Engines blowing up too easy, ruining immersion.(An idea here)

[SCG_motoadve]

WEP or full power for a while and your engine blows up, this has been beaten to death.

Yes there should be a penalty if you abuse your engine, blowing up penalty is too unrealistic.

 

What about a loss of power, you abuse your engine, you loose power, abandon the fight and try to make it home.

If you abuse it for too long then you loose power and only get 60% or 70% power to make it home.

That should not be as hard to implement.

 

I am a real pilot, fly very often 3 , 4 times per week in challenging enviroments, aviation engines are reliable, the engines in general aviaition today have technology of the 1940s and 50s.

 

With this option you can try to escape a chase at full power, without having to count the seconds you have using Boost or WEP or full power.

In real life pilots used WEP trying to escape without caring for the engine's future, in BOS you try to escape waiting for the engine to blow up, or counting the seconds.

 

Reading a book Live Bait, life of a P51 pilot.

One one mission he flew 40 minutes at WEP (WEP limit is 5 minutes) back to England after being chased by some FWs in and out of clouds, and at low level,once he was in the channel and close to base he realized he kept WEP on all the time.

Engine was opened and inspected, and they even made an article in Popular Mechanics magazine about this, the engine was intact, nothing happened.

This is just an example, parameters on planes are very conservative, to keep them reliable, they dont just blow up when exceeded.

[Herne]

TBH I like it how things are, it adds a layer of tactical complexity, you do not know exactly when you will damage your engine, but you know roughly, and you need to factor some time to rest your engine into your decisions periodically.

It keeps things interesting.

[Dakpilot]

Time between overhaul of GA engines is 1500-2000 hours, yes they are very reliable but they were designed that way many are capable of exceeding that limit by a large margin.

 

The Mustang pilot story is great, I am sure I have read it previously, but how many unpublished stories ended in a different way.

 

Ultimately I agree with the premise but 1800hp engines at high boost, when they go wrong tend to to so quite hard with little middle ground.

 

Run the engines within the known limits go beyond at you risk.. It is even for everyone.

 

I expect the update to engine management taking into account detonation and other things may improve things

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Spaz]

TBH I like it how things are, it adds a layer of tactical complexity, you do not know exactly when you will damage your engine, but you know roughly, and you need to factor some time to rest your engine into your decisions periodically.

 

It keeps things interesting.

 

A layer of tactical complexity? Seriously? For a basic timer script? With all due respect your giving way too much credit here. I can show you Combat Flight Simulator or Janes WW2 fighters that had much better engine management. When I say this sim is a glorified 1946 I'm not playing. Even 1946 had better aspects.

 

But this game has come a long way. I'll admit that. But most of us have spent in excess of 100+ on this game, I myself closer to 200. And this is the best we get? 

 

[Edited]

 

Please keep all insinuations of "Russian bias" off this forum.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Bearcat

[Matt]

Someone suggested that the oil pressure should drop when the engine was used for too long on highest power modes. So you could actually counteract that by reducing power and letting the oil pressure come back up again.

 

I like that idea, because pilot would need to monitor the oil pressure gauge (currently entirely unnecessary in all planes) and it would be completely dynamic. It also should affect all engines to different degrees imho.

 

And no, it would probably not be realistic, but neither is the current solution (or the fact that we start in brand new planes every time etc.).

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Not to mention the devs are already moving on to other projects with the attitude of "well, good jobs guys! BoS is done and its incredible, most accurate flight sim ever made!" This attitude is a joke. And why I won't spend another penny until serious changes occur. 

Personally, I think you are being very disingenuous with "statements" like this.  

[Guest deleted@134347]

Look at it as a simple challenge for your imagination. Just pretend that your plane hasn't been serviced in the past 1,500 hours due to intense and never ending scrambles and intercepts. And the mission you're currently playing is the 'last' mission allowed by the service record. Baby your engine and you'll be alright.

 

 

A layer of tactical complexity? Seriously? For a basic timer script? With all due respect your giving way too much credit here. I can show you Combat Flight Simulator or Janes WW2 fighters that had much better engine management. When I say this sim is a glorified 1946 I'm not playing. Even 1946 had better aspects.

 

But this game has come a long way. I'll admit that. But most of us have spent in excess of 100+ on this game, I myself closer to 200. And this is the best we get? 

 

Not to mention the devs are already moving on to other projects with the attitude of "well, good jobs guys! BoS is done and its incredible, most accurate flight sim ever made!" This attitude is a joke. And why I won't spend another penny until serious changes occur. 

 

Doesn't matter anyway, because whatever documentation they do get is Russian anyway. We all know the inherent issue's that happens when you use Russian documentation on German aircraft performance.

 

The "even-ness" that is described by some in this game is non existent. 

 

[Herne]

 

A layer of tactical complexity? Seriously? For a basic timer script? With all due respect your giving way too much credit here. I can show you Combat Flight Simulator or Janes WW2 fighters that had much better engine management. When I say this sim is a glorified 1946 I'm not playing. Even 1946 had better aspects.

 

But this game has come a long way. I'll admit that. But most of us have spent in excess of 100+ on this game, I myself closer to 200. And this is the best we get? 

 

Not to mention the devs are already moving on to other projects with the attitude of "well, good jobs guys! BoS is done and its incredible, most accurate flight sim ever made!" This attitude is a joke. And why I won't spend another penny until serious changes occur. 

 

Doesn't matter anyway, because whatever documentation they do get is Russian anyway. We all know the inherent issue's that happens when you use Russian documentation on German aircraft performance.

 

The "even-ness" that is described by some in this game is non existent. 

 

 

Well what's the alternative ? have everyone go full wep from take off and never worry about it until they land ? The way things are you need to be mindful of what the settings are for the bird you are flying and you abuse them at your own risk.

 

I like that. Especially in MP

Edited December 12, 2017 by =11=herne

[MrNoice]

the alternative would be to increase the limit at least... 

1min Full  WEP for  DB601E ?    Those times like  10-5-3-1min limit were just  times that would  increase the engine life but  in combat it doesnt matter...  

 

I would like if they would bound the  Oiltemp to  engine damage so unless your temps are ok it should stop the engine...

 

greetings

[Herne]

the alternative would be to increase the limit at least... 

1min Full  WEP for  DB601E ?    Those times like  10-5-3-1min limit were just  times that would  increase the engine life but  in combat it doesnt matter...  

 

I would like if they would bound the  Oiltemp to  engine damage so unless your temps are ok it should stop the engine...

 

greetings

 

 

High coolant /oil temps should and do cause engine damage. engine damage should not necessarily cause high temps

[Nibbio]

WEP or full power for a while and your engine blows up, this has been beaten to death.

Yes there should be a penalty if you abuse your engine, blowing up penalty is too unrealistic.

 

What about a loss of power, you abuse your engine, you loose power, abandon the fight and try to make it home.

If you abuse it for too long then you loose power and only get 60% or 70% power to make it home.

That should not be as hard to implement.

 

 

I fully agree, the current system is just too gamey and rough. This sim deserves something more sophisticated.

[=SqSq=switch201]

I don't necessarily have a problem with the time limits on WEP per say, but I think that the engine modes shouldn't be as cut and dry as they currently are. As far as I can tell, The engine modes are not on a gradient: you are either in normal, combat, or emergency power mode. there is no in between really. Take the 109 F4 for example. in regards to engine maintenance, there is no different between 1.3 and 1.42 ATA  no matter where you put the throttle between 1.3 and 1.42, you always have the same amount of time (is it 5 mins? I forget), but as soon as you go 1.29 you can suddenly go for 30. I think these values should be on some sort of slope, for example:

 

1.2 ATA: 45 mins, 1.21 ATA: 40 mins, 1.23: 35 mins, 1.25: 30 mins...... you get what I mean by now

Edited December 12, 2017 by =SqSq=switch201

[RavN_Windhover]

At the end of the day it comes down to what the plane can do in a mission and what it can do over its service life. Obviously the engines could run well beyond their recommended settings--generally speaking--and experience no immediate damage or ill effects to the performance. But if you run them like that for a couple days you put any number of parts at risk of failure. It's in all honesty a waste of time to try and model accumulated damage or wear on engines per player on a per plane basis so there has to be a "simpler" system so everybody isn't running around on WEP all the time. What we have now is I feel is OK-ish but like several people said it just too cut and dry, too rigid for what the sim deserves. I like the idea of loosing available power over the course of high power settings. It keeps you mindful of the engine and prevents people from spamming WEP and it gives people a chance to realize they are putting the plane in a bad position but can still react to it without ditching in the nearest farmers field on the Steppe.

 

Cheers

[curiousGamblerr]

I don't necessarily have a problem with the time limits on WEP per say, but I think that the engine modes shouldn't be as cut and dry as they currently are. As far as I can tell, The engine modes are not on a gradient: you are either in normal, combat, or emergency power mode. there is no in between really. Take the 109 F4 for example. in regards to engine maintenance, there is no different between 1.3 and 1.42 ATA  no matter where you put the throttle between 1.3 and 1.42, you always have the same amount of time (is it 5 mins? I forget), but as soon as you go 1.29 you can suddenly go for 30. I think these values should be on some sort of slope, for example:

 

1.2 ATA: 45 mins, 1.21 ATA: 40 mins, 1.23: 35 mins, 1.25: 30 mins...... you get what I mean by now

 

Have you tested and found this to not be the case? Because its my understanding that this is how it works, e.g. 1.25 ATA in a 109 is combat but it will be okay longer than the 30min noted for 1.32 ATA in the specs.

 

Edit: Screw it, im working from home with a cold today, seems like the perfect time to test... brb

Edited December 12, 2017 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[=SqSq=switch201]

Screw it, im working from home with a cold today, seems like the perfect time to test... brb

 

 

I have not tested this, but simply heard this from another player online. I will be interested in the results.

 

So 1.32 is the max for combat mode, correct?

Edited December 12, 2017 by =SqSq=switch201

[Herne]

I have not tested this, but simply heard this from another player online. I will be interested in the results.

 

So 1.32 is the max for combat mode, correct?

 

it depends what you fly. You can check on the specifications tab from the map briefing. From memory I think max combat power for a 109F4 is 1.3 ATA same for the G2 which happens to be full throttle, and the same for the G4 if memory serves. 190 A3 is 1.32 ATA, not sure about the A5 though I think that is the same also

 

Edit: Because I fly with the techno chat off, it is unclear to me if for example in the 190 when you get to that awkward altitude between supercharger settings, where the MP starts to drop off until you hit 3k, If the combat rating is also tied to the RPM. If for example I were to increase throttle so that the RPM exceeded the specification rating, but the MP was under the specification rating, would I be using WEP ? I'm not sure

Edited December 12, 2017 by =11=herne

[Matt]

 

 

Because its my understanding that this is how it works, e.g. 1.25 ATA in a 109 is combat but it will be okay longer than the 30min noted for 1.32 ATA in the specs.

 

That is correct.

[Finkeren]

This is one point were I generally side with the harshest critics of this sim. The limitations are modeled way too strict and it’s actually hurting gameplay.

 

Of course there needs to be restrictions with real consequences that are more severe than would be the case IRL (where the consequence of running WEP for a full mission would often simply be a severely shortened service life of the engine) but the almost instantaneous shutdown of the engine without any warning signs beyond technochat is just too harsh.

 

I don’t know exactly what the solution should look like, the one suggested by the OP is just one of several that could work, but this is something I’d really like the devs to look into in the BoBP development cycle.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Finkeren

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I prefer the current time limit model to 'WEP Thunder' where everyone always exceeds normal power. 

 

As has been said, a realistic reliability model would allow essentially unlimited WEP in the context of the game. This would dangerously skew aircraft performance. Probabilistic failures after exceeding engine limits would only add frustration. Although accumulated engine damage would be nice for campaigns, I do not think it can be justified at this stage in development.

 

However, I think a small tweak would be reasonable. Certain engine limits (especially those that are only one minute) could be 'softened' somehow to make them less abrupt while still discouraging prolonged use. 

[Herne]

I prefer the current time limit model to 'WEP Thunder' where everyone always exceeds normal power. 

 

As has been said, a realistic reliability model would allow essentially unlimited WEP in the context of the game. This would dangerously skew aircraft performance. Probabilistic failures after exceeding engine limits would only add frustration. Although accumulated engine damage would be nice for campaigns, I do not think it can be justified at this stage in development.

 

However, I think a small tweak would be reasonable. Certain engine limits (especially those that are only one minute) could be 'softened' somehow to make them less abrupt while still discouraging prolonged usAs far as

 

I seem to remember a video on YT from DerSheriff where he tested the emergency settings. IIRC he found that the 1 Minute timer had a bit of a random factor to it, but would last for at least 90 seconds before engine failure, sometimes a little longer, this would increase by a factor of minutes if you didn't quite go all the way to 100%

[curiousGamblerr]

Well, I'm back. I did three tests, not wholly scientific or a legit sample size. Nevertheless, I'm convinced... (and besides, the Dortmund game is one in 15 minutes lol)

 

I flew an F4 in QMB at 4k meters on the Kuban map with full fuel. I left weather defaulted to whatever it was and left rads and prop pitch on auto. My test procedure was to start an infinite level autopilot turn, increase to 8x game speed, move the throttle to the desired ATA and pause. Then I unpaused and started the timer simultaneously, noting the time when the engine damage technochat appeared.

 

Test #1

1.3 ATA lasted 42min 8sec, at which time engine damage and overheat messages appeared, and the engine died almost immediately.

 

Test #2

1.3 ATA lasted 37min 4sec, at which time engine damage and overheat messages appeared, but the engine ran almost another 5min before dying.

 

Test #3 (the interesting one)

1.25 ATA lasted 69min 52sec, at which time the plane ran out of fuel before any engine damage or overheat messages appeared.

 

So... not exactly a scientific sample size, but again, I'm convinced! Heck with those numbers, 1.25 is basically continuous power. Not exactly "cut and dry" huh? 

Edited December 12, 2017 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[216th_Jordan]

Also the 'timer' recovers.

 

I would however of course like something along the lines of motoadve and or Matt.

[=SqSq=switch201]

Hm the 1.25 lasting so long is quite surprising to me, since combat power is supposed to be only for 30 mins. Good job, and thanks for testing.

[Wedgewood]

I really like this idea.  Hopefully it'll be given some thought.

 

What about a loss of power, you abuse your engine, you loose power, abandon the fight and try to make it home.

If you abuse it for too long then you loose power and only get 60% or 70% power to make it home.

[Dakpilot]

A layer of tactical complexity? Seriously? For a basic timer script? With all due respect your giving way too much credit here. I can show you Combat Flight Simulator or Janes WW2 fighters that had much better engine management. When I say this sim is a glorified 1946 I'm not playing. Even 1946 had better aspects.

 

But this game has come a long way. I'll admit that. But most of us have spent in excess of 100+ on this game, I myself closer to 200. And this is the best we get? 

 

Not to mention the devs are already moving on to other projects with the attitude of "well, good jobs guys! BoS is done and its incredible, most accurate flight sim ever made!" This attitude is a joke. And why I won't spend another penny until serious changes occur. 

 

Doesn't matter anyway, because whatever documentation they do get is Russian anyway. We all know the inherent issue's that happens when you use Russian documentation on German aircraft performance.

 

The "even-ness" that is described by some in this game is non existent.

 

I wasn't going to bother to reply but there is so much wrong in this post.

 

Dev's attitude to BoS being finished and moving on.??

 

Every fm,tech upgrade, graphic upgrade etc. etc. is added/included in previous versions, perfect example with BoS map upgrade with BoK tech and FM review years after release.

 

The premise that only Russian documents are used for German aircraft is wrong.

 

Also your rather strangely worded last comment implying bias, is unfounded

 

Frankly I'm amazed the phases "paying customer" and "hard earned cash" were not included for good measure, but at least you managed to threaten not spending any more until your demands are met

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Art-J]

Just a question, from someone who doesn't own the sim yet (waiting for BoK). How much time fo you guys have from these "overheat" and "damage" messages to the engine seisure? I'm asking, because in DCS, there are either audible (characteristic rumble), or visual (vibration) clues indicating beginning of detonation (whether caused by mishandling temps or boost). Those clues don't last long before the catastrophic failure, a couple of dozens of seconds at most, but they're usually enough to warn me that something dangerous is happening and I should reduce power settings immediately. Do you have enough time to react in BoX as well?

Edited December 12, 2017 by Art-J

[curiousGamblerr]

I wasn't going to bother to reply but there is so much wrong in this post.

 

Dak, I just reported him and ignored it, not worth the effort 

Just a question, from someone who doesn't own the sim yet (waiting for BoK). How much time fo you guys have from these "overheat" and "damage" messages to the engine seasure? I'm asking, because in DCS, there are either audible (characteristic rumble), or visual (vibration) clues indicating beginning of detonation (whether caused by mishandling temps or boost). Those clues don't last long before the catastrophic failure, a couple of dozens of seconds at most, but they're usually enough to warn me that something dangerous is happening and I should reduce power settings immediately. Do you have enough time to react in BoX as well?

 

Frankly, no. The biggest issue with this system is not the timer itself, but the fact that there is no warning (besides temperature, but if you're breaking your engine in a non-temperature way, you're out of luck). If the oil pressure gauges worked legit or the engines made some noise like they were about to break or something, it would be a huge step in the right direction.

Edited December 12, 2017 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Just a question, from someone who doesn't own the sim yet (waiting for BoK). How much time fo you guys have from these "overheat" and "damage" messages to the engine seisure? I'm asking, because in DCS, there are either audible (characteristic rumble), or visual (vibration) clues indicating beginning of detonation (whether caused by mishandling temps or boost). Those clues don't last long before the catastrophic failure, a couple of dozens of seconds at most, but they're usually enough to warn me that something dangerous is happening and I should reduce power settings immediately. Do you have enough time to react in BoX as well?

 

Depends on your settings. If you have notifications enabled on your HUD, it is easy to avoid damage.

 

Without the HUD, starting a stopwatch every time you enter a time-limited mode becomes the only reliable method. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

 I think these values should be on some sort of slope, for example:

 

The values have sort of a gradient in between the specified times in the spec sheet:

 

 

 

Credits to Der Sheriff for the testing and the charts

 

 

I personally think the system is too strict and take the manuals too literally, there should be a compromise to allow more use of these settings, however not so much so people can just forget about them or use it as "cruise mode" in the battlefield. Maybe 5 min as the minimum would be a good compromise value, until we can get a more sophisticated modelling with detonation, loss of power, etc.  Guaranteed overheat regardless of the IRL radiator system capabilites like in War Thunder or IL-2 1946 is not the solution imho.

Edited December 12, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[curiousGamblerr]

Depends on your settings. If you have notifications enabled on your HUD, it is easy to avoid damage.

 

Without the HUD, starting a stopwatch every time you enter a time-limited mode becomes the only reliable method. 

 

How does the HUD help you here? Either way, once you're in a time-limited mode, you have to time yourself. Once the "engine damaged" notification appears, its too late. The only time the HUD could help prevent engine damage would be warning of an overheat I think.

 

(That said, I'm not saying its hard to avoid damage. Use time-limited modes conservatively and you'll have no problems, heck I don't remember the last time I broke an engine like this... but still, there is no warning in the seconds before engine damage)

Edited December 12, 2017 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[Dakpilot]

If you are running in a gentle cruise you may have some sort of warning, but the reality is that if oil pressure is dropping or fluctuating you are going to want to shut it down pronto, or land, the low oil pressure is not coming back, at full throttle or WEP, there will be little warning.

 

I am just very unsure about artificially linking oil pressure /temps as away of controlling over boost limits

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[=SqSq=switch201]

Thanks for the info. this is new to me, and I have played this quite a bit 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

How does the HUD help you here? Either way, once you're in a time-limited mode, you have to time yourself. Once the "engine damaged" notification appears, its too late. The only time the HUD could help prevent engine damage would be warning of an overheat I think.

 

(That said, I'm not saying its hard to avoid damage. Use time-limited modes conservatively and you'll have no problems, heck I don't remember the last time I broke an engine like this... but still, there is no warning in the seconds before engine damage)

 

All I'm saying is that the HUD gives you a lower bound for engine life with the 'time exceeded' message. Other than that, it provides no help. 

[OrLoK]

I hated the mechanic at first, but now I know when to and when not to push my engines, im quite happy with it.

 

I still mess up now and then but even if its not true to life I can see why the devs have done it this way.

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

I am relatively new to the Sim Genre, but IMO the current system is a little too extreme.

 

Something I could live with would be accumulated engine damage per plane, no matter if you land or crash it. This could f.e. be an option for MP Servers, where the damage is saved with your Profile and shared amongst every Server with it on.

 

Maybe have an engine HP system, where every minute over the recommended time substracts a certain range of percentage of power output.

This would be an easy enough number to save with your profile.

 

Though IMO there also ought to be some sort of regeneration to represent servicing. Like f.e. 1% regeneration with every flyout with 20 minutes or so of airtime with a maximum of 10% and complete replacement every 20th flyout.

 

Those numbers are completely arbitrary, so change them at will.

[eRoN]

 

This attitude is a joke. And why I won't spend another penny until serious changes occur.

Edited December 12, 2017 by eRoN

[Gambit21]

 

I can show you Combat Flight Simulator or Janes WW2 fighters that had much better engine management. When I say this sim is a glorified 1946 I'm not playing. Even 1946 had better aspects.

 

 

Janes WW2 Fighters was a horrible piece of tripe.

[Jade_Monkey]

 

A layer of tactical complexity? Seriously? For a basic timer script? With all due respect your giving way too much credit here. I can show you Combat Flight Simulator or Janes WW2 fighters that had much better engine management. When I say this sim is a glorified 1946 I'm not playing. Even 1946 had better aspects.

 

But this game has come a long way. I'll admit that. But most of us have spent in excess of 100+ on this game, I myself closer to 200. And this is the best we get? 

 

Not to mention the devs are already moving on to other projects with the attitude of "well, good jobs guys! BoS is done and its incredible, most accurate flight sim ever made!" This attitude is a joke. And why I won't spend another penny until serious changes occur. 

 

Doesn't matter anyway, because whatever documentation they do get is Russian anyway. We all know the inherent issue's that happens when you use Russian documentation on German aircraft performance.

 

The "even-ness" that is described by some in this game is non existent. 

 

 

You  need to calm down. The engine limits are not perfect but your rant is waay off mark.

 

Also nobody cares how much you spent on the game. I probably spent more than you did, does that make my opinion more important than yours? I don't think so.

[curiousGamblerr]

I don't think so.

 

I, for one, think your opinion is more important than his!

 

I'm not helping, am I?

Edited December 12, 2017 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[przybysz86]

I think that engine should randomly blow up but best case scenario should be much longer timing and worst case as is now.

On the other hand I do think that plane that was over-abused should be after landing (on servers like WoL or TAW) be considered "ditched" as it would have be taken for engine check and overhaul.So yes, feel free to abuse engine some more but be aware that on WoL you will just remove one plane from team's roster for some time (say 30 mins) and on TAW it will be gone from your roster for the usual tame it takes for plane to get repair after minor ditching.

 

Not sure if that's possible to be implemented in game code though.

 

And if you ask me - current compromise is quite acceptable for me.

Edited December 12, 2017 by przybysz86