Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: deSelys on August 19, 2002, 07:08:29 AM
-
As every other AH customer, I feel myself authorized to suggest to add or alter some features to the game:
1) Make it worthy to new users to quit using aids like:
- auto take-off
- stall (or AoA) limiter
- auto fuel tank selection (but make it possible to select both wing tanks at the same time...)
- combat trim...
I would add a multiplier to the ENY value of a given plane if its pilot uses any of these aids, ie: F4U-1D using auto take-off and combat trim= 25x0.9 (auto take-off)x0.75(combat trim)= 16.875.
Hence, the player would ba able to play and fight as before, but he would get more perks if he stopped to use those aids.
2) Get rid of the auto-level, auto-angle and auto-speed trim settings, and make an extra 'aid-feature' of them (see point 1).
The 2 main benefits of this are:
- you are kept busy during long flights
- it is possible to remove trim devices from planes which weren't equipped (ie the 109s had only an elevator trim (a 'flying tail' in this case to be correct)).
I like the 109, but I'm sure it will feel different when I have to keep rudder pressure during whole flight. For those who don't want to bother with this, it is possible to activate the 'aid', but it will decrease the ENY value a bit.
3) Get rid of the 'high temperature safety' on WEP. Most planes weren't equipped with this, meaning that the pilot had to monitor the engine temperatures closely when he broke the throttle wire (like Tempest and P-51). If you use WEP for too long, you'll blow your engine.
Some planes may have been equipped with such a feature (maybe when equipped with an injection like MW50 or GM1) although I don't have sufficient data to back this up. Can somebody help me on this?
4) about the 109 again: the ground handling characteristics of this plane were awful. However, it is a very easy plane to taxi, get off the ground or land here in AH. The F4U for instance, needs much more attention during take-off and landing runs (and rightly so). Would it be possible to adjust the 109 ground handling to be closer to reality? If needed, I can scan and OCR an article by Mark Hanna flying a Bf109G10 (D-FEHD) and another by Capt. Eric Brown giving his experience about a bunch of 109s.
5) I would like to have a simple radiator feature in AH. Maybe 3 positions would be enough:
- open: gives the best cooling rate (ie after a long period using WEP) but induces an aerodynamic deceleration.
- auto: adjust to the power setting you're using to keep the engine between safe temperature margins (this would be like now in AH without the feature)
- closed: gives the best streamiling to your plane, allowing you to get a couple of extra MPH, but also letting the temperatures to rise at all but the lowest power settings. The higher the manifold settings (or use of WEP), the higher the rising.
It would allow us to 'fine tune' our planes in the following cases:
- extensions ;)
- gliding
- cooling the engine after a long WEP run
but also
- taxiing on the ground
- taking off at max weight on CVs
...
As I'm no RL pilot, I may have some misconceptions here so I'll appreciate any comment or suggestion from you flyers on this topic(s).
Thanks for your attention.
-
Auto-takeoff isn't much of a help, but rather more of a time saver. It's also good for getting everyone into the air together during missions. Taking off with 5fps can be interesting :P
Stall limiter is a HUGE disadvantage to the person using it. Sure it will stop you from spinning, but it severly limits how far back you can pull the stick.
I won't comment on the rest except to say that removing the auto-trim would succeed in making the game incredibly boring. Right now I tend to alt-tab or watch TV on long flights, I'd go nuts having to constantly adjust my plane.
-
2. => Who's gonna hold your joystick when you go for a pee?
mhh... that didn't sound as intended :D
-
Innominate
Auto take-off is a help IMO. Like I said, the F4U will easily swerve out of control if you get sloppy during the take-off run.
Btw I've never tried to take-off a fully loaded F4U-1D (100% fuel, 2x1,000 lbs bombs and 8 HVARs) from a CV using auto take-off. Because it is quite tricky to do it manually.
Long flights ARE boring because you don't have anything to do. If you have to trim the plane manually and perform minor adjustments regularly, you won't have to go watch the TV. And if you don't want to miss the show, you'll still have the possibity to activate the aid...
-
Long flights ARE boring because you don't have anything to do. If you have to trim the plane manually and perform minor adjustments regularly, you won't have to go watch the TV.
Spend two hours watching a DVD movie on your TV and pressing the 'play' button on your remote every fifteen seconds. Not because it makes the movie you're watching any better, but because if you don't, the DVD will stop, and you'll have to start over again from the start of the movie. And the first hour of the movie consists of nothing but mindless exposition by talking heads, but there's no way to fast-forward past it to get to the plot.
If you're going to be accurate like this, then you're going to have to incorporate plane-specific features, like the three-dimensional autopilot on the B-17, which operated via a completely separate set of links to the control surfaces from the control cables attached to the stick and rudder, and could be used to maneuver the aircraft even after the control cables had been shot away -- not only trim, but banked turns, skid and drift adjustment, and other functions that let a B-17 pilot with control cables shot away continue the mission with the rest of his box.
Then there's the mixture, cowl flaps, prop pitch, and other controls required for engine management. Let's make players learn all the grunt-level details of flying each plane. Let them have to scramble to remember which control switches to Mag 2 after their primary magneto is shot away and their engine shuts down. Make the F4F and FM2 pilots have to hand crank their landing gear up by pressing a key every couple of seconds, and have it deliver a 'pilot wound' if they have to stop to do something else and don't press the 'snatch hand away from landing gear crank' key, as the gear drops again and the crank handle spins in reverse and breaks their wrist.
There are all kinds of things, deSelys, that would add to the realism of flying a plane in AH -- and that wouldn't add a thing to the experience of air combat that we already have.
It's interesting to see how often people's suggestions for improving AH turn out to be "I want to make everyone do this" suggestions, rather than "This would make play more enjoyable" suggestions. If you don't like the autotrim functions and automatic takeoff, you don't have to use them. The autotrim functions are because HiTech decided that having them was less intrusive and more enjoyable than having some players have to keep aileron and rudder deflection at all times while flying, while others could just dial in trim, and others could kick back and fly in autopilot, depending on what plane they were flying. I don't see you complaining about how you can take off from an airfield and be into a furball over an enemy furball in five minutes, even though that's grossly unrealistic -- or that three fighter pilots, one transport pilots, and ten paratroops can capture an entire airfield.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
I like the 109, but I'm sure it will feel different when I have to keep rudder pressure during whole flight. For those who don't want to bother with this, it is possible to activate the 'aid', but it will decrease the ENY value a bit.
.......
4) about the 109 again: the ground handling characteristics of this plane were awful. However, it is a very easy plane to taxi, get off the ground or land here in AH. The F4U for instance, needs much more attention during take-off and landing runs (and rightly so). Would it be possible to adjust the 109 ground handling to be closer to reality? If needed, I can scan and OCR an article by Mark Hanna flying a Bf109G10 (D-FEHD) and another by Capt. Eric Brown giving his experience about a bunch of 109s.
You are right about removing the trims that didn't exist in real life (like rudder trims in earlier 109-variants in AH). However AH's Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-10 did have rudder trim in real life and thus should have them in AH too.
It's a common myth that 109-series' ground handling characteristics were "awful". I do agree that there were things you had to be aware of but there was nothing that normal training couldn't have taken care of.
Here is a good quote from the home page of Tikkakoski Finnish Air Force Museum (http://www.jiop.fi/ksimuseo/):
"Why was the Bf 109 so prone to swing on take-off?
The Bf 109 take-off swing was a very well known and notorious phenomenon. Already the external looks of the aircraft’s landing gear indicate that it is very easy to suspect it to be the culprit for the whole event. However, this is not the case. The swing is mainly caused by the the propeller slipstream which does not move backwards in a straight line along the fuselage but in a spiral path which is caused by the angle of the propeller blades to the aircraft’s center line. When this spiral airflow hits the tail, it tends to turn the rudder (seen from the back where the starboard and port sides of the aircraft are defined) to the right and the nose to the left. The swing can be compensated with an appropriate use of opposite rudder. If the tail is lifted too soon during the take-off, the propeller’s gyroscopic forces contribute to the left swing.
The narrow landing gear track creates the conditions for the swing: the brakes turn (prevent the swing) less effectively than with a wider track gear. The Bf 109 gear track is undeniably narrow ( Bf 109 E 1,97 m, 109 G 2,06 m, 109 K 2,1 m), but, for example, the Spitfire’s track is only 1,68 m. However, this is only a half of the case.
The other and decisevily important factor is the aircraft’s relatively rearward center of gravity. If the swing is allowed to develop, the rearward c.g. increases the swing and not even the highly regarded Messerschmitt brakes could no longer rectify the situation. If the pilot at this stage closes the throttle, it increases the swing still and the inevitable will happen: the landing gear collapses. In reality the process is also very quick. In addition it must be said that although the take-off swing is well-known and notorious, almost as many accidents took place during landings when the aircraft was allowed to swing.
The Bf 109 landing gear has been blamed for the swing without a cause. The real reason has been between the stick and the seat. The whole swing problem was a mere instructional mistake. The pilots should have been made to adopt one golden rule: the Messerschmitt Bf 109 must be steered to go absolutely straight during the ground run in take-off and landing and any tendency to swing must be corrected immediately with a well-timed use of the brakes and/or the rudder."
-
Ditto what Shiva said.
I would like all the added workload of firing up and flying one of these critters...Sometimes! But most of the time I just want to get in and go furballing or whatever without all those added "Features".
This is one case I think it is best as it is.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
As every other AH customer, I feel myself authorized to suggest to add or alter some features to the game:
1) Make it worthy to new users to quit using aids like:
- auto take-off
- stall (or AoA) limiter
- auto fuel tank selection (but make it possible to select both wing tanks at the same time...)
- combat trim...
2) Get rid of the auto-level, auto-angle and auto-speed trim settings, and make an extra 'aid-feature' of them (see point 1).
3) Get rid of the 'high temperature safety' on WEP.
4) about the 109 again: the ground handling characteristics of this plane were awful. However, it is a very easy plane to taxi, get off the ground or land here in AH.
5) I would like to have a simple radiator feature in AH. Maybe 3 positions would be enough:
- open:
- auto:
- closed:
For 1) - then everyone would fly the planes with only 1 gas tank. Besides, I don't like messing around with trim at every altitude.
For 2) - then everyone would fly the Spitfire.
For 3) - sounds good to me.
For 4) - then nobody would fly the 109 (very bad for holding TODs).
For 5) - sounds good to me. Would help control item 3.
-
Everyone's a critic.
Karaya2
-
Thanks for your inputs.
Shiva:
I haven't said I wanted auto-trim to disappear. I would just like to see it considered as an aid with a minor penalty for its use.
As you said, I am free not to use it. However, you can't have a 109 with elevator trim only (like it was in RL) AND auto-trim available... Auto-trim implies that all 3 axis are equipped with trim.
OTOH, I agree that it should still be available without any cost for planes having a pilot and a co-pilot (like most bombers).
Honestly, I believe that this feature adds some realism without taking much fun out of the game for most, while mixture controls would be 'a bit too much' (although I wouldn't complain if they were introduced. CFS had them and it wasn't too hard to handle).
Then there's the mixture, cowl flaps, prop pitch, and other controls required for engine management
Mixture control: see above
Cowl flaps: see 'radiator' suggestion
Prop pitch: don't we have it already?
I'm not demanding to have every detail modelled. I'm suggesting that some more features are added. If they aren't well I won't cancel my account.
Would you accept to have those realism features removed from the game? :
- limited fuel, realistic combat range (at least in % from plane to plane)
- limited ammo
- blackouts
- max AoA
- max G load
- max dive speed
- trim
....
Please tell me what is (are) the difference(s) between my suggestions and the existing features?
Wmaker:
Thanks for the text. I'll OCR what i have but it will take me a couple of days
Karaya:
What exactly do you mean? I'm not criticizing the game (at least I don't meant to), and if you felt it that way, I sure hope you saw it as constructive criticism.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Long flights ARE boring because you don't have anything to do. If you have to trim the plane manually and perform minor adjustments regularly, you won't have to go watch the TV. And if you don't want to miss the show, you'll still have the possibity to activate the aid...
Absolutely dissagree 100%
I use auto climb and while its on i can answer phones go get drinks or food watch tv etc.Also its a HUGE aid for formation flying when the guys you are flying with have not got much flying experience.
Il2 has this constant trim adjusting you mention and I dont play it SOLELY for this reason.
Rather than removing it from AH why doesnt someone ADD it to IL2!! :p
I like realism in the flight model but i dont want to start adjusting trims constantly or manage magneto starters or fuel mixtures etc or all the other really boring crap that flight sims like microsoft flightsim 2001 has. ITS TOO BORING. I bought that game and got so fed up even trying to start the damn things engines i gave it to my friend. AH is a MMOG and needs to be much more pick up and play than boxed sims like il2 or MFS. People ask enough questions without people asking us what the sequence is to start a damn plane too.
not everyone who tries out this game is a flight sim nut, I should know Ive tried most of them over the years and realised im just not 'into' the hardcore side.AH's balance is perfect.I dont use auto takeoff or combat trim and i can trim planes easily (as in IL2) but im not prepared to spend hours constantly doing it just to fly straight.
as to engine overheat I'd say just make the engine receive damage if left running hot too long or somthing, anything else like having to change fuel mixtures at various alts will just piss me off.oh and if we are talking about the big bad 109 getting a free ride vs the good ol' US f4U getting a bad time of it, remeber to look at the guns selection from cockpit on ALL planes. LW aircraft were able to select which guns fired whereas US/UK planes and others didnt.Do you want to give up being able to select them? there are many things that are overlooked for gameplay concerns.
the 109 is unstable and has a narrow wheel base which can cause problems despite what you say here but it is also a LOT lighter than the f4u and is therefore a lot easier to correct which it how it should be.Remember if you've flown AH for years you have already taken off/landed more times than most 109 or f4u pilots had done in the War.
Id say leave it up to HTC , they seem to have the ballance just right.
-
DESELYS friend, a detailing: and depends on the version of 109 has elevator trim to rudder trim, just as the Spitfire, or many other airplanes, that, or do not use trim aleiron, or use single in the left aileron, other planes yes use trim in all.
salute
Supongo
-
Hazed please read my post just above yours. You'll see that we are at the same wavelength on some topics...Once again for all the features I suggest it is possible to activate an aid at some minor 'cost'.
BUT....what cracks me up, and that I have to qualify as utterly ridiculous, is that some of us (Shiva, and you too Hazed, sorry :( ) consider that playing a game like AH is as worthy as some RL flying experience:
Shiva
There are all kinds of things, deSelys, that would add to the realism of flying a plane in AH -- and that wouldn't add a thing to the experience of air combat that we already have.
Don't fool yourself, we develop absolutely zero practical experience of air combat while playing AH.
Hazed
Remember if you've flown AH for years you have already taken off/landed more times than most 109 or f4u pilots had done in the War.
I play AH since more than 1 year, but I wouldn't dare to believe that it would help me to take-off in a RL warbird. I don't even know enough to start the engine and kill myself.
I understand that I'm sounding harsh, but somebody had to tell you.
And please read my posts again, neither of what I suggest is compulsory.
Supongo: point taken, pal. From the G6, the 109s had rudder trim ;)
-
Originally posted by deSelys
As every other AH customer, I feel myself authorized to suggest to add or alter some features to the game:
1) Make it worthy to new users to quit using aids like:
- auto take-off
- stall (or AoA) limiter
- auto fuel tank selection (but make it possible to select both wing tanks at the same time...)
- combat trim...
I would add a multiplier to the ENY value of a given plane if its pilot uses any of these aids, ie: F4U-1D using auto take-off and combat trim= 25x0.9 (auto take-off)x0.75(combat trim)= 16.875.
When I shoot down a plane, what do I care whether he used auto take-off, auto-trim, or any of these aids? With the exception of combat trim and the stall limiter, what effect would any of these things have on the ensuing combat? Why should I get extra perkies for knocking this guy off?
-
Originally posted by runny
When I shoot down a plane, what do I care whether he used auto take-off, auto-trim, or any of these aids? With the exception of combat trim and the stall limiter, what effect would any of these things have on the ensuing combat? Why should I get extra perkies for knocking this guy off?
As the 'penalty' would modify the ENY value, you should get more perks (not much tho) when shooting down somebody using aids...
Oops edited (I take my remarks for myself and learn to read someone's post completely before I answer).
You're right. However, would you mind much for getting some more perks?? OTOH, if HTC want to develop this, they can also leave the ENY value unchanged when somebody using aids is shot down. It doesn't matter...
-
Amazing how some are so concerned about perks.
-
NO................. Most of us fly to releave the days stress not to have more stress thrust upon us and to boot a penalty for enjoying ourselves.... If you want more stress then go fly ww2ONLINE.. LOL
Just my opinion though!
T0J0
-
Originally posted by deSelys
As the 'penalty' would modify the ENY value, you should get more perks (not much tho) when shooting down somebody using aids...
Oops edited (I take my remarks for myself and learn to read someone's post completely before I answer).
You're right. However, would you mind much for getting some more perks?? OTOH, if HTC want to develop this, they can also leave the ENY value unchanged when somebody using aids is shot down. It doesn't matter...
I guess my problem with this has less to do with perks, and more to do with the way it fits into a familiar pattern:
(1) Add a harder way to fly as an "option," because it will be a lot more fun (the carrot) and
(2a) Penalize people for not using that "option" (the stick) or
(2b) give some in-game reward to people who use the "option" (sugary glaze on carrot)
By my way of thinkng, if the carrot's so darn sweet, you won't need the stick or the glaze. That these carrots are almost never presented without the stick or glaze says lots to me about the intrinsic worth of the carrot, even in the eyes of the person presenting it.
In other words, you're suggesting a change to the game that's so unappealing that it won't catch on unless you somehow cajole people to use it. I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about these ideas if their proponents thought they could stand on their own merits.
-
There are two types of features.
Convienience features, and performance features. Auto trim, combat trim, auto-takeoff fall into the first group, they don't improve your aircraft's performance, they just make playing the game less tedious. The only thing worse than boredom is tedium. Forcing players to manually trim thier planes for flight is not fun, it's tedious as hell.
Any penealty or reward for convienience features is really pretty pointless, since as others have said, it has little effect in a fight.
-
Would you accept to have those realism features removed from the game? :
- limited fuel, realistic combat range (at least in % from plane to plane)
As opposed to what, deSelys? The current setup, where I can take off with a Lancaster and 100% fuel and be a glider only two and a half hours later? The fundamental problem with the fuel multiplier is that it allows the ground scale to be compressed so that people don't have to fly for two hours to get to a fight, but leaves the altitude scale uncompressed, so that you burn an unrealistic amount of fuel -- and cover an unrealistic distance in terms of field separation -- just in getting to a historical altitude.
Please tell me what is (are) the difference(s) between my suggestions and the existing features?
Your suggestions give the player tedious make-work to keep them tied to the computer micromanaging their plane, rather than adding any new features. If they want to micromanage their trim historically, they can do it themselves by hand; your proposal implies that people won't do it unless they get some benefit out of it. You can already get better performance out of your plane if you pay attention to the trim by hand than if you use the autotrim.
Don't fool yourself, we develop absolutely zero practical experience of air combat while playing AH.
It's sanitized and stripped down, but if air-combat simulations don't teach you anything about air combat, why does the Air Force use them for training? Not having to manage the aircraft and not facing actual bodily harm insulates us from the full experience, but sims can provide practical knowledge that does transition to RL. Ask the pilot-instructors at places like Air Combat USA (http://www.aircombatusa.com/) -- people who have experience with air-combat simulations exhibit better situational awareness and are better able to understand and use ACM than people who come in off the street without the gaming experience behind them.
-
T0J0,
I already fly WWIIOL. I prefer the FM here (I can't say which one is closer to RL because honestly I have no clue), but there are some features I prefer ther like the icons, ground handling and (yes) the manual trim.
Originally posted by runny
I guess my problem with this has less to do with perks, and more to do with the way it fits into a familiar pattern:
(1) Add a harder way to fly as an "option," because it will be a lot more fun (the carrot) and
(2a) Penalize people for not using that "option" (the stick) or
(2b) give some in-game reward to people who use the "option" (sugary glaze on carrot)
By my way of thinkng, if the carrot's so darn sweet, you won't need the stick or the glaze. That these carrots are almost never presented without the stick or glaze says lots to me about the intrinsic worth of the carrot, even in the eyes of the person presenting it.
In other words, you're suggesting a change to the game that's so unappealing that it won't catch on unless you somehow cajole people to use it. I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about these ideas if their proponents thought they could stand on their own merits.
Ok, I didn't know that perks were so important for some of you, this is why I thought about adjusting the ENY value a bit to entice people to get rid of the crutches.
Now what about adjusting ENY up a bit when you don't use the aid features. This way, ENY stay the same for the others and everyone is happy. No stick, just a carrot.
I'm sure you won't be jealous for not receiving the carrot now...
Originally posted by Innominate
Any penealty or reward for convienience features is really pretty pointless, since as others have said, it has little effect in a fight.
No effect in fight? Are you sure? Haven't you ever put your plane back in level flight when, while wounded, you begin to pass out in the middle of a turn? Aren't you depreaving somebody from a well earned kill then?
I do it too...but you have to admit that it is gaming the game...
Shiva:
About fuel: you're right. But what do you prefer? A difference between ground and alt scales, or having to fly during 8 hours to complete a bombing mission? (Well maybe you've just bought AKDejaVu's DVD collection and you could kill the time 'en route' ;) )
About 'micromanagement':
Once again I don't want that everybody uses manual trim. I couldn't care less if it haden't 2 badly unrealistic side-effects:
1: you can't model planes with trim limited to some control surfaces only, like it was in RL.
2: you can straighten your plane easily while passing out when wounded.
Soooo I'm just suggesting a system to enticing players not to use it with a reward, a reward and a penalty or just a penalty, depending how you look at it.
About your illusional 'experience'
I don't even want to discuss this. If you're really believing it, good for you. But please don't ever tell a vet that you have some practical or even theoretical combat experience. It will give a really bad reputation to the flight-sim community.
Air Combat USA : Fighter Pilot of a day LOL :rolleyes:
On a side not I followed a 3 days course called antislip driving (for police forces). It just taught me a thing: I have nothing in common with a rally pilot (and I wasn't the worse of the lot...).
-
Originally posted by deSelys
No effect in fight? Are you sure? Haven't you ever put your plane back in level flight when, while wounded, you begin to pass out in the middle of a turn? Aren't you depreaving somebody from a well earned kill then?
If the person trying to kill me can't do it once I level out, they don't deserve the kill. Pilot wound's are prettymuch stupid as they stand now anyways, you black out but still have control of the plane??
Also, combat trim does funny things at extreme speeds(low or high). Flipping over and managing trim manually in a fight can give you a significant edge over someone using combat trim.
-
Originally posted by Innominate
If the person trying to kill me can't do it once I level out, they don't deserve the kill. Pilot wound's are prettymuch stupid as they stand now anyways, you black out but still have control of the plane??
Not really. It always takes some time before you pass out after being wounded. A wingman can save your arnold then.
I've already passed out while setting myself for landing and saved the day by using auto-trim (shame on me!).
And yes, the way wounds are modelled could be better. But I don't have any suggestions about it.
Originally posted by Innominate
Also, combat trim does funny things at extreme speeds(low or high). Flipping over and managing trim manually in a fight can give you a significant edge over someone using combat trim.
We agree.
Btw I just looked at the flash clip in your sig! Funny as hell :D.
Tell me I don't sound like this. Puh-leaaaase!!!
-
But after you get wounded, and are "passed out" you still have complete stick control.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
T0J0,
I already fly WWIIOL. I prefer the FM here (I can't say which one is closer to RL because honestly I have no clue)
HINT::::It's not WW2OL.....
ack-ack
-
No, deSelys, you don't get it.
What I'm saying is that if you really thought this were a good idea that would be more fun, you wouldn't feel the need to entice people to "forgo the crutches."
That you think this will be necessary says to me that maybe you should rethink just who will enjoy the game more if your changes take place.
-
Why do you care how or why ANYONE else flies their plane??? If you're not paying their subscription you don't have any obligation to tell others how to fly or what to fly. Just disable the features you don't like for your own plane and don't worry about anyone elses plane, score etc in the game. :rolleyes:
-
Hmmmm. I must have used toad up.
-
Trim is already way, way over emphasized. Anything that adds to the unrealistc focus on trim only makes the problem worse.
Trim is not a primary flight control.
-
No offense DeSelys, but if you don't want these features on, don't use them. I think that everybody will agree with me when I say that Auto-level, Auto-trim, Auto-Takeoff, and Stall Limiter never got you killed in a fight. In fact, Auto-Trim and Stall Limiter may have saved your bellybutton because they hampered the full potential of a con.
The motivation to trim a plane out yourself and to disablke stall limiter is that it will make your plane perform better and give you an edge over your opponent. I have been playing AH for about 2 months now and have just started using elevator trim to recover from dives and I turned off stall limiter about a week ago. My flying has improved. So you see, the motivations are there organically.
I think your request to somehow penalize auto-level is absurd, rude and arrogant. Please consider that this is a game and that sometimes our phones ring or that people sometimes enter the room and that it demands more attention than a game.
The ONLY suggestion you make that I agree with is to eliminate the auto-turnoff WEP. And I say that because only recently have I realized the importance of the temp. guage.
-
Not hardly; I've read this thread once or twice just for laughs and it's so good I hate run the risk of ruining the entertainment.
Besides, Karnak and Mav clearly have the situation under control. (Amongst others, of course. the rest of yas that understand what's really going on here. ;) )
For you though... I'll start a thread in the O-Club so you can continue to puzzle over trim, OK?
:D
-
Well I think I'll have to quote myself:
Originally posted by deSelys
Once again I don't want that everybody uses manual trim. I couldn't care less if it haden't 2 badly unrealistic side-effects:
1: you can't model planes with trim limited to some control surfaces only, like it was in RL.
2: you can straighten your plane easily while passing out when wounded.
I guess my english isn't good enough to exprim what I mean so I'll try to formulate it in an other way:
- do we agree that in RL some (most?) WWII planes hadn't the possibility to trim in flight all their control surfaces?
- if we agree with the statement above, how possibly can an honest auto-trim feature be modelled on every plane?
If you have a better idea, I'm sincerely all ears.
About trim: of course it isn't a primary control surfaces. And trim won't make your plane turn tighter. The 2 effects of trim I am aware of are:
- it allows to adjust the control surfaces so the plane flies 'hands off' for a given speed and torque, without any pressure on controls, making flying easier and effortless for the pilot ('comfort' feature)
- in some planes, when speed increases, control forces build up to a point where it is impossible for the pilot to move them (i.e. heavy elevator in 109s). Due to demultiplication, trim can make it possible to slowly move the locked controls (In the Big Show, Pierre Clostermann explains how he pulled out from a high speed dive by using the elevator trim wheel...but he nearly blacked out in the process).
Trim is hard to model realistically in a PC flight sim because stick forces can't be applied on today's joysticks. In fact, our stick feel like it is linked to control surfaces with rubber strings instead of steel wires. So until we have real 'force feedback' joysticks, we'll have to make do with the way trim is modelled now.
Sincerely, Toad, you are one people whom I most respect the comments (even when you say that I am wrong: I came to realize that 6K icons aren't 'unrealistic' thanks to you) because you have a flying and aerobatics experience. I was expecting you to step in and give me your opinion. Leaving the 'controls' to Maverick won't help the reader much.
Until now, I've only received comments (mostly negative) about the 'penalty' inflicted to those using aids. I realize that this is a disguised attempt at controlling how people are playing the game (although I did it with good intentions). So I agree that choice should be left free to use aids or not, without any penalty nor advantage. Cancel suggestion 1.
However, I would like to remind you all that most people (me included...I still use auto trim and auto fuel selection most of the time :rolleyes: ) are lazy and will seek the easy way out. The new bombing model proved it again: a lot are whining that they can't have the totally unrealistic precision they had before, and are too lazy to train a couple of hours offline or in TA to get used to the new system which, I believe, most dedicated bomber pilots will qualify as much better.
The 'WB mixed mode MA episode' is another example. And speaking of it, WB is slowly dying...so the players there will have to make a choice someday. Most of them don't like AH because of the inflight radar, and some other features. Most of them are hardcore simmers. You won't attract those folks with 'air starts' and 'power ups' hanging in the air...
The upcoming 'Mission Arena' is a clever attempt at getting those players here. Maybe some other 'realism' features, relatively easy to code, will add weight into the balance....
By the way, most answers focus on the suggestions 1 and 2. What do you think of 109 ground handling (Wmaker I'll OCR Capt Brown's article today), WEP automatic cutoff and radiator? Toad?
About radiator I forgot to say that I don't imply extra moving parts on the planes 3D models (like 109 slats; they are there but we don't see them moving). Eye candy is nice, but...
-
Toad I just read the OT discussion you had with Easymo (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61512 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61512) )
It is funny to see how you react here when you just stated there:
Originally posted by Toad
Agree, Daff. Learning to trim is no biggie. The A/P is clearly a convenience tool.
I'm wondering how a flightsim game can catch the attention of someone who has the opportunity to fly a BT-13 in RL :rolleyes: but maybe it is just me.
And if you don't want 'useless difficulty', fine for you. You'll have to agree that most of us don't have your luck and will probably never put their hands on the controls of a real plane. And that maybe this 'useless difficulty' just adds a bit to immersion.
You have the knowledge to tell us if it is realistic or not. You don't have the right to tell us that an idea is stupid because you just down't want to go through the whole engine start procedure in AH as you have to do in RL.
Originally posted by Toad
Not hardly; I've read this thread once or twice just for laughs and it's so good I hate run the risk of ruining the entertainment.
Besides, Karnak and Mav clearly have the situation under control. (Amongst others, of course. the rest of yas that understand what's really going on here. )
For you though... I'll start a thread in the O-Club so you can continue to puzzle over trim, OK?
May I suggest you to step down of you pedestal of arrogance and come back to the level of other players?
As I said, technically you are a reference and an asset to this community. Speaking of gameplay....well your opinions don't carry more weight than Easymo's, Lazs's or mines.
-
Now what about adjusting ENY up a bit when you don't use the aid features. This way, ENY stay the same for the others and everyone is happy. No stick, just a carrot.
I'm sure you won't be jealous for not receiving the carrot now...
And then we get to listen people squeaking about screwing up a flight because they were going for the zoom enable key without looking at the keyboard and missed, hitting the 'x' key and blowing an autotrimless flight out the window.
If people think flying without using the autotrim is worth the additional effort, they'll do it -- but your proposal doesn't give people the same 'value' that you believe manual trim provides. The people who enjoy managing their trim manually and historically accurately for their plane are free to do that right now. And the people who don't want to have to deal with manual trim or the variation in trim ability from plane to plane are equally free to use all the trim functions. What you are proposing is never going to get people to use only the plane-accurate manual trim because it's more immersive; what you get is people who do it to get the extra perks so they can fly their pet überride a little sooner, at which point they'll go back to using the autotrim functions.
-
Easymo... I'll get you for that! ;)
Originally posted by deSelys It is funny to see how you react here when you just stated there
[/b]
Learning to trim in an aircraft is WAY easier than it is in a game. The stick feedback simplifies it. Games have no feedback.
HOWEVER whether it's easy or not, there's no reason to reward people for using it or punish them for not using it. Same with the autopilot. I could go into a big discussion here, but my reasons for saying that have pretty much already been stated in this thread by other folks that disagree with you. :)
Originally posted by deSelys
I'm wondering how a flightsim game can catch the attention of someone who has the opportunity to fly a BT-13 in RL but maybe it is just me.
Well, let me try to clear it up a bit for you:
In RL, the act of taking the BT out for a "spin" :) so to speak is about a 5 hour procedure overall. Driving to the field, preflight, weather brief, tractor it out of the hangar, start, warmup, fly for 1.5, return, refuel, tractor it back in the hangar, wash it down to get the bugs and oil spray off , close up the hangar, drink a beer with friends and then drive home. In other words, it a pretty "all day affair".
Then, the weather has to be good. It's not an instrument airplane. It's not that much fun if it's real turbulent. So that limits days right there.
Then, there's that ugly old RL itself. You know, the one where you have to go to WORK instead of to the hangar? Mow the grass? Change the fuel pump on the pickup truck?
Oh, yah.. did I mention maintenance on the aircraft? Right now the right strut seal leaked and the right strut is flat. That's a long job that's going to require a lot of time. Waiting for a "new" 50 year old strut seal to come in right now.. hope that one holds.
Gosh, did I mention cost? Figure you'll burn ~20-25 gallons an hour at $2.50 and hour and about $5 in oil. So figure about $75 for a 1.5 hour hop.....gee that's 5 MONTHS of AH, isn't it?
Well, I could go on, but perhaps by now you see why I often just come in at night, sit down at the computer, click a mouse 4 or 5 times and go "flying" for 1.5 hours in AH.
.......and why I don't want to spend it doing things that are unrelated to or make no difference to the fun part of AH.
Originally posted by deSelys
maybe this 'useless difficulty' just adds a bit to immersion
[/b]
Obviously, different people require different levels of immersion. I thought the CT was the place for that? Perhaps you can get some of these things added there?
All joking aside, I think the folks that want this stuff should have a separate arena where this "non-germane immersion detail" is required. No reason why both sides shouldn't have what they desire.
Originally posted by deSelys
You don't have the right to tell us that an idea is stupid because you just down't want to go through the whole engine start procedure in AH as you have to do in RL.
[/b]
Of course I do. I have the same right to voice my opinion as YOU do. And that IS my opinion.
Probably what angers you is that the opinion disagrees with yours and that I've actually started aircraft engines.... just a guess here.
Originally posted by deSelys
Speaking of gameplay....well your opinions don't carry more weight than Easymo's, Lazs's or mines.
EXACTLY. Mine has no more value than YOURS. YOURS has no more value than mine. (wrt to gameplay)
And when it comes to a vote, I'll vote against drudgery in a game every time... EVERY time. Whether I vote with a ballot or a credit card. :D
BTW, just to make your day... here's another one that I do fly a lot more.. it only burns 10 gallons an hour an ... psychoanalyse this for me, will ya? ...... it's MORE FUN than the BT but it's LESS COMPLEX!!!!! Go figure, eh? :D
I'm in the front seat of 33 and my WW2 pilot Dad is in the back seat. (BTW, Dad has his own PT-26 in Canadian colors.) My brother is in the front seat of #2 in an aircraft he just sold because he just finished an even better PT.
So, in the family we have a BT and 3 PT's. But I STILL play this game... hmmm......... maybe if I put a .50 on the PT.. nah... I'd get in trouble!
-
Easymo... I'll get you for that!
And Rodan sings "sweet mystery of life at last I found you" while Godzilla gives it to him.:D
-
Yah... you suckered me into this thread when I swore I wasn't getting into that stuff again. Nobody listens, nobody really cares anyway; they've formed their opinion.
But... if you check Hang's FIRST Godzilla/Rodan post you'll notice that he framed his simile this way: Toad/Easymo & Godzilla/Rodan.
I take that to mean that I'm "Godzilla" and you're "Rodan"... so bend over and sing, honey! I'll know what it means when you hit the hi notes! ;)
-
The trick to nailing the B n Z types, is to carefully conceal your E state. Once you sucker them into a turn fight, their bellybutton is yours :)
-
Dee I think you'd have a hard time implementing "all" of what you propose.
There are somethings that you might get people persuaded on.
Combat trim for example. I can't think of a reason for it. Trimming your plane in a fight is part of learning to fight. It's "part" of flying the plane. Don't see a need for it. Auto takeoff is no biggy and is pretty much a newbie thing. If there was autoland, I'd have a problem.
Conversely "auto" trim is a convience for all those things that take you away from the keyboard. I use it mainly for beer runs :D
Flown a bit of IL-2 online and the absence of auto trim really IS a pain.
One thing that I found when flying IL-2 that WAS immersive was engine management in the most basic form. You had the option of pitch settings but I just left it on auto.
Engine power and cowl flaps. You couldn't fly all day at 100% throttle. You'd overheat. Now it overheated pretty quick but it "added" to the flight. You didn't have to jump through hoops, you just made sure you watched your throttle settings and opened those cowl flaps when the need arose.
If you didn't, the engine after a time didn't sound too good and got progressivly worse, with a loss of power. Wep management became "part" of the fight in the same way manual trim is now. I think that would be a welcome addition with few detractors.
But my God man, I gotta be able to get to my beer ;)
And WBIII has inflight radar in the Main. With fourteen people flying it's a necessity :D But I think it's configurable by arena.
That was a low blow....
Baaad poop..
-
First of all, Toad, why are you torturing us mundane 'crawlers' with your cool pics? You're really cruel ;) .
About all the work involved for a short hop in your plane:
Gee that's too bad. Now you have to work to have fun?? All that seems extremely tiring, particularly the 'drinking beer with friends part'. ;)
On a side note, to help you realize how expensive it is to fly here: an U.S. gallon of air fuel is around 9$. :eek:
So I won't complain you for owning and flying old timers...Bastige! (yeah i'm jealous).
Originally posted by Toad
Obviously, different people require different levels of immersion. I thought the CT was the place for that? Perhaps you can get some of these things added there?
All joking aside, I think the folks that want this stuff should have a separate arena where this "non-germane immersion detail" is required. No reason why both sides shouldn't have what they desire.
AMEN! If HTC wants to develop the upcoming mission arena like this, I'm 100% for it (and not 110% so I don't shock Samm's opinions ;) ).
Originally posted by Toad (about qualifying someone else's idea as stupid)
Of course I do. I have the same right to voice my opinion as YOU do. And that IS my opinion.
Probably what angers you is that the opinion disagrees with yours and that I've actually started aircraft engines.... just a guess here.
Maybe I misformulated it: you indeed have the right to say that my ideas are stupid. No big deal. But please make it clear that you're speaking about gameplay and not about 'how things work in RL'
Your guess is wrong (well of course I haven't started aircraft engines). Disagreeing with my ideas is fine. What made me jump
was your ' the rest of yas that understand what's really going on here', which could imply that
1- what I was saying was technically unsound
or
2- you are some kind of 'gameplay-expert'....which you are not. You like certain aspects, you dislike others....just like me.
Originally posted by Toad
And when it comes to a vote, I'll vote against drudgery in a game every time... EVERY time. Whether I vote with a ballot or a credit card. :D
It's all relative about what you consider drudgery. I would prefer engine start-up procedure, a bit of navigating,... I would consider having to virtually wash your plane to be utter drudgery.
On the same time, some people would like to have 20 K air starts and 'insta-refuel' bonuses hanging in the air, because having to take-off, climb to the fight and land is absolutely no fun for them. To every his own tastes.
On a side note, why do we have to raise and lower the arrestor hook on the carrier plane by pressing a key? Why isn't it automatically linked to the gear key? Is it drudgery? At the same time, why don't we have to lock the brakes when we retract gear, so the rapidly spinning wheel won't have the tyres damaged? Would it be drudgery?
There is no 'universal' frontier. I understand that, as a RL pilot, what interests you most in this sim is the combat aspect...because you've already done all the rest (mmm...maybe not the carrier landings tho). Please understrand that I would like more of it. Call me a frustrated 'would-like-to-have-been' pilot, I don't care. Not anybody is born with the physical abilities to fly high-performance planes. This is also why those sims have so much success.
Originally posted by Toad
BTW, just to make your day... here's another one that I do fly a lot more.. it only burns 10 gallons an hour an ... psychoanalyse this for me, will ya? ...... it's MORE FUN than the BT but it's LESS COMPLEX!!!!! Go figure, eh? :D
Hey...it's only normal. If I had the opportunty to fly a WWII warbirds, putting my life on the line, I wouldn't choose the planes with the vicious characteristic like I do now in this sim...No Bf 109, no F4U. I would probably choose something reliable and more user-friendly, like a Spit (not a Gryffon powered!) or a F6F.
In RL I'm a strong adept of the K.I.S.S. principle.
Nopoop, thanks for passing by and dropping a line. I realize that chances are slim that all those suggestions are someday implemented. However, if HTC decides to just change the way WEP works now, I'll already be happy. And if nothing changes, well this thread was a way like another to spend some time.
I just regret that a lot of folks feel obliged to post answers without having read the whole thread. For those who did read all, even if they completely disagree, .
In conclusion, only the WEP feature seems to have some partisans. I would have liked a bit more debate about the radiator feature and the 109 ground handling issue tho.
I'll still have to post as promised an account of flying the 109G10 D-EFHD 'Black 2' by Mark Hanna, then some comments about the 109 by Capt. Eric Brown. After that I'll stop to post here only to answer to people who have obviously read the whole and want to comment.
Thanks for your attention.
-
Mark Hanna:
Taking off:
Power gently up and keep it coming smoothly up to 40 inches. Keep the tail down initially, and keep it straight by feel rather than any positive technique. Tail is coming up now, and the rudder is becoming effective. I'm subconsciously correcting the rudder all the time. It's incredibly entertaining to watch the 109 lift off the ground; the rudder literally flashes around!
This little fighter is now bucketing along, accelerating rapidly. As the tail lifts, there is a positive tendency to swing left. This can easily be checked; however, if you are really aggressive in lifting the tail, the left swing tendency is difficult to stop and happens very quickly. Now the tail is up, and you can vaguely see where you are going. It's a wild, rough ride on grass, and with all the noise and the smoke from the stacks, it's exciting.
Quick glance at the airspeed indicator (ASI): 160km/h, a light pull-back on the stick, and you're flying!
Hand off the throttle, select FLUG on the undercarriage selector. The mechanical indicators motor up very quickly, and you feel and hear a "clonk, clonk" as the gear comes home. A quick look out at the wings, and you can see that the slats-fully out-are starting to creep in as the airspeed increases and the angle of attack is reduced. With 230km/h and an immediate climbing turn-up, you enter the downwind leg just in case you need to put the airplane down in a hurry. The Old Flying Machine Company's SOP is always to fly an orbit overhead of the field to allow everything to stabilize before venturing off; this has saved at least one of our airplanes.
Landing:
Returning to the circuit, it is almost essential to join for a run and break. Over the field, break from 50 feet, up and over with 4G onto the downwind leg. Speed at 250km/h or less, gear select to DOWN, activate the button and feel the gear come down asymmetrically. Check the mechanical indicators (ignore the electric position indicators), set the pitch to 11:30; fuel, both boost pumps ON. If you have less than half a tank of fuel and the rear pump is not on, the engine may stop in the three-point attitude.
Radiator flaps to full open, and wing flaps to 10 or 15 degrees. As the wing passes the threshold downwind, take all the power off and roll into the final turn, cranking the flap like mad as you go. It is important to set up a high rate of descent and a curved approach.
The aircraft is reluctant to lose speed around finals, so ideally, you should initiate the turn quite slowly at about 190 to 200km/h. Slats normally deploy halfway around the final, but you, the pilot, are not aware that they have come out. The idea is to keep turning with the speed slowly bleeding and roll the wings level at about 10 feet at the right speed and just starting to transition to the threepoint attitude. The last speed I usually see is just about 180; I'm normally too busy after that!
The 109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow, it is one of the easiest to threepoint. It just feels right. The only problem is getting too slow. If this happens, you very quickly end up with a high sink rate and with absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands!
Once down on three points, it tends to stay down, but be careful; the forward view has gone to hell, and you cannot allow any swing to develop. Initial detection is more difficult-the aircraft being completely unpredictable-and can diverge in any direction. Sometimes, the most immaculate three-pointer will turn into a potential disaster halfway through the landing roll. Other times, a ropy landing will roll as straight as an arrow!
When we started flying the 109, both my father and I did a lot of practice circuits on the grass before we tried a paved strip. Operating off grass is preferred. Although it is a much smoother ride on the hard surface-directionally-the aircraft is definitely more sensitive. Without doubt, you cannot afford to relax until you are stationary. You would never make a rolling exit from a runway in the 109.
To summarize, I like the airplane very much, and I can understand why many Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it. Hans Dittes has completed a fantastic restoration and should be complimented on returning "Black 2" to the air.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capt. Eric Brown
COMBAT WARRIOR
THE HISTORICAL VIEW
by Capt. Eric Brown
...Its major design weakness, however, lay in its narrowtrack landing gear, which gave it a tendency to ground-loop; that was exacerbated by the castering of the tailwheel in the ground attitude when the resultant ground loop could not be stopped with harsh braking and full deflection of the rudder. I feel certain, too, that the landing gear's being slightly splayed outward aggravated the ground-looping tendency and contributed to the excessive tire wear and bursts. The Spitfire had a similar, narrow-track landing gear, but it was not splayed out like that of the Bf 109, and the Spitfire didn't show any ground-looping propensities. In 1939, these problems caused damage to 255 Bf 109s (only 14 percent were damaged during training). Sixty-three percent of the damaged aircraft were Emils, and as a result, a tailwheel lock was fitted to later models.
Another problem that arose in training was the difficulty encountered by young, inexperienced pilots in night flying. Owing to the Bf 109's limited forward view and the tendency of its wing slats to snatch in and out near the stall, any flare to land that was held too long and made too high above the ground could result in a wing drop: in severe cases, this could end in a cartwheel when a wingtip dug into the ground.
Because of the frequency of the accidents, a tandem, two-seat, trainer version was eventually developed, and ín mid-1945, I had the opportunity to fly this Bf 109G-12.
Once, I was foolish enough to fly it solo from the rear seat; my view for landing was virtually nil, and I had to make three passes before I arrived back in one piece-and this in broad daylight! This airplane must literally have been an instructor's nightmare because the view from the instructor's cockpit was by a periscopic sight-a case of the blind truly leading the blind...
Synopsis:
The more than 33,000 Bf 109s produced from 1938 to 1945 gave
the Luftwaffe an abundance of continuously updated air weapons. They were capable of beating their implacable enemies, even in the terrible conditions of Russia and North Africa. Many Luftwaffe Bf 109 pilots racked up scores in the hundreds that will dazzle the minds of air historians and fighter buffs for years to come.
But the Bf 109's deficiencies almost equal its fabulous assets. The Luftwaffe lost 11,000 of these thoroughbred fighting machines in takeoff and landing accidents, most of them at the end of the War when they needed them most. The inexcusably poor visibility from the cockpit greatly reduced their pilots' ability to fight. The snatching of the automatic wing slats not only caused many of the numerous ground accidents but also contributed to a great many aerial accidents. The slat, canopy and landing-gear problems all had known, simple production fixes. Perhaps Prof. Willy Messerschmitt and the Luftwaffe generals were too busy patting themselves on their backs and counting Bf 109 victories to find time to listen to the pilots or to digest the significance of the Bf 109's accident rates.
The Bf 109 was, indeed, a prolific, necessary and timely fighter but was not as great as the Spitfire, the Mustang or the Hellcat, which all had many fewer vices for the wartime pilots to overcome.
--------------------------------------------------------------
From 'The Flight Journal', special issue summer 2001 'Fighters'
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Gee that's too bad. Now you have to work to have fun??
Well, you wanted to know why I play AH... it's just a whole lot easier and quicker and you can even "fly" it when it's raining. Besides, I don't own a P-51!
...not to mention that they get real upset if you mount .50's on a BT and go shoot folks down...... :D
Originally posted by deSelys
What made me jump was your ' the rest of yas that understand what's really going on here', which could imply that
[/b]
I agree with the folks that said this is just a subtle attempt to get other folks to fly "your way" by offering.. what was it, a carrot?
Perhaps I should have been more clear about that. Sorry to have offended.
Just about every thing you mentioned can be turned on or off... what a perfect solution! You can fly the way you want to fly.... and so can everyone else!!!
Honestly, I just can't see why anyone would even care if someone else uses auto takeoff. It's not like takeoff is that tough. I can get loaded fighters off a turning carrier... socan just about everyone else; what's the big deal?
Anyway, Easy is just smiling more, so I'm out.
Enjoy the game.. cya up there!
-
In all seriousness deSyles, about the only time I look for the things you are asking for is when I fly FS2002. Even in there I have a couple of keys set up to instantly start or shut down any plane. It is mainly a sim/game I like if I want to immerse myself in the nuances of real flight, like having to navigate. Now, I have an excuse, I am a frustrated pilot. I have several hours of flight training in various aircraft ( my fav was an Aeronca Champ with no electrics ) but I realised I can't afford to fly the real thing so I fly some really good models in FS2002 (not all are that good, a few are really good).
In here, in Aces High, there are some ways that you can do something similar, just by not using the things you don't want to use. And that's cool! When I come in here it is for simulated air combat without all the worries inherent in having to micromanage a real airplane.
Now when flying buffs, I do enjoy immersing myself in all the possibilities and nuances of real flight, as much as this game allows. Acutally I want more than is available, but when flying a fighter all I'm interested in is going up and finding a good fight without having to worry about the reality of actual plane management. I'm not that good to begin with and adding that to the list would only serve to frustrate me even more.
Why then should I pay my dollars a month to receive less of a score because I use the tools provided to me by the game than someone else who really would like to immerse themselves in making it at hard as possible? To each his own, you have stated your case, I read most of it, it is well written, but I feel you find it hard to accept that most people don't feel about it the way you do.
My main reason in here is to have fun. Do these suggestions increase fun? No, not to me. I like the realism, albeit compromised for the sake of "gameplay", that we do have. Does micromanagement increase the realism? Probably, but at a cost to "fun" so it ceases to be something I would want too much of.
When I want to releive my frustrations at not being a "real" pilot I will fly my FS2002 (which has it's own compromises too), if I want to have some "different" fun, flying a combat sim, I come here.
Several in this thread have essentially stated the same thing. I am just one more trying to answer the question you asked with the title. You have my answer. I do not feel ill will towards you or your way of thinking, but please allow me to do as I would want to do too and without it costing me anything.