P-47 Thunderbolt M1 official engine mod ?

[MiloMorai]

4 hours ago, JG4_Meteor2 said:

 

Maybe not.

Accordingly to Wikipedia (yes, Wikipedia... ), the Do 335 was 13 km/h faster.

 

P-47 M   762 km/h at 9750 m

Do 335   775 km/h at 6400 m

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ooops,... you talked about SINGLE engine fighter...

 Only 2 engines if the rear engine didn't have to be shut down because of chronic overheating.

[HR_Zunzun]

12 hours ago, CMBailey said:

I’ve read that report. ~60-70 pounds to blackout. Well the WWII fighters weren’t being flown by elderly arthritics so there ya go. And two-handing it was definitely an option. 

Reading a bit more now. If I am interpreting the data and the charts correctly, the force per G for a given speed depends a lot on the CoG and the altitude: 11lb/g at 350mph is about maximum at low altitude and forward cog. At more aft cog (and somehow  higher altitude) is noticeably lower (8-9-10) for a total of about 54lb for a 6g turn. With those figure I think we should be able to blackout in the sim.

Is there anywhere to measure Gs in the sim? And how much force on the stick is simulated? Also, I don't know what the cog of the p47 in the sim is. At ww2performance, some tests give figures ranging from 27 to 29% of mac but for the razorback. I do not know how representative is for our -d28 and also how it varies with weight (specially fuel consumption).

[Panthera]

Hang on, I gotta ask, is it really true that ingame you currently have to wait 20 min in between 5 min WEP usage in the P-47? If so that's just horrible, should be closer to 5 min in between usages.

 

20 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 Only 2 engines if the rear engine didn't have to be shut down because of chronic overheating.

 

An issue that was later solved according to the chief test pilot Werner Lerche. Biggest problem was finding fuel to fly the thing, or spare parts and oil for the engines.

[LuftManu]

Kuban has brought the La5 FN and the G6, Stalingrad the Ju 52 and the Yak1b so it's likely we will see other planes besides the ones announced.

[Legioneod]

20 minutes ago, Panthera said:

Hang on, I gotta ask, is it really true that ingame you currently have to wait 20 min in between 5 min WEP usage in the P-47? If so that's just horrible, should be closer to 5 min in between usages.

 

 

An issue that was later solved according to the chief test pilot Werner Lerche. Biggest problem was finding fuel to fly the thing, or spare parts and oil for the engines.

I'll run some test to be sure but from what I can tell you have to wait 20 min in cruise/normal power settings for it to reset to full 5 min use.

It shouldn't be like this of course, but from the other problems with the P-47 it doesn't surprise me that it's modeled this way.

 

No offense meant towards the devs, they've done a fantastic job and I do enjoy flying the P-47 immensely, it just has a few inaccuracies that need to be worked out.

[Panthera]

15 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

Kuban has brought the La5 FN and the G6, Stalingrad the Ju 52 and the Yak1b so it's likely we will see other planes besides the ones announced.

 

Fingers crossed! 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I'll run some test to be sure but from what I can tell you have to wait 20 min in cruise/normal power settings for it to reset to full 5 min use.

It shouldn't be like this of course, but from the other problems with the P-47 it doesn't surprise me that it's modeled this way.

 

No offense meant towards the devs, they've done a fantastic job and I do enjoy flying the P-47 immensely, it just has a few inaccuracies that need to be worked out.

 

Hopefully they will fix this soon, but I have my fears ofcourse considering the still present issue with the DB601 and its ingame 1 min limit. 

[HR_Zunzun]

52 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Fingers crossed! 

 

 

 

Hopefully they will fix this soon, but I have my fears ofcourse considering the still present issue with the DB601 and its ingame 1 min limit. 

At least in the 109, right or wrong they are based on some manual, isn´t it? In the P47, as far as I know, there is no such thing in the manual (the 20min cooldown period).

[Legioneod]

8 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

At least in the 109, right or wrong they are based on some manual, isn´t it? In the P47, as far as I know, there is no such thing in the manual (the 20min cooldown period).

Nothing in the manual about a 20 min cooldown since such a thing never existed or was needed from what I can gather.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Legioneod

[Panthera]

3 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

At least in the 109, right or wrong they are based on some manual, isn´t it? In the P47, as far as I know, there is no such thing in the manual (the 20min cooldown period).

 

It's based on a manual which completely prohibits the use of WEP  In the manuals where WEP is cleared for use no limit is listed at all. But I read they are revisiting this, so fingers crossed this gets fixed.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Panthera

[LColony_Kong]

8 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

At least in the 109, right or wrong they are based on some manual, isn´t it? In the P47, as far as I know, there is no such thing in the manual (the 20min cooldown period).

In addition to what Panthera said:

 

Zunzun, the real issue here is that the time prescriptions in the manuals have got, factually speaking, nothing to do with the behavior we see in this game. ALL time prescriptions in manuals of these types are referring to ops limits that are designed with regards to the long term maintainability of the engine. They have nothing what-so-ever to do with the engine tearing itself apart if you exceed that time limit in combat etc. 

            So if the time before engine overhaul is say (making up a number here) 100 hours, if the pilot never exceeds the time limits in the manual, the engine is rated to last that hundred hours. If the pilot abuses the engine, it will likely need to be replaced before the 100 hours mark. 

 

The exception is time limits regarding water injection. W/O water injection you will kill the engine quite quickly if you try to run powers rated for the water. The water is what prevents detonation so....

 

A number of things to consider:

 

-Nobody puts a time limit on a engine to its immediate or near immediate death of 5-10 min. And especially not an absurd 1min. Were the power setting in question truly that close to causing failure, it would no even been considered for use. Just imagine all the complications that would occur from already worn engines or production tolerances and deviations. It would be totally nuts. 

 

-There are several examples of ww2 engines that got uprated during the war with no changes to the engine itself. They received the same time limit in both cases. If this were a boom timer, that would not make any sense. 

 

-While I (and noone else I know for that matter) are not advocating for non-official ratings on in game planes, we know that people in the field commonly allowed engines to be modded to run much higher power settings that official. And for much longer times than even the official ones. Were the original times limits boom timers, then it would be inconceivable that you could run even higher power settings for 3 or even 6 times the time limit for that setting...... Officially or unofficially. 

 

 

 

 

Ultimately, the current silliness that is the current engine limits basically obliterates the historical accuracy of any planes. The expected life of an engine IRL was subject to a litany of factors. Everything from manufacturer recommendations to operational and strategic need or doctrine etc. In reality, if your butt was on the line you used whatever power setting you needed. The long term life of the engine is completely immaterial if your plane does not make it home with that engine in the first place. This is why we have accounts of people frequently going well beyond the limits. 

 

So as it stand right now we basically have a logistical concern that behaves as if it is an engineering property of the motor. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Fumes

[HR_Zunzun]

8 minutes ago, Fumes said:

In addition to what Panthera said:

 

Zunzun, the real issue here is that the time prescriptions in the manuals have got, factually speaking, nothing to do with the behavior we see in this game. ALL time prescriptions in manuals of these types are referring to ops limits that are designed with regards to the long term maintainability of the engine. They have nothing what-so-ever to do with the engine tearing itself apart if you exceed that time limit in combat etc. 

            So if the time before engine overhaul is say (making up a number here) 100 hours, if the pilot never exceeds the time limits in the manual, the engine is rated to last that hundred hours. If the pilot abuses the engine, it will likely need to be replaced before the 100 hours mark. 

 

The exception is time limits regarding water injection. W/O water injection you will kill the engine quite quickly if you try to run powers rated for the water. The water is what prevents detonation so....

 

A number of things to consider:

 

-Nobody puts a time limit on a engine to its immediate or near immediate death of 5-10 min. And especially not an absurd 1min. Were the power setting in question truly that close to causing failure, it would no even been considered for use. Just imagine all the complications that would occur from already worn engines or production tolerances and deviations. It would be totally nuts. 

 

-There are several examples of ww2 engines that got uprated during the war with no changes to the engine itself. They received the same time limit in both cases. If this were a boom timer, that would not make any sense. 

 

-While I (and noone else I know for that matter) are not advocating for non-official ratings on in game planes, we know that people in the field commonly allowed engines to be modded to run much higher power settings that official. And for much longer times than even the official ones. Were the original times limits boom timers, then it would be inconceivable that you could run even higher power settings for 3 or even 6 times the time limit for that setting...... Officially or unofficially. 

 

 

 

10

Thanks Fumes for the explanation, although I was aware of it. My comment was related to the comparison between the limits, for instance, in the 109 and the p47D. I had the idea that the limit of the 109 was in a manual (but Pantera told me that wasn´t really the case.) In the case of the Jug there is a limit (20min cooldown) that is not reflected anywhere as far as I know.

I also think that those limit doesn´t reflect the real use of the engines in its time. I think they were set to limit the abuse of everyone going at wep for the duration of the fly (especially in fast pace action servers) and, in any, case everyone gets a new engine when starting a new flight. Changing it doesn´t seem easy. Any new model of simulating the limit of the engines has its own caveats depending on the type of mission/server.

Edited December 2, 2018 by HR_Zunzun

[LColony_Kong]

Additionally I would like to add a point to all this for people who basically have a stroke at the thought of people running around on WEP all the time and not following the precious manuals. 

 

 

-This is a video game. The tactical/operational environment will always be that of a video game. If you try to smuggle logistical concerns as hard engineering limits the only thing that is going to be accomplished is to make people fly their planes for a tactical environment that does not exist in this game, and never will. 

[Voyager]

I find myself wondering if the WEP timer on/off could be added in as a game setting, and simply let the servers decide? 

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, Voyager said:

I find myself wondering if the WEP timer on/off could be added in as a game setting, and simply let the servers decide? 

This would be a good option imo and it would provide a more realistic setting than just killing your engine after a few seconds past time limit. Good thing about it being an option is you don't have to use it, so there is really no excuse for not having it added.

[Ehret]

 

2 hours ago, Fumes said:

Additionally I would like to add a point to all this for people who basically have a stroke at the thought of people running around on WEP all the time and not following the precious manuals.

 

Hmm, I have another idea - lets have "WEP" which lasts as long there is fuel and/or water/methanol but... If you exceeds time limits (from manuals) annoying stuff start to happen gradually. (and increase as long you keep the "WEP" on)

It could be (maybe not all):

- excessive vibrations from engine making aiming much harder, impossible even at later stages

- guns jams because of vibrations

- engine starts trailing smoke or more of it

- oil splashes on the windscreen

- malfunctioning gauges

- smoke in the cockpit making seeing anything difficult (opening canopy would clear it but at cost of drag)

- engine cuts off power when pulling Gs

- prop pitch governor becomes unresponsive

- because of leaks and smoke everywhere the plane is now much more susceptible to catching fire

- the enemy who landed some hits on you would be awarded "a probable kill" even if you managed to land in badly leaking and smoking airplane

- the landed plane would be counted as lost and not available for next sorties

 

So, if you need to extended time for WEP it would be available. However, as cons would start to appear keeping combat effectiveness would be progressively harder and harder and potential score diminished.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Ehret

[Bremspropeller]

To continue the list - in no particular order...

 

- engine quits on another sortie 50nm behind enemy lines or some other inconvenient place (e.g. above water, at night or in IMC, above mountains)

- engine quits on another take-off

- engine has to be replaced after landing

- pilot starts to hear funny noises whenever he's flying at night, over water, over unladable terrain (THAT would be cool)

- wear of engines, seals, gaskets and piping, engines losing compression, dents in props, damaged prop governors

 

That might carry over to the airframe:

- random instrument and systems-failures

- airplane starts to fly sideways the more patches and damage-repairs it has gone through

- structural failures of worn-out, over-g'd airplanes

- more play in the controls, hydraulic leakage, drained batteries, blowing fuses

 

Sorry, got carried away a bit...

 

[ZachariasX]

8 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Sorry, got carried away a bit... 

You can have most of all that for example in a P-51 (and Spit and P-40 etc) at the price that you can't blow up stuff. At the price of a full game with 10 aircraft that *can* bow up stuff.

[Bremspropeller]

That AccuSim stuff surely is great, but I'd hate to install yet another flightsim just to fly (and crash) the P-51, which I can already fly in DCS and some time soon in BoBp.

There are some other incentives speaking for P3D (like lots of Carenado GA-stuff that just isn't available for X-Plane), but for now I already have enugh flightsims on the HDs.

 

I'll have to be easy on flightsims (and AddOns) - that stuff gets addictive, expensive and time-consuming quickly.

Just blew the better part of yesterday on three flights in XPlane. :D

 

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

That AccuSim stuff surely is great, but I'd hate to install yet another flightsim

P3D ends up being very expensive very soon. Too much candy available for it. Being self-restraint is a good choice.

 

I do love the Accsim functionality though. With the recent Bonanza, you can even tap the dials to see if they got stuck. You see the rpm gauge beginning to shake it it gets worn. But that's all fancy stuff if you care mostly about the aircraft itself and the perks of *just flyig*.

 

The more I look into the DCS WW2 modules, the less I like them. I have the K4, the D9, the Mustang and the Spit. Start up seems to me very scripted rather than in-depht systems modeling. Like Spit startup where you have to push starter, pre-glow and once the prop turns you kick in the mixture. Then it will run. On the other hand, letting the mixture on run and hitting the starter will always keep the engine from starting up, cutting out with fuel pressure drop requiring you to pump it up again. Even if you just had the engine running and turn it off by cutting contacts, it won't start up unless you cut mixture and only kick it in when prop turns. It seems not possible to flood the carburator as well as an engine is not scripted to run even though there's all the fuel needed in the cylinder. You can do it wrong 10 times in a row, always pumping fuel in the engine, but as soon as you are klicking the right sequence, it will nicely start. It feels more like playing Senso than starting up a real engine.

 

So in my opinion it really has a touch of a testing ground for 3rd party devs if they have it what takes to make "real" modules.

 

This just my *opinion* as I do not really know what is modelled and to which extent things are modelled in DCS WW2 modules. YMMV.

[Royal_Flight]

5 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

 

Hmm, I have another idea - lets have "WEP" which lasts as long there is fuel and/or water/methanol but... If you exceeds time limits (from manuals) annoying stuff start to happen gradually. (and increase as long you keep the "WEP" on)

It could be (maybe not all):

 ...

 

So, if you need to extended time for WEP it would be available. However, as cons would start to appear keeping combat effectiveness would be progressively harder and harder and potential score diminished.

 

This is a great idea, not forcing a totally artificial limit beyond which your engine will fail and the aircraft will invariably be lost, but a load of minor annoying issues with the result that combat becomes progressively more difficult. 

 

Maybe add a few of these effects that start to stack up and have a cumulative impact, starting with:

- engine noise that gets progressively louder, affecting situational awareness and being generally annoying;

- vibration that gets worse and starts to impair aim; 

- engine becomes less responsive, affecting acceleration (ie. a delay between pushing the throttle forward and the power setting changing);

- oil starts to cover the windscreen, impairing visibility (also a practical use for this tech which looks awesome);

- engine starts to emit increasing amoinof smoke, making it easier to be spotted by enemies.

 

Something like this may be a good compromise between the artificial system in place, and removing all limits to let people rake around at full WEP indefinitely.

So, pushing the engine comes with consequences that worsen the harder the engine is run, but it’s not insurmountable and can be managed by flying with care. 

And it saves having to cautiously handle the engines like they’re made of glass, and avoids the way that going a few seconds over the arbitrary limit results in your plane going down with nothing you can do about it. 

[LColony_Kong]

8 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

 

Hmm, I have another idea - lets have "WEP" which lasts as long there is fuel and/or water/methanol but... If you exceeds time limits (from manuals) annoying stuff start to happen gradually. (and increase as long you keep the "WEP" on)

It could be (maybe not all):

- excessive vibrations from engine making aiming much harder, impossible even at later stages

- guns jams because of vibrations

- engine starts trailing smoke or more of it

- oil splashes on the windscreen

- malfunctioning gauges

- smoke in the cockpit making seeing anything difficult (opening canopy would clear it but at cost of drag)

- engine cuts off power when pulling Gs

- prop pitch governor becomes unresponsive

- because of leaks and smoke everywhere the plane is now much more susceptible to catching fire

- the enemy who landed some hits on you would be awarded "a probable kill" even if you managed to land in badly leaking and smoking airplane

- the landed plane would be counted as lost and not available for next sorties

 

So, if you need to extended time for WEP it would be available. However, as cons would start to appear keeping combat effectiveness would be progressively harder and harder and potential score diminished.

The limits should just be removed. And replaced with nothing else. The limits have nothing to do with engine malfunction in the short term, so it makes no sense to model any short term effects, whether it be total engine death or a bunch of annoyances. I would also add that this entire idea is very literally smuggling a bunch of non-engineering related factors into the engine, just as before. 

 

We dont need to have anything happen after the limits are exceeded. In fact, they could just be removed from the aircraft description pages entirely. 

 

 

While we are on the subject of cramming non-mechanical factors into mechanical things, we can also add the following features to the game:

 

-Every other La-5 should require you do open your cockpit to cool yourself down. Since factory standards caused fumes to leak into the cockpit and 140 degree temps in the aircraft. opening the canopy causes 100mph loss in speed. 

 

-General random soviet production standards for all planes. Your aircraft will randomly fall apart every 5th flight or so. 

 

-Brake destruction. Landing higher than the correct speed would wear out the brakes faster IRL. In game it simply should cause them to explode. 

 

-Random gun jamming. Because that sounds fun. 

 

-Random general malfunctions, increasing in likelihood the longer you fly a server. 

 

-German planes should randomly not start due to slave labor sabotage. And you cant get a new planes for 15min. 

 

 

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Fumes said:

The limits should just be removed. And replaced with nothing else. The limits have nothing to do with engine malfunction in the short term, so it makes no sense to model any short term effects, whether it be total engine death or a bunch of annoyances. I would also add that this entire idea is very literally smuggling a bunch of non-engineering related factors into the engine, just as before. 

 

We dont need to have anything happen after the limits are exceeded. In fact, they could just be removed from the aircraft description pages entirely. 

 

 

While we are on the subject of cramming non-mechanical factors into mechanical things, we can also add the following features to the game:

 

-Every other La-5 should require you do open your cockpit to cool yourself down. Since factory standards caused fumes to leak into the cockpit and 140 degree temps in the aircraft. opening the canopy causes 100mph loss in speed. 

 

-General random soviet production standards for all planes. Your aircraft will randomly fall apart every 5th flight or so. 

 

-Brake destruction. Landing higher than the correct speed would wear out the brakes faster IRL. In game it simply should cause them to explode. 

 

-Random gun jamming. Because that sounds fun. 

 

-Random general malfunctions, increasing in likelihood the longer you fly a server. 

 

-German planes should randomly not start due to slave labor sabotage. And you cant get a new planes for 15min. 

 

 

 

Agreed. I don't want to remove one gamey mechanic just to add seven more to take it's place.

If they want to add a more realistic heat/coolant model then I could agree with that, but not some other gamey mechanic. Players won't fly on WEP all the time (some will) they'll have to focus on fuel and their water (if they have any) and if they fly on WEP they have a significantly shorter time over target.

 

[LColony_Kong]

Yeah fuel is defiantly going to limit people even if the limits are removed. A player who wants to be at WEP alot is going to have to weight his plane down with massive fuel loads. Where pilots who fly at cruise will get to load up alot lighter. 

 

Also planes with water injection will still have to deal with running out of water if they run boost all the time....

[Ehret]

Everything can be ridiculed when taken to the extreme. The Devs may not admit it but the artificial limits are kind of balancing tool. I don't like that, too. However, imagine plane like the P-39 without WEP timer - at 60" MP and lowered mix she can approach 580km/h at the deck and readily out-climbs FWs up to 3km. The La-5FN would be made pretty much redundant because the Airacobra is more maneuverable at high speeds and dives much better. Making engines to seize artificially is bad but dismissing logistics, even if done in semi-realistic manner, isn't good either. Assumptions that virtual pilots will be saving fuel is... wrong; distances in MP just aren't long enough. You see it already in case of the K4 - by switching between MW injection and combat mode people can fly on elevated power nonstop for 45m. No one is going to save fuel if it's meaningless.

 

33 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Yeah fuel is defiantly going to limit people even if the limits are removed. A player who wants to be at WEP alot is going to have to weight his plane down with massive fuel loads. Where pilots who fly at cruise will get to load up alot lighter.

 

The K4 takes up to 400l which isn't much weight when compared to the available power on the MW injection. It's still enough for 45m of high powered flight.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Ehret

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, Ehret said:

Everything can be ridiculed when taken to the extreme. The Devs may not admit it but the artificial limits are kind of balancing tool. I don't like that, too. However, imagine plane like the P-39 without WEP timer - at 60" MP and lowered mix she can approach 580km/h at the deck and readily out-climbs FWs up to 3km. The La-5FN would be made pretty much redundant because the Airacobra is more maneuverable at high speeds and dives much better. Making engines to seize artificially is bad but dismissing logistics, even if done in semi-realistic manner, isn't good either. Assumptions that virtual pilots will be saving fuel is... wrong; distances in MP just aren't long enough. You see it already in case of the K4 - by switching between MW injection and combat mode people can fly on elevated power nonstop for 45m. No one is going to save fuel if it's meaningless.

Unbalance is good. 

 

If you dont want the unbalance that historicity would give, then this should be neither a sim or a ww2 game. What the heck is the point of a 109 or P-47 or La-5FN if they are not as good or bad as they should be? It makes a mockery of the entire idea of modeling them int he first place. 

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Unbalance is good. 

 

If you dont want the unbalance that historicity would give, then this should be neither a sim or a ww2 game. What the heck is the point of a 109 or P-47 or La-5FN if they are not as good or bad as they should be? It makes a mockery of the entire idea of modeling them int he first place. 

Agreed. And fuel times will matter imo, the mission makers can always extend the flight times and try and simulate fuel shortages. There are many ways to historically "balance things" without having to use a gamey time limit.

[Ehret]

21 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Unbalance is good. 

 

If you dont want the unbalance that historicity would give, then this should be neither a sim or a ww2 game. What the heck is the point of a 109 or P-47 or La-5FN if they are not as good or bad as they should be? It makes a mockery of the entire idea of modeling them int he first place. 

 

The sim is fairly realistic but it's a computer game, too. The way virtual pilots fly in the MP is the mockery of historic combat missions for most of the time. And we have right to do fly as we like because it isn't a job nor military service. We do that for our entertainment in our free time. I'm sure the Devs understand that very well thus try to "balance" stuff in implicit manner. It starts with choice of planes for a given battle.

 

I agree that in a principle "unbalance is good"; however customers may disagree and vote with wallets accordingly.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Ehret

[LColony_Kong]

10 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

The sim is fairly realistic but it's a computer game, too. The way virtual pilots fly in the MP is the mockery of historic combat missions for most of the time. And we have right to do fly as we like because it isn't a job nor military service. We do that for our entertainment in our free time. I'm sure the Devs understand that very well thus try to "balance" stuff in implicit manner. It starts with choice of planes for a given battle.

-The pilots themselves are not an objective factor. Human action is not a thing to be simulated. Only the material aspects of the modeled period matter. Then you give that to the players and they run with it. 

 

Nobody is saying you cant do what you want with your free time. But it is logically contradictory to have a game that goes to as great of lengths as il2 does to "simulate" things and then castrate all that work in the name of balance. Logically speaking, if that was the desired outcome then they should have just made up airplanes or made up their performance. Im sure the FM people at the company would have alot less work to do if that was the goal.

 

Going to great lengths to accurately model performance and then intentionally introducing a mechanic that specfically gimps planes that might otherwise take advantage is an exercise in absurdity if I have ever heard of one. Mind you, I dont think thats why the devs did it this way. I think they stuck to the manuals because they misinterpreted them and were trying to be realistic. 

 

 

Moreover Ehret, these mechanics do not balance things. They reverse the balance entirely. Especially in video games where players can learn to take advantage of even the smallest meta. 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Fumes

[DD_Arthur]

22 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 I'm sure the Devs understand that very well thus try to "balance" stuff in implicit manner. It starts with choice of planes for a given battle.

 

Utter nonsense

[LukeFF]

43 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Utter nonsense

 

What he said. The planes that are in the game were chosen because they were there in reality, not because of some dumb "hurr, durr, must have balance" argument.

1 hour ago, Fumes said:

The limits should just be removed. And replaced with nothing else.

 

Replacing one extreme with another isn't going to solve anything.

[Ehret]

10 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

What he said. The planes that are in the game were chosen because they were there in reality, not because of some dumb "hurr, durr, must have balance" argument.

 

There were many more types in reality yet we get selected few. Do you think the Devs done it blindly? Do you think they hadn't discussions how they will affect game-play?

[Legioneod]

8 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

There were many more types in reality yet we get selected few. Do you think the Devs done it blindly? Do you think they hadn't discussions how they will affect game-play?

Imo they picked whats historically accurate, most popular, and what would sell, not whats good for gameplay though that could be a small factor.

Look at the current bodenplatte matchup, it's not an extremely balanced set (though it not too far either.)

 

Honestly I say just make engine timers a server option and let the owners balance it out with creative mission making. The gameplay will not change imo, players will just be able to push their aircraft without worrying about the engine dying in 2 seconds.

 

Here's a question, what are people afraid of with removing time limits? If everyone can do it then whats to be scared of?

Edited December 2, 2018 by Legioneod

[LColony_Kong]

25 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

What he said. The planes that are in the game were chosen because they were there in reality, not because of some dumb "hurr, durr, must have balance" argument.

 

Replacing one extreme with another isn't going to solve anything.

Its not about extremes vs moderation. Its about what was and what was not. Whether correct modeling yields an extreme is completely immaterial. 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Fumes

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

55 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Replacing one extreme with another isn't going to solve anything.

I agree that we need some sort of a compromise. @Fumes I understand you want to have the engines capable of what they could mechanically (withstand WEP regimes for a couple hours before getting worned off), but we already have plenty of stuff that makes ppl not fly in a realistic way in the sim, and adding to that wouldn't be good imho.

The way I would do it would be for example that all emergency settings could be used for 5 or 10 minutes as minimum, then they can be recharged after some time (10 minutes or less) at the combat mode. I do think what's needed to be changed asap is the emergency power eating up the combat time. Currently this hampers the American planes a lot since their combat times get significantly reduced (down to a couple minutes in the case of the P-39) after using Emergency completely.
 

That being said, it would be fun to take the "P-40FN" a couple times to see how it goes.


 

Edited December 2, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Here's a question, what are people afraid of with removing time limits? If everyone can do it then whats to be scared of?

 

To cite: "speed is life, altitude is life insurance".

 

Cruising speed of the P-39, now: around 480km/h. (deck)

Cruising speed of the P-39 after removing time limits: 570km/h. (580km/h if you tweak mix and remove 0.30"s, deck)

Time to altitude would decrease dramatically, too. Normally, you have only 2m of such level of performance in the Airacobra. If it'd become "new continuous" the plane wouldn't be totally out of place in BOBP... she is already significantly faster than the Spit IXe when low.

 

Done a test: QMB with the "unbreakable" set, 100% fuel, no mods, 60" @ 2900rpm, 100% mix and speed 568km/h, deck. Fuel lasted for half of hour - enough for MP "sortie".

Edited December 2, 2018 by Ehret

[Legioneod]

11 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

To cite: "speed is life, altitude is life insurance".

 

Cruising speed of the P-39, now: around 480km/h. (deck)

Cruising speed of the P-39 after removing time limits: 570km/h. (580km/h if you tweak mix and remove 0.30"s, deck)

Time to altitude would decrease dramatically, too. Normally, you have only 2m of such level of performance in the Airacobra. If it'd become "new continuous" the plane wouldn't be totally out of place in BOBP... she is already significantly faster than the Spit IXe when low.

Imo that'd be a good thing, it match closer to rl accounts from what I've read. The P-39 was loved by the Russians yet it game it's not really impressive.

 

Also, if P-39 can go all day then so can you in any other aircraft, it makes no difference. It all evens out, except instead of it being limited to a min or two it goes for much longer.

The top performance range never changes, it just gets longer.

[LColony_Kong]

52 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I agree that we need some sort of a compromise. @Fumes I understand you want to have the engines capable of what they could mechanically (withstand WEP regimes for a couple hours before getting worned off), but we already have plenty of stuff that makes ppl not fly in a realistic way in the sim, and adding to that wouldn't be good imho.

The way I would do it would be for example that all emergency settings could be used for 5 or 10 minutes as minimum, then they can be recharged after some time (10 minutes or less) at the combat mode. I do think what's needed to be changed asap is the emergency power eating up the combat time. Currently this hampers the American planes a lot since their combat times get significantly reduced (down to a couple minutes in the case of the P-39) after using Emergency completely.
 

That being said, it would be fun to take the "P-40FN" a couple times to see how it goes.


 

About unrealistic stuff: The WEP flying would only be unrealistic when people are flying around outside of combat. Inside of combat, it would be more realistic. A real pilot would do whatever he had to win or survive. Tactical realism is what i care about. Everything outside of the direct plane to plane confrontation is basically neither here nor there. And I take a totally different angle on how this relates to other unrealistic things people do in the game. For one, I am not sure how many of those things are unrealistic, or simply realistic for the environment the game takes place in. And secondly, the more unlike the real world the operational environment is, the more critical it is that all aspect of the plane be able to be stretched in the same manner. If you apply strict rules in one place and not in others, you dont get more realism. Just just get unrealistic of a different kind. 

 

The P-40 and planes like it would obviously be a problem. For planes with regulators, removing or altering limits would be easy. I am not sure what would be the best option for the P-40, because no limitations would go well beyond just removing a time limit, as it would mean using much higher MP as well. A best guess might have to be made as to what power setting on a P-40 was tactically safe to use. 

 

Giving all planes a equal limit would certainly be a step in the right direction, since it would at the very least remove or mitigate the problem at least with regards to unequal operational concerns. However, I think should this be implemented it should be longer. The best idea I heard so far that was not total removal of limits was 15min of WEP and unlimited combat. I think whatever the WEP limit, should one even exist, combat power should be totally unlimited for all planes. My ideal solution has not changed however. I think that the limits should disappear completely. 

 

That is after all a huge part of the problem here. Not just that WEP is limited but that combat is limited is well. 

[HR_Zunzun]

26 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I agree that we need some sort of a compromise. @Fumes I understand you want to have the engines capable of what they could mechanically (withstand WEP regimes for a couple hours before getting worned off), but we already have plenty of stuff that makes ppl not fly in a realistic way in the sim, and adding to that wouldn't be good imho.

The way I would do it would be for example that all emergency settings could be used for 5 or 10 minutes as minimum, then they can be recharged after some time (10 minutes or less) at the combat mode. I do think what's needed to be changed asap is the emergency power eating up the combat time. Currently this hampers the American planes a lot since their combat times get significantly reduced (down to a couple minutes in the case of the P-39) after using Emergency completely.
 

That being said, it would be fun to take the "P-40FN" a couple times to see how it goes.


 

 

 

That is an excellent example of what could happen if you remove the wep limitations completely. It would be a game changer especially for the p40 that can use lots of fuel. The problem with fuel (as a limitation) is that the average mission in any server is rather short an even at full setting it wouldn´t limit the mission tactically by a big margin.

Having said that I am not against of setting wep limit off as a difficult option. I would prefer as many options as possible. But I don´t think removing the wep limit would be the alternative in every case.

4 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

To cite: "speed is life, altitude is life insurance".

 

Cruising speed of the P-39, now: around 480km/h. (deck)

Cruising speed of the P-39 after removing time limits: 570km/h. (580km/h if you tweak mix and remove 0.30"s, deck)

Time to altitude would decrease dramatically, too. Normally, you have only 2m of such level of performance in the Airacobra. If it'd become "new continuous" the plane wouldn't be totally out of place in BOBP... she is already significantly faster than the Spit IXe when low.

This is another good example of what I am trying to say

 

14 hours ago, Fumes said:

-This is a video game. The tactical/operational environment will always be that of a video game. If you try to smuggle logistical concerns as hard engineering limits the only thing that is going to be accomplished is to make people fly their planes for a tactical environment that does not exist in this game, and never will. 

 

 

This is indeed a video game but it´s a simulator too. It tries to simulate war in the air. For obvious reasons, a 100% fidelity won´t be ever possible (or at least not desirable) but the amount of aspects of air combat yet to simulate (and possible with current technology) is quite ample. Tactics and logistics have already been simulated in another sim. Was in COD. One of my mates from my squadron, Halcones Rojos (Red falcons), HR_Grainovich designed an online war engine that took into account many logistic aspects. The online was was similar to Scorched earth from old IL2. It required careful planning but, related to this conversation, at the end of every session the status of the planes (and many other events) was extracted from the game and fed into the engine. There was a record of damage suffered from every plane and how extensive it was. That was converted into time to repair and resources to do it. All of this translated into a number of planes not available for the next or subsequent missions (and loss of resources). Tactically, this translated not only into the loss of availability of planes but also meant that the commander would chew you up if you stayed in combat for longer than necessary or crashed your plane on landing. You had to be careful with your plane.

This style of an online server is not for everybody (I don´t think even for current TAW) and this is a game. But I would love to have online wars like Scorched earth or HRCODwar in GB_BOX. I would like Ehret´s and Brompropeller´s lists, or something similar, implemented in the sim as an option. Let the server administrator play with those options to accommodate it to the server style and have everyone happy in the same way that currently we have servers like Berloga, WoL and TAW with different difficulty options. I use all of them and seek different experiences in the three.

[LColony_Kong]

30 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

To cite: "speed is life, altitude is life insurance".

 

Cruising speed of the P-39, now: around 480km/h. (deck)

Cruising speed of the P-39 after removing time limits: 570km/h. (580km/h if you tweak mix and remove 0.30"s, deck)

Time to altitude would decrease dramatically, too. Normally, you have only 2m of such level of performance in the Airacobra. If it'd become "new continuous" the plane wouldn't be totally out of place in BOBP... she is already significantly faster than the Spit IXe when low.

 

Done a test: QMB with the "unbreakable" set, 100% fuel, no mods, 60" @ 2900rpm, 100% mix and speed 568km/h, deck. Fuel lasted for half of hour - enough for MP "sortie".

You will be much more proportional results were limits to be removed. If pure max performance is all that matters, then you are going to get no worse than the plane is capable of. With the limits, your tactical ability is dictated by a spreadsheet that was written for a tactical/operational/strategic environment that does not exist in game. 

3 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

 

That is an excellent example of what could happen if you remove the wep limitations completely. It would be a game changer especially for the p40 that can use lots of fuel. The problem with fuel (as a limitation) is that the average mission in any server is rather short an even at full setting it wouldn´t limit the mission tactically by a big margin.

Having said that I am not against of setting wep limit off as a difficult option. I would prefer as many options as possible. But I don´t think removing the wep limit would be the alternative in every case.

This is another good example of what I am trying to say

 

 

This is indeed a video game but it´s a simulator too. It tries to simulate war in the air. For obvious reasons, a 100% fidelity won´t be ever possible (or at least not desirable) but the amount of aspects of air combat yet to simulate (and possible with current technology) is quite ample. Tactics and logistics have already been simulated in another sim. Was in COD. One of my mates from my squadron, Halcones Rojos (Red falcons), HR_Grainovich designed an online war engine that took into account many logistic aspects. The online was was similar to Scorched earth from old IL2. It required careful planning but, related to this conversation, at the end of every session the status of the planes (and many other events) was extracted from the game and fed into the engine. There was a record of damage suffered from every plane and how extensive it was. That was converted into time to repair and resources to do it. All of this translated into a number of planes not available for the next or subsequent missions (and loss of resources). Tactically, this translated not only into the loss of availability of planes but also meant that the commander would chew you up if you stayed in combat for longer than necessary or crashed your plane on landing. You had to be careful with your plane.

This style of an online server is not for everybody (I don´t think even for current TAW) and this is a game. But I would love to have online wars like Scorched earth or HRCODwar in GB_BOX. I would like Ehret´s and Brompropeller´s lists, or something similar, implemented in the sim as an option. Let the server administrator play with those options to accommodate it to the server style and have everyone happy in the same way that currently we have servers like Berloga, WoL and TAW with different difficulty options. I use all of them and seek different experiences in the three.

What you are missing here is that none of the systems you quote are substituting logistical factors for engineering ones. 

 

When a server like TAW does what it does, it is creating its own war enviroment. The planes are the same. The way the planes behave is the same. TAW just structures the battle environment. 

 

What the game should not do is put a burst limit on your machine guns that if exceeded causes immediate gun destruction because said burst was outside of real world tactical doctrine.  

 

It is ok to set up the ENVIRONMENT, if the way you do this is only through the environment. What makes no sense at all is to actually modify the performance of the planes to try to force environmental considerations that cant be modeled. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

27 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

 

That is an excellent example of what could happen if you remove the wep limitations completely. It would be a game changer especially for the p40 that can use lots of fuel. The problem with fuel (as a limitation) is that the average mission in any server is rather short an even at full setting it wouldn´t limit the mission tactically by a big margin.

Having said that I am not against of setting wep limit off as a difficult option. I would prefer as many options as possible. But I don´t think removing the wep limit would be the alternative in every case.

This is another good example of what I am trying to say

 

Not like it didn't happen in real life though did? We have Allison documents specifically talking about Australians running their P-40s full throttle for prolonged periods of time and the RAF running their Mustang Mk I (with the same engine) on the deck at 72 "Hg for up to 20 minutes at a time and still getting a longer time between overhaul then Merlin's.

 

And to quote the PTO ace Richard L West who flew the P-40 and later P-38 in the Pacific;

  "If you and I were in combat against each other and I could get you interested in manifold pressure and rpm readings ... your ass would be mine!" 

Edited December 2, 2018 by RoflSeal