Author Topic: Poll: improved engine modeling (Read 2149 times)

jedi · « **Reply #30 on:** January 12, 2001, 02:18:00 PM »

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

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.

popeye · « **Reply #31 on:** January 12, 2001, 02:35:00 PM »

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.

Tac · « **Reply #32 on:** January 12, 2001, 03:15:00 PM »

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.

Pyro · « **Reply #33 on:** January 12, 2001, 03:22:00 PM »

Now if we can just find out what happens if you go swimming after eating without waiting 20 minutes.

------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

BigBen · « **Reply #34 on:** January 12, 2001, 03:40:00 PM »

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

Westy · « **Reply #35 on:** January 12, 2001, 04:01:00 PM »

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...

-Westy

Toad · « **Reply #36 on:** January 12, 2001, 04:27:00 PM »

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.

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.

Creamo · « **Reply #37 on:** January 12, 2001, 08:45:00 PM »

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.

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).]

iculus · « **Reply #38 on:** January 12, 2001, 09:14:00 PM »

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!

<S>IC

Toad · « **Reply #39 on:** January 12, 2001, 09:58:00 PM »

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.

leonid · « **Reply #40 on:** January 13, 2001, 07:38:00 AM »

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.

RAM · « **Reply #41 on:** January 13, 2001, 07:59:00 AM »

Quote

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

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.

llbm_MOL · « **Reply #42 on:** January 13, 2001, 09:15:00 AM »

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!!!!!!!!!

Toad · « **Reply #43 on:** January 13, 2001, 04:43:00 PM »

Well, Ram, I'm not the one that has to fly in the MA under an alias.

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).]

Hajo · « **Reply #44 on:** January 13, 2001, 04:56:00 PM »

Count me in on the engine management side. Like the idea <G>