7 1/2 Hour War Emergency Test of Pratt&Whitney R-2800 26 April 1944

[Rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

You can continue to build your Strawman with heavy use of words like "Random Failure" and "Roll of the Dice" all you want, but the bottom line is that you either get a 1)statistical model of failure, 2)you get a physical model of failure, 3)a combination of the two, or 4)you just ditch the failure model completely and play airquake.  An algorithm that implements a system where the longer you run the engine in overboost, the greater the chance of failure is perfectly logical, and probably the one that has the most chance of getting implemented.  In fact, from all appearances, that's what is already happening in the current simulation, and it's just a matter of lowering the chance of failure significantly. 

 

 

 

 

 

I see that you were not content to merely create a novel new meaning for the word "random", you also are offering us a redefinition of the word "strawman", which in this case apparently means "Stating the logical implications of a given idea in a manner which I do not like."

If you combine relatively short WEP times (1-5 minutes say) that players can easily exceed over the course of a single engagement with unpredictable, random failures for exceeding said time limits then you WILL see dogfights decided by the will of RNG, which is to say one or the other player's engine suddenly checking out. This will happen on a regular basis. Unless of course you set the chance of failure so very low it is effectively nil.  But IF it is 95% certain that one can run at WEP 6-10 minutes instead of just 5 then it makes more sense to just call the limit 10 minutes and do away the complexity and occasional annoyance of the random mechanic entirely.

There are two major problems with the current system:

1. Pilots of those planes given very short limits (1-5 minutes) can and do find themselves forced to worry about throttling back or else over the course of single dogfights. This does not for the most part resemble how they actually seem to have used these engines in combat.

2. Some planes have enormous effective advantages with no plausible physical explanation, but only because of often arbitrary operational recommendations in manuals that don't accurately reflect how the engines could be and frequently were run in combat.

There is no perfect solution, but giving about 15 minutes of WEP at a time to every plane would *mostly* fix point 1, while being plausible and not allowing absolutely unlimited use of WEP throughout sorties. And of course it would completely solve the problem brought up in point 2.

One thing that absolutely must be added though, players need some way to monitor how much WEP they have left, some kind of clock in the technochat or something.

2 hours ago, Stilicho said:

 

I can't begrudge your desire to have a good MP scene, but I don't see MP becoming any more of a one sided affair than it already is if they do away with the timers. As it is, certain aircraft will dominate others in a 1 vs 1 fight. Throw a P-47 and a K4 at each other on equal footing and the 109 should tear the P-47 apart, but that doesn't mean the P-47 is a bad plane. It just isn't meant for that. Plus, the number of players a team has, and how many of them are actually working the objectives, is usually what determines the outcome of a match.

 

I don't see balancing, or the lack of it, really affecting much that isn't just people complaining that their 109 couldn't out turn a Spitfire, or their Yak couldn't catch up with a 190. The nations that were designing these planes were doing so with their enemies in mind, and I just don't see there being so much of a performance difference that you need to fudge the numbers or game mechanics to artificially help certain planes. Its not like they were throwing Camels at 190's.

P-47 versus K4 isn't absolutely hopeless, climb and turn isn't everything, and anyway the two planes would be much more balanced if it weren't for some modeling decisions of very debatable authenticity in the current version.

In order of least to greatest importance these are:
1. The 109 K4 has been given the most powerful engine settings it ever MIGHT have used (1.98 ATA), while the P-47 has been denied the most powerful options that were DEFINITELY in use in Europe in 1945 (150 octane and all that comes with it.)

2. I'm pretty sure you know all of the following, but just to reiterate: The 109 has been given much more generous timers at WEP and Combat power without plausible physical reason, just the demonstrably somewhat arbitrary manual recommendations. Moreover, some TRULY inexplicable decisions with these timers have been made: WEP use with the Jug eats into the Combat timer, but not with the K4, and the 109 has also been given enormous advantages in "recharging" the timer.

3. MOST importantly, the P-47, which should ideally operate as  a high-speed boom and zoomer, has problems with control authority much over about 375mph IAS, basically identical to that of the 109. So a plane famous for being good in a dive has no advantage here over a plane sorta infamous for stiff controls at high IAS. If the Jug could pull as much G as the pilot can stand at ~400mph IAS it would be vastly more useful in its intended role at typical arena altitudes. As it stands it has trouble adjusting for even the slightest enemy maneuver at speeds it easily builds up in short dives. In virtually every other game of this genre the Jug, P-51, Corsair and related planes have been mediocre in terms of wing-loading and power-loading, but redeem themselves with some combinations of top speed, dive, handling at high speed(which has both offensive and defensive implications), and energy retention (converting built up dive speed back into alt or distance). Consider: Many late war planes aren't too far from 375mph IAS in *level flight* at low altitude. If an airplane lacks maneuverability at and above that speed it isn't really very fit to boom and zoom them.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

This really is not that difficult a concept.....  The harder you run the engine, and the longer you do that, the more likely it is to fail.   It's similar to what we have now, but with significantly relaxed failure rates in relation to time.  (Sure, an engine could fail 30 seconds over the book limits just like it does now in some planes, it just would be far less likely).

 

I can't tell if you are failing to read what's been written, or if you are intentionally trying to misrepresent it.  If this is "illogical" or you are trying to portray this as just a "random" failure, with no relation to how the pilot treats the engine, then I really am at a loss to explain it further. 

Your right, its not a hard concept to grasp.

 

Yes, if you run anything harder it is more likely to fail. However this hardly justifies applying some roulette wheel to engine mechanics. AGAIN, are you going to apply this to everything else? I mean by this logic everything in the game should just randomly fail. Wing should just plain fall off sometimes. Guns should jam. Brakes fails. Russian planes should have totally unreliable performance due to shoddy factory standards. German planes could have sabotage from slave labor. 

 

I mean seriously this is just a totally absurd concept. The bloody computer I am typing this on could randomly fail..... 

 

 

I mean pulling G's puts more strain on a human being than normal. Should there be a chance for a stroke as well? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Fumes

[HR_Zunzun]

30 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

If you combine relatively short WEP times (1-5 minutes say) that players can easily exceed over the course of a single engagement with unpredictable, random failures for exceeding said time limits then you WILL see dogfights decided by the will of RNG, which is to say one or the other player's engine suddenly checking out. This will happen on a regular basis. Unless of course you set the chance of failure so very low it is effectively nil.  But IF it is 95% certain that one can run at WEP 6-10 minutes instead of just 5 then it makes more sense to just call the limit 10 minutes and do away the complexity and occasional annoyance of the random mechanic entirely.

1

 

The way I interpret what he said is that the random factor would be predictable as will be incremental. Yes, you can be extremely unlucky and have a total failure after the first few seconds exceeding the timer but logically it won´t happen in the vast majority of times. It would let you choose to press on the wep at the risk of an increased chance of losing the engine. It is something you can factor in your tactic. And depending of the % of increase risk introduced, it would practically give you a few free extra minutes of wep unless you were very unlucky. To be honest, 5 minutes is more than enough to decide any engagement and the way I fly, unless I am in a flat out pursuit I am not using wep 100% of the time; diving, avoiding overshot etc... extend the initial 5 minutes a bit longer. Finally, tactic situation and skill are the deciding factors in most occasions.

I am not saying that would be the best system but is another option to consider together with the other options proposed. To me, without changing the engine simulation, extending mainly the combat power (I consider this tactically more important), reducing the recharge timer and maybe this increased chance of losing the engine could be a good combination.

Edited December 12, 2018 by HR_Zunzun

[LColony_Kong]

Like I said before, this debate has just devolved into one side being unable to accept that there is no way to model engine reliability in a video game, and has resorted to "oh I know! RNG!"

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Fumes

[Guest deleted@83466]

No, I haven't changed any definitions.  I proposed a significant relaxation of the current system in an attempt to satisfy the complaints that engines blow up to easily after exceeding book limits.  This solution would very easily allow people to exceed the book limits without any unreasonable fear of failure.   There is nothing unreasonable about this proposal at all, and represents only a modification of the existing system.   So you're basically saying that the idea of an engine experiencing possible failure after it's pushed beyond it's recommended limits, and in proportion to how long and how far it's pushed, is an invalid concept to you??? Really?  I mean, really?   
 

20 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

There is no perfect solution, but giving about 15 minutes of WEP at a time to every plane would *mostly* fix point 1, while being plausible and not allowing absolutely unlimited use of WEP throughout sorties. And of course it would completely solve the problem brought up in point 2.

One thing that absolutely must be added though, players need some way to monitor how much WEP they have left, some kind of clock in the technochat or something.

 

Your solution is 15 minutes blanket maximum power to every plane, guaranteed?   109's and 190's at 1.42 ATA for 15 minutes guaranteed vs the 1 or 3 minutes we have guaranteed now?  Sorry, but I think that would be a dumb solution.  Anything to avoid the pilot having to make a sound judgement call about how far he can push it, right?  And P.S., get yourself a stopwatch.

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Your right, its not a hard concept to grasp.

 

Yes, if you run anything harder it is more likely to fail. However this hardly justifies applying some roulette wheel to engine mechanics. AGAIN, are you going to apply this to everything else? I mean by this logic everything in the game should just randomly fail. Wing should just plain fall off sometimes. Guns should jam. Brakes fails. Russian planes should have totally unreliable performance due to shoddy factory standards. German planes could have sabotage from slave labor. 

 

I mean seriously this is just a totally absurd concept. The bloody computer I am typing this on could randomly fail..... 

 

 

 

Facepalm time.  You say you get the concept, but clearly you don't, or you won't.  BTW, this thread is about engine limits and proposals of what should happen when book limits are exceeded.  All the other stuff you bring in is irrelevant nonsense to the discussion at hand.

 

[Rattlesnake]

1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

 

Your solution is 15 minutes blanket maximum power to every plane, guaranteed?   109's and 190's at 1.42 ATA for 15 minutes guaranteed vs the 1 or 3 minutes we have guaranteed now?  Sorry, but I think that would be a dumb solution. 

 

 

 

 

Why not? There is no apparent reason for them to not survive 15 minutes at those settings. In point of fact, in another post I compared the engines of the Yak and 109 F. They are very, very similar V12s in every respect. However, in this game the F is limited to about 1 minute at boost and horsepower settings only marginally greater than the Yak is allowed to run at for infinity, and the 109 is further limited to only 30 minutes "combat" at *lower* boost, rpm, and power than the Yak is cleared to run for infinity. Thus it is demonstrated current limitations on engine settings are at least in some cases entirely arbitrary.

Ah, and I see you are now also radically redefining the word "think".

[Guest deleted@83466]

At max throttle, the Yaks aren't boosted, they are in nominal, and that's as far as they go.

 

If you want a good way to destroy MP entirely, then give 15 minute, guaranteed no-chance-of-failure, maximum power to every plane in the game! 

[HR_Zunzun]

10 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Like I said before, this debate has just devolved into one side being unable to accept that there is no way to model engine reliability in a video game, and has resorted to "oh I know! RNG!"

 

That is intrinsically a false assumption. You can simulate reliability the same way that the developers simulate, for instance, the DM. The don´t simulate materials composition, strength or fatigue after being hit in any real fashion way. I am sure hey simulate failures that depend on a given situation (hit to some key component), with some factors included and then they add some randomness to the effect as it is impossible to simulate all the possible variations that can affect the structures of, for example, the wings. Some randomness makes it plausible instead of expecting the same effect all the time.

 

The more I read about this topic the more I think that simply lifting all the limits to wep is wrong. I agree with you that a plane won´t lose its engine in one mission for exceeding the wep limit. Even if abusing it badly. But with the current situation of receiving a factory fresh example in every mission, the addition of the "WEP free" approach would result in an unrealistic model.

The pilot manuals did limit the boost time mainly because of wearing reasons. Fuel wasn´t the main limit. If it was then the P-51 manual would factor the boost limits by range  and not by time (I used Mustang example because it has a huge range). Even a Spitfire that is relatively short ranged wouldn´t have a problem with 10 or 15 min WEP (fuel related).

If wearing simulation is technically not possible currently (or would take too many time&resources), then another approach needs to be taken. Giving free WEP for everyone is a very wrong option in my opinion. Please note that I am not saying that the current model is better or the way to go. I am all for changing it to something better but don´t think is free WEP.

[LColony_Kong]

6 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

At max throttle, the Yaks aren't boosted, they are in nominal, and that's as far as they go.

 

If you want a good way to destroy MP entirely, then give 15 minute, guaranteed no-chance-of-failure, maximum power to every plane in the game! 

You do realize that nominal or continuous power is just a designation right? Do you think boosted power is some kind of objective quantity sifted from the heavens? Continuous power is whatever the TBO allows for, and the TBO is however long the users say it is. 

2 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

That is intrinsically a false assumption. You can simulate reliability the same way that the developers simulate, for instance, the DM. The don´t simulate materials composition, strength or fatigue after being hit in any real fashion way. I am sure hey simulate failures that depend on a given situation (hit to some key component), with some factors included and then they add some randomness to the effect as it is impossible to simulate all the possible variations that can affect the structures of, for example, the wings. Some randomness makes it plausible instead of expecting the same effect all the time.

 

The more I read about this topic the more I think that simply lifting all the limits to wep is wrong. I agree with you that a plane won´t lose its engine in one mission for exceeding the wep limit. Even if abusing it badly. But with the current situation of receiving a factory fresh example in every mission, the addition of the "WEP free" approach would result in an unrealistic model.

The pilot manuals did limit the boost time mainly because of wearing reasons. Fuel wasn´t the main limit. If it was then the P-51 manual would factor the boost limits by range  and not by time (I used Mustang example because it has a huge range). Even a Spitfire that is relatively short ranged wouldn´t have a problem with 10 or 15 min WEP (fuel related).

If wearing simulation is technically not possible currently (or would take too many time&resources), then another approach needs to be taken. Giving free WEP for everyone is a very wrong option in my opinion. Please note that I am not saying that the current model is better or the way to go. I am all for changing it to something better but don´t think is free WEP.

Zunzun, there is no way to model this in a non-intrusive way short of a persistent 1000 player server that tracks your planes maintenance records. Thats not going to happen, and even if it was in the distant future, thats not a reason to sit on the current system. 

 

We dont fly in this game like the real pilots did. We sit in 1G comfy chairs with operational requirements that are nothing like real life. Our mission objectives are not like real life. 

 

Every suggestion that is given, including the current in game "solution," is smuggling an abstraction of some notion of real world logistical problems into the engines AS IF they were mechanical features of the engine. 

 

Random engine failures, and ticking time bombs are not discrete elements of the engines in this game. 

 

Ultimately the arguments to "do something, do anything" to "model" engine problems are nothing more than taking something the game can actually do (the performance of the functioning engine and its associated affect on plane performance) and sacraficing that to give us a engine with totally fake elements to pay homage to something outside the games scope.

 

SO IN OTHER WORDS:

 

You can have a model of a high performance engine. 

 

You cant have the logistics and full operational model. 

 

Trying to cram the operational model into the engine as though it were literal mechanical effect results in you getting NEITHER the engine or the larger picture problem.

 

 

You just end up with a bonkers abstraction that is nonsense all round. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

20 minutes ago, Fumes said:

You do realize that nominal or continuous power is just a designation right? Do you think boosted power is some kind of objective quantity sifted from the heavens? Continuous power is whatever the TBO allows for, and the TBO is however long the users say it is. 

 

TBO's are averages.  And your knowledge of mean TBO's for the various engines modelled in this game, and the factors that influenced the manufacturers to create recommended operating limits for them is...what?

 

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[Rattlesnake]

24 minutes ago, Fumes said:

You do realize that nominal or continuous power is just a designation right?

I appears he really doesn't.

Here's the comparison of Yak and 109 engine settings I alluded to earlier. I did make a mistake earlier, I forgot the 109 gets a whole 3 minutes of WEP in this game instead of 1.

On 11/27/2018 at 8:44 PM, Rattlesnake said:

You inspired me to compare the Yak-1 to the 109 F4.
The Yak's engine has 35.1 liters of displacement and gets its maximum power of 1260hp@2700rpm on nominal mode with 1050mm of mercury, which=41.34 inches of mercury.
The 109's engine has 34 liters of displacement and gets it's maximum power of 1350hp@2700rpm at emergency with 1.42 ATA=42.49 inches of mercury.

So let me get this straight. They are both liquid-cooled V-12s. They are almost exactly the same displacement. But the Klimov can last forever while putting out 1260hp, while the DB can only last 3 minutes pulling less than 100 more horsepower with one inch of mercury more boost?!?!?!

But wait, there's more!!! In the game "combat" mode on the 109 is limited to 30 minutes. In this mode it is putting out 1200 horsepower @2500RPM and 1.3 ATA/39 inches of mercury. So we are to believe that the Klimov can survive LONGER putting out more horsepower at higher boost and RPM than the DB can putting out less horsepower at lower boost and RPM?
 

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[Legioneod]

For all of those that are too dense to understand what SeaSerpent is trying to say I'll try and break it down for you.

 

 

Currently in-game there is an rng system that has random failure the longer you go over the engine time limits. So in-game your engine doesn't fail exactly at 1 second over, it can be one minute or even 2-3 minutes over the limit before your engine fails.

 

What SeaSerpent is saying is that the limits should be relaxed. So instead of the engine failing 1-2 min the chance could be much lower, so this way you could potentially push it 4-5 maybe even 10 mins over the limit without a failure.

 

I'll try to show an example:

 

Current system.

WEP last 5min and has 90% chance of failure after the 5min is up.

 

Proposed system.

WEP last 5 min, but instead of high chance of failure, it would be much lower and would increase each minute over the limit.

one minute over: 5% chance of engine failure

two minutes over: 10% chance of failure

three minutes over 15% chance of failure

and so on.

 

This would be a much more realistic system as it would allow you to push your engine a bit harder but would still keep the player in check due to the risk of engine failure. 

It is exactly the same as the system used in-game but the risk of failure is much much lower.

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Legioneod

[LColony_Kong]

5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

For all of those that are too dense to understand what SeaSerpent is trying to say I'll try and break it down for you.

 

 

Currently in-game there is an rng system that has random failure the longer you go over the engine time limits. So in-game your engine doesn't fail exactly at 1 second over, it can be one minute or even 2-3 minutes over the limit before your engine fails.

 

What SeaSerpent is saying is that the limits should be relaxed. So instead of the engine failing 1-2 min the chance could be much lower, so this way you could potentially push it 4-5 maybe even 10 mins over the limit without a failure.

 

I'll try to show an example:

 

Current system.

WEP last 5min and has 90% chance of failure after the 5min is up.

 

Proposed system.

WEP last 5 min, but instead of high chance of failure, it would be much lower and would increase each minute over the limit.

one minute over: 5% chance of engine failure

two minutes over: 10% chance of failure

three minutes over 15% chance of failure

and so on.

 

This would be a much more realistic system as it would allow you to push your engine a bit harder but would still keep the player in check due to the risk of engine failure. 

It is exactly the same as the system used in-game but the risk of failure is much much lower.

 

I mean...we knew this already. What about this is supposed to be a revelation? 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Fumes

[Legioneod]

Just now, Fumes said:

I mean...we knew this already. 

So why are you against it? The RNG is already in-game yet you are afraid of RNG? Doesn't make any sense.

[Rattlesnake]

9 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

For all of those that are too dense to understand what SeaSerpent is trying to say I'll try and break it down for you.

 

 

Currently in-game there is an rng system that has random failure the longer you go over the engine time limits. So in-game your engine doesn't fail exactly at 1 second over, it can be one minute or even 2-3 minutes over the limit before your engine fails.

 

What SeaSerpent is saying is that the limits should be relaxed. So instead of the engine failing 1-2 min the chance could be much lower, so this way you could potentially push it 4-5 maybe even 10 mins over the limit without a failure.

 

I'll try to show an example:

 

Current system.

WEP last 5min and has 90% chance of failure after the 5min is up.

 

Proposed system.

WEP last 5 min, but instead of high chance of failure, it would be much lower and would increase each minute over the limit.

one minute over: 5% chance of engine failure

two minutes over: 10% chance of failure

three minutes over 15% chance of failure

and so on.

 

This would be a much more realistic system as it would allow you to push your engine a bit harder but would still keep the player in check due to the risk of engine failure. 

It is exactly the same as the system used in-game but the risk of failure is much much lower.

 

I understand it, I just don't want RNG to play that huge a role in the game, as it plainly would under this proposal. I want the elimination of artificial arbitrary advantages/disadvantages and the freedom to use engines in combat just about like they actually did, with just enough limitation to keep people from leaving the power balls-to-the-wall from takeoff till final approach. And I'm not married to the idea of even that much limitation, having none wouldn't be all that bad.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[LColony_Kong]

5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

So why are you against it? The RNG is already in-game yet you are afraid of RNG? Doesn't make any sense.

What am I supposed to be for it? 

 

The current system is stupid, as are any RNG mechanics. As a rule, RNG is a stupid way of doing things in a game. Especially as I said before, you are doing it to model something you cant have. It makes no sense to sacrifice the totally realistic performance of the engine to add some "nod" to the operational environment. 

 

Second: Any RNG system with a high enough chance to have and effect would be happening to frequently to be "realistic" and any RNG system with a realistic number of failures would be so low as to be totally meaningless and you might as well not do it at all. 

 

And again, why should this only apply to engines? Why not wings, factory standards, etc?

Edited December 13, 2018 by Fumes

[Rattlesnake]

3 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

So why are you against it? The RNG is already in-game yet you are afraid of RNG? Doesn't make any sense.

It's in game but the WEP limits are still effectively pretty close to being a hard line. And I wouldn't mind the limitation being a true hard line, if it was a little less arbitrarily short in some cases.

[Panthera]

1 hour ago, Rattlesnake said:

I'm pretty sure you know all of the following, but just to reiterate: The 109 has been given much more generous timers at WEP and Combat power without plausible physical reason, just the demonstrably somewhat arbitrary manual recommendations. Moreover, some TRULY inexplicable decisions with these timers have been made: WEP use with the Jug eats into the Combat timer, but not with the K4, and the 109 has also been given enormous advantages in "recharging" the timer.

 

Just to be clear the 10 min WEP limit for the 109's using MW50 is fine, it's what they recommended and there was enough carried for 40 min of use pr. sortie, that simply wouldn't be the case if you couldn't at least use it for the 10 min at a time described in the manuals. That said late in the war the Germans would do all they could to preserve engines for as long as possible, and they would baby their engines when'ever possible as even something as simple as oil changing schedules were not being adhered to;  they simply didn't have the oil. So they would naturally have done their utmost to stretch the TBO as far as possible, and I'm sure they would exceed it often as well (the lack of oil & spare parts again), these run down engines failing as a result.

 

That said, there is no reason that the P-47 doesn't have the same 10 min time limit when using water injection, esp. when you consider that it was expected to be used for 20 min pr. sortie. Similarly there is no reason that the Allied fighters cannot recharge WEP at combat power, or that the Bf-109G4 is limited to 1 min at 1.42ata. But I also expect the developers will change this, esp. the former.

[Legioneod]

Just now, Rattlesnake said:

 1. I understand it, I just don't want RNG to play that huge a role in the game.

 

2. I want the elimination of artificial arbitrary advantages/disadvantages and the freedom to use engines in combat just about like they actually did ...

 

1. RNG ALREADY PLAYS A HUGE PART IN-GAME DUE TO THE ENGINE TIMERS.

 

2. I agree but this will likely never happen. You can't have realistic engines and force the player to fly a certain way at the same time, you have to choose either a realistic engine or a gamey mechanic.

[danielprates]

Another intersting thread ruined.

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

1. RNG ALREADY PLAYS A HUGE PART IN-GAME DUE TO THE ENGINE TIMERS.

 

2. I agree but this will likely never happen. You can't have realistic engines and force the player to fly a certain way at the same time, you have to choose either a realistic engine or a gamey mechanic.

Ok.....SO? RNG should be gone. By that logic, time limits themselves would be ok because they already exist. 

 

Your right we cant have both. So just remove the timers and replace them with.....Nothing. 

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, Fumes said:

What am I supposed to be for it? 

 

The current system is stupid, as are any RNG mechanics. As a rule, RNG is a stupid way of doing things in a game. Especially as I said before, you are doing it to model something you cant have. It makes no sense to sacrifice the totally realistic performance of the engine to add some "nod" to the operational environment. 

 

Second: Any RNG system with a high enough chance to have and effect would be happening to frequently to be "realistic" and any RNG system with a realistic number of failures would be so low as to be totally meaningless and you might as well not do it at all. 

 

And again, why should this only apply to engines? Why not wings, factory standards, etc?

If you had to make a choice between relaxed engine limits like @SeaSerpent said or keeping the current system we have, what would you choose?

 

If I had to choose it would be SeaSerpents idea because the current engine limits in-game are much more restrictive and unrealistic than his system would make.

Just now, Fumes said:

Ok.....SO? RNG should be gone. By that logic, time limits themselves would be ok because they already exist. 

 

Your right we cant have both. So just remove the timers and replace them with.....Nothing. 

I agree but that will never happen. The devs are set in their ways.

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

If you had to make a choice between relaxed engine limits like @SeaSerpent said or keeping the current system we have, what would you choose?

 

If I had to choose it would be SeaSerpents idea because the current engine limits in-game are much more restrictive and unrealistic than his system would make.

When did I get shipwrecked and forced into this dictum? 

 

My choice is neither. I want no limits or so much WEP it doesnt matter. 

[Panthera]

14 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

I appears he really doesn't.

Here's the comparison of Yak and 109 engine settings I alluded to earlier. I did make a mistake earlier, I forgot the 109 gets a whole 3 minutes of WEP in this game instead of 1.

 

 

What 109 has 3 min of WEP? I thought they were all 1 min ingame except for the MW50 equipped versions?

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Fumes said:

When did I get shipwrecked and forced into this dictum? 

 

My choice is neither. I want no limits or so much WEP it doesnt matter. 

I said IF. If those were your only two options.

 

My actual choice would be to remove engine limits as well, but you and me both know that will never happen.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Legioneod

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

I said IF. If those were your only two options.

They are not my only two options. IF they were, some strange reason, obviously his suggestion is an improvement. But nothing until your recent posts indicated we were playing "would you rather" when we were discussing this option. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

7 minutes ago, Fumes said:

When did I get shipwrecked and forced into this dictum? 

 

My choice is neither. I want no limits or so much WEP it doesnt matter. 

 

Of course you don't want the need to ever have to pay attention to engine restrictions.  You only fly German, you rarely come back alive, your K/D averages out to about 1 to 1 according to your WoL stats.  I'm sure you would love to have an extra 14 minutes/or unlimited of max power guaranteed.  It might help you.

Edited December 13, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Of course you don't want the need to ever have to pay attention to engine restrictions.  You only fly German, you rarely come back alive, your K/D averages out to about 1 to 1 according to your WoL stats.  I'm sure you would love to have an extra 14 minutes of max power guaranteed.

What, your losing the argument so you look up my WoL stats? You gotta be kidding me. 

[BraveSirRobin]

8 minutes ago, Fumes said:

When did I get shipwrecked and forced into this dictum? 

 

 

When you didn't have enough money to finance your own WW2 flight sim.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Just now, Fumes said:

What, your losing the argument so you look up my WoL stats? You gotta be kidding me. 

 

No, not kidding at all.  I always look up the stats of know-it-alls, to determine if they have any credibility.

[LColony_Kong]

4 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

When you didn't have enough money to finance your own WW2 flight sim.

This doesnt even make sense. 

3 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

No, not kidding at all.  I always look up the stats of know-it-alls, to determine if they have any credibility.

Oh yes, because my record in a video game has anything what-so-ever to do with what is realistic and what is good game design. 

 

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/pilot/2029/Fumes/?tour=42

 

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/pilot/2029/Fumes/?tour=41

 

I mean have a look people. As if this is relevant at all. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Fumes

[Rattlesnake]

12 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

1. RNG ALREADY PLAYS A HUGE PART IN-GAME DUE TO THE ENGINE TIMERS.

 

2. I agree but this will likely never happen. You can't have realistic engines and force the player to fly a certain way at the same time, you have to choose either a realistic engine or a gamey mechanic.

1. I wouldn't call gaining an extra 1-2 minutes of WEP after you "officially" run out huge. But if the dice could double or treble your WEP time that would be on a different level and huge.
2. You can't have a perfect mechanic, but you can have a lot better compromise than what we've got. Several have been proposed.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Just now, Fumes said:

This doesnt even make sense. 

 

A lot of things don't make sense to you, apparently.

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Fumes said:

This doesnt even make sense. 

 

OK, maybe I misunderstood your post.  What exactly does 

 

11 minutes ago, Fumes said:

When did I get shipwrecked and forced into this dictum? 

 

mean?

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

OK, maybe I misunderstood your post.  What exactly does 

 

 

mean?

I means this coversation is this thread was never framed into either or. So it made no sense to suddenly act as though it was. 

2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

A lot of things don't make sense to you, apparently.

You right. I cant understand things that dont make sense. 

5 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Do you even do multiplayer in Il-2?  I can't find the stats of anyone named "Rattlesnake" on any of the primary IL-2 MP servers.

Complains about gaslighting

 

Resorts to ad hominem. 

[Rattlesnake]

4 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Of course you don't want the need to ever have to pay attention to engine restrictions.  You only fly German, you rarely come back alive, your K/D averages out to about 1 to 1 according to your WoL stats.  I'm sure you would love to have an extra 14 minutes/or unlimited of max power guaranteed.  It might help you.

Why don't we keep this discussion about logic and evidence, instead of speculations about the personal skill of other participants? I haven't "dueled" in these games much these last few years, but given a week or three to summon old sparring partners I could definitely brush up.

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Rattlesnake said:

1. I wouldn't call gaining an extra 1-2 minutes of WEP after you "officially" run out huge. But if the dice could double or treble your WEP time that would be on a different level and huge.
2. You can't have a perfect mechanic, but you can have a lot better compromise than what we've got. Several have been proposed.

The point is the devs are unlikely to change the current system in a huge way. If anything they are most likley to use SeaSerpents idea due to the fact that it uses the least changes.

 

SeaSerpents idea would allow us to have longer engine times with a low chance of failure, this would be much better than the current system.

 

Believe me, I HATE engine timers, it's is one of the worst things about this game, I want them gone but I also know the devs aren't going to do that.

 

Why they modeled the engine with timers in the first place is beyond me.

[BraveSirRobin]

5 minutes ago, Fumes said:

I means this coversation is this thread was never framed into either or. So it made no sense to suddenly act as though it was. 

 

 

Well, unless you have any other ideas that have a realistic chance of being implemented, those are probably your choices.  

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Well, unless you have any other ideas that have a realistic chance of being implemented, those are probably your choices.  

Where in the hell did you guys get the idea that the devs are partial to serpents solution? 

 

Was there some secret dev diary?

Edited December 13, 2018 by Fumes

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Fumes said:

Where in the hell did you guys get the idea that the devs are partial to serpents solution? 

 

I don't think that at all.  I think they're happy with the current situation.