Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Jinx on July 27, 1999, 06:17:00 AM
-
I have said this before but I guess I can say it again, I would love to have the option of advanced engine management; mixture, pitch, cooling, switching blowers and so on. What I would like to see is a system that reward the correct use off advanced systems like engine-controls but punish me if I mess up.
Make the automatic systems not quite perfect, let them play it safe, if you manually push things to the limit you can get a bit more performance out of it, but risk blowing it. If you don’t want to mess with it, just leave it on auto.
You could for example get much better mileage cruising, by leaning the mixture and lowering RPM at relatively high manifold pressure.
I know Pyro said there will be no advanced engine management, I just want to push for it anyway <G>
-Jinx
-
Might be fun to add some of that stuff to bombers. It would give the bomber guys something to do while climbing out.
popeye
-
I'm all for it. I think it's time for a sim that's a revolution. . .not just evolution. WB was really a big step for it's time. Anything that will help AH stand out will be welcomed with open arms. Just look at ProPilot, or MSFlightSimulator. Those titles are flying off the shelf because they're emersive sims that require all the details of real civilian flight. Write AH with that fidelity and I'll bet people will flock to you.
(http://www.concentric.net/~grzero/P47FlyBy.gif)
------------------
Vicious aka -vics-
-
I agree. I don't think people are afraid of detail, look at Falcon 4. I remember reading posts for 1 month people exchanging tips on just how to land the bloody thing hehehehe, nevermind the MFD's ! I think to date they have sold over 200,000 copies.
PS, now that argo's board is down I've been reading this one more often and it's almost the same (except no animals) it's basically another "I wish" board hehehehehe fun stuff.
-
Seems to me that at the least motors should get too hot running wide open for long periods of time etc.
6gun
-
Agreed,
The more in-depth the better. That ain't gonna happen this time, but there is a real desire for that kind of authintic sim. MSFS or Flight Unlimited with guns. Maybe someday.
------------------
Cya up...Brazos
-
I couldn't agree more with you all.. I'm an immersive nut and like it to be more "system management" than just yank and bank but we have to remember that for every pro, there is a con and the entry level player (the one that pays the bills for HTC will need a way to have that done for him.. And, once you do that, flying with the other settings might become a disadvantage for the rest who have the "reality" cranked up.
It would be a GREAT way to make the game stand apart from the "other" game..and a Historical arena where the settings required engine management with all the other details they have mentioned would be a dream come true.
-
cc jagr. The idea I liked was the the fellow who posted ez mode where that detail could be handled automatically, perhaps a 5% speed reduction to provide an incentive to fly in ace mode (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Katz..
I dont agree,i think easy mode should not be enabled in any of the main arenas.If there is to be an easy mode it should have a seperate arena all together.If the newbies need time to get used to the FM then they can go to an arena where all fly easy mode.
------------------
** Death From Behind **
Wardog 32nd Panthers
--wd--
-
pyro said full engine controls are not planned for AH, but I want them. It seems everyone is for it, please listen to the players pyro!
-
That's a good idea wardog.
-
I have to disagree, I think that the goal must be to naturally progress from newbee to master in the same arena to avoid creating a distinct easy mode crowd. Having everyone in one arena but giving the new guy the help he needs to get in the air and have fun must be the trick. The hard part is making the help optional but not an advantage for the advanced player, graduating to the next level should be more or less automatic. I think the WB AoA limiter in dweeb mode is a good example.
-Jinx
-
thinking about this more, it seems ludicrous to leave out engine controls from a "flight simulator." Even MSCS has dynamic engine controls, what a pity AH won't.
-
It seems everyone is for it, please listen to the players pyro!
I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I believe that the "silent" majority far outweighs the 5 or 6 people that continuously ask for these "advanced engine management" features.
Guys, guys, guys.... Don't take this personally, but...
Take a step back. And try to look at this from the perspective of the "average" pilot in WWII flightsims. The guy who gets to fly maybe one night a week for 3-5 hours.Each and Every one of us have been flying online flightsims for many years and are looking at it from the perspective of thousands of hours of sim-experience. Try for just a few minutes to look back to when you started.
Right now the learning curve is already overwhelming in a game of the complexity of Warbirds (assuming AH will be of a similar nature or even more detailed). Not only do you have to learn the basics of flight, ACM, and SA. You have to learn advanced gunnery, trimming controls, and Plane vs. Plane tactics. And then spend hundreds to thousands of hours learning how to do these things "right" in just a single aircraft type.
Its a real b*tch to learn all these things, and not end up being depressed because your continuously being shot down, and end up quiting. Its my understanding that very few players make it thru the learning curve and stick with the game.
Now you want to make it that much harder? Sure you can make "auto-management" the easy mode with a penalty, and give peopel in "ace-mode" the advantage (like these people don't already have a huge advantage over the average players).
Would this make it fair? Nope, I don't think so. It would be just like "easy mode" in Warbirds. A dead end path that ends up hampering the player more that it ever helps them.
Sure Falcon 4.0 and other advanced single player sims have features like these. But in these games your typically flying against relatively "stupid" computer generated AI, not hard core steely eyed frothing at the mouth, millions of hours of sim-combat experienced human beings. Not even close to being the same thing. Remember how real life Combat pilots look at our community and comment on the fact that even the LEAST of our average pilots have hundreds of times the combat experience that real pilots had? Face it, the pilot quality in our sims are excellent.
And now you want to make it that much harder on new guys (that or add a penalty to them)? I'm sorry but I have to totally disagree.
Me? <shrugs> I have flown AW since AW4W, when it originally came on AOL and WB's since version 0.9X in the last couple of weeks of beta. So I figure I can learn it without too much difficulty, but would I enjoy it? No, I have enough to think about already when I'm flying.
Games like this can only thrive and grow on the strength of its new players. And if you drive most of them off with an extreme learning curve, well there goes the life blood of your game.
Just my opinon. I know you disagre (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) and I respect that, but try to look at it from the "average" players perspective.
------------------
Vermillion **MOL**
"Shooting is NEVER too good for my enemys" --Evil Overlord
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 07-28-1999).]
-
I agree 100% with most of you here.
I also think that if the game was to have more complex engine management, or more realistic navigation etc. that people will spend a lot more time offline, just training and having fun *initially*. Then when online, the time will be much more interesting and rewarding.
I dont *know* this, but it seems that it is no problem getting new people playing. the problem is that old guys are getting bored and quitting (or taking longer and longer leaves more and more frequently). If the learning curve is steeper (longer is a more correct word), than i believe a lot of people will stay for a whole lot longer simply because there are so many things to perfect.
Just my opinion.
Bod
A few things i forgot initially:
People are different, some play for score, some for strikes, some play just for fun, some are dead serious and most are a little bit of everything...
Say, if there were 3 settings: easy, normal and advanced. A score multiplier would be applyied for the score (1x. 2x, 4x for instance) for the score mongers.
For the strike collector it would say: X in easy, Y in advanced ...
For the rest ? what difference does it make whatever mode he flies in? none what so ever, except to himself. This way the learning curve will be looong, but nice and relatively easy to climb.
Bod
[This message has been edited by bod (edited 07-28-1999).]
-
I dunno know, but I love the advanced controls as an option. Shoot when I started warbirds about a year and a half ago, I got shot down all the time. However, after my first sortie, I was hooked. (I like challenges). Anyhow, but we need some whay to attract a few players. One of my friends I play H2H alot but when i tried to convince to sign up for the beta when it comes out he said he wouldn't cause he is afraid to get shot down (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
ccasey
-
vermillion, I don't think a sim like AH is about attracting people who can't work a mixture and prop pitch control. 18 year olds flew the airplanes we're modelling, and the controls were obviously much more complex, it doesn't take a lot of effort to learn. Leaving out engine controls is like leaving out flaps or landing gear. "we don't want to have to worry about xxxx!" Since flaps don't actively make that much of a difference in stick and rudder combat (in most aircraft), shall we leave them out?
We want important aircraft systems modelled, that includes flaps and engine controls, both are important aircraft systems. Neither one make that much of a difference for just flying around, but it's not an airplane without 'em.
-
I have to agree with Vermillion. Your average newbie will want to make a difference in the virtual world, not his virtual engine. The moment you make a WW2 sim as difficult as F4, you've strayed from the path of profitablility for the creators and the amount of fun for what ... 70-75% of the players (a guess and a generous one at that).
I'm not the best pilot in WB and never will be. I don't have the time. After a 10-12 hour day at work, then whatever things I have to get done in my personal life, I'm lucky to log in twice a week and then only for 2 or 3 hours at a time. Do you honestly think that I (or the newbie players that AH wants and needs) want to spend my time learning the intricacies of properly maintaining and operating my engine? Or would I rather spend my time learning ACM/BFM and how it is applied in the sim world? I'll take choice number 2.
People want to have a good time in games whether they're chasing demons up a corridor with a boomstick or flying a recreation of BoB with 150+ of their closest personal friends. If you want to challenge the player, do it in a way that's meaningful for the vast majority of newbies: denying the opposite side supplies because you've just bombed a train with your mates or something to that effect.
In short, create a compelling virtual world where's there's a choice beyond flying in circles shooting at people instead of wondering if you're engaging a prop pitch/fuel mix engine master in the same old loop -d- crash you've already seen a 1,000 times.
Chris -Spof- Singleton
spof@dogfighter.com
Spof's News @ Dogfighter
www.dogfighter.com (http://www.dogfighter.com)
[This message has been edited by Spof (edited 07-28-1999).]
-
Spoof, Vermillion:
I am sorry, but i dont understand the logic here. If you have different settings for how difficult or hard it is going to be, then there will be no steep learning curve. The "complex" engine management, which is not *that* complex will be only a "bonus" for those who want it. If you want "complex" or easy is only your own concern, and should have no effect on gameplay or anything, it will only make it more complex for yourself. Other people will not notice at all.
What is wrong with having the choice? After all, you will only make it more difficult (but more realistic) for yourself.
If it is made as an option, i just cant see how it would affect the overall gameplay, neiter positivie nor negative actually - If you don't want it, don't turn it on. I am convinced that a lot of people would like it, since it adds to the experience.
But of course, i am sure Pyro has his good reasons for not implementing more complex engine management (time, priority, importance etc.).
Bod
-
To what purpose do you guys want to see this level of engine management. Beyond the added immersion you may get, what are you looking for?
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Pyro,
Maybe I'm alone on this but in my opinion the added challenge is what you add. Once you know how to fly, and what planes can do this and what cannot do that, then basically it becomes a contest of who is the best shot in the best plane.. eventually you want to be challenged again. So in addition to the ACM you know, and the skills you picked up or carried over from other Sims, you'll need to maintain your engine while doing all those other things for peak performace.
In short it keeps you from easily reaching that plateau and not feeling that same level of interest anymore..
-
I would like to see more advanced engine controls just for the added immersion.
No penalties for not using it needed ,just personal satisfaction.
-
I'd like to see advanced engine controls just because... well, anything that can bring the simulated aircraft closer to the real aircraft is a plus in my book. I'm sure that increasing the attention to detail would only improve Aces High and set it apart from the pack.
That's why a lot of us go to air shows and admire these old planes so much, or why we build models of them in such intricate detail. IMO, this hobby is a lot more than just shooting and ACM.
Ivedog
The Volunteers! (http://volunteers.home.att.net/home.html)
[This message has been edited by Ivedog (edited 07-28-1999).]
-
Bod:
The logic is I think it's unfair and potentially game unbalancing to give an edge to a relatively small amount of pilots that enjoy advanced engine management. That was the tone I inferred from posts in this thread earlier to my initial response. If, as you suggest, there is no penalty for not micromanaging your engine then I have no problem with having it as an option.
Of course if micromanaging your engine has no positive flight benefits, I think the coding time could be better spent elsewhere but that's another ball of wax ;-)
------------------
Chris -Spof- Singleton
spof@dogfighter.com
Spof's News @ Dogfighter
www.dogfighter.com (http://www.dogfighter.com)
-
Hmmm....
I've read all the pros and cons posted here. The stuff about greater immersion and realism, etc. That's all well and good, and you could probably get more effiency out of your powerplant if you leaned the mixture at altitude and so forth, and so on.... BUT, when the feces hits the ventilator and you're suddenly in a furbal, who has time to monitor his EGT guage and adjust his mixture?
Nobody, that's who. You may make a few hurried adjustments when you spot the con, but once you're in, you'll make no meaningful changes until the ACM is over.
If advanced powerplant management can be added to the sim without penalty to actual release time and/or overall quality, then do it. But, for crying out loud, let's get this show on the freakin road! My mean time between discos is down to less than 15 minutes in the other place and I want OUT!
------------------
foggia
XO
457th Bomb Group (http://www.nehp.net/rcaryljr)
-
chisel made a good point that maybe i should've mentioned before. Give me the option of manifol pressure, mixture, and engine start sequence, stuff like that, and if someone wants to avoid all that let them. Don't make them suffer any penalty, I want engine controls for the sake of having engine controls! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Another point of interest, the Fw 190 had automatic prop pitch and mixture, pretty cool eh? Aircraft with fuel injection also did not have manual mixture control. I've tried MSCS and the option to have to maintain the engine with proper fuel flow and prop pitch is very cool. You're diving into the clouds after a 190 and doh! You're mixture is too lean, richen it up and the P-47 comes back to life. Made Warbirds look like an arcade game.
[This message has been edited by -ik- (edited 07-29-1999).]
-
I would like to see engine/plane management that actually adds to similation more than some of it which would be simply for immersion.
1.) Ability to lean your mixture when you are low on fuel. This could be pretty simple. For newbies, default is optimum for performance. However, you can lean it for longer time in air. Won't help you if you need to get back in combat, but might help from falling just short of your base.
2.) Ability to switch whcih fuel tanks you are drawing from, including exterior tanks. P51 was notorious for poor performance with its main tank fuel, so pilots were supposed to drain some from there before switching to drop tanks. Make it so you have to remember to switch to main tanks after dropping externals. Could cause some anxious moments.;-) Also, if one tank was hit, shouldn't cause all your gas to leak out, just that tank. Then you need to switch to your others.
3.) More realistic throttle management. If you run at 100% most of the time, your engine should heat up differently than if you cruise at 75% when you hit combat.
4.) Master arming switch for ordnance. Only reason so that if you jettison ord, doesn't go off and you are not scored as a 'miss.'
5.) Would be cool to be able to switch on what guns you want firing too, instead of a set pattern(and talking about patterns, how about setting your convergence pattern!). Don't know how realistic that would be, but would be cool.
6.) Guns should individually jam too, but maybe I should start a new Damage Modeling wish list thread.
All I can think of now, time for bed.
-
But, but.. but I still want it! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Good points of course verm, I still think there is a way to make it more in depth interesting for those who wants it, and easier for those who have no wish to go off the deep end. My goal would be to ease the learning curve, not make it steeper, just longer.
And again, the new guy in a furball should not be handicapped by using the engine controls on auto, the benefit should be in things like the on the limit escort flight to Berlin where you need every drop of gas and have nothing but holding formation to do for 45 minutes.. or maybe when you need those extra 5 mph in a tail chase.. or when you are clawing for altitude to get in position for the attack run on a bomber..
I’m talking about the extremes where no newbee will tread anyway. There is nothing you can do anyway that will make someone with 10 hours flying time compete with someone with thousands, I believe you made that point. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Pyro, what I ‘m looking for is basically more things to do in the sim outside the fighting, mainly in scenarios but also during longer flights in the main. And yes, I want a simulation with allowance made for game play, not the other way around.
I built a simple sim pod, (http://www.algonet.se/~hk/jinx/cockpit) and would love to ad an engine control panel and go through a prestart checklist, but that is probably nothing that would appeal to more then a few. I want skill to matter more on the edge, and I want to look at zeno’s film about flying the Corsair and have the option to do the same thing in the sim for pure immersion.
I don’t want to force it on someone who doesn’t want to use it, just have it as an option, for more and finer control.
-Jinx
-
--- Pyro: ---
Beyond the added immersion you may get, what are you looking for?
--- End ---
Mo' gadgets! More differences between planes, more things to consider in your tactics, more ways to be better than the other people flying.
~/fats
-
Pyro.
The immersion is what keeps me coming back to a sim. The more you can make me feel like I'm really flying, the more I come back.
I'm sorry but the "single engine control" doesn't even feel as realistic as the Fleet Cannuck I used to fly, let alone a WWII fighter.
Throttle Quadrant just stands out as arcadish amongst so many un-arcadish features. Very much a detractor for me.
------------------
"Just Plane Nuts"
Gazoo
http://plaza.v-wave.com/SolarStorm/index.htm (http://plaza.v-wave.com/SolarStorm/index.htm)
-
CC,
I was returning RTB and on final I thought,
now this landing is not a challenge and it should be (every landing should be a challenge). For advanced users we need advanced features. Engine management would be a challenge and a hindrance in combat. Thats as it should be. The more complicated the better. I guess its the old relaxed realism and advanced realism arena conundrum.
I know where I would be!
Yeager
-
"To what purpose do you guys want to see this level of engine management. Beyond the added immersion you may get, what are you looking for?"
Not much actually except for realistic operation of fixed pitch vs constant speed drives (which wont add to the complexity (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). The Spitfire started out with a fixed pitch propeller(Mk I, Ia), then it got a manually operated two-setting pitch (Ib) until it eventually got a constant speed drive. Just the transition from fixed pitch to the two-setting propeller decreased take-off distance with 30% with the same amount of HP. The problem with the two-setting propeller was that pilots forgot two set it right, and it surely was no good substitute for a real constant speed propeller. The problems with fixed pitch is low performance and overspeeding.
Not differentiating and modelling these aspects is like modelling a 262 with Merlins in my opinion.
Otherwise adjusting mixture and propeller speed settings is very much an important role of flying. Surely not much importance in low altitude furballing, but during long jabo missions or escort missions or bombing missions engine management is crucial. Without it you wont even get half the distance, at least not in RL.
Anyway, basicly i think that added immersion (also in the form of engine management) will keep a lot more people interestet for a whole lot longer. If you could turn it off when you dont want all the hazzle would of cource be great as well.
BTW, the 190 DID have adjustable pitch setting. It was a thomb actuated rotating knob on the throttle lever.
Bod
-
The reason I asked is because I don't see it adding any depth to the combat side. The biggest thing that could be done with it is with detailed modeling of fuel consumption in cruise conditions. But how much is that adding to the game and at what cost?
A further reason I'm against it is because of the cludgy interface required. For a pilot, he has all the levers right next to each other. For us we would have to require a bunch of keypresses on some obscure key to manipulate it.
Basically, if it were a no-brainer to put it in there, we'd do it. But it would be a major amount of work to try and implement halfway correctly. I've thought through the implementation of really modeling the effect(not just adding a cheezy system for show) and it makes me cringe. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) We can't justify spending that much effort on something that relatively few people would want to use, especially at this point in our development cycle.
Players love to bombard me with with bits of testimony as unrefutable proof of something. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I thought I'd put the shoe on the other foot and share this post. For those of you who read rec.aviation.military, you've probably saw it last year. It is by George Ceullers, a double ace who flew 38s and 51s. Here's an excerpt of what he had to say about throttle control in combat:
"REgarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more.
Full power all the time was wanted because maneuvering bled off so much speed and altitude. What you wanted was more power and more power. All the prop fighters were underpowered and the only way to keep them turning was to keep them descending. The more power you had available, the slower the descent and the easier the recovery."
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Yeah, thats a damn fine observation and reflective of what the average experience is in flight sims. Sight a con and go wep, staying there throughout the entire engagement.
I have a video commentary of a 38 pilot in the Pacific who was setting up final approach
with a group of 38s escorting a damaged B-24
back to its base. This guy was the flight leader and had told all the boys to power down for landing. As they were descending, a lone Ki appeared from on high out of the clouds and headed directly for the 24. The story continued about all the tasks this guy needed to accomplish to bring his (their) 38s back up to power to try and engage the Ki.
Before they could get everything powered up, the Ki made a single pass and brought the 24 down with all crew lost. It then flew away at high speed. The 38s had no hope of interception. 50 years later this guy still blamed himself for the deaths of the bomber crewman due to his relaxing, letting his guard down.
In summary:
I believe this event illustrates the real life complexity of engine management. However, I understand and have to agree on the points made by Pyro. His position makes practical sense.
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 07-29-1999).]
-
Thanx Pyro,
As long as it has been considered and thrown out on good grounds Im satisfied.
I still want it though.. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-Jinx
-
Jinks:
I also want the engine management, even though it is impractical now. Hopefully some day...
Why don't you build the appropriate levers and buttons and pretend you have the engine management! Your attention will be occupied, other players will not be affected, you will get more satisfaction, your computer will not slow down and HTC will not have to do anything. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
miko--
-
--- Miko2d: ---
Why don't you build the appropriate levers and buttons and pretend you have the engine management!
--- End ---
Kinda like asking people who don't wish to pay 2/hour to run around the room and make wrooom -noises with their arms spread out. Somehow it's just not the same as the actual game...
//fats
-
To what purpose do you guys want to see this level of engine management?
The same reason why I don't want landing gear to automatically open when I am below 500 ft, or flaps to come down at 200mph. I think "learning" to fly the plane would add a huge dimension to the simm. Pitch, rpm, and manifold pressure combinations affect performance greatly so much so that an inexperienced P51D pilot could be outperformed by an expert 109g6 pilot.
However your right, it would be a huge undertaking hehehehe. How would the plane perform course with hi rmp compared to a fine setting at high RPM, throw in the manifold pressure and you'll have one huge FM. You gotto admit though PYRO if it could be done, it would be neat (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The interface would be easy enough though, throttle for manifold pressure, 3 prop settings, and a "100" & "1000" key for RPM.
Just for an inside look at your average simmer (me). The most fun I have on Jet simms is aircraft carrier landings, not the bombing etc etc. Being configured right and nailing it is very satisfying.
Nobody, that's who. You may make a few hurried adjustments when you spot the con, but once you're in, you'll make no meaningful changes until the ACM is over.
And that is the whole bloody point of it, it will (IMO) bring greater parity among the plane types.
------------------
[This message has been edited by Kats (edited 07-30-1999).]
-
I'm a total dweeb at MSCS, i still can't get the Spitfire Mk I past 265mph on the deck in level flight. If I actually owned the game (it's at a friend's house) well then I would learn to adjust prop pitch, mixture and rpm's correctly and I'd get it closer to 300mph. Oh the possibilities.
Question: Should an understanding of engine management influence who wins a fight in a prop sim? What's your answer to this question that pretty much sums up this whole debate.
-
Pyro,
At least consider this: When using max throttle settings (including Wep), a chance of engine damage for long durations at high temperatures and lack of airflow (high angle of attack for long periods of time, could result in coolant loss, overtemps with loss of power, or complete engine siezure. Engines even today have oil viscosity problems at high temperatures for extended periods of time. Air flow through an engine contributes to aiding in cooling, without it you would burn up your engine even faster. High temperature fire warnings, or actual fires wouldn't be that unlikely either for running an engine past it's Military or Max power time ratings.
I know we have limits for a reason in aircraft we fly today. It would be nice to see some included in this great prospect of a new sim you have here.
Just another fellas 2 cents worth.
7Cav (Flight Engineer as a living)
-
Well, as long as we're not gonna have engine management, how about adding manual supercharger controls to the non-list? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Maybe I'm crazy, (Olive thinks I am), but I get a real kick out of watching the pre-flight in the WWII pilot training films. I would get a kick out of doing that same stuff in a flight sim. (Although, I admit that the interface would see a bit clunky.)
popeye
-
Not being a programmer I cannot fully appreciate the amount of work that would be involved in adding the aformentioned engine management to the sim. If I were designing it it would be there. Why? The immersion factor would be one of the biggest reasons. I too come from a group with a lot of time flying sims, and MS Flight Sim 98 is one of my favorites because of the ability to fly with engine mangagement, real navigation and other things such as that. It would keep the boredom factor WAY down on those long climbouts in a B-17, something I fly as much or more than a fighter. I also beleive it should be an option with no real penalty to those who wish not to use it. As far as using the keyboard for some of the controls, if you have a keyboard mapper in the program you can program those keys you would feel most comfortable using. In MSFS 98 it never has been an issue for me. I use a CH Force FX stick, CH Pro thottle and rudder pedals and using a combination of those and keyboard is just something I live with because of the shortcommings of a sim versus flying a real plane. If it can be done I would really like to see it and I can see it as helping to keep long time enthusiasts interested for a much longer period of time. It would keep me more interested :-). I wouldn't necessarily want it to slow down the release date of the beta test, but if that is what it took, I would be willing to wait. No one is looking forward more to this thing getting off the ground than I am, but I really would like to see it done "right" and the addition of the engine management system would be one more step in the right direction.
------------------
Mark (-mark-) Luper
Fighting Chaplain
500th Bomb Squadron, 345th Bomb Group
Rough Raiders
-
PYRO said:
(From quote)"REgarding the various comments about throttling back or up a P-38 engine to increase maneuverability I can only repeat that this was not practiced as far as I know. When I was overseas in 44 and 45, flying the J winter thru summer, the policy was to drop tanks and push up MP to 45 inches when German fighters were spotted in a position where an engagement was likely. When you actually went for them, throttle up to WEP, 60 inches or so, rpm all the way up too, up past 3000 rpm. And there it would stay until the engagement was over and you remembered to throttle back. You could easily be at WEP for 20 minutes or more.
Full power all the time was wanted because maneuvering bled off so much speed and altitude. What you wanted was more power and more power. All the prop fighters were underpowered and the only way to keep them turning was to keep them descending. The more power you had available, the slower the descent and the easier the recovery."
---------------------
I am sure that was the TYPICAL way it was done, but if you read the late Jeff Ethell's article on the flying the P-38, he relates how his father, who flew P-38's in WWII, often set an engine at 25% throttle, full throttle on the other and banked about 45deg. He claimed to use this for very tight cornering when flying against the Germans.
Also, they mention that using a similar technique, Richard Bong would actually go into turning fights with Zeros and win!
I am not sure how hard everything would be to implement, but I was thinking on the fuel mix issue as simply a sliding scale type thing which on default would be for optimum. Pulling the slider all the back to lean would go to like 90% performance and, if you wanted to get really tricky(but not neccesary needed), maybe full rich would give a 1 or 2% boost to performance, but if left there cause damage. In other words, a simple multiplier to the engine ala throttle position, just with a different scale.
The fuel tank switches would be harder, as you would have to model center of gravity. I don't know how that was modeled in WB, but I think it was rather symmetrical. I want to start a Damage Modelling thread and I will go into more detail there, but one of the things that really bug me in WB is when you get shot in the left fuel tank, but ALL your fuel drains out. It always reminds me of PAW when flying the P38 if you got your left engine hit, both would shut down. Man, that always ticked me off!
As far as weird keystrokes: who cares! I can't believe most of us don't use programmable sticks, and a newbie is gonna have a rough time without a full slate of controllers anyway, so he won't be a newbie long. Also: what about clickable cockpits?? Takes care of the problem right there!
Anyway, I think you guys need to try and make this a stand-out sim to really pull the pilots in, to have something different. I am really pulling for you guys, I know you can do it!
Bad Omen
The Royal Knights
OOOooo...~RK^ A Guerre!
-
Pyro,
How about some "simple" stuff then, like having 2 gauges on the dash. One for manifold pressure and one for actual prop rpm. Adding or decreasing throttle would affect rpm, and the plane would figure out the optimum rpm. Also, in a full power dive, have the engine overspeed itself with damage potential if the pilot doesn't pull back the throttle.
This would add engine realism effects (overspeeding) and make the player think about such things. Have WEP increase manifold pressure and rpm, etc etc.
What would we get out of more engine controls other than immersion? In the simplest words, I am looking for that tiny extra edge available to someone who is willing to spend the time learning how to manage the aircraft systems. Even a simple toggle for fine and coarse pitch would have an effect, slightly positive if the player cares to learn how to do it, slightly negative if the player wants to play airborn quake.
For example, selecting coarse pitch on takeoff would increase takeoff roll, increasing vulch-vulnerable time on the runway or making it difficult to take off with bombs or from a carrier. Selecting fine pitch in a climb would add a bit to climb rate. Selecting coarse pitch in cruise would add a few knots to top speed and maybe reduce fuel consumption. You get the drift (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Sure, add a dweebmode to engine control, and give those players performance somewhere in the middle...
If not, just the ability to overspeed the engine would be cool (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
eagl <squealing Pigs> BYA
Oink Oink To War!!!
-
We are using separate gauges for RPM and manifold pressure. What we can do that we consider worthwhile will also change as we get further down the road. Who knows what gravy features we'll do once we get all the main components are finished?
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Thx for the post Pyro.
I would settle for basic features first, then looking at more detail later. I think we could all live with that.
-
one engine management tool that would add immersion at a non-combat time is cowl flaps/oil radiator gills.
Used during taxi and climb they could simply overheat/kill the engine if not used correctly.
Fairly simple like wheels - some drag, a speed limit, and if outside sped/power envelope engine stops in X min.
Something to add a little "feel" to the startup taxi sequence - immersion starts best as you get in the plane. Help to stop "click/fly/dead/click/fly/dead" cycles.
Maybe eagle's idea about pitch, but just a simple "full fine" selection, which you must select to get sufficient power for clean takeoff, and 10% combat edge, but aircraft would work in spite of it - like the easy mode is for performance in WB.
------------------
burbank
WWII history books
http://www.senet.com.au/~mhyde/burbanks_books.htm (http://www.senet.com.au/~mhyde/burbanks_books.htm)
-
First off I respect the guys that want engine management. But I don't think they quite know what they are asking for. :-)
I happen to have a Pilots manual for a F4U-1D on my lap at present. HeHe there are over 50 buttons, dials, levers scattered all over the cockpit. Just the throttle control has 5 levers and 1 dial on it..... yeeeesh. There are 3 levers just for the cowling flaps. There are several levers for cooling flaps. There are 18 steps to go thru to just start the engine...to lengthy to list...but believe me its there. Another 8 steps for warm up procedure...hey were not even in the air yet. Now to the good stuff....there are 26 steps or procedures to carry out on roll out....yup 26! Hey were finally in the air :-) 52 steps or procedures just to get air born. Now lets say you want to dive in on a boogie....here are the steps just for a simple dive:
1.) Cabin - closed
2.) Landing gear up
3.) Dive brake control turned on
4.) Wing flaps up
5.) Set propeler at 2400 rpm
6.) Mixture - set to Auto Rich
7.) Throttle - Set just open
8.) Super charger - Set to Neutral
9.) Fuel Tank selector - Set to reserve
10.) Cowl flaps - set to closed
11.) Oil Cooler flaps - set to closed
12.) Inter cooler flaps - set to closed
13.) WATCH ENGINE RPM DO NOT EXCEED 3060rpm
Granted the first 4 were obvious & reduntant but fail to do any of the other and nasty things tended to happen.
Heck there 9 things to just to shut off the air plane....turn off engine.
I am afraid I agree 100% with Pyro one ;-) this one. Heck there is not even enough keys on my key board to cover them all much less learn what each one does. There is a fine line between fun, playability, practability, and economics. And I think Pyro has it about just perfect. Maybe a couple more functions but thats it. Like maybe what the Hog drivers used to do....they would take more fuel out of one of there wing fuel tanks than the other one to compensate for torque and would have to use less trim tabs there for plane would be a bit cleaner & faster. Yeah right Its got to end some where. I have Falcon 4.0 and it is way cool but I spent a month just learning how to take off & land proficiently, & use the proper techniques. Sorry but this would just not work in an online arena type simulation where players (customers) are needed to support it.
Just my humble opinion. Great Job Pyro!
------------------
Crispy
-
>>5.) Set propeler at 2400 rpm
6.) Mixture - set to Auto Rich
7.) Throttle - Set just open
8.) Super charger - Set to Neutral
9.) Fuel Tank selector - Set to reserve
10.) Cowl flaps - set to closed
11.) Oil Cooler flaps - set to closed
12.) Inter cooler flaps - set to closed
13.) WATCH ENGINE RPM DO NOT EXCEED 3060rpm
fail to do any of the other and nasty things tended to happen...<<
And those nasty things are the very reason good pilots would enjoy system management. Do it better than the other guy and gain an advantage. Just like flaps and fuel management now. One other reason as well. Pride. I know military, civilian and airline pilots who consider todays sims games. Someday a team will give them an authentic sim with guns, and will be rewarded with a rabid following imo. MSFS sells pretty well. Pyro's right that it would be a tuff undertaking for a start up company, but someday. BTW, great post Crispy!
-
I still want it.. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I know, Im a nut. But just separating mixture and throttle for example, would be a great step forward and fairly easy manage.. IMHO
-Jinx
-
Well...IMHO for the first few weeks if we had implimented this engine program..you wouldnt have to worry about being shot down (if you or the con could even get in the air (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) let alone every time someone dives on you..you just fly level because you know they will forget to do something and whiz right by you and splash into water or so.. being a "real-life" pilot myself... It wouldnt be hard to learn.. and it would be neat to have that feature..But everyone would be affriad to attack everyone (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) well thats just my $0.2
-eric-
P.S. Crispys post was accurate..when i started with pipers and onto cessna's there was about 17 takeoff steps you had to do..And the pre-flight check (gee wouldnt it be fun if we got to have a little guy walk around and check the fuel, gear, wings props, etc for damages?? hehe) That is too involved to have fun... as many people have said.. And I program and once they are this far to where they have a working sim..adding that would be all hell.. having to go back and change every little setting to reflect changes even *IF* the user decides to change engine mixtures..etc...
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
crispy, hehehehehe. Assume your in cruise and you see a con. You would more than likely make a few fine adjustments and attack - you will very rarely be configured for optimum use of the a/c, and that's why I want it. I believe this will bring a greater parity between a/c during combat. 1 degree/second turn advantage, or 5mph speed advantages etc. would be moot under a more realistic sytem. Sound tactics and knowing "your plane" will win the day.
PS, Falcon 4 has more than 26 buttons to operate the MFD's alone, actually about double. How do they do it? How many copies did they sell? I only speak for myself and what would interest me. I am not saying my way is the only way, only that I believe there is quite a demand for the type of simm I am talking about - just as there is for the type of simm you are talking about. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
-
Please remember that checklists like the one quoted above are something that the pilots have trained to the point that they could do half-dead. They did not have to *remember* anything of this, they did it automatically.
I am a "real life" pilot as well, but i fly only a fraction of what the WWII pilots did, still i can do the checks for incidents like fire, dead engine etc. without doing much thinking, just like all the rest of pilots.
But somehow i agree with pyro to a point, the line has to be drawen somewhere (not everyone like to memorize check lists). That is, if you have taken the decision that the same single line *has* to be common to *everyone* that play the game. I would like that each individual could draw their own lines like most other sims allow. I guess this will require a lot of work, but someday maybe? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
However, i precise model of fixed pitch/variable pitch/automatic/constant speed would have an impact also in the damage model. Fixed pitch and manual pitch adjustment speek for itself with regard to overspeeding the engine. With constant speed drives (the most common in WWII ac), several types where used, hydraulic driven by the engine oil, electric, mechanical and several different sub-designes on each. The controlling mechanism, the governor, where far from optimized by todays' standard. Also, if you dont feather a dead engine in a P38, you would be in serious trouble because of the drag from the windmilling (the same goes for all twin- and multi engined planes by the way).
In my opinion a decent engine model is an important object in a ac model, and not just an "immersion factor" (although it would add tremendiously to the immersion factor as well, especially with correct sound (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ).
I am a bit puzzled why go to such extent in detailed modelling of everything else and especially the damage model without even considering the engine and the propellers. WWII planes where afterall not some electrically powered R/C gliders, but had huge "living and breathing" engines that had to be taken care of - wether we like it or not. Operating an engine is not "micromanagement" as some try to convince us, this is how they are run period.
Sure, *once* in an ACM situation, you dont do much adjustments, but as Kats pointed out, that is the whole point. And what about long jabo runs, bombing.. Someday? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Bod
-
I'm with Pyro on this too. Such detailed steps and functions are necessary for RL pilots, but for a commercial flight sim that is asking for commercial suicide. I love flight sims as much as the next person, but I would not want to get bogged down with all this management stuff. Remember in WWII when the Brits got their first look at a Fw190 that landed accidently in England? They simply freaked when they saw that prop pitch handle that did everything for you! I'm sure RL pilots would jump at the idea of just pushing a button and viola! it's ready to go!
-
Also, F4 may have beaucoup controls used for modelling this and that, but how many people bought the sim and didn't realize what they were getting into? Oops, wasted purchase. And prolly a lot more did that whenit hit the $20 mark as well. "Well, for only $20 I'll at least take a look at it." However, the goal for AH will be to hook people and KEEP them flying. How long did (or still do) any of us fly WB? 4 years? Some longer? That's success, not selling X number of copies -- particularly if they don't generate revenue beyond the point of purchase.
------------------
TKoKFKA-OZDS-
-
He he,
Lets just say that WB really *had* the choice of managing the engines. Not everybody would use it, but i am positively sure that at least 50% would, if for no other reason than the "dweeb factor" (Who could call himself an ace when not running the plane in "realistic" mode (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ).
And now this fresh and new sim called AH hits online. Pyro tells us that he has decided that engine management is unimportant this time, and therefore this is not modelled. I just would love to see all the threads on this board about the "dumbed down and downright dweebish" engine model, and how suicidal it is not to include engine management in a modern sim (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Bod
-
Ok - here's the deal guys
Concerning cockpit controls, I have no desire to go through 26 steps for engine startup or whatever. That is of course, ludicrous. The additions I propose mainly deal with things that we could really have used playing WB's. -Crispy-, I have to say you went a little overboard describing the number of levers and handles in the Corsair. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I do agree there is alot to think about when hopping into the REAL thing. Online I don't think anyone wants to run the risk of death at the hands of some rediculous little engineering quirk. All I ask is that we include some of the basics to help (not hurt) gameplay:
Cowl flaps for example when my engine is overheated after a fight. Of course I risk supercooling but wouldn't it be nice to cool off that well WEP'ed engine a little quicker once you fine tuned the ability to do so without causing harm to your engine? When you enter the plane on the ground the flaps are already open (as they should be) so ground handling is a no brainer. Forget to close them on takeoff and, at the most, you loose some knots on the top end. No need for intercooler or oil cooling flaps in the game.
Throttle bank should offer throttle, prop pitch, and blower control. I honestly don't see how that is too much for anyone to grasp. Handling these basic systems would become a subconscious effort after three of four flights and the benefits would far outweigh their absence.
We obviously don't need an immersive technical lesson in managing the finest engineering details of our planes. What we need is the ability to perfect the handling of our machine in combat. Something that will offer benefits to the guys who put in the extra time in the arena.
Selectable fuel tanks has been a major gripe for some time mainly due to people getting fuel leaks in one tank and loosing ALL their fuel! This would be added more as a preventative measure rather than something to enhance ACM. I've heard plenty of these complaints and I dont think it would be overly technical to add. If it's too much for some to handle then add a feature that automatically switches tanks after the first is emptied. The worst they'll have to deal with is a slightly imbalanced plane. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
We SHOULD NOT add things that are meant to immediately get you in trouble if you don't acknowlege their presence - that would be problematic. We SHOULD add things that enhance the efficiency of ACM gameplay if you choose to use them. Pitch settings, cowl flaps, blower control, and selectable tanks in themselves are functions that, at most, would reduce the efficiency of gameplay for those who chose not to utilize them. OTOH for those who did use them, gameplay is enhanced and the enjoyment of a deeper immersion in their favorite combat sim could be realized.
I hope this helps put more of a solid and realistic focus on what I believe we are looking for as a whole. We can muse over the finest of details of aircraft engineering but in the end what is truly needed are the faculties for focusing the basic powers of our aircraft in combat.
Do you see the difference?
------------------
Windle
*Future Aces High VF-17 'Jolly Rogers' squadron 8X
-
My last word on the subject (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Over the years there has been a certain sense of pride of being successful in WB combat. This is derived from the perception that we are playing a sim with the best FM's, gunnery models etc etc. Eventually (soon (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)) simms will come out with a higher level of detail concerning flight and flight management that will shatter any preconceived fantasy you might of had that WB represents what it was to fly a piston driven aircraft. Once this happens, that sense of accopmplishment will dissapear, especially knowing that a "real man's" simm exists and you don't have what it takes to compete (whether it's a matter of time, or skill..whatever.)
Those who want to test themselves against the best will flock to the most accurate simm, while the casual player will be satisfied with stick and rudder. This is by no means a slam, AW is still the most popular and look how arcadish it is. AH is probably capturing a wide audience with their concept will be fun and entertaining (see WB). All I am saying is that there is another market out there that has been completely ignored and would also have an immediate audience and much longer legs.
------------------
-
Kats,
There may be a market for it, but how lucrative would it be? How much would such people be willing to pay to make up for the lower numbers?
In any case, Ideally, two sets could be made for players:
a) engine management
b) normal
All in one arena. This might, I suspect, cause some grumbling as the 'realists' realize they're getting 'busted' because the 'players' don't spent anywhere near as much time tweaking their engine in combat, subsequently spending more time paying attention to SA, gunnery, etc. Next, the 'realists' start asking for an ultra-real Arena, or just give up on engine management. Finally, the ultra-real Arena becomes so unused that it is closed, resulting in a waste of development resources. Of course, three years down the road, it starts up again. Ahh, the circle of Life...
-
Leonid, I appreciate your point of view. I am not convinced the assumption that a more complex FM would mean lower numbers is true when you are talking about the WB communty.
My line of reasoning is simple. The WB crowd scoffs at playing AW for a flat rate and is willing to pay $2.00/hour for that extra level in FM realism. That says to me that the average Wb'ers definition of fun is challenge. There is also the snob appeal, and it isn't financial. Wb'ers take pride that they can be successful in a simm that is much more demanding than the other ones, similar to an athelete whos in the NHL compared to playing in the minors. My point was that if a more challenging sim appeared, it would diminish that type of appeal to WB type simms and probably and absorb a large % of that niche market. At the very least, a WB type simm could no longer justify the premium price they now get.
------------------
-
Oh well... I fly 190 most of time. Didn't it have some sort of "brain box" and the only lever you needed to use was throttle (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Yeah bugjam..I heared that too. It was called "Kommandogerät" I think, and from what I hear it was pretty much ahead of its time.
Some versions of the 190 had an option to override the Kommandogerät though to produce more power for a short period of time.
Again...this ain t gospel..I just read it in several books/publications..can t remember which ones though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Sascha
-
Check out Tomb's post " Engine management,A Simple Solution"
He has come up with a outstanding way for us to have our cake and eat it too. Newbies never have to struggle, and good sticks get to fuel use and engine temps. It's a nmo brainer! And would give AH a realism edge over every other megaplayer sim.
-
B17 II went into alpha yesterday.
"We have modelled every switch, knob and control in the B17 in 3D and you can click/move every one. The engine start sequence is straight from the original flight instruction manual. Every switch does the right thing. The engines are modelled down to the level of turbo and supercharger performance, inlet/exhaust manifold pressures etc.
This, my friends, is the future of flight simms. Anything less will be dead in a year, or really really cheap. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
[This message has been edited by Kats (edited 08-05-1999).]
-
"We have modelled every switch, knob and control in the B17 in 3D and you can click/move every one."
This is why I think bombers should be the first (only?) to get engine management. It would give the bomber pilots something to do during climbout, and we all know they are more <cough> detail oriented than the fighter guys. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
popeye
-
It has been stated that the keyboard interface would be clunky... well maybe but if all you added was prop pitch, and mixture you only need 5 keys. Use the four arrow keys, for example, up arrow coarsens the pitch, down arrow makes the pitch finer, ad the shift, control, or alt key to any one of the above and you get full fine or coarse pitch. Use the left and right arrow keys for mixture and with either the shift, alt, or control make it go max one way or the other. Control-wise, it seems awfully simple to me and if you want... do what poppeye said, just put it on bombers :-).
------------------
Mark (-mark-) Luper
Fighting Chaplain
500th Bomb Squadron, 345th Bomb Group
Rough Raiders
-
Hell, why not have mouse clickable controls? Have the switch on the screen and click on it to switch it just like choosing a base to fly from of which plane your going to fly. Isn't that why the 'mouse' was invented decades ago? Why isn't this considered a viable option? I can think of many different controls to use with a mouse click - switching tanks, gun box & gunsight options, etc.
Beyond that, there are MANY keyboard options still available. I don't mind hitting 'Alt- or Cntl-whatever' to make things happen. I had pretty much every key function in WB down within a couple of weeks of my first sortie.
Aside from the fear that newbies might be put off by the complexity of a few more control options, I don't see too many concrete reasons why AH should dawdle around creating likenesses of yesterday's mindstate when immersion is in the forefront of 'simming's future (remember Space Invaders (http://www.thewormhole.net/UBB/wink.gif) ). There are ways to introduce new functions without it being a hindrance to the newbie. If you create the functions so that advancing players can benefit while the reluctant players can still maintain a fair to average performance level, that would be smart design IMO.
If you could find data on the drag caused by open cowl flaps, the power increase offered by each stage of blower, the COG offset caused by empty vs. full fuel cells, the efficiency ratios of variable speed props, then by all means add the stuff. If it's too complicated then make these functions 'auto functions' until the pilot alters their settings. Later he can type '.auto prop' to revert back to dumbed down pitch control, etc.
I want more options in a dogfight and the ability for HTC to do it is there. I mused over the factors of in depth engine control, gun box, gun charging, and sight options, multi-blower settings, and more long before I ever played WarBirds. Even now in this age of 'the best' fighter sims I've yet to find the ability to fight the way I'd like to fight - with the same faculties available to WWII pilots.
Lets see some options!
------------------
Windle
*Future Aces High VF-17 'Jolly Rogers' squadron 8X