BF109 Engine Damage in boost/emergency mode

[JaffaCake]

Fumes, its quite understandable that engines would not  read the manuals and self-destruct the moment the specified timer is exhausted. But please could we focus on actually getting something done immediately? And specifically for this thread, it would be getting the devs to adjust the current time limit on the 109 emergency timer.

 

Yes it would mean we would still have the timer, whatever the value, but at least the aircraft won't be flying nerfed most of the time.

 

After we manage to persuade devs that their information on 109 wep time was wrong and get it corrected we can start arguing for a better engine model, which would affect ALL aircraft, not just 109. And in hindsight, such a discussion should not be part of this thread, as it is indeed generic to all aircraft.

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, JaffaCake said:

Fumes, its quite understandable that engines would not  read the manuals and self-destruct the moment the specified timer is exhausted. But please could we focus on actually getting something done immediately? And specifically for this thread, it would be getting the devs to adjust the current time limit on the 109 emergency timer.

 

Yes it would mean we would still have the timer, whatever the value, but at least the aircraft won't be flying nerfed most of the time.

 

After we manage to persuade devs that their information on 109 wep time was wrong and get it corrected we can start arguing for a better engine model, which would affect ALL aircraft, not just 109. And in hindsight, such a discussion should not be part of this thread, as it is indeed generic to all aircraft.

I dont see why these are mutually exclusive, or how my last post is preventing their discussion. I literally reiterated my desires like 1 post ago. 

[JaffaCake]

1 hour ago, Fumes said:

I dont see why these are mutually exclusive, or how my last post is preventing their discussion. I literally reiterated my desires like 1 post ago. 

 

 

You desire better engine model that reflects the reality in a better way.

 

The topic at hand is bf109-specific WEP time issue, which is present either with more complex engine model, or the current simplistic one.

 

The main raised issue of the thread is NOT the complexity of the engine model, but the fact that currently the bf109 engine on WEP incorrectly breaks at 1-minute time, which is nowhere to be found in the engine manuals, and further contradicted by 5-minute factory testing and some pictures of the timers on the aircraft.

 

 

Whether or not we change the engine model, it will not affect the "use of the manual-specified WEP time to somehow model engine deterioration with time at WEP".

 

Which is why I think its good to focus on the key point of this thread, instead of diluting it with other suggestions / hopes / improvements. We are discussing an ERROR in the values used to model the engine for a specific aircraft..

 

 

As for your suggestions regarding engine - I completely agree, and it warrants a separate thread, as it applies to every aircraft, not just 109.

Edited April 26, 2018 by JaffaCake

[LColony_Kong]

22 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

 

 

You desire better engine model that reflects the reality in a better way.

 

The topic at hand is bf109-specific WEP time issue, which is present either with more complex engine model, or the current simplistic one.

 

The main raised issue of the thread is NOT the complexity of the engine model, but the fact that currently the bf109 engine on WEP incorrectly breaks at 1-minute time, which is nowhere to be found in the engine manuals, and further contradicted by 5-minute factory testing and some pictures of the timers on the aircraft.

 

 

Whether or not we change the engine model, it will not affect the "use of the manual-specified WEP time to somehow model engine deterioration with time at WEP".

 

Which is why I think its good to focus on the key point of this thread, instead of diluting it with other suggestions / hopes / improvements. We are discussing an ERROR in the values used to model the engine for a specific aircraft..

 

 

As for your suggestions regarding engine - I completely agree, and it warrants a separate thread, as it applies to every aircraft, not just 109.

It is not off topic because the issue that makes the 109 this way is a issue that affects all the engines in the game. The broader issue is the subject of the thread by extension. That is why we have been talking about it for the last 12 pages. 

[JaffaCake]

5 minutes ago, Fumes said:

It is not off topic because the issue that makes the 109 this way is a issue that affects all the engines in the game. The broader issue is the subject of the thread by extension. That is why we have been talking about it for the last 12 pages. 

 

 

Sigh. Majority of the discussion was focused on the lack of specification of 1-minute time limit on 109. Not the fact that engines break after WEP time excess.

 

The additional tone of over-arching engine model issues is parallel to this, as I have clearly explained - the devs would still need to use some metric of "how much engine deteriorates at WEP over time" and that metric will still be the WEP-limit in manual. So even if we do have a more complex engine model, the devs will currently use 1 minute for 109, and say 5 minutes for 190. That would still mean, that even if 109 doesn't burst into flames after 1 minute WEP with better engine model, it will deteriorate faster than 190.

 

Unfortunately while both issues are worthy of discussion and need to be addressed, I believe we are better off purely discussing the 1-minute 109 WEP time in this thread, while we can create a separate thread discussing possible improvements to the engine model.

 

Otherwise we will keep walking in a circle between the two issues without giving a clear view to the devs, or arriving to some sort of conclusion, such as, for 109, would be a post summarising all of the evidence we have gathered and multiple people PMing a version to the devs, either asking to fix, or asking for "what have we missed"

Edited April 26, 2018 by JaffaCake

[Blutaar]

15 hours ago, Venturi said:

Because they miscalculated, and were pushing the absolute limit of the engines.

 

Sure! So other nations didnt push their engines to the absolut limit? And the russians thought it is ok to have inferior performance against the opposition and could push the VK105PF for example further if they wanted to but they didnt because of what? That makes no sense. Every nation pushed their engine to the absolut limit. It was war. I disagree with you!

 

14 hours ago, Venturi said:

There are many inconsistencies in the engine modeling, which is one of the reasons physics and engine basics need to be employed on a widescale basis in the sim, rather than the ad-hoc system that we have now. Part of that modeling would require an understanding of what fuel each plane is running on.

 

But we still have just that system. And who knows if that ever changes. One min till blowup is just unrealsitic and i dont know why you are defending such a system. You seem to have some knowledge but i dont believe that you know it all and that your opinion is more right then others.

 

If there was a problem like detonation after one minute nobody would clear such a setting or after discovering such a problem, they would have blocked it like they did at some point. Imagine how many would have lost their engines because they misjudged the 60secs timer. Where are all the reports, did they all died? Not one survior?

 

And anyway, what was the reuse timer? I mean heat limited engines ingame run forever and when you overdo it, you just have to throttle back and open the rad a bit and you can instantly push again. Why does most engines have a memory effect when it comes to blowup timers but no memory effect when heat is the limiting factor? Why not just make it so that heat limited engines also have very short timers with a long cooldown? So if you go above rated temps (rated temps not maximum) your destruction timer starts to tick and blows your engine when exceeding a certain number of seconds? And to refill that timer, you just need to open rads so you fall below rated temps and your timer starts to replenish in like 5 minutes or so only when tmep is below rated.

 

But yeah thats unrealistic right? That is not how engines work right? But a destruction timer is acceptable, sure.

 

15 hours ago, Venturi said:

The 190 uses C3 fuel all the time. One of the reasons it was used less on the East than the West (good luck using captured Russian fuel supplies... but maybe in a B4 using Bf109?). The BMW 801D requires 100oct + fuel. What the "C3 system" in the game does, is super-enrich the air/fuel mix so that detonation is retarded.

 

What are you trying to tell me here? The question was "And if detonation caused through low octane fuel is the reason for such short timers. Why does the 190 also has short timers with C3 fuel then?". Compared to its competition like FNs which uses 95 octane(?). In your world everything seems to be limited because of detonation but you dont apply it everywhere. At least that is my impresssion, forgive me if im wrong.

 

But just let us forget about Notlesitung for a second and talk about Kampfleistung. Why is it limited for 30 minutes with a blowup timer? Will detonation start at 30 minutes just like it starts at 1 minute at 1.42ata? But if the cause for the 30 minute timer is not detonation and instead for eninge preservation, why should it be different for 1.42ata? In my understanding these timers are just for engine preservation and not to prevent detonation (blowup). And remember, we allways have factory fresh planes. Why not implement an aiframe wear timer where planes start to loose performance and desintegrate midair when exceeding it? We also could model bad production quality so airframes degrade faster depending on which side you play and in what timeframe. You know, to get in line with the engine wear modeling. Ah right, its not in the manuals i forgot.

[Venturi]

It is more complicated to understand, than you want to understand. 

[MiloMorai]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 5:57 AM, MiloMorai said:

 

C3 fuel was of limited supply late in the BoB. Was used by some Bf110s and a few Bf109s. Late war C3 was lucky if it had a PN of 140.

 

Laugh all you want Kurfy but this is what your good buddy Crumpp once posted.

 

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

On 25/4/2018 at 2:15 AM, RAY-EU said:

....

In the youtube video of The Interview I published of Volker Bau , Erich Brunotte appears at the beginning saying hello at the technical pilot of the Airbus of the historic Bf109 as a Consultant.

Many Thanks to III/JG52_Otto-I- that has give us all that information who we are in contact.

And Here is his webside biography : 

 

http://video.flyingheritage.com/v/116079427/feldwebel-erich-brunotte.htm

Sorry, But that man is Wolfgang Schirdewahn  he is the Me-262 pilot, we have another little interview with him about the Me-262 that we haven´t published, but which is possibly would be interesting when the Battle of Bodenplatte will be released. You can send me a PM in English or Spanish if you need more details.

[Blutaar]

14 hours ago, Venturi said:

It is more complicated to understand, than you want to understand. 

 

Are you sure? What do mean? Is everything wrong and my questions arent valid?

 

No, i think you make it more complicated than it needs to be. I think i understand what detonation is thx to this forum even when im not an expert like You. I just dont believe that the timelimit is there to prevent detonation because in my logic, even if it was the case, i dont think anyone would allow such a setting when they would know that detonation cant be prevented just because of the cheap fuel they used after just 60 secs. When you can know that detonation starts at 1.42ata after 60 secs for sure because of low octane fuel. Do you really think engineers back than couldnt figure it out themselfes without blowing many engines apart through detonation? Remember, the 1 minute Notlesitung for 109F/G comes from manuals where 1.42ata was completely blocked. In my theory, units could remove the mechanical stop and use Notlesitung but just for a very short time because there were problems with this setting at that time. But i cant bring any facts so it is just my theory because such a limitation makes absolutely no sense to me when the setting is mechanically blocked anyway.

 

And who can guarantee that detonation dosent start after 30 sec on low octane fuel for example at these high settings? I mean detonation destroys the engine isntantly or at least without any warning signs, dosent it? At least that seems to be consens under the experts here. What about ambient temps, does they have any effect on detonation? What about the limitation for Kampfleistung? Whats the reason for that? Detonation? What is the reason for the 3 min timer in the 190, detonation also? Why? I thought low octane fuel was the limiting factor but the 190 uses C3 fuel which has higher octane then B4. Why is it different in the FN where you have more pressure and horsepower at continues setting at lower octane (95?)?

 

Is that really so complicated that i just cant understand because im an idiot? Isnt that what you try to say? Are there any reports that explicitily say that detonation was the reason behind the ban for 1.42ata or that detonation happens at all at these settings? I mean where did you get that detonation was a thing in the DB601/5? This is a serious question because i would like to read it myself. Pls only german reports, no translations or non german reports/documents, thank you in advance.

 

Edit: I read somewhere that there was a problem with oil somehow entering the burning chamber and when this happens to much, it lowers the octane number in the fuel mixture and can cause detonation. But this seems like a problem they were aware of and fixed it. So this cant be the issue here. And of course, i dont know if this really was the case. It just comes from a random guy on a forum.

 

"In the DB 601/5, the crankshaft spins anti-clockwise (as seen from the rear) and due to the windage, shape of the engine and gravity, more oil gets sprayed into the LHS bank compared to the RHS. (Remember, these engines had three-row roller bearings in the con-rod big-ends which allowed more oil to pass than conventional shell bearings.)
This excess oil would get past the piston rings and into the combustion chambers. If too much oil gets mixed with the fuel it lowers the octane rating and causes detonation. Thus they had to lower the C.R. of the left hand bank cylinders. It was a very crude solution to the problem."

Edited April 27, 2018 by Ishtaru

[ZachariasX]

As things are now, the manual (of choice) is the only source for a limiter than cannot be dennounced as bias. Unless a comprehensive damage modelling for engine wear is in place (which can open a can of worms by itself), the devs hardly do themsevles a favor by doing all that.

 

I think the main problem lies not in the fact that there is a timer, but in what is starting a timer in the first place. So far, it is mostly RPM, possibly a residual liability from good old RoF, where prop overspeed at once „oiles“ an engine. In the age of the Camel fag vs. Clowncars, you just dove the Camel a bit and the immidiate, little gain in RPM, even though through windmiling would kill the engine. The nerf Camel (for which I am grateful) didn‘t spin that high anymore and suddenly had a lot of headroom for prop overspeed in a dive. The trigger wasn‘t changed. It was nonsense back then and it is even more so in BoX.

 

If at least MAP *and* torque could be used to create situations where The Timer(TM) is triggered, a lot would be gained and it would make the Allison powered planes flyable again. (Ok, it‘s not that bad, just run it at high torque...). Plus you could at least power dive the 109 without problems.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

5 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

As things are now, the manual (of choice) is the only source for a limiter than cannot be dennounced as bias. Unless a comprehensive damage modelling for engine wear is in place (which can open a can of worms by itself), the devs hardly do themsevles a favor by doing all that.

 

I think the main problem lies not in the fact that there is a timer, but in what is starting a timer in the first place. So far, it is mostly RPM, possibly a residual liability from good old RoF, where prop overspeed at once „oiles“ an engine. In the age of the Camel fag vs. Clowncars, you just dove the Camel a bit and the immidiate, little gain in RPM, even though through windmiling would kill the engine. The nerf Camel (for which I am grateful) didn‘t spin that high anymore and suddenly had a lot of headroom for prop overspeed in a dive. The trigger wasn‘t changed. It was nonsense back then and it is even more so in BoX.

 

If at least MAP *and* torque could be used to create situations where The Timer(TM) is triggered, a lot would be gained and it would make the Allison powered planes flyable again. (Ok, it‘s not that bad, just run it at high torque...). Plus you could at least power dive the 109 without problems.

 

I agree with you on almost everything. But there is no such thing as a „manual of choice“ the is the right manual for the right plane and time frame. None of these manuals has a 1 minute time limit. So yes, sticking to the manual and removing the limit would be the only non-bias way the Devs could go!

[ZachariasX]

5 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

I agree with you on almost everything. But there is no such thing as a „manual of choice“ the is the right manual for the right plane and time frame. None of these manuals has a 1 minute time limit. So yes, sticking to the manual and removing the limit would be the only non-bias way the Devs could go!

Ok, I was a tad sarcastic and refering to the subtle differences between the manual for the recon variant, some earlier prints etc. It is amazing with what people can come up here bona fide. Doctoring the timeline following the bureaucratic timeline of DB and the GL trying to make most of what they have at hand while trying to cover their asses is a telenovela in its own right.

 

Yes, you are right.

[Blutaar]

34 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I think the main problem lies not in the fact that there is a timer, but in what is starting a timer in the first place.

 

Lets not forget the "cooldown timer". If done like it is for heat limited engines, 1 min full boost would still be very short but with a short "cooldown timer" the problem would be less significant. Like throttling back to 1.15ata for a few seconds and then you can go full throttle again for another full minute and repeat. Just like you would do in a Yak1 for example when reaching the heat limit. And for my friends, no, i dont compare 105 with 605 engines here ok. It is just an example because this is a game mechanic and there are not much heat only limited engines ingame. And the yak is a good example because it is hot and on the performance edge unlike the freakin La5FN. But thats not the point.

 

The point is, when we consider 1 minute as a realistic destruction timer for the DB60x or any other engine, we also need a realistic "cooldown timer". Not that i think there is anything realistic in such terms when speaking about real engines and planes but the game has MMO style timers so we have to deal with it. And i dont see how a more realistic enigne model would solve the issue. The timers would still be in the manuals and would be applied in one way or another. If not, experts would rise and speak against it and claim there must be detonation after x minutes because reasons. But i dont see that coming, maybe some time in the future who knows.

 

So when applying a timer which trys to reflect the manual. Who then determines how many seconds or minutes you need to cool down when there is no clear answer in the same manuals they pulled the "destruction timers" from? Or is there any clear statement in any manual of any nation how long you have to wait before using full boost again? I just remember vague terms like a short cooldown or just cooldown etc. Not that i saw that many manuals but i cant remember in the ones i read. But im sure you guys now if it exists and will enentually correct me.

[ZachariasX]

It appears to me that the „cool down timer“ is just a nicety the devs came up with to mend some of the harsh reality imposed by artificially imposing official power ratings. But it is as arbitary as the run time timer itself. To me it is a testament of the devs actually being very well aware that rated limits are rather conservative.

 

The destruction timers reflect the originally and (now) publicly stated power ratings. Deviations from that have mostly been corrected by the devs. The devs don‘t owe us more than requiring us flying after the original flight manual. Any inner mechanics is their own business.

 

The problem arises rather if the current implementation encourages engine regimes that actually kill a real world engine. The timer being RPM dependent in the current form does that and this is against the original intentions of requiring us to operate the engine realistically. Also it activates the timer in a wrong manner. This I think is the more pressing issue than theoretical run time durations at excessive ratings.

[Alastair_S1D]

I find this topic exceedingly interesting. And I have only read up to page 3/12 thus far.  there are a few points I woukd like to address. 

 

I agree that there is an issue in this game. Overrunning your engine in a BF for more than a minute = black smoke and dead engines is a stupid mechanic. 

 

Yes running at high boost pressures definitely shortened the TBO of engines no doubt. But I disagree on the fact that the engines fail at 61 seconds of 100% power. 

 

Flying turbo Aztecs and Turbo Senecas flying more than 5 mins at takeoff power and high MP's doesn't mean instant engine failure. However it does mean tour engine won't make it to the 1600 or 1800 hour TBO and you will end up with that costly overhaul bill sooner than expected. You will end up sending a camera down the cylinders and you will end up seeing the cylinders are the worse for wear because of it. But just because I ran my turbo Seneca for 5 mins and 10 seconds at TO power doesn't mean I now need to start going through my engine failure after take off checks. And for this reason the game system is certainly an issue. 

 

I have seen a few comments about the DB605 as well and the reliability issues it had. The 605 wasn't just a bored up and enlarged 601. It also used a host of different bearings as well. I know a lot of ball bearings and stuff were replaced with simpler sleeves and races in order to ease production. The inferior bearings had inferior lubrication and this lead to the issues with the 605 more than anything than the 600 series actually being at its limits. 

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Alastair_S1D

[JaffaCake]

30 minutes ago, Alastair_S1D said:

---

 

 

 

There are actually 2 lines of discussion throughout the entire thread:

 

1) Dev's incorrect setting for 1-minute WEP on some 109 models. 

 

2) General all-aircraft desire to review the engine model to be less of a binary thing as it is now.

 

the 2nd one is unfortunately not helpful, as the thread is made specifically about the 109 (as I have clarified in the post not too long ago : https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/31708-bf109-engine-damage-in-boostemergency-mode/?do=findComment&comment=610822)

Edited May 3, 2018 by JaffaCake

[ZachariasX]

And this is because the 109 is more equal than other aircraft.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

If you think about it, it’s actually because the thread is about 109s.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

If you think about it, it’s actually because the thread is about 109s.

If you think about it there‘s no thread about the Spitfire getting more minutes of „timer“ as stared in the manual...

[[_FLAPS_]Grim]

Maybe you could start one if you need one...its free you know? 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

32 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

If you think about it there‘s no thread about the Spitfire getting more minutes of „timer“ as stared in the manual...

If you think about it even more, you are free to start one. Then thinking about it even more we have 5 109s in game and only 1Spitfire, which puts things into perspective and finally when you start thinking about it very hard, there isn´t even a 109 thread about getting more minutes than stated in the manual, in case you have been following the discussion.

 

So good luck with your Spittie thread!

Edited May 3, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[ZachariasX]

8 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

If you think about it even more, you are free to start one. Then thinking about it even more we have 5 109s in game and only 1Spitfire, which puts things into perspective and finally when you start thinking about it very hard, there isn´t even a 109 thread about getting more minutes than stated in the manual, in case you have been following the discussion.

 

So good luck with your Spittie thread!

It‘s not that. It‘s the fact that arbitary corrections of an individual plane were given priority (because I want my 5/10/infinite minutes now!) over the elimination of a systematic (although put in place plausibly and for good reason) error in the sim:

 

1 hour ago, JaffaCake said:

 

 

There are actually 2 lines of discussion throughout the entire thread:

 

1) Dev's incorrect setting for 1-minute WEP on some 109 models. 

 

2) General all-aircraft desire to review the engine model to be less of a binary thing as it is now.

 

the 2nd one is unfortunately not helpful, as the thread is made specifically about the 109 (as I have clarified in the post not too long ago : https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/31708-bf109-engine-damage-in-boostemergency-mode/?do=findComment&comment=610822)

 

The last thing we need is such a Spitfire thread.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

IMO it’s that the Dev team just doesnt have enough resources to fix the problem systematically. The 109s make up half the German planes in the game. So yeah, I do feel  „fixing“ something like a totally nonsensical 1 minute engine blow up timer, be it by workaround, to be  a sensible thing.

If there were 6 Spitfires and 1 109 in the game I am sure there would be similar thread about Spitfires.

When you say things like the 109 being more equal than others, you are giving the discussion a a drift towards luftwhinibg accusation again. Luckily the discussion has been going on without such accusation for some pages now.

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[ZachariasX]

If the solution is that simple, they could up the max rating on all planes? Especially the Allison engines? I used the Spit just as an example.

 

It would be rather a zero sum game then, probably against ulterior motives of some.

 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

if I understand you right, you are unhappy with the current Spitfire because you get the WEP, which is actually mentioned in the manual? Hey if we all got what’s in the manual then at least it would be consistent. The 109 currently doesn’t get what’s in the manual. Don’t get me wrong I would chose historical accuracy over consistency any day, but until then planes should be treated consistent according to manual.

Edited May 3, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[JaffaCake]

14 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

If the solution is that simple, they could up the max rating on all planes? Especially the Allison engines? I used the Spit just as an example.

 

It would be rather a zero sum game then, probably against ulterior motives of some.

 

 

 

This is so irrelevant. If you think something is wrong with a different aircraft - start a different damn thread. Provide the relevant data, get feedback from the community to polish it up and send to devs, keep persisting so they actually change it. I will be right there to back you up. Hell, I fly pe2 - better 109s is only making it worse for me.

 

 

As it is right now, for a fact the manual times will be used in some way to determine engine damage with time, whether immediate or gradual, depending on the engine model. People here are trying to correct that baseline number the devs would end up using in their model. Why 109 gets the attention? Because people made a thread. Why does spit not get attention? Because nobody made the thread yet. 

 

 

Why does this thread keep getting derailed? Because people feel they need to put their irrelevant .2c about a different aircraft / general issue in an aircraft-specific thread.

Edited May 3, 2018 by JaffaCake

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

if I understand you right, you are unhappy with the current Spitfire because you get the WEP, which is actually mentioned in the manual? Hey if we all got what’s in the manual then at least it would be consistent. The 109 currently doesn’t get what’s in the manual. Don’t get me wrong I would chose historical accuracy over consistency any day, but until then planes should be treated consistent according to manual. It seems to me, like you think the current 1 minute is good because the Allison engine is treated unfairly due to what it says in the manual. So you would rather have the inconsistent current implementation than see the Allison engine at a disadvantage.

 

No, I‘m fine with the Spitfire and I am also fine with the rest for now. But if there was room for correction, I just rather had engines such that realistic use of them is encouraged.

 

I am less sensitive to timers, as I usually get shot down before they „ring“.

 

But if the 109 gets 5 minutes or so, that is also fine by me, honestly. 

5 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

Why 109 gets the attention? Because people made a thread. Why does spit not get attention? Because nobody made the thread yet. 

 

 

For you convenience:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/33971-possible-discrepancy-spitfire-engine-limits/

 

Also for you I‘d be happy if you were given more minutes. How many do you want?

 

 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

I can see how you could be fine with general statements such as „I am fine with going with what the manual says“ for all aircraft or you are not fine with it and you want a more complicated system.

When you are saying you are fine with it current status you are actually not fine with going with what manuals say, you are preferring a system that systematically disadvantages 109s because no such timer exists in any manual. The number is made up.

Edited May 3, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[ZachariasX]

9 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

I can see how you could be fine with general statements such as „I am fine with going with what the manual says“ for all aircraft or you are not fine with it and you want a more complicated system.

When you are saying you are fine with it current status you are actually not fine with going with what manuals say, you are preferring a system that systematically disadvantages 109s because no such timer exists in any manual. The number is made up.

 

I have no intention of putting any aircraft at a disadvatage. But I would indeed favor a system that would encourage systems management as you would with real aircraft. It is my understanding that the 109 would also benefit from that, as you finally could substain power dives without prop overspeed immediately killing your engine for instance. Even normal flight in the 109 would keep „the timer“ from getting triggered, as windmilling of the prop can reduce internal engine loads. You minute gets much longer if you do things right.

 

If you don‘t, it just comes down to a poll on truth.

[JaffaCake]

1 hour ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

I can see how you could be fine with general statements such as „I am fine with going with what the manual says“ for all aircraft or you are not fine with it and you want a more complicated system.

When you are saying you are fine with it current status you are actually not fine with going with what manuals say, you are preferring a system that systematically disadvantages 109s because no such timer exists in any manual. The number is made up.

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

I have no intention of putting any aircraft at a disadvatage. But I would indeed favor a system that would encourage systems management as you would with real aircraft. It is my understanding that the 109 would also benefit from that, as you finally could substain power dives without prop overspeed immediately killing your engine for instance. Even normal flight in the 109 would keep „the timer“ from getting triggered, as windmilling of the prop can reduce internal engine loads. You minute gets much longer if you do things right.

 

If you don‘t, it just comes down to a poll on truth.

 

 

Guys please realise that no matter what the engine model is like, the manual-based times will still be used as a measure of deterioration.

 

Literally, however complex the engine model is, if one aircraft uses 1 minute as reference, while another aircraft uses 5 minutes as reference you will still have the unwarranted disadvantage if 1 minute aircraft specification is wrong. 

 

This is precisely why I think its best to keep this thread to discussing whether bf109f-onwards had any specific limitations on the WEP power specified in manuals, as these are used as reference for all aircraft currently (as far as I know), as a baseline constant for engine model.

Edited May 3, 2018 by JaffaCake

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, JaffaCake said:

 

 

 

Guys please realise that no matter what the engine model is like, the manual-based times will still be used as a measure of deterioration.

 

Literally, however complex the engine model is, if one aircraft uses 1 minute as reference, while another aircraft uses 5 minutes as reference you will still have the unwarranted disadvantage if 1 minute aircraft specification is wrong. 

 

This is precisely why I think its best to keep this thread to discussing whether bf109f-onwards had any specific limitations on the WEP power specified in manuals, as these are used as reference for all aircraft currently (as far as I know), as a baseline constant for engine model.

Even with one minute, fact is that the 109 is the superior aircraft in the sim. So much for disadvantage. Of the devs find full power to be stated at one minute for the 109 and 5 minutes for the Merlin, then this is not unwarranted. It is in fact the only straw of info that they have at hand.

 

There are however other ressons why the „1 minute“ sux. It is because it is not one minute. In fact, you have more than one minute. But it is still short enough to inadverably blow your engine even if you are keeping attention to it wich is kind of a pain. It gets worse as this minute gets shortened when you overspeed the prop in a way that would be acceptable in real life, but in the sim it will make your engine seize in seconds.

 

Just because you are given another minute doesn‘t mean your engine wouldn‘t seize for a reasdon it shouldn‘t. Just uping this timer is a bad solution, as you need a lot of those to „fly without problems“, and these many minutes are neither consistent with the PN nor ok by leaving other planes in the dump.

 

The timer is not a 109 problem, it is not solved purely on the 109, it is rather an issue of the sim.

 

It is just tough luck that the 109 has a Kommandogerät forcing high rpm at high boost ratings and you cannot cheat the timer somewhat by reducing rpm at high boost. For instance in the Spit, there is very little performance loss down to 2600 rpm but you can run it at high boost and consequently it has a fairly long set timer. Even though it is daft having +16 boost and 2600 rpm, it is all happy and dandy in the sim.

 

You make a meaningful way of determining engine load in the sim, then stated times for respective ratings are much more acceptable than we have them now.

 

So, no, it is not just a question if stated timings are ok. It‘s a question of what is ok for what we have in the sim and whether you‘d be ok if just the 109 would benefitted from loosening these constraints. And lastly if it is meaningfull to rally for arbitary timings (you are obviously not ok with stated values of the PN) to make the plane perform to your liking.

[Alastair_S1D]

I amy have a solution to this issue. Whether it can be implemented in game is another issue entirely.

 

The devs introduce a "wear" mechanic.

An engine at 100% is new

An engine at 0% needs overhaul.

Now we know most guys in IL2 probably don't fly the same aircraft for more than a few hours at a time so making 100 hours between 100% - 0% is unrealistic except for the very few number of top 10 pilots that don't die and crash when looking at WoL stats. Maybe 10 hours or so but the number isn't the issue. 

 

However lets say the game uses a 10 hour TBO "wear" mechanic. A pilot that flies his plane by the book gets 10 hours of life out of it. A pilot that runs his engine at emergency power for longer than the manual states wears his engine out at an exponential rate. It can also be said that a new engine could run say 5 mins of WEP without much risk of failure while a zero time or near "TBO" engine might likely break if you run WEP for too long. Adding a bit of randomness into the mix. Also zero time engines can still be flown. But at risk to the pilot and airframe due to engine failure.

 

This can also lead to another mechanic. War Assets or something like that. Where a squadron has an amount of war assets or resources at its disposal. This can be applied for SP and MP. To overhaul an worn engine that uses the above stated "wear" mechanic costs assets and resources. You can earn assets/resources by killing hostile AC's and objectives.

 

So flying your aircraft with throttles at the firewall would end up costing you/your team/squadron more resources as you reach that TBO/ Wear level mark at a faster rate. Also crashing or loosing your aircraft and pilots will also cost resources so reduces YOLO tactics as well and rewards good tactical and careful flying. A team or group that reaches 0 resources looses the match or resources are re-genned over time but at a slow rate. So this may get rid of  "gamers" firewalling their engines for the duration of the flight and also those pilots in WoL or more lax servers that like to crash their bombers after the bombing run just so that they can avoid the return trip and get back on the target quickly again in a new plane. 

 

This I think solves a number of issues.

*The timer can remain for WEP especially in the case of worn engines.

*Engines can be run above their time limits (especially newer ones) without damaging the engine albiet at increased wear rate, and the chance of random destruction at high power settings for high time engines.

*Overhauling worn engines costs assets or resources or whatever. Heck we can call it an ingame currency for all I care.

*Assets/Resources can be earned by completing objectives and shooting down enemy fighters.

*War Asset management can change the gameplay dynamic of both SP career mode and MP matches. As one needs to watch how quickly resources are consumed. Airframe and engine conservation become key, which makes for better flying and tactics and maybe even more realistic air combat.

 

This is a suggestion. Maybe not a perfect one. But I came up with it while mulling over the topic. Whether or not it is feasible to incorporate it into the game or even if it can is another issue entirely.

[ZachariasX]

It would be great, I agree, as it would give better purpose to stated times for respective ratings and we probably wouldn‘t have this thread.

 

It means you have many timers for many parts of your engine, gasket, cylinders, etc. However this comes at great expense of ressources to simulate an engine and CPU overhead.

 

A2A Simulation does persistent damage modelling with their aircraft, which includes more than just the engine, but also rudder joints, brakes etc. It‘s really cool and gives you good reasons of taking care of your aircraft. If you require repairs every 10 hours then that tells you a lot about yourself.

 

In the end it is also about how much you want to pay for your game and what are the minimum system requirements for it.

[JaffaCake]

How difficult is it to understand that the 1-minute that the devs somehow found is NOT ACTUALLY CORRECT? and has nothing to do with how one would model the engine??!

 

As long as devs use the WEP time specified in manual to translate it into some constants for their engine model, this thread would still stand, purely based on the fact that 1-minute time limit did not exist in manuals for bf109-fonwards.

 

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Even with one minute, fact is that the 109 is the superior aircraft in the sim. So much for disadvantage. Of the devs find full power to be stated at one minute for the 109 and 5 minutes for the Merlin, then this is not unwarranted. It is in fact the only straw of info that they have at hand.

completely irrelevant. Game claims accuracy, they are inaccurate here. Lets nerf yak's turn rate because its really good too!

 

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

There are however other ressons why the „1 minute“ sux. It is because it is not one minute. In fact, you have more than one minute. But it is still short enough to inadverably blow your engine even if you are keeping attention to it wich is kind of a pain. It gets worse as this minute gets shortened when you overspeed the prop in a way that would be acceptable in real life, but in the sim it will make your engine seize in seconds.

Irrelevant. Discussion isn't why 1-minute time limit sucks, but why it exists in the first place as 1 minute.

 

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Just because you are given another minute doesn‘t mean your engine wouldn‘t seize for a reasdon it shouldn‘t. Just uping this timer is a bad solution, as you need a lot of those to „fly without problems“, and these many minutes are neither consistent with the PN nor ok by leaving other planes in the dump.

 

Irrelevant. Discussion isn't why timers are bad, or other aircraft. Discussion is precisely about the fact that devs use WEP manual time as guideline. They are using wrong guideline for 109

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

The timer is not a 109 problem, it is not solved purely on the 109, it is rather an issue of the sim.

 

The timer on 109 is EXACTLY a problem. It does not match the manuals, unlike most other aircraft.

 

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

It is just tough luck that the 109 has a Kommandogerät forcing high rpm at high boost ratings and you cannot cheat the timer somewhat by reducing rpm at high boost. For instance in the Spit, there is very little performance loss down to 2600 rpm but you can run it at high boost and consequently it has a fairly long set timer. Even though it is daft having +16 boost and 2600 rpm, it is all happy and dandy in the sim.

 

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about cheating timer or extending it. We are discussing that 1-minute timer on bf109-fonwards does not exist in the manuals, which are used as guidelines by the devs to set w./e limitations they do

 

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

You make a meaningful way of determining engine load in the sim, then stated times for respective ratings are much more acceptable than we have them now.

 

 

Irrelevant. We are discussing that w/e the model parameters the devs use, they use the manual WEP time as guideline to "how long can this engine last in WEP", w/e the actual time, the guideline used is wrong.

 

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

So, no, it is not just a question if stated timings are ok. It‘s a question of what is ok for what we have in the sim and whether you‘d be ok if just the 109 would benefitted from loosening these constraints. And lastly if it is meaningfull to rally for arbitary timings (you are obviously not ok with stated values of the PN) to make the plane perform to your liking.

 

 

The question is SPECIFICALLY that the guideline manual timing used by the devs is apparently wrong. Nothing to do with engine model or other aircraft.

[ZachariasX]

6 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

...

The question is SPECIFICALLY that the guideline manual timing used by the devs is apparently wrong. Nothing to do with engine model or other aircraft.

 

Apparently?

 

What is your solution?

[JaffaCake]

2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Apparently?

 

What is your solution?

 

 

Change the timing to a correct one? As per discussion of the thread, its either 3,5 or unknown (manual doesn't specify, facotry-tested for 5 minutes twice during production, a photo of a 109 with 3 minute mark on 1.42 ata). Whichever it is - its not 1 minute.

 

Any engine model discussion should be a separate thread as it concerns all aircraft, not just specifically 109. And as I said multiple times - the manual WEP times will still remain as guidelines to how "durable" engine is at each specific setting.

[LColony_Kong]

On 5/3/2018 at 6:38 AM, ZachariasX said:

If the solution is that simple, they could up the max rating on all planes? Especially the Allison engines? I used the Spit just as an example.

 

It would be rather a zero sum game then, probably against ulterior motives of some.

 

No one wants the max rating of all planes. This discussion is about time limits at approved ratings, not allowing higher boost. These are completely different subjects.

On 5/3/2018 at 11:44 AM, JaffaCake said:

How difficult is it to understand that the 1-minute that the devs somehow found is NOT ACTUALLY CORRECT? and has nothing to do with how one would model the engine??!

 

As long as devs use the WEP time specified in manual to translate it into some constants for their engine model, this thread would still stand, purely based on the fact that 1-minute time limit did not exist in manuals for bf109-fonwards.

 

 

completely irrelevant. Game claims accuracy, they are inaccurate here. Lets nerf yak's turn rate because its really good too!

 

 

Irrelevant. Discussion isn't why 1-minute time limit sucks, but why it exists in the first place as 1 minute.

 

 

 

Irrelevant. Discussion isn't why timers are bad, or other aircraft. Discussion is precisely about the fact that devs use WEP manual time as guideline. They are using wrong guideline for 109

 

 

The timer on 109 is EXACTLY a problem. It does not match the manuals, unlike most other aircraft.

 

 

 

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about cheating timer or extending it. We are discussing that 1-minute timer on bf109-fonwards does not exist in the manuals, which are used as guidelines by the devs to set w./e limitations they do

 

 

 

 

Irrelevant. We are discussing that w/e the model parameters the devs use, they use the manual WEP time as guideline to "how long can this engine last in WEP", w/e the actual time, the guideline used is wrong.

 

 

 

 

The question is SPECIFICALLY that the guideline manual timing used by the devs is apparently wrong. Nothing to do with engine model or other aircraft.

Discussing other planes and if time limits are a good idea is completely relevant despite how much you want to shoehorn it out of the discussion. If we are asking the question," what is the proper limit," than it is entirely logical to question if the limits are even reasonable in the first place. And due to that discussion of other planes comes into play

On 5/3/2018 at 10:44 AM, Alastair_S1D said:

I amy have a solution to this issue. Whether it can be implemented in game is another issue entirely.

 

The devs introduce a "wear" mechanic.

An engine at 100% is new

An engine at 0% needs overhaul.

Now we know most guys in IL2 probably don't fly the same aircraft for more than a few hours at a time so making 100 hours between 100% - 0% is unrealistic except for the very few number of top 10 pilots that don't die and crash when looking at WoL stats. Maybe 10 hours or so but the number isn't the issue. 

 

However lets say the game uses a 10 hour TBO "wear" mechanic. A pilot that flies his plane by the book gets 10 hours of life out of it. A pilot that runs his engine at emergency power for longer than the manual states wears his engine out at an exponential rate. It can also be said that a new engine could run say 5 mins of WEP without much risk of failure while a zero time or near "TBO" engine might likely break if you run WEP for too long. Adding a bit of randomness into the mix. Also zero time engines can still be flown. But at risk to the pilot and airframe due to engine failure.

 

This can also lead to another mechanic. War Assets or something like that. Where a squadron has an amount of war assets or resources at its disposal. This can be applied for SP and MP. To overhaul an worn engine that uses the above stated "wear" mechanic costs assets and resources. You can earn assets/resources by killing hostile AC's and objectives.

 

So flying your aircraft with throttles at the firewall would end up costing you/your team/squadron more resources as you reach that TBO/ Wear level mark at a faster rate. Also crashing or loosing your aircraft and pilots will also cost resources so reduces YOLO tactics as well and rewards good tactical and careful flying. A team or group that reaches 0 resources looses the match or resources are re-genned over time but at a slow rate. So this may get rid of  "gamers" firewalling their engines for the duration of the flight and also those pilots in WoL or more lax servers that like to crash their bombers after the bombing run just so that they can avoid the return trip and get back on the target quickly again in a new plane. 

 

This I think solves a number of issues.

*The timer can remain for WEP especially in the case of worn engines.

*Engines can be run above their time limits (especially newer ones) without damaging the engine albiet at increased wear rate, and the chance of random destruction at high power settings for high time engines.

*Overhauling worn engines costs assets or resources or whatever. Heck we can call it an ingame currency for all I care.

*Assets/Resources can be earned by completing objectives and shooting down enemy fighters.

*War Asset management can change the gameplay dynamic of both SP career mode and MP matches. As one needs to watch how quickly resources are consumed. Airframe and engine conservation become key, which makes for better flying and tactics and maybe even more realistic air combat.

 

This is a suggestion. Maybe not a perfect one. But I came up with it while mulling over the topic. Whether or not it is feasible to incorporate it into the game or even if it can is another issue entirely.

I realize this is a constructive suggestion but the most obvious issue here would be how to implement this in a dogfight server like berloga.

 

 

[Panthera]

Been a while since I was here, but I see this thread is still alive and well.

 

I can only repeat what I've said from the beginning however, and that is a 1.42ata cleared engine should be an available modification ingame, and that this engine should have the std. 5 min WEP limit. It's the only solution that wouldn't seem somehow biased IMHO, whilst the current one is 100% indefensible in view of the evidence available.

 

 

 

[Tuesday]

Actually, it was finally dead... until you posted 21 days after its last response.