Start-up procedures

[312_Tygr]

Let's put it this way - there are different ways of having fun. One is the air combat itself, and complex startup is not required there, I agree. But for a lot of people fun starts where "easy" stops, me included. I tend to agree with a friend of mine (he's a B737 captain now) who says "more levers - more fun". The same goes for me, and as a GA pilot I'm horrified with small planes with simplified systems, FADEC etc. - I mean, what's pilot doing there if a trained monkey can fly it.

 

Let's face it - if you were flying an airplane in WWII, your pilot workload was quite heavy, and I'd like to have that simulated as much as possible. I think that RoF actually does that quite well, so I'm certain that we'll see something satisfactory in BoS. 

[LukeFF]

Would be nice if the temperature affect the engines, in the winter Rudel said in his book (wich I really recommend) that the german motors had big difficulties to start up and run.

 

That's already modeled in ROF.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

A little biased, your vote.

 

Something between a and b would be it for me.

+1 ...there is too muchh "black/white" already in this forum. I too would prefer a middleground... for me no need for magnetos. Mix, prop pitch, fuel selector (IF this effect the FM at laters state...which fuel tank is empty...if not no need of fuel selector either), chocks (would be great if the pilot made a hand signal possible in RoF for chocks to be removed)..... in RoF u have to wait for the correct temp for inline engines so I am sure this will be applied as well.

Edited December 18, 2012 by F19_Klunk

[MineFewer]

the poll was written to determine how many Sim users enjoy the complex start up procedures. if you feel the list of steps in option 2 is too complicated then you should choose option 1 to vote against complex startup. if it turns out that most users would not want to use complex start procedures, then another topic could be used to discuss other variations of simplified engine start up procedures.t

[Crump]

It needs both options.  Some people like the simple procedures.  Why wreck their fun.  If the game does not appeal to a mass audience, then it will not have the market share required to survive.

 

By the same token, a significant share of the market wants the challenge on the complex.  CloD IMHO was the first aerial combat simulator to do a good job of simulating the complexity and consequences in performance from improper engine management.

 

Like CloD attempted, I want the game functions to be exactly like the aircraft functions.  The same procedures found in the aircraft operating instructions should be reproduced in the game.  The consequences of not following the published procedures is reduced performance or engine damage accordingly.

 

This also gives the game players room to grow and challenge themselves. 

 

 

One suggestion is too not even separate the two "online" for game play.  No reason to dilute the number of players available for online dogfights.  Just allow the simple engine model to represent the average pilots ability to manage the engine and an "expert" CEM player to realize that extra bit of bit performance that comes from a skilled operator.

 

This is one of the reason's why actual aircraft performance is a percentage range over a median and not an absolute value.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Crump

[DD_Arthur]

The start-up is part of the cem, the cem has to be as complex as possible, especially in a cfs, where it directly affects the sa!

The high-end machines in wwii had to be pampered to get the most out of them and still get you home.

A dumbed down cem gives all advantages to the planes with a known high pilot-workload to be superb.

 

 

I think this is a very good point.  I also really enjoy the CEM in CLoD especially combined with the wonderful graphical quality of the instruments and 'pits generally and the ability CLoD gives you to have a 'clean' screen, i.e. no speedbar, minature little instruments, scores, messages, etc.  Good to be able to fly without any of that needless clutter, carry out a sortie whilst managing your machine and rtb succesfully.  An important part of the immersion for me.  CLoD is simply light years ahead of IL2 '46 in this respect.

 

RoF also handles the effects of incorrect temperatures and the loss of the cooling medium and has the ability to link this to a temperature measuring device. It also models mechanical abuse of the engine by over-speeding the prop.  I hope this sort of coding being available in the Digital Nature engine can be successfully applied to more complicated engines. 

Edited December 18, 2012 by arthursmedley

[TX-EcoDragon]

I like flying planes. I like my sims to be like my planes. I've never, ever seen an i/e key in the cockpit.

[JG27_Chivas]

Its all about having options.  One option for an "I" start, and another for a little more complex startup.  Another option for the complex engine startup to avoid waiting for engine warmup time, is an already warmed up aircraft that is historical, as ground crews often warmed up the engines.  Personally I don't use clickable cockpits, and prefer programming the startup switches to my Hotas.  Magneto's, Fuel Cocks, Fuel Pump, and Start button would be all I would require.  Along with a set number of pumps (fuel) required before the engine would start.  Some of my most immersive moments using startup procedures in BOB WOV, when trying to start my aircraft and failing in my first attempts, as the field was being attacked.

[RoboticPope]

something i get a thrill on is getting world records on racing games and i think devs should copy from them:

 

everybody competes together easy and dificult settings

 

but dificult settings like not traction control actually makes you faster by inducing an oversteer which helps you turn better thoguh is more difficult to handle

 

make all the comunity stay together

 

if you use complex engine give some extra horses over easy

 

if you use tags reduce distance visibility like the pilot is slightly shortsighted

 

if you fly cocpit on make the pilot have an extra acute sight

 

divide et vincis

 

I disagree, I think that creates a false advantage/disadvantage. Example an F1 car was faster WITH traction control not without.  If you want leaderboards (which I think only promote cheating) then you need separate ones depending on what difficulty the game is played on. You cannot mix difficulties into a single game in a flight sim, it's too complicated. How could a full realism player have a realistic game trying to dogfight someone who has stalls turned off for example??

[Caudron431]

The start-up is part of the cem, the cem has to be as complex as possible, especially in a cfs, where it directly affects the sa!

The high-end machines in wwii had to be pampered to get the most out of them and still get you home.

A dumbed down cem gives all advantages to the planes with a known high pilot-workload to be superb.

 

Excellent point!

 

CEM must indeed be as complex as possible.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Voted B  want a.5

[Mac_Messer]

I think this is a very good point.  I also really enjoy the CEM in CLoD especially combined with the wonderful graphical quality of the instruments and 'pits generally and the ability CLoD gives you to have a 'clean' screen, i.e. no speedbar, minature little instruments, scores, messages, etc.  Good to be able to fly without any of that needless clutter, carry out a sortie whilst managing your machine and rtb succesfully.  An important part of the immersion for me.  CLoD is simply light years ahead of IL2 '46 in this respect. 

There`s more to it than that. For example, in the Bf109E you`d have to manually close or open both radiators in the manner it was done really in the plane and that is continually twisting the handle for the desired result.  A whole different story than the 'toggle radiator' button in 1946.  The same with the trimming controls.

 

And you could do nothing more simultaneously if you already were using both hands.

[DD_bongodriver]

Exactly, if some want to go down the 'I'm not interested in pushing buttons I only want air combat' route then a majority of the actual experience is lost, we may as well have a generic simulator where everybody gets the same generic aircraft over a generic theatre, litterally airquake, any attempt to make historical scenarios is redundant.

[DD_Arthur]

There`s more to it than that. For example, in the Bf109E you`d have to manually close or open both radiators in the manner it was done really in the plane and that is continually twisting the handle for the desired result.  A whole different story than the 'toggle radiator' button in 1946.  

 

Er.....isn't that what I just said?

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Some are confusing complex startup procedures (CSP) with complex engine management (CEM)

 

Two very different things!

 

For example IL-2 had arcade CSP and minimal CEM..

Where as RoF has the right level of CSP and CEM wrt a CFS IMHO..
 

Edited December 20, 2012 by ACEOFACES

[MineFewer]

Some are confusing complex startup procedures (CSP) with complex engine management (CEM)

 

Two very different things!

 

For example IL-2 had arcade CSP and minimal CEM..

Where as RoF has the right level of CSP and CEM wrt a CFS IMHO..

 

Very interesting assertion.  Strictly speaking from the user's perspective, that is true.  It certainly is an important distinction in the context of this topic.  One could assume that the devs are using RoF as the standard for CSP, which is a welcome step up from Il-2 1946.  If the devs take CSP up a level (might not be too much of a stretch since the engine systems involved would logically be part of the DM), that would be a bonus for the lever-happy among us.

[Guest deleted@1562]

Personally I'm not interested in complex engine management all, never have been and never will be.

 

Just start the engine and take off is perfect for me.

 

When I'm playing any game my main objective is pure simple fun. I don't want to pretend to be a real pilot when playing a combat flight sim, I just want to shoot stuff then watch it crash and burn.

 

CS.

 

There are so many games out there that garner to your playing style. Wings Of Prey, War Thunder for instance. And so few with more depth.

[FlatSpinMan]

"Whereas RoF has the right level of CSP and CEM wrt a CFS IMHO.."

 

Impressive use of abbreviations, sir! I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed, too. I rarely have much time to play, so if I do I just want to jump into my plane and get going. In the air I expect to have to hit a few keys to manage the engine while zooming around trying to kill things. For me that approach is great. What's good about RoF (and IL2 and CoD, I presume)is that you can choose to have a greater degree of complexity. 

[=IRFC=Jorri]

There are so many games out there that garner to your playing style. Wings Of Prey, War Thunder for instance. And so few with more depth.

 

And BoS will likely garner to his playing style as well. Because however much realistic procedures they put in (we don't know that yet), they will always include an option to turn them off and fly easy mode.

 

Thankfully

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Impressive use of abbreviations, sir!

Thanks! Just happened to come out that way! After reading it I kind of expected Pat Sajak to step out and ask if I would like to buy a vowel!

I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed, too. I rarely have much time to play, so if I do I just want to jump into my plane and get going. In the air I expect to have to hit a few keys to manage the engine while zooming around trying to kill things. For me that approach is great. What's good about RoF (and IL2 and CoD, I presume)is that you can choose to have a greater degree of complexity.

Agreed 100%

 

Very interesting assertion.  Strictly speaking from the user's perspective, that is true.  It certainly is an important distinction in the context of this topic.  One could assume that the devs are using RoF as the standard for CSP, which is a welcome step up from Il-2 1946.  If the devs take CSP up a level (might not be too much of a stretch since the engine systems involved would logically be part of the DM), that would be a bonus for the lever-happy among us.

Agreed 100%

[NZTyphoon]

My vote would also be something in between; assume the ground crew has started and warmed the engine(s), but some engine management needed in flight.

 

Slightly OT, but  relevant, I have read somewhere (can't remember where exactly) that the Russians had additives for their engine and hydraulic oils which allowed them to be usable in sub-zero temperatures - can anyone confirm this? I can only find this:

 

The Russians lubricated all their weapons with oil of a specially thin arctic type, and recoil mechanisms were also filled with a special liquid. Water-cooled jackets of machine guns were filled with glycerin. All lubricants used were said to be proof down to at least -50 degrees Centigrade (-58 degrees Fahrenheit). Small arms which gummed up were first wiped entirely dry, lubricated with kerosene, and then fired, before receiving normal lubrication.

and there's also

 

Since motor transport of all types gummed up very quickly at low temperatures, the Russians provided heaters for all their vehicles. A

1 1/2-ton truck, for example, would get 1 heater; a heavy tank, 12. In addition, mobile heaters, such as those used for ungumming airplane engines at airdromes, were sometimes used.

 

 from  http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/winter-fighting-in-russia.html

[PAPA-HAWK]

more complex the procedure is more the simulation deserve his name.

[xMADDMANNx]

CSP + CEM As much as possible for the Sim playerbase. (We are many and may not post here much,but we check here often, and care about the project)

 

with server side option ("i" and fly) to suit (arcade style) tastes. to make all different kind's of sim players happy =  $$ in your wallet.

 

~S~

[JG53Valantine]

Think Madmann has summed it up quite well: add in the options for CSP+CEM and other realism options for those who enjoy it but make sure it is "switch" selectable in the realism options: there will always be those who prefer an arcade experience and there will always be those who want a full switch hands on sim so why not make sure your product reaches the maximum possible audience?

 

Personally I tend not to "click" around the cockpit much: BUT I do have the whole start up procedure for my 109 (and 88) mapped out on my keyboard/stick where possible as I enjoy the "sim-pilot" aspect over the press I and fly method and get a much greater immersion factor and sense of realism and therefore for me: much more enjoyment out of the sim.

V

[ACG_Suardi]

This is been discussed in all topics of this forum.

 

I'm a guy that love to study a plane manual, learn how to start him, how to get everything of the engine without destroy him and a complex star procedure. 

But I uderstand that BoS will be a combat fly simulator without this type of things. The product is what it is. 

I really don't know if I will like him. I stopped to fly in the IL-2 1946 because of the simplicity of the plane operation. But I'm loving to fly on RoF, the plane is simple to operate but they was either in real life. One of the best things in RoF is the CEM and for sure it will be present in BoS.


The important in this history is not try to change Bos. Is to show for 1C and 777 that there is a lot of people looking for more realistic WWII flight sims and they can, maybe, in the future try to develop a simulator for this public. 

[voncrapenhauser]

"Simple" or "Complex", which do you like better?

+1 Agreed

[Noter]

I'm a little late to the party on this topic, but I just picked up CoD and find myself enjoying the CEM.  I especially like the start up procedure.  The thing is, it's not complex at all, it's like three extra switches, but it just makes it feel more realistic.  I think the problem several ran into was that there was no explanation on how to use the three switches with the game.  I am not a real pilot, but I like to feel like I am through these simulators.  I enjoy the idea that I can sit in the cockpit of one of these planes and know where switches are located and what they do.

 

I also feel like CEM and fuel management are weapons in there own right.  If I can get the max out of my engine while the bandit can't it might help me gain an advantage.  If I nurse my engine more than the bandit I might have enough fuel left to stay and fight while he has to head home.  They become relevant.

 

I understand the guy that wants to turn on the engine, gun it, and go.  But, for me, I like the immersion in the sim I get with the start up procedure and CEM.  I'd like to see all options available with scalable choices.

[arjisme]

The start-up is part of the cem, the cem has to be as complex as possible, especially in a cfs, where it directly affects the sa!

The high-end machines in wwii had to be pampered to get the most out of them and still get you home.

A dumbed down cem gives all advantages to the planes with a known high pilot-workload to be superb.

Sums it up well for me.

 

CSP just for CSP's-sake is pointless.  CSP that is integral with CEM is what I want.  No need to mess with magnetos unless magnetos are modeled in the game and can actually impact the plane's performance in some way.  All of the "complex" startup procedures folks have mentioned that are in RoF are tied to the engine management.  If you leave your radiator closed, your engine will still start, but overheat fairly soon.  Mixture has to be set correctly at all times to get best engine performance.  That includes at startup and at various altitudes.

 

I would hope that when the devs do provide complex engine management with corresponding complex startup procedures,   , it would be configurable to everything from fully complex to "just press 'i' and go."

[VeryOldMan]

I would also vote for some compromise. Without a clickable cockpit I see no real purpose in having detailed start up procedures.

 

 

The only way I see  a detailed proceedure to wrok  woudl be  to be able to automate it if you do not desire to do it. And that shoudl be the default option. NOTHING detracts   more new people from flight sims than  the "I cannot even start the engine!!" feeling.

 

Want  more convince  someoen to try flgith sims?  Frcign them to do a 30 step checklist is NOT the way to do it.

[Klien]

S! Sirs;

 

I won't participate in this Poll as I'm presented with only two extreems.

 

Thank you.

[charenton]

1and 2

[skouras]

as close as it gets

[LLv34_Untamo]

S!

 

Voted both. I personally would like the complex version, but then again, many of my squad would like the easier version.

[crossfade]

I Think the solution is to make it as complex as possible and have it selectable in the options menu and if you want choose the AUTO option due to little time etc you have no disadvantage regarding how the performance of the aircraft goes sometimes i get the feeling  that some people who prefer to use all the switches and full realism all the time tend to do so in order to have an advantage or bragging rights over those that don't this is not an attack just something that comes across to me.

I personally love full engine management as it is more immersive and give a better sense of accomplishment however some days i get home from work get dinner put the kids to bed spend quality time with the wife and have about an hour to fly and this is when i choose the "I" and fly method and i would find it interesting to see how many would still use full realism if there was no advantage

 

So i say 1+2

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

the BoS engine should have the following features for CEM:

Throttle & WEP setting

Pitch (CSP or manual)

Mixture

Supercharger

Radiator/Cowling flaps

Oilcooler

 

Not all planes have all controls, some are automatic some only manual. It should fitvthe history.

 

Tanks are not so important for me, but if tankswitches are modelled, OK.

 

A "warmed up"!setting ( like in RoF) would be very nice - rember the waiting in a Blenheim in CoD :D

 

The Start Up in RoF is OK for me. Important is that 777 is programming the engine limits correct !

So that a ,103% throttle, cooler 6 and fly till the tank is empty' like in a IL2 Bf109 is not possible anymore.

[PauloHirth]

let optional

[Drum]

The mechanics started the engines and warmed them up.  Kerosene was added to the oil in sub-zero temperatures to keep the oil thinned, this would evaporate as the oil temp warmed with few fires or explosions,  The Germans learned this and other methods for starting frozen engines from Russian prisoners.

[YoYo]

For me as real as it gets, in IL-2 CoD was ok for me.

[Crump]

 

Tanks are not so important for me, but if tankswitches are modelled, OK.

 

 

 

Tank and fuel controls should be modeled.  You are talking airplanes that had voracious appetites for aviation fuel especially at their limited over boost conditions.  Mismanagement of fuel did happen and could have grave consequences in a fight.

 

Many wing tank equipped aircraft will experience fuel starvation when the aircraft is banked into the non-empty tank.  Keep in mind that aircraft do not fly wings level in a crosswind to maintain a steady altitude state making it very difficult to keep the aircraft aloft if you find yourself banked into the non-empty tank. 

 

That is not mention the weight imbalance issues which is the main reason for management of fuel. 

 

Again, some WWII aircraft managed the fuel for the pilot as well.  Not modeling that gives the advantage to aircraft which historically demanded a higher pilot workload.

[Rama]

Tank and fuel controls should be modeled.  You are talking airplanes that had voracious appetites for aviation fuel especially at their limited over boost conditions.  Mismanagement of fuel did happen and could have grave consequences in a fight.

I agree with that, but it's more related to CEM than to start/stop engine procedure (which are the subject of the poll).