A G4 question

[Gunsmith86]

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.

 

 

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

I like the idea but it would have to be done better because if its done like you write than we will have the problem that someone else who didnt care about the engine just used up all planes on one airfield and we others that started later have no more aircraft to fly.

Better would be a system were every player has a personal hangar were all his aircraft are stored. In this hangar he can see how much time he has used that aircraft and how long he can still fly it before he has to overhaule the engine which would look the plane for a day. After a overhaule the plane would be like new. That would be the time were you could push the engine the most but by doing it the time until your next overhaule is needed would be short while if you stay in the alowed engine limits the time to the next overhaul would be long.

So if you jump into a server and there is a plane on the airfield that you have in overhaule than you cant use it that day but you would also not have the problem that someone else has used all aircraft up because that would have been his owne planes and they are only looked for him.

This system should be made so that singleplayer and Multiplayer is seperat so you can use your plane in singleplayer whitout getting it looked for Mp.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Gunsmith86

[Asgar]

 

 

Why are you so worked up? It's not the developers or anyone elses fault that Soviet engineers came up with a brilliant engine that could be ran at full power as long as temps weren't exceeded.

 

hahaha brilliant joke mate...it's not "superior soviet engineering" it's simply limiting engine output, same way the G-2 has a de-rated engine, with the difference that it's limited to a 100% safe (as far as that is possible in aviation) engine setting. 

[Blutaar]

Im pretty sure that in a life to death situation, no one ever cared about engine timelimits back then, no matter which side.

I read somewhere sometime that the most missions flown where without enemy contact, if that is true then it is logic to have such timelimits to keep the engine out of stress, to save it for real combat situations.

After the combat the pilot maybe tells the engineer that he needed full throttle for some time and the engineer noted it and would have taken the engine out for maintainence a bit earlier, depends on the noted reports from the pilot?

Im not 100% sure about that but im sure that in combat we should use our max performance longer than a few minutes.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Agree that engine limits are handeled very strictly and could be lifted higher at least. It's not only an issue for fighter but also for bombers. If you have an engine failure in the Ju-88 or He-111 the running engine must be pushed to combat power to maintain flight. If you used it up for climbing you're done for because it will ultimately fail on the preset timelimit.

 

Engine limits should be treated purely technically just like any other limitations  of an aircraft (Vne, max/min.G, ect). It doesn't matter how a player may adopt to it and use it to his advantage as long as it's technically feasebil. This is an aircraft simulation overall, not a manual simulation.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I don't understand all that chatter about "how would you model engine limits better" and "that's the only way to do it", when there are already a bunch of Sims out there (well, really all of them) who model this aspect way better 

[E69_geramos109]

Is true that the russian engines can work at 100 due to a low compresion. Is other way to work. The daimler was like a race car engine concept. compact, hight compresion and light. I prefer that style and reds will tell that they like the klimov.

Both were good engines.

Is hard to simulate exactly all the war details like the endurance of the engine with the missions. Also the clima and humity afected the materials on the wood wing surface and later the german war quality was not the same in all the planes.

Edited November 14, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

We'be drifted pretty far from the OP. Maybe a mod can separate the time limit stuff off into its own thread. It's a good topic in its own right.

[Finkeren]

The daimler was like a race car engine concept. compact, hight compresion and light. I prefer that style and reds will tell that they like the klimov.

Both were good engines.

 

Not really sure I'd say that the Klimov is a "good" engine per se. It's serviceable, cheap and relatively reliable, but its performance is not really impressive at all. I think it's symptomatic for the Klimov 105, that the way to improve perfomance on the one line of fighters that kept using it was not as much to improve the power of the 105, but make the aircraft lighter culminating in the Yak-3.

 

The Shvetzov Ash-82 on the other hand is legitimately a good engine, pound for pound as good as (if not better than) the BMW 801.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Finkeren

[Dakpilot]

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

 

There are several accounts of people firewalling it in real combat, but how many Pilots were in combat in WWII 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

[LukeFF]

 

Instead of rolling your eyes at him, think about what he's saying and ask yourself: how many of those pilots that firewalled their engine didn't manage to make it back to base because the engine failed? It's easy to look at a handful of anecdotes that talk about firewalling the engine without catastrophic repercussions and to assume that was the norm.  

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Instead of rolling your eyes at him, think about what he's saying and ask yourself: how many of those pilots that firewalled their engine didn't manage to make it back to base because the engine failed? It's easy to look at a handful of anecdotes that talk about firewalling the engine without catastrophic repercussions and to assume that was the norm.  

 

Not many, compared to the ones who were shot down. It's another nothing-comment, and deserves nothing else then rolling eyes.

No one wants complete open engine limits, and every engine lasting forever. Just a little more realism and no 3 min engine seize times. Other sims achieve it with ease, so i really can't see the problem. 

Those "Status-quo developer's always right" comments achieve nothing. I understand that you maybe friends of them, but always defending every decision "to death" is a little bit too much. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

There are several accounts of people firewalling it in real combat, but how many Pilots were in combat in WWII 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Considering the fact that 1/1000 combat pilots in WWII supplied anecdotes about their service I'd say that the sample we do have is representative of what most of these pilots were likely doing.

 

For every one of those several accounts I can find I'm failing to correlate an equal number of anecdotes that state "We flew within the factory limits at all times - we knew that if we flew 15 seconds over the factory specified emergency power time recommendation for engine longevity/serviceability limit that we'd trail black smoke and our engines would seize, invariably, between 1-3 minutes."

Edited November 14, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[Livai]

-> use of emergency power thrust was limited, to spare on the engines flight hours lifetime, since every second of emergency power thrust counted as several minutes of regular power run due to extreme thermal stress!

Edited November 14, 2016 by Superghostboy

[Dakpilot]

Considering the fact that 1/1000 combat pilots in WWII supplied anecdotes about their service I'd say that the sample we do have is representative of what most of these pilots were likely doing.

 

For every one of those several accounts I can find I'm failing to correlate an equal number of anecdotes that state "We flew within the factory limits at all times - we knew that if we flew 15 seconds over the factory specified emergency power time recommendation for engine longevity/serviceability limit that we'd trail black smoke and our engines would seize, invariably, between 1-3 minutes."

 

The trouble is everyone thinks about flying combat as one mission, and 'firewalling' the engine to save your life, first that bit of emergency power is rarely going to help when you have got into a bad tactical situation or bounced, many (not pointing fingers) people seem to obsess on having "moar power' than spending time thinking about avoiding the situation in the first place.

 

Boring as it sounds operating limits were there, understood and respected and mostly adhered to, Pilots who regularly had to have an engine change every flight would soon be talking to the C/O and falling out with their mechanics and fellow Pilots because of equipment shortages

 

I have owned flown and operated high power WWII era piston engines, (and flew with a number of WWII fighter pilots)  I do have a bit of experience on this subject, most Pilots like to be able to RTB after a flight/sortie and especially after a number of flights with the same aircraft/engine, engine failure over enemy territory is not to be considered lightly. A trained pilot is also thinking about the next day/flight and engine management

 

Certainly in extreme situations emergency power/boost was used, I am not denying that, but

 

My point is that in sim flying there are no bad endings and if their is a possibility to fly at emergency power for a whole mission this will become the norm/standard practice 

 

It would be very arcade

 

emergency power limitations have to be considered very carefully, or they will be exploited to hell and back, is that what people want?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited November 14, 2016 by Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

My point is that in sim flying there are no bad endings and if their is a possibility to fly at emergency power for a whole mission this will become the norm/standard practice 

I have never seen anyone claiming, emergency power should be usuable for a whole mission. Ever.

Why always such hyperboles? Everytime you are making a point, you are pretending people want only extrema

[Livai]

 

 

My point is that in sim flying there are no bad endings and if their is a possibility to fly at emergency power for a whole mission this will become the norm/standard practice It would be very arcade emergency power limitations have to be considered very carefully, or they will be exploited to hell and back, is that what people want?

 

emergency power limitations is arcade..........

 

If someone plan to use emergency power all the time will have problems with overheating due more thermal stress for the cooling system than normal resulting a slowly engine dead due overheating after you go far beyond the regular and save emergency power limitations time to overuse it!

[Dakpilot]

I have never seen anyone claiming, emergency power should be usuable for a whole mission. Ever.

Why always such hyperboles? Everytime you are making a point, you are pretending people want only extrema

 

Have you actually read this thread?

 

see post 66

 

A proposal was put forward, I am saying be careful what you want

 

please stop putting words in my mouth, it is very tiring

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[Irgendjemand]

hahaha brilliant joke mate...it's not "superior soviet engineering" it's simply limiting engine output, same way the G-2 has a de-rated engine, with the difference that it's limited to a 100% safe (as far as that is possible in aviation) engine setting. 

ROFL. Didnt read what he wrote since hes ignored but must have been a very good joke:P

Superior russian engineering.

Thats why so many people drive russian cars wordwide - right:P

 LOOOOOOL

[Finkeren]

ROFL. Didnt read what he wrote since hes ignored but must have been a very good joke:P

Superior russian engineering.

Thats why so many people drive russian cars wordwide - right:P

LOOOOOOL

Well, a lot of people run around shooting Russian assault rifles in wars across the globe.

[Gambit21]

ROFL. Didnt read what he wrote since hes ignored but must have been a very good joke:P

Superior russian engineering.

Thats why so many people drive russian cars wordwide - right:P

 LOOOOOOL

 

You have ZERO clue what you're inanely yammering about.

Russians are famous for making rugged equipment, much more so than the west.

Ruggedness is one of the defining characteristic of the Russian Mig's to this day. 

[Asgar]

Well, a lot of people run around shooting Russian assault rifles in wars across the globe.

mostly because H&K stuff is expansive 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Reliability in rough conditions is the main reason. The MiG-21 for example could operate seamlessly from runways where the F-5 could only dream of landing on. The Tiger for example has a nasty tendency of popping the front tire during braking even on a well-prepared and maintained runway.

 

It's more about having something that works well but works all the time over something that works excellently but breaks down often. The early T-34 was an example of the latter - best tank in 1941 by a long shot, but most went down without even getting into combat.

[Gambit21]

Reliability in rough conditions is the main reason. The MiG-21 for example could operate seamlessly from runways where the F-5 could only dream of landing on. The Tiger for example has a nasty tendency of popping the front tire during braking even on a well-prepared and maintained runway.

 

It's more about having something that works well but works all the time over something that works excellently but breaks down often. The early T-34 was an example of the latter - best tank in 1941 by a long shot, but most went down without even getting into combat.

 

The old joke went something like...

 

"jump up an down in the cockpit of a MiG and it's ready to go...sneeze in an F-16 and it's grounded for a week"

[LukeFF]

 

 

Those "Status-quo developer's always right" comments achieve nothing. I understand that you maybe friends of them, but always defending every decision "to death" is a little bit too much. 

 

You're sorely mistaken if you think my comments are colored by my friendship with Jason, and that's as polite as I'm going to be about that.  

[Asgar]

all i'm gonna say is, there are many people who seem to think that, so i guess there has to be a reason for that...maybe your comment on this forum. Also you're human (i assume) so yes, your comments will always be colored by your personal feelings, friendships and what not, if you deny that you're clearly lying.

Edited November 15, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[Irgendjemand]

Btw. I know Russians are great engineers. And i respect that. I didnt mean this comment other than to upset you guys.
Maybe some person now gets how stupid such comments are.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[150GCT_Veltro]

This is better for the bulges. I think they need to be tuned down a bit.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro

[Asgar]

they do look kinda "steep" in game