Fuel multiplier suggestion.

[GRUNHERZ]

I understand that the 2X multiplier is intended to emphasize the differences between short and long range fighters in our horizontally compressed maps - this makes sense.  

However, seeing as the maps are not vertically compressed it does seem that shorter ranged planes are cheated somewhat because of the high fuel burn during climb.

My suggestion is to implement a variable fuel burn rate; 2X  for normal flight conditions  but changed to a 1.5X or 1.75X burn rate when you are in a full throttle/full RPM  autoclimb (with or without WEP).  

Again the lower burn rate would unly be engaged when 2 conditions are met, full throttle/RPM and autopilot climb. I think that could prevent abuses of the 2X multiplier's intent while fairly adressing the vertical compression issue.

This could also help bombers as they spend great periods of time climbing, and I have heard that there are some concerns about fuel running out on long range missions.

Thoughts?

[Overlag]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
This could also help bombers as they spend great periods of time climbing, and I have heard that there are some concerns about fuel running out on long range missions.

Thoughts?

errr all bombers now have more range thanks to the burn rate at high alt....

if people botherd climbing them above 200 feet they'd find out that the FBR isnt THAT bad afterall......

if the FBR goes down to 1.5 or even less, then the fields will need to have porking re-allowed.......

[Karnak]

GRUNHERZ,

The only reason some people are complaining about bomber fuel range is that they have to take more than 25% to do a long mission now.

After I saw that post I took a B-17G with full fuel to test it out.  After climbing to 20,000ft and setting cruise settings I could have flown all the way across the 256x256 map, bombed, and then flown all the way home the other direction.


The verticle noncompression issue is only an issue for short ranged aircraft.  I do agree that it is a problem for them.

[Furious]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
...Again the lower burn rate would unly be engaged when 2 conditions are met, full throttle/RPM and autopilot climb. I think that could prevent abuses of the 2X multiplier's intent while fairly adressing the vertical compression issue...

.speed 350

[Overlag]

Originally posted by Karnak
GRUNHERZ,

The only reason some people are complaining about bomber fuel range is that they have to take more than 25% to do a long mission now.
 

i dont....i take the same fuel as always, infact some planes like the Ki67, lancs and the AR234s i can take LESS fuel  now

the trick is to get the planes upto there best alt......

19k for lancs,
21k for ar234s
20k for ki67s
15k for b26s
30k (HAHA no way) for b17s