a fuel proposal (simple)

[straffo]

A thought first :

The annoying fact for me is not the fuel mult wich can stay as is
 even if it can be discussed at vitam eternam look at this thread for more information.

If it stay as is it's not a problem but more a context I've to manage like others.



The really annoying part is the correlation between field fuel level and fuel loadout.

I'll introduce another mecanim than the one  used currently:

- If you want to have DT you have to take 100% internal fuel

- The field fuel percentage will represent now in my proposal a quantifiable amount of fuel availlable
 at field and is not linked to the loadout you want.

Example (real values are to be determined)
125% = 500 Gallon
100% = 400 Gallon
75% = 300 Gallon
etc ...

- The hangar fuel percentage will represent a percentage of the amount availlable. It represent how much fuel you want in your plane.

Examples (real values are to be determined)
Field is at 125% (500 Gallon)
100% loadout
-If your plane is a long range fighter you got 400 g
-If your plane is a short range fighter you got 300 g
Because you can't put more in your plane (obvious no ? )
50% loadout
- long range fighter you got 200 g
- short range fighter you got 150 g

Field is at 75% (300 Gallon)
100% loadout
- long range fighter you got 300 g and only 300
- short range fighter you still got 300 g

50% loadout
- long range fighter you got 300 g
- short range fighter you got 150 g

Field is at 25% (100 Gallon)
100% loadout
- long range fighter you got 100 g
- short range fighter you got 100 g

50% loadout
- If your plane is a long range fighter you got 100 g
- short range fighter you got 100 g


Now there is the problem of the bomber they need a huge amout of fuel the only solution
I see is to have different fuel reserves for fighter an bomber.
It make sense we already have different hangar for bomber and fighter.

If this is implemented I don't see the need to forbid fuel porking

Critics anyone ?

[Tilt]

As you see you end up with differing code for different fighters........you then end up with different code for bombers.

Basically the top end availability needs to be approx 3000 gals and the bottom end availability (under attrition) somewhere between 50 and 100 gals.

With the adventof  E6b the code now knows the fuel capacities of each plane in gallons this is accessable within the code.

HTC would be reluctant to change the GUI in the hanger.......but they dont have to.

One example of an attrition to fuel availability model is below.

One way could be to have a mix of fuel supply types

Silo = 10 fuel units (big circular thing we see in towns now)

Tank = 5 fuel units (the old fuel cell or one of the cylinders we see now)

Drum = 1 fuel unit (the old small fuel drum.....very difficult to see)


Large fields 60 fuel units ( 2 silos, 4 tanks, 20 Drums)

Medium fields 40 fuel units (1 Silos, 3 tanks, 15 Drums)

Small fields 20 fuel units (2 tanks, 10 drums)

Every field has a theoretically indestructable drum.......... (or maybe 2!)

Each fuel unit makes 50 gals available to a ride loading fuel.

Infact the fuel/unit setting would be an arena setting adjust able to set the best balance of porkage based upon typical arena activity or game play (main or events etc)

You will see that to get a simple "unit = #gals available" balance the total fule staires per field are very large..........but hey that makes the job of porkers harder!!!! whilst not making it impossible.

You will also see (under the above) that porkage hits big buffs way before it hits fuel efficient fighters.............but then why would big buffs be using front line fields???

The disadvanatge of this proposal is that the object count per field is increased...... I do not think its one HTC could not over come. The FR hit due to increased objects is reduced by using drums that are virtually not visible until within a few hundred feet. Plus they would be scattered (near hangers, refuel points etc) probably in small groups of 2 or 3. Drums would not have flames they would simply dissappear when destroyed (again to reduce FR hits)

Re the GUI.........

We could still select 25/50/75/100% plus DT's as we do now. It would now be limited by the actual fuel units available.

An example........

Arena setting of 1 unit = 50 gals

Attrition has left 5 fuel units on the field. (250 gals)

We have a P51 .

When we try to load 100% (269 gals) we are advised (via the same pop up window we have now) that only 250 gals are available.......we can still take the 250 gals and our tanks are filled as they would be if we had taken 269 and used 19.

When we try to load 75% then as per now approx 202 gals are loaded.


Along come s a Typhoon

He can load 100% internal fuel (185 gals) but he cannot take both full drop tanks as well (44 gals each).

If HTC `decides that DT's must always be filled then the typhoon must reduce its internal capacity accordingly.

This would be more simple to code as selecting a DT would cause the fuel available for internals to be reduced always by a fixed amount equal to the capacity of the DT chosen.

Along comes a B17

He is in real trouble he cannot even load 25% of his maximum capacity. Infact he cannot even load 10% but he still has enough fuel to fly 2 sectors.


But going back to the proposal severe attrition has taken place for this to bite...........

In each case considerably more enemy activity has had to occurr and yet every ac is assured 1 or 2 fuel units per load out even when all fuel units are attritted.

[straffo]

Hello Tilt !

I don't want to sound rude or harsh but don't you thing it will be better to start another thread to discuss your idea?
Even if they share common principles

I'm affraid the reader will make confusions between the 2 proposal and end discussing a mix of our proposal

[ergRTC]

I dont see any problem with the bombers being independent of the fighter supply.  Personally I would love to see the bombers running on the same fuel supply.  Nothing more ridiculus than lancasters taking off from a field 25 miles from the enemy base.  

I know this will be unacceptable to the quakers... I mean people that like the current game play in the MA though.  

for the fighters:
100% = 100% of the planes capacity
75%= 200? gallons
50%= 100 gallons
25%= 50 gallons

Since pyro mentioned porkage will be limited to 75% Really only the top two matter.  This wont really affect short hop attacks, but nobobdy will be upping to attack a few sectors out from a base near the line.

[Slobberdonkey]

I prefer the percentage method for fuel availability.   Directed gallon amounts wouldn't be fair or effective as a means of porking fuel either.

Case in point...

An La-7 holds 122 gallons of fuel at full internal capacity.  At full military power it burns it as a suspiciously low rate but that's an issue for another discussion.  Under one of the proposals above at maximum fuel porkage possible, 100 gallons would be available.  This would hardly put a dent in the La-7 leaving it with 82% of it's total fuel load.

At the same time a P-47-D30 can carry 370 gallons of internal fuel and another 375 gallons externally.  At 125% the proposed 500 gallons would leave it over 200 gallons short of full fuel load.  At maximum fuel porkage with 100 gallons it would be in pretty much the same sorry state is in now in the MA with 25% gas.

An even nastier thought...

An Me-262 holds 769 gallons of internal fuel.  At max fuel available you wouldn't be able to take off with a full internal load.  At minimum it would barely get off the runway before the engines would flameout.


The point is by not distrubuting fuel as a percentage of total capacity you screw over larger gas guzzler planes while leaving a lot of the lightweight planes unmolested.

[ergRTC]

That is exactly the point though.  

All of the popular planes are gas guzzlers, currently a p51 is going to get an advantage at a porked base.  If you put 100 g in a p51 and 100g in a 109 I bet they go about the same distance.  Course it will be nice and light compared to normal flight.

If you upped from a 25% base in a 109 you would have 25 gallons.  Enough for like 5 minutes of flight (pulling the numbers out of the air here).

[straffo]

So you want the 51 to continue to have advantage at long AND short range ?

My favorite plane is screwed by the current implementation but it doesn't annoy you I guess.

I try to find a FAIR system but as it will ruin your advantage you don't want it ?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I still don't see why one plane or type of plane should have available a greater percentage of fuel load than any other plane or type of plane.

Combat radius is a fixed part of the design parameters of every plane. It is a major part of the characteristics of each plane. Planes perform the way they do because of the weight they carry and the power their engines make. Weight is affected by fuel capacity as part of the design. Fuel consumption is affected by power level as part of the design. Overall performance, disregarding aerodynamic design, is greatly affected by power to weight ratio, and that is just part of it. If your plane has a great power to weight ratio and the attending high performance because the designer used a powerful thirsty engine and a small fuel capacity, then that's life. It means you can haul prettythang and kickprettythang for a little while.

Something you conveniently ignore is that planes that have more fuel capacity are larger and heavier, even without the large fuel load. The gas tank itself is inside the plane, it still weighs the same whther it is full or empty. It still takes up as much space in the plane, making the rest of the plane larger and heavier. So it remains a performance factor whether it has fuel in it or not. Size and weight is drag.

The fuselage of a P-51 has to be the size it is because it has a fuel tank in it. The wing of a P-38 is thick because it has a big fuel tank in it. These are things that affect drag, lift, stall speed, and turn radius, regardless of how much fuel is actually in there. These are just TWO examples.

The planes you want to give more range to have less range
BECAUSE  they have less weight, less drag, and less size. Giving them more range IS an unfair advantage, because they pay NO penalty for it in weight, drag, size, or any other design parameter. Only the fuel weight is changed and it is not nearly the percentage of weight that would be there if it had greater fuel capacity.

You would have everyone believe that what you want only makes your plane able to fly further and fight longer, but does not give it an advantage, nor does it truly negate an advantage or a disadvantage, but that simply is not true.

If HTC makes changes just so people who want to fly hot rods with great performance and short range can fly longer because they want to, it's going to be real sad. If the settings for all of the planes are the same, then that's as level as the field gets. There's no need for artificially leveling the field to negate the disadvantage of certain planes. The plane you fly is up to you. You choose it on the basis of getting the best balance of performance you can find to suit your flying style and preferences. Live with it. I hope HTC chooses NOT to artificialy level the field.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[straffo]

No I' WON'T leave this .

I suported this stupidity long enought.

so I'll scream now as no one want to answer nor understand


Why for  $14.95 per month I've 35 gallon  in my Yak when  the P51 fans can have 64  ?  

I don't pay enought ?

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts

Something you conveniently ignore is that planes that have more fuel capacity are larger and heavier, even without the large fuel load. The gas tank itself is inside the plane, it still weighs the same whther it is full or empty. It still takes up as much space in the plane, making the rest of the plane larger and heavier. So it remains a performance factor whether it has fuel in it or not. Size and weight is drag.

This is not always true............ 25% fuel in a P51 gives it far more fuel and endurance than 25% in a yak.

You could argue that the measure should be endurance and neither % fuel or actual fuel.........

but % is an unreal attrition model ....... if fuel is scarce then its logical that its actual fuel that is "rationed".

to set the logic look at the extreme .......a base has been bombed down to 25% fuel   so we give all the B17's that want to fly from it 700 gallons but restrict the Lavochkins to 30 gals per flight.

The B17 can fly across 10 sectors and back ............the Lavochkin only 1.

Many actual fuel attrition models do  not really penalise any fighters .

What it penalises is heavy bombers and even then the actual fuel available has to be below 700 gals to effect even the biggest gas guzzling bomber. This when for full tanks the fuel available for a B17 must be circa 2800 gals!!

So really (as we have learnt with the FBM saga in the beta arena) the devil is in the detail.


Straffo's model tries to penalise heavy fighters differently to lighter fighters.......he then goes on to say that bombers would have to be treated differently again.....hence this approach actually ends up with multiple models targetting one plane type or another.... this "detail" I disagree with.

In fact it ends up IMO being far from simple both in the ability to understand and the inconsistancy of application.

Even so my view is very much in support of an actual fuel  instead of a % fuel criteria. In this respect I am in total accord with straffo.

I also believe that fuel is both a valid target and its attrition should carry "consequences" however its much too easy to reduce fuel at fields at the moment. I have long believed that fuel stores should be numerous, scattered and at various points very difficult to actually see. But this is more detail.......

[Slobberdonkey]

Originally posted by straffo

Why for  $14.95 per month I've 35 gallon  in my Yak when  the P51 fans can have 64  ?  

And yet your Yak will outturn, outclimb, and nearly match the speed of the p51 with near triple the ENY?  So what was your point?

Restricting fuel as anything other than a percentage just screws over the heavy planes more and makes the MA even more of a 1944 monster plane furballer paradise.  Under that policy anything with an R-2800 would be hosed.  It's not like anyone ups a heavy fighter other than the p51 from a 25% fuel field anyway.  It's typically all lalas, spits, nikis and hurris already anyway.

[straffo]

So the only other way to have a correct fuel loadout is to make the yak perform bad so you will be happy in your 51 ?

Your a joke or what ?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Tilt
This is not always true............ 25% fuel in a P51 gives it far more fuel and endurance than 25% in a yak.

You could argue that the measure should be endurance and neither % fuel or actual fuel.........

but % is an unreal attrition model ....... if fuel is scarce then its logical that its actual fuel that is "rationed".

to set the logic look at the extreme .......a base has been bombed down to 25% fuel   so we give all the B17's that want to fly from it 700 gallons but restrict the Lavochkins to 30 gals per flight.

The B17 can fly across 10 sectors and back ............the Lavochkin only 1.

Many actual fuel attrition models do  not really penalise any fighters .

What it penalises is heavy bombers and even then the actual fuel available has to be below 700 gals to effect even the biggest gas guzzling bomber. This when for full tanks the fuel available for a B17 must be circa 2800 gals!!

So really (as we have learnt with the FBM saga in the beta arena) the devil is in the detail.


Straffo's model tries to penalise heavy fighters differently to lighter fighters.......he then goes on to say that bombers would have to be treated differently again.....hence this approach actually ends up with multiple models targetting one plane type or another.... this "detail" I disagree with.

In fact it ends up IMO being far from simple both in the ability to understand and the inconsistancy of application.

Even so my view is very much in support of an actual fuel  instead of a % fuel criteria. In this respect I am in total accord with straffo.

I also believe that fuel is both a valid target and its attrition should carry "consequences" however its much too easy to reduce fuel at fields at the moment. I have long believed that fuel stores should be numerous, scattered and at various points very difficult to actually see. But this is more detail.......

Evidently you did not understand the part of my post you quoted.

Planes that carry large quantities of fuel have to carry it SOMEWHERE ON THE PLANE. Therefore, planes with a large fuel capacity pay a penalty in performance BECAUSE they are capable of carrying more fuel, whether they have full tanks or not. This is a point that cannot be refuted. Planes that carry more fuel for long range are bigger. They have more drag and more weight simply because there is space designed into the plane to put fuel in. Even if that space is not occupied by fuel, the weight and drag of the added area to store fuel affects performance in a negative manner. As such, allowing planes not designed to carry large amounts of fuel to have some sort of artificial range enhancement is wrong, and is not an equitable solution.

If you meant to pick another part of my post to argue, please do so, I'm interested in hearing a new arguement.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by straffo
No I' WON'T leave this .

I suported this stupidity long enought.

so I'll scream now as no one want to answer nor understand


Why for  $14.95 per month I've 35 gallon  in my Yak when  the P51 fans can have 64  ?  

I don't pay enought ?

Screaming won't get your point across better or make your arguement valid.

If 35 gallons of gas in your Yak is the same percentage of fuel capacity as 64 gallons is in a P-51, then that is why you get half the gas.

You're getting an answer, and you are understood. It's just that you aren't getting the answer you WANT. And screaming won't get it for you.

It has nothing to do with how much you pay, and everything to do with the reality of how the plane you want to fly was designed.

Too bad you're losing it. It isn't helping a thing.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Evidently you did not understand the part of my post you quoted.

Planes that carry large quantities of fuel have to carry it SOMEWHERE ON THE PLANE. Therefore, planes with a large fuel capacity pay a penalty in performance BECAUSE they are capable of carrying more fuel, whether they have full tanks or not. This is a point that cannot be refuted.  

No its this part....... I dont dispute that of course a P51 with only a small amount of fuel is also carrying a big tank desgned for more fuel.......... and its fuselage is bigger too......... its a long range escort fighter.

And they do carry a penalty because they have these big tanks etc.......so they should................because so they did.

Your observation is correct and its consequences should be applied IMO............. if you are in an ac which requires more fuel then IMO it should be more effected by fuel attrition than those that do not!  

Its a simple concept.......... If you drive a Lincoln Continental and fuel is rationed it will hit you harder than it will hit me in my BMW Mini. Even if your Continental has huge tanks so it can drive further between gas stations. You will be limited to the same  number of gals per week as I am and I will be able to drive more and further than you. Because I own a fuel efficient car.

I also agree that "artificial" range enhancement is incorrect........

My mini cannot be "magic'ed' into doing more miles per gallon...its stuck with its performance criteria........... its range cannot be artificially enhanced............. its just actually better at mpg than the continental.

Yet under % fuel the Continental can apparantly have more fuel than the Mini....infact the bigger its tank the more it can have!

Under actual fuel its the fuel supply that decides how much fuel and not the size of the tank that some gas guzzler may have in its bowls.............