Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?

[ergRTC]

But that is exactly the reason to have this 'behavior modification'.  

U.S. planes are heavy, over-fueled and climb like slugs.  Currently this has no purpose.    


With the increased fuel modifier and engine management, this now becomes the advantage that it was during the war.  I think you will just have to get used to it.  You wanna fly for a few sectors or for a couple hours, you are going to have to put that drop tank on the 109g6 and you will have to keep it around for as long as possible.  Base porked?  Well, you shoulda kept that from happening.  I am sure some of their bases are porked too.

Much ado about nothing.

You do realize that everyone will be working under these conditions right?

[ergRTC]

How about this for the

I NEED MY FUN COMBAT TIME!!!!!!


I want to have my fun combat time in the 163.  I cant do that with a fuel modifier of 1 1.5 2 4 5 67l2245 24536436346

Therefore....   I want a fuel modifier of .1


Thank you very much.

[Batz]

P51s still have that advantage no matter the fuel mod, they can chose the amount of fuel they want no matter the fuel mod, they can chose what base they up from to ensure they have the proper alt etc... This is already built into the game.

Read Tilt's reply, he only flies a couple of planes in AH. How long do think folks will hang around if they cant fly the planes they like?

The fuel problems in AH1 have lead to players leaving and at least 1 (posted on the game play feedback forum) deciding not to subscribe.

The main isn’t realism, it’s about fun.  8 min more fuel in a 109e or la7 or yak9u doesn’t affect the p51s one bit...

It does however mean something to guy flying those other planes. Or else have an arena full of p51s and p38s and nothing else....

The base porking has already been addressed, your whines late on that.  I suspect as more people like Tilt discover they aren’t able to enjoy the planes they want they will voice there opinions as well.

Engine management wasn’t an "advantage" in the war nor will it be in the AH main. In the main it will just mean less diversity.

Right now the only planes that have to worry about "engine management” are those have had their flight times reduced by some arbitrary multiplier. It wasn’t real for p51s to run all out across Europe any more then it was for 109s or yaks. You want selective realism because it’s beneficial to the planes you fly. If you wanted realism then you would want a fuel mod of 1 and planes like the p51 to take off in the rear.

FYI the 163 isn’t affected by the fuel mod, it has longer ranger then the la7 does now.

[ergRTC]

Dude, you have entered crazy land I am afraid.


If you kick your throttle up to mil and see you have 24 minutes of that kind of flying how are you going to behave?  I was just up playing around with a mossie, and even with that fuel tank with wings, at mil and 50% fuel I had 22 minutes of wep flying (ignoring the cut off due to over heat).  With cruise settings I still only had something like 50 minutes of flight.  

I would not take a mossie into combat with 75% of my fuel remaining and hope to survive.  Therefore, if I am hitting a close base, I will be under the same disadvantage as the 109 intercepting me.

I think we all just need to wait and see how it all works out.  Luckily, you will be forced to do that, while I can enjoy just watching you run out of gas.  


ha ha.

[ergRTC]

"Engine management wasn’t an "advantage" in the war nor will it be in the AH main. In the main it will just mean less diversity. "



What was Lindbergh asked to come and help in the pacific for?  Why was the zero such a threat.  Why didnt the luftwaffe stick it to the brits on day 2 of the BOB.  

Why did the allies lose so many UNESCORTED bombers over germany?







crazy talk man.

[Batz]

You are full of it; the Mossie has 71 min of flight time at mil power 100% fuel.

At 50% it has 36 min. It also has 2 100 gallon dts.

Your problem is you can’t separate your "choices" from things that are being "forced" on others.

You decide how long you want to fly by the amount of fuel you want. You decided how heavy you want to be when you get to a fight.  You chose 50% fuel and a close base because you claim you can’t fight any heavier. That's all on you the player.

If you only take 25% in p51 you only get 13 min of fuel but that doesn’t prove anything. The p51 isn’t limited to 13 min of total flight time. To claim, "well when I fly my p51 with 25% fuel I have less time in the air then your yak with 100% so it all evens out” is utter BS and the argument of some who hasn’t a clue.

The yaks, la7 and the like have their range arbitrarily decided by a random fuel multiplier. That’s completely separate from the choices you made.

Your mossie can run at full power "all day and night" (your words) and according to you that’s "gamey" oh wait its only gamey for other planes and players but not you...

[ergRTC]

You are failing to look at it from a view that is a little obvious.

The planes you love to fly have climb rates that are nearly ufo.  THey accelerate like a cannon shell.  WHy?  Did you ever stop to ask yourself why a 109g10 performs so much better than a f4u1 in these aspects??????  


What is happening now, is that the performance you love to have is going to cost you time in the air and you cant seem to accept that.  If I choose CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE to drive a 1968 mustang, I also CHOOSE to have crap for MPG.  Why cant you accept that there is a trade off for having performance in an airplane?  It is childish to expect otherwise.

[Batz]

I don't fly a g10. However, the climb rate of the g10 is offset if you take off deeper back and give yourself enough time to get to alt. No one makes you take off at a frontline field and no one makes you fly to the nearest enemy base to fight. No one says they will set the climb rate multiplier to 2 so it takes you 15 min to get to 15k and I can get there in 7.
 
The G10s fuel consumption during climb is penalized by the fuel multiplier. No matter what the fuel mod setting is it still takes XXX time for the g10 to get to alt. With the fuel mod at 2 it burns 2 x as much gas to get there.

I don’t care how an F4u-1 performs or mossie or spit or p51... It’s irrelevant to the discussion. Nothing about adjusting the fuel mod changes performance, all it does is arbitrarily limit the time in the air of certain planes. Any other issue you try to wrap around this makes no difference if the fuel mod is 2 or 1.5.

At 2 the g10 still climbs better and will always have less fuel weight.  Adjusting the fuel mod changes none of that.

I am waiting for you to make 1 solid point, so far you are bouncing from accusations of gameyness to claiming you have to fly planes from close fields. Keep throwing **** on the wall and hope it sticks....?

Your whole argument at the beginning was, "It’s gamey to fly around at mil power".  What you really meant was it is gamey for everyone else but you.

Weren't you the one claiming that I just wanted to fly around day and night at mil power and never have to re-fuel?

As I pointed out and if you believe that then do the math and see what planes do what at various fuel mods. Any fuel multiple you pick it’s your favorite planes that will be the  "gamey ones" (your words) and "running around day and night at full power".

Adjusting the mod so the 109e has an extra 8 min of fuel will have no effect on how a mossie or p51 is flown....

[ergRTC]

Weren't you the one claiming that I just wanted to fly around day and night at mil power and never have to re-fuel?


Yes I was and am.
Otherwise you would not be complaining about something so trivial.  

Thing is if its that extra 8 minutes that keeps you from flying as stated above, that is exactly why I dont think you should get it.



If you still cant find a point, here it is plane and simple:

Planes that had short legs should feel like they have short legs.

a)it keeps pilots flying the planes the way they were historically.

b)it produces a real advantage/use for the bloated U.S. gas tanks with wings that previously were only penalized for having a big tank.  



Remember, If you are going for a  50 mile jaunt in the mustang, nobody in there right mind is going to take more than 50% fuel.  Now that mustang and the 109 are on equal footing for time in the air (or close to it).  This is ignoring drop tanks, which was discussed earlier.

[Batz]

8 min doesn’t negate the fact that the 109e pilot will have to cruise to and from battle at a lower power setting.

Regardless of the fuel mod your planes will be at "full power day and night". Not only are you "gamey" but a hypocrite as well. Your gamey hypocrisy is not trivial; it gets to the heart of the matter.

Planes with short legs still have short legs regardless of the fuel mod. Even at 1 the 109e would only have 53 min at mil power. The p51, Mossie etc will still out range it by far...

That doesn’t change with the fuel mod. Don’t tell me "well if I take off at a close field then I will have more fuel and less altitude at the merge", because you can take off a base or 2 back, burn off some fuel and be at alt at the merge. The US planes will only be "bloated" if you choose to engage while "bloated".

51s will still take less fuel no matter what the fuel mod and they will still fly around at mil power “all day and night”. It doesn’t matter if the fuel mod is 2 or 1.5.

You have yet to make any real point.

[GScholz]

Like I said, I prefer more than 5 minutes of combat per flight. The ironic thing is that this 2x fuel mod, while reducing the range of short-legged fighters and relegating them to defensive missions, is also reducing the performance of long-range fighters. A long-range fighter will have to take more fuel along to effectively carry out their escort/jabo/hunting missions, while the short-legged fighters don't have that opportunity. As a result when a long-range fighter engages a short-range fighter the fuel weight/performance factor will weigh even more in favor of the short-range fighter than at 1xFBM.

[straffo]

ergRTC use the Yak in AH2.

Up a yak with 100% go to fight over a enemy base.

Next try with 75%, 50%,25% each time going OVER an enemy base.

Give us your result.

And don't forget whatever will be your loadout 25 mile IS short range.

[ergRTC]

YEs 50 and 25 would be a real issue.  Luckily, htc is limiting porkage.  

If the allied plane chooses not to be bloated, it will be running out of gas just as quick as the luftwaffe.  



If I up close, lets say a sector out, with 100 gallons in a mustang, I am going to have to ration my gas just like a 109 would.  If I up a couple bases back, I will not have to ration my gas so much, will be able to run full tilt mil.  But... that is the advantage of having a plane with a big tank.

I dont see how the historical construction of these planes is somehow supposed to be 'altered' for you.  You like planes that have small tanks.  I like them too, but I dont try to use them when I know they dont have the legs, and if I do, I guess I will be very careful with my cruise.

Straffo's point is a good one, but as I said porkage is limited now.

[Batz]

You are “altering” reality to compensate for your own inadequacy. As pointed to you 50 times at 1.5 or 2 yaks and the like are forced by game decision into non historical unrealistic shortened flight times.

You will fly from a close with enough fuel to allow you to fly around "all day and night" at full power like the gamey dweeb you accuse others to be..

Don’t sell me any BS about how you will voluntarily take less fuel so as to ration.

How about you quit lying and tell us what you really want, every one else at a non-historical unrealistic disadvantage.

Even so you what will happen is you wont  see any yaks and la7s and you will have an arena full of p51s tooling around "gaming each other".

[bozon]

ergRTC, I think the point batz and straffo are trying to make is that in FBM = 2 even with fuel management they have only a few min of combat available, for bases in 25-30 miles range.

THESE PLANES SHOULD BE LIMITED. they are unperked super preformers that sucrificed endurance for this. BUT since this is a game, you do want to allow some more leverage. FBM = 2 is right on the edge of playability for these planes with no DT (109Gx can manage fine with DT. I tried it). I hate the over use of La7 and this is the only way to limit them using their only TRUE limitation.

So, FBM should not be over 2. Also, it should be over 1 to make their pilots think before they slam their throttles and go skyrocketing. And limit they use to short ranges ("short" is also a function of map design). The more I fly in the beta areana the more I think 1.5 is the reasonable setting.

Bozon