A G4 question

[Matt]

Engines were meant to last for many hours, not just one sortie. That's why "time limits" existed back then. Not because engines were extremely fragile (and brand new German and US, and soon British engines, were generally not more likely to break down in a single sortie than Russian ones).

 

Since we're always getting fresh new planes with new engines, having no time limit restrictions wouldn't be any less realistic than the time limits we currently have (quite the contrary). I think having these strict time limits is not a good idea to simulate logistics back then. 

 

I would definately prefer no engine damage caused by exceeding a time limit at all, to the current solution. So i would definately welcome an option like that. In a realistic scenario (realistical long carreer mission or MP mission), people still wouldn't fly full throttle all the time (probably not even in planes that allow that), because they would have to worry about fuel consumption. So if there's really a need for engine time limits on less realstic SP missions or certain MP servers, they could keep the current engine limits.

 

I don't think it would devide the MP community more so than locked/unlocked loadouts and things like that, which are already in affect. And i personally, as currently almost exclusively SP player, would definately like that option and it might actually make me more interested in MP, because certain planes (like the P-40) might actually be enjoyable to fly around with.

[SvAF/F19_Tomten]

Fink has it!

 

What about a poll?

[CUJO_1970]

Let me be clear. No engine dies at the very moment you exceed operational restrictions. It's random. We CAN NEVER simulate how it happened in real life so whatever we do is a guess. Only option is to make engine overuse damage optional for all, but then you'll complain it divides the community. So we lose either way. I love this job.

Jason

Pull yourself together man.

[Dakpilot]

Trouble is seeing as your life is not important in the sim, if you have 10 minutes with minimal risk people will ALWAYS use that online, if you do not, you will be at a disadvantage

 

The gung ho anecdotes of "moar power!" are not representative of what generally happened, Pilot's were rather interested in not blowing their engines over enemy lines be it on one flight or the next

 

If they trashed the engine on every flight, supplies would dry up and squadrons would fly under strength, some Russian (who were harder on equipment) aces mention pushing the engine no more than 3 times in their whole war career.

 

with no real downside in the sim, people will max their engines all the time, online flying will take a very strange turn, with one having to always be at the extreme limits to remain competitive, everyone will have the same situation, but it will be less historically representative with some aircraft performing in a slightly different 'gamey' envelope, what happened IRL less than 5% of the time will be happening 95% of the time.

 

True we get a "new" aircraft each flight but this was not the case in reality, combat was won by tactics and teamwork not by 'boost' or blowing up engines left right and centre

 

people will be in combat for ten minutes score some kills, blow their engine, re-spawn and fly again, sounds gamey to me   and you will have to 'gamble with your engine' as well to stay with comparable performance

 

extending engine limits sounds like a good idea but the effect will not be so nice,

 

To have two different types/modes (of engine limits) in game is a poor idea

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Asgar]

 

 

Pilot's were rather interested in not blowing their engines over enemy lines be it on one flight or the next  

 

 

that's not what Joe Peterburs told us

[Finkeren]

I disagree Dak.

 

First off, I don't think all pilots will max out all the time. Even if there is a minimal risk of, say, 5% to bust your engine in the first five minutes, it will still happen 1 out of every 20 sorties, if that rises to 30% at the ten minute mark, that's already a risk not worth taking except to save your virtual life.

 

People who fly conservatively will still be rewarded, because they will have a resource of extra power, which they can put to good use at will, while people who constantly push their engines to the limit will end up blowing their engines all over the place till they wisen up.

 

And I don't think people will just deliberately run their engines at max until they blow. People don't do that now, why would they suddenly start because it becomes a calculated risk? Most servers run with either a scoring system that requires you to return to base and land safely to score full points and/or a limited number of aircraft for each side. Simply running at max power until your engine dies would be just as detrimental with these changes as it is now.

 

Also keep in mind, that since the breakdown triggering is entirely probabilistic, you'd have to keep track of time by yourself. There would be no technochat message telling you, how much time you've gone past the limit. You kinda know, that the risk starts to increase dramaticslly after around 7 minutes and becomes more or less unacceptable after 10 minutes, but how far down that line are you? Is it 5:30 or is it 6:15? You're not quite sure. There would be a strong insentive to throttle back when extra power is not needed, and there would be a real skill to keeping the risk at an acceptable level.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Finkeren

[Dakpilot]

Most people do not fly on the more realistic servers

 

The odds will favour the abusers, new pilots start in the 'dogfight' servers where most flights barely last 10 mins

 

this is where it would have the greatest effect on the most people, online most people will take a chance regardless even when they should know better

 

It will just make this experience even more 'arcade' and breed bad habits..of which there are already many 

 

engine management should not be reduced to 'gambling'

 

Just my opinion, in principle it seems a great idea, but there are too many downsides with the reality of online play(ers) versus the 'ideal'

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[150GCT_Veltro]

What do you guys think about G4 "bulges"? They look a bit exaggerated.

 

[Finkeren]

What do you guys think about G4 "bulges"? They look a bit exaggerated.

 

You're right, it seems like a bit much.

[Asgar]

Most people do not fly on the more realistic servers

I don't think that's true. the server that has always been the most played at is Wing of Liberty. realistic settings, and no 3d markers. and now we have TAW, these 2 servers seem to carry about 80% of all online players

 

 

 

What do you guys think about G4 "bulges"? They look a bit exaggerated.

I think they look bigger due to the shiny paintshop 

[Dakpilot]

I don't think that's true. the server that has always been the most played at is Wing of Liberty. realistic settings, and no 3d markers. and now we have TAW, these 2 servers seem to carry about 80% of all online players

 

 

Sorry was not clear, in realistic servers my reference was not really settings/difficulty, but promoting more realistic tactics/flight like TAW, WoL is great but more a 'dogfight' server with little regard for being shot down/crashing other than a kill streak.

 

nothing wrong with dogfight servers but it is unlikely that majority of newcomers will start with TAW type servers

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Asgar]

ah ok, but still i don't think having more realistic engine limits and people using them would make anyone an "abuser"

[Finkeren]

engine management should not be reduced to 'gambling'

 

The thing is, pushing an engine beyond its limits is gambling, especially if it isn't brand new or freshly overhauled. While an engine breaking down is not governed by chance IRL, there are so many factors at play, that calculated probability might be the best way to simulate this.

 

What I'm proposing of course won't accurately reflect how a real life engine performs (in reality, with a "fresh" engine we could likely fly an entire mission at emergency power without suffering engine damage) but I think it's a better approximation than the almost immediate breakdown we currently have, and I truly feel, that the posibilities of exploitation are limited.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I don't think IRL the engines of the 109s, 190s, Yaks, Las and so on were pushed anywhere near what players do in-game.

 

Reading / listening to some rw pilot's notes for instance 1.0 and a max of 1.2 ATA, with extreme 1.3 were used in the 109s...

 

How many of us firewall the engines, at least on takeoff ?

[Sunde]

I don't think IRL the engines of the 109s, 190s, Yaks, Las and so on were pushed anywhere near what players do in-game.

 

Reading / listening to some rw pilot's notes for instance 1.0 and a max of 1.2 ATA, with extreme 1.3 were used in the 109s...

 

How many of us firewall the engines, at least on takeoff ?

Agreed. Also imagine the damage you cause to a large cold engine, when you just slam the throttle 10 seconds after its started. That thing is stone cold. Probably tears up the manifold and god knows what, if you did that irl. 

[Asgar]

Agreed. Also imagine the damage you cause to a large cold engine, when you just slam the throttle 10 seconds after its started. That thing is stone cold. Probably tears up the manifold and god knows what, if you did that irl. 

look at the gauges next time you're on WoL or TAW, the engines are pre-heated 

[Finkeren]

Agreed. Also imagine the damage you cause to a large cold engine, when you just slam the throttle 10 seconds after its started. That thing is stone cold. Probably tears up the manifold and god knows what, if you did that irl.

That's modeled, but usually the engines are pre-heated before startup, as they were IRL.

[Riderocket]

The Germans already out perform the russians in almost every way.

 

Russian planes are kinda $#!T

Edited November 12, 2016 by Riderocket

[Finkeren]

Russian planes are kinda $#!T

I prefer the term "shabby chic".

[ZachariasX]

Reading / listening to some rw pilot's notes for instance 1.0 and a max of 1.2 ATA, with extreme 1.3 were used in the 109s...

 

Really? I have to check again, but I remember them saying that, especially in the later stages of war, they definitely firewalled their throttle when mixing it. Given they Germans by then had way more airplanes available than competent pilots, it makes sense to even wear down an engine in like four sorties instead of the "guaranteed" 100 (or so). Because if you don't, you probably won't make it home after your first sortie. I will check again...

 

There's 2 ways of breaking your engine. One is exceeding temp limits. There you can cool down the engine and it should be fine again (somewhat, depending on how far you took it) and the other is the additional mechanical wear on bearings etc. This later kind of damage is cumulative and does not "recover" after you land. It is those 5 minutes intervals that add up to required maintenance after a specified service cycle.

 

Increasing power output just shortens this service cycle. Of course Rolls-Royce et. al. wanted to provide engines that lasted for some time. But if your average life expectancy is, say,  8 missions, you'd be awfully daft not using the power budget of those 92 missions that you will not live to see. You'd rather stay grounded because your engine requires maintenance.

 

The 109 is a comparably safe aircraft to have the throttle firewalled, as the automatic governor will not exceed the max atas in case of you diving. Especially when exceeding critical altitude, you can easily give full throttle without any damage to the engine whatsoever, as you will never reach critical manifold pressure. But when diving after an enemy, during the dive you get all this manifold pressure back and you might blow your engine. By accident, a pilot might bring himself in a silly situation. That is why it is handled with care.

 

Plus the ground crew know that they probably have to take the engine apart to check it. And curse you and your kin for it.

 

If you always have a factory fresh aircraft for each sortie, you should be able to push the engine for some time. IIRC when Jacqueline Cochran flew an air race in a P-35, she mentioned flying most of the time at full emergency power and she concluded that those engines would tolerate much more power output than rated for.

 

Edit: when she won the Bendix Trophy in 1938, on a P-35 (not p-47)

 

Pushing your engine is like OC your CPU. you find out in hindsight how well that works out. A good reason to be conservative with that if flying over hostile territory... But if it keeps you from getting killed, why not?

Edited November 12, 2016 by ZachariasX

[ShamrockOneFive]

What do you guys think about G4 "bulges"? They look a bit exaggerated.

 

 

They do appear to be a bit more defined, however, the first photo with an actual G-4 (btw: That is an amazing photo!) looks like it was taken under cloudy bright conditions while the G-4 in-game is in full sun. So the glare exaggerates features a bit and that may also be causing it.

 

Need to see it in different light.

 

Still, good catch.

[Bullets]

I'd humbly suggest to the team, that you at some point, when it can fit your schedule (doesn't have to this side of BoK release), consider tweaking the probabilities of random engine breakdown to allow people to go beyond the limits as a calculated risk. At the moment the probability of breakdown is so high, that going beyond the time limit is almost guaranteed to kill your engine in a very short time (seconds to a couple of minutes). If probabilities could be tweaked to allow (for instance) a very low risk for the first two minutes, relatively safe running up to five minutes, around 50/50 chance up to ten minutes and approaching 100% risk at 30mins, that would not only reflect how the engines were pressed in combat IRL but also make the sim more enjoyable, since you add a risk/benefit element for those who dare to use it.

 

I don't write this as a "luftwhiner" or claim that the modeling you use now is necessarily "wrong" and I certainly don't demand a "fix" right here and now. Personally I won't even really benefit from this, since the planes I fly the most won't benefit from the change that much. I simply think that this would improve the experience for a lot of players and be a better representation of real life combat.

 

+1 

[Pilot_Rabbit]

Well said Fink.

[Dakpilot]

The thing is, pushing an engine beyond its limits is gambling, especially if it isn't brand new or freshly overhauled. While an engine breaking down is not governed by chance IRL, there are so many factors at play, that calculated probability might be the best way to simulate this.

 

What I'm proposing of course won't accurately reflect how a real life engine performs (in reality, with a "fresh" engine we could likely fly an entire mission at emergency power without suffering engine damage) but I think it's a better approximation than the almost immediate breakdown we currently have, and I truly feel, that the posibilities of exploitation are limited.

 

 

 

But that is exactly what will happen in 90% of servers

 

Do you think it is preferential, realistic or historically correct for people to be able to fly a whole mission at emergency power?

 

Having operated large piston engines and known many Pilots and WWII fighter Pilots, this is just not normal, and skews historic aircraft performance and is more "arcade" for wont of a better word

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Livai]

Pushing your engine is like OC your CPU

 

 

Overclock the engine but still the engine has a lot weight to handle. The advantage is small but the possibility of engine failure very high! Much better solution is to put inside the Bf-109 F-4 the DB605 Engine. Doing this say hello to Bf-109 Zero-Sen! Much better performance than G-2, G-4, G-6.....................even the K-4 looks old compared to a F-4 with DB 605 DC and MW-50!

[Irgendjemand]

Question: Do you think the YAK-1 back in the day was flown full throttle all the time like its flown by most VVS players in game - just because they could?

I think they didnt fly it full power all the time as well since they also knew they degrade their material over time. So forcing one side to baby their equipment and not the other is - well, "napless" might be the right word.
 

Edited November 13, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[Sunde]

Question: Do you think the YAK-1 back in the day was flown full throttle all the time like its flown by most VVS players in game - just because they could?

I think they didnt fly it full power all the time as well since they also knew they degrade their material over time. So forcing one side to baby their equipment and not the other is - well, "napless" might be the right word.

 

Must admit i dont understand this logic either. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

It is because Russian engines seem to have Nominal power modes and the German engines have Combat and then Emergency power modes on top of Combat? The M105PF makes about the same as the DB601E when comparing Nominal to Combat mode. The M105PF doesn't have an emergency mode or a boost mode.

[Mac_Messer]

I wish the engine limits were server side setting.

 

Frankly, I don`t care that some of you fly in DF servers with people that game the game.

 

I tend to fly the planes the way they were historically flown. Whic means I set cruise manual settings when I cruise, I normally check the engine temps and pressures if they`re "in the middle". But when I meet a fearsome enemy, or worse yet, an enemy on my six - I friggin floor the throttle because in my way of playing combat flight sims I am afraid for my plane and for my virtual life. I don`t give a **** if it breaks down in the next two minutes. There will be no engine to break down if I don`t do everything in my power to stay alive. And  if the plane which I fly historically had a bit of margin of power I should historically be able to use - I should be albe to use it, it is that simple.  

 

Putting unhistorical strict limits on aircraft for 'gamey' reasons is denying realism. If you are fed up with ppl flying at 100% all the time, maybe you should pick a different group to fly with/against rather than telling me what to do.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Mac_Messer

[GridiroN]

This is a weird conversation with people comparing apples to apples when the DB601/5 and M105 were different engines. The DB60x was a variable pitch propellor, designed to control it's power via the throttle, which was tied to the RPM, which is set automatically by the machine. 

 

The M105 is designed to run full throttle (doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea if you care about wear and tear), and has it's temperature and cruise/combat power dictating by the pilot's direct input of the RPM. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by GridiroN

[Finkeren]

Question: Do you think the YAK-1 back in the day was flown full throttle all the time like its flown by most VVS players in game - just because they could?

I think they didnt fly it full power all the time as well since they also knew they degrade their material over time. So forcing one side to baby their equipment and not the other is - well, "napless" might be the right word.

 

Actually, I remember reading about Soviet pilots being reprimanded for flying entire missions with a fully open throttle, which greatly increased wear and tear and IIRC brought time between overhauls down below ten hours.

 

So yeah, they probably did occasionally do it on shorter missions, where fuel consumption wasn't an issue, "just because they could".

[BlitzPig_EL]

When you are faced with an enemy whose aircraft grossly out perform your own, like the Bf 109s did compared to everything the VVS flew early in the war, and to what the Commonwealth air forces and the USAAF faced with the P40 early on, you flew to save your life and to win, and tossed the manual out the freaking window.

 

Having your crew chief mad at you is a hell of a lot better than your next of kin receiving a telegram from the War Department.

Edited November 13, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It's a bit more complex than that. In 1941 and 1942 the Soviet regiments suffered an acute lack of equipment for example. Pilots routinely would risk their lived and often die just to try and bring their aircraft back. Many suffered heavy burns or crashed upon landing while nursing aircraft which would have routinely been abandoned because their unit had 3 airworthy crates left and no idea when they would get new ones. I'm positive the same happened with engines unless the situation was beyond hopeless (which it usually isn't) - no aircraft can fight without an engine.

 

I don't have the Hawk just yet so I can't comment on it, but the limits for the MiG-3, La-5 and I-16 are very lax. Perhaps a different approach per aircraft could work, but most of the time in 41-42 Soviet pilots were very cautious with British equipment because they had enough trouble operating it under local conditions.

[FuriousMeow]

I don't care for dogfight servers, so if they want to run engines full and not blow them - whatever, have fun in that distorted environment.

 

In attempted realistic servers I've thought that plane engines should be able to go full bore that they could actually do for that time period that is being simulated, but you lose that plane upon landing to simulate the engine getting overhauled. Obviously it couldn't be pushed to limits that were decided "safe" in 1944 when it is 1942.

 

Other sims have it where going beyond the standard setting of that time period for that plane was counted as "WEP" with a time limit which is pretty much what we have here, the only thing is the engine doesn't accumulate damage if going beyond the time limit but "WEP" is also gone.

 

Either way, there should not be a free pass to push the engine beyond limits of the time period scenario operates without some consequences.

Edited November 14, 2016 by FuriousMeow

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

In attempted realistic servers I've thought that plane engines should be able to go full bore that they could actually do for that time period that is being simulated, but you lose that plane upon landing to simulate the engine getting overhauled. Obviously it couldn't be pushed to limits that were decided "safe" in 1944 when it is 1942.

 

This is actually a pretty cool idea.

 

As the long-term vision for this simulator is to have organised protracted air wars and also some kind of order in single-mission MP settings, this would add the logistics factor that is hard to simulate to make engine limits fully realistic.

 

Imagine a group shooting down three aircraft in one mission while pushing the engine beyond the grave then coming back and seeing they toasted the last four airworthy aircraft in said base, and being forced to fly Tante Ju to repay the damage

[E69_geramos109]

Is not realistic to push the engine all the sortie. As you said in the war most of the time they were using cruise settings but also ia a server, the situation is not the same as in a real sortie. Here you are close the action all the time even you try to find the combat with everybody so you need a lot more power than in a real sortie.

 

Is difficult to simulate all the aspects about manteniance lf the plane. You get a new plane in perfect condition all the sorties. Maybe in the campaign will be nice to do what furious is telling.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I wouldn't say it takes all that much horsepower to get to the hot zones. In my time in the Fw-190, Bf-109, Yak-1, LaGG-3, La-5, I-16 and MiG-3, I've found you can reach combat height and speed without using anything close to full power.

 

From the Soviet side, on cruise settings you can almost fully close the radiators reducing drag while also saving fuel. With the German aircraft it's the same thing, except the engine's regulator takes care of the details for you. A lot of times even in combat you don't have to firewall it all the time, so long as you took the time to get a good position and planned your mission well (but of course, things can change very quickly in the air)

[Asgar]

It is true, that you don't have to "always firewall it in a fight", but for the sake of realism i think more loose engine limitations would be good. engines don't break after 3 minutes of emergency power because a timer is up. that's not how it worked. and there are several accounts of people firewalling it in real combat to save their life, without disintegrating the engine

[150GCT_Veltro]

There is no way to simulate this probleem i'm afraid, if not with a random failure if we execeed in full throttle, a sort of engine stamina with a linked % of failure. But the same should have to be for the structural aircraft failure.

 

However, the priority should have to be for pilot fatigue and stress. This would be really a revolution in the flight sims.

 

Sure, in real WW2 life pilots push the engine only to safe their life in desperate conditions. Just imagine the pilots over the Mediterranean Sea......

 

We also know about Macchi and Spitfire flying around themself wihout engaging just to return to their own airbase, but this is another aspect of the war we can simulate ourself. It was not a game as we know.

 

What i think could be really simulated is pilot fatigue and stress.

Edited November 14, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro

[Irgendjemand]

Actually, I remember reading about Soviet pilots being reprimanded for flying entire missions with a fully open throttle, which greatly increased wear and tear and IIRC brought time between overhauls down below ten hours.

 

So yeah, they probably did occasionally do it on shorter missions, where fuel consumption wasn't an issue, "just because they could".

So and you really think germans gave a shaite about limits when they actually knew the material holds up? For shorter missions that possibly brought the rotte into a situation where they might have gotten jumped from above. As if the germans wouldnt have faced such missions.

Older material got handed down to new pilots so why should i care if i was there? Just imagine you were there. You surely would not have babied your equipment just to make it hold up longer. If your life depends on it you push it to the limit. Even if its longer than a minute or two or three.....

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Irgendjemand