Engine rev's destroying motor is historically wrong

[453=Thornley]

I decided to do some touch and goes in the Spitfire Mk V and just for fun, decided to follow the my reproduction Spitfire Pilots Notes exactly (Air Publication 1565E).  The pilots notes are very clear that on take off and landing, the prop pitch lever should be full forwards(100%) which gives 3000 rpm, but anything over 2850 rpm in this game is counted as the engine being at WEP.

 

If you follow the Pilots Notes, this means your engine is almost constantly on 'emergency power' during circuits and quickly dies. Seriously, this is dumb. I understand the developers attempt to stop everyone motoring around at full power all the time like the old IL2 but this solution is too arcadey for a realistic simulation.  

 

Does anyone know if there's a change request in for this already?

 

 

[Herne]

54 minutes ago, Bloodsplatter said:

I decided to do some touch and goes in the Spitfire Mk V and just for fun, decided to follow the my reproduction Spitfire Pilots Notes exactly (Air Publication 1565E).  The pilots notes are very clear that on take off and landing, the prop pitch lever should be full forwards(100%) which gives 3000 rpm, but anything over 2850 rpm in this game is counted as the engine being at WEP.

 

If you follow the Pilots Notes, this means your engine is almost constantly on 'emergency power' during circuits and quickly dies. Seriously, this is dumb. I understand the developers attempt to stop everyone motoring around at full power all the time like the old IL2 but this solution is too arcadey for a realistic simulation.  

 

Does anyone know if there's a change request in for this already?

 

 

 

From what I understand, Dev's use the manufacturer  approved engine ratings, with a little randomness factor on time to failure thrown in.

TBH I like it, I have to try and ensure that I look after my engine, don't push it too hard for too long. I think it makes combat more interesting.

 

Edit: When you pick a plane, press "O" for oscar to open the map and press the specification tab. You will find the engine ratings used in IL2 here, so you can easily check the nominal, combat, and wep settings.

 

Another Edit: 
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-V.html

 

While you use 3000 rpm for take off, do your pilot notes mention that you should use 2850 rpm for climb and combat power ?

Edited September 3, 2018 by =FEW=Herne

[453=Thornley]

Hi Herne,

 

I think you misunderstand me. I don't have a problem with the concept that high manifold pressure can cause engine damage. In fact, there's written evidence that a pilot had to report if he 'pulled the tit' and used emergency boost pressures, and that special checks had to be made to engines after a certain number of high manifold boost pressure engine hours.

 

What I have an issue with is the idea that high rev's caused the same damage. Show me written records anywhere, where pilots had to report using maximum rev's or any special engine servicing that was required after a certain number of high rev engine hours. 

 

In fact, the Pilot Notes gives the 1hr power limit as +9 psi at 2850rpm and in the back of the book, list the fuel this burns per hour (85). But it also list fuel burn for 9+ psi at 3000rpm (89). Why would this setting be listed if it destroyed the engine after only 5 minutes?

[TP_Silk]

High revs will only cause the damage if you maintain them for too long. There has to be some system in place to simulate engine behaviour in a model that only exists as Ones and Zeros. If you're burning out your engine on take off then try backing off once airborne. Typically I lift off, gear up, adjust RPM and Manifold for a climb then (if deployed on the aircraft I'm in) raise flaps and trim for a climb.

[Tag777]

This is an endless debate I think. Russian aces like Golodnikov stated that if they had used the manufacturer's manual engine limits all they would be shot down in no time. What he says is that using the engine at full power for long time means that the engine must be changed in less time but not that the engine instantly blows up at full power like the p-40 for example.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part2.htm

https://www.warbirdforum.com/russp40.htm

Edited September 3, 2018 by Tag777

[Herne]

 

I pulled this page from the spit V pilots notes that I found online. for take off 3000 rpm was only allowed up to 1000 feet, which presumably would take under a minute.

 

In game spit V can maintain max power non boosted ( so +12 instead of +16 boost) for 5 minutes.
 

I'm not sure if just RPM or a combination of boost + RPM is the limiting factor in game, but 5 minutes should be plenty for you to complete a circuit ? These game timers are not cumulative for your flight, if you rest your engine they will reset. Not exactly sure how long you need to rest it for a full reset, but one of @DerSheriff 's vid's suggested about 4 minutes which I use as a rule of thumb so to speak.

[Barnacles]

47 minutes ago, Bloodsplatter said:

Hi Herne,

 

I think you misunderstand me. I don't have a problem with the concept that high manifold pressure can cause engine damage. In fact, there's written evidence that a pilot had to report if he 'pulled the tit' and used emergency boost pressures, and that special checks had to be made to engines after a certain number of high manifold boost pressure engine hours.

 

What I have an issue with is the idea that high rev's caused the same damage. Show me written records anywhere, where pilots had to report using maximum rev's or any special engine servicing that was required after a certain number of high rev engine hours. 

 

In fact, the Pilot Notes gives the 1hr power limit as +9 psi at 2850rpm and in the back of the book, list the fuel this burns per hour (85). But it also list fuel burn for 9+ psi at 3000rpm (89). Why would this setting be listed if it destroyed the engine after only 5 minutes?

The system in il2 falls down a bit when it comes to the Spitfire's engine limits at high altitude. In some pilot notes it says maximum rpm at high altitude is permitted for extended periods. The manifold pressure will be lower than wep as the altitude is above critical altitude for the supercharger.

 

However, in the game you can run max rpm at a lower no. E.g 3000 rpm and 6 psi, for longer than 5 mins, as the algorithm takes into account that you are not pushing the engine as hard. Likewise you can use 12psi boost and lower rpm and you will get slightly more time than 5 minutes. 

 

The problem is you get nowhere near as long at 3000rpm at high altitudes in the game as the pilot notes say you should. (Even recognising that you do get more than 5 minutes)

 

This affects 109s too as I believe that some 109s allowed much longer at max rpm at high altitude than the 1 minute limit enforced by the game's engine damage system.

 

 

[Herne]

2 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

The system in il2 falls down a bit when it comes to the Spitfire's engine limits at high altitude. In some pilot notes it says maximum rpm at high altitude is permitted for extended periods. The manifold pressure will be lower than wep as the altitude is above critical altitude for the supercharger.

 

However, in the game you can run max rpm at a lower no. E.g 3000 rpm and 6 psi, for longer than 5 mins, as the algorithm takes into account that you are not pushing the engine as hard. Likewise you can use 12psi boost and lower rpm and you will get slightly more time than 5 minutes. 

 

The problem is you get nowhere near as long at 3000rpm at high altitudes in the game as the pilot notes say you should. (Even recognising that you do get more than 5 minutes)

 

This affects 109s too as I believe that some 109s allowed much longer at max rpm at high altitude than the 1 minute limit enforced by the game's engine damage system.

 

 

 

Yes I read in one of the spit V performance tests regarding climb that above a certain altitude, max boost + RPM was effectively nominal. I'll link it if I can find it.

Edited September 3, 2018 by =FEW=Herne

[Barnacles]

12 minutes ago, =FEW=Herne said:

 

Yes I read in one of the spit V performance tests regarding climb that above a certain altitude, max boost + RPM was effectively nominal. I'll link it if I can find it.

Thank you, I can't remember where I read it. Maybe there is something for db605s too.

[Herne]

https://imgur.com/nnno8NW

 

this is a bit out of context as I don't have the link to the document I grabbed it from in the first place. But I copied it to my imgur account so probably related to the spit v

 

In this case though they had special permission to to use max power for the whole climb, which they said was irrelevant above a given alt, I need to find the original

 

Edit:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/aa878.html

 

 

From that linked doc

 

1 hour ago, Bloodsplatter said:

In fact, the Pilot Notes gives the 1hr power limit as +9 psi at 2850rpm and in the back of the book, list the fuel this burns per hour (85). But it also list fuel burn for 9+ psi at 3000rpm (89). Why would this setting be listed if it destroyed the engine after only 5 minutes?

 

Above 25000' 3000 rpm becomes nominal. Although I do not think this is modelled in game

Edited September 3, 2018 by =FEW=Herne

[JtD]

3 hours ago, Bloodsplatter said:

Does anyone know if there's a change request in for this already?

 

There have been plenty of topics pointing out the historical inaccuracy and technical errors of the current engine model. The devs have a reworked engine model on their to do list, even though not on the top of it. Other than that general statement there's not been a positive response to the community about these issues.

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, Bloodsplatter said:

I decided to do some touch and goes in the Spitfire Mk V and just for fun, decided to follow the my reproduction Spitfire Pilots Notes exactly (Air Publication 1565E).  The pilots notes are very clear that on take off and landing, the prop pitch lever should be full forwards(100%) which gives 3000 rpm, but anything over 2850 rpm in this game is counted as the engine being at WEP.

 

If you follow the Pilots Notes, this means your engine is almost constantly on 'emergency power' during circuits and quickly dies. Seriously, this is dumb. I understand the developers attempt to stop everyone motoring around at full power all the time like the old IL2 but this solution is too arcadey for a realistic simulation.  

 

Does anyone know if there's a change request in for this already?

 

 

 

In the Spitfire IX PN they give some more detailed instructions for landing. The 3000 rpm setting would only be applied late in the descent after gear and flaps are down.  If you were doing circuits you would bump and then open the boost to rated power to start climbing, reduce rpm back to 2850 after retracting gear, then up flaps at a safe height, close canopy and set boost to something -4 and  rpm back to 2650 which is the preliminary approach setting.  So you should only be at 3000 rpm for a fairly brief period during each circuit: perhaps a quarter of each circuit. 

 

But I agree that if the "engine allowance" is being eaten by having max rpm at very low throttle the plane cannot do many circuits as it was in RL.

 

Unfortunately until the developers  come up with the new temperature/detonation CEM they have mentioned, it is hard to see what ad hoc fix could be made, unless you just took out the rpm element from the timers altogether (except for over-rev during diving) and made them work purely on boost settings, which might then cause some other game-play problem.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I could see more realistic gradual engine wear working for a sp or mp campaign because people would have to limit themselves if they wanted to get through it with out using all of thier available engines. This would work very simular to the F1 sims.

 

Bit for casual MP we would need to leave it how it is. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by AeroAce

[JonRedcorn]

16 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

I could see more realistic gradual engine wear working for a sp or mp campaign because people would have to limit themselves if they wanted to get through it with out using all of there available engines. This would work very simular to the F1 sims.

 

Bit for casual MP we would need to leave it how it is. 

Hey nice post bud. Would be very cool to see this in game.

[Herne]

10 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

I could see more realistic gradual engine wear working for a sp or mp campaign because people would have to limit themselves if they wanted to get through it with out using all of there available engines. This would work very simular to the F1 sims.

 

Bit for casual MP we would need to leave it how it is. 

 

LOL Now I'm picturing a hangar full of AC spares being taken out by a well placed bomb ! Aircraft maintenance element does sound fun, but it's not something I'd expect a pilot to be overly concerned about. Maybe they'd get a mouth full from their OC, because it would be him that would have to explain higher up, why precious parts are needed sooner that they should have been, potentially increasing the percentage of unserviceable AC.

 

[Psyrion]

@Bloodsplatter I recommend you go into a quickmission and stop the time it takes for the engine to break. The Engine Modes that the HUD tells you are just indications. The Time to engine failure changes depending on your setting and is not purely dependant on what the HUD says. 

[LP1888]

I think for what we have the game sorry simulation is great. look at it like a car engine do we constantly run around in 2nd gear at 6500rpm no cause it would cause excess wear and engine failure. Yeah it wouldent happen straight away bang on a certain time limit. I think if the complete failures were maybe a little more sporadically implemented and instead maybe it ran worse or sprung an oil leak etc or burst s coolant gasket would be great 

[Barnacles]

27 minutes ago, LP1888 said:

do we constantly run around in 2nd gear at 6500rpm

You would if the manual told you that's how to drive it and you'd have a few questions for the guy who wrote it if that broke the engine.

[ACG_KaiLae]

Basically as Unreasonable says, the engine modeling in the game is too simplistic and could use revision/overhaul. Hell I'd just go for some kind of sound indication or any indication before the engine just blows. It's fine one minute and dead the next. 

[Lusekofte]

Good info here, I guess post like this can make a difference, if it is possible to model I think well proven facts is the way to go. However I believe this game engine use too few parameters to make it accurate. I think instruments like boost , rpm, altitude and temp + time is what they use. It is what I feel anyway when flying the P 40 , tick tack tick tack and booom

[LP1888]

Well if that’s the case why are we crying about the engines breaking after exceeding the time through combat or emergency power ? 

31 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

You would if the manual told you that's how to drive it and you'd have a few questions for the guy who wrote it if that broke the engine.

 

[Barnacles]

Because the manual says you can run the engine at max rpm for longer than you can in the game.

[69th_chuter]

11 hours ago, LP1888 said:

I think for what we have the game sorry simulation is great. look at it like a car engine do we constantly run around in 2nd gear at 6500rpm no cause it would cause excess wear and engine failure. Yeah it wouldent happen straight away bang on a certain time limit. I think if the complete failures were maybe a little more sporadically implemented and instead maybe it ran worse or sprung an oil leak etc or burst s coolant gasket would be great 

 

Obviously you don't track your car - lol.

 

 

[unreasonable]

11 hours ago, LP1888 said:

Well if that’s the case why are we crying about the engines breaking after exceeding the time through combat or emergency power ? 

 

 

Because rpm =/= power. The OP is using high rpm at low power - just as the manual dictates. The engine is under no strain in RL but in BoX the timer is ticking.

 

It is an unusual situation, but not the only one:  see the high altitude situation discussed above. 

 

The CEM in BoX is a simplified model that does not deal well with all RL scenarios: arguably it does not deal well with any real life scenario, but until the developers can come up with a way to stop everyone in MP flying at maximum rpm and boost all the time we are stuck with it.

[Ehret]

Yup - you can increase boost without increasing RPM first and nothing happens in the game...

[Herne]

46 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Yup - you can increase boost without increasing RPM first and nothing happens in the game...

 

Didn't they discover with the p38's that they could increase range by flying on lower prop RPM and higher boost ?

[Ehret]

41 minutes ago, =FEW=Herne said:

Didn't they discover with the p38's that they could increase range by flying on lower prop RPM and higher boost ?

 

Yes but under the detonation threshold, obviously, and the Lighting has inter-coolers which help. Still, in the combat situation the manual specifies that increase the RPM first and only then open the throttle.

[JonRedcorn]

2 hours ago, Ehret said:

Yup - you can increase boost without increasing RPM first and nothing happens in the game...

This isn't true, I've tried running the 109's at 1.4 ata and 2300rpm and it will still blow the motor.

[peregrine7]

3 hours ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

This isn't true, I've tried running the 109's at 1.4 ata and 2300rpm and it will still blow the motor.

 

I think he's referring to detonation, not the normal engine damage on a timer.

In game: You're using 1.4 ata. That's emergency power. You have a time limit before the engine suffers damage. Changing the RPM may lengthen the time you get before the engine gets damaged but it will get damaged and is on a timer. 

In reality: Increasing the throttle to 1.4 ata at low RPMs will near instantly destroy the engine. The cylinders will experience overpressure and begin to detonate, boring holes in the cylinder heads or out through the gasket. The engine may explode (as happened to a few Spit Mk IXs).

The "in reality" case is why you run high RPMs when landing, so that if you need to throttle up you can do it and the engine will be ok. In game there is no punishment for firewalling the throttle at low RPMs, in fact in some planes it is encouraged to move throttle before RPM to prevent RPM overspeed (P39). That's the opposite of reality. Speaking of opposite of reality, try reading the manual for the Yak 1 some time. Engine management in that was a bit of an art form (I assume it'd be the same in the Lagg3, and all aircraft using that engine).

Edited September 4, 2018 by peregrine7

[Ehret]

Detonation - yes - in the game it's not possible to instantly destroy engines (at least not the V-1710s) by sudden opening the throttle at low RPMs. Only over-revs can do such thing and in the P-39/P-40 it happens due the sluggish pitch governor.

[kramer]

17 minutes ago, peregrine7 said:

In reality: Increasing the throttle to 1.4 ata at low RPMs will near instantly destroy the engine. The cylinders will experience overpressure and begin to detonate, boring holes in the cylinder heads or out through the gasket. The engine may explode (as happened to a few Spit Mk IXs).

 

IDK why this is not included in game. It would be very easy to code some very simplified formula like: if RMP to Manifold ratio = X then detonation chance = Y. The lower the ratio the bigger the chance.

It would be better than what is now when you can flight for one hour with max manifold and very low RPM. I hope devs will do something with that in proper moment.

[Finkeren]

 

15 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Detonation - yes - in the game it's not possible to instantly destroy engines (at least not the V-1710s) by sudden opening the throttle at low RPMs. Only over-revs can do such thing and in the P-39/P-40 it happens due the sluggish pitch governor.

 

In the MiG-3 you can over-rev' too by slamming the throttle forward at high rpm, but you're right: The reverse is not a problem.

[peregrine7]

13 minutes ago, kramer said:

 

IDK why this is not included in game. It would be very easy to code some very simplified formula like: if RMP to Manifold ratio = X then detonation chance = Y. The lower the ratio the bigger the chance.

It would be better than what is now when you can flight for one hour with max manifold and very low RPM. I hope devs will do something with that in proper moment.

 
Well, there's so much wrong with the engine damage model I think this ends up being far down the list (though I haven't heard if the devs are even considering improving their DM).

My priorities would be:

1. More iterative damage states for engines - The engine shouldn't die so quickly if overworked (especially in the 109, P39, P40, I pretty much solely fly red but blue really gets shafted on this with their main aircraft getting gimped with it). Damage should be iterative, with oil leaks/gasket failures being the primary overworked failure states.
2. Realistic engine limits / time limits - Don't use peacetime engine limitations as a guide for when the engine will suddenly die. These are woefully conservative. We have wartime limits for the BF109s but peacetime limits for the P39/P40 - engines that took a far bigger beating at the hands of Russian pilots than the manual allowed. That's a bit odd (and frustrating, the P40 engine is a bit of a running joke)
3. Complex engine damage - When hit by bullets you should see component based failures e.g. Individual cylinder head perforations, blown gaskets, severed electrical systems (engine may still run on residual heat "glow bulb" style), damaged supercharger, damaged governor, damaged shaft/shaft box. Oh and fires.
4. Fires - Fire in game is very odd. A blown fuel tank fire should look more like a big (but relatively weak) fireball that quickly subsides with relatively little smoke. We should also see fuel line fires (IRL these are the ones that leak burning fuel through the cockpit guages, as was recounted by several pilots), oil pan fires (smouldering things that produce a ton of black smoke and can easily spread through the engine hoses/electrical) and, more rarely, surface and subframe fires on aircraft with flammable components.
5. Complex engine management - This is where things like MP/RPM ratio comes in.
6. Realistic fuel flow management - Yeah, it's not specifically engine related. But if I'm in a plane with a big fat yellow knob next to me that allows me to select feed tanks and turn Xflow on/off then I should probably disable Xflow when my wingtank is ruptured. But no, I have to watch all my fuel from all of my tanks drain through a hole in one wing. Even more frustrating in VR where the knob to disable flow to the wing is right there.

Edited September 4, 2018 by peregrine7

[Ehret]

35 minutes ago, peregrine7 said:

Realistic engine limits / time limits - Don't use peacetime engine limitations as a guide for when the engine will suddenly die. These are woefully conservative. We have wartime limits for the BF109s but peacetime limits for the P39/P40 - engines that took a far bigger beating at the hands of Russian pilots than the manual allowed. That's a bit odd (and frustrating, the P40 engine is a bit of a running joke)

 

And they would suffer later by much lowered power even at the nominal setting. Something like that but accelerated 10-100x could be a much more sensible way to handle the "WEP" issue. (IMHO)

No more flying with a stopwatch and one could extend boost as needed but at cost of getting progressively weaker engine. Extreme overuse could result in scrapping the plane altogether after the return.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Ehret

[Talisman]

For British aircraft/engines, the pilot notes for the individual aircraft are only half of the story.  What most people don't realise is that, if you read the pilot notes fully and properly, they are to be read and followed in association with AP 2095 Pilot Notes General.

 

So, for the full picture and to be able to interpret the individual aircraft pilot notes in context, a pilot must first be aware of Pilot Notes General.  It is important to realise that British pilot notes for individual aircraft do not apply in isolation, they apply in the context of other documents, including Pilot Notes General.  For example, here is a quote from pages 25/26 of pilot notes general, regarding engine limitations for max power take off, 1 hour climbing and 5 minutes combat as stated in individual aircraft pilot notes:

 

"These figures provide a general guide to the reasonable use of the engine.  In combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in disregarding these restrictions." 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by 56RAF_Talisman

[JonRedcorn]

12 hours ago, peregrine7 said:

 
Well, there's so much wrong with the engine damage model I think this ends up being far down the list (though I haven't heard if the devs are even considering improving their DM).

My priorities would be:

1. More iterative damage states for engines - The engine shouldn't die so quickly if overworked (especially in the 109, P39, P40, I pretty much solely fly red but blue really gets shafted on this with their main aircraft getting gimped with it). Damage should be iterative, with oil leaks/gasket failures being the primary overworked failure states.
2. Realistic engine limits / time limits - Don't use peacetime engine limitations as a guide for when the engine will suddenly die. These are woefully conservative. We have wartime limits for the BF109s but peacetime limits for the P39/P40 - engines that took a far bigger beating at the hands of Russian pilots than the manual allowed. That's a bit odd (and frustrating, the P40 engine is a bit of a running joke)
3. Complex engine damage - When hit by bullets you should see component based failures e.g. Individual cylinder head perforations, blown gaskets, severed electrical systems (engine may still run on residual heat "glow bulb" style), damaged supercharger, damaged governor, damaged shaft/shaft box. Oh and fires.
4. Fires - Fire in game is very odd. A blown fuel tank fire should look more like a big (but relatively weak) fireball that quickly subsides with relatively little smoke. We should also see fuel line fires (IRL these are the ones that leak burning fuel through the cockpit guages, as was recounted by several pilots), oil pan fires (smouldering things that produce a ton of black smoke and can easily spread through the engine hoses/electrical) and, more rarely, surface and subframe fires on aircraft with flammable components.
5. Complex engine management - This is where things like MP/RPM ratio comes in.
6. Realistic fuel flow management - Yeah, it's not specifically engine related. But if I'm in a plane with a big fat yellow knob next to me that allows me to select feed tanks and turn Xflow on/off then I should probably disable Xflow when my wingtank is ruptured. But no, I have to watch all my fuel from all of my tanks drain through a hole in one wing. Even more frustrating in VR where the knob to disable flow to the wing is right there.

All that would be awesome. Does dcs have stuff like this for the ww2 birds? I know clod had quite a bit of it. 

[Legioneod]

14 hours ago, peregrine7 said:

 
Well, there's so much wrong with the engine damage model I think this ends up being far down the list (though I haven't heard if the devs are even considering improving their DM).

My priorities would be:

1. More iterative damage states for engines - The engine shouldn't die so quickly if overworked (especially in the 109, P39, P40, I pretty much solely fly red but blue really gets shafted on this with their main aircraft getting gimped with it). Damage should be iterative, with oil leaks/gasket failures being the primary overworked failure states.
2. Realistic engine limits / time limits - Don't use peacetime engine limitations as a guide for when the engine will suddenly die. These are woefully conservative. We have wartime limits for the BF109s but peacetime limits for the P39/P40 - engines that took a far bigger beating at the hands of Russian pilots than the manual allowed. That's a bit odd (and frustrating, the P40 engine is a bit of a running joke)
3. Complex engine damage - When hit by bullets you should see component based failures e.g. Individual cylinder head perforations, blown gaskets, severed electrical systems (engine may still run on residual heat "glow bulb" style), damaged supercharger, damaged governor, damaged shaft/shaft box. Oh and fires.
4. Fires - Fire in game is very odd. A blown fuel tank fire should look more like a big (but relatively weak) fireball that quickly subsides with relatively little smoke. We should also see fuel line fires (IRL these are the ones that leak burning fuel through the cockpit guages, as was recounted by several pilots), oil pan fires (smouldering things that produce a ton of black smoke and can easily spread through the engine hoses/electrical) and, more rarely, surface and subframe fires on aircraft with flammable components.
5. Complex engine management - This is where things like MP/RPM ratio comes in.
6. Realistic fuel flow management - Yeah, it's not specifically engine related. But if I'm in a plane with a big fat yellow knob next to me that allows me to select feed tanks and turn Xflow on/off then I should probably disable Xflow when my wingtank is ruptured. But no, I have to watch all my fuel from all of my tanks drain through a hole in one wing. Even more frustrating in VR where the knob to disable flow to the wing is right there.

This is what I've been wanting ever since I got BoX, the engine modeling needs improvement.

 

13 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

And they would suffer later by much lowered power even at the nominal setting. Something like that but accelerated 10-100x could be a much more sensible way to handle the "WEP" issue. (IMHO)

No more flying with a stopwatch and one could extend boost as needed but at cost of getting progressively weaker engine. Extreme overuse could result in scrapping the plane altogether after the return.

I suggested something like this a while back. If you go over your engine limits it will gradually degrade over time and not just quit outright unless something drastic happens.

[peregrine7]

7 hours ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

All that would be awesome. Does dcs have stuff like this for the ww2 birds? I know clod had quite a bit of it. 

 

Some of it, yes. CloD is still the best at most things engine related and does almost all of the above. DCS is probably more accurate with what it does, but the damage models in DCS' WW2 birds feels like a non-combat DM. Getting shot doesn't cause any interesting failures 99% of the time (probably realistic, but CloD really showcases to you the complexities of its DM)

[JonRedcorn]

1 minute ago, peregrine7 said:

 

Some of it, yes. CloD is still the best at most things engine related and does almost all of the above. DCS is probably more accurate with what it does, but the damage models in DCS' WW2 birds feels like a non-combat DM. Getting shot doesn't cause any interesting failures 99% of the time (probably realistic, but CloD really showcases to you the complexities of its DM)

I remember a long time ago, having been shot up in my 109 coming in to land and pumping the manual gear lever like 50 times to get my gear down, truly awesome stuff that was.

[Barnacles]

10 hours ago, peregrine7 said:

 

Some of it, yes. CloD is still the best at most things engine related and does almost all of the above. DCS is probably more accurate with what it does, but the damage models in DCS' WW2 birds feels like a non-combat DM. Getting shot doesn't cause any interesting failures 99% of the time (probably realistic, but CloD really showcases to you the complexities of its DM)

CloD in theory has an amazing engine model. Unfortunately they've had to effectively disable or fudge some of the features to make it work. This has resulted in the weird heating and supercharger effects. Eg the engine overheating when shut down on the ground and the high altitude performance of some planes being unhistorical. From @Buzzsaw's posts they are addressing those in upcoming updates and I am looking forward to that. The BoX team as well have said they aspire to simulate things like detonation and turbo superchargers.

 

Edit. The only thing I don't like about CloD is the heat model seems to be there just to prevent you running full power for too long. A la 1946. I hope this is because of a compromise due to the necessity to get the game to be as close a match to historical data rather than gamey feature to modify MP behaviour. When they do the next update I hope they go the historical accuracy route.

Edited September 5, 2018 by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Buzzsaw has put me right about my misconceptions struck through here. They corrected this in Blitz edition