PETITION POLL TO FIX ENGINE POWER TIME LIMITS

[LColony_Kong]

Please read the two P-47 Engine threads before voting on this. 

 

IF the exact solution you desire is not on here, vote for the thing most like what you want. 

 

To be clear: THIS POLL REFERS TO THE TIME LIMITS ON ENGINE SETTINGS. IT DOES NOT REFER TO MAX MANIFOLD PRESSURE OR RPM ALLOWED.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by Fumes

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Not voting because the questions are not made very well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

EDIT: to the OP if you are going to do a vote you must include the opposite of what you are trying to say as an option. 

 

For that reason 

 

I am OUT!

Edited December 11, 2018 by AeroAce

[Guest deleted@134347]

this is replacing "Unrealistic" with "Unrealistic+".

 

[Warpig]

WHY ARE YOU YELLING!!!

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Sorry to say but this is a LOCKED post as of tomorrow!!

 

It is really dumb

[LColony_Kong]

8 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

Not voting because the questions are not made very well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

EDIT: to the OP if you are going to do a vote you must include the opposite of what you are trying to say as an option. 

 

For that reason 

 

I am OUT!

I did.....twice

[216th_Jordan]

Last two options actually coincide. We have a random probability of failure after time limits are reached.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

2 minutes ago, Fumes said:

I did.....twice

 

Although I know it is not realistic, I challenge people to come up with a better system because at the end of the day this is a sim/game!!!!

 

The only way I see IRL engine limits would be a persistent aircraft model! THIS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN WITH OUT RPG LEVELS OF DETAIL!!

 

PS it would be cool to get RPG detail but that is the next gen 

[AndyJWest]

Here's the thing. This isn't a democracy. This is a game developer's/publisher's forum. We can make reasoned suggestions regarding the products they sell. They seem to be open to that, but any decision as to what they do is theirs. We don't get to vote on what they do, and trying to give the impression otherwise is unlikely to impress them. And if they are interested in seeking the opinion of forum participants, they are quite capable of creating polls themselves. And wording them properly.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Just now, AndyJWest said:

Here's the thing. This isn't a democracy. This is a game developer's/publisher's forum. We can make reasoned suggestions regarding the products they sell. They seem to be open to that, but any decision as to what they do is theirs. We don't get to vote on what they do, and trying to give the impression otherwise is unlikely to impress them. And if they are interested in seeking the opinion of forum participants, they are quite capable of creating polls themselves. And wording them properly.

 

2 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

 

Although I know it is not realistic, I challenge people to come up with a better system because at the end of the day this is a sim/game!!!!

 

The only way I see IRL engine limits would be a persistent aircraft model! THIS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN WITH OUT RPG LEVELS OF DETAIL!!

 

PS it would be cool to get RPG detail but that is the next gen 

 

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

The issues with engines across planes is not consistant.  One answer will not fix all.  What a p40 needs is quite different than the 109s issues.  

[Sgt_Joch]

There is already a poll started by the OP on this same topic, don't know why we need another one.

[E_Davjack]

I would like the game to conform to the manuals, so it seems like setting every plane at a fixed WEP time is wrong, but perhaps it works as a game balance issue. 

 

When in doubt, follow the manuals, I would say. 

[LColony_Kong]

5 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

There is already a poll started by the OP on this same topic, don't know why we need another one.

because the conversation has been updated

[Sgt_Joch]

1 minute ago, Fumes said:

because the conversation has been updated

Nope, same useless conversation.

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, Sgt_Joch said:

Nope, same useless conversation.

If your are referring to your own inputs, yes

[Sgt_Joch]

Just now, Fumes said:

If your are referring to your own inputs, yes

No I was referring to yours.

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, Sgt_Joch said:

No I was referring to yours.

This is another example of those inputs I was referring to. 

[Ehret]

I'm for the ability to run for the extended amount of time be it combat or emergency but with other consequences than engine damage/seizure when "in manuals" time limits are exceeded. I'm against random stuff; penalties should happen the same way every time. Many ideas were already stated in previous topics.

 

Unfortunately (IMHO) in one or another form the limits will stay... Some planes differentiates just by them like the La-5 and La-5F; to lesser degree the La-5FN and the P-39L. If the latter had 10m of (full) WEP instead of the 2m then the Aircobra would make the FN significantly less attractive. (the FN is only about 10km/h faster than the P-39 WEP)

Other example is the P-40 and the Yak-1; if the former (not talking about the 100% open throttle crazy stuff) could be just run at 45" MP non stop then the performance difference would be marginal and the Kittyhawk has other advantages.

 

Just now, AndyJWest said:

Here's the thing. This isn't a democracy. This is a game developer's/publisher's forum. We can make reasoned suggestions regarding the products they sell. They seem to be open to that, but any decision as to what they do is theirs. We don't get to vote on what they do, and trying to give the impression otherwise is unlikely to impress them. And if they are interested in seeking the opinion of forum participants, they are quite capable of creating polls themselves. And wording them properly.

 

We have the best vote possible - voting by a wallet. After all the company is making the stuff for us so yes - we have a say as we are valuable customers; at least we can influence decisions even if it's not apparent at first.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Ehret

[PainGod85]

Just now, Ehret said:

I'm for the ability to run for the extended amount of time be it combat or emergency but with other consequences than engine damage/seizure when "in manuals" time limits are exceeded. I'm against random stuff; penalties should happen the same way every time. Many ideas were already stated in previous topics.

 

Unfortunately (IMHO) in one or another form the limits will stay... Some planes differentiates just by them like the La-5 and La-5F; to lesser degree the La-5FN and the P-39L. If the latter had 10m of (full) WEP instead of the 2m then the Aircobra would make the FN significantly less attractive. (the FN is only about 10km/h faster than the P-39 WEP)

Other example is the P-40 and the Yak-1; if the former (not talking about the 100% open throttle crazy stuff) could be just run at 45" MP non stop then the performance difference would be marginal and the Kittyhawk has other advantages.

 

I'm sorry, I don't see an issue with this. You might as well complain how the Bf 109 F is generally inferior to the Fw 190 A.

[Ehret]

Just now, PainGod85 said:

I'm sorry, I don't see an issue with this. You might as well complain how the Bf 109 F is generally inferior to the Fw 190 A.

 

Historically the P-40/P-39 weren't limited by ANY timer at all especially when in Russian hands. They were wearing down engines in weeks and just replacing them frequently. Otherwise they considered performance of those planes "duds". There was a reason why Pokryshkin (and his squad) was resisting change to Lavochkins and stayed with the Aircobra, instead.

[Jason_Williams]

Sorry closed. We don't respond to petitions. We give you ample room to voice your opinion on this matter elsewhere in this forum. We know you want changes to this issue. We have some ideas, but we don't have time at the moment. There is no way to re-create real world variables that real engines encountered that affect reliability so this issue is rather mute and we will have to construct something that somehow approximates this issue. 

 

Jason

[PainGod85]

4 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Historically the P-40/P-39 weren't limited by ANY timer at all especially when in Russian hands. They were wearing down engines in weeks and just replacing them frequently. Otherwise they considered performance of those planes "duds". There was a reason why Pokryshkin (and his squad) was resisting change to Lavochkins and stayed with the Aircobra, instead.

 

Yes, you're making my point.

Hell, transfer the current engine modeling on the 262, with the current engine model I wouldn't be surprised if we got 20 seconds of maximum engine performance before it blows up. Exaggeration for emphasis.

[Jason_Williams]

And to follow up on this I have confirmed this with Daniel.

 

Time limits should exist with random failures in increasing frequency the longer the player stays over the time limit. WEP or Combat.

 

This is how it already works or is supposed to. If it doesn't show us.

Jason