Engines blowing up in WEP or boosted power.?

[SCG_motoadve]

Hope this get changed and simulated better.

I know they are trying to model it like after constant use and abuse the engine will start to wear and might fail eventually after a number of flights.

 

But in real life I dont think a pilot being chased by an enemy was worried to conserve the engine for future flights, he just wanted to survive and even  if that means running at WEP or full boosted power.

 

So how can this be modeled in a simulation? because if you let it have unlimited WEB or Boost, then that would be an unfair advantage.

 

Couple of ideas, make the allowed time double, or triple and if the pilot uses it up then blow the engine.

 

Have the engine gives you some hints it is passing the WEP /Boost allowed, like noises ect, instead of blowing up.

The way it is now , its too drastic.

 

I dont remember how was this simulated in Il2 the original sim?

 

 

 

[GridiroN]

I don't think you quite understand how the "WEP" (which is in my opinion a pretty arcade concept/term as this isn't how most engines work) works.

 

Engines are tested by the factory for their power levels under different conditions. Most engines of the day could not be run full power for very long else the engine would wear out and require maintenance which was in short supply during a war. Therefore, most engines were designed to be ran at a lower power setting for general use, a recommended combat setting, and a full power mode to be used if the pilot feels his life is in danger. 

 

The devs cannot simulate a wear and tear model that would be sensible in the sim's current format, so instead they use a timed method that (mostly) accurately simulates the differences between the engines.

 

Doubling or tripling this time would break the simulation as players would have no reason to not fly their plane at 100% at all times. The BF109 has 30mins at 1.3ata, tripling it to an hour and a half means the BF109 now has a permanent 1.3ata setting vs Russian planes at 1.0. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by GridiroN

[F/JG300_Gruber]

As I understand, he is speaking about emergency power time before breakdown. Tripling that number, so it would be like a solid 3min for the 109 instead of the 1 min and 10-30s we currently have.

 

For the old IL2. AFAIK, it wasn't model at all. As long as your engine isn't overheating, you won't kill it.

[GridiroN]

As I understand, he is speaking about emergency power time before breakdown. Tripling that number, so it would be like a solid 3min for the 109 instead of the 1 min and 10-30s we currently have.

 

For the old IL2. AFAIK, it wasn't model at all. As long as your engine isn't overheating, you won't kill it.

 

I think the same argument still applies. I don't see the value in doing this, and I'd still say it'd break the sim. The FW190 gets almost 5min @ 1.4ata if you use like 95% power instead of 100%. Tripling that to 15min and people could fly an entire sortee buzzing around at like 600kph. 

[Blutaar]

The current model is unhistoric period. I dont care if people misuse it ingame because in real life they did abuse their engines in a combat situation no matter what the manuals say. I dont like that arcade style restriction like in a damn mmo with cooldowns on skills.

 

And which russian plane has only 1.0 ata like you mentioned Gridiron? The Yak1 has 1.41 ata unlimmited for example. Dont spread lies pls just because you want unhistoric engine behavior.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

This problem is very difficult to solve. The current solution is not very realistic but works fine for gameplay purposes. In a different game, people WEP constantly, temperatures permitting. Obviously, this is far from ideal. 

 

Sadly, unless people actually care about the life of their engine (perhaps a campaign that records damage from exceeding limits) there is no way to introduce realistic behaviour without compromising gameplay. 

[BM357_TinMan]

First of all, I agree with the developers that this NEEDS to be implemented; somehow.  As far as I've been led to believe, these were real world considerations.  However, the way that they have chose to implement them needs some reconsideration.

 

Unless I misunderstand, in most cases, there are two settings in the German planes: Combat power and WEP.  Each one of these settings has a hard time limit assigned to it.  When that time limit is reached, the engine just dies.  No warning is given.  The engine is running fine, then just quits.

 

If I am correct in how I perceive this, here an idea that could be considered when/if time ever permits:

 

Some sort of "engine wear" algorithm should be designed and implemented were certain engine performance degradation is introduced on a logarithmic scale.  The further you push into the "overpower" settings on the ata, the less time you have before your engine starts to experience performance degradation.  This degradation should be somewhat apparent and should get worse gradually.

 

I understand that this would involve a certain amount of time and resource investment and I don't expect that this idea is the be all end all solution.  I only throw it out there as something to think about.

Edited October 22, 2017 by BM357_TinMan

[InProgress]

In single player in carrier mode it could work like you have your plane and if you use engine too much it may break during X sortie. But you also have mechanic that would lower damage you do in time. You used engine on max for long time, it's really used and may break but mechanic will fix it in few days. It would limit player crazy use of engine and if he does he takes risk of flying plane that may break during mission.

 

In multiplayer I dont think there is a chance to do it. There is topic on clod forum that they want add random engine failure. If I got it right, if you use engine a lot during mission in multi you rise % that random failure will occur. For example you fly 5min on 100% you can have 5% chance of engine breaking, you fly 10min it's going to be 20% now, etc

Edited October 22, 2017 by InProgress

[56RAF_Roblex]

I agree that it would be nice to see some obvious degradation rather than a simple 'Now it works, now it stops' method.  Perhaps a grinding noise that signals you will lose your engine in 30 seconds unless you cut the throttle to 75% immediately and keep it there until you land.      Ideally it would be nice for servers to be able to keep individual records of engine stress for each aircraft type you fly and gradually degrade its performance based in how you treated it.  Give it an overhaul every 10 sorties (of any plane).  Some people will last all ten without trouble and some may end up having to fly something else.

[Blutaar]

The problem is that ingame we have enemy contact in every freakin sortie which leads to air combat. This was not the case irl. In real life, you were allowed per manual to use WEP for x amount of time while not in combat to guarantee a certain amount of flighthours till overhaul/replace. In combat, there are no restrictions and a pilot would firewall the throttle as long as the engine parameters like temprature, oil and fuel pressures are ok. After landing the pilot would tell his mechanics and they would make the decision if the engine should be replaced or not after inspection.

 

Every other solution would be more realistic then what we have ingame, even WT have a better system in this regard. A system like in F1 2017 game would be nice, there you have 4 engines that have to last 20 races and each engine has 5 parts or so that would degrade. A worn out engine has less performance then a new one and consumes more fuel. You can switch worn parts with fresh ones between races to keep the overall performance. With early shiftings and a softer driving stlye you can save the engine to last longer. Translatet into BoX, you would keep the limits and dont abuse the engine while not in combat and only use high performance when really needed. A system like that could be a real gamechanger and in my opinion would be the best solution.

[19//Moach]

First of all, I agree with the developers that this NEEDS to be implemented; somehow.  As far as I've been led to believe, these were real world considerations.  However, the way that they have chose to implement them needs some reconsideration.

 

Unless I misunderstand, in most cases, there are two settings in the German planes: Combat power and WEP.  Each one of these settings has a hard time limit assigned to it.  When that time limit is reached, the engine just dies.  No warning is given.  The engine is running fine, then just quits.

 

If I am correct in how I perceive this, here an idea that could be considered when/if time ever permits:

 

Some sort of "engine wear" algorithm should be designed and implemented were certain engine performance degradation is introduced on a logarithmic scale.  The further you push into the "overpower" settings on the ata, the less time you have before your engine starts to experience performance degradation.  This degradation should be somewhat apparent and should get worse gradually.

 

I understand that this would involve a certain amount of time and resource investment and I don't expect that this idea is the be all end all solution.  I only throw it out there as something to think about.

 

 

This concept for president!

 

 

 

The main problem with the current system is not that it's unhistorical, but that it's simply unfair.

 

In a game design sense, it is a very underhanded, dishonest solution. For it hands out a "death penalty" without fair warning nor measure to the extent of the abuse being "punished" 

 

 

It creates an absurd situation where a pilot gains an advantage from keeping a stopwatch by his side, so that he may push the "gamer's edge" ^{_{(the shifty line that separates fair play from exploit)}} in a thoroughly unhistorical way that is as unfair as it is unfun

 

 

The solution is fairly simple.  The issue being basically that the implementation right now is much too deterministic and obvious, giving lie to the proposition of a realistic engine under the hood.  Should the system be made fuzzier, (see: Fuzzy Logic) as TinMan proposed, it would be a tremendous improvement.

 

 

 

 

 

The ideal engine model, to balance the needs of the game vs. the expectations of the simulator, is one that

progressively degrades performance in proportion to time and level of abuse beyond the rated limits of an aircraft. 

 

 

 

An extra touch of finesse would be if it also took "ruggedness" into account. Such that engines which were historically famed for their toughness and reliability (namely, the Allison V-1710) took longer to degrade under abuse than those equally reputed as fickle and unreliable (cough *LaGG3* cough)

 

Additionally, and ideal engine model should also account for detonation when running at high boost and low rpms.  And obviously, it would also feature an oil pressure gauge that actually works, rather than just indicating whether the engine is on or off ^{_{(it's quite absurd that with an oil system failure and a black covered windshield, the engine will seize completely before the oil pressure needle even starts to drop)}}

 

 

I am of the strong opinion that this absolutely HAS to be done.  Eye candy is nice and all, but a top-notch simulator such as this is no place for arcadish self-exploding time bomb engines.

Edited October 22, 2017 by 19//Moach

[F/JG300_Gruber]

First of all, I agree with the developers that this NEEDS to be implemented; somehow.  As far as I've been led to believe, these were real world considerations.  However, the way that they have chose to implement them needs some reconsideration.

 

Unless I misunderstand, in most cases, there are two settings in the German planes: Combat power and WEP.  Each one of these settings has a hard time limit assigned to it.  When that time limit is reached, the engine just dies.  No warning is given.  The engine is running fine, then just quits.

 

If I am correct in how I perceive this, here an idea that could be considered when/if time ever permits:

 

Some sort of "engine wear" algorithm should be designed and implemented were certain engine performance degradation is introduced on a logarithmic scale.  The further you push into the "overpower" settings on the ata, the less time you have before your engine starts to experience performance degradation.  This degradation should be somewhat apparent and should get worse gradually.

 

I understand that this would involve a certain amount of time and resource investment and I don't expect that this idea is the be all end all solution.  I only throw it out there as something to think about.

 

I like this idea.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

First of all, I agree with the developers that this NEEDS to be implemented; somehow.  As far as I've been led to believe, these were real world considerations.  However, the way that they have chose to implement them needs some reconsideration.

 

Unless I misunderstand, in most cases, there are two settings in the German planes: Combat power and WEP.  Each one of these settings has a hard time limit assigned to it.  When that time limit is reached, the engine just dies.  No warning is given.  The engine is running fine, then just quits.

 

If I am correct in how I perceive this, here an idea that could be considered when/if time ever permits:

 

Some sort of "engine wear" algorithm should be designed and implemented were certain engine performance degradation is introduced on a logarithmic scale.  The further you push into the "overpower" settings on the ata, the less time you have before your engine starts to experience performance degradation.  This degradation should be somewhat apparent and should get worse gradually.

 

I understand that this would involve a certain amount of time and resource investment and I don't expect that this idea is the be all end all solution.  I only throw it out there as something to think about.

That is already the case (moer or less). If you continue overboosting your engine until you break it power will degrade rapidly, RPMs will start to fluctuate and it will pop out black smoke. From that point on there's little you can do to save it as it quits quickly. However, when engines get damaged in combat they can be nursed back even after showing signs of damage (smoke, fluctuating RPM) for 10+ min if spared.

 

If and how the overboost mechanics need to be changed is a difficult discussion since so many views on this issue exist. The devs are certainly not to blame for sticking to the 'close to manual limits' method rather than moving down a dangerous path of interpetations of said limits.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

That is already the case (moer or less). If you continue overboosting your engine until you break it power will degrade rapidly, RPMs will start to fluctuate and it will pop out black smoke. From that point on there's little you can do to save it as it quits quickly. However, when engines get damaged in combat they can be nursed back even after showing signs of damage (smoke, fluctuating RPM) for 10+ min if spared.

 

If and how the overboost mechanics need to be changed is a difficult discussion since so many views on this issue exist. The devs are certainly not to blame for sticking to the 'close to manual limits' method rather than moving down a dangerous path of interpetations of said limits.

 

Problem is that when you push it 20s above the manual time limit, your engine automatically dies in less than a minut, period. 

If you could get a couple more minutes at full power, where you wear your engine and gets a gradual but noticeable drop in horsepower output, without the autokill-engine function. I feel that would be more realistic, without being a game changer and not offering any "exploit" window.

 

Now if devs do have some numbers about historical engine testings and that the current system is quite close to these numbers, I won't complain. 

[GridiroN]

The current model is unhistoric period. I dont care if people misuse it ingame because in real life they did abuse their engines in a combat situation no matter what the manuals say. I dont like that arcade style restriction like in a damn mmo with cooldowns on skills.

 

And which russian plane has only 1.0 ata like you mentioned Gridiron? The Yak1 has 1.41 ata unlimmited for example. Dont spread lies pls just because you want unhistoric engine behavior.

The guage on the Russian planes equipped with the Klimov clearly reads "1.0-1.1" at maximum power. I assumed this was ata. I don't read Russian. It's not a lie, calm your tits.

 

Furthermore, as far as "unhistoric engine behavior", it would be pretty stupid to increase even further the divide between Rus and Germ airplanes when the current system works perfectly fine and I'd argue is in no way unhistoric, save for a few planes like the P40 who's engine isn't quite there yet. If you're going to claim pilots regularly flew aroudn at 100% power, you will have to provide sources otherwise, you're just "lying" to get crazy lopsided advantages.

Edited October 22, 2017 by GridiroN

[Blutaar]

The guage on the Russian planes equipped with the Klimov clearly reads "1.0-1.1" at maximum power. I assumed this was ata. I don't read Russian. It's not a lie, calm your tits.

 

Furthermore, as far as "unhistoric engine behavior", it would be pretty stupid to increase even further the divide between Rus and Germ airplanes when the current system works perfectly fine and I'd argue is in no way unhistoric, save for a few planes like the P40 who's engine isn't quite there yet. If you're going to claim pilots regularly flew aroudn at 100% power, you will have to provide sources otherwise, you're just "lying" to get crazy lopsided advantages.

 

Not my fault if you dont know the difference between hhmg and ata while complaing about engine performance! But ok, i apologise for calling you a liar.

 

Yeah it would be pretty stupid to make the relative performances more realistic because what we want is a ballanced dogfighting game yeah. Lets see what the future brings when the performance shifts in favor of the allied side, maybe then it is ok to get relative performances right and implement a better engine wear system but as long as the germans have the upper side, no, the evil germans dont deserve it. What about planes like P40, SpitVb, Mig3, P39 and later stuff?

 

The current system dont work perfectly fine and is in every way unhistoric and unrealisitc, thats the reason why this is a frequent topic here. If you cant see that, then i cant help you. Maybe some people who work with engines in real life can explain you in detail why the current system is unrealistic, i cant and i wont. You wouldnt believe it anyway because it seems you are biased.

 

I never claimed that pilots flew regularly around at 100% power, i just said that in an aircombat situation there is no engine restriction and that engines dont explode or degrade instantly after a certain ammount of time. If you think that pilots used a stopwatch while dogfighting and breaking there engines like ingame for overusage, its ok but this dosent make it more true, maybe in your world i dont know. But sure, i just want "crazy lopsided adventages" because i am an evil german, thx. :o

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Now if devs do have some numbers about historical engine testings and that the current system is quite close to these numbers, I won't complain. 

Engines were not tested until total failure but rather average wear of engine parts on ground based test stands. The catch is that there is no load on an engine on a test stand compared to a moving aircraft which influrences the tolerance of engine limits. Moreso such tests were not conducted to determine the structal integrity of the engine until total failure but how limits had to be defined to allow for long engine life within reasonable maintanance intervalls.

 

The dev's apporach of applying a fixed tolerance with minimal variation for each engine equally based on their manual listed time limit may not be historically accurate but it's probably the closest thing they can stick to for modeling overboost. That being said I agree that longer overboost tolerance and a more predictable engine damage mechanic would be appreciated.

[GridiroN]

Not my fault if you dont know the difference between hhmg and ata while complaing about engine performance! But ok, i apologise for calling you a liar.

 

It actually is your fault though so because you accused me of trying to lie to get an advantage which clearly was not the case, so now you're lying to cover up your false accusation...and lying again to pretend I was complaining...

 

I'm going to be the bigger man here and accept your completely inauthentic apology because you can't be civil.

 

Yeah it would be pretty stupid to make the relative performances more realistic because what we want is a ballanced dogfighting game yeah. Lets see what the future brings when the performance shifts in favor of the allied side, maybe then it is ok to get relative performances right and implement a better engine wear system but as long as the germans have the upper side, no, the evil germans dont deserve it. What about planes like P40, SpitVb, Mig3, P39 and later stuff?

Removing the restrictions would decrease balance so I don't know what you're talking about.

 

Putting aside that you're contradicting your own argument, as far as you attempting to insinuate I'm biased in favour of allied planes, is nonsense. I was a vocal advocate of decreasing the Yak1 and Lagg3's performance before 2.012.

 

The current system dont work perfectly fine and is in every way unhistoric and unrealisitc, thats the reason why this is a frequent topic here. If you cant see that, then i cant help you.

Perhaps if you actually argued your case instead of trying to insult me subtly enough to not catch a mod's attention, more people would support your argument.

 

Maybe some people who work with engines in real life can explain you in detail why the current system is unrealistic, i cant and i wont. You wouldnt believe it anyway because it seems you are biased.

"I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, but you're totally biased and don't know what the hell you're talking about!"

 

I never claimed that pilots flew regularly around at 100% power, i just said that in an aircombat situation there is no engine restriction and that engines dont explode or degrade instantly after a certain ammount of time. If you think that pilots used a stopwatch while dogfighting and breaking there engines like ingame for overusage, its ok but this dosent make it more true, maybe in your world i dont know. But sure, i just want "crazy lopsided adventages" because i am an evil german, thx. :o

No one ever said this. What WAS said was that the current system is an attempt to simulate reasonable restrictions on an engines maximum power and the idea that if you fly around at 1.4ata in your F4, the engine will wear out very quickly. You're the one attempting to suggest limits should be infinite, so again, now you're contradicting your own argument.

 

Get your head on straight then come back and we can have a discussion bud.

Edited October 22, 2017 by GridiroN

[Blutaar]

It actually is your fault though so because you accused me of trying to lie to get an advantage which clearly was not the case, so now you're lying to cover up your false accusation...and lying again to pretend I was complaining...   I'm going to be the bigger man here and accept your completely inauthentic apology because you can't be civil.

 

How can it be my fault when you make a stupid mistake, where should i know? Even as i apologised you say that I cant be civil lol, cant believe what i read here.

 

Doubling or tripling this time would break the simulation as players would have no reason to not fly their plane at 100% at all times. The BF109 has 30mins at 1.3ata, tripling it to an hour and a half means the BF109 now has a permanent 1.3ata setting vs Russian planes at 1.0. 

 

This is what you said as a respond to the thread starter. No one talked about combat power and tripling the emergency power limit means to your logic "100% at all times lol. The thread starter said WEP/Boost 4 times in his short post including the thread title. I responded to your 1.3 ata versus 1.0 ata which is just untrue and i didnt know that you confused 1040 mmhg with 1.0-1.1 ata.

 

Removing the restrictions would decrease balance so I don't know what you're talking about. Putting aside that you're contradicting your own argument, as far as you attempting to insinuate I'm biased in favour of allied planes, is nonsense. I was a vocal advocate of decreasing the Yak1 and Lagg3's performance before 2.012.

 

Please reread what i said in my second post in this thread. If it is a language barrier thing ok, you could have asked me if i can try to be more clear. I even gave an example what system i would like and that clearly shows that i dont want removed engine limits.

 

No one ever said this. What WAS said was that the current system is an attempt to simulate reasonable restrictions on an engines maximum power and the idea that if you fly around at 1.4ata in your F4, the engine will wear out very quickly. You're the one attempting to suggest limits should be infinite, so again, now you're contradicting your own argument. Get your head on straight then come back and we can have a discussion bud.

 

Again, i dont want any limits lifted. I want a more realistic simulation of the engine limitations, not a freakin mmo skill cooldown timer in my favored WW2 Combatsim!

 

Maybe you got confused when i said "I dont care if people misuse it ingame because in real life they did abuse their engines in a combat situation no matter what the manuals say." That dosent mean that there should be no engine limit and thats because i said "misuse" and "abuse" and "combat situation". I made a second post were i repeated myself more precisely and gave an example how i would like it to be. Let me qoute myself.

 

A system like in F1 2017 game would be nice, there you have 4 engines that have to last 20 races and each engine has 5 parts or so that would degrade. A worn out engine has less performance then a new one and consumes more fuel. You can switch worn parts with fresh ones between races to keep the overall performance. With early shiftings and a softer driving stlye you can save the engine to last longer. Translatet into BoX, you would keep the limits and dont abuse the engine while not in combat and only use high performance when really needed. A system like that could be a real gamechanger and in my opinion would be the best solution.

 

I hope things are more clear now. Sorry for my poor english! If there is any further misunderstanding we should make it per pm, i dont want to derail this thread because it is an important topic in my opinion.

 

Edit: 

Yeah it would be pretty stupid to make the relative performances more realistic because what we want is a ballanced dogfighting game yeah.

 

That was sarcasm, no one wants a ballanced WW2 Combatsim i hope.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Ishtaru

[Feathered_IV]

So how can this be modeled in a simulation? because if you let it have unlimited WEB or Boost, then that would be an unfair

Just off the top of my head; in MP the amount of time you spent flogging your engine could directly influence the degree of time in which you need to wait to Respawn for the next flight.

 

Experienced pilots might decline a long chase if it meant a degree of consequences outside of the immediate mission. While all the boy Hartmann’s would quickly learn to adopt a more measured approach to maximize their gameplay.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Feathered_IV

[=RvE=Windmills]

Just off the top of my head; in MP the amount of time you spent flogging your engine could directly influence the degree of time in which you need to wait to Respawn for the next flight.

 

Experienced pilots might decline a long chase if it meant a degree of consequences outside of the immediate mission. While all the boy Hartmann’s would quickly learn to adopt a more measured approach to maximize their gameplay.

 

You honestly think anyone would risk dying over potentially a longer spawn time?

 

I like the harsh limits, gives a reason to pay attention to it and makes managing and knowing these times a requirement.

 

If its not there anyone would just run maxed out constantly, very few fights would last longer than 3 minutes of emergency.

[19//Moach]

Just off the top of my head; in MP the amount of time you spent flogging your engine could directly influence the degree of time in which you need to wait to Respawn for the next flight.

 

Experienced pilots might decline a long chase if it meant a degree of consequences outside of the immediate mission. While all the boy Hartmann’s would quickly learn to adopt a more measured approach to maximize their gameplay.

 

 

That could work, actually - BUT, I'd only support that concept if it were made to apply on a per-type-and-airfield basis.  

 

As in:

 

 

Each player has "his own" of each model available at each spawn airfield.  

 

Each of those planes is unique and individual to that player.  And each have a given turnaround time between spawns.

 

A player can either wait for it to be serviced, or he may pick a different type and spawn right away.  Or that same type from another airfield (a different plane)

 

 

Landing "in service" would allow an immediate turnaround for a plane.  Landing with damage would increase it's downtime up to a given maximum (as would apply if it were destroyed/lost) 

 

A lesser, but non-trivial delay would then follow any sortie in which engine limits were exceeded. Even without any sign of battle damage.

IRL, if a pilot had "cut the wire" (a thin copper across the throttle handle's max rated position) His plane would be earmarked for a thorough inspection, which involved disassembling the engine.

 

The "engine limits exceeded" mission result would then impose a turnaround time which would vary from a minimum, depicting the "inspection", up to a maximum depending on the amount of abuse the engine was put through.

 

 

This would make for a very interesting new multiplayer environment.  Combining the freedom to chose any type (as in WoL) with the rewarding sense of continuity and danger of consequences from TAW and DED. 

 

It would not only impose conservative engine management, but would also give a good reason to avoid excessive risks, while at the same time reducing the "everyone flies the best planes" problem.

 

 

That would be truly a wonderful and elegant solution.   It would solve ALL three major issues with the game in one single cunning swoop.  

Edited October 23, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Livai]

Jason, already said his words about the same topic years ago!

For me, whole topic is nonsense without the data that show clear that WEP was used much longer. WEP = FM discussion plain and simple.

[MrNoice]

haha so russian planes can fly Unlimited with 1.36Ata while germans can only use 1.15Ata unlimited....

[SCG_OpticFlow]

haha so russian planes can fly Unlimited with 1.36Ata while germans can only use 1.15Ata unlimited....

 

Maybe it would be 'fair' for the multiplayer server to be able to set a limit, for example 1.15 Ata for both sides...

[BlitzPig_EL]

It's not about fairness, it's about simulating reality.

 

You have to take the word "fair" out of this discussion.

[SCG_OpticFlow]

It's not about fairness, it's about simulating reality.

 

You have to take the word "fair" out of this discussion.

 

It's not possible to simulate reality, only various interpretations of it (all of them more or less biased). I only ask for the server to be given an option to set its own limits.

 

Off topic: if we were a bit closer to simulating reality, not a single VVS pilot would be given a map in 1941...

[Brano]

haha so russian planes can fly Unlimited with 1.36Ata while germans can only use 1.15Ata unlimited....

Those equipped with M-105PF are rated for 2700rpm and 1050mmHg max continuous.

Damage of engine can occur:

1. By overheating oil/water

2. Overreving the engine to 2800rpm longer than 30 sec

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Those equipped with M-105PF are rated for 2700rpm and 1050mmHg max continuous.

Damage of engine can occur:

1. By overheating oil/water

2. Overreving the engine to 2800rpm longer than 30 sec

 

The Yak engine is probably modeled ok, the issue here is the German engines blowing up after few minutes in similar setting...

 

From what I understand the purpose of having a time restriction is to increase engine life. The Russian Wikipedia article on M-105 says increasing the pressure from 910 mm on the M-105-PA to 1050 mm on the -PF reduced engine resource from 125 to 100 hours. (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C-105_(%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C)

 

I could imagine similar consequences to the DB-601 engines and not the dramatic blow-up we now have after the minute is over...

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

The devs cannot simulate a wear and tear model that would be sensible in the sim's current format, so instead they use a timed method that (mostly) accurately simulates the differences between the engines.

 

-snip-

 

Mostly? Accurately? Nahhh. That is not how WEP/boost works.

I think the same argument still applies. I don't see the value in doing this, and I'd still say it'd break the sim. The FW190 gets almost 5min @ 1.4ata if you use like 95% power instead of 100%. Tripling that to 15min and people could fly an entire sortee buzzing around at like 600kph. 

 

So you agree that modeling WEP with a timer and absurd technochat percentages is neither accurate, nor mostly accurate?

[Livai]

 

 

That is not how WEP/boost works.

 

Boosted with nitrous oxide

[Brano]

I could imagine similar consequences to the DB-601 engines and not the dramatic blow-up we now have after the minute is over...

If you operate it at max continuous settings,it will not "blow up".

 

M-10PF doesn't have any kind of WEP/Notleistung. It's rated to max continuous values within reasonable lifetime/engine overhaul.

[Livai]

The 109 engine blow up after 2min WEP and who use it 2min? I use WEP all the time and never blow up the engine because I know how to use it and where, plain and simple.....

[SCG_OpticFlow]

haha so russian planes can fly Unlimited with 1.36Ata while germans can only use 1.15Ata unlimited....

 

Because DB-601-E had to last 200 hours between overhaul and M-105-PF only 100... But somehow the more durable engine gets to explode after 1 min at the same settings while the less durable gets to run without degradation for as long as the pilot wants...

[BlitzPig_EL]

There is a lot more to it than just the max continuous rated manifold pressure.

 

How much BHP is the DB putting out vs the M105 PF?

 

What are the water and oil temps for each engine at max continuous and max rated (the so called WEP) power?

 

What are the max allowable temps for oil and water for each?

 

It is not as simple as saying one can run X manifold and another cannot.

Edited October 23, 2017 by BlitzPig_EL

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Because DB-601-E had to last 200 hours between overhaul and M-105-PF only 100... But somehow the more durable engine gets to explode after 1 min at the same settings while the less durable gets to run without degradation for as long as the pilot wants...

 

It really is not that simple. I have no idea if this is correct or not but the M-105 may have a shorter service length for exactly the reason that you can run it at max all of the time hence the engine is designed to be sacrificial to a certain degree. The DB-601 may have been designed to a better standard giving it a longer service life.

 

You are looking at this in the wrong way. You should see that the engine is really at 100% when it is in max continueous mode and that when in boost it is actually at 130% for example. So if you are 30% over what it is rated to It will break after a point. The engine running at 100% will be fine.

 

So if the 601 and the 105 are both at full power they are effectively working at 130% and 100% respectivly. Which one do you think will break?

 

Anyway, I don't know if this is true for all ww2 aircraft/pilots but Eric Brown talks of using boost on his spit to escape a 190. He makes a big point of that being the only time in the war he used boost and it was only for a matter of seconds. So from that, I would presume that you really would never use it unless you are in serious trouble.

Edited October 23, 2017 by AeroAce

[SCG_OpticFlow]

It really is not that simple. I have no idea if this is correct or not but the M-105 may have a shorter service length for exactly the reason that you can run it at max all of the time hence the engine is designed to be sacrificial to a certain degree. The DB-601 may have been designed to a better standard giving it a longer service life.

 

You are looking at this in the wrong way. You should see that the engine is really at 100% when it is in max continueous mode and that when in boost it is actually at 130% for example. So if you are 30% over what it is rated to It will break after a point. The engine running at 100% will be fine.

 

So if the 601 and the 105 are both at full power they are effectively working at 130% and 100% respectivly. Which one do you think will break?

 

Anyway, I don't know if this is true for all ww2 aircraft/pilots but Eric Brown talks of using boost on his spit to escape a 190. He makes a big point of that being the only time in the war he used boost and it was only for a matter of seconds. So from that, I would presume that you really would never use it unless you are in serious trouble.

 

That's beside the point. The point is what happens when you use boost for prolonged time. My point is that engine needs to be rebuild sooner, i.e. in 150 or 100 or even 50 hours instead of the manufacture's specified 200 hours. The game's point is that it blows up in your face in less than a minute...

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Also same manifold pressure might represent different stress conditions to different engines, imho they can't be comparable, you can check how the different engines in the sim operate at different pressures for their respective cruise,combat,emergency parameters, there are differences in RPMs as well.

 

The Merlin in the Spit mk V:

 

Continuous is +7 psi at 2650 rpm (around 1.47 ata, since it's 7 psi over 1 atmosphere which is 14.7 psi, in total 21,7 psi).

 

Combat is +9 psi at 2850 rpm (around 1.61 ata).

Emergency +12 psi at 3000 rpm (1.82 ata).

Emergency boosted +16 psi at 3000 rpm (2.09 ata).
 

The AM-35 in the MiG-3:
Continuous 1040mm Hg at 2050 rpm (1.37 ata)

Emergency 1240 mmHg at 2250 (1.63 ata)
 

 

The AM-38 in the IL-2:
Continuous 1180 mmHg at 2050 rpm (1.55 ata)

Emergency 1280 mmHg at 2150 rpm (1.68 ata)

 

For the Allison in the P-40:

Continuous 37.2 in Hg at 2600 RPM (1.24 ata)

Combat  42 in Hg  at 3000 RPM  (1.4 ata)

Emergency 45.5 in Hg at 3000 RPM (1.52 ata)

 

Then in the future we'll have the upgraded version in the P-39, with 51 in Hg at 3000 rpm as Emergency, which is around 1.7 ata.

 

The ASh-82 in the La-5:

Continuous 950 mmHg at 2400 RPM  (1.25 ata)

Emergency 1140 mmHg at 2400 RPM (1.5 ata) => this one is continuous in the F version.

 

So we have a good range of pressures for the different engines, the American and British engines being the ones that operate at higher pressures, for example in the very late war we have the Merlins with around 2.7 ata (+25 psi in the Spitfire and 80 in Hg in the Mustang).

 

 

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Also same manifold pressure might represent different stress conditions to different engines, imho they can't be comparable, you can check how the different engines in the sim operate at different pressures for their respective cruise,combat,emergency parameters, there are differences in RPMs as well.

 

The Merlin in the Spit mk V:

 

Continuous is +7 psi at 2650 rpm (around 1.47 ata, since it's 7 psi over 1 atmosphere which is 14.7 psi, in total 21,7 psi).

 

Combat is +9 psi at 2850 rpm (around 1.61 ata).

Emergency +12 psi at 3000 rpm (1.82 ata).

Emergency boosted +16 psi at 3000 rpm (2.09 ata).

 

 

The AM-35 in the MiG-3:

Continuous 1040mm Hg at 2050 rpm (1.37 ata)

Emergency 1240 mmHg at 2250 (1.63 ata)

 

 

The AM-38 in the IL-2:

Continuous 1180 mmHg at 2050 rpm (1.55 ata)

Emergency 1280 mmHg at 2150 rpm (1.68 ata)

 

For the Allison in the P-40:

Continuous 37.2 in Hg at 2600 RPM (1.24 ata)

Combat  42 in Hg  at 3000 RPM  (1.4 ata)

Emergency 45.5 in Hg at 3000 RPM (1.52 ata)

 

Then in the future we'll have the upgraded version in the P-39, with 51 in Hg at 3000 rpm as Emergency, which is around 1.7 ata.

 

The ASh-82 in the La-5:

Continuous 950 mmHg at 2400 RPM  (1.25 ata)

Emergency 1140 mmHg at 2400 RPM (1.5 ata) => this one is continuous in the F version.

 

So we have a good range of pressures for the different engines, the American and British engines being the ones that operate at higher pressures, for example in the very late war we have the Merlins with around 2.7 ata (+25 psi in the Spitfire and 80 in Hg in the Mustang).

You forget engine compression ratio, the boost values are related to it. But thats off-topic...

[GridiroN]

Because DB-601-E had to last 200 hours between overhaul and M-105-PF only 100... But somehow the more durable engine gets to explode after 1 min at the same settings while the less durable gets to run without degradation for as long as the pilot wants...

That's not how engines work. Different engines are different. The Klimov was rated to maximum output, the DB60x was rated down.

 

Mostly? Accurately? Nahhh. That is not how WEP/boost works.

 WEP is not a thing in real life unless the plane literally comes with a boost feature like the La-5F. The discussion is about what engines are rated for and how that is simulated in this sim.

 

So you agree that modeling WEP with a timer and absurd technochat percentages is neither accurate, nor mostly accurate?

Stop beating around the bush. Are you suggesting that it is your opinion that the BF109 F4 should get indefinite usage of 1.4ata?