Engine Timer Realism Option

[Stilico]

I'm sure I'll get accused of beating a dead horse, assuming anybody even reads this, but I had what I think to be a pretty decent idea. Why not simply add an engine timer toggle in the realism options? I'm no programmer, but I can't imagine that would be particularly hard to do. Just let the players and server admins decide if they want engine timers--i.e., the time limit that it takes an engine to die while operating above "continuous mode".

[Blutaar]

Good idea but im sure people will jump in and tell you how unhistoric that is and that its a nogo even for SP. Ingame engines have to be old and fragile. It has something to do with harder=more realistic like flying.

 

edit: No i dont think flying at 100% throttle all the time is realistic but i do think the current solution is worse then an additional option for engine timers!

Edited November 20, 2017 by Ishtaru

[Stilico]

Good idea but im sure people will jump in and tell you how unhistoric that is and that its a nogo even for SP. Ingame engines have to be old and fragile. It has something to do with harder=more realistic like flying.

 

Yeah, I've read a fair amount of the discussions/debates/arguments/wars about this over the past couple of years. Thought about mentioning that in my post. The simple fact of the matter is that neither option is realistic. I doubt 109 pilots would be gunning their engines all the time, but I also doubt they would be watching the clock when they went full throttle in combat.

[sniperton]

I'm for it, if engine failure kicks in "unrealistically" due to a time counter, why not have a warning beep or tick before the time goes out? Just a game we want to enjoy.

I'm a bit fed up with arguments about "realism" and "immersion", we sit in a chair and have multiple lives to spend, while IRL most of us would not even be let close to a combat aircraft due to physical and mental health problems... 

Edited November 21, 2017 by sniperton

[19//Moach]

I'd rather not have engine timers and see what happens in MP than having to worry all the time about "inexplicable spontaneous total engine death"...

 

I would reason that likely most planes would overheat and eventually take damage from that if ran constantly at max power. That should be plenty enough reason for most to refrain from abusing it wantonly...  

 

I find it less realistic to have timers than to simply allow engines to function as they would have in reality, even if pilots were trained not to do it.

 

There is no sense in adding artificial limits to a simulator.  The only "correct" implementation is one which mirrors what would happen in real life.  And if engines could be abused in real life, the possibility should exist in the simulator.

 

If there were consequences to such abuse, such as getting reprimanded for it, then it is a game-design concern to account for that in other ways (like scoring maybe).  That should never interfere with replicating what should or not happen in real-time as closely as possible.

 

 

I am of the strong opinion that engine timers should go.     It'd be more realistic without them.

 

 

 

Plus, both sides can abuse their engines equally.  It should not affect game balance.

 

 

 

 

The best way to address this, and really the only way under the premise of a simulator, is the same as it was in reality.   Thus, if an engine can withstand abuse, by all means, it should be possible.  It's not realistic otherwise.

Edited November 21, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Stilico]

I'd rather not have engine timers and see what happens in MP than having to worry all the time about "inexplicable spontaneous total engine death"...

 

This was my thinking as well. I'm sure WoL and TAW would try it out, and if it led to certain planes seal clubbing everything else, they could simply toggle timers back on and people could continue to keep it off for SP if they wanted. I really don't see any reasonable argument against this, unless there's some better idea secretly in the works. It's minimal effort to give people the choice to play like they want.

 

I would reason that likely most planes would overheat and eventually take damage from that if ran constantly at max power. That should be plenty enough reason for most to refrain from abusing it wantonly...  

 

 

This was also my thinking. Don't you also have much worse fuel economy at full power?

[Dakpilot]

Nope.

 

The desire for this almost seems like a want for some sort of alternate reality simplified dogfight game

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Stilico]

Nope.

 

The desire for this almost seems like a want for some sort of alternate reality simplified dogfight game

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Funny thing, there are numerous options right now to make it a, "simplified dogfight game". Why not add another for us alternate reality freaks?

[Dakpilot]

Yes there are many options to options to make it easier to access, but there is no FM boost button to facilitate stronger FM, there is already 'normal' settings for automated safer engine management.

The sooner people realise that a WWII 1000-2000hp aircraft engine does not operate like a modern racing car and there is no such thing as 'full throttle' and get an understanding of what maximum continuous power rating is the better.

I may come across as harsh on this point but personal experience clouds my acceptance (I have blown up a lot of 1000+hp piston aero engines IRL)

 

It may only be a computer sim game, but pilots would go a long way to avoid destroying their engines even in combat, the "fighter pilot throttle to the firewall thing" is 99% myth, to encourage it means creating an alternative reality, there are other options for this which are fine in less 'sim' titles, and there is nothing wrong with that, there are many ways to improve and refine engine management, but let's not dumb it down, there is always normal/custom option which we already have

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited November 21, 2017 by Dakpilot

[Bullets]

The problem is that most people want even more performance from their already stronger performing aircraft... (The majority of people that complain about engine timers fly blue)       I see 100:1 posts about it from luftys than la5/p40 pilots 

[19//Moach]

I find it disturbing that ppl immediately read "timers are unrealistic" as "we want magic powerful engines"

 

 

One thing has little to do with another.   I worry about the nature of a person whose mental processes cannot or refuses to fathom the difference.

 

 

 

Up until now, there had been no mention of anything besides a desire for more realistic representation of engines in this thread. If doing something to a particular engine should cause it to explode in real life, then that is exactly what we expect to happen in the simulator.

 

However, there are many cases in which the engine timer system goes against that very same premise.  These are cases in which a slight excess of power applied over a long period leads to impossibly spontaneous self-destruction of an engine which in reality would have only suffered slightly higher long-term wear.

 

 

THAT, really is the issue at hand here.   Nothing else.

 

 

Nobody in this thread had called for an argument about wanting easier engines or undue extra power before being assaulted by unfounded accusations of that.   It is strongly recommended that posters read through the thread and grasp the basics of its meaning before engaging in such unnecessary hostilities.

 

Any comments to that end should be considered disruptive and off-topic.

Edited November 21, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Dakpilot]

I think it is more like forbidden fruit syndrome

 

There are simply loads of 109 and FW flyers, the idea of that 'extra' being available but access is restricted "seems" unfair and some sort of handicap, because they are justifiably very popular there seems to be more 'noise' from blue pilots,

when you borrow a faster car for a short time it is understandable that you then want it all the time.

When a blue pilot is shot down there is always the thought that the forbidden extra power would have saved you, but in 99% of cases this is not really so, unless you had it all the time, and there is the problem

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Stilico]

Interesting. I'll defer to Dak on this unless/until someone more knowledgeable chimes in. I'm far from an expert on this, but I was under the impression that, for instance, the P-40 was operated for long periods of time at what the game calls emergency power, and that the current restrictions are unrealistically strict. Is this not the same with other aircraft, such as the 109? Was I wrong to assume that pilots would simply go full throttle whenever and however long they needed to?

 

Oh, and Bullets, I resent that. The P-40 was what primarily drove me to post this. I rarely ever play MP, and I fly both sides. Also, I don't care which side gets stronger performing aircraft. I think the reason this rarely gets brought up by red flyers is that the yaks don't suffer from this problem. I simply want the planes to fly as reasonably close to possible as they would IRL. 

 

I can absolutely see the rationale for both sides. That's why I'm simply advocating for an option. Like I said in an earlier post, neither is 100% perfect.

[19//Moach]

 

Interesting. I'll defer to Dak on this unless/until someone more knowledgeable chimes in. I'm far from an expert on this, but I was under the impression that, for instance, the P-40 was operated for long periods of time at what the game calls emergency power, and that the current restrictions are unrealistically strict. Is this not the same with other aircraft, such as the 109? Was I wrong to assume that pilots would simply go full throttle whenever and however long they needed to?

 

Oh, and Bullets, I resent that. The P-40 was what primarily drove me to post this. I rarely ever play MP, and I fly both sides. Also, I don't care which side gets stronger performing aircraft. I think the reason this rarely gets brought up by red flyers is that the yaks don't suffer from this problem. I simply want the planes to fly as reasonably close to possible as they would IRL. 

 

I can absolutely see the rationale for both sides. That's why I'm simply advocating for an option. Like I said in an earlier post, neither is 100% perfect.

 

 

 

The P40 is the very first thing that comes to mind when engine timers are brought up, indeed.   That is one plane that perfectly highlights the shortcomings of such a system.

 

Yes, there are some cases of engine abuse where a timer can approximate a semi-realistic result, such as sharp overrev spikes and sudden pressure peaks.

 

Though those are the more extreme cases, and the timer model is far less suited to the more subtle task of "enforcing" recommended (not physical) limitations.

 

 

Still, I am almost certain that even in freezing weather, any engine ran at max. power too long would inevitably overheat, despite even full radiator opening. Therefore, I am not worried about engine abuse.  It wasn't a problem in CloD, and there were no death-clock timers to stop people doing it there either.

 

 

What is not to be misread, in any case, is that there is really NO desire for engines which tolerates anything more than their real-life counterparts would have.

 

Yet if a real engine did not explode from running at a certain power for a given time, there are zero reasons why it should do so in game.

 

 

It's a realistic simulator.  Hence, it should simulate reality.   

Edited November 21, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Bullets]

Just stating what I see in these forums guys    You are obviously an exception stilicho which there are plenty 

[Dakpilot]

Neither is perfect this is true.

But as has has been pointed out we are trying to "Simulate" combat. The engines are not real, and to model them totally accurately is beyond the scope of a combat sim.

It is quite possible that a 109 operated above max continuous would survive for maybe 20-30mins. So there is justification to say we should have this, but in reality most flights only last this amount of time, there are very real reasons why it is restricted in the manual to small time limits, these limits would absolutely be ignored in the game if there are no consequences. Some (most) People would nail the throttle from takeoff until shot down or run out of fuel. This is not historical or more realistic. The artificial restrictions are actually more realistic in attempting to simulate combat in WWII

Do we really want to simulate combat where the entire squadron would be grounded and needing an engine change after each flight, because this simply did not happen,

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Stilico]

Do we really want to simulate combat where the entire squadron would be grounded and needing an engine change after each flight, because this simply did not happen,

 

...is that not, more or less ,exactly what happened to the P40's that got sent to the eastern front? Again, I'm probably not as informed as you are, but I thought I read that the russians ran them into the ground.

[19//Moach]

We certainly do not wanna simulate anything which did not happen in reality.  Chief among those things, is engines which explode when in reality they would be mostly fine.

 

If this would cause issues in the long run for a squadron, then THAT is what is missing, and engine timers are a brutish shortcut to forcibly impose this concern on pilots at the detriment of realism. 

 

I would much rather have a mission outcome which remarked "engine limits exceeded" and provide this information for use by mission designers as required.   That would allow realistic consequences for engine abuse.

 

 

Long-term engine keeping practices should certainly not be imposed by way of fictional consequences.   That's just the wrong way of doing things for a simulator.

[Dakpilot]

In the quest for 'realism' and better "simulation" value many servers try and impose artificial devices to get virtual pilots to respect their lives and value of aircraft.

There is no method now or likely in the future to enforce realistic engine limits. An "engine limits" exceeded" warning on landing would have zero result. If people feel being able to fly pretty much every combat mission at full overboost is higher simulation then I have to disagree.

Goldnikov, Russian ace in P-40 and later mainly in P-39 with Allison engine only once in his entire career pushed the throttle 'through the wire' to use higher MP levels. There are many documented German pilots that talk of only using overboost in very rare cases and in terms of seconds and not multiple minutes.. The quest for 'realism' continues and will continue to be debated

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Barnacles]

Personally I think the current system in BoX is a good compromise that generates more realistic behavior than other games. In CloD and DCS it seems that the sim just arbitrarily increases your coolant temperature beyond a realistic proportional amount if you run at full power to discourage abuse of engines.

What also is not true is that the BoX engine will destroy your engine as soon as a timer runs out. It gives you a random probability of a random amount of engine damage when you have started to exceed the timings. Now at the moment the probability is quite high, and the damage is generally quite severe, (I personally think too high and too severe) but I'm sure the numerical values attached to these probabilities are easily changed. Wouldn't it be good if a mission designer could change them (the numerical probability) in the same way you can alter ai gunner skill etc?

Edited November 21, 2017 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[Dakpilot]

...is that not, more or less ,exactly what happened to the P40's that got sent to the eastern front? Again, I'm probably not as informed as you are, but I thought I read that the russians ran them into the ground.

In effect you are very correct, the squadron operating P-40E's at Stalingrad lasted a few short weeks in heavy combat before having to be withdrawn due to losses and lack of spares, they indeed used the aircraft to the maximum, but as with most things there is much more to the story, and at most should be considered to be an extreme outlier rather than evidence of a trend. It (Allison-39 in soviet use) has been discussed before and probably out of the scope of this thread

 

Suggestions are always free to be made and often bring up good discussion and sometimes new ideas and perceptions

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[56RAF_Roblex]

I am obviously misunderstanding what this thread is about. As far as I am concerned BoX *does* handle engine abuse as if it were a timer even if it is not regulated strictly to the second.  Engage Emergency Power in a 109 and one minute later the engine will fail.   With some very careful management you might extend that to 90 seconds.  Use too many Revs and too much power in your P40 and after a short period, pretty much the same time for everyone, the engine will fail.    CLoD was no different,  engage BCO on a spitfire and after a certain amount of time the engine blew.   Every aircraft guide in BoX will tell you 'Boost/Combat Power may only be used for X minutes.'  It is not precise but after that rough time has expired the engine seizes.

 

In real life a lot of these 'time limits' were just recommendations to allow the engines to last more sorties and were not about avoiding failures during that sortie.    The RAF guidelines for Spitfires, for example, were quite cautious and pilots did not overstress the engines except for emergencies but the VVS Spitfire pilots ignored them and thrashed their engines constantly. As a result the performance limits set by 1C in this game based on RAF Spit pilots following regs do not really reflect how the VVS Spitfires actually performed on the Eastern Front when flown by pilots who did not care if the engine had to be replaced more often.   1C is trying to model "Pilot As engine will probably fail in a few weeks time but Pilot Bs engine will probably last a lot longer" with 'Pilot As engine will seize in 10 minutes but pilot Bs engine will last longer than his fuel will."   

 

We cannot model failures based on stress over several sorties but what I would prefer over 'Sudden Failure after 10 minutes' is a gradual degradation of performance. If Pilot A has been abusing his engine for 10 minutes then start introducing a grinding noise together with a reduction in maximum power. If he continues to overstress his engine despite the warning signs then he will reach a point where he grinding is very loud, the power ouiput is terrible and the the engine is leaking oil and will soon seize.   This does at least allow the pilot the option of either backing off the power when it first starts playing up and returning to base with no further degradation or deciding he is up sh*t creek with two 109s on his tail and has no choice but to wreck his engine to stay alive. It also means a careful pilot will always have full performance available to him for the whole sortie while a more reckless pilot will just have to accept that by the end of his sortie he is flying with a handicap; but it is his choice.

Edited November 21, 2017 by 56RAF_Roblex

[sniperton]

We cannot model failures based on stress over several sorties but what I would prefer over 'Sudden Failure after 10 minutes' is a gradual degradation of performance. If Pilot A has been abusing his engine for 10 minutes then start introducing a grinding noise together with a reduction in maximum power. If he continues to overstress his engine despite the warning signs then he will reach a point where he grinding is very loud, the power ouiput is terrible and the the engine is leaking oil and will soon seize.   This does at least allow the pilot the option of either backing off the power when it first starts playing up and returning to base with no further degradation or deciding he is up sh*t creek with two 109s on his tail and has no choice but to wreck his engine to stay alive. It also means a careful pilot will always have full performance available to him for the whole sortie while a more reckless pilot will just have to accept that by the end of his sortie he is flying with a handicap; but it is his choice.

 

+1

[Blutaar]

Yap, its not just evil german pilots who think that the current system is stupid. Spitfires, Migs, P40s, P39s and many future allied planes do and will suffer from this. I bet that the "Timer" will be dealt with when there are more allied planes with restricted engines are in the game. Im curios to know what the naysayers will then say.

 

We talked about an option which can be toggled on or off and not about the complete removal of the timers for everybody. Server owners can choose how they want it and the same goes for singleplayer. If you dont like it, turn it off, if you like it, turn it on, its a simple and cheap solution before we get a more realistic system. Whats wrong with more options i dont understand?

 

Sure there are better options but these would require a proper thermodynamic simulation for engine wear and tear which costs resources the devs didnt have, maybe later. For me the best between solution would be removal of self destruct timers and a rough heat modeling for overboosted engine modes where you will overheat after a certain ammount of time no matter how widely open your radiators are. After a short overheat the engine blows just like in all the other planes.

 

 

 

We cannot model failures based on stress over several sorties but what I would prefer over 'Sudden Failure after 10 minutes' is a gradual degradation of performance. If Pilot A has been abusing his engine for 10 minutes then start introducing a grinding noise together with a reduction in maximum power.

 

Sounds like another good solution to me. Dont know how much dev time that would need to implement over a simplified engine overheat system but everything would be better than what we have now.

[19//Moach]

Yes, a gradual failure/degrading approach (ideally well marked with grinding noises and unignorable protests from the engine) would be vastly preferable to the current "Oops! One second too long, now you're a glider" model.

 

I would also be very satisfied with a temperature-based solution, where an overboosted engine would force itself to overheat beyond any possibility of cooling.  That would come across much more naturally and although a realism compromise, would not seem like a totally made-up imposition.

 

 

So many better ways to do this.... 

Edited November 21, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Blutaar]

 

 

That would come across much more naturally and although a realism compromise, would not seem like a totally made-up imposition.

 

I think a temperature based model would be the most realistic after listening to people who know more about how engines work. It seems it is not the manifold pressure or the revs alone that kills engines, its the excess heat in combination with manifold pressure and revs that weakens the moving parts and destroys them short term. Of course i dont talk about long term engine wear where you have to replace and overhaul engines even if you run them within recommended temps and poweroutputs. Just my opinion!

[Stilico]

We cannot model failures based on stress over several sorties but what I would prefer over 'Sudden Failure after 10 minutes' is a gradual degradation of performance. If Pilot A has been abusing his engine for 10 minutes then start introducing a grinding noise together with a reduction in maximum power. If he continues to overstress his engine despite the warning signs then he will reach a point where he grinding is very loud, the power ouiput is terrible and the the engine is leaking oil and will soon seize.   This does at least allow the pilot the option of either backing off the power when it first starts playing up and returning to base with no further degradation or deciding he is up sh*t creek with two 109s on his tail and has no choice but to wreck his engine to stay alive. It also means a careful pilot will always have full performance available to him for the whole sortie while a more reckless pilot will just have to accept that by the end of his sortie he is flying with a handicap; but it is his choice.

 

 

Sure there are better options but these would require a proper thermodynamic simulation for engine wear and tear which costs resources the devs didnt have, maybe later. For me the best between solution would be removal of self destruct timers and a rough heat modeling for overboosted engine modes where you will overheat after a certain ammount of time no matter how widely open your radiators are. After a short overheat the engine blows just like in all the other planes.

 

I had thought about this for a while and both of these options had occurred to me. I would be very happy if they tried either, but I've read Jason repeatedly talk about how resources are spread so thin. You'd think the game was being worked on by 2 guys, in a garage, in the middle of Siberia. Anyway, that's why I suggested what I did. I wanted something stupidly simple that they could do that would be a compromise. This way, until/unless they come up with a better option, both sides can get what they want.

[19//Moach]

I had thought about this for a while and both of these options had occurred to me. I would be very happy if they tried either, but I've read Jason repeatedly talk about how resources are spread so thin. You'd think the game was being worked on by 2 guys, in a garage, in the middle of Siberia. Anyway, that's why I suggested what I did. I wanted something stupidly simple that they could do that would be a compromise. This way, until/unless they come up with a better option, both sides can get what they want.

 

I think it might actually be less work to substitute timers for heat than to make it an option... 

 

Options require interface logic, and as a fellow game programmer, I can assure you:  GUI design is usually a bitch.

 

 

Any alternative which does not require adding menu buttons and thinking about the annoying what-if's of human interaction with their filthy paws is in my opinion, the easier choice...  

 

But I wouldn't know, of course... Some platforms make some things easier than others, I don't know how the IL2 engine fares in that regard, so I can only speculate.

Edited November 21, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Barnacles]

 

I would also be very satisfied with a temperature-based solution, where an overboosted engine would force itself to overheat beyond any possibility of cooling. That would come across much more naturally and although a realism compromise, would not seem like a totally made-up imposition.

 

 

So many better ways to do this....

There may be, but please not that one. Just my personal preference but I find the games that do that false heat generation thing just as gamey as the timer thing. Ishtaru rightly says irl damage is likely to be thermal based, but that's local high temperature gradients within the engine itself, not a sudden increase in the heat of the whole system. An engine going from being perfectly happy heat wise at 90 % power to being unable to deal with the additional 10% power regardless of airspeed/air temperature/ radiator settings feels every bit as wrong as a timer. (To me at least, your suggestion are every bit as valid, I want a solution that works for everyone. )

[19//Moach]

There may be, but please not that one. Just my personal preference but I find the games that do that false heat generation thing just as gamey as the timer thing. Ishtaru rightly says irl damage is likely to be thermal based, but that's local high temperature gradients within the engine itself, not a sudden increase in the heat of the whole system. An engine going from being perfectly happy heat wise at 90 % power to being unable to deal with the additional 10% power regardless of airspeed/air temperature/ radiator settings feels every bit as wrong as a timer. (To me at least, your suggestion are every bit as valid, I want a solution that works for everyone. )

 

I would reason that the heat-based approach results in a slightly-more-plausible compromise than timers. 

 

At the very least, it blends in better with existing engine tolerances (temp. limits) such that any "magic forces" causing it are still at least related to existing parameters. 

 

Plus, that would allow us to monitor "level of abuse" without having to resort to technochat and a stopwatch.   

 

I mean, there is a gauge for heat in the cockpit, and it's already a thing you'd worry about.    There is no "seconds until doom" indicator on any planes that I know of (maybe airbus?)... And I've never heard of pilots paranoidly clocking their engine excesses in fear of sudden catastrophic discombobulation.  

 

Forcing overheat would be less unrealistic, then. For overheating is an existing phenomenon which would simply be adapted.  Timers are a wholly alien mechanic which does not exist in real engines, making them very much more awkward to cope with.

 

 

So it maybe wouldn't not any much more realistic, but I find it substantially less absurd than sudden-death timers.

Edited November 21, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Barnacles]

I would reason that the heat-based approach results in a slightly-more-plausible compromise than timers.

 

At the very least, it blends in better with existing engine tolerances (temp. limits) such that any "magic forces" causing it are still at least related to existing parameters.

 

Plus, that would allow us to monitor "level of abuse" without having to resort to technochat and a stopwatch.

 

I mean, there is a gauge for heat in the cockpit, and it's already a thing you'd worry about. There is no "seconds until doom" indicator on any planes that I know of (maybe airbus?)... And I've never heard of pilots paranoidly clocking their engine excesses in fear of sudden catastrophic discombobulation.

 

Forcing overheat would be less unrealistic, then. For overheating is an existing phenomenon which would simply be adapted. Timers are a wholly alien mechanic which does not exist in real engines, making them very much more awkward to cope with.

 

 

So it maybe wouldn't not any much more realistic, but I find it substantially less absurd than sudden-death timers.

Fair enough, I'm just not a fan myself. Most aircraft have a clock as well as a temperature guage. So you don't 'need' technochat any more than you 'need' technochat to monitor temperature. Also in a dive on a cold map I'd be more worried about overcooling. To have the temp climbing in these conditions would seem counter intuitive to me. It's mostly subjective though. I'd personally vote for a 'slightly reduced performance'timer rather than a 'catastrophic damage' timer

 

Ps a 109 model did have a 1min stopwatch triggered by full throttle iirc

Edited November 21, 2017 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[Barnacles]

Also have you seen clod's system? It manages to be both heat and timer based too. Worst of both worlds?

[ZachariasX]

I would reason that the heat-based approach results in a slightly-more-plausible compromise than timers. 

 

At the very least, it blends in better with existing engine tolerances (temp. limits) such that any "magic forces" causing it are still at least related to existing parameters. 

 

Plus, that would allow us to monitor "level of abuse" without having to resort to technochat and a stopwatch.   

 

I mean, there is a gauge for heat in the cockpit, and it's already a thing you'd worry about.    There is no "seconds until doom" indicator on any planes that I know of (maybe airbus?)... And I've never heard of pilots paranoidly clocking their engine excesses in fear of sudden catastrophic discombobulation.  

 

Forcing overheat would be less unrealistic, then. For overheating is an existing phenomenon which would simply be adapted.  Timers are a wholly alien mechanic which does not exist in real engines, making them very much more awkward to cope with.

 

 

So it maybe wouldn't not any much more realistic, but I find it substantially less absurd than sudden-death timers.

Using temperature as limiter instead of THE TIMER is not just „more plausible“, but it is how things work in reality. Excessive power leads to excessive heat. Manual stated timers ensure operational endurance of the engine as specified in the contract. Different story. But it is our lot for now.

 

Even the infamous Allison does not blow up at full throttle down low. But it will overheat quickly, especially if you are not flying FAST.

 

Once heat exchange is more correctly modelled than it is now, the „timer issue“ can be mended.

[Dakpilot]

"Did you ever have the GM-1 boost or MW-50 in any of your planes?

 

Oh yeah, we used it quite often…in combat you know.

 

How long did it last?

 

Uhh…you were not allowed to have it at more than 5 min., you know…if you used it 10 minutes, then motor has to come out.

 

It makes the engine worse?

 

It wrecks the motor.

 

And this was for the higher altitude?

 

Higher…yes…

 

And at what speed could you get up to?

 

Oh boy…I don’t remember…450 or 500 km…

 

Like you said, you could only use it for 5 min. otherwise you would burn out the engine. How many 5 min. intervals could you use? Did you have to shut it down for a period of time to let the engine cool?

 

That’s okay…that uh…it didn’t matter. You…but you never used it for five minutes… a minute, minute and a half and that’s it."

 

Franz Stigler Luftwaffe ace

 

It says 5 mins max in the manual....But,..but we should have moar! .

The myth and the reality

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Barnacles]

Using temperature as limiter instead of THE TIMER is not just „more plausible“, but it is how things work in reality. Excessive power leads to excessive heat. 

Which is why I think having a formula that just increases your engine system's temperature beyond what the game engine says it should be (Based on all the historical reaserch, real world physics etc.) is a sideways step. You are effectively just disguising a timer system by tarting it up as 'overheat'.

 

Engine temperature should depend on power, airflow over the radiator, air temperature, thinks like that; not a logic operator saying emergency power=catastrophic overheat in x minutes.  I thought engine failiure based on a timer is what we wanted to get away from.

[Stilico]

Dak, how many engines in the game actually have that? Is that what the 109 E7 refers to as "boosted mode"? Or is that how all German engines achieve "emergency power"? Also, what would actually happen if you exceeded the limit? Would the engine die? Does that info exist? Also, would that activate by pushing the throttle fully forward, or would you actually have to manually activate it? I seem to remember it requiring a separate button press in 1946.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Stilicho

[Dakpilot]

The GM1 and MW50 systems are fitted to late model 109 and 190's, should feature in Bodenplatte.

 

The problem with info on engines exceeding limits is that it is almost impossible to research, of course they did not all explode, but it is much more complicated than just overheating or faster wear, but an engine can be destroyed in seconds from detonation.

Even if the team had the time and budget for all the engines in the game to be researched it would be impossible to verify.

It is very unpopular but the reality is that the only constant data that can be proved is manufacturers limits.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Blutaar]

MW 50: "Die Leistungssteigerung war bei ausreichender Motorkühlung bis zu einer Dauer von zehn Minuten zulässig, vor einer nochmaligen Nutzung musste der Motor mindestens fünf Minuten auf geringerer Leistungsstufe betrieben werden. Sofern der Motor nicht überhitzte, wurde nur die Lebensdauer der Zündkerzen verringert. Später wurde der Betrieb bei Motoren mit guten Kühlleistungen auf bis zu 20 Minuten verlängert. Der Leistungsgewinn bei einem Verbrauch von 150 l/h betrug je nach Motor etwa 300 PS. Die Fw 190 D konnte mit ihrem 115-Liter-Behälter die Einspritzung insgesamt 40 Minuten lang betreiben."

 

Gersdorff, Grasmann, Schubert: Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke. 3. Auflage. Bernard & Graefe Verlag Bonn, 1995, ISBN 3-7637-6107-1.

 

"Der Vorrat des Wasser-Methanol-Gemisches von (beispielsweise beim DB 605 D der Bf 109 K-4) 70 Litern war für 26 Flugminuten mit Sondernotleistung ausreichend. Allerdings durfte die Maschine nicht mehr als zehn Minuten ununterbrochen auf dieser höchsten Leistungsstufe betrieben werden, sonst drohten Motorschäden."

 

This kind of contradicts what Stiegler said and i would like to see the manual where it stated that MW50 was only allowed for 5 minutes and then never again. Whats the reason for having a 70 to 115 liter tank full of MW50 if you only could use it for 5 minutes? It seems that it was allowed for 10 minutes straight with sufficient engine cooling and after a 5 minute pause of a lower powerlevel you were allowed to use it agian. As long as the engine didnt overheat, only the lifetime of the sparks being reduced. Not sure about GM-1. But we are not talking about GM-1 or MW 50 here anyway so whats the point?

 

Dak, how many engines in the game actually have that? Is that what the 109 E7 refers to as "boosted mode"? Or, is that the upper limit of all german engines at emergency power? Also, what would actually happen if you exceeded the limit? Would the engine immediately die? Does that info exist?

 

MW50 or GM-1 has nothing to do with the normal Notleistung, just use google to find out how GM-1 and MW50 workes, two different systems and not present in the current Luftwaffe planeset. Maybe in his world it is normal that engines just die in midair, who knows.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Ishtaru

[Stilico]

I've been doing some reading about MW50 and GM-1. It didn't look like they were in any of the planes in the game, but I didn't think Dakpilot would have brought it up for no reason. Was just about to post my findings but I see I've been beaten to it. Why even bring it up if it's not applicable?

[19//Moach]

I've been doing some reading about MW50 and GM-1. It didn't look like they were in any of the planes in the game, but I didn't think Dakpilot would have brought it up for no reason. Was just about to post my findings but I see I've been beaten to it. Why even bring it up if it's not applicable?

 

Because the forum warrior must fight the forum war... 

 

 

Let's try and keep this one on topic, shall we?

 

 

 

Can anyone think of a less absurd method of preventing wanton use of unlimited boost without fictitious self-destruction timers?   So far, I think the heat thing is the closest to a "least bad alternative" we've got.   

 

 

Could we perhaps come up with something better?   Some way of accomplishing this without simultaneously bending both history and physics...

Edited November 22, 2017 by 19//Moach