How should emergency limits be treated?

[LColony_Kong]

Vote. Clarification for anyone curious: official settings means that this does not mean you could run unlimited WEP after you ran out of MW50 etc. The setting in question has to be possible in the first place. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by Fumes

[Sgt_Joch]

..and what exactly do you think this will achieve? could a moderator move this to the "poll" section so it stops polluting "developer assistance".

[LColony_Kong]

..and what exactly do you think this will achieve? could a moderator move this to the "poll" section so it stops polluting "developer assistance".

This is here for dev assistance. 

[Ehret]

Time limits could stay as they are now, but exceeding them would decrease (accelerated "wear") your engine nominal power.

If you wore engine too much (say to 80% of original HP) it seizes.

[JtD]

My vote would go to "physics based random failures independent of the time limit". No guarantee of trouble free operation inside the time limit, no guarantee of failure outside the time limit. Just physics, with a bit of random luck to account for undefined conditions (like the quality of individual engine parts or the work of your virtual mechanic).

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I think the following could please the majority of people, albeit with great development cost:

• Realistic damage model with essentially 'unlimited' emergency time and ability to track engine wear through campaign sequences
• Option to retain current 'game' damage mode, principally to prevent constant WEP in multiplayer

However, I do not think such changes should come at the expense of other content and improvements. It is entirely understandable that the developers must choose to simulate only certain things and simplify the rest. Their decisions generally prove to be appropriate. 

[Solty]

I think that our whole thermodynamic system is too simple to just erease those limits. I would like to see, as JTD says, a system that incorporates engine failure depending on engine limitations. If you fly too much on too high power, while beeing too slow, you will get an engine failure due to overheating, If you dive and push the throttle too much you will overrevv etc.

 

I do not like the current system, but if nothing is changed to how planes overheat, we will see 109s that have neverending boost and fly everywhere at max ATA. The last thing I want is players just pushing throttle to the max and flying like that untill their fuel runs out. It all depends on engine and its limitations and engine life. For example DB605 is never going to be so heat resistant as the R-2800 etc.

 

There is also another question how those limits are set. If they are after the pilot's manual, that is not optimal. I've read some time ago that III Reich changed their manual limits because they were more afraid of loosing pilots than planes at later stages of the war and the WEP from 5 min rose to 10min with MW50 and later to 30min with MW50 while power was increasing. That would mean that disparity between Allied planes and German planes would become unberable as our P-47 and P-51 would loose engines after 5min (thats the allowable pilot manual limit, if I recall correctly [not sure about P47]), while 109s and 190s will fly full power for 30min even though their engine lifetime was half of the Merlin engine at that time of the war.

 

I agree that current way they are implemented is bad, it is just not realistic. But I fear that if we turn it off everyone will start flying WEP only with the way the engines currently almost never overheat. It is a dilema.

 

If I was to vote on something, I would like to see an option of failure based on "physics based failures, but without random failures during optimal operation" That is because I think that it would random failures would disrupt things like duels and I do not like the idea to punish people that fly within the limits. But for now I will vote for the removal of those limits so that we can get a proper system in place in the future .

 

PS. My friend sent me something about P-51D engine limits. Can anybody tell where is this excerpt coming from?:

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2018 by =LD=Solty

[JtD]

PS. My friend sent me something about P-51D engine limits. Can anybody tell where is this excerpt coming from?

USAF F-51D Flight Handbook, January 20th, 1954. It's a free download at avialogs. (AN 01-60JE-1 Flight Handbook F-51D)

[Dakpilot]

I think that our whole thermodynamic system is too simple to just erease those limits. I would like to see, as JTD says, a system that incorporates engine failure depending on engine limitations. If you fly too much on too high power, while beeing too slow, you will get an engine failure due to overheating, If you dive and push the throttle too much you will overrevv etc.

 

I do not like the current system, but if nothing is changed to how planes overheat, we will see 109s that have neverending boost and fly everywhere at max ATA. The last thing I want is players just pushing throttle to the max and flying like that untill their fuel runs out. It all depends on engine and its limitations and engine life. For example DB605 is never going to be so heat resistant as the R-2800 etc.

 

There is also another question how those limits are set. If they are after the pilot's manual, that is not optimal. I've read some time ago that III Reich changed their manual limits because they were more afraid of loosing pilots than planes at later stages of the war and the WEP from 5 min rose to 10min with MW50 and later to 30min with MW50 while power was increasing. That would mean that disparity between Allied planes and German planes would become unberable as our P-47 and P-51 would loose engines after 5min (thats the allowable pilot manual limit, if I recall correctly [not sure about P47]), while 109s and 190s will fly full power for 30min even though their engine lifetime was half of the Merlin engine at that time of the war.

 

I agree that current way they are implemented is bad, it is just not realistic. But I fear that if we turn it off everyone will start flying WEP only with the way the engines currently almost never overheat. It is a dilema.

 

If I was to vote on something, I would like to see an option of failure based on "physics based failures, but without random failures during optimal operation" That is because I think that it would random failures would disrupt things like duels and I do not like the idea to punish people that fly within the limits. But for now I will vote for the removal of those limits so that we can get a proper system in place in the future .

 

PS. My friend sent me something about P-51D engine limits. Can anybody tell where is this excerpt coming from?:

 

 

 

 

 

MW-50 cools the engine and prevents detonation (water methanol injection) that is why you can use it, although it certainly will enhance wear due to higher power, but  the manual is telling pilots limits, there is no issue it is historically correct, and was also used on P&W R2800 (and many others as well including civil airliners)

 

The reference to P-51D (F-51D?) is about take-off/military power 61" 3000rpm on 150 fuel, note it does not say about 'easy' use of next step of WEP which will bring the engine closer to limits

 

 

The idea of 1941 P-40E-1's running at 1750 hp unlimited, or 109's at 1.42 all day etc. is preposterous and would change all combat to a weird arcade travesty,  If limits are just ignored as in choice No. 1

 

Dev's have already stated that they are looking at modelling detonation effects etc. and this will change the way WEP is used in a good way

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[JtD]

The idea of 1941 P-40E-1's running at 1750 hp unlimited, or 109's at 1.42 all day etc. is preposterous and would change all combat to a weird arcade travesty

Yes, let's leave that to the Klimovs.

[Dakpilot]

Yes, let's leave that to the Klimovs.

 

Which run at a maximum 1260hp at their CONTINUOUS power rating not WEP

 

It is a wonder that the VVS having a potential 1750 hp Allison engine would not imiediatly fit them to a Yak and have a world beater in early 42, but it wasn't and they didn't

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[=RvE=Windmills]

I think an increasing the minimum times to 2 or 3 minutes or something along those lines is debatable, just to make them more useful.

 

Removing the limits or putting them to something ridiculous like 30 minutes is just inviting people to firewall the throttle at takeoff and leave it there until landing. I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can honestly believe that would make for a superior game.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Which run at a maximum 1260hp at their CONTINUOUS power rating not WEP

And yet what TBO running only 'continuous' power? Still quite short was it not?

[Dakpilot]

And yet what TBO running only 'continuous' power? Still quite short was it not?

 

All I know is they made 129,000 of them and they were rated at a continuous power setting that was safe for the engine limits, if kept within temps

 

Maybe someone has relevant figures, but it is largely irrelevant, we know this was a continuous rating from manual and 1000's of pilot reports, thus historically used

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Sgt_Joch]

USAF F-51D Flight Handbook, January 20th, 1954. It's a free download at avialogs. (AN 01-60JE-1 Flight Handbook F-51D)

 

1954?

 

how is that relevant to ww2? I think you are cherry picking evidence to support your position.

 

with 150 fuel, the British were running P51s with a WEP of 80" (+25 lbs) in 1944.

 

In 1945-46, the U.S. was running the P51H with a WEP of 90", again with 150 octane fuel.

 

a 1954 P51D running at 61" was using what kind of fuel? presumably there were refinements in the 10 years after ww2. What improvements had been made to the cooling system?, etc.

 

61" on a 1954 P51D hardly looks like a strain on the engine.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

Did you read the post???? He was answering someone else about where a certain screenshot came from..... How is that cherry picking evidence.......?

[Dakpilot]

Did you read the post???? He was answering someone else about where a certain screenshot came from..... How is that cherry picking evidence.......?

 

Well some-one may have been, that screenshot popped up a lot recently as 'evidence' 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Sgt_Joch]

I took a quick look at the 1954 F51D flight manual. If you read deeper in the engine operating procedures, they make it clear (p.67) that carburetor air/ engine coolant temperatures have to be kept below a maximum, otherwise there is a "danger of detonation".

 

At p. 82 of the manual dealing specifically with detonation/pre ignition, it is clearly stated that if it occurs, rpm/boost must be immediately reduced, otherwise the engine can be destroyed in seconds.

 

so no, this is not the smoking gun that some think it is.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[Matt]

Random chance increasing with higher power setting. Overall less likelihood of engine damage and no guarenteed engine damage caused by time. 

 

Kind of like this (a generic example for damage on the current DB601/5 and BMW801 engines and the numbers are just for visual representation of the idea)

 

I would also be fine with no engine damage at all due to running at WEP/emergency power and engine damage being reserved to other maltreatement instead (too high/low temperature, detonation due to too lean mixture, too low RPM for manifold pressure etc.).

[Barnacles]

Random chance increasing with higher power setting. Overall less likelihood of engine damage and no guarenteed engine damage caused by time. 

 

Kind of like this (a generic example for damage on the current DB601/5 and BMW801 engines and the numbers are just for visual representation of the idea)

post-3376-0-94886600-1482423812.jpg

 

I would also be fine with no engine damage at all due to running at WEP/emergency power and engine damage being reserved to other maltreatement instead (too high/low temperature, detonation due to too lean mixture, too low RPM for manifold pressure etc.).

 

This is what we've got in the game at the moment, just the numbers are different. (Label the y axis from 0% to 100% and you wouldn't be far off to what you see in the game.) 

[=RvE=Windmills]

Your engine quitting randomly simply because of bad rng would be incredibly bad.

 

You can argue about the current system but at least it's consistent, with very little luck involved in the outcomes.

[Matt]

This is what we've got in the game at the moment, just the numbers are different. (Label the y axis from 0% to 100% and you wouldn't be far off to what you see in the game.) 

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The current solution is based on time and not random at all, my suggestion is the exact opposite, not based on time but with a random element.

 

Besides that, it should be the same for all engines, even those that currently run for an unlimited amount of time with maximum throttle setting just because the manual doesn't say that it couldn't run indefinately at those power settings.

[Barnacles]

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The current solution is based on time and not random at all, my suggestion is the exact opposite, not based on time but with a random element.

 

Besides that, it should be the same for all engines, even those that currently run for an unlimited amount of time with maximum throttle setting just because the manual doesn't say that it couldn't run indefinately at those power settings.

 

I came to the conclusion like this: EXAMPLE Fly a 109, go to 100% power, after a minute you get a message 'Emergency Engine Mode Exceeded' after you get that message your engine does not immidiately die. If you go back to continuous power it will be fine. If you continue at 100% power it will incur damage after a random amount of time (generally < 1min and > 30s). The magnitude of the damage you get is also random. i.e. option 4 on the poll is exactly what we have now. 

 

Edit, I did misread your graph though, I wrote my origional comment assuming it was time beyond engine limit x against chance of failure y.

Edited January 23, 2018 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[Venturi]

Random chance increasing with higher power setting. Overall less likelihood of engine damage and no guarenteed engine damage caused by time. 

 

Kind of like this (a generic example for damage on the current DB601/5 and BMW801 engines and the numbers are just for visual representation of the idea)

post-3376-0-94886600-1482423812.jpg

 

I would also be fine with no engine damage at all due to running at WEP/emergency power and engine damage being reserved to other maltreatement instead (too high/low temperature, detonation due to too lean mixture, too low RPM for manifold pressure etc.).

A improvement via a stopgap, standalone solution is random engine failures as above, only - based on manuals, engine TBOs, and time at power.

 

A better standalone solution than this, is detonation parameters.

 

Most realistic is to incorporate both, into a unified model.

[Panthera]

For the DB605 & Merlin engines I suggest using the 5 min limit @ WEP before any random failure interval kicks in, as this was the actual limit listed in the Merlin manual as well as the run in procedure for DB605 engine after 1.42ata was cleared. A 1 min limit only occurs for the DB605 during the period where 1.42ata was banned for this engine.

 

Now I understand that the limits listed in the manuals for all planes, Allied or Axis, were there to ensure prolonged engine life and weren't a hard limit, the engines being able to be run at WEP for much longer without incident, but ingame we need to simulate proper engine usage somehow, and 5 min is enough to ensure full power through most combat instances while at the same time ensuring we don't have people constantly flying around at WEP outside of combat.

 

The limit could possibly be increased to 10 min via the use of water methanol injection.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Random failures with very large variance are somewhat worrying. 

 

I know that a full simulation of mechanical failure modes is beyond the scope of any game, so a probability distribution is a reasonable simplification. 

 

Especially in multiplayer, however, it would be incredibly frustrating to lose a fight just because the RNG gave your opponent a few extra minutes of WEP. Currently, this is not an issue because engines fail so quickly that the disparity is never noticeable. If the duration and variance of the time to failure were significantly increased, these disparities would become all too apparent. 

 

Therefore, too avoid frustration, RNG should be used very sparingly. Engine failure should primarily depend on actual operating parameters rather than chance.

[Panthera]

Well as long as the random failures don't happen until some time after the 5 min limit mark then I don't see a problem with it, as 5 min usually is enough to last through most engagements.

 

In other words a 5 min limit with the same average time for failure past the limit as we have now would be fine IMHO.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Panthera

[JtD]

Oddly enough, real engine include a large factor of randomness. If you check engine test reports, engine that were supposedly identical showed extremely different durability in practice. One quits after a couple of minutes, a second makes it just past the hour and the longest running gets shut down for regular maintenance after a 50 hour non-stop run. It's just how it was.

 

What I think folks don't keep in mind when talking about 'engine failure' is that most failures aren't instantaneous stops. A burned off exhaust is an engine failure - something the pilot may only notice when the mechanic tells him back on the ground. A cylinder losing compression is an engine failure (piston rings, valves) - noticeable, but not fatal. Pre-ignition, detonation - eventually fatal, but with ample warning for the pilot. And so on.

 

There's so much one could model physics based with little effort to notify the player about the engine status, that even with a random chance of failure, all this would still be 'fair' and fun.

 

From my experience with IL-2:1946, where we had random engine failure feature, in hundreds of hours of playing, I had to rtb once because the engine gave in randomly. Once. Nursing back that plane to the base was as exciting as the next dogfight.

[Solty]

I agree with you JTD, but I fear that with the current engine DM it would mostly end with critical engine damage.

 

I would love to see that kind of DM overhaul just like we got the FM overhaul that came last year.

[Field-Ops]

I dont know if you know this already, but option 3 and 4 are the same because the game already implements option 4. Though maybe not as "favorable" on the randomized time for what you want to achieve as it is rather soon after the limit is exceeded but still random. 

 Just to contribute a bit more to the discussion I'd like a gradual decrease in engine efficiency as opposed to immediate engine failure all the time. Not that immediate engine failure should be completely done away with as that definitely happens. in fact... it doesnt always happen in the game as it is but it depends on if you are in emergency mode or combat mode. I'm thinking something like:

 

Keep all existing timers, including recharge timers

Engine time limit is exceeded

Begin the randomized timer after limit exceeded

Exceed randomized timer

Begin a sequence of intervals (say random intervals between 5 second and 25 second periods) where a randomized loss of power occurs. This could range between a 1% loss in maximum power to a %20 loss in power.

 

With a system like this you could very well either blow your engine in a matter of seconds or be left with not enough horsepower to make it home. Or get lucky and make it into the minutes after your time was up with little noticeable loss in power. It also plays into the random nature of production engines of the war. Not sure if these numbers need tweaking as it is just an idea that could possibly be played with.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Field-Ops

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I'm for engine damage after overuse max emergency power but not always critical to the engine resulting it's seizure, i would like to see and hear some failures which of course reduce available HP and if  abused  more then results fatal to the engine. I think those was planed by devs (dd120 ) but postponed without further schedule.

BTW I would like to see propeller damage  resulting engine been torn off do dynamic imbalance

[Ehret]

In the BOBP props will have a rough performance parity at most altitudes and only one side will have a jet. The time of emergency power endurance is going to be the major differentiating factor. If it stays then the one side will have twice as long of sensible power thus would gain a trivial winning tactic - drag for 5m and then engage.

 

It won't be fun for anyone not obsessed with streaks. Even for the latter, if one can extrapolate from the current situation in multiplayer, it won't look pretty. Instead of competing against the enemy you could end racing with teammates for a score. Enjoy!

[Sgt_Joch]

yes, 3 and 4 are basically the same.

 

until the Devs implement a more realistic engine modeling, I would be fine with a variation of 4 where once you exceed the time limit the chances that you would suffer damage would increase based on time and temperature, so a cool engine would last longer than a hot one. 

 

I would also like it if the end result was not always destruction, but would more often just result in engine damage which would force you to go back to base.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[HR_Zunzun]

11 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

yes, 3 and 4 are basically the same.

 

until the Devs implement a more realistic engine modeling, I would be fine with a variation of 4 where once you exceed the time limit the chances that you would suffer damage would increase based on time and temperature, so a cool engine would last longer than a hot one. 

 

I would also like it if the end result was not always destruction, but would more often just result in engine damage which would force you to go back to base.

Agreed, that would keep somehow the differences and avoid people flying at wep all the time while at the same time would give the chance to everyone to use the full capacitiy of the enginne in, at least, one combat even if afterwards would have to fly back to base to avoid becoming a sitting duck. Far from perfect but I think is better than the current system and is kind of a simulation of accelerated wear.

Another think I would like to add. I do not know if it is modeled currently or not but the engine limits seem to be discrete (or in bands)that seem to me incorrect too. In the game, the  Technical Specifications and Operational Details list the limit for specific bands of power. So, if for instance, in the p39 if take off mode goes from 45hg to 51hg it doesn't matter if you exceed you time limits flying at 45 or 51. The consequences are similar while I think they should be incremental. I might be wrong and the actual power be currently taken into account to calculate the excess time.

Edited December 5, 2018 by HR_Zunzun
Add comment

[Matt]

The time limits mentioned are for the stated manifold pressure RPM.

So if you use a lower RPM and/or manifold pressure but the game still counts it as "emergency power" (or other mode) you can fly for longer until the limit is exceeded.

 

Anyway i have to take back what i wrote earlier this year about random damage. I think adding a randomness would immediately result in a staggering number of topics and "discussions" about their engine failing more often than other engines etc. We already have that in practically all other areas that are not even random.

 

I don't think the devs are happy with the current model, but i guess there's just no time to improve on it for now. With the recent BoBP plane releases things got even worse than before (some people switching between WEP and combat power all the time, while others are jumping between three different power modes and all that until a "xx mode recovered" and similar messages pop up on the screen) and i think it should now practically comes down to adding a setting which deactivates the time limits entirely. If people are so concerned that this has an impact on MP (i still don't see how, because you can already run WEP during air quake and still wouldn't be able to run WEP all the time on more realistic mission durations), then the server admins can decide to keep these limits activated.

[PainGod85]

As long as there are no engine durability tests suggesting a real issue with sustaining a given combat power setting, it should be effectively unlimited as long as the plane doesn't exceed engine temperature operating limits and has enough fuel as well as ADI to sustain it.

[Max_Damage]

Unlimited WEP in old IL2 games is a bad bad habit that you should get rid of before long. Pilot manual limitations are there for a good reason especially when the manual says that you can only use an engine mode for 1-3 minutes LOL. RTFM is the answer. Most planes even have a clock in the cockpit so you can use that for safety.

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Max_Damage

[-250H-Ursus_]

I agreee with random fails on engine.

Beign a pilot with an risky behaviour must give consequences yes, but this question about break the engine with a 100% chances of fail after the time limit a little bit unrealistic, even you fly with fear of broke your engine, if you have a plane with really low time limits, and for worst, its conditioning and balancing.

 

The engine failures should be randomly after the time limit, increasing the risk in proportion to time has passed after the time limit if you continue putting the engine on continous stress.

I always think they are taking the manual to seriously, the the physics are not time limite, but it exists, so, why don't use a chance to break your engine after the safety time limit of manual

Edited December 29, 2018 by El_Oso