Author Topic: we need to discuss fuel modifier (Read 1605 times)

Reschke · « **Reply #15 on:** June 23, 2004, 02:15:15 PM »

Not having flown at all since the release of AH2 I will wait and give you guys my opinion after I spend a few hours in the game seeing what the different throttle/rpm settings can do.

ergRTC · « **Reply #16 on:** June 23, 2004, 02:17:04 PM »

Ahhh, but you see, we CANT do most of those things. We CAN now get the fuel consumption of actual aircraft. Previously cruise, rpm, mil, wep were not modeled. Wep used as much as mil and all was odd on linear after that. Now that the fuel consumption is modeled correctly WE CAN HAVE THIS SMALL PART more realistic.

As for your complaints, I would say that most flaps autoretracted (either by sheer force of the wind or a mechanism), Lone bombers are not realistic, and like I said, the rest is stuff we cannot do yet.

Reschke · « **Reply #17 on:** June 23, 2004, 02:18:21 PM »

Storch I only wish we could change the settings to allow a "landing" anywhere near the designated runway to be a good one. In my opinion I think that the only time you should get a ditch is when you have to belly land an aircraft in the game outside of your base. I know it can't be changed without some pretty serious coding changes though.

ergRTC · « **Reply #18 on:** June 23, 2004, 02:20:37 PM »

Its quite nice actually. I think it adds another dimension to the game which is always good. Well, it would add another dimension if fuel consumption were upped a little.

As I stated though, this would not be a fixed number, just one which matches the map. The only map where I can think of this as being crucial is BOB. Where, by the way, the bloated gas tanks called blue planes and p51s are not present.

B17Skull12 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2004, 02:40:10 PM »

realism killed WB.

that is all i have to say

Skyfoxx · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2004, 02:53:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by B17Skull12
realism killed WB.

that is all i have to say

~~Sorry but that's BS. It wasn't realism, nor an rps that crippled WB3. Delay after delay, piss poor management and half truths were the main factors behind the exodus of many WB players.~~

Grits · « **Reply #21 on:** June 23, 2004, 03:30:22 PM »

This is not a "Holy Grail" for me, I just thought it might be interesting to add fuel as an issue in your preflight checklist, but I guess not.

Reschke · « **Reply #22 on:** June 23, 2004, 04:26:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by B17Skull12
realism killed WB.

that is all i have to say

~~That is an incorrect statement there Skull. What killed it was the management pulling things out their arse with the game and never getting the product up to where it should have been.~~

Mike_2851 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 23, 2004, 04:27:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ergRTC
As for your complaints, I would say that most flaps autoretracted (either by sheer force of the wind or a mechanism), Lone bombers are not realistic, and like I said, the rest is stuff we cannot do yet.

Ok, I'll bite on this one. The point that lone bombers are not realistic is well taken, I don't think a bomber mission was ever comprised of a "lone" bomber.

But if you are trying to make the argument that it is "realisim" that a single player can launch and control a flight of 3 bombers as a trolling "deathstar", well sir I disagree.

I agree that formations should be disabled. If you want to attack enmass with buffs, then get someone to go with you. Get two more players to fly a buff with you, you will probably do more collateral damage and get more kills. Form a buff squad, whatever.

That (to me) would be more "realistic"

B17Skull12 · « **Reply #24 on:** June 23, 2004, 04:32:27 PM »

it is just what i have heard.

ergRTC · « **Reply #25 on:** June 23, 2004, 04:33:38 PM »

Has anybody tried buff hunting yet? With the new model I bet it is a entirely different cup o tea. I have not run into a buff yet, so I have not been able to try.

I dont believe bombers are trolling deathstars by the way. They are tough, but heck, so was a box of 3 in the war. If you climb up to the six of any formation, you deserve what you get. I find good strategy is all that is required, and for that matter, rarely do we see the big bombers in the CT. Now the ki 67, that is a monster.

Mike_2851 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 23, 2004, 05:00:04 PM »

Erg, your points are well taken. Personally it is a flaw in my common sense. EVERY time I see a formation of buffs I can't resist-its like a moth to the flame, or in my case a quick trip back to the tower and boosting someone elses kill streak. Very much like you say-getting what I deserve

My point is that it would be more immersive and real to have each buff manned by a pilot. On one hand (for the buffs) if you make too severe of an evasive move-your buddies would turn and move with you not like it is now and you loose your drones and just hand someone 2 easy kills that they might not have earned. Another point is defensive gunnery-3 planes/3 pilots means more defensive gun coverage of the sky around you-not all guns trained to one spot by one guy.

Yeah, what I'm saying would possibly if not probably make it tougher for fighters to shoot down buffs-but it wasn't easy in the first place was it? And wouldn't someting like this be more "real"?

Soulyss · « **Reply #27 on:** June 23, 2004, 05:00:37 PM »

Maybe I wasn't clear when I last posted, or maybe I was clear and my answer just wasn't what you wanted to hear. I will probably never (using the BoB as a scenario) limited one side to only 10 minutes of fighting time with 100% fuel. To me the potential drawkbacks outweigh the historical accuracy on this one (more time flying to the fight than actually spent fighting). However if people are loading 50% than I hardly expect them to have a long loiter time in a notoriously short legged plane. To me it would be a matter of finding a happy medium.

The problem is these things are difficult to determine without trial and error. Which would mean a lot of mid-week tweaks to the arena settings to fine tune things, which always seem to get people's panties in a bunch for some reason.

o0Stream140o · « **Reply #28 on:** June 23, 2004, 05:25:00 PM »

Okay... I am going to put my two cents in here..

Everyone is talking about realism... well making a bomber flight only one plane or making GV's for each side correct... I (not trying to tick anyone off) don't think that is step towards realism... Realism would be to turn off the icons... don't make it an option but a CM controled thing.... I actually enjoy flying without Icons... I think that would take the "gamey"ness away... It takes the pilots head out of the cockpit and makes him stay ahead of the plane...
I remember when I first started in the CT they were always talking about turning off Icons... I used to think they were crazy... but now after doing it for a while... I am totally for it...

Make the clipboard just a map not radar... Use the map to navigate off the terrian and not off the dar... Yeah I know you might fly for a while to find a fight.. but isn't that what range channel is for... or text buffer... communication...

Turn kill shooter off...

I know these things will never happen... but I think that would be a step towards realism... There are a ton of things that would make it more real, but that would be a step in the right direction...
I have always thought that the best pilots fly in the Combat Theater, I honestly think we could hack it.

Grits · « **Reply #29 on:** June 23, 2004, 06:17:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Soulyss
However if people are loading 50% than I hardly expect them to have a long loiter time in a notoriously short legged plane. To me it would be a matter of finding a happy medium.

The problem is these things are difficult to determine without trial and error.

You stated the problem well Soulyss and I agree with you completely that we dont want to go overkill on the "realistic" stuff at the expense of playability. I dont want fuel burn set so high that short legged planes cant be effective, but right now it doesnt matter at all. I cant think of ANY plane I load more than 50% fuel, much less 100%, and that is not right. Even in last weeks '40 BoB in the 110, 109, and Hurri MkI, the most I loaded was 50%, and went down to 25% in the 110.

I am not asking for the short ranged planes to be crippled. I am asking that there be a consequence to choosing said short legged plane in the form of having to take 100% fuel and maybe DT's. Right now when you go to the hanger, fuel range has no bearing whatsoever on which plane you choose, only ordinance load/speed/turn performance or whatever, fuel range is irrelevant and it should not be. If your RAF that means taking a Mossie or a Tiffie on a longer strike when you would now take a Hurri IIc or Spit V, or in the case of the LW, a 110G2 or an 190A/F-8 when you would really rather take a 109G-10.

Sooo...nothing crippling, but fuel range should have to be considered in the hangar, which as it is now its irrelevant.