag from the rack a lot more than others do.
-
If the fuel burn rate is lowered to 1x, then perk prices should go up accordingly (with the best performer being taxed more than early war birds(a bit like the tax differential between riches and poor)). Spit16s, La7s, Ta152, P51s, etc will enter the perked range and 262 will cost 25 to 50% more while Hurri MkI will stay at 40 ENY.
Personally, I'm not against trying this out for a week or two and get a feel for it. But we have to think if this will increase gameplay satisfaction of long time players and guarantee an increase in future players. However, I think HTC has bigger cats to take care of right now and only a well written and complete list of suggested changes to fuel burn, projected infulence on gameplay, perk prices for EVERY planes in the game, maps, etc should be handed over for review by some good Samaritan.
-
If the fuel burn rate is lowered to 1x, then perk prices should go up accordingly (with the best performer being taxed more than early war birds(a bit like the tax differential between riches and poor)). Spit16s, La7s, Ta152, P51s, etc will enter the perked range and 262 will cost 25 to 50% more while Hurri MkI will stay at 40 ENY.
Personally, I'm not against trying this out for a week or two and get a feel for it. But we have to think if this will increase gameplay satisfaction of long time players and guarantee an increase in future players. However, I think HTC has bigger cats to take care of right now and only a well written and complete list of suggested changes to fuel burn, projected infulence on gameplay, perk prices for EVERY planes in the game, maps, etc should be handed over for review by some good Samaritan.
:huh
...Am I reading right, that you feel ability to stay up for a long time is perk-worthy?
How does that even remotely follow?
Wiley.
-
Absolutely not, fuel consumption is already a non-issue in AH. Lets not make it worse.
There are three things I strongly believe would improve or rather make more dynamic with regards to fuel in AH:
A: Increase the fuel burn rate to 2.5X: fuel consumption needs to be an issue. Throttle and manifold pressure control is hardly an afterthought with current settings. Managing fuel consumption should be a concern, it is Piloting 101. Aircraft, even in WWII, did not fly %100 all the time. There is a reason "max cruise" setting are available on the clipboard.
B: Disable DT's unless %100 fuel is selected.
C: Upon the 2nd fuel tank destroyed at a field DT's are disabled, upon the 3rd fuel tank destroyed = %75 fuel, upon the 4th destroyed = %50.
The fuel settings in AH is purely an arbitrary figure in which HTC has settled on. There is nothing stopping them from changing the settings, or even testing new settings and reverting back to the old. I'm told that once upon a more simple time the La7 jocks cried so loud about the original fuel setting that they were the ones who got the %25/%50 max fuel with X number of fuel tanks destroyed upped to %75, well now AH was a much larger plane set so perhaps it is time to revert???
holy crap X100,000,000
bombers need new target. for an offense to be good (for a bomber) you have to fly for 30 minutes to get to a safe enough altitude to drop FHs. but they are popping before you even drop your landing gear. fuel would offer more targets for us BUFFs and give the fighter jocks time to play pilot 101 with their number crunching game
-
:huh
...Am I reading right, that you feel ability to stay up for a long time is perk-worthy?
How does that even remotely follow?
Wiley.
Yup, because the effectiveness gains between low and high ENY rides becomes even more noticeable with fuel limitation considerations for high performance birds being less of a concern.
Perhaps you might prove my suggestion a bad idea if you could prompt me with a counter argument.
-
If fuel porking returned then rationing should be more volumetrically biased IMO and not totally % based.
-
Yup, because the effectiveness gains between low and high ENY rides becomes even more noticeable with fuel limitation considerations for high performance birds being less of a concern.
Perhaps you might prove my suggestion a bad idea if you could prompt me with a counter argument.
Everything would go up accordingly though. Most high ENY planes would be able to take off with less fuel, thus increasing their relative performance.
Wiley.
-
Thanks for the replies all. I posted this at the request of a player who does not have access to the forums. We discussed it in game, me taking the point most of you have taken, and he arguing that it would have positive changes such as more complex and deeper missions.
-
Thanks for the replies all. I posted this at the request of a player who does not have access to the forums. We discussed it in game, me taking the point most of you have taken, and he arguing that it would have positive changes such as more complex and deeper missions.
Simply put, fuel consumption isn't the limiting factor on people running deeper missions. With the current tools you can hit any base from anywhere on the map if you take the appropriate loadouts with the planes that were designed for it.
Wiley.
-
-1 to the 2.5x fuel burn rate. That would really hurt some planes like the Spits (would enjoy it), lala's (neutral), and the 190's (big negative).
-
Is there anything that's really wrong with the current MA fuel settings?
-
Is it just me or does anyone else think that this thread is missing a graph ? Where's Leusche ?
-
163s would be able to go 8 grids, instead of just 4, La7s noe to the HQ and P-51Ds crossing the map on a 1/4 tank. No thanks.
163's aren't affected by Fuel Burn rate last I checked IIRC.
-
Is there anything that's really wrong with the current MA fuel settings?
It seems like some people are flying on 100%, take the time to monkey-climb up to 30k and run out of gas before running out of ammo. That can't be right.
In reality the burn rate is x1 and pilots never look at their fuel gauge.
-
I like it at x2. I sympathize with those that like to fly the La5/La7 though.
-
Anyone complaining about fuel burn rate being too high should climb to historical altitudes.
After someone on the forums helped me out, I can climb a spit XIV to near 30,000 feet or higher and still have 30 minutes of fuel at max throttle.
With the XIV, once you are at high speed and level, you can decrease with the minus sign and still maintain 400mph with near 40 minutes worth of fuel.
Some planes don't respond to pulling them back with the minus sign, though.
-
It seems like some people are flying on 100%, take the time to monkey-climb up to 30k and run out of gas before running out of ammo. That can't be right.
In reality the burn rate is x1 and pilots never look at their fuel gauge.
I assume your being sarcastic?
-
icepac said it correct: manage throttle and the ranges (and time in the air) are increased. The Spitfires are the best example of this. The La5/7 can get 10-15 more mins easily if their testoserone was not ramped up so high during the climb out. Throttle back. The authors of the "no way" responses fret because heaven forbid if they have to manage (worry) something they currently worry nothing about.
The 2X burn rate in the MA is not enough. The is not any aircraft in AH that would be grounded or even have its effectiveness reduced because of a slight increase in burn rate. The La's would still be the low altitude interceptors they were designed to be.
That, or less dramatic for the La fan bois would be to actually make fuel tanks a legit target as I've already made a case for: 2nd fuel tank = no DT; 3rd fuel tank = %75 max; 4th fuel tank = %50 max.
C'mon HTC... live a little!!! Mix it up! Add another strategic element to the game!!! Make fuel an issue!!!! :aok :D
-
why not try something around 1.5 or 1.75 just to tweak it. Or just leave it alone. No need to wind up like NETFLIX.
Infidelz.
-
Is there anything that's really wrong with the current MA fuel settings?
the multiplier - no :)
-
No need to wind up like NETFLIX.
Man that stock has gotten slaughtered! Rightly so, in my opinion.
-
I consider less than 30 to be somewhat short, less than 25 to be noticably short, and anything nearing 20 to be extremely short.
This is without DTs, mind you. Spit9 without DT is in the 25 minute range, right? "Noticably short" (going from memory). I know that changes some things, but not all planes have DTs, and some suffer drag from the rack a lot more than others do.
Being in the air for a minimum of 30 mins in a Spitfire is a long time. The Spitfire 8 is up and over 40 mins with a DT. The thing about the Spitfires is fuel consumption drastically decreases with just a slight bit of throttle management, and it seems more so than other aircraft.
Here is my suggestion: With the current 2X burn rate, omit the DT's for the time being and make a chart (call Looshy if you need help) as see just how many fighters have times of 20-30min, 30-40, 40-50, and 50+. Then add DT's and then see where it goes. US and Japanese have some major ranges (P51D/P47N win!), while the British and Germans can hang out between 30-50mins easy.
-
Like I said, those with DTs fare better, spits best of all (almost no drag penalty for dogfighting with your tank on!), and it was a generalization. Some planes suffer from DT rather badly, and it is better to leave it off, such as when I fly Fw190As.
-
Like I said, those with DTs fare better, spits best of all (almost no drag penalty for dogfighting with your tank on!), and it was a generalization. Some planes suffer from DT rather badly, and it is better to leave it off, such as when I fly Fw190As.
Try the DT on the F6F. It has very large volume, but also more drag then "priscilla queen of the desert".
-
I would like to see an 1.75x burn rate.
My ride has an average fuel duration, 27 mins from the startup. 3 mins to climb up to 10k, 6 mins to reach the fight, 6 mins for an rtb, thats a good 15 mins spent with nothing. If i burn all of my fuel, its 12 mins remaining for actual combat, but i like to save 1-2 mins for safety reasons. So 15 mins empty time for 8-10 mins of combat.
The 1.75x multiplyer would gimme like 5 more mins, what would be awsome in the experience side yet wouldnt hurt much the strategic component of the game.
<S>
Debrődy
-
Two charts, based on data Kvuo's Fuel Burn V2.3 compilation:
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3536/fendurance.gif)
(http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/2037/frad.gif)
The second one is a very rudimentary range calculation, based on a combat time of 10 minutes, full mil power and traveling at sea level. Actual ranges can vary a lot due to mission profile (different power settings, climbing to altitude and so on), but IMHO it still gives quite realistic MA numbers.
-
The second one is a very rudimentary range calculation, based on a combat time of 10 minutes, full mil power and traveling at sea level.
That is exactly the point- there is little need to ever throttle back to extend your range in AH. If fuel burn was a little higher, you wouldn't see everyone flying at firewalled throttle all the time.
-
That is exactly the point- there is little need to ever throttle back to extend your range in AH. If fuel burn was a little higher, you wouldn't see everyone flying at firewalled throttle all the time.
DING DING!!!!
A 2.5X burn rate would hardly change the flight times **if players managed fuel consumption**. A wee bit of throttle and manifold pressure adjustment is all that would be needed. Managing fuel is just as important as anything else. It is not that complicated, if players get confused that bring up the E6B and "puuf" there it is.
-
Thinking about it, it is too bad that fuel burn isn't set depending on the map. Some maps, the airfields are close together and could use a higher burn rate. Others, are much farther apart and having a lower burn rate would keep the transit times shorter and vary the aircraft seen.
Probably too confusing for some, having a global setting that changes, but that would be the ideal.
-
DING DING!!!!
A 2.5X burn rate would hardly change the flight times **if players managed fuel consumption**. A wee bit of throttle and manifold pressure adjustment is all that would be needed. Managing fuel is just as important as anything else. It is not that complicated, if players get confused that bring up the E6B and "puuf" there it is.
What is the advantage of making it take longer to get to fights when on the offensive? It seems to me that that could increase horde sizes as a compensation for the additional time it takes for reinforcements to reach the fight. Defensive fighters would still just fly at full MIL and WEP, as would the long ranged fighters and all bombers.
-
That is exactly the point- there is little need to ever throttle back to extend your range in AH. If fuel burn was a little higher, you wouldn't see everyone flying at firewalled throttle all the time.
...and that would improve gameplay how?
Wiley.
-
...and that would improve gameplay how?
Wiley.
In the same way that limited ammo does.
The current x2.0 is fine
-
What is the advantage of making it take longer to get to fights when on the offensive? It seems to me that that could increase horde sizes as a compensation for the additional time it takes for reinforcements to reach the fight. Defensive fighters would still just fly at full MIL and WEP, as would the long ranged fighters and all bombers.
Larger horde sizes??? Because of a 1/8th less flight time??? :headscratch: Hordes are not because of anything other than some player's need for over-whelming force to get a base capture, that is it. Very rarely do we see the La's in a horde anyways because they don't have the staying time (unless fuel is managed) to hover over a base for the vulch.
My suggestion of a 2.5X burn rate would decrease current "flight time" capabilities by roughly 1/8th. Since most people are going to be concerned with the range of the La7 first and foremost, we'll use that as a test platform. Under the current 2.0X burn rate setting, at take off the La7 has 21 minutes of fuel at full power. Reduce that by 1/8th and we get close to 17 minutes, that is a reduction of 4-5 minutes. I hopped in to an La7 on the current LW arena map "Tagma" and upped from a sea level base and messed with the manifold settings just to see what I'd need to do to make up for the 1/8th loss of "flight time" capability. Here is what I found: by reducing the manifold setting from 39lbs down to 34-35lbs at take off the La7 gained 4-5 mins of extra "flight time". With the slightly reduced throttle settings, the La7 climbed at 3000 ft a minute at 150+mph and once to 5000ft it was moving at 366 TAS before it hit the radar ring and it still managed to climb to 371 TAS just a few more miles further. For the La7 aficionado, they wont hardly notice that 1/8th less "flight time" if they can broaden their attention span beyond the trigger and gun sight. Case in point: The 1/8 less time of flight capability is not going to effect the length of time to the fight worthy enough to measure.
I'm guessing Spitfires are even less effected with throttle management, but I will test multiple Spitfires, 109's, and other aircraft with the 25-40min flight time just for kicks. I think the aircraft that might notice it more would be the aircraft that are already on the performance threshold such as the P40, but then again they have the larger fuel tanks to begin with so perhaps not. The only bomber that might be affected is the Boston III, it has just over 30 mins of burn time at max throttle under current settings, but then again it is a low altitude bomber not meant for those long range high alt bombing runs. The Boston III will adapt as well, I'm not concerned.
So again, there are three things that I propose with regards to adding importance to fuel: increase the burn rate to 2.5X; no DT available unless %100 fuel; and increase the penalty for the destruction of fuel tanks (2=no DT, 3=%75max, 4=%50max). Make fuel an important part of AH, not an after thought like it currently is.
-
so how am I supposed to fly my XIV to 20k+ and have any combat time left with 2.5x fuel multi? its already pretty marginal with 2x multi.
please remember that not everyone playing in the MAs is a take-25%-fuel-never-fly-over-10k-airquake-furballer ...
-
so how am I supposed to fly my XIV to 25k and have any combat time left with 2.5x fuel multi? its already pretty marginal with 2x multi.
please remember that not everyone playing in the MAs is a take-25%-fuel-never-fly-over-10k-airquake-furballer ...
I hear your concern loud and clear. Fact is, I'm a fan of the 14 I've always throttled back in the Spit14 in the climb out and even once to altitude. Once up to that 22-25k altitude players can loiter all they want, the Spit14 is real easy on fuel at that altitude **if the throttle is managed**, the Spit14 still moves 370+ TAS on reduced settings.
Throttle management does wonders for Spitfires, especially the higher up they get.
-
increasing the fuel burn as mentioned in a few places on this page is an especially stupid idea, but luckily there is no danger of it being implemented :aok
-
I hear your concern loud and clear. Fact is, I'm a fan of the 14 I've always throttled back in the Spit14 in the climb out and even once to altitude. Once up to that 22-25k altitude players can loiter all they want, the Spit14 is real easy on fuel at that altitude **if the throttle is managed**, the Spit14 still moves 370+ TAS on reduced settings.
Throttle management does wonders for Spitfires, especially the higher up they get.
sure, climb MP to 20k and on proper cruise settings (not the E6Bs MC setting) you should have ~50mins loiter time at 330mph+ with the current 2x. thats great, but as soon as you engage that ~50mins drops to ~10mins. I'm guessing that with 2.5x youd have used all of the slipper and be bleeding the main tank well before you get to 20k, leaving hardly anything for combat.
btw I fuel manage in everything (which annoys my squaddies on fighter sweeps no end - just ask Pipz :D) so I'm already taking that into account. I even fly buffs at NP not MP for realism (except the Lanc of course.)
the XIV is a good example, as an interceptor it should be able to climb at high power settings to its service ceiling, have some loiter time and still have enough fuel for combat. it can barely do that at the moment.
-
increasing the fuel burn as mentioned in a few places on this page is an especially stupid idea, but luckily there is no danger of it being implemented :aok
Stupid? Come now Mr. Coombz, you can surely find better words than that. :aok Let me guess, you're a full throttle all the time guy, right? ;)
-
The spit 14 is an interesting example. It carries same fuel as the 8, but flies much less time on it.
Why?
It is not that the engine is that much less efficient - it produces roughly the same number of horsepower per gallon/hour. The difference is that it simply produces more HP at full throttle. If it throttles back and fly with the same HP as a spit 8 for example, it will have roughly the same flight time.
Look at it like an afterburner in a jet - the fact that you have it does not mean that you use it 100% of the time. You have the extra HP to be used when needed in combat, but for transit the extra horses should stay in the stable. The LA7 is the fastest (close second if Temp is considered) plane on the deck. That does not mean that it must/should fly faster to reach its target, but instead throttle back, fly with a similar cruise speed as most planes and firewall the throttle only when engaging, then throttle back for the trip home.
-
I can get the spit XIV to 39,000 feet with 40 minutes fuel at 370mph cruise.
Why adapt the game to make it easy when one can adapt thier flying to get what they desire with the current setup?
If you go to burn multiplier of 1.0, we will have heavy buffs flying the entire map on 25% fuel load and performing way in excess of historical values in the areas of speed and climb.
-
I believe the fuel burn is set higher to offset the closer bases. If they set fuel burn to 1x then moved bases further apart we would spend all our time commuting to a fight instead of actual fighting.
-
In the same way that limited ammo does.
The current x2.0 is fine
Not nessicarily. Ammo limits just makes you leave the fight after you shoot it all off, it doesn't delay your arrival to the fight.
-
With a 1.0 there is always the option of taking off with a light internal fuel load, use drop tank(s) to transit to the fight and blow them off for the fight, regardless of the distance between bases.
-
With a 1.0 there is always the option of taking off with a light internal fuel load, use drop tank(s) to transit to the fight and blow them off for the fight, regardless of the distance between bases.
That is called gaming the game and in no way shape or form is anywhere near SOP regarding fuel loads or the use of DT's in WWII. A 1.0 X burn rate would give aircraft with otherwise limited range unlimited range on AH maps. Only on very rare circumstances did aircraft take off with less than %100 fuel and that was usually out of combat zones and for ferry operations only. If DT's were carried they were not dropped unless the enemy was *engaged*. Certainly, I can %100 guarantee you that a P51D did not up with %50 fuel and DT's "so they could be light" for dog-fighting purposes vs 109's and 190's.
As it is, the aircraft that had limited range in WWII have limited range in AH, thing is though some people think those ranges are still a bit long and w slightly higher burn rate (2.5X) would lend towards a bit of realism. ;)
-
I've always though a burn rate of 2.0 is to high. But I do think 1.0 may be to low for MA use. I think something like 1.25 or 1.5 would be better.
-
I think FB is fine as it is. :)
-
Agreed luche, don't make me throttle back when trying to reach combat speeds. 190's don't do well when slow.
-
Agreed luche, don't make me throttle back when trying to reach combat speeds. 190's don't do well when slow.
So doing 340 TAS vs 360 TAS in route to the battle is going to effect your ability to perform maneuvers at full power (360TAS) once you arrive at the combat zone?
-
Not nessicarily. Ammo limits just makes you leave the fight after you shoot it all off, it doesn't delay your arrival to the fight.
Fuel makes you leave the fight after you burn it off. It does not delay your arrival to the fight if you are willing to pay with reduced time over target.
An unrealistic burn multiplier makes the fuel management more realistic, then a real burn multiplier. Between a technical detail and tactical consideration, I prefer the latter to be more realistic, especially in a game like AH that is more about realistic tactical combat than a pure "down to the last switch" simulator. We do not even have authentic cockpits or radiator settings or fuel mixture, just because of this consideration.
-
A higher fuel burn multiplier has a disproportionately negative effect on short range, high altitude fighters such as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XIV because while the ranges are compressed, altitude is not compressed, nor is there a way to compress altitude.
Further, the burn modifier has little effect on long range fighters such as the A6M2, A6M3, A6M5, Mosquito Mk VI, P-47N, P-51B, P-51D and Ta152H-1 and mp effect at all on bombers. Fuel Burn 2.5X would actually further distort the speed advantage that bombers have in AH.
-
A higher fuel burn multiplier has a disproportionately negative effect on short range, high altitude fighters such as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XIV because while the ranges are compressed, altitude is not compressed, nor is there a way to compress altitude.
Further, the burn modifier has little effect on long range fighters such as the A6M2, A6M3, A6M5, Mosquito Mk VI, P-47N, P-51B, P-51D and Ta152H-1 and mp effect at all on bombers. Fuel Burn 2.5X would actually further distort the speed advantage that bombers have in AH.
That can be dealt with by limiting the speed in which bombers can drop ordnance. B24's did not drop ordnance at 280 TAS, and B29's didnt drop ordnance at 350 TAS either.
I have yet to find the typical bombing run speeds for B29's. For B24's and B17's it was typically in the low 200's (TAS).
The bomber hunters/interceptors such as the Ta152, 109K-4, 190D-9, and P38 (yes, the P38 was designed from the beginning as a bomber interceptor), etc, would still not have hardly a worry in grabbing altitude and chasing down the bombers. Drop tanks and higher altitude fuel efficiency save the day!!! :) The La7 might if it tried to do more than what it was designed to do in the first place (low altitude interceptor).
-
I have no trouble flying a spit XIV to the enemy HQ, waiting for a 163, and flying back to a friendly base afterward.
-
A higher fuel burn multiplier has a disproportionately negative effect on short range, high altitude fighters such as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XIV because while the ranges are compressed, altitude is not compressed, nor is there a way to compress altitude.
Further, the burn modifier has little effect on long range fighters such as the A6M2, A6M3, A6M5, Mosquito Mk VI, P-47N, P-51B, P-51D and Ta152H-1 and mp effect at all on bombers. Fuel Burn 2.5X would actually further distort the speed advantage that bombers have in AH.
I agree that FBM does not compress the vertical, but still maintain that the overall result justify it - and by "it" I mean FBM of x2.0 . Pushing it to higher multipliers will cause problems. Lowering it to 1.0 will take fuel out of tactical considerations. 2.0 is a nice compromise and there is only little wiggle room around it.
It is not accurate to say that the multiplier has little effect on long range fighters. It is less limiting on their range which is perfectly fine or alternatively, it is less limiting on cruise to short distances allowing them to load 100% and cruise at full throttle to burn it off before reaching target. Again that is perfectly fine in the same way that a larger ammo count allows more spraying time. The big effect is on planes with very high fuel consumption rate - mostly radials with high drag that compensate by brute engine power. To get the same duration of flight they have to carry a fuel load proportionally increasing with FBM. P47N for all its potential range is a dog when carrying 100% and a beast on 25%. Its range is achieved by carrying a ridiculous amount of fuel. Changes to the FBM that operate by percentage mean a lot more absolute weight added vs. a more fuel efficient Merlin P51.
I say this again just to be clear - x2.0 is a good compromise.
-
What I mean by little effect is that all the talk of throttling back is only for the short ranged interceptors. None of it is for the long ranged fighters and certainly not for the bombers. Fuel Burn 2.5X is a highly biased way of trying to enforce throttle controls as it would only do so for a subset of the aircraft in AH.
-
Fuel Burn 2.5X is a highly biased way of trying to enforce throttle controls as it would only do so for a subset of the aircraft in AH.
Thing is though, those very same short range fighters have no reason to throttle back. The only plane really effected if the throttle is not managed would be the ever popular La7 (La5, too). Remember, we're still talking 360 TAS and a 3000ft+ climb per minute (below 5000ft altitidue) when throttled back 4-5lbs on the manifold to gain back those 4-5 minutes lost with the 1/8th increase in fuel burn. Hardly a loss of anything. It would be the careless that would notice the effect.
I cant remember the last time I ran out of fuel in anything.
Fuel is NOT even an thought, it is NOT even a consideration unless the fighters are going on long range escort mission.
Fuel is an after thought. HTC can make some very small changes to make fuel just as important as ordnance, I've already outlined them in early posts. Even if HTC would not consider changing the burn rate, they could still change the penalty for destroyed fuel tanks on a field (max penalty at %50 fuel is my suggestion) and not allow DT's unless the plane is fully fueled.
MAKE fuel an issue, I implore HTC to at least consider testing the new fuel settings for a tour. If it adversely effects the game then switch it back.
-
What effects would a 1X fuel burn rate have on the game? Would we see more deep mission with aircraft taking the time to form up and such?
Do you think it would be good for the game? What effects on gameplay do you think it would have?
Ideally yes,
but in reality people will just take less fuel.
Since I always take off with full fuel a 1x would even entice me to shed some fuel.
-
IMO, leave fuel burn as is, but allow fuel to be porked down to 50% as Loon suggested.
-
To each and every one of you who are slagging the proposed 1.0x burn, never have I seen such a bunch of baloney and hypocrisy in my life. Really, fuel burn is a big concern? Frack, I've taken a LA-7 up for an hour at alt in cruise across a map for a mishun in the MA.
Really, it's an issue? Really? You think you'll see more lala's and spitties. Really? Wow. Let's challenge that assumption shall we? I really doubt it. Lagtards will still fly lags and Spitfire lovers will still fly what they love.
The AvA has been running fuel at 1.0 for ummmm... TEN YEARS and the 1.0 multiplier has never been an problem. It actually increases realism because birds burn what they do in real life.
Bottom line, a good pilot takes what he needs. And that has been prevalent since WWII, and it's happening in the AvA. Trust me, I've taken a La7 up in the MA with 50% fuel because it was a local base defend. Why take all that extra weight? No different if I'm taking up a Mustang - 100% fuel only if I'm doing a long range flight.
The burn rate will just mean players adjust their fuel accordingly. Will it translate into more easy planes at longer ranges? If so, so what?
-
Sorry, but 1.0 burn rate would be a terrible idea. Fuel wouldn't be a consideration for most planes. 50% fuel would provide almost 1/2 an hour for a 109 with the throttle firewalled. 23mins for a 109K if he was burning WEP the whole time.
-
To each and every one of you who are slagging the proposed 1.0x burn, never have I seen such a bunch of baloney and hypocrisy in my life. Really, fuel burn is a big concern? Frack, I've taken a LA-7 up for an hour at alt in cruise across a map for a mishun in the MA.
Really, it's an issue? Really? You think you'll see more lala's and spitties. Really? Wow. Let's challenge that assumption shall we? I really doubt it. Lagtards will still fly lags and Spitfire lovers will still fly what they love.
The AvA has been running fuel at 1.0 for ummmm... TEN YEARS and the 1.0 multiplier has never been an problem. It actually increases realism because birds burn what they do in real life.
Bottom line, a good pilot takes what he needs. And that has been prevalent since WWII, and it's happening in the AvA. Trust me, I've taken a La7 up in the MA with 50% fuel because it was a local base defend. Why take all that extra weight? No different if I'm taking up a Mustang - 100% fuel only if I'm doing a long range flight.
The burn rate will just mean players adjust their fuel accordingly. Will it translate into more easy planes at longer ranges? If so, so what?
You obviously have not read any history on the SOP with regards to aircraft. Pilots did NOT take up %50 and a DT in to a combat zone, trust me. ;)
You mean a good "gamer" takes what he needs. :aok
Given the size of the map and the distances in which those same aircraft have to fly, a 1X burn rate would very much favor the aircraft like the La7, etc. The P51D would have over 100 minutes in the air w/o DT. Just how often would they use a DT? They wouldn't. La7's would be seen much further radius of operations than the scale. Remember, aircraft have lots of attributes and fuel range is very important. The short legs of the La7 is partly what what defines it.
La7's already up with %50 fuel for base defense. Just ask around.
A 1.0X burn rate would have an adverse effect on the MA's. No doubt about it.
-
I really think the argument which states our maps are compressed in terms of distance holds the most water for the fuel burn. It makes sense to me. Proportionally compressed distances tied into the modified fuel burn. The problem of the vertical not being compressed does hold water, but exactly how would you compensate for that without compromising the accuracy of flight models? I think the 2.0 really makes sense, folks. I'd rather have 2.0 burn than have 1.0 with double the flying distance to get to a fight! I firmly believe that this is a game and a simulator, but the simulator aspect shouldn't be taken into consideration too heavily. Furballs and basetaking are fun and not all of us have the time to travel double the distance! Less action? Fewer subscribers? I'd assume so. Implementing realism at the sacrifice of well-paced gaming doesn't seem progress to me. Not to dis realism of course - I love realism in the game, just not to an extent which puts a limp in the walk of our gameplay!
In a nutshell: Let's leave 2.0 burn rate!
-
Thing is though, those very same short range fighters have no reason to throttle back. The only plane really effected if the throttle is not managed would be the ever popular La7 (La5, too). Remember, we're still talking 360 TAS and a 3000ft+ climb per minute (below 5000ft altitidue) when throttled back 4-5lbs on the manifold to gain back those 4-5 minutes lost with the 1/8th increase in fuel burn. Hardly a loss of anything. It would be the careless that would notice the effect.
I cant remember the last time I ran out of fuel in anything.
Fuel is NOT even an thought, it is NOT even a consideration unless the fighters are going on long range escort mission.
Fuel is an after thought. HTC can make some very small changes to make fuel just as important as ordnance, I've already outlined them in early posts. Even if HTC would not consider changing the burn rate, they could still change the penalty for destroyed fuel tanks on a field (max penalty at %50 fuel is my suggestion) and not allow DT's unless the plane is fully fueled.
MAKE fuel an issue, I implore HTC to at least consider testing the new fuel settings for a tour. If it adversely effects the game then switch it back.
I run out of fuel in everything. In a 109 it take 25% fuel to climb to 12k and fly to an enemy field 1 sector away. If you take 1/2 a tank of fuel to start that leaves you about 1/8th of a tank to fight with so you have 1/8th to fly back on. Not near enough. So I have to take a drop tank or 75% +. The drop tank reduces climb rate from 4K to 3K. That makes a big difference because you assume the same end point in all of these cases. But in reality, I don't know if the enemies have started moving toward my base. With a drop tank there a good chance I will be below them and slow when we meet up.
1x fuel burn, I take 50% fuel, climb out at 4K/min and am above incoming cons with light manueverable airplane for the merge.
2x fuel burn, I take 50% fuel & a drop tank, Climb out at 3K/min and I'm below in coming cons with a light manueverable airplane (after I drop the tank) at the merge.
2x bring drop tanks into the equation for many planes. It makes you think more about climb out strategies and time to altitude. I think 1x would end drop tank use.
So I vote 2x. :salute
-
...
The burn rate will just mean players adjust their fuel accordingly. Will it translate into more easy planes at longer ranges? If so, so what?
If we switch from x2.0 to x1.0, to achieve the same range and flight time, planes will be carrying half the fuel. It also means half the weight and for many planes and situation it would mean that fuel load becomes meaningless not only in range, but also in effects on the performance (weight). Couple it with availability of DT and you will have planes arriving on DT (that willl last forever) and then fighting with a negligible weight of internal fuel. The american radials will sure enjoy this.
Pilots did NOT take up %50 and a DT in to a combat zone, trust me. ;)
Usually, the internal fuel capacity of the planes was appropriate for their respective missions. Hence, they typically took off with 100% internal. In AH we use planes for missions very different from their historical ones. If P-51s and P47s would have been used for defensive CAP, I am sure they will not fill the aux tanks and effectively take off at 75%+DT in game terms. If someone had the crazy idea of using the P47N as a short range interceptor standing on alert on the runway, it would not be filled 100% - that would be choosing the wrong tool for the job AND holding it upside down. Bombers did adjust their fuel load according to the range of the mission because in many cases they were weight limited - meaning fuel load came at the expense of bomb load.