General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Mister Fork on June 02, 2015, 09:17:39 AM
Title: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Mister Fork on June 02, 2015, 09:17:39 AM
Just as in real life, run your engine to the stops all the time, your engine will get hot and start overheating... how about a simple damage model that starts reducing horsepower if you run your engine too hot, and if you keep it up too long ignoring all the warning message the system throws at you, you essentially blow your engine and start burning oil as if you received an oil leak hit.
The way it would work is like this...(just an example of how it would work, not actual times)
Run your engine at 100% for 20 minutes - 1st warning message engine is overheating - 1 minute later, 2nd warning message, engine power 90% - 4 minutes later, 3rd warning message, engine power 80% - 4 minutes later, 4th warning message, engine power 75% - 1 minute later, engine blown message and you're spewing oil
What times are:
a) reasonable for running your engine at 100%? b) time before your engine starts experiencing damage? c) time before you blow your engine?
Admin options: a) Turn on/off engine overheating messages b) Turn on/off engine overheating damage c) Turn on/off engine blown (means you just run at reduced power)
Fork
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Karnak on June 02, 2015, 09:37:42 AM
Is the player base not shrinking fast enough?
The complaint I have gotten from everybody I've gotten to try AH is that it takes too long to get to the fight. The fights they acknowledge are fun, but given how fast they can be over the time to get back into the fight is the killer.
This would make it even longer and while doing so would not be a realistic implementation of engine use and limits.
I see loss for no gain.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: artik on June 02, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
It does not work this way.
- First of all WEP limits are already implemented... - For some engines run all the time at 100% causes faster wear of rather than "death" in fact Merlin could run for more than 5 min on its WEP... problem you don't know when it dies - Some engines could run at 100% without hand book limits (La-5's engine) - German MW-50 actually cooled the engine
Bottom line your assumptions are wrong.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: DubiousKB on June 02, 2015, 10:22:47 AM
The complaint I have gotten from everybody I've gotten to try AH is that it takes too long to get to the fight. The fights they acknowledge are fun, but given how fast they can be over the time to get back into the fight is the killer.
This would make it even longer and while doing so would not be a realistic implementation of engine use and limits.
I see loss for no gain.
Agreed. If this was in place, there would NEED to be air spawns behind friendly lines. Combat is great, climbing out is boring. (it makes for a better simulation, but game-aspect it's bland.)
Real World Simulation <-------- * --------> Gaming Entertainment We have to keep the pendulum in the middle to extract the most players.
Great wish for more intense realism (perhaps in a special hardcore arena...)
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Volron on June 02, 2015, 10:47:42 AM
I can see something like; staying at 100% for too long your engine over heats to the point were you can't use WEP and you won't have full power (maybe 70% max). To "fix" this (if you want to keep your plane) would be to throttle back to let the engine cool. If you flew at cruise from the get go, you'd be perfectly fine.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Oldman731 on June 02, 2015, 12:14:21 PM
The complaint I have gotten from everybody I've gotten to try AH is that it takes too long to get to the fight. The fights they acknowledge are fun, but given how fast they can be over the time to get back into the fight is the killer.
The solution to this is to make the bases closer. I've yet to hear the rationale for HTC's insistence that bases be as far apart as they are on MA maps.
Fork's suggestion isn't some radical proposal. Air games from the early and mid-1990s had something similar, where you simply had to keep track of engine temperature or you suffered a loss of performance. The "gain" is in a moderate amount of realism, without having to duplicate the madness of the Il-2 system.
- oldman
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Karnak on June 02, 2015, 01:50:02 PM
The solution to this is to make the bases closer. I've yet to hear the rationale for HTC's insistence that bases be as far apart as they are on MA maps.
Fork's suggestion isn't some radical proposal. Air games from the early and mid-1990s had something similar, where you simply had to keep track of engine temperature or you suffered a loss of performance. The "gain" is in a moderate amount of realism, without having to duplicate the madness of the Il-2 system.
- oldman
How is it realistic when it doesn't match anything historical?
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: alskahawk on June 02, 2015, 02:07:31 PM
A game is a fine balance between realism and playability. I like it when my damaged engine gets me back to base.....On the other hand that other guys engine is too robust in my opinion.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: bustr on June 02, 2015, 02:42:38 PM
In overload(WEP) testing of a production merlin 66, it took 27 hours before cracks in the crank case were observed. No burn out, or oil leaks, or anything of that nature. Just mechanical failure and fatigue. The merlin engine's endurance time is 100 hours at Mil or full throttle.
A combat engine is tested for none stop full throttle and over load failure, specifically so your aircraft are not falling out of the sky because the engine burns out during combat. Flying on engine management in ww2 was to preserve fuel for long flights and to some degree engine life. Otherwise, they could be pushed at Mil and WEP for the short pittance of time we do for our arena sorties.
The only thing this would accomplish is maybe place a leash on ACM monsters and HO-n-Run artists. Or is that the real purpose the OP won't present.
Since the overload failure time for the merlin 66 is 27 hours. Hey!! Hitech please give us unlimited WEP in the spitfires, HurrII and P51's. We get a new plane with a new engine every time we spawn on the runway anyway.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: pembquist on June 02, 2015, 06:48:06 PM
Noooooo! Somebody used the term "madness of IL-2", well AH2 is a madness of a different kind and that kind does not waste our time with worrying about undamaged engines blowing up because we want to get somewhere in our limited play time. People already whine about ENY which has some purpose, this engine attention thing will be very underappreciated. If there were unlimited development resources I would say having IL-2 madness would be great, if it was the way icons are in the MA, That is to say that if you want more realism have at it but don't make everybody else suffer.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Busher on June 02, 2015, 07:49:39 PM
- First of all WEP limits are already implemented... - For some engines run all the time at 100% causes faster wear of rather than "death" in fact Merlin could run for more than 5 min on its WEP... problem you don't know when it dies - Some engines could run at 100% without hand book limits (La-5's engine) - German MW-50 actually cooled the engine
Bottom line your assumptions are wrong.
Seriously? Wanna look back at the reliability of the Wright 3360 on the B29 or even the supposed bullet proof R2800? I have personally had R2800's eat pistons, connecting rods even when they were treated like glass.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Oldman731 on June 02, 2015, 08:39:05 PM
It makes you pay attention to your motor. That is more historical than the present design.
- oldman
i have yet to fly a ¡plane. here that has a motor.
semp
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: bustr on June 03, 2015, 02:20:56 AM
It boils down to not outright making the wish about putting a leash on ACM monsters and HO-n-Run artists. Both skills would be adversely affected by having to worry about toasting their engines in the middle of combat. This might suggest the impression that air combat and it's outcomes would shift in favor of a different group. More mature, anlaretenative to technical minutia, and historical reenactment. Versus raw eye hand coordination and puerile chest thumping on ch200.
All engines during WW2 that I could find continuous run time testing info on, were not rebuilds like so many today in restorations. They were new engines with only break in time on them, well within the best part of their short 100-120 hour life expectancy. When we spawn, Hitech issues us a new low time engine with everything adjusted to spec with no fat fingering or over, or under torqueing by sleepy ground crew. One R2800 test of 150 octane failed because of fat fingering. The subsequent test, all torqueing of bolts was addressed by order, referenced to the Chief of the AAF, since 150 octane fuel use was top priority for the ETO in 44. That test ran fine, finding no issues with the continuous run time test.
Why not first try and get him to implement a random issuing of long time engines first, for random real life failures which can be partially mitigated with engine management in the MA. Kind of sounds like much of what came from the factories by the end of the war for our enemies as new equipment. See how that fly's with the general community for a tour. How many of them will pay $14.95 to be randomly punished? Oh I forget, the OP and company get off scott free by making Hitech the bad guy, with him imposing the punishment on the community for their hard earned money.
Now the AvA CM's could try and get Hitech to program something along those lines where you signed up for a given plane. Then ran it for 100 hours with all of the attendant aging problems and possible break downs eventually requiring an engine swap out. More like a game of hanger gas monkeys and their engines with an aside of getting shot at thrown in.
We get well veiled requests to make AH like WT or like IL2 or like DCS. Or some how merge parts of them into AH with no thought to how that would look to the competition. We never get requests to make AH like AH to stand on it's own from them.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: pembquist on June 03, 2015, 04:39:17 AM
I request AH to be like AH.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Mister Fork on June 03, 2015, 01:42:47 PM
Three things:
1. The Wishlist forum is now a great place to see who the trolls in our forum really are. If you have nothing to add to the idea that say 'IT SUCKS' - or add a possible alternative or positive suggestion, just move along. This was just an idea. :mad:
2. This idea was to introduce a new dynamic. No different than auto-takeoff. Or the fact I don't have to control any mixture settings at different altitudes. Or how sitting on a rearm pad and your aircraft can automatically be refueled and rearmed in 30 seconds... cause all of those are SOOO realistic. :rolleyes:
3. If all of you ACTUALLY read my first post, you might realise this idea was more for SEA/AVA arenas...hence the admin commands. Might not work for the MA. So you could turn that sheit off. :angry:
Jebus guys, get over yourselves with your "NOT REAL - NO NO NO." What I want to say and what I will say is this...being a Canadian, I would say "I'm sorry."
Oldman - thanks for your positive support, its appreciated... :aok
Thumper says it best...
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: pembquist on June 03, 2015, 03:32:35 PM
Hey Mr. Fork. Sorry if I was negative, myself I have asked for night time arena, barrage balloons, and other stuff that gets the treatment. You didn't say anything about it being opt in and this being an argumentative place with very few neutral opinions don't worry about the flak, its deeply impersonal.
My thing about AH2 is I feel like the basic balance between realism/playability is really the best I have experienced. Most flight sims seem to confuse realism with familiarity with check lists. That never feels real to me because the physical interface is a keyboard and mouse. On the other hand joystick, throttle and rudder pedals physically approximate to some degree what flying a plane is like. The best part of AH is the aircraft handling and the view system. For more realistic engine management I would want support for simpit builders, but those are rare as hen's teeth and I suspect that having data to drive instruments and multiple displays opens the game up to hacking.
I would not be surprised if you would agree that AH is at its best during special events, the dar, icon range, and death aspects of it make it much more involving, I can see how another layer of complexification might enhance that. To that end I'll see your engine management and raise you paper maps, clouds, a decent compass and hold the GPS. On the other hand that might be too much for most players and the terrain would have to get a little less homogenous for pilotage. (Probably cooler for the bombers than the fighters.)
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: bustr on June 03, 2015, 03:59:21 PM
Opt in, Opt out is the crux.
If Hitech created a higher layer of realism with a "DCS had hot steamy relations with IL2" engine management as the center peice. Then crammed it down on us in the MA. You would be playing in here with 12 friends wondering what happened to everyone else. If he created it such that you can toggle it on or off, so that when on, it was in it's full horrible glory. Off, it was AH business as usual. You and 12 friends would be the only players with it on. The rest would be kicking you to the curb in combat.
The uniqueness of AH is that the engine management is so Spartan, while the flight physics kills the competition. Until the economic crash in 2008, this attracted a great number of customers because you didn't have to spend all of your spare time remembering to manage your engine.
Consider like the AvA is a labor of love, if you persuaded Hitech to add a higher level of engine management in a toggle on\off mode. You would not be able to fill the AvA after the first week the CM's agreed to impose it. In the past for the sake of novelty, the AvA has attracted large numbers for a few days, then tapered off quickly.
The operative concept, you would have to convince someone to impose this for you on the rest of the community. Or given a choice, they would opt out to enhance their short period of fun seeking.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Oldman731 on June 03, 2015, 08:53:07 PM
If Hitech created a higher layer of realism with a "DCS had hot steamy relations with IL2" engine management as the center peice. Then crammed it down on us in the MA. You would be playing in here with 12 friends wondering what happened to everyone else. If he created it such that you can toggle it on or off, so that when on, it was in it's full horrible glory. Off, it was AH business as usual. You and 12 friends would be the only players with it on. The rest would be kicking you to the curb in combat.
They do this in the WWI arena with the prop governor. Works fine. No different from auto trim in the MA.
- oldman
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: bustr on June 03, 2015, 09:17:32 PM
Lest we forget, by default that governor is enabled to protect the fun of paying customers. You have to opt to turn it off, meaning you have care to discover there is a choice. Or do you want to create imagery that is slightly blurred? And like the AvA, not many play in the WW1 arena.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Volron on June 03, 2015, 09:52:35 PM
They do this in the WWI arena with the prop governor. Works fine. No different from auto trim in the MA.
- oldman
But the prop governor is an option that can be turned on/off, just like auto-trim. The wish would call for a core change in which it can't be turn on/off by the player.
For the original wish, I can't agree with it completely (though I can see where you are coming from. :aok). I've made a different suggestion on a different engine system that would add more difficulty, but still keep you in the fight.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Krusty on June 08, 2015, 10:40:14 AM
The horrific bane that IL2 introduced into flight sim lore is this utter balderdash nonsense that running at proper full throttle settings would kill your engine. This is only compounded by the vast success of the brand and the copy/paste of the game engine into dozens of follow-on games both for console and PC. It has truly imprinted so much false information and completely made-up bullcrap into the minds of the playerbase.
Do you know what 100% is? It's not an absolute. It's not a magical number. For every plane it's a specific manifold pressure and an RPM to go along with it. Look up how long a plane could run at that setting. Then be quiet about "100% kills engines" because you'll know how wrong you are.
Just to even say "100%" as a blanket statement is willful ignorance.
Don't be like IL2. IL2 is crap. AH is far better than IL2 in every regard. The engine modelling in IL2 is 100% fiction and arbitrary based on one deluded designer's vision for a game -- who, by the way, has been wrong on many MANY other parts of his "vision" in regards to how planes handle and how they perform many times over the years. Why do you take "100% kills engines" as gospel? Aces High models historic MAP/RPM settings From WW2. Not from Oleg's fantasy non-reality. Not from restored Warbirds whose insurrance underwriters cannot replace engine parts.
Fork, you know better. You're not some naive troll. You're way smarter than to even think the thoughts you typed out in the original post.
Sheesh. Pop onto the forum one time and see this nonsense. Aaaannnd... away I go again.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: The Fugitive on June 08, 2015, 11:35:27 AM
LOL and I was going to welcome you back Krusty!
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Drane on June 08, 2015, 11:40:21 AM
-1
I am an aircraft mechanic. An aircraft engine should be able to run at 100% continuous rated power without damage.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Mister Fork on June 10, 2015, 04:28:16 PM
Dang it Krusty...you know me waaay too well... Darn you IL2-3456789 or Oleg for giving me the idea that it might work in Aces High...(sigh)
Off to my wishing for player controlled destroyers and LST's that act like vehicle spawn points when landed.. :x
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: bustr on June 10, 2015, 05:19:06 PM
I still want unlimited merlin and gryphon WEP time in the game. The short pittance of time we can fly on full fuel loadout can never reach the max time testing for full load continuous testing. We don't have to worry about our spakplug life and swap out life for engines.
Now Hitech could model in engine management that allows sparkplug fouling which was a common problem. When 150 octane was introduced, the original blend caused fouling if the engine sat idling on a runway during long wait periods or set to fuel economy for long periods. One of the cures was to bring the engine up to max rpm for a short blow out period.
I'm not sure about our other inline engines and what they relied on for WEP. And then there are our radial engines with some relying on water and the FW radials using fuel for cooling. And the Yaks run at max load when you firewall them. And the La and Tu2, not sure what they use for WEP.
In most cases we fly much shorter missions than ww2 pilots for our gamey pleasures. With that in mind, only two things come to mind in the OP's request. Simply wanting the added complexity to cut his boredom after all of these years. And a system imposed leash to the younger super players who have no respect for the finer aspects of this simulation. It would be one crooked monkey wrench thrown into their insolent dominance of the gamey aspects of piu, piu, piu........ :joystick:
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: EDO43 on June 11, 2015, 04:16:41 PM
Gents, the above page from the Grumman F6F-3 Pilot's Operating Handbook clearly outlines the maximum time the R-2800-10 is allowed to be operated at military power (i.e. 100%). That time is not to exceed 5 minutes. Note that there is no water injection or WEP on this aircraft.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 11, 2015, 04:18:50 PM
I'd rather see engine over heat and seizure due to oil starvation after flying inverted for a few seconds.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: bustr on June 12, 2015, 05:50:42 PM
The biggest problem with the R-2800 is shortening it's usable life span due to running the cylinder heads too often at too high of temp. So to the 5 minutes for the F6f. The engine is rated to run 10 hours if needed. NAVY testing regiments included 30 flights of 10 hours at military. For planes with WEP, 5 hours on WEP.
In this game we will never exceed this time frame with the R-2800's modeled.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: PanosGR on June 13, 2015, 02:04:38 PM
Gents, the above page from the Grumman F6F-3 Pilot's Operating Handbook clearly outlines the maximum time the R-2800-10 is allowed to be operated at military power (i.e. 100%). That time is not to exceed 5 minutes. Note that there is no water injection or WEP on this aircraft.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Karnak on June 13, 2015, 07:45:59 PM
The only thing I want to know is why RAF Merlins take 50% longer to cool down than USAAF Merlins in AH....
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Volron on June 14, 2015, 01:27:49 PM
Hey colmbo, if you were to run your B-24's engines at the 100% we are allowed for an entire flight, till you need to land due to fuel, what would the result be? Could you do the entire flight?
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Soulyss on June 14, 2015, 06:52:56 PM
My understanding with the "historical" limited to maximum engine use that is often quoted in the manuals was for the ongoing wear and tear from the engine from hours upon hours of use spanning multiplie missions. The engines got regular service but they weren't completely stripped down and replaced after each flight.
In AH a sortie lasts what... 20 minutes? and hour at most? Then we land, or get shot down and voila new plane with a factory fresh engine with 0 running hours on it.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: Wiley on June 14, 2015, 07:31:27 PM
My understanding with the "historical" limited to maximum engine use that is often quoted in the manuals was for the ongoing wear and tear from the engine from hours upon hours of use spanning multiplie missions. The engines got regular service but they weren't completely stripped down and replaced after each flight.
In AH a sortie lasts what... 20 minutes? and hour at most? Then we land, or get shot down and voila new plane with a factory fresh engine with 0 running hours on it.
Off the cuff, it seems to me similar to the difference between the POH's VNE versus the actual speed where if you exceed it, stuff starts falling off the plane.
Wiley.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: bustr on June 15, 2015, 05:40:09 PM
Nope. Doesn't explain it at all. The Spitfire Mk XVI and Lancaster Mk III both have Packard built Merlins, yet cooldown the same speed as all other RAF Merlins, 3 seconds of cooling for 1 second of WEP, while the USAAF Merlin powered aircraft all have 2 seconds of cooling for 1 second of WEP.
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: bustr on June 16, 2015, 12:23:45 PM
Seems my crystal ball that looks into Hitech's head is at the cleaners, and they keep telling me some strange man keeps sneeking in and spray painting it every time they finish cleaning it.....
I've been warned it may never work again.....:O
Title: Re: Engine damage from running 100% too long...
Post by: FLS on June 17, 2015, 03:59:21 PM