Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Zigrat on January 11, 2001, 06:44:00 PM
-
how about instead of regulating how much time is spend in wep or at a certain power level model heat buildup from different power settings
even full military power wasnt always used, now we run at 100% military just cruisin around, i dont think the real engines did this?
lets get rid of artificial time limits on wep and model heat buildup, if you push your engine too far it gets damage and will eventually break down.
no i didnt say random engine failures, simply that instead of time limits on wep let the heat be the limiting factor (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
what u think? yes or no
-
I vote for a full realistic engine management. Or at least something that requires a bit more of thinking than to pull that throttle up or down, and hitting a key to engage WEP.
And of course I want koommandogerat in the 190 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Count me in too!
EYE
-
yes
-
Yes.... but I ain't holding my breath.
------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?
-
Aye, agreed. How they would implement it, I don't know, but that is a biggy. Maybe a sound effect that warns of impending damage or the like.
Actually, this brings up a good point.
I think there should be "Realism Settings" selectable just like in most boxed sims, prior to your flight, and you are scored and displayed in the clipboard accordingly.
Ex.- Hard Realism mode = NO combat trim selectable period, NO auto take off, and a engine that can't be left at 100% without ill effects, etc...
There could be a color small icon on the clipboard next to your callsign showing what mode you fly. Then if you kill someone who is in combat trim easy mode you get "X" amount more points for it.
Its fair, and a incentive to get more people involved in the flight model which is quite alot of fun, while in fact leaving the easier accessable options to the new guys, or old timers that prefer a easier setup.
It certainly would get some of the "experts" to trade in their hoopty twisty sticks and start manually trimming their planes (ram) which adds alot of difficulty to the sim. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I vote yes.
Also - Creamo brings up a great point. Now that we have a perk system - we could use THAT as a balancing factor between realsitic and non-realistic settings.
-
I wont bite, creamo (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I trim manually my 190 almost always.
The 109...is another thing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) but I dont fly 109 any longer (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
I vote no, it's simply not needed.
Mav
-
I agree on one point only. Heat, not time, should be the deciding factor on how long you can run the engine with WEP. Last I checked, my 109-F4 doesn't have a time limit on WEP. Just a heat limit; I run it too long and WEP cuts out. Wow, real punishment there. I'd prefer to blow a glycol line if I left it running than just having it cut out. Give you a real reason to watch that engine temp gauge.
As for the rest? Forget it. I'm interested in what I posted, nothing more. No sim, game, or cheap arcade has EVER modeled aircraft engines realistically. Not MSFS, X-plane, or any other. We can pull 54" of MAN in the F6F, normal max power was 52.5" for five minutes. No one will model engine management to this degree. Especially HTC since this sim is already complicated enough for new guys.
-----------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/custom1.jpg)
-
Sounds fun to me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I hate to mention a MS game but there was one little nifty feature on CFSII ... two starting modes, manual (turn fuel on, select tank, mixture full rich, cowl flaps open, mags on, hit starter switch) or ez mode...press E and bang it's done for ya.
It takes maybe 10 seconds to do a manual start.
Btw I like the idea of the bonus for not using CT and Auto-takeoff...I've never used them anyway though.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
all for it .....bring it all on
RWY
-
Didnt ACES OF THE PACIFIC have engine overheat?
-
Agreed, personally I want full engine management that is mandatory! This flying around at full power with no mixture adjusting is kinda rediculous and in no way simulates actual combat conditions! I never understood why they don't include this. The FM's are finally getting somewhere these days as far as realism goes, but that's where it's ending as well. You wan't maximum performance out of your a/c, you need to manage your engine, just like the 'real' pilots had to....
ts
-
geez, yet another book to read if that comes in (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I vote put it in, but leave ano Option open!
-
YES!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Pepe
-
AGREED FULL ENGINE MANAGEMENT!
------------------
Glasses---I may have 4 eyes ,but you only have one wing.
(http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/glasses.htm)
-
This reminds me of a time whilst flying in W/B with 249 RAF, a certin Czech pilots through to many high G moves and his engine packed in!!!, no there was no cons, we were alone about 8 planes in formation and this pilot was rolling and climbing and diving in & outa our formation area.
Marcof
-
European Air War modeled engine over heat.
I agree we should see a power loss from overheating if the throttle is left wide open too long.
Aside from the imersion factor, climbing to nosebleed alts will take much longer, so that should cure the Lanc at 35k syndrome.
Weave
-
Again to many varables. I wouldn't mind cowl flaps and fuel mixtures but thats also 2 things more I have to map to my rig.
I vote no.
-
I would like some more complication. Eng over heat for instance.
For those who keep saying it's a game and should be just for fun so you 'diss' the folks who want more realism? Well, you already have AW and FA as choices if all you want is fun and no realism. And they're $10/mo to boot.
-Westy
-
I say "Yes" for overheating engines, and an even larger "YES!" for some more detailed engine damage models. I'll finally know I'm in Flight-sim heaven when I take a round or two in the engine, and have to nurse a sputtering, missing, smoking engine back to base, while trying to see through the oil spray on my windshield.
-
I vote yes to engine overheating. However, I don't know what the result of overheating should be. Reduced power? Total engine failure? Harsh words from the crew chief?
-
pop.... the result was shortened time to overhaul. At the least, planes that had used their water injection were checked out pretty thorougly after a mission. All the Pratt powered planes would run the water tank dry without damage in allmost every case. Some Pratts ran full power for 20 min after the oil pressure had been lost. Sorties flown in the Pacific sometimes were so close to enemy bases that the planes were left at full military power for the entire time.
Sure, add it but it would be a non factor. 20-30 minutes at full military power and 10 min wep should be ok under most conditions.
lazs
-
As a guy who used to fly in RL, I would love to see more attention given to these areas. The idea of configuring the game to suit you preference is a fine thing as well....will HT do this? Who knows...perhaps if we continue to present it in a positive way, he might give it some consideration.
What strikes me is that they are currently so busy working on other aspects of the game and most likely don't have time.
Maybe someday (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ice
-
I'll bet you could generally run almost all of these engines for ONE sortie at max power indefinitely, until the WEP or nitrous tank ran dry, and NOT significantly "damage" the engine to where it would degrade performance.
(There may have been some engines that couldn't handle "overboost" or "overrev" or whatever, but I haven't seen any accounts of this).
What probably WOULD happen is that the engine would be "thrashed" or "wear out" sooner, i.e. it might fail on a LATER sortie thanks to the abuse YOU gave it earlier. But that failure might happen at cruise power, not when you went to WEP.
IMO the penalty for disregarding the flight manual engine restrictions was decreased engine life, not imminent failure. How do you model that? Can't do it without opening the "random engine failure" can of worms.
Say you normally have a 5% chance of an engine malfunction (as opposed to 0% now). For any given sortie, you have, say, 10 minutes of WEP, and 10 minutes of military power available (different for each plane). Every minute you spend at mil/WEP beyond that goes into your "engine life factor" for the NEXT sortie and modifies the 5% malfunction probability upward. Fly around in mil/WEP for 5 straight sorties, maybe you have a 50% chance of an engine failure on the next one.
Probably pretty complex to program tho...
As for full engine management of prop and mixture controls, what purpose would it serve within the context of the sim? In RL, you're really talking about the difference between "optimum range" and "optimum power" when you start tweaking the RPM and mixture settings. In the sim, you're pretty much always looking just for optimum power (which is EASY to set up in a real plane) and you don't have much need for optimum range because of the arena size and availability of drop tanks. So sure, it's nice from a "realism" standpoint, but is it going to change the way you play the game enough to justify programming it? I suspect almost everyone will just program a joystick button to "cruise" and another one to "fight" and that'll be all the "tweaking" they need to get the most out of "real" engine controls.
I suppose with a big enough arena, and carefully modified fuel burn settings, you could "force" folks to learn how to use the engine controls properly. Seems more suited to scenario use tho...
--jedi
-
Fuel is currently set at a modifier to simulate what would be "realistic" in real life(tm), so why couldn't engines have that same sort of modifier. So while it's true that a big radial in real life could survive abuse for hours, maybe it would only survive that abuse for minutes in AH time.
-
if an engine is run at excesively high temps beyond its limits it will begin to experience detonation (uneven fuel burn. a sort of explosion when fuel ignited by the spark plug) and also the more severe and the more catestrauphic effects of preignition where fuel burns before ignited by the spark plugs. the engine cylinder gets slammed down with jackhammer force as the crankshaft pushes it up causing severe engine damage and most likely engine failure.
both result in loss of power and possible engine failure.
-
An "engine overheat modifier" for time would mean that any engine hit/damage would also have to be thus modified. With any kind of "usefull" full power engine overheat modifier this would mean that any engine damage would cause allmost instant failure in AH... Or do you just want to pick and choose your "modifier" failures?
Course ther is that test where they ran an "overclocked" P47 turbo motor on a static test for some ungawdly number of hrs at more than full power and never did trash it. Pratt used a full power static test of 3 hrs as standard testing I believe.
lazs
-
Hehe, so, "realistically," SOME engines could run for hours at full power, with or without oil in them, while others would "spit the dummy" if you looked at them cross-eyed, and they even THOUGHT you might be considering deviating from the "book" restrictions.
Good luck getting THAT kind of system put into the sim (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) And any system that treats ALL engines the same in terms of durability will be just as unrealistic as allowing unlimited full power.
So, "realism," or just "more difficult?" You don't necessarily get both at the same time on this issue.
-
Sounds like what we have is pretty close to what we're wishing for: let the engine overheat, and pay a penalty...no WEP (until it cools). The only difference is the engine power and duration required to make it overheat. I suppose the NORMAL power settings could be programmed in and made "unlimited", and the MIL power could be made to eventually overheat. Not sure it'd be worth the development effort.
As others have pointed out, trying to model the "real" effects of overheating would be a gigantic can-o-worms.
-
I would only like to see that if the pilot runs his engine at 100% all the time his engine will go into the redline and begin to take damage/lose rpm's/degrade and if it overheats to the max, EXPLODE. *grin*
No need for complicated stuff.
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/pyro/milpower.jpg)
Now if we can just find out what happens if you go swimming after eating without waiting 20 minutes.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
How about better support for the Flightsim Yoke USB? More on that below.
The ultimate in EM realism would be nice, but I'd settle for a rudimentary mixture control with the associated power & CHT effects. i.e. leaning to peak power will result in higher CHT, running too rich reduces MP, running too lean and you the cyliders stop firing. I know some of these planes had an auto-rich feature, that could be supported as well.
I would REALLY like something far more simple - support for the second and third levers on my CH Flightsim Yoke USB. I want to be able to map the prop speed to the second lever (and mixture to the third, if ever available) so that I can fiddle with power settings more realistically, without the keyboard. Right now I have multi-engine throttles mapped to the levers (#1 to 1, #2&3 to 2, #4 to 3) but I'd rather have the ability to control the prop with the extra levers. I actually do try to use realistic cruise power settings (reuced MP and RPM) when possible, especially when I have to take off from a field with 25% fuel!!
BTW very interesting reading, HT. Can you post things like that more often?
BB
-
Well. That kind of changed my mind.
OH WAIT!!
Does anyone else see the How to fly and fight in the F-15 Eagle on the bottom of Pyro's scan!!! ????
j/k and ..just being a dink... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-Westy
-
Pyro,
I'm pretty sure all that information is wrong.
Standby and I'll get Ram to give his opinion and then you can correct your post to agree with him.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Seriously folks....aren't you amazed at how often perceptions are WRONG?
Aren't you happy that HTC does their homework?
These guys know some stuff. Relax and let them work.
-
Not sure what that all means except the obvious Toad.
If you take metal and heat it up (full power 5 minutes) cool it down (reduced power 5 minutes) and repeat many times stressing the parts, that's worse than leaving the thing wide open. Gee, ya think so?!
Point is, your to trying to "keep the over-all time limit at takeoff power to the minimum practical" in real life applications anyway. (the scan eluding to, that it's not going to be catastrophic engine failure if you abuse it short term.) Beats the toejam out of it though. You guys wouldn't make happy co-owners in a aircraft lease. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ok, so granted, in AH, it isn't practical to to code getting extra involved in taking care of your plane, cuz there is a computer making new ones as fast as you can over stress, over heat, crash, blow up, and bail out of them. You never really are assigned to one aircraft that you have to fly over and over. They are all equal, with no individual idiosyncrasies, and fresh off the assembly line so to speak. (anyone that flys or fixes planes, know all about the "hanger queens" and how planes seem to have characteristics all their own, no matter that they are all of the same make and model)
So in fact, engine damage modelling in AH I don't think is necessary after all, due to the accumulative effect of the wear and tear isn't "practical" to model. Agreed.
However, I still think it's valid to model at least in the simplest stages, mixture control, and any other engine management HTC could feasibly do. But that's a new thread.
[This message has been edited by Creamo (edited 01-12-2001).]
-
Good idea!!
The perk system could certainly help here! The more controls for the engine the better. Even more complex things like mixture, prop pitch, etc, might be neat. All of us non-pilots certainly would learn something! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
<S>IC
-
Somehow I get the feeling that very few were scrupulously observing full throttle time limits "in the interests of prolonging engine life" in the middle of a life or death engagement.
I'd suggest they used throttle as necessary, for as long as necessary, in the interests of prolonging pilot life. Why, I bet they even had occurences of "shock cooling" also.
As Pyro pointed out, the engines were pretty tough and could take it, given that they were operating normally.
Now, civilian aviation with no government ready and eager to supply a brand new engine and also install it for you? Totally different story, I agree. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
In the VVS the only two settings for throttle was '0' and 'the whole enchilada'. When the front(and action) was only 70km away from your airfield, conserving fuel was a low priority.
-
Originally posted by RAM:
I vote for a full realistic engine management. Or at least something that requires a bit more of thinking than to pull that throttle up or down, and hitting a key to engage WEP.
And of course I want koommandogerat in the 190 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
As always, Toad, Creamo, your try to do jokes on me and try to let me down, only achieve one thing: to let only your head out of the toejam you are swimming on, all day long.
REad that quote and tell me where I talk about overheating, couple of dorks. Your attacks are getting quite old, yahknow?.
Oh, and BTW, I am SURE and completely AFFIRMATIVE that in WWII when the temperature gauges reached the danger level, the engine auto-put itself back on the safety zone. What a couple of utterly losers you are.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
I asked Colonel Goebels at one of the WB's Cons weather they flew their Mustangs at lower power levels when Escorting the B17 formations to Germany. He said hell no! They had to keep their speed up if the Germans showed up so they flew full out in crisscross patterns to stay over the buffs. Well there it is right outta the mouth of a RL pilot from WWII
LLB OUT!!!!!!!!!
-
Well, Ram, I'm not the one that has to fly in the MA under an alias. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
You've made yourself infamous; no one did it to you. If you end up as the punchline in jokes simply because you are the very epitome of the non-stop complainer you have only yourself to blame.
Have a nice day!
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-13-2001).]
-
Count me in on the engine management side. Like the idea <G>