Jump to content
SCG_motoadve

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting if the server could match the aircraft to the player, that way you could simulate service life. If you boost your engine too much it could degrade over time and eventually fail.

 

I'm thinking something like A2A in FSX where the engine use/degradation is carried over each flight until you overhaul it.

 

I do agree that the engine modeling in this game is a joke compared to other games like DCS or even Cliffs of Dover. The engine model in this game needs lots of improvement.

 

Also techno chat for engine management needs to be removed for realistic settings or be a custom server setting, it kills immersion and requires no knowledge to manage your engine.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Yes. Be careful that engine RPM also contributes to WEP. In the 190 and no HUD it's best to use RPM as the guide for indicating continuous/combat/WEP due to the drop in ATA at critical supercharger altitudes. Same applies for some of the bombers.

 

Can't wait to buy a throttle with a detent indicating WEP bounds. Would make life somewhat simpler in the cockpit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: who I am and my attitudes on sims/realism vs gameplay is below my main point.

 

I've raced cars, and more importantly, helped friends with a lot more money than I have, race their cars.  I've seen engines explode.  I've seen them catch fire.  I've seen them seize.  A solid 80-90% of the time, when pushed to the limit, the engine (or the turbo) decides to go kablooey and there's nothing you can do about it.  If it's the supercharger that explodes, also bad news - superchargers are right before the intake manifold, so their garbage enters the engine and then the engine goes kablooey.  I've seen maybe a few occasions when the driver comes in with an engine that isn't running right, where it's a mechanical failure (ie, blown piston that somehow didn't result in the connecting rod punching through the block), as opposed to a fuel/electrical issue.  So the idea that an engine should fail slowly and give you warning, when pushed to the limit, is highly unrealistic.  Is that bad for gameplay?  Well, for the uber-simmers, the kind that won't be happy until the sim comes with a helmet that straps an explosive to your head so YOU die when your pilot dies (for maximum realism), well, they're gonna hate it.  For most people, including many hardcore simmers, it shouldn't be that big a deal.  If your engine goes from WEP to 0 boost and half RPM because you abused it, you're dead meat 95% of the time anyway.  On the other hand, for those wanting that "gradual" degradation... well... that kind of eliminates the point, doesn't it?  What's the point of coding that if you're going to die anyway?

 

Alright, let me introduce myself and my philosophy here, in case you're wondering where I'm coming from:

 

I am not a sim-at-all-costs type.  You know, the kinds of guys who argue that it's totally legit for a 30' long aircraft moving at 200mph to disappear 500m below you because of "camo".  Or for that same aircraft to fade into an incomprehensible black dot at 3km (and coincidentally, they run 60" 4K TVs, so they're fine with it!)  That said, I despise the way icons are always on, especially when you can see a target through your fuselage.  In terms of my server preferences, I'd fall in-between WoL and TAW.  I don't like the lack of accountability that WoL brings with losing a kite, or the permanent perfect weather, but TAW's insistence on making me navigate by endlessly repetitive, bland, and unrealistically identical terrain is a bit much.  I also don't cry when the devs fudge the performance numbers to bring balance, and I wouldn't cry if the chore of engine management was made automatic or simplified (even if slightly sub-optimal) for people who don't want to do it.

 

If you cannot back that statement up with solid proof do not make it.

Edited by Bearcat
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't cry when the devs fudge the performance numbers to bring balance,

I didn't know this was a thing? Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't wait to buy a throttle with a detent indicating WEP bounds. Would make life somewhat simpler in the cockpit.

 

My throttle has that but the detent is nowhere near the desired throttle position in game. The detent is at 100%, pushing forward will make it go 110%, whereas ingame it will go aprox 94% on the detent (emergency mode on most planes) and when I push it full forward it goes to 100% ingame.

 

Anyone has any idea how to work around this ? Any software for curves or whatever ?

Edited by 3./JG15_Staiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering there are race cars who suffer this fate is it so unrealistic.

There are drag racing car who run 6 second 1/4 mile runs very very fast.
But if the car had to drive like that for even 1/2 a mile it would Explode the engine from critical temps and so on.

Same goes for high boost applications.
even in turbo cars say running high boost 42Psi and such cannot be sustained long without engine damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know this was a thing? Source?

I don't have sources, [Edited]

 

Then we are done with this.

Edited by Bearcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have sources, but I've seen it discussed that, for example, the Yak-1-ser.69 was ~20kph

Other thread closed and don't want to turn this into FM discussion. But the person who claimed the Yak-1 to be 20kph too fast actually achieved 516 kph on ground level with (its not understandable otherways) both radiators at 50%:

 

"Yak-1 (Overheats for 20 Seconds, continues without alerts, very wird behaviour indeed, engine damage after 5 minutes)

Autumn: 529 (tried 50% radiators, 516)

Summer: 518

Winter: 560"

 

(Which is very close to what we have now)

 

Here's the discussion if you want to enter it:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/18939-top-speeds-sl-bos-fighters-time-year-either-109s-are-or-yaks/?hl=yak%26amp%3B%2382081&do=findComment&comment=304321

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I did a couple of tests, remembered it wrongly and I repent.

516 was what I came up with in a more comprehensive one, 12 faster than now. I apologize for my vicious Lies.

 

But you can go through the Changelog on the patch previous to 1b release where this change is mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I did a couple of tests, remembered it wrongly and I repent.

 

Nothing else did I expect, I don't say you lied, just cleared up your statment as it was way off to what i remembered. Also If you go with 100 Oil, 50 Water your speed will likely get to 510 or below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did that just two days ago:

50% Water

100% Oil

504 kph with 2700RPM

509 kph with 2550RPM

All in Autumn and Autolevel on River Surface Level (on the Wolga)

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try less radiator settings and You will be much faster ;)

 

Problem with overspeed Yak-1 and Lagg3 was at higher alts - above 4 km where they overspeed about 40 kph cause it is enought to fly with much less radiator settings without overheat engine.

 

M105PF Klimow engine was optimized for very low alt so it had even less power above 4 km then old DB601A engine used in 109 E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting if the server could match the aircraft to the player, that way you could simulate service life. If you boost your engine too much it could degrade over time and eventually fail.

 

I'm thinking something like A2A in FSX where the engine use/degradation is carried over each flight until you overhaul it.

 

I do agree that the engine modeling in this game is a joke compared to other games like DCS or even Cliffs of Dover. The engine model in this game needs lots of improvement.

 

Also techno chat for engine management needs to be removed for realistic settings or be a custom server setting, it kills immersion and requires no knowledge to manage your engine.

I think it would be easier if your "engine degradation" were to be safed with your profile.

This way servers could have the option to access your engine service life and accessed across servers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be easier if your "engine degradation" were to be safed with your profile.

This way servers could have the option to access your engine service life and accessed across servers

Agreed, it could be a client side thing connected with your profile. And to prevent people from just over-boosting their engine all the time you could add a maintenance timer for each overhaul (nothing serious though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, it could be a client side thing connected with your profile. And to prevent people from just over-boosting their engine all the time you could add a maintenance timer for each overhaul (nothing serious though)

 

What so you can cruise at full WEP  for multiple sorties and then on your 50th flight you have to be careful ? Rubbish. If you don't want to blow your engine then you have to learn to take care of it. The current system strongly encourages that. If it wasn't for this "Game Mechanic" I would never even have bothered to ever check the specifications tab.

 

Now we can discuss timers, and warning signs from the sound of the damaged engine, but the truth is whatever the dev's do it seems that they are unlikely to please everybody. Some of you expect way too much from this game in my opinion. It's clear that they made a decision to go with official manufacturers / military authorised ratings to use in the game. I think this was the smartest thing they could have done, because whilst pilots may have routinely have exceeded these limits in real life, sooner or later someone will have had to pay the price of those actions. And with these documented engine specifications there is no ambiguity, no "buts" and it's the easiest thing for them to stand by and defend.

 

Whether we like it or not doesn't really matter. It works as intended, If you do not want to damage your engine, then learn to look after it. I actually hope that they do not consider to much in the way of warning noises. If my engine dies because I didn't look after it, then it's my fault. Next time I'll try to do better. At the moment with complete engine failure, that's strongly encouraged. If we get a weaker degrading level of power output over time, then we'll all be pushing our engines too hard to often, because not to worry, we can still make it back while our engines running quite happily at 60% power.

 

Quite honestly I would much rather the Dev's work on the new features they have planned, and revisit some of the old ones that could use a bit of a face lift. As far as priorities go, at least in my mind Abused engine failure re - work should right at the bottom of the list. That's just my humble opinion

 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What so you can cruise at full WEP  for multiple sorties and then on your 50th flight you have to be careful ? Rubbish. If you don't want to blow your engine then you have to learn to take care of it. The current system strongly encourages that. If it wasn't for this "Game Mechanic" I would never even have bothered to ever check the specifications tab.

 

Now we can discuss timers, and warning signs from the sound of the damaged engine, but the truth is whatever the dev's do it seems that they are unlikely to please everybody. Some of you expect way too much from this game in my opinion. It's clear that they made a decision to go with official manufacturers / military authorised ratings to use in the game. I think this was the smartest thing they could have done, because whilst pilots may have routinely have exceeded these limits in real life, sooner or later someone will have had to pay the price of those actions. And with these documented engine specifications there is no ambiguity, no "buts" and it's the easiest thing for them to stand by and defend.

 

Whether we like it or not doesn't really matter. It works as intended, If you do not want to damage your engine, then learn to look after it. I actually hope that they do not consider to much in the way of warning noises. If my engine dies because I didn't look after it, then it's my fault. Next time I'll try to do better. At the moment with complete engine failure, that's strongly encouraged. If we get a weaker degrading level of power output over time, then we'll all be pushing our engines too hard to often, because not to worry, we can still make it back while our engines running quite happily at 60% power.

 

Quite honestly I would much rather the Dev's work on the new features they have planned, and revisit some of the old ones that could use a bit of a face lift. As far as priorities go, at least in my mind Abused engine failure re - work should right at the bottom of the list. That's just my humble opinion

 

Who said anything about running at full WEP? I'm just looking for a way to get a more realistic engine model, currently the engine modeling is arcady and needs improvements.

 

DCS and Cliffs of Dover have better engine modeling than this game, and I think something like DCS or Cliffs engine modeling could really improve the gameplay experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about running at full WEP? I'm just looking for a way to get a more realistic engine model, currently the engine modeling is arcady and needs improvements.

 

DCS and Cliffs of Dover have better engine modeling than this game, and I think something like DCS or Cliffs engine modeling could really improve the gameplay experience.

 

What exact features of CloDare better? As far as I can see CloD is effectively the same as BoX, ie. Run 100% for too long = engine failure. I'm genuinely curious as I'm less familiar with CloD than BoS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exact features of CloDare better? As far as I can see CloD is effectively the same as BoX, ie. Run 100% for too long = engine failure. I'm genuinely curious as I'm less familiar with CloD than BoS. 

I'll have to go back and check but from my experience I could run the engines much harder in Clod without worrying about an unrealistic time-limit. I'm not saying the engine shouldn't fail, I'm just saying it shouldn't fail because it went over a time limit.

 

Even in DCS if I run my engines 100% they will fail eventually, but they don't fail just because they went over 5min at 100%.

 

The engines should degrade over time as it is pushed harder and harder which could eventually lead to a failure. They shouldn't just fail because I went over 5min WEP, that doesnt happen irl, they should have a greater chance of failing the longer I push it though. And they should eventually fail.

 

It needs to be more random and dynamic. I'll copy a post I made a while back and post it here, I think it could be a good compromise.

 

 

EDIT: Here it is.

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 by Legioneod
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'll have to go back and check but from my experience I could run the engines much harder in Clod without worrying about an unrealistic time-limit. I'm not saying the engine shouldn't fail, I'm just saying it shouldn't fail because it went over a time limit.  

 

Really? I think that in CloD we had to pay a lot more attention to engine, at least in German planes. Even briefly over-revving the engine damaged it quickly. As most of the planes there are with manual pitch and there are no techno-tips, you really had to keep constantly listening to your engine, when you were diving or climbing in your manual-pitch plane during combat, as over-revving could damage your plane in a matter of seconds, not minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even in DCS if I run my engines 100% they will fail eventually, but they don't fail just because they went over 5min at 100%.

 

On DCS there are late war planes. In BoX you can't destroy your engine of 109 G-series in 5 minutes either. 

 

The engines should degrade over time as it is pushed harder and harder which could eventually lead to a failure. They shouldn't just fail because I went over 5min WEP, that doesnt happen irl

 

In real life there was not a new engine installed after every sortie either, so you can imagine your plane's engine having been pushed hard over time, so you have to take extra good care of it.

 

In general I agree, though, that there is room for improvement in engine damage modeling. Maybe the random factor should be bigger after the nominal time limits or something like that. I don't even know how big the random factor is, as I generally tend to take care of my engine and not destroy it, but looking at some of the test results mentioned in this thread, there seems to be some kind of random factor instead of just a set timer.

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has been beaten to death in numerous thread.

 

First, there is a misconception about engine limits. Yes, it was partly to preserve engine life, but also because exceeding engine limits could cause destruction of the engine. That was the reason why 109Gs originally had the max boost limited to 1.3 ATA instead of 1.42 ATA. At high boost, there were too many engine failures from blown pistons, bearing failure, oil fires, etc.

 

Is the current system too rigid and simplistic? yes of course. However the Devs have a lack of data. We know that exceeding the prescribed limits increases the risk of engine damage/failure, but no one knows what that risk is. For every anecdote of a German pilot who ran his engine at full WEP for 1 hour with no damage, you can find an anecdote of an engine blowing up when the pilot was within the prescribed limits. So whatever system is chosen, it will always be based on a guesstimate.

 

I doubt anything will change in BOM/BOS/BOK. Even when operating within the official limits, 109/190s still dominate the game.

 

However, this issue may be revisited in "Bodenplatte". Late war engines were pushed to the limit. With Spits operating at +25 lbs boost, Mustangs at +80" and 109s at 1.98 ATA, how long each can stay at WEP without engine damage will no doubt be the next hot topic.  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be easier if your "engine degradation" were to be safed with your profile.

This way servers could have the option to access your engine service life and accessed across servers

Interesting idea but not very practical. I think every spawn should be a fresh plane to give everyone an even playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every spawn should be a fresh plane to give everyone an even playing field.

On deathmatch type MP servers yes, but it still could be a valid option for ongoing online wars or SP campaigns IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so I ran a quick test yesterday:

 

FW 190 A-5, Kuban map, spring, 6 km straight line at 2500 rpm, 90% throttle, not full power, but technically "emergency power".

 

the engine ran for 15 minutes before it was damaged, as opposed to 3 minutes under the official specs, so there is some give and randomness, it is not just a straight timer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The limit only applies close when you are at that maximum setting. If you are running at low combat/low emergency (or even mid) it lasts much much longer.

 

I really like the system atm, encourages engine management as a constant thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Engine Limits are on a Graph basically with the two main factors being RPM and Manifold Pressure. 

So the 3 Minutes on the 190 only apply to 1.42 ata and 2700RPM. Lower that and you move a Point down a Graph towards the 30 Minute Mark. It's not Random, or only very, very slightly. 

Same happens when you are at above Critical Altiude, so you can run Maximum Power for longer, as Manifold Pressure is lower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they mean hud
As the game only cares about the Engines State(mode) and not the actual settings you are running. and you can only see this with hud on

Eg,
The game does not care in the 109 F2 if you run 1.25ata for 30 mins or 1.299999 ata for 30 mins as long as its in combat mode that all the game worries about or times.

Just like the He111,Ju88,Ju87 (engines rated for 2350RPM @ 1.25ata for 30 mins, But you can safely run 2450rpm @ 1.32999 Ata for 30 mins without problems)

So unless you know the plane you flying perfectly
with hud off you are seriously nerfing yourself power wise and performance wise.

But if you running a setting thats right on the border of 2 modes you can cook then engine easily.
Eg, If in the He111 if you climb with 2450rpm @ 1.32ata (88% RPM, 92% Throttle) it will show climb mode only in a climb if you level out it will random flick between clmb and emergency mode.
Allowing this flicking too last long enough and engine will die from total time accured in emergency mode.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I actually tried and timed these Modes, the F-2 I belive runs around 15-20 Minutes at 1,3 ata, and you can go out, Fast Forward and Check the Aircraft Clock for yourself to find your best Settings. 

 

You are talking Nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game does not care in the 109 F2 if you run 1.25ata for 30 mins or 1.299999 ata for 30 mins as long as its in combat mode that all the game worries about or times.

 

Au contraire, it does care especially for these settings. Its not a step function.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they mean hud

As the game only cares about the Engines State(mode) and not the actual settings you are running. and you can only see this with hud on

 

Eg,

The game does not care in the 109 F2 if you run 1.25ata for 30 mins or 1.299999 ata for 30 mins as long as its in combat mode that all the game worries about or times.

 

Just like the He111,Ju88,Ju87 (engines rated for 2350RPM @ 1.25ata for 30 mins, But you can safely run 2450rpm @ 1.32999 Ata for 30 mins without problems)

 

So unless you know the plane you flying perfectly

with hud off you are seriously nerfing yourself power wise and performance wise.

 

But if you running a setting thats right on the border of 2 modes you can cook then engine easily.

Eg, If in the He111 if you climb with 2450rpm @ 1.32ata (88% RPM, 92% Throttle) it will show climb mode only in a climb if you level out it will random flick between clmb and emergency mode.

Allowing this flicking too last long enough and engine will die from total time accured in emergency mode.

This doesn't seem to happen with other planes, eg. 109 G4 I can get way over 3 mins at 90% power* without exceeding emergency mode. Same with the F4.

 

Edit * At most altitudes that's around 1.35 ATA

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add information about 109-G2. From my test on Stalingrad summer at 300m altitude to 4km alt: 100% throttle is ~1.3 ATA(dont know exactly) and 2600RPM. With manual prop pitch, you can get 2800RPM at 1.3 ATA for about 3 and half minutes, and 2900RPM for about 60 seconds. This boost climb rate by about 2.5 meters per second, maximum speed by about 18kph. It is hard to keep the engine on the edge, since you can easily blow it up if you overrev or overheat our engine. It saved my life many times.

Edited by CSAF-D3adCZE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So....as a new guy here, with limited time in IL-2 (waiting for Bodenplatte), everything is time based vs temperature based for allowable WEP time?

 

From my understanding, flying in WEP increases temps (oil and water)....increase temp past a certain level and you end up damaging engine.  If I fly around at 100% throttle (non-WEP), my temps will be higher than if I'm cruising at 85% throttle for example.....so my WEP time from 100% will be less due to higher starting temp vs the 85% temps.  

This sounds more like the old Warbirds "WEP timer" than the newest sim off the block...

 

Closing and opening cowls should be a factor as well...

OAT does nothing in here as well I take it?

Hmmmm..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So....as a new guy here, with limited time in IL-2 (waiting for Bodenplatte), everything is time based vs temperature based for allowable WEP time?

 

From my understanding, flying in WEP increases temps (oil and water)....increase temp past a certain level and you end up damaging engine.  If I fly around at 100% throttle (non-WEP), my temps will be higher than if I'm cruising at 85% throttle for example.....so my WEP time from 100% will be less due to higher starting temp vs the 85% temps.  

 

So my understanding is that over stressing an engine can cause it fail in a number of ways. Some engines might overheat, and that causes the failure. However, others fail for other reasons for example too much RPM and so they effectively "shake themselves apart", or from detonation causing gasket damage or a combination of these factors. Presumably if an engine is particularly well cooled it's more likely to not overheat, but will fail for some other reason.

 

It's also my understanding that over stressing the engine in BoX is not a strict "timer" but rather failure is an event with a random chance. It seems you can definitely run on emergency/combat power for a certain amount of time without failure, and if you run for long enough it will definitely fail ... but between those two times it's a bit random whether it's going to fail or not.

 

No doubt it's not modelled perfectly, but it seems a good approximation to me. For a while you can over stress the engine and it takes subtle damage but keeps working. However, after long enough you're playing dice and your engine becomes increasingly likely to break. Taking a complete guess, I wonder if it's modelled as something like the engine taking a certain amount "damage" based on the power setting and then having a chance-to-fail based on the power, temperature and cumulative damage.

Edited by Tomsk
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the immersion perspective, by all means, yes.

 

From the perspective of VR players, it supports the motion:

 

The usual VR player gets no overheat temperature indication, since he is not having any artificial HUD. The problem is that an engine stops immediately without warning. A visual indicator would be nice before the engine suddenly stops without warning. For example, 10 seconds of engine RPM spooling up and down irregularily, fumes of black smoke (similar to when you start the engine), and the audio as well, similar to when a spitfire pushed negative G and the engine cut out. 

 

Either that, or please have it the way that the engines gradually lose power. If you have overheated it, you could at least fly home with maybe 50% of its combat power. The mechanics need to have a look at it at home then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual VR player gets no overheat temperature indication, since he is not having any artificial HUD. The problem is that an engine stops immediately without warning. A visual indicator would be nice before the engine suddenly stops without warning. For example, 10 seconds of engine RPM spooling up and down irregularily, fumes of black smoke (similar to when you start the engine), and the audio as well, similar to when a spitfire pushed negative G and the engine cut out. 

 

Either that, or please have it the way that the engines gradually lose power. If you have overheated it, you could at least fly home with maybe 50% of its combat power. The mechanics need to have a look at it at home then.

 

So the fact that turning off the hud is more-or-less mandatory in VR is for sure a problem that needs fixing. Since I don't speak German or Russian, I frequently find myself having to turn the hud back on briefly just to understand what my AI wingmen are telling me: which is kinda silly.

 

However, the idea that engines always fail gracefully or give feedback before they die ... I'm not sure that's necessarily realistic. It could equally be true that they it would appear to be fine, and then something "inside" will break and then it's broken. This certainly tallies with thebusdriver's real life experience described above. I've also read that real pilots in WWII were a bit wary of over using WEP and really did consider it "emergency" power ... whereas I think in BoX people routinely push it to the limit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry 20 minutes for F2 (30 was typo) So not talking nonsense.

the point is the game does not care about the actual engine settings it only cares about the reported mode
If its in Combat mode it will last 20 mins (be it 1.15ata or 1.3 ata game dont care about the actual ata just the timer)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the point is the game does not care about the actual engine settings it only cares about the reported mode

If its in Combat mode it will last 20 mins (be it 1.15ata or 1.3 ata game dont care about the actual ata just the timer)

 

So (for the 190 at least) this disagrees with testing that Sheriff did. He found that 100% throttle lasts 4 minutes, 95% lasts 12 minutes, 90% lasts 16 minutes. 

 

https://youtu.be/oxNBhaX2uok?list=PLc4tmHaPyjwxbAhCGsh7ohpHApU-LxH4m&t=677

 

Presumably 85% lasts around 30 minutes (as the manual states) and less than that being (more or less) continuous power. It also seems very likely that intermediate values between those settings last an intermediate amount of time.

Edited by Tomsk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...