P-47 Thunderbolt M1 official engine mod ?

[HR_Zunzun]

2 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

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!" 

 

23 minutes ago, Fumes said:

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. 

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. 

 

I think we are discussing different things. We won´t be able to get to an agreement if we do not set up common premises. I think first we have to answer one question.

- Why were, in reality, those engine limits imposed?

I have a knowledge of combustion engine engineer close to zero but for what I have read and comments from knowledgeable people in the forum my conclusions was that there are several reasons:

-First of all, there is a limit on the maximum permissible MP for every plane. That limit the possibility of detonation. Even with this, the wrong choice of MP/RPM can lead to the destruction of the engine (I think not properly implemented in the sim). That differentiate planes like the p40 (where basically no mp exist) to the rest.

-Second, there were limits for as to how long any individual setting could be run. Here I understood there are two limits; Thermodynamic and engine wearing. In some circumstances, some planes could overheat at WEP. But I think the main reason was to avoid excessive wearing of the engines that would shorten the TBO and affect the logistics.

At least in British and USA service everytime you applied wep that had to be recorded and would mean that a more thorough inspection would have to be planned. What would happen if a pilot chose to fly at wep for the duration of the fuel (at least half an hour) for 5 or 10 missions? How would affect that engine? No effect?

Regarding cruise. I think the limits for cruising speed were related both because of fuel consumption and logistics (wearing) reasons. If was only fuel, I don´t understand why planes like p47 and especially p38 and p51 wouldn´t cruise at almost wep when flying, at least, a short-range mission.

 

Bear with me if I have done the wrong assumptions but if all of this is correct then, for example, simply removing the limits won´t reflect the true nature of air combat (where logistics affected tactics) in the same way that the current implementation is not doing it.  That is where creative options (that simulate the reason for those limits) need to be chosen. And that is why I think a single option will be incorrect and several options need to be offered.

 

[Talon_]

20 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

If was only fuel, I don´t understand why planes like p47 and especially p38 and p51 wouldn´t cruise at almost wep when flying, at least, a short-range mission.

 

Guess why the Spitfire Mk IX got upgraded to 1 hour of Combat time in the manual? Nope it wasn't anything to do with the engine design - it was because it couldn't sustain level flight when carrying bombs in it's new role as ground attacker without using +12lbs of boost.

 

Now because the Spitfire manual was rewritten for bombing missions it gets a nice helping hand in an unhistorical role (by our time period) as a dogfighter.

[LColony_Kong]

25 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

 

I think we are discussing different things. We won´t be able to get to an agreement if we do not set up common premises. I think first we have to answer one question.

- Why were, in reality, those engine limits imposed?

I have a knowledge of combustion engine engineer close to zero but for what I have read and comments from knowledgeable people in the forum my conclusions was that there are several reasons:

-First of all, there is a limit on the maximum permissible MP for every plane. That limit the possibility of detonation. Even with this, the wrong choice of MP/RPM can lead to the destruction of the engine (I think not properly implemented in the sim). That differentiate planes like the p40 (where basically no mp exist) to the rest.

-Second, there were limits for as to how long any individual setting could be run. Here I understood there are two limits; Thermodynamic and engine wearing. In some circumstances, some planes could overheat at WEP. But I think the main reason was to avoid excessive wearing of the engines that would shorten the TBO and affect the logistics.

At least in British and USA service everytime you applied wep that had to be recorded and would mean that a more thorough inspection would have to be planned. What would happen if a pilot chose to fly at wep for the duration of the fuel (at least half an hour) for 5 or 10 missions? How would affect that engine? No effect?

Regarding cruise. I think the limits for cruising speed were related both because of fuel consumption and logistics (wearing) reasons. If was only fuel, I don´t understand why planes like p47 and especially p38 and p51 wouldn´t cruise at almost wep when flying, at least, a short-range mission.

 

Bear with me if I have done the wrong assumptions but if all of this is correct then, for example, simply removing the limits won´t reflect the true nature of air combat (where logistics affected tactics) in the same way that the current implementation is not doing it.  That is where creative options (that simulate the reason for those limits) need to be chosen. And that is why I think a single option will be incorrect and several options need to be offered.

 

There are several reasons:

 

1) Tactics were not dictated by logistics to the degree you appear to think. People used whatever power they needed for the tactical situation. Much in the same manner you shoot as many bullets as you need, even when you dont have many to spare. There simply is no other way. And it matter little if you have to replace engines more often if you are losing battles or the plane does not come back at all. Furthermore, IRL people frequently modded the planes to run much high MP than was official, and I am not advocating for that. 

 

2) In game we have our own tactical environment. It has many differences between itself and the real one, and that is never going to change no matter how much its changed. Players will always find the best tactics for that environment, and use the planes accordingly. What is more, they will do this to a much higher degree than is possible IRL, because they can constant flight the same battle in the same sky forever. What we have are "simulated" planes put into this environment. I think it is fairly obvious how silly it is to replace the mechanical limitations of the engines with smuggled in logistical concerns to try for force people to fly for a environment that does not exist in this game. 

 

 

So ultimately what doing this limits does is ruin something it can do fairly well (the performance of the planes) to try to emulate something it cant do very well (all the logistical considerations of real life.)

Edited December 2, 2018 by Fumes

[-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor]

53 minutes ago, Fumes said:

There are several reasons:

 

1) Tactics were not dictated by logistics to the degree you appear to think. People used whatever power they needed for the tactical situation. Much in the same manner you shoot as many bullets as you need, even when you dont have many to spare. There simply is no other way. And it matter little if you have to replace engines more often if you are losing battles or the plane does not come back at all. Furthermore, IRL people frequently modded the planes to run much high MP than was official, and I am not advocating for that. 

 

2) In game we have our own tactical environment. It has many differences between itself and the real one, and that is never going to change no matter how much its changed. Players will always find the best tactics for that environment, and use the planes accordingly. What is more, they will do this to a much higher degree than is possible IRL, because they can constant flight the same battle in the same sky forever. What we have are "simulated" planes put into this environment. I think it is fairly obvious how silly it is to replace the mechanical limitations of the engines with smuggled in logistical concerns to try for force people to fly for a environment that does not exist in this game. 

 

 

So ultimately what doing this limits does is ruin something it can do fairly well (the performance of the planes) to try to emulate something it cant do very well (all the logistical considerations of real life.)

 

Very well put. I hope the engine timers are just removed all together considering fuel concerns preventing people from just givin it the onion for the whole flight and with MW50 and water injection running dry after certain amount of time.

[LukeFF]

6 hours 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?

 

Of course they had discussions about how it will affect gameplay.* But, it's also a fact that, since they are sticking to the plan of modeling no more than flyable 10 planes in the initial release, that some planes were going to be left out that could have justifiably been chosen (Bf 109 G-10, Ar 234, Typhoon, and Spitfire XIV chief among them). 

 

*I was a part of those discussions as well, since the devs did ask for my input. And I can guarantee you 100%, that balance was, never, ever, ever part of my recommendations to them. The only considerations I had were these: what was most common at the time being simulated, and what would bring something new to the game? That's it. No regards at all for some lame-brain worry about "balance." That sort of thing was, is, and always will be best taken care of by good mission design. It's why I laugh at people bitching about 1.98 ata K-4s, Me 262s, and D-9s with EZ 42 gunsights. Don't want those on your server? Then don't include them! (or, at least, have them available in small numbers). When BoBP exits early access, you'll have most of what was most common in the Luftwaffe and most of what was common with the Western Allies. And, of course, that's a good thing.

Edited December 3, 2018 by LukeFF

[HR_Zunzun]

4 hours ago, Fumes said:

There are several reasons:

 

1) Tactics were not dictated by logistics to the degree you appear to think. People used whatever power they needed for the tactical situation. Much in the same manner you shoot as many bullets as you need, even when you dont have many to spare. There simply is no other way. And it matter little if you have to replace engines more often if you are losing battles or the plane does not come back at all. Furthermore, IRL people frequently modded the planes to run much high MP than was official, and I am not advocating for that. 

3

 

It is possible that the settings were not followed as the manual says (I am referring to normal cruise condition not combat dire situation). I don´t know. I tend to think that cruise settings were followed but I might be wrong. There are however different things that let me think that, at least, some sort of limits were there. First, as I said in my previous post, wep use needed to be recorded. Second, there were differences in cruise speeds (like those typhoon pilots that praised their planes high cruise speed). If there weren´t then all would be cruising at almost full power. Third, there are many pilot memories mentioning planes with engines well worn off and that were slower than the average. Possibly there will be many other hints of that.

Serviceability influenced tactical situation at the very least in the number of planes that you could put in the air at any given time.

 

Quote

2) In game we have our own tactical environment. It has many differences between itself and the real one, and that is never going to change no matter how much its changed. Players will always find the best tactics for that environment, and use the planes accordingly. What is more, they will do this to a much higher degree than is possible IRL, because they can constant flight the same battle in the same sky forever. What we have are "simulated" planes put into this environment. I think it is fairly obvious how silly it is to replace the mechanical limitations of the engines with smuggled in logistical concerns to try for force people to fly for a environment that does not exist in this game. 

 

 

So ultimately what doing this limits does is ruin something it can do fairly well (the performance of the planes) to try to emulate something it cant do very well (all the logistical considerations of real life.)

 

I think we are all aware of this but the environment changes with the mission design. I can´t understand why giving options to the mission creators is ever a bad thing. You don´t want limits at all? Don´t put any limit. You want to simulate wear and logistic (if the right game mechanics and tools are simulated) then put some limits and consequences that can be taken from one mission to other. At the end of the day is up to the players how and where they want to use their simulated flying time.

Edited December 3, 2018 by HR_Zunzun

[catchthefoxes]

I just want a vertical stabilizer ?

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, catchthefoxes said:

I just want a vertical stabilizer ?

It'd be nice to have a dorsal, but it wouldn't add too much imo.

They really need to fix the inaccuracies before adding anything else to the Jug imo.

[catchthefoxes]

5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

It'd be nice to have a dorsal, but it wouldn't add too much imo.

They really need to fix the inaccuracies before adding anything else to the Jug imo.

 

I like it for the looks and commonality, but yea priorities first.

[Legioneod]

Just now, catchthefoxes said:

 

I like it for the looks and commonality, but yea priorities first.

I agree, I do like the look as well.

[LColony_Kong]

30 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

It is possible that the settings were not followed as the manual says (I am referring to normal cruise condition not combat dire situation). I don´t know. I tend to think that cruise settings were followed but I might be wrong. There are however different things that let me think that, at least, some sort of limits were there. First, as I said in my previous post, wep use needed to be recorded. Second, there were differences in cruise speeds (like those typhoon pilots that praised their planes high cruise speed). If there weren´t then all would be cruising at almost full power. Third, there are many pilot memories mentioning planes with engines well worn off and that were slower than the average. Possibly there will be many other hints of that.

Serviceability influenced tactical situation at the very least in the number of planes that you could put in the air at any given time.

 

 

I think we are all aware of this but the environment changes with the mission design. I can´t understand why giving options to the mission creators is ever a bad thing. You don´t want limits at all? Don´t put any limit. You want to simulate wear and logistic (if the right game mechanics and tools are simulated) then put some limits and consequences that can be taken from one mission to other. At the end of the day is up to the players how and where they want to use their simulated flying time.

Your misunderstanding what I am getting at. Very broadly speaking, people flew to the ops limits when it was reasonable to do so. This is a choice however. Nothing about those ops limits is an actual hard limit. They are determined by how long some set of decision makers want the engine to last. Once two planes meet in battle, all bets are off regarding those settings. One particular spitfire manual directly acknowledges this even. If you lose or dont make it back, then it really does not matter how long you could make the engine last. But it make sense to fly the ops limits if there is no need to abuse the engine. 

              In the game we do not have the large scale and long term concerns people in the real world had. And even if we did, people would still use max power as long as they needed to in order to accomplish the mission. In any case, the time limits in the manuals are not the mechanical limits of the engines. Forcing people to fly them turns the ops limits into mechanical ones. 

 

I am not sure how you got on the subject of mission design here. But put simply, no....there should not be a endless amount of options. Some things should not be open to adjustment. At some point the server maker would essentially be making his own game. This is already the case, and is such in every game. Even non-sims. You cannot adjust the lift coefficient of the 109s wing, and I dont think people should be able to adjust the mechanical limits of the engines either. 

 

 

The bottom line is this: The game/server provide the operational environment as such. The devs give us the planes. After that the cookie crumbles however it crumbles. And we dont need to sit here and play this game of "but but but....look what the players might do!"

 

Recently I saw a thread I did no participate in where certain people were concerned about having drop tanks in the game because people might take "gamey" load-outs. For example, 15% fuel and two drops tanks etc. Some of you guys think wars are fought from some kind of spread sheet. Specifically a spreadsheet that bans anything eccentric or non-average. However, there is nothing to stop you from doing something like that in the real world. Got drop tanks? Doing short range missions where you need to be more agile? Sound like a plan then. Its like people dont want players to be allowed to use their imaginations or something. Its almost like if someone never read of someone doing it in a book das is verboten. 

 

And yet we know that is precisely not what happens in real war. In real war people do whatever they have to do to win. Same goes with games. Games of any kind. Once the rules are set, there are no limits to how they may be exploited in ways not initially thought of. 

 

A few examples of people in real life using equipment in eccentric or not by the books:

 

-The Doolittle raid. 

-Japanese torpedo mods for pearl harbor

-Every engine mod ever. 

-M2 50cals used as sniper rifles

-F-15s mounting rifle scopes in their aircraft for VID

-P-38 range extensions that occurred by literally throwing the book out. 

-Sherman tank hedgerow rams

 

 

The only thing being asked for here is that planes be allowed to be flown to their actual mechanical limits so long as that would not require a modification. And what keeps being said is that we dare not do that because that would not be the "well and proper" way for flying. 

 

 

 

[PainGod85]

1 minute ago, Fumes said:

Your misunderstanding what I am getting at. Very broadly speaking, people flew to the ops limits when it was reasonable to do so. This is a choice however. Nothing about those ops limits is an actual hard limit. They are determined by how long some set of decision makers want the engine to last. Once two planes meet in battle, all bets are off regarding those settings. One particular spitfire manual directly acknowledges this even. If you lose or dont make it back, then it really does not matter how long you could make the engine last. But it make sense to fly the ops limits if there is no need to abuse the engine. 

              In the game we do not have the large scale and long term concerns people in the real world had. And even if we did, people would still use max power as long as they needed to in order to accomplish the mission. In any case, the time limits in the manuals are not the mechanical limits of the engines. Forcing people to fly them turns the ops limits into mechanical ones. 

 

I am not sure how you got on the subject of mission design here. But put simply, no....there should not be a endless amount of options. Some things should not be open to adjustment. At some point the server maker would essentially be making his own game. This is already the case, and is such in every game. Even non-sims. You cannot adjust the lift coefficient of the 109s wing, and I dont think people should be able to adjust the mechanical limits of the engines either. 

 

 

The bottom line is this: The game/server provide the operational environment as such. The devs give us the planes. After that the cookie crumbles however it crumbles. And we dont need to sit here and play this game of "but but but....look what the players might do!"

 

Recently I saw a thread I did no participate in where certain people were concerned about having drop tanks in the game because people might take "gamey" load-outs. For example, 15% fuel and two drops tanks etc. Some of you guys think wars are fought from some kind of spread sheet. Specifically a spreadsheet that bans anything eccentric or non-average. However, there is nothing to stop you from doing something like that in the real world. Got drop tanks? Doing short range missions where you need to be more agile? Sound like a plan then. Its like people dont want players to be allowed to use their imaginations or something. Its almost like if someone never read of someone doing it in a book das is verboten. 

 

And yet we know that is precisely not what happens in real war. In real war people do whatever they have to do to win. Same goes with games. Games of any kind. Once the rules are set, there are no limits to how they may be exploited in ways not initially thought of. 

 

A few examples of people in real life using equipment in eccentric or not by the books:

 

-The Doolittle raid. 

-Japanese torpedo mods for pearl harbor

-Every engine mod ever. 

-M2 50cals used as sniper rifles

-F-15s mounting rifle scopes in their aircraft for VID

-P-38 range extensions that occurred by literally throwing the book out. 

-Sherman tank hedgerow rams

 

 

The only thing being asked for here is that planes be allowed to be flown to their actual mechanical limits so long as that would not require a modification. And what keeps being said is that we dare not do that because that would not be the "well and proper" way for flying. 

 

 

 

 

So. Much. This.

[HR_Zunzun]

53 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Your misunderstanding what I am getting at. Very broadly speaking, people flew to the ops limits when it was reasonable to do so. This is a choice however. Nothing about those ops limits is an actual hard limit. They are determined by how long some set of decision makers want the engine to last. Once two planes meet in battle, all bets are off regarding those settings. One particular spitfire manual directly acknowledges this even. If you lose or dont make it back, then it really does not matter how long you could make the engine last. But it make sense to fly the ops limits if there is no need to abuse the engine. 

              In the game we do not have the large scale and long term concerns people in the real world had. And even if we did, people would still use max power as long as they needed to in order to accomplish the mission. In any case, the time limits in the manuals are not the mechanical limits of the engines. Forcing people to fly them turns the ops limits into mechanical ones. 

 

I am not sure how you got on the subject of mission design here. But put simply, no....there should not be a endless amount of options. Some things should not be open to adjustment. At some point the server maker would essentially be making his own game. This is already the case, and is such in every game. Even non-sims. You cannot adjust the lift coefficient of the 109s wing, and I dont think people should be able to adjust the mechanical limits of the engines either. 

 

 

The bottom line is this: The game/server provide the operational environment as such. The devs give us the planes. After that the cookie crumbles however it crumbles. And we dont need to sit here and play this game of "but but but....look what the players might do!"

 

Recently I saw a thread I did no participate in where certain people were concerned about having drop tanks in the game because people might take "gamey" load-outs. For example, 15% fuel and two drops tanks etc. Some of you guys think wars are fought from some kind of spread sheet. Specifically a spreadsheet that bans anything eccentric or non-average. However, there is nothing to stop you from doing something like that in the real world. Got drop tanks? Doing short range missions where you need to be more agile? Sound like a plan then. Its like people dont want players to be allowed to use their imaginations or something. Its almost like if someone never read of someone doing it in a book das is verboten. 

 

And yet we know that is precisely not what happens in real war. In real war people do whatever they have to do to win. Same goes with games. Games of any kind. Once the rules are set, there are no limits to how they may be exploited in ways not initially thought of. 

 

A few examples of people in real life using equipment in eccentric or not by the books:

 

-The Doolittle raid. 

-Japanese torpedo mods for pearl harbor

-Every engine mod ever. 

-M2 50cals used as sniper rifles

-F-15s mounting rifle scopes in their aircraft for VID

-P-38 range extensions that occurred by literally throwing the book out. 

-Sherman tank hedgerow rams

 

 

The only thing being asked for here is that planes be allowed to be flown to their actual mechanical limits so long as that would not require a modification. And what keeps being said is that we dare not do that because that would not be the "well and proper" way for flying. 

 

 

 

 

I think I understood this part of you pretty well, really. I agree with you on most of what you are saying. I do not think the current limit reflect the use of those engines correctly either.

But unrestricted use of wep, I am not so sure it would reflect the actual use of those engines at the time.  In combat, when your life was at a stake? Without any doubt. As much as you can. But for cruising and not life-threatening situations? How much use of wep would those engines tolerated? Do we know? Could they, for instance, fly any plane at wep setting for hours without any consequence for the engine? I am not talking about exploding or dying as they do in the sim, but I suppose that it would mean some sort of earlier wear or other consequences for subsequent flights.

Planes inside a squadron were all different. Not only because of differences from the factory but also from the use of them. Some pilot memories reflect this when talking about planes that were assigned to replacements and were slower, with weaker engines.

It seems to me that you dismiss this aspect of air combat but for me is an interesting part of air combat. My idea of more options is not about changing things like the lift coefficient of a plane, that is absurd (I know it was an extreme example). I simply said that as well as you have difficulty options like external views, limit of ammo, damage or not to the engine etc... and, although I seldom fly in a server with them (only external view in Berloga), those don´t affect my experience because they are..... options. It is my personal opinion, but I would like the option for those who would like to take the online wars to another level to have the tools to do it. Not only engine status and wear simulated but as it happened in Cod, damage too and other things as well. It wouldn´t be for everyone but if the developers had the time/resources I would like if they could introduce them.

 

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

I think I understood this part of you pretty well, really. I agree with you on most of what you are saying. I do not think the current limit reflect the use of those engines correctly either.

But unrestricted use of wep, I am not so sure it would reflect the actual use of those engines at the time.  In combat, when your life was at a stake? Without any doubt. As much as you can. But for cruising and not life-threatening situations? How much use of wep would those engines tolerated? Do we know? Could they, for instance, fly any plane at wep setting for hours without any consequence for the engine? I am not talking about exploding or dying as they do in the sim, but I suppose that it would mean some sort of earlier wear or other consequences for subsequent flights.

Planes inside a squadron were all different. Not only because of differences from the factory but also from the use of them. Some pilot memories reflect this when talking about planes that were assigned to replacements and were slower, with weaker engines.

It seems to me that you dismiss this aspect of air combat but for me is an interesting part of air combat. My idea of more options is not about changing things like the lift coefficient of a plane, that is absurd (I know it was an extreme example). I simply said that as well as you have difficulty options like external views, limit of ammo, damage or not to the engine etc... and, although I seldom fly in a server with them (only external view in Berloga), those don´t affect my experience because they are..... options. It is my personal opinion, but I would like the option for those who would like to take the online wars to another level to have the tools to do it. Not only engine status and wear simulated but as it happened in Cod, damage too and other things as well. It wouldn´t be for everyone but if the developers had the time/resources I would like if they could introduce them.

 

Thing is, there is no way to force players to use one or the other without unrealistic limitations. You have to choose either having unrealistic limits or giving the player more freedom.

[LColony_Kong]

39 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Thing is, there is no way to force players to use one or the other without unrealistic limitations. You have to choose either having unrealistic limits or giving the player more freedom.

And here is the problem with your logic: Your assume that we MUST force people to do things somehow. And that is why this conversation and others of the same subject constantly go around in circles. Because no matter the evidence or rational, there is a before now unsaid assumption that we simply cannot allow people to do XXX. 

 

This is the basic structure of this debate:

 

"The time limits must be removed, they are unrealistic"

 

"Yes we understand the time limits are unrealistic"

 

"ok..so were on the same page"

 

"yes, but what kinds of time limits do you think there should be?"

 

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Fumes

[Legioneod]

Just now, Fumes said:

And here is the problem with your logic: Your assume that we MUST force people to do things somehow. And that is why this conversation and others of the same subject constantly go around in circles. Because no matter the evidence or rational, there is a before now unsaid assumption that we simply cannot allow people to do XXX. 

 

This is the basic structure of this debate:

 

"The time limits must be removed, they are unrealistic"

 

"Yes we understand the time limits are unrealistic as modeled....but what do you think the time limits should be?"

 

 

I agree. They should be removed or at least an option for the server. That's it, end of story. There is nothing else to discuss.

 

Players are afraid of people doing there own thing or going WEP all the time, but if you don't want time limits you just have to accept the fact that players will do whatever they want. 

[LColony_Kong]

52 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

I think I understood this part of you pretty well, really. I agree with you on most of what you are saying. I do not think the current limit reflect the use of those engines correctly either.

But unrestricted use of wep, I am not so sure it would reflect the actual use of those engines at the time.  In combat, when your life was at a stake? Without any doubt. As much as you can. But for cruising and not life-threatening situations? How much use of wep would those engines tolerated? Do we know? Could they, for instance, fly any plane at wep setting for hours without any consequence for the engine? I am not talking about exploding or dying as they do in the sim, but I suppose that it would mean some sort of earlier wear or other consequences for subsequent flights.

Planes inside a squadron were all different. Not only because of differences from the factory but also from the use of them. Some pilot memories reflect this when talking about planes that were assigned to replacements and were slower, with weaker engines.

It seems to me that you dismiss this aspect of air combat but for me is an interesting part of air combat. My idea of more options is not about changing things like the lift coefficient of a plane, that is absurd (I know it was an extreme example). I simply said that as well as you have difficulty options like external views, limit of ammo, damage or not to the engine etc... and, although I seldom fly in a server with them (only external view in Berloga), those don´t affect my experience because they are..... options. It is my personal opinion, but I would like the option for those who would like to take the online wars to another level to have the tools to do it. Not only engine status and wear simulated but as it happened in Cod, damage too and other things as well. It wouldn´t be for everyone but if the developers had the time/resources I would like if they could introduce them.

 

I am not dismissing these aspects of air combat. I am recognizing that they are beyond the scope of this game. 

 

Long term wear mechanics or in game logistical systems are an entirely different set of things. These things would not alter the mechanical attributes of the engines or the planes. If you removed the limits as I have suggested, it would actually be the first step towards having a complicated and exhausted model of the operational environment. 

 

But we dont have these things in game. And that is no excuse to alter the engines attributes because of it. 

 

 

 

 

By the same logic of the engine limits, P-47s should spawn at 30,000 feet by default. Since the operational environment of reality is the reason they did so. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Fumes

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, Fumes said:

Nothing about those ops limits is an actual hard limit. They are determined by how long some set of decision makers want the engine to last.

 

North American Aviation, Inc. disagrees with you:

 

[Rattlesnake]

55 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

North American Aviation, Inc. disagrees with you:

 

This is exactly the sort of thing I would write in the attempt to keep the young men flying the things from using WEP except in actual emergencies.

 

Imagine being 21 years old from a motor-mad nation and handed one of the fastest modes of transportation known to man, with fuel and maintenance on the taxpayers.

[BlitzPig_EL]

And yet Mustangs ran 70" late in the war with 150 octane fuel.

 

The engine limits, as implemented currently are nothing but an attempt by a small group, the developers, to get people to play the way that the devs want them to, nothing more.

They have no basis in reality, other than the "reality" that the developers want to impose.

[Kurfurst]

8 hours ago, Fumes said:

By the same logic of the engine limits, P-47s should spawn at 30,000 feet by default. Since the operational environment of reality is the reason they did so. 

 

While being with the 9th AAF and attacking ground targets in late 1944...? I do not think they would regularly climbing to 30k feet to do that.

[Ehret]

12 hours ago, LukeFF said:

*I was a part of those discussions as well, since the devs did ask for my input. And I can guarantee you 100%, that balance was, never, ever, ever part of my recommendations to them. The only considerations I had were these: what was most common at the time being simulated, and what would bring something new to the game? That's it.

 

Fair enough.

 

It just tiresome to fly some planes (especially the P-40) with a stopwatch counting every second to engine blowing-up. Or to exceed the manifold-pressure by 0.1" so mode changes and timer starts ticking.

Historic planes had limitations but they weren't as a precise lab experiments. Shouldn't need handling as such. Exceeding limits as stated in manuals should be possible; not without consequences, perhaps, but total engine seizure shouldn't be one of them.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Ehret

[sevenless]

8 hours ago, Fumes said:

By the same logic of the engine limits, P-47s should spawn at 30,000 feet by default. Since the operational environment of reality is the reason they did so. 

 

In 44/45 the 56th Group/8th AF planes would have done so, but those are not in the game. We are dealing with groundpounding 9th AF planes here and they were usually flying at low altitude. One reason for this, apart from their tactical objectives, was certainly the increasing non-presence of the Luftwaffe in the last 6 months of the war.

[EAF_51_FOX]

4 pages of debate about performance of a single "bodenplatte" plane... I wonder how many will be when "Bodenplatte/BOX" will become gold jeje!. Bodenplatte was really a great agglomeration of the more variety of planes and variants: not sure dev 1C team has made a good choice to go into this war title after Kuban seeing how many are here complaining about their favourite plane that must be the smart one..  .

[LColony_Kong]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

North American Aviation, Inc. disagrees with you:

 

Alot of documents pertaining to this already we're posted here and in the numerous 109 engine threads. I will repost some later, as I'm currently to busy.

 

However you did a very selective reading of this document. You deigned not to highlight the above section that refers to the tbo. The second sentence is not an explicit statement about immediate engine doom on fresh or well maintained engines. It is a extension of the first statement. 

 

In other words: operation at war emergency decreases service life, and if you operate beyond the limits it is likely to result in failures because the more worn out engine will be more likely to fail. 

 

This situation the enitre reason there is a strict monitoring procedure. If pilots use wep and don't report it, especially over 5min, maintenance won't keep Pace with actual abuse. And you will get engines that break because worn out parts fail. So you end up on a sortie and your engine dies in 30 seconds, not 6min

50 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

In 44/45 the 56th Group/8th AF planes would have done so, but those are not in the game. We are dealing with groundpounding 9th AF planes here and they were usually flying at low altitude. One reason for this, apart from their tactical objectives, was certainly the increasing non-presence of the Luftwaffe in the last 6 months of the war.

Guys this was a broad general example.....

[StiFFman]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The engine limits, as implemented currently are nothing but an attempt by a small group, the developers, to get people to play the way that the devs want them to, nothing more.

 

Like it or not, that´s actually purpose of game developers: it´s their game, they have a vision and its their task to make the players play the game how it´s meant to be played. If you have ever played for example Red Orchestra, you can see how it looks when developers failed to do that.

I know it´s against nature of simulation, where the goal should be to become as real as it gets, but it can´t actually become real life, so there have to be some virtual borders, which will keep players playing the game probably more realistically, than they would played it without these borders.  

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

North American Aviation, Inc. disagrees with you:

 

"is liable" not "it will".

In other words it is legal speak to cover manufacturers and USAAF's ass, not a guarantee the engine will destroy itself if you exceed then power setting by 30s

Edited December 3, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Voyager]

1 hour ago, STIFFMAN said:

 

Like it or not, that´s actually purpose of game developers: it´s their game, they have a vision and its their task to make the players play the game how it´s meant to be played. If you have ever played for example Red Orchestra, you can see how it looks when developers failed to do that.

I know it´s against nature of simulation, where the goal should be to become as real as it gets, but it can´t actually become real life, so there have to be some virtual borders, which will keep players playing the game probably more realistically, than they would played it without these borders.  

General rule of thumb: never try to get people eh ace believably. Reality is not constrained by such things and people will surprise you every single time. 

 

Case in point: the instruction to record how long they ran the engine on WEP for when it was more than five minutes. Have any of you looked for the pilot reports these would have generated? I'll bet there's almost nothing, and what little there is is completely unverifiable.

 

How are they going to know how many minutes you ran at WEP? 

 

Though, if we could track down the amount of WM-50 consumed per unit, vs the number of sorties, we may be able to get an idea of the overall frequency of usage? 

[HR_Zunzun]

37 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

"is liable" not "it will".

In other words it is legal speak to cover manufacturers and USAAF's ass, not a guarantee the engine will destroy itself if you exceed then power setting by 30s

I think almost all of us agree that immediate destruction didn´t happen when exceeding the timer. Fumes manual excerpt indicates that is a general rule and that emergency the engine needs to be used as much as necessary. What those limits in the manual imply to me is that consequences arise for the engine. At the very least, is a special maintenance schedule once known is being used. In Luke´s excerpt, service life and TBO reduction are indicated.

So what I take from all the information available is that engines don´t break down after the limits are exceeded but some consequences happen for subsequent flights. Although the current system doesn´t reflect the true nature of the use of those engines, changing to a "free for all" I think won´t reflect their use either. At least as an only option. Something in between or give options depending on server style I think would better.

[Panthera]

Again I have to agree that a 5 min limit listed in the manual does not mean that the engine will start to self destruct or take any damage at all immediately after you exceed that limit, or even if you went at it for 10 min as long as you can keep within the oil & water temperature limits. Just like with the time limits in German manuals these were there to make sure the pilots didn't max out their engines unnecessarily as obviously every use at max setting would decrease the TBO, and the longer you could stretch the TBO the better. Only time you should worry about a setting being likely to damage the engine past the time limit given is if said engine setting is altogether banned to begin with, like what was initially the case with the 1.42ata setting on the DB601 engine before the introduction of reinforced piston heads and a redesigned oil system lifted the ban and altogether removed any time limit at 1.42ata. In other words you could run the DB601 at 1.42ata for almost as long as you liked, but naturally the longer you run an engine at max output the more rapidly you're also wearing it down. So a general 3-5min rule was probably common within squadrons.

 

Going back to the P-47, a 5 min limit (crossable by atleast a min before you need to worry about damage) with a 5 min "cool down" period in between is a lot more reasonable IMO.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Panthera

[Rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

 

 

Going back to the P-47, a 5 min limit (crossable by atleast a min before you need to worry about damage) with a 5 min "cool down" period in between is a lot more reasonable IMO.

What I want (assuming we keep the limits as is) some kind of user-friendly information on how much time we have left/how much we’ve recharged.  A lot of games use temperature gauges for a stand in. This is not accurate since most engines could keep cool at WEP longer than the limit times, but at least it removes the “Surprise! You’re out of power! Surprise, your engine is busted!” factor and makes management comprehensible.

On real airplanes the “user friendly” bit took the form of the engine almost certainly being able to last way longer than the book limit. But as we’ve seen doing that in a game basically=infinite WEP. So some more management info is needed.

Edited December 3, 2018 by CMBailey

[LColony_Kong]

My ideal would be no limits of course,

 

But a compromise I could live with is 15min of wep for all planes and no limits for combat.

 

Either way I really hope this gets some Dev attention soon. This is like the sixth engine limits thread.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Fumes

[Blutaar]

How about 10-15 mins of WEP for all engines but without recovery, so no one would fly at WEP all the time but still has plenty of WEP in acutal combat? Just as a compromise before we get some better solutions of course.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 minute ago, Ishtaru said:

How about 10-15 mins of WEP for all engines but without recovery, so no one would fly at WEP all the time but still has plenty of WEP in acutal combat? Just as a compromise before we get some better solutions of course.

No, that would make no sense, late Bf-109s had 30 minutes worth of MW50

[sevenless]

8 hours ago, Fumes said:

 

Guys this was a broad general example.....

 

Fumes, thanks for that information. Do you also have the previous page (25) ?

 

What I do not understand:

 

Top of page 26 it lists several conditions:

b)

- 5min max at takeoff

- 5 min periods in combat

- 1 hour climbing

 

If it is fine to have it on full throttle for 1 hour while climbing, then what is the problem with say 10 or 15min during combat ?

Edited December 3, 2018 by sevenless

[LColony_Kong]

5 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Fumes, thanks for that information. Do you also have the previous page (25) ?

 

What I do not understand:

 

Top of page 26 it lists several conditions:

b)

- 5min max at takeoff

- 5 min periods in combat

- 1 hour climbing

 

If it is fine to have it on full throttle for 1 hour while climbing, then what is the problem with say 10 or 15min during combat ?

Yeah that is the whole point. 

 

By the same token how  do you think they did time to climb tests or level speed tests IRL? Most aircraft easily exceed their WEP time limits during the time it takes them to make a full power climb to high altitude. Not to mention this is relevant for how fast you can intercept. 

 

As I have been going on about  for several pages and several different threads now, the engine time restrictions are obviously not for preventing immediate doom on a non-worn engine. Clearly whoever was making decisions for the spitfire in question felt that operationally it was worth letting pilots climb for 1 hour but less important for them to use that power in other situations. 

 

Which is the whole point. These limits are semi-arbitrary, and dictated by a whole host of factors. None of which are the mechanical limits of the engine in the sense that we see them in game. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Fumes

[sevenless]

2 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Yeah that is the whole point. 

 

By the same token how  do you think they did time to climb tests or level speed tests IRL? Most aircraft easily exceed their WEP time limits during the time it takes them to make a full power climb to high altitude. Not to mention this is relevant for how fast you can intercept. 

 

So WEP times of 5 min max are mere recommendations than technical limitations? I see. They want to protect and save the engine with those recommendations. Well then off with the artificial time limits. There is a war going on!

[Gambit21]

All manuals had a 'buffer' built in, not only for WEP/engine limitations for for dive speed as well.

Basically "CYA" (cover your ass) on the part of the firm that built the aircraft/engine, (no different than anyone who builds and sells anything today) but also to leave a legitimate margin of error to work with.

This way an excited, adrenaline filled pilot made it home with his aircraft despite pushing the air-frame or engine beyond manual spec.

 

On that note, pilots pushed their aircraft beyond the manual spec in both engine management and dive speed all the time, often to the dismay of the crew-chief, but it wasn't a rare occurrence whether you're talking about the Jug, the Mustang, or any other aircraft.

[Cpt_Siddy]

Someone, please tell me, what it is in your opinion that causes damage to engine if you run the WEP longer than state in manual? 

[sevenless]

11 minutes ago, CptSiddy said:

Someone, please tell me, what it is in your opinion that causes damage to engine if you run the WEP longer than state in manual? 

 

The times in the manual are obviously debatable, however what might happen sooner or later due to prolonged heat due to overspeeding the engine is an increased risk of cylinder piston seizure (I think the correct english term is piston scoring?). As we all know, however, the P-47 had a radial engine of 18 cylinders. So if one or two cylinder fail due to piston seizure, the engine would still work. There are even combat reports of cylinders shot off in P-47s and the machines still limped back home to England.