Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: -lynx- on November 22, 1999, 11:37:00 AM
-
OK, I know that this poor animal has already been beaten into pulp but:
Let's talk about a feature that really (no offence BugJam) needs to be corrected: the dreaded fuel multiplier.
La-5FN is a very capable fighter - even with me at the controls I managed a 3 kill sortie once only to run out of fuel, to be forced to ditch and to be killed by HT (!!! of all people) before I could stop plane/exit.
The effect of the fuel multiplier on this plane is not even funny: it was a frontline fighter with limited (compare to American planes) range of *gulp* 400 miles - more than 3 hour endurance!!! - in AH you better head for home after 15 minutes. It's not fair, not right and must be made against the law...
I couldn't care less if P51 could stay in the air 10 times longer - there's no cross-ocean escorts in AH. Let's even up the playing field a bit - give us range and I'll kill that Pony even if she has half-empty tanks to my full.
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
-
I agree,
The La5 needs more range, time in the air.
IE the fuel multiplier needs adjustments.
delta
-
What power setting are you at? There's a BIG difference between Takeoff, Climb, Cruise Climb, Cruise....
For instance, an R-1820-86 will burn somewhere around 120-130 GPH at just under Max Rated Takeoff Power (probably 150 or so with those last two Inches of MAP). Reign it in to cruise power, and you're burning a relatively miserly 65 gph the first hour, down to 45 gph about the time you need to get more fuel.
The point being, I know pretty much everyone in AH (myself included) climbs at full power, and often cruises at full power. The real fix to your problem would be a more advanced engine management system. If you had the ability to manage the engine such that the fuel flow were to significantly decrease (as it should if you manage it correctly), the problem would solve itself.
blk (AT)
-
-lynx-
Thanks BTW, for not saying this poor animal was a "Cow" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
My opinion on the fuel burn rate muliplier --> I like it!
Are you saying that you just want the fuel burn rate multiplier to be fudged for your favorite plane(s) to make it(them) compete better?
-OR-
Are you saying that the fuel rate burn multilplier for your favorite plane(s) is FUBAR and needs to be re-done?
-OR-
Are you saying that would like to change the current fuel rate multiplier for all planes? The P-51 would then become an Extreme UberPlane, flying for a very long time on 25% fuel.
This Beta Arena is VASTLY smaller than anything in the real world. IMO, if you want to have real world fuel burn rates, then you have to be prepared to fly (simulatedly) for hours, just to reach the action.
Flying through empty simulated airspace for hours would not be fun. I prefer dogfighting. (95% boredom - 5% terror)
For myself, I can compare fuel burn rates to eating grapefruit, which can be really sour at times. I eat my grapefruit before I eat anything else and I have gotten used to not putting sugar on it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 11-22-1999).]
-
or we could end the entire debate by DISABLING the fuel mulitplier for ALL planes but FORCING all pilots to use MAX available fuel... its not your plane, after all its the crew chief's responsibility and he'll probably fill her up despite the pilot's whining about "lack of maneuverability"...
we just flyem, the Govt owns em... FULL fuel means more endurance=longer patrols, more effective combat vehicle, bigger chance of bringing the bird home.
-
It's a Beta,
People need to try out all a/c, including the La5. The La5 (and to a lesser extent the 109) is the only plane that is noticable by its absence in the beta arean.
So why is this? Speed, firepower, or endurance? Could it be one of the above, all of the above or none of the above?
The primary reason I don't try the La5 is endurance and to a lesser degree, firepower.
While AH is in beta, the fuel multiplier for the La5 should be relaxed. Right now, the rpm setting does nothing (as far as I can tell) to engine management. Until that and other features of total engine mamagement (like rpm effects and engine temp gauge) are implemented, give the La5 a chance to compete.
BTW, just what are the acceptable, correct cruise settings for all aircraft?
delta
-
lynx,
I know how difficult it is, but one can fly the La-5FN quite a ways, even with such limited fuel capacity.
I've found that even up as high as 25k, the Lavochkin can be flown from as low as 45% manifold. Once you've gotten the alt you need, set it down to that amount. It should help quite a bit. It can get you from say F21 to F8 to F4, and then back again. Combat time is limited, but I've scored kills on such sorties.
I actually like the limitedness of fuel in AH, because it makes everyone worry about fuel management. This was a real concern in WWII, and resulted in a fair amount of attention for missions, etc. In WB, the fuel modifier is so relaxed that a fighter even as short-ranged as the Bf 109 can afford to take only 60-80% fuel and have comfortable range and flight time.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-24-1999).]
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-24-1999).]
-
Funny, I see the La5 all over. I fly it too. When do you fly, Delta?
For me it is limited as a buff killer, but other than that it kicks butt. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I'd have to disagree on setting the fuel rate to 1:1. By increasing the rate, endurance of the real aircraft actually comes into play.
Air combat is all about playing to the strenghts of your aircraft. If limited fuel was a problem, like in the 109, spit, and la5, well then, TOO BAD! Fly something else if it's that bad. It was said that the 109's over Britian only had around 10 minutes to loiter before having to rtb. If you want that climb rate be prepared to pay for it! If your so jealous of the P51's range why not fly one?
It seems whenever people compare aircraft for one of these online sims, the one thing that is always left out is range. It's just not a factor in Brand W/AW. It's no different from turn rate or top speed.
I can picture it now.... Next they'll be asking for 190's that turn like spits because it's "unfair"! geez....
-
The fuel burn rate multiplier is simply put - boring. Who has the time to use ( not just spray! ) all ammo in a Spitfire or Fw 190, before you run out of 100% internal fuel and the DT w/o option to RTB? I know I don't, can't comment on other planes because I haven't flown them more than few sorties, unless it's a totally safe 0ft vulching event at some field.
The current 2.5 ( ? ) multiplier is totally arbituary, who says the concern the pilots feel over fuel endurance is _correct_ compared to WWII? After all it would be nice if all things were modeled accurately and not fudged. People above threw arguments like Bf 109's in BoB and such. What about Eastern Front, where La-5FNs operated, did the pilots have more than N minutes of time over combat area? Or how about LW in the 44/45 period that our plane set is depicting. How many passes, leave out escort fighters of the equation, could a Fw 190 make at a bomber stream with its fuel ammount and how many can you do in AH?
On a hypothetical sortie you take off and enter a fight almost immediately, say those vulching 8th AAF P-51s jumped your JG's field as your JG was headed for the bombers so you head back to field and find them there. In AH you will only have 40% of the time you are supposed to have to try and down them before you will run out of fuel and become dead for sure.
//fats
-
I still think the key in in engine management. As it sits, I climb the pony 200 KIAS, 55 InHg and am usually down to about 1/2 of the drop tanks left. That doesn't seem wholly unlikely to me. That leaves me with enough fuel to move great distances (read: corner to corner, and back). And that's at a relatively high cruise power setting (45 InHg). If I throttle back to 38-40 InHg, I bet I could do it three times before getting below 1/4 in each wing tank (letting the computer manage it). And that's still moving around at a decent 300 KTAS with the tanks, up to about 325 when I drop them.
Note that this is all with drop tanks. If I only take internal fuel, and climb at full power (which I'll do if I'm only going over the mountains to find low --25K bombers), I'm down to 1/2 on the aux tank byt eh time I get to 25K. That's a HUGE fuel burn.
Now, I know we're talking about the La-5 here (since the stang has more than enough gas for most people in AH), but I'd bet that you could make it work just fine. In fact, I'll try flying the La-5 only tonight and see what I come up with...
blk (AT)
-
Fats;
Not sure that I really got your point.
Did you mean that pilots often, after scoring numerous kills, were forced to RTB because they were out of fuel and not ammo?
In essence, they had to RTB because their ammo load was too large for their fuel capacity?
This raises one issue, I had not thought of before. Some players want more fuel (time per sortie) for the purpose of extending their streaks. Not sure how I missed that altogether. Duh! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Why not just come out and say it?
Us "Dweebs" -OR- "MinoTaurgets" have it tough enough as it is, so it makes no difference to me what the Whooyah Fuel Multiplier is. I feel lucky to get 1 kill per 2-3 sorties. Although; I might think too myself "This argument holds very little water".
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 11-22-1999).]
-
I don't like fuel consumption multipliers. If you want to limit how much fuel is available at the airfield, that is fine. But the bogus inflated fuel flow rates are silly.
Maybe there is some benfit I'm not realizing?
-
I am pretty sure that some issues about simulated reality are well excepted, like 3 to 9 kill sorties on a regular basis. Other issues are not well excepted, like high value fuel burn rate multipliers
Comparitivly speaking "I Dweebish Minotaurish Rubbish, have more kills in AH than any Allied Ace of WW2 flying real planes with real fuel comsumption rates". (BIG pat on the back, BABY! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) This is not as bad as it might seem considering that I am blacked out for about half the time in my dogfights.
Some players have more kills than all the German Aces combined(or so it seems). Since AH went Beta, more kills than the top German Ace flying in 5+ years of war. (Historians please feel free to "Flame On")
I am unbelievably still missing somthing here?
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 11-22-1999).]
-
--- Minotaur: ---
Did you mean that pilots often, after scoring numerous kills, were forced to RTB because they were out of fuel and not ammo?
--- end ---
The first paragraph or so was about what I experience in AH, I run out of fuel before I run out of ammunition quite often. I have more ditches than landings on my score - I don't get to RTB that often you know.
--- Minotaur: ---
This raises one issue, I had not thought of before. Some players want more fuel (time per sortie) for the purpose of extending their streaks. Not sure how I missed that altogether.
Why not just come out and say it?
--- end ---
Hmm, I thought I did say it. I want more fuel to be able to spend all the ammo I have loaded on the plane. It's not for the purpose of extending the streaks per se, but to get as much time of flying AH spent fighting against someone, for some people it might mean higher kill count on sorties. Personally I seem to enjoy the actual fights more than take offs and landings.
//fats
-
Hmm... Is there any way you could disable the fuel multiplyer for everyone BUT fats? The sky would be *much* safer, more people would be happy... and well, that's just damn good economics from an HTC point of view. My 2 cents... Uhm... Vote, anyone? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
to funked:
well your so called bogus inflated fuel flow rates do have some benefits: there is really NO use of having airplanes being capable of loitering around for 10-14 hours ..
IMHO you should get a range that is compatible with the arena you fly in -> e.g. pony was deep penetration escort and it can cover the whole arena in AH with a bit time left to dogfight around.
109 wan't exactly blessed with a big endurance -> in AH it can cover the forward enemy fields have a few mins left for furballing and then has to RTB due to low Fuel...
To Fats:
Too bad you're a non realistically modelled shot (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) real world folks had an average shooting of some 2-3% LOL so go SPRAY your ammo around so you can RTB earlier (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (and btw who said you can't bring some rounds back home they ain't having an expiry date)
Summary: i think the range and endurance is modelled not bad -> if you fly an interceptor (that's what the 109, Spit and LA5 were designed for) then live with the consequence that you might have to look for yer fuel -> ver realistic indeed!
SCDuckwing6
-
cc Fats;
Mino
-
Keep in mind that we haven't implemented the real fuel consumption model yet. Once that's done, you'll be able to significantly extend your range by using reduced power settings. The benefits of doing that now are not as great as they will be.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
CombatWombat:
No, I wouldn't ask for 190 with turnability of a Spit:
a. I don't fly 190s;
b. it didn't turn like a Spit
I though I put it clearly enough but hey - I can do it again:
a. La-5FN/La-7 had a combat range of ~400 miles (395-425 depending on source);
b. at cruising speed/optimal engine settings that would give at least 3 hours of endurance on full tanks;
c. apparently, multiplier is set to 2.5x, let's see: who's there managed to keep La-5 airborne for 1 hour 12 minutes? C'mon, there must be at least one? No? I rest my case...
fats: you running our of fuel before you running out of ammo in 190? I see the same happening in my La-5 (she has just 15 seconds of firing power on board btw...)
All: The argument that "The P-51 would then become an Extreme UberPlane, flying for a very long time on 25% fuel" doesn't hold any water simply because Pony did not carry a super-economical DOHC mulipoint fuel injection lean-burn engine, it was powered by the same (almost) power plant as the Spitfire!!! It just had bigger tanks.
A few weeks ago I asked if it made any sense to put, say, 50/100/200 gallons of fuel in a plane rather than 25/50/100%. "No" was the answer... There you have it as a result - a "super" Pony (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Restrict fuel availability on forward fields to XXX gallons per plane, reduce it to next to nothing on a field with fuel storage destroyed (or limit it to YYY gallons every, say, 5 minutes), increase it on others and the gameplay problem is solved: you want your 190 to hover in the air for hours? Come up from a back field and enjoy yourself. You want to suppress opposition of a field under attack? Destroy fuel dump and you won't see that pesky La-5 resurrecting every 5 seconds...
It is realism we are after here, right?
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
-
A real pilot worries about having enough fuel before entering combat. The online sim pilot has been worrying about having too much fuel before entering combat.
Range and endurance are very important characteristics of planes. Without increased consumption, any plane can range anywhere they please thus negating any advantages or disadvantages that the real plane had in that regard.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
-lynx-
My apologies, I was not attempting to become inflamatory. (At least not in my post directly responding to yours (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) My style is rather abrasive, I'm working on that.
Minotuar Quote: This Beta Arena is VASTLY smaller than anything in the real world. IMO, if you want to have real world fuel burn rates, then you have to be prepared to fly (simulatedly) for hours, just to reach the action. :End Quote
That Quote is my take on realism regarding fuel burn rates.
Point defense is another matter, the quote describes patrol or attacking aircraft. Point defense fighters generally had short legs. Their function was fast interception, I believe. Get up there fast, shoot fast, and then get home fast.
I have no clue as to which catagory the LA-5 falls under. I suspect it had relatively shorter legs than other fighters of the era by the way it is modeled in AH.
LA-5 drop tanks would be nice for AH, that must be proven with realistic evidence.
Good Luck, with your ideas! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mino
-
--- Duckwing6: ---
Too bad you're a non realistically modelled shot real world folks had an average shooting of some 2-3% LOL so go SPRAY your ammo around so you can RTB earlier
--- end ---
Actually I have a very poor gunnery%, under 8.5% at the moment I believe. People shooting at 16% and so on, must have tons of ammo left if they flew 190.
--- Lynx: ---
fats: you running our of fuel before you running out of ammo in 190? I see the same happening in my La-5 (she has just 15 seconds of firing power on board btw...)
--- end ---
Prior to 190's release I flew only Spitfire Mk.IX and constantly run out of fuel before ammo, even if I fought the first two or three engagements with the DT on and 100% internal fuel.
--- Lynx: ---
A few weeks ago I asked if it made any sense to put, say, 50/100/200 gallons of fuel in a plane rather than 25/50/100%.
--- end ---
Yeah that is _very_ silly. You give P-51 4 billion gallons with just 25%, but 109 can't take 100% cause it would ammount to a whopping 8 gallons. Oh yeah those are accurate numnbers BTW, they have been checked, re-checked and then checked again from various sources.
//fats
-
Pyro said it correctly......I hate having a full load of fuel when entering a dogfight. Seems to me if your going to protect buffs your going to need extra fuel. But if your just looking for a fight you can pick how far you want to fly out and back before running out of fuel. Now if you had Allied command telling you where and when you "are" going to fly, THAT'S the real difference of cyber flying and real combat flying. I for one like the way "fuel managment" is setup in Aces High. Makes it interesting.....
Butchawk
-
Minotuar Quote: "This Beta Arena is VASTLY smaller than anything in the real world. IMO, if you want to have real world fuel burn rates, then you have to be prepared to fly (simulatedly) for hours, just to reach the action. :End Quote
That Quote is my take on realism regarding fuel burn rates."
I think this is quite a popular misconception. Size of the arena does not actually matter. The distances we fly are "real", ie it's still takes 5 minutes to fly across a 25 miles grid box at 300 TAS, right? It's the fields that are closer than they would have been in a real life (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
-
I agree with the present implementation of fuel in AH. As Pyro has stated it forces sim pilots to deal with the type of factors real pilots were concerned about in WWII: namely, having enough fuel. The fuel consumption presently in AH may be accelerated, may even be very accelerated, but it presents the very real concern of having enough fuel for a sortie. In Brand W, such a concern was rather rare, and in most instances it was more a worry of having too much fuel (again, as Pyro has stated). In AH, unless you fly a N1K2 or P-51D, you'll probably be very tempted to add a drop tank, much less take off with less than 100% internal capacity!
I fly a La-5FN, the shortest ranged plane in the bunch (unless the C.205 is even shorter), but I have no qualms about its range, because it forces me to keep the experience real. Still, I am capable of climbing to 25k, patrol to two fields away, bag a kill (maybe two), then return safely to my original field.
On thing that used to irk me about Brand W was that fuel was never a premium there, except in the Historical Arena. People were always flying around with only 35% fuel, something that would have never occurred in RL, if it could be helped.
You have to ask yourself, what am I looking for in a game? Absolute, empirical measurements that when combined with present restrictions of player base, technology and reality, result in an experience that sadly misses? Or relative adjustments to empirical measurements for the sake of said limitations, so that the overall experience culminates into a surprisingly real feel for WWII air combat.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-24-1999).]
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-24-1999).]
-
Hey, if I can get the same kill/sortie ratio in the La5 that Leonid has, I'm happy! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Fuel is fine. Maybe we do have 5 Gazillion P-51's ranging about (and we'll soon have to deal with 5 Gazillion F4U's), but at least they are using a tactical advantage. You only have to deal with the Spitfires once you get relatively close to enemy territory (and who really wants to see 5 Gazillion Spitfires? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
At most, the multiplier may need to be tweaked slightly, but they are pretty close for my tastes.
-
I noticed that fats had a question concerning ranges to combat on the Russian front. Well, hows about 50 miles grab ya? Yup, 50 miles from forward airfield to the front. Maybe a 100 miles to the enemy's airfield. Ranges were so short on the Russian front that VVS pilots customarily fly at full throttle the entire time, something generally unheard of in any other theater. And if I remember correctly, a La-7 at full throttle has a range of around 150 miles, if that. But limit its flying to no further than 50 miles, and you actually have a fair amount of time to fly around - at full throttle. So, you see VVS fighters had no need for range, and therefore generally had no real range to speak of.
Does the La-5FN seem extremely short-ranged? Yes, and that's because it was.
And one last thing. The La-5FN was not a point defense fighter, it was an air superiority fighter. Heck, they even did fighter sweeps, called 'free hunts'. Yet another indication of just how close-ranged aerial combat was on the Russian front.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 11-24-1999).]
-
-lynx-;
-lynx- Quote -----
I think this is quite a popular misconception. Size of the arena does not actually matter. The distances we fly are "real", ie it's still takes 5 minutes to fly across a 25 miles grid box at 300 TAS, right? It's the fields that are closer than they would have been in a real life. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
----- End Quote
I totally missed your point. What misconception?
I do understand that the Beta Arena bases are much closer to each other than those of WW2.
Lets say bases in WW2 were 75 miles behind the FLOT. Beta Arena bases are about 25 miles apart. My logic would imply that Beta Arena bases are about 12.5 miles behind the FLOT. The ratio of 75 / 12.5 is 5. The Simulated Airspace of the the Beta Arena would be at least 5 times smaller than any Real Wartime Arena.
THEREFORE; too simulate REALITY you should burn fuel at 5 times the rate of a real world aiplane. Could that mean that AH planes should fly 5 times slower and that could be the real issue here?
I might say that in AH, 25 miles represents 125 miles. I might also say I have no clue as to the actual size ratio between the real world and AH simulated world, but it seems reasonable to me.
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 11-24-1999).]
-
Leonid;
I have been searching, but no luck.
Any evidence LA-5/LA-7 used drop tanks?
Mino
-
It's obvious that both the La-5 and the 205 suffer greatly in comparision to other aircraft (especially since neither plane seems to have utilized drop tanks). I'm all for realism in the flight models, damage and gunnery models...but "fuel realism" is going to be subjective in a sim regardless of how you do it.
The proof is in the fact that these planes didn't utilize drop tanks. It wasn't required to fufill there missions or they'd have them available. Since this is an artificial application of real world aircraft some flexibility in range should be allowed for short legged craft (outside of historical scenario's ..maybe) to accurately simulate their real world applications.
hmble
-
Minotaur,
Sorry, but no large-scale production Soviet aircraft used drop tanks during WWII.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA