Normal fuel burn rate in the main arenas please.

[hitech]

I had this very same discussion with HT and the result was :
go buy a box of tissue


But it won't change one single fact : there was no fuel burn multiplier during WWII the allied and the axis never reached an agreement on this point

With tactical maps like we have tactical planes should be more interesting but with the FBM it's not.


PS: during last scenario FBM was set at 1 and no tragedy happened.

Another great case of selective realism.

It is a very bad idea to use a simplistic argument I.E. " there was no fuel burn multiplier during WWII the allied and the axis never reached an agreement on this point "

That is simply an extremely myopic statement that is completely irrelevant. If you use that argument on every choice, AH would not exist.
Using your logic, Nothing changes a simple fact : After people die, they never flew again in WWII. So using the EXACT same logic as you , once people die, they should never play again.

So now try show me how your statement has anything to do with the discussion at hand. And that your statement has any more relevance to arena design than my statement.

Try taking a much larger view of realism, rather than using the "REALISTIC" argument and think about the advantages disadvantage each plane had.

HiTech

[Boxboy]

Rapidly leafing throught the book of "dweeb", sheez I hate it when the creators come in here and bolix up a perfectly silly arguement with facts

[Anaxogoras]

Think about that a little...  What do you think is going to happen to the population of AH2 if every new player has to fly 20, 30, 45 minutes or longer to get into a fight?  What do you think that that new player is going to do after flying that far for a fight only to get his butt handed to him?  Most new players get very few kills and get totally dominated in their early days.  How many new players do you really think will stick around past the two week trial?

Get serious...

Wow, I haven't seen a more fluffy and puffed out straw-man in a long while.

Another great case of selective realism.

You might think that's a clever phrase to diffuse criticism, but I beg to differ.  Everything that does and does go into a flight-sim game is an example of selective realism.   You're stating a tautology as if it were something substantive.

What is substantive is that people disagree about what aspects of realism to select and which ones to leave out, and there's room for reasonable disagreement.

[PFactorDave]

Wow, I haven't seen a more fluffy and puffed out straw-man in a long while.

Really?  Ok.  I think it was relevant to the discussion.  But whatever.  Hitech has already weighed in on the matter, so the discussion is rather moot.

[Anaxogoras]

Really?  Ok.  I think it was relevant to the discussion.  But whatever.  Hitech has already weighed in on the matter, so the discussion is rather moot.

"Straw-man" means that you misrepresented his point of view into something silly so that it's easier to dismiss.

[straffo]

Another great case of selective realism.

It is a very bad idea to use a simplistic argument I.E. " there was no fuel burn multiplier during WWII the allied and the axis never reached an agreement on this point "

That is simply an extremely myopic statement that is completely irrelevant. If you use that argument on every choice, AH would not exist.
Using your logic, Nothing changes a simple fact : After people die, they never flew again in WWII. So using the EXACT same logic as you , once people die, they should never play again.

So now try show me how your statement has anything to do with the discussion at hand. And that your statement has any more relevance to arena design than my statement.

Try taking a much larger view of realism, rather than using the "REALISTIC" argument and think about the advantages disadvantage each plane had.

HiTech

I think you have smilies desactived on you end or have you missed the "" I put at the end of my sentence ?

And my stance still not have changed  25% fuel should give the same amount fuel for all planes not 64 gallon for some and 48 for other etc. 

[straffo]

Rapidly leafing throught the book of "dweeb", sheez I hate it when the creators come in here and bolix up a perfectly silly arguement with facts

humping HT ankle won't make you look ... well ... ya now ?

[Anaxogoras]

And my stance still not have changed  25% fuel should give the same amount fuel for all planes not 64 gallon for some and 48 for other etc. 

Can you explain that?  % fuel would have to be different for each plane because they have different sized fuel tanks.

Still, I'm on your side when it comes to fuel burn.  Aircraft like the La-7 were used offensively, not defensively, and the only reason it's different in AH is the 2x fuel burn.  Lastly, your point about it taking twice as much gas to get to altitude in addition to horizontal travel is spot-on.

[Boxboy]

humping HT ankle won't make you look ... well ... ya now ?

LOL sorry Straf I just couldn't resist 

[straffo]

Well I wanted to say instead of a percentage of fuel I would prefer a defined (finite) quantity of fuel.

[Tilt]

Well I think the 2.0 x fuel burn does make sense in the arenas we have. However touching on the debate that Straffo and Lucine have, and bringing up an old sore that I know HT disagrees with.

It relates to the way that fuel attrition effects aircraft with small tanks

I do not like the use of %'s to calculate how fuel loads are rationed when fuel is attrited. IMO fuel loads should be measured in gallons and when fuel is scarce at a field then it should be rationed in gallons. Not by %'s of fuel capacity.

This can be applied either as a direct correlation of litre/gallon capacity (which becomes very complex across the range of AC AH has, particularly when considering big bombers etc) or more practically a correlation of endurance at max cruise power (e.g some std alt). One can see a methodology where by endurance is set at availabilities of Max, 240mins, 180mins, 120mins, 60mins (a FB of 2 would halve those values).

Fuel in the hanger would be selected from a sliding button (maybe even on the clipboard) and limited to a value set by the endurance relationship as above.

Then AH could remove the false cap on fuel attrition (no less than 75%) introduced to mask this dilemna

[Anaxogoras]

Ahhh, I get it now.  Fuel burn + ability to pork fuel makes for ridiculous favoritism to aircraft with large gas tanks.  That's an air-tight argument.

[Tilt]

And my stance still not have changed  25% fuel should give the same amount fuel for all planes not 64 gallon for some and 48 for other etc. 

HT's answer to this in the past is that fuel was not rationed that way either! Well Allied fuel was essentially never rationed but I believe there is some validity in HT's arguement here.

IMO however HT's counter arguement  does not make the % system right either!

I think the LW would ensure 10 x 109s had the endurance they needed for the mission rather than 20 x 109's not having the endurance to perform it at all. In effect the correct correlation in AH would be via a zone/field limit! but AH does not have one.


Hence (if it is to change) another way must be found ...actual (rather than %) endurance may be such a way.

[VonMessa]

I think you have smilies desactived on you end or have you missed the "" I put at the end of my sentence ?

And my stance still not have changed  25% fuel should give the same amount fuel for all planes not 64 gallon for some and 48 for other etc.  

Since when does a percentage represent a static number?

(Random numbers used but accuracy not necessary for demonstration purposes)

If the LA 7 has a fuel capacity of 100 gallons, 25% = 25 gallons

If the P51D has a capacity of 184 gallon, 25% = 46 gallons

On what planet should the same percentage of two different numbers resolve to be the same answer?

[straffo]

Since when does a percentage represent a static number?

(Random numbers used but accuracy not necessary for demonstration purposes)

If the LA 7 has a fuel capacity of 100 gallons, 25% = 25 gallons

If the P51D has a capacity of 184 gallon, 25% = 46 gallons

On what planet should the same percentage of two different numbers resolve to be the same answer?

in a planet where a customer paying 15$ per month as the same amount of service of a customer paying 15$ per month.

ps I posted a message just after the math flawed one