Jump to content
SeaW0lf

Fuel load study for Flying Circus

Recommended Posts

Fuel load study for Flying Circus (and Rise of Flight).

 

Hello everyone, since we are migrating to Flying Circus, I wanted to post my studies on fuel load that I did in ROF (not yet published). This way you guys can understand fuel locks better.

 

Flying Circus was released with its first two aircraft, namely Spad X.III and Fokker Dr.1. So I took them for a spin and the numbers match my study on Rise of Flight if we take into consideration the same temperature of 15ºC (ICAO / ISA Standard). Then we will be getting soon the Camel and the Pfalz D.IIIa, and since the data from ROF matches the data from BOX in its first two planes, I assume the Camel and Pfalz data will also match.

 

Methodology: I did the test runs at 2km altitude (6.562 feet), which can be an intermediate altitude on the servers, and with full throttle and manual mixture (when available). The tests were done on the Channel map (ROF) and Kuban map (BOX) and with the ICAO / ISA Standard Atmosphere of 15ºC and 1013.25hPa (760Mmhg).

 

Note: comparing with site / store data in ROF, aircraft with rotary engines will lose 10% of flight time (endurance) from 2km to 1km while inline engines will roughly maintain the same flight time. But planes with inline engines do not match the site's data at 1km. For example, the D.Va has a flight time of 90min at 1km on the ROF website, but by my tests it has a flight time of 97min. And the in-line planes are pretty simple to test, since there is no mixture adjustment. Then I'm not sure why the website has a different data, especially because all the rotary engines that I tested at 1km matched the website data.

 

Addendum: It is also fitting that we only have the Spad 13 and the Fokker Dr.1 in Flying Circus for the moment, because the fuel tank of the Dr.1, which is the second smallest in the field, behind only of the Fokker D8, has been used over the years (or considered) as a reference tank for servers to lock fuel by liters, since she will take off with 100% fuel and all the other planes with less fuel. If I recall correctly, this is a dodgery to create 'balance' in the missions. This disregarding year of manufactory and service of the aircrafts, engine power and consumption and aircraft design. For example, if the Dr.1 with a rotary 110hp engine has a fuel tank of 72 liters, it will take-off with 100% fuel and have an endurance of 110 minutes. The Spad 13 for example, with an inline 220hp engine and a fuel tank of 113.5 litters will take-off with 63% of fuel (the same 72 liters) and have an endurance of 63 minutes, almost half of the Fokker Dr.1. Also, from my tests, this setting will place the entire roster of the so called BZ planes or inline workhorses (Albatroses, for example) with an average of 72 minutes of endurance, ranging from 46min (N28) to 105min (Spad7-150), while the so called turnfighters averages 118 minutes (nearly 40% more), ranging from 104min (D8) to 162min (N11). Not to mention that in some classic matches, like the Albatros D2 vs the Nieuport 11, the difference more than doubles for the N11 (if the 72 liters standard is used for both planes). In other words, the turnfighters are undoubtedly being penalized with this setting, some of them twice if we consider that a few of them were already nerfed in 2014. To have a better understanding, see the chart below that I did with data from Rise of Flight:

 

Roster of Rise of Flight aircraft using fuel locks by 72 litters (Fokker Dr.1 fuel tank reference)

Uti57a8.jpg 

 

-------

 

Tests for Flying Circus

 

So for Flying Circus I plotted different endurance and range numbers for the first four planes (vide charts below). The altitude of the tests is also of 2km. On the planes with manual mixture, you can have a difference of a couple minutes in each run, and then I took the average of several runs. I also placed the endurance and range numbers for 1% of fuel, and then you can play with different fuel loads if we take into account some margin for error. Like I said, to convert to 1km you subtract 10% on the endurance on the planes with manual mixture. As a tip, you can play with mixture to extend / shorten the range, endurance of any aircraft with manual mixture. If can be a valuable tool in-game.  

 

Fuel loads by endurance:

bvJGTB3.jpg

 

Fuel loads by range:

Note that I did some tests in BOX with the same ISA Standard Atmosphere and both Spad and Dr.1 gained about 2% in speed. So the range chart below is already converted for BOX, assuming both the Pfalz and Camel will follow the trend.

ckm4LHE.jpg

 

Spad X.III - 01% fuel at 213km/h (2km) equals 60s of flight time or 59,16 meters per second. So it has a range of 355km with full tank.

Pfalz D.IIIa - (179km/h at 2km) 01% fuel equals 53,76s* of flight time or 49,72* meters per second (edited).

Fokker Dr.1 - (168km/h at 2km) 01% fuel equals 66s of flight time or 46,66 meters per second.

Sopwith Camel - (166km/h at 2km) 01% fuel equals 147,9s of flight time or 45,97 meters per second.

 

-------

 

So that's that. I'm not sure why the store keeps endurance numbers rather than range, but my guess is that endurance is more important for WWI, when planes had a limited flying time and they were not that far from the front, so what matters is the flying time to climb and then patrol the front, the targets, and come back, not the distance they can reach, especially in ROF and FC, when maps are not that big.

 

I hope you guys enjoyed the info and that this research will encourage people to look further on the subject. With the arrival of Flying Circus, my expectation is that the servers that want to go with fuel locks will study fuel loads with more detail so that the players can have a more unbiased / educated experience in the missions, respecting the characteristics of each aircraft by the year they entered in service, horse power and simply by project. It is studying and learning what we are actually playing, and what we are actually doing in the game and with the game that we can set technicality apart so that everyone, from all aisles of the game, can just enjoy it and have fun with it.

 

And if you find any error, let me know. I double checked the data but there are a lot of variables and numbers.

 

Cheers,
SeaW0lf.

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would have help if one had the fuel in liters in the hangar. Something impractical RoF carried along all these years.

 

Interesting comparison!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These numbers that are below the range chart were corrected, but the chart is right. I might just have copied the numbers wrong.

 

Pfalz D.IIIa - (179km/h at 2km) 01% fuel equals 53,76s* of flight time or 49,72* meters per second (edited).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is remarkable that the N28 has about half the flight time og the FokkerD8. The engine is about the same. That poor N28 really needs some luvin' when it will arrive in FC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It is remarkable that the N28 has about half the flight time og the FokkerD8. The engine is about the same. That poor N28 really needs some luvin' when it will arrive in FC.

 

But the N28 has a 160hp engine, so it should consume more, but the endurance is so short because it is carrying only 57% of fuel. I need to add the fuel percentage to the chart so that people can have a better idea. The N28 can fly 48,4s with 1% of fuel, while the D8 can fly 62,4s (at 2km). The difference could be attributed to the Oberursel consuming less fuel.

 

But I agree, the N28 need some love when they port her to Flying Circus. It is a marquee plane for the US in the war, although short lived, and it could fill a void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i try to select fuel amount in FC i have 100 litters in both DR.I and Spad XIII. Not 72 and 113.5 respectively like in RoF. Do i miss something?

PS. Great job of the author of the topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kramer said:

When i try to select fuel amount in FC i have 100 litters in both DR.I and Spad XIII. Not 72 and 113.5 respectively like in RoF. Do i miss something?

PS. Great job of the author of the topic.

 

They will certainly fix that ovetime. Right now these two planes are just crashing the BOX party :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think endurance is a much more important figure for navigation and patrol for slow speed aircraft.  Range is a function of more than just speed and fuel consumption in aviation, and at low speeds the wind is a larger percentage of airspeed.  If you know what your fuel consumption is at a given RPM/mix, then you can work backwards to your actual range given a calculated groundspeed.   

 

Please help me to understand the crux of the Balance issue here.  What are the servers balancing for when they lock fuel?  Are they trying to limit people from taking a-historically light fuel loads to gain an advantage in combat?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

That's one shed load of kittens to fit into two WW1 planes !

100 kittens :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EmerlistDavjack said:

I think endurance is a much more important figure for navigation and patrol for slow speed aircraft.  Range is a function of more than just speed and fuel consumption in aviation, and at low speeds the wind is a larger percentage of airspeed.  If you know what your fuel consumption is at a given RPM/mix, then you can work backwards to your actual range given a calculated groundspeed.   

 

Please help me to understand the crux of the Balance issue here.  What are the servers balancing for when they lock fuel?  Are they trying to limit people from taking a-historically light fuel loads to gain an advantage in combat?

 

It will depend on the server. In the past in ROF, the servers that worked with fuel locks usually went for the same percentage for all planes, which is OK if you consider the tank design historically speaking. Since 2013 that I have heard people advocating for the 72 liters locks (especially before the nerfing), but I don't recall of a server using it. Nowadays we have Wargrounds with fuel locks by 72 liters (you can see the first chart) for all scouts. And we also have Arty's servers with fuel locks at 50%.

 

With half the servers using fuel locks in ROF, I started to play with tests and the result is the material I posted in this topic. As usual, I learned a lot in the process and wanted to share it, because (to me) how people go about fuel locks is as important as server performance regarding stutter, presence of AI and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I remember correctly at the time fuel locks were brought into play it was largely a matter of making players rather follow the mission objectives so prevent quaking with about 15% gassing.
The balance was in bringing down the potential of the most used turn fighters so creating a more equal players field.
Edited by West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, West said:
If I remember correctly at the time fuel locks were brought into play it was largely a matter of making players rather follow the mission objectives so prevent quaking with about 15% gassing.
The balance was in bringing down the potential of the most used turn fighters so creating a more equal players field.

 

I agree with fuel locks for full real servers, but I disagree on the "bringing down the potential of the most used turn fighters", especially nowadays when we already have heavily nerfed planes. It is never a good idea to push the agenda to a specific crowd because you will be invariably placing the burden on the other side, and it was not supposed to be an arcade game with balance. 

 

I also doubt that mission builders have tested all the planes, so in the past they might have just guessed how they should go on fuel locks. Today, with what I saw, I would go for the same endurance for all planes. In a close second (or perhaps a tossup) I would go with the same percentage for all planes with a few exceptions, like the Camel, which has a fuel tank of a B-17 and really cannot climb that well after the nerfing.

 

But at the present moment I don't think fuel locks is a good idea not even for full real servers. We have too small of a crowd. Servers should have adapted, created smaller maps, concentrated objectives, and have unlocked fuel. Cuban is unlocked and works great for now. 

 

We still have 10+ players with regularity on the airquake servers. My guess is that we could have 20+ if the missions were catered for quick action / furballs.
 

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only remind that was what it was originally intended for.
It was also something the outfits in that time frame  wanted to get (force) players joining them.
It seems also why the Hellequins server quit after a general boycott by the other outfits.
Do you know Van der Stock, the mission builder wiz, was ever quoted having said not ever seeing himself enter a fuel locked server LOL
This is also what started the first server player drain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, West said:
It seems also why the Hellequins server quit after a general boycott by the other outfits.

 

You mean that the Hellequins' server adopted fuel locks and people boycoted it? Or that people boycoted it because Hellequins did not want to adopt fuel locks? I wasn't playing multiplayer back then. I have the game since 2010, but I just got into multiplayer in 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

You mean that the Hellequins' server adopted fuel locks and people boycoted it? Or that people boycoted it because Hellequins did not want to adopt fuel locks? I wasn't playing multiplayer back then. I have the game since 2010, but I just got into multiplayer in 2013.

Noooo, just the other way around;

It was one of the 2 expert servers around at the time (beside Syndicate) but refused to implement fuel locks so got boycotted by the outfits and finally threw the towel in for ensuing lack of interest.

Edited by West
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, West said:

Noooo, just the other way around;

It was one of the 2 expert servers around at the time (beside Syndicate) but refused to implement fuel locks so got boycotted by the outfits and finally threw the towel in for ensuing lack of interest.

 

Geez... People were fierce back then :) LOL...

 

I personally don't mind fuel locks for full real servers (I began in multiplayer that way so this is my reference), but it has to be done right, and right now I think fuel locks is more of a hindrance than anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Geez... People were fierce back then :) LOL...

 

I personally don't mind fuel locks for full real servers (I began in multiplayer that way so this is my reference), but it has to be done right, and right now I think fuel locks is more of a hindrance than anything.

I think so too. Now that some aircraft are toned down, there is really no need in not allowing them „5 minute sorties“.

 

Also, IMHO the way the two current planes in FC handle, giving a bit more power with different engines shouldn‘t really mess up things the way it did in RoF. On contrary, even. I am still amazed how well FC aircraft are made.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Geez... People were fierce back then :) LOL...

 

I personally don't mind fuel locks for full real servers (I began in multiplayer that way so this is my reference), but it has to be done right, and right now I think fuel locks is more of a hindrance than anything.

 

The way around that one is a quite practical one, start you own server ))) which is mostly fierce on logistics and man power like serverspace, admins, mission making, etc, etc  ...

& 'course it will still need a player following in order to attract others ...

I remember a time Sydicate added up the accounts of visiting players over a month and got somewhere over a thousand names this in order to fill their 65 player limited server in the evening, Eu time while ROF was at its crux.

Edited by West
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2018 at 4:12 PM, SeaW0lf said:

 

 ...

But I agree, the N28 need some love when they port her to Flying Circus. It is a marquee plane for the US in the war, although short lived, and it could fill a void.

 

I remember reading Rickenbacker's book as a kid (late '60s, still have it ... somewhere) that they (94th) didn't fill the Nieuport reserve tank because of frequent fires and the airframe, particularly the top wing, was prone to failure at high speed and/or high G and I believe a friend of his died because of that.  He said they were given to them because the French wouldn't fly them and he couldn't wait to get out of them.  Although the SPAD's Hispano was initially and gasoline powered roulette wheel the airframe wouldn't fail and kill you - lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ chuter
Judging from how the SPAD 13 turned out now in FC we may have high hopes for the N28, that is if there will be follow up WW1 modules )))
Of course still WIP and probably a lot of :umnik2:bickering :rtfm:to come after but lets hope for the best:drink2:
 
Sorry OP for the OT
Edited by West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chuter said:

I remember reading Rickenbacker's book as a kid (late '60s, still have it ... somewhere) that they (94th) didn't fill the Nieuport reserve tank because of frequent fires and the airframe, particularly the top wing, was prone to failure at high speed and/or high G and I believe a friend of his died because of that.  He said they were given to them because the French wouldn't fly them and he couldn't wait to get out of them.  Although the SPAD's Hispano was initially and gasoline powered roulette wheel the airframe wouldn't fail and kill you - lol.

 

Well, these crates are not for the faint of heart :) I don't know much about the N28, but I also read that some squadrons did not like the poor turning rate of the Spad and prefered the Nieuport, which they felt was much more manouverable (I think they had the wing problem sorted out). But that's another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Well, these crates are not for the faint of heart :) I don't know much about the N28, but I also read that some squadrons did not like the poor turning rate of the Spad and prefered the Nieuport, which they felt was much more manouverable (I think they had the wing problem sorted out). But that's another story.

They never really sorted out the top wing issue. AFAIR Rickenbacker himself undressed that one in a harsh maneuver, but he was skillful enough to return home and land the plane. Although handling was supposedly very bad, he thought that a prepared pilot should be able cope with that happening.

 

Regardless, this is what he had to say about the Nieuport:

“... Next, the principal fear that hampered me in the midst of a combat was the knowledge that the Nieuport's wings might give way under the stress of a necessary maneuver. Constantly I was limited in essential movements by this fear. Was there no way to strengthen these wings ? Why couldn't we get the Spads that had been promised us? ...“

 

The Spad is a very attractive plane, indeed.

 

Pilots fearing shedding their linen wouldn‘t really stunt their Nieuports hard. This, he thought, was much more dangerous than hard maneuvers, as it made it easyer for the other team to shoot them down.

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...