Engine Timer Realism Option

[Dakpilot]

MW-50 is water meth inject and GM-1 is basically nitrous injection they are just examples of methods of boosting power above maximum continuous, and I used Franz Stigler 109,190 and 262 pilot, as an example of real world use, his words not mine

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

*Edit*

 

Passive aggressive comments about "forum warrior" and "twisting history"

 

I think it's time for me to step out of this thread

Edited November 22, 2017 by Dakpilot

[Barnacles]

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...

 

My blue sky thinking-not entirely historically correct-but simple enough to implement, solution is to have the following:

 

Planes can have an attribute, call it 'wear' 'hours on airframe' 'goodness' or whatever, that means an airframe has +/- 5% on its performance. (Historically a known 'dog' was not going to be chosen by a squad leader)

 

When you fly an airframe for the first time, it is 'brand new' hence not 'run in' and it is less well performing than a plane that has an hour or so under its belt. (Performance improves whilst it is being run in, proportional with how well you treat the engine) 

 

If you crash/ditch/get shot down, next plane will be brand new. If you RTB successfully, you get your old plane back, with an associated performance boost.

 

Plus points: Tangible advantage to flying according to the manual. Incentive not to be gung ho and try to RTB.

Negatives: Maybe a 109-tamagotchi hybrid would be considered 'gamey'

[Blutaar]

So why do you think for example the 190 with C3 direct fuel injection could use much higher boost for more then triple the amount of time as without C3 fuel injection? It seems it has all to do with heat because what i learned about C3 fuel injection and MW50 is, that the mixture cools the otherwise really hot moving parts in the burningchamber of the engine and thats why the engine can whitstand higher boost pressures for extended periods of time without being damaged. Read about these systems yourself or maybe someone with better explaining skills and knowledge could tell you more.

 

Maybe Stiegler lied to confuse teh allies, i dont know this interview and when it was made with him. Or maybe it was not allowed because in the end MW50/GM-1 mixtures were rare and engines were pretty much stretched flighhours wise. I just dont know but i cant imagine anyone gave a thought about engine limitations in a life and death situation and using a stopwatch just to not explode the engine. If so, reports of failing engines without enemy fire would be all over for us to read.

 

I still would like to see the manual where its stated that MW50 was just 5 mins per flight and that the 70-115 liter tanks were just filled for a 5 minute shot. It makes no sense no matter what he said in this interview. Anyway, why are pilot reports/interviews viable now where most of the time they get ignored on pretty much everything by this community?

[Barnacles]

The C3 fuel has a higher octane content which increases the threshold at which detonation happens. The MW50 acts as an anti detonant, cools the valve seats and cylinder heads, and also cools the air fuel mix, allowing a denser charge and hence more energy released per power stroke. Because the engine therefore runs at a higher power the risk of detonation must be mitigated by use of different limits for different fuel combinations. The reference quoted in wikipedia for the engine limits is Bridgman, L, (ed.) (1989) Jane's fighting aircraft of World War II. Crescent. ISBN 0-517-67964-7

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

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...

 

The overheating method like in 1946 is annoying imho because it makes the radiator less capable than what they were IRL. It makes you go slower because of added drag, making a bit pointless using the higher boosts to get more performance if you have to open the radiators more than what was really needed, you wouldn't be capable to reach max speeds or mantaining them.

 

I think the best method would be a compromise timer, something useful for a fight, but not giving sufficient time for the players to "abuse it": I think 5-10 mins would be it. But it brings a new question: what should we do with the planes that have 5-10 min timers themselves? (MiG, La-5, I-16, some American planes in their "military mode", etc) should they be compensated in a similar manner as well?

[Stilico]

The overheating method like in 1946 is annoying imho because it makes the radiator less capable than what they were IRL. It makes you go slower because of added drag, making a bit pointless using the higher boosts to get more performance if you have to open the radiators more than what was really needed, you wouldn't be capable to reach max speeds or mantaining them.

 

I have to agree. My personal preference is, as Roblex suggested earlier, an audio cue that you're engine is being run too hard, and a slow, and *VERY* gradual decrease in performance. Link it to a score reduction depending on how worn your engine becomes. Could even link it further to the upcoming campaign mode. That's more work than what I'm advocating, but I think it's probably the most reasonable solution.

 

I would still advocate for simply adding a realism option toggle for those that want it, though.

[ZachariasX]

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.

That is exactly what I said. To make a (more) correct implementation, you have to model how heat is produced (this is easy), how heat is absorbed by the engine and airframe, how efficient the exchange is with the radiator(s), then you have to model heat exchange in the radiator depending on airspeed and local athmosphere.

 

It is far from trivial to do that correctly. Until we have that, we just are kept in line with a big stick to adhere to official engine specifications.

 

It should be of note however that it is not likely that these values are a huge departure from what you get with the "real thing". The manual states values that are the result of how the installed engine will behave. If you are departing from this regime, the engine will heat up to unhealthy values. Unless you fly really fast, I doubt that you could get much more than what we are getting now performance whise, else your engine will do like a steam locomotive.

 

Also, if heat exchange is modelled correctly, we can for instance forget about riding our Yak at full power with 100% rpm. By making the engine management realistic, I would expect a lot more overheating than we have now, where you really have to ask for it. They won't even cook when sitting on the ground. Done correctly, in some situations we can draw more power and in other situations we can draw even less.

 

What is more of an issue is that the "timer" right now is too much dependent on rpm. Even if the prop is windmilling, mild prop overspeed will kill your engine (or produce "emergency power" in technochat). That a power dive can kill your engine just like that is a serious bug in the game. This issue is known to the devs and they will look at it when they have time.

 

On average, we are getting form the engines now what we should get. We just have to look for the wrong cues to keep the engine healthy.

[ZachariasX]

 

 

I just dont know but i cant imagine anyone gave a thought about engine limitations in a life and death situation and using a stopwatch just to not explode the engine.

The engine wouldn't explode and the conveniently firewalled their throttle once they had a happy pack of Mustangs behind them. No one got blamed for flying such that they cound throw away a DB engine after four flights. Especially if the alternative was him dying. The pilot certainy wouldn't care about timers (5 minutes in such a situation are a very looooooooooooooooong time), but as soon as the engine starts fuming coolant vapors, the pilot might reconsider his situation.

 

Surpression/WEP was however handled with care. From what I've read on allied pilot accounts, they only used it in extremis. Clostermann for instance used it about 3 times in his Tempest. It was impressive enough for him to specifically ention the events and comment on it. One of the occasions was when a bomb blast from jets attacking the bridge of Remagen sent im into a spin in his Tempest below 1000 m above ground and it was a sheer panic move. Someone was more than just lucky then.

[56RAF_Roblex]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I don't think my suggestion need to be complicated to program.   At its simplest implementation you basically need a counter that shows 'Remaining Engine Life'; lets say 300 points. Every plane has a certain time that Boost can be used without damage, this is what we have already, but for every second beyond that,  the counter gets decremented by one and the volume of the 'grind' noise increases by 1.2% (not compounded). and the power output of the engine decreases by 0.6%.  If the Boost is stopped 2.5 minutes later (ie 150 seconds beyond the safe limit)  then the counter stops decrementing but the damage has been done and the grinding noise is now at 50% volume plus the engine is now only giving out 75% power (assuming I got my maths right :-) ).  At this point the sensible pilot disengages and limps home being very careful not to stress the engine any further.  If he is unable to disengage then he must decide whether to continue wrecking his engine or stop using boost and try to win with reduced power available. It is a combat decision as faced by real combat pilots.   You might need to use different decrement values for exceeding combat power limits and exceeding emergency power limits and you may want to say that certain planes are more forgiving when the recommended time limits were exceeded so degrade slower but that is the simple version.

 

My problem with the 'Heat' solution is that, unless you are using the noob technochat,  in the heat of combat you might not see how much you are overheating until it is too late whereas in real life the pilot could hear and feel that the engine was not happy.   Perhaps a heat solution with audible cues might help but I am still not happy with the concept of reaching a point where even full rads will not reduce the temperature any more.  You may as well just say 'At X the engine explodes' 

Edited November 22, 2017 by 56RAF_Roblex

[Legioneod]

Here's something that I posted in another thread. I think it would be a good compromise and would be a more realistic engine dmg model than what we currently have.

 

 

Yep, thats what I'm worried about. One of the reasons I like DCS engine model better, because I can run it at WEP for as long as I need as long as I can keep the temps down and as long as I treat the engine right.

 

A more dynamic model would be great to where the engine gets worn out the longer you push it. So if I push the engine too hard for too long it will degrade the engine and have a greater chance of failure. This way the hard limit is removed and we will have a more realistic and dynamic engine model.

 

It doesnt have to be too complex either, it could just be something like:

chance of failure increases by x% every minute you run over the recommended time limit.

 

So if say, the chance of failure was 5% for every minute you ran over the limit you would have a

5% chance of failure at 1 min over

10% chance of failure at 2 min

50% chance of failure at 5 min over, etc. 

 

The % can be increased or decreased however the devs like, anything from 1% - 5% would be ideal for gameplay imo.

 

This way players can push their engines a little harder in a fight without having to be scared of it blowing just because you went a seconed over the time limit.

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Legioneod

[19//Moach]

Chance of failure would make the problem worse, not better.   What we need is not less predictable engine explosions, what we got is unfair enough as it is.

 

What is most necessary, is some form of feedback, to make it abundantly clear that the engine is not happy, and there will be trouble if it keeps being pushed much longer.

 

Also, this trouble should most certainly be applied very gradually.  That is perhaps the most important factor.   A slightly abused engine would never simply go "poof" all the sudden, leaving you a glider for the short remainder of your life. It would instead become increasingly uncooperative, rough of running, and producing less power.  This would escalate as long as abuse is maintained, but unless a critical level of damage has been done, it should not continue to degrade in normal conditions.

 

All of this should be very "fluid", implemented with fuzzy logic to make it as un-deterministic as possible.

[Legioneod]

Chance of failure would make the problem worse, not better.   What we need is not less predictable engine explosions, what we got is unfair enough as it is.

 

What is most necessary, is some form of feedback, to make it abundantly clear that the engine is not happy, and there will be trouble if it keeps being pushed much longer.

 

Also, this trouble should most certainly be applied very gradually.  That is perhaps the most important factor.   A slightly abused engine would never simply go "poof" all the sudden, leaving you a glider for the short remainder of your life. It would instead become increasingly uncooperative, rough of running, and producing less power.  This would escalate as long as abuse is maintained, but unless a critical level of damage has been done, it should not continue to degrade in normal conditions.

 

All of this should be very "fluid", implemented with fuzzy logic to make it as un-deterministic as possible.

The longer you push an engine the more of a chance something will go wrong. That's why I suggested there be a chance that something will fail the longer you push it. This is simply for gameplay reasons and to make it more dynamic and random than it currently is.

 

If the devs had the time and money to make a more realistic engine damage model or at least something similar to dcs engine (in regards to being able to push it hard without a unrealistic time limit) then I'd be happy, but I dont think they will. Thats why I suggested the above because I feel it's more likely to happen and would be a good compromise.

 

I want a realistic and dynamic engine model but I doubt that will happen.

 

The most important damage model in the game is the engine damage model but I really don't think it will ever be as realistic as we want it to be.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Legioneod

[Venturi]

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

This behavior is very simply and easily dealt with, as I have said before:

 

Guarantee safe operation at X power level only up to the specified manual’s time. AKA “nominal” safe time.

 

After this time expires, instead of immediate engine damage and failure..... add in random sudden stop or severe damage failures with increasing frequency in the random calculation as time goes on.

 

Adjust the frequency of failures past the nominal safe Tim according to the TBO of the specific model of engine, which gives a good indication of its durability under combat conditions, and is a comparable factor across all aircraft types...

 

Simply easily and realistically done.

[Barnacles]

This behavior is very simply and easily dealt with, as I have said before:

 

Guarantee safe operation at X power level only up to the specified manual’s time. AKA “nominal” safe time.

 

After this time expires, instead of immediate engine damage and failure..... add in random sudden stop or severe damage failures with increasing frequency in the random calculation as time goes on.

 

Adjust the frequency of failures past the nominal safe Tim according to the TBO of the specific model of engine, which gives a good indication of its durability under combat conditions, and is a comparable factor across all aircraft types...

 

Simply easily and realistically done.

Spot on

[Venturi]

I'm still awaiting implementation of detonation with RPM/MP mismatch and with too-lean a mixture for MP setting, and in general more accurate engine temperature modelling.

 

Additionally:

 

1 The behavior of the supercharger when under critical altitude (increased RPM should DECREASE MP for a given throttle setting) vs when over critical altitude (increased RPM should INCREASE MP for a given throttle setting) should be fixed. See current P-40 engine model.

 

2 MP response to throttle input should be immediate (very direct, linear relationship - no delay except with perhaps engine management computers ala Deutschen Luftwaffe), and the delayed response of MP should then be the response to RPM as above.

 

3 etc etc etc

Edited December 25, 2017 by Venturi

[Barnacles]

I'm still awaiting implementation of detonation with RPM/MP mismatch and with too-lean a mixture for MP setting, and in general more accurate engine temperature modelling.

 

Additionally:

 

1 The behavior of the supercharger when under critical altitude (increased RPM should DECREASE MP for a given throttle setting) vs when over critical altitude (increased RPM should INCREASE MP for a given throttle setting) should be fixed. See current P-40 engine model.

 

2 MP response to throttle input should be immediate (very direct, linear relationship - no delay except with perhaps engine management computers ala Deutschen Luftwaffe), and the delayed response of MP should then be the response to RPM as above.

 

3 etc etc etc

Other than the temperature behavior on the ground, what do you think is inaccurate about the temperature simulation? I thought that it seems pretty good apart from the exception above.

[ZachariasX]

Other than the temperature behavior on the ground, what do you think is inaccurate about the temperature simulation? I thought that it seems pretty good apart from the exception above.

In principle, done in detail, you couldn't separate ground from flight behavior as such. There have been threads about in game and real world heat buildup from the engine, and AFAIR it was JtD who posted a direct comparison in case of the YAK-1, basically showing that it is very hard to overheat the Yak-1 engine in flight in contrast to the real Yak.. Thus, everyone can fly with the throttle firewalled and 100% rpm with it until they run out of fuel, wheras in real life, this was not so easy.

 

So there is room for optimization. HOWEVER, as long as almost everything in this game runs on one single thread, there is only so much that you can add functionality whise, until the game becomes unplayable. So I'd be careful what I'd ask for. Even right now we hit a wall, where for VR, people talk about computer setups that are pushed considerably beyond anything called "standard" to get VR to work properly.

[JeeF]

My blue sky thinking-not entirely historically correct-but simple enough to implement, solution is to have the following:

 

Planes can have an attribute, call it 'wear' 'hours on airframe' 'goodness' or whatever, that means an airframe has +/- 5% on its performance. (Historically a known 'dog' was not going to be chosen by a squad leader)

 

When you fly an airframe for the first time, it is 'brand new' hence not 'run in' and it is less well performing than a plane that has an hour or so under its belt. (Performance improves whilst it is being run in, proportional with how well you treat the engine) 

 

If you crash/ditch/get shot down, next plane will be brand new. If you RTB successfully, you get your old plane back, with an associated performance boost.

 

Plus points: Tangible advantage to flying according to the manual. Incentive not to be gung ho and try to RTB.

Negatives: Maybe a 109-tamagotchi hybrid would be considered 'gamey'

 

After reading this whole thread, I want to point out that giving mission makers the option to disable the timer, get a result of how much abuse the engine got in a sortie and give the game what % of max hp the engine should have in the next sortie would enable the mission makers to do all of this. The 109-tamagotchi would be a browser-based.

[Ehret]

Overusing a boost shouldn't blow your engine; shouldn't be consequence-free either. You need a plane wear and airbases' logistic implemented to handle it properly. Then, a driver could use a boost for longer, but at a cost of flying worn off plane for the rest of the match.