US planes vs D-9 & K4

[CountZero]

Just now, Rattlesnake said:

Well the various temp gauges currently  in the Jug are hardly a fantasy instruments, yet currently they are basically useless, serving littkr real function in helping manage your engine because the timer can and does break it with everything sitting on green.

timers will be in game, as they need to be in game, as in game we always take new airlane and dont care if we abuse the engine, so they will always use this fantasy timers.

ading some gauges in cockpits is no solution, ading some messages informing us of tme limit expiration and recharg is easyest solution, even when message shows up that your fantasy time is out you still have few seconds to go back to lover setting, as after the mesage shows up time of braking is random, sometimes it will brake after 30s sometimes after 4min after the expiration messages show up on normal settings on p-47 for example.

[Ehret]

14 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

305 * (1780/1050)^(1/3) = 363 mph

 

The P-40E in the game on Kuban autumn map, fuel loaded 50%, 10%, no other mods, radiator, 42" @ 3000rpm is doing 293mph @ SL.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Ehret

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

2 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

timers will be in game, as they need to be in game, as in game we always take new airlane and dont care if we abuse the engine, so they will always use this fantasy timers.

ading some gauges in cockpits is no solution, ading some messages informing us of tme limit expiration and recharg is easyest solution, even when message shows up that your fantasy time is out you still have few seconds to go back to lover setting, as after the mesage shows up time of braking is random, sometimes it will brake after 30s sometimes after 4min after the expiration messages show up on normal settings on p-47 for example.

Timer are retarded and should be removed.
It's funny how War Blunder of all things probably has the best game mechanic to limit power levels i've seen. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[CountZero]

Just now, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Timer are retarded and should be removed.
It's funny how War Blunder of all things probably has the best game mechanic to limit power levels i've seen. 

what is better solution that dosent take rework of whole game engine system, i dont know, so best is just make this system work better then expect they will make some big change out of novere because small amount of MP players have problem with it 

[gorice]

Hi all. Long time lurker.

 

Put me firmly in the camp that is opposed to the removal of timers. Real pilots didn't know for sure what would happen if they pushed their engines beyond safe limits, and they were taking their lives in their hands each time they did. Virtual pilots have no such concerns, so there needs to be some mechanism to restrain engine abuse. Or do we want to play with random systems failures in all engine regimes, and increased chances of failure on high settings? Probably not.

 

I'm all for more nuance, but limits (based on historical documentation and physical simulation of particular aircraft, not conjecture and generalisations) need to stay. Also, fuel will rarely be a limiting factor, because our sorties are so short. If a full tank will give you 30 mins of WEP in a P-39, why bother with anything less than 100% throttle?

 

Also, I think someone noted upthread that there is already an option to turn off engine damage. Which means that the people clamouring for the removal of limits aren't demanding options, but rather the removal of limits from multiplayer and/or the imprimatur of 'realism' for their preferred way of flying. Personally, I won't judge you if you play a career with unbreakable engines, but I absolutely do not want to play that way, especially online, where the lack of limits will be abused and lead to unrealistic behaviour.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

20 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

The P-40E in the game on Kuban autumn map, fuel loaded 50%, 10%, no other mods, radiator, 42" @ 3000rpm is doing 293mph.

I'm doing 298mph with full fuel and ammo and 358 mph with full throttle. Problem is we don't know what MP full throttle is. I was doing some rudimentary measurements seeing how much MP changes % of throttle change, and calculating off that, FT is around 70-75 "Hg at SL with the current P-40E, which is overperforming according to Allison document (requiring considerable overspeeding to achieve have the ram necessary to reach that)

Edited April 5, 2019 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[JonRedcorn]

33 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Well the various temp gauges currently  in the Jug are hardly a fantasy instruments, yet currently they are basically useless, serving littkr real function in helping manage your engine because the timer can and does break it with everything sitting on green.

Well hopefully at some point that's what we get is temperature based engine damage as that's the main way engine damage occurs. Temp based damage is already in the game its just not the limiting factor in running the engines hard. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by JonRedcorn

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

13 minutes ago, gorice said:

 

Put me firmly in the camp that is opposed to the removal of timers. Real pilots didn't know for sure what would happen if they pushed their engines beyond safe limits, and they were taking their lives in their hands each time they did.

Allisons 8.8:1 engines (-39 -73) being overboosted happened often enough that there are multiple notable mentions, and most detailed come from Allison themselves.

Stuff like RAAF P-40K having their limiters/regulators removed to achieve 66"Hg with -73 engines and RAF Mustang Mk I pilots running full throttle for excess of 20 minutes.

 

Put it simply, manual autism is not accurate or historical. P-38's manual cruise settings will destroy your engines in real life in long flights. You won't find Lindbergs recommended settings in there when he worked with frontline squadrons.

Edited April 5, 2019 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[gorice]

4 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Allisons 8:8 engines (-39 -73) being overboosted happened often enough that there are multiple notable mentions, and most detailed come from Allison themselves.

Stuff like RAAF P-40K having their limiters/regulators removed to achieve 66"Hg with -73 engines and RAF Mustang Mk I pilots running full throttle for excess of 20 minutes.

 

Put it simply, manual autism is not accurate or historical. P-38's manual cruise settings will destroy your engines in real life in long flights. You won't find Lindbergs recommended settings in there when he worked with frontline squadrom.

 

This is an interesting problem. Did people like Lindberg properly document and promulgate these recommendations? If you can build up a good collection of evidence as to how these engines were operated in the field (not just pilot anecdotes), would the devs consider it as a source?

[Dakpilot]

3 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Allisons 8:8 engines (-39 -73) being overboosted happened often enough that there are multiple notable mentions, and most detailed come from Allison themselves.

Stuff like RAAF P-40K having their limiters removed to achieve 66"Hg and RAF Mustang Mk I pilots running full throttle for excess of 20 minutes.

 

What we have is a 1941 P-40E being used in Russia, using later engines as examples of what it might achieve with further development is moving the goalposts a bit. 

 

The 1780hp P-40 is a perfect example of why engine limits are needed, if P-40's/Allison's could really have been operated like that for more than a few minutes don't you think Allisons would have replaced all Klimov's and featured heavily on the allies radar considering what HP axis aircraft were producing at that time? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Ehret]

2 minutes ago, gorice said:

Hi all. Long time lurker.

 

Put me firmly in the camp that is opposed to the removal of timers. Real pilots didn't know for sure what would happen if they pushed their engines beyond safe limits, and they were taking their lives in their hands each time they did. Virtual pilots have no such concerns, so there needs to be some mechanism to restrain engine abuse. Or do we want to play with random systems failures in all engine regimes, and increased chances of failure on high settings? Probably not.

 

I'm all for more nuance, but limits (based on historical documentation and physical simulation of particular aircraft, not conjecture and generalisations) need to stay. Also, fuel will rarely be a limiting factor, because our sorties are so short. If a full tank will give you 30 mins of WEP in a P-39, why bother with anything less than 100% throttle?.

 

Why do you ignore that in the IL-2 are planes which are like that already?! Yaks, LaGG and the La-5F all can be run with 100% full power without any timer ticking. (thermals allowing of course)

The LW's fighters have 30m of strong combat power (better performance than reduced 10m combat setting in the P-39L) - to match it you will have use lowered emergency in the P-39L which will extend the timer to 6-7m. That's a lot less and that's a weird thing to have for one of the best western scoring planes in the Russian air-force from the WW2 history.

 

In the BOBP you have the K4 which not only is the best performing prop so far we have but you can use the cycling trick to run at very high settings +30m straight.

 

No one is bothered by these - no one give a thing that people can be flying full-bore in them without a clicking bomb. Yet, raise the issue when it concerns one of the western planes and boom! - outrage starts!

 

You know what is that called? Never mind - you will have your 5/1 paradise. I give up; there better things to do.

[Rattlesnake]

9 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

what is better solution that dosent take rework of whole game engine system

As has been stated repeatedly temperature, which is already modeled as the primary restriction on some planes and can be clearly seen on gauges, could be used. The WEP setting could be modeled to build up more heat than the cooling system can completely dissipate, causing a gradual rise. 

 

Planes which use water injection to access their WEP should probably be able to do so as long as they have the fluid, and not at all after they run out, for the obvious reason. Planes which don’t use such a system would have less WEP time at a go, but would have the capacity to cool down and use it again. Sounds fair enough.

 

i don’t know how many of games of this genre you’ve played besides BoX. I’ve played several. There is a reason why the timers are hated and a point of controversy here, while the limitation systems in other games are a non-issue. 

 

Realism would be using the highest power settings you could as long as you thought you needed them inside combat with perhaps an eye to the gauges every once in awhile, with a small chance of engine failure. And not using them at all outside combat need, with a smaller but still real chance of random failure on cruise settings anyway. This is unenforceable in a game and would function like nearly unlimited WEP in many situations anyway.

 

One major limitation on power settings in the real world was fuel consumption. It would be interesting to see what would happen if server managers had the ability to set fuel to be consumed by all planes in the arena  at perhaps twice it’s normal rate. 

14 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

What we have is a 1941 P-40E being used in Russia, using later engines as examples of what it might achieve with further development is moving the goalposts a bit. 

 

The 1780hp P-40 is a perfect example of why engine limits are needed, if P-40's/Allison's could really have been operated like that for more than a few minutes don't you think Allisons would have replaced all Klimov's and featured heavily on the allies radar considering what HP axis aircraft were producing at that time? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

The P-40 is a special case in the lack of a mechanism preventing the pilot from wildly overboosting. Very well, let the engine management in-game be handled something like that of the Fokker D7F and its altitude throttle. Keep on rocking as long as it ain’t knocking. Again a mechanic we already have can do it bettter.

 

The case of the P-40 is not relevant  to the question of whether it is realistic and desirable for a water-injected P&W, an engine type which was WEP tested for hours, should blow up with little warning after as little as ~5 minutes in game. 

 

 

 

 

[Ehret]

11 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

The 1780hp P-40 is a perfect example of why engine limits are needed, if P-40's/Allison's could really have been operated like that for more than a few minutes don't you think Allisons would have replaced all Klimov's and featured heavily on the allies radar considering what HP axis aircraft were producing at that time?

 

What a convoluted logic... They must needed them to do frequent engine replacements for P-40s and Cobras. No one sane would waste best air-frames by throwing away fresh engines... Yes - P-39s were best fighters Russian had at the time - scores earned by Russians in the P-39s are the best proof. For a time even the P-40s were considered competitive enough.

There is some weird distortion of the history going on... Instead of the historic premier fighter of the BoK we got a flying ticked bomb. Instead of the best structural sound diver (and zoomer) the Thunderbolt we got "Thunderspit" - a something which looks like a Jug but doesn't dive, doesn't last but can deploy magic "coptering" flaps. What will be next? The Zerostang, perhaps?

[gorice]

35 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Why do you ignore that in the IL-2 are planes which are like that already?! Yaks, LaGG and the La-5F all can be run with 100% full power without any timer ticking. (thermals allowing of course)

The LW's fighters have 30m of strong combat power (better performance than reduced 10m combat setting in the P-39L) - to match it you will have use lowered emergency in the P-39L which will extend the timer to 6-7m. That's a lot less and that's a weird thing to have for one of the best western scoring planes in the Russian air-force from the WW2 history.

 

These are completely different aircraft with completely different engines. '100% power' doesn't mean anything, it's just where you set the throttle. Nominal power for a Yak is at 100% throttle, while other aircraft achieve nominal power at lower settings and can set their power even higher if they want. It's the Yak that is at a disadvantage here, because it doesn't have any boost setting.

[Venturi]

3 hours ago, JtD said:

If you consider that two different engines are two different engines.

 

Hint, Compression Ratios

[Ehret]

22 minutes ago, gorice said:

 

These are completely different aircraft with completely different engines. '100% power' doesn't mean anything, it's just where you set the throttle. Nominal power for a Yak is at 100% throttle, while other aircraft achieve nominal power at lower settings and can set their power even higher if they want. It's the Yak that is at a disadvantage here, because it doesn't have any boost setting.

 

What matters is the final performance of plane and no - they all have piston engines all running on the same principles. For non ADI engine like the V-1710 in the P-39L there is no special difference between so called "modes". It's only about RPM and MP values - nothing else changes*. IRL you will get some failures even on nominal setting no matter which engine. Increasing RPM and MP will make them more probable but engines like the V-1710s (or V-1650s) were thoroughly tested. 150h of nonstop running and 5-7h of hard WEP testing were needed for acceptance. Especially, considering differences in manufacturing quality in the US and the Soviets at the time failure rates we have in the game are off.

 

edit: *sometimes mix will need to be increased and rads will have to deal with more heat but except that - it's the same.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Ehret

[Venturi]

52 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Why do you ignore that in the IL-2 are planes which are like that already?! Yaks, LaGG and the La-5F all can be run with 100% full power without any timer ticking. (thermals allowing of course)

The LW's fighters have 30m of strong combat power (better performance than reduced 10m combat setting in the P-39L) - to match it you will have use lowered emergency in the P-39L which will extend the timer to 6-7m. That's a lot less and that's a weird thing to have for one of the best western scoring planes in the Russian air-force from the WW2 history.

 

In the BOBP you have the K4 which not only is the best performing prop so far we have but you can use the cycling trick to run at very high settings +30m straight.

 

No one is bothered by these - no one give a thing that people can be flying full-bore in them without a clicking bomb. Yet, raise the issue when it concerns one of the western planes and boom! - outrage starts!

 

You know what is that called? Never mind - you will have your 5/1 paradise. I give up; there better things to do.

 

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Allisons 8.8:1 engines (-39 -73) being overboosted happened often enough that there are multiple notable mentions, and most detailed come from Allison themselves.

Stuff like RAAF P-40K having their limiters/regulators removed to achieve 66"Hg with -73 engines and RAF Mustang Mk I pilots running full throttle for excess of 20 minutes.

 

Put it simply, manual autism is not accurate or historical. P-38's manual cruise settings will destroy your engines in real life in long flights. You won't find Lindbergs recommended settings in there when he worked with frontline squadrons.

 

The solution is using the historical fuel capacity for octane (whether it is 87 B4, 100 C4, 100/130PN, or 100/150Pn,) to correctly model detonation. The developers said in the Russian forums that they are working on it.

3 hours ago, JtD said:

 

The 1650 and 1710 are two completely different engines. That's hardly nitpicking.

 

And yes, 360 is totally reasonable for a P-40E to reach at 70". If I extrapolate my FM, I'm getting to 365, so pretty much the same. Not surprising, giving that the laws of physics are fundamentally the same.

 

If you consider that two different engines are two different engines.

 

I noted the stall is 95mph now

This is why the P40 is seeing love from players I think

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, Psyrion said:

@DakpilotTell us more! That's really interesting. What planes did you get to fly?

 

I think he may have missed your reply, so I'll just tell you myself: he flew DC-4s. Somewhere around here there's at least one photo of one of his planes in flight. 

[Ribbon]

3 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

There’s more than 4 people addressing concerns about the various modeling anomalies in BoBp in this *thread*.

 

From what I’ve seen I’d no longer bet heavily on BoBp being the biggest BoX hit yet. Giving people the opportunity to fly the American planes of fame is an unprecedented opportunity for sales...but not if you saddle said planes with dubious handicaps, while seeming to be as charitable as possible in modeling the planes they have to fight at the same time.

 

 

There is still 6-8 months left till BoBp official release, lets keep faith in devs, they are not stupid nor Jason is about USA hardware popularity.....things get tweaked all the time continously even after release.

Let's wait and see!

[Legioneod]

I think we can all agree that if timers are going to stay then we need to abide by some rules like I posted above.

Currently there is no indicator that our engines are about to fail or that they are being pushed too hard. What we need is some way to tell that our engines need a break and that we have gone over the time limit for our engine.

 

Here are a few ways we can better see that our engine need a break. These indicators should only begin to occur once we go over the limit and are in danger of killing our engine, it makes no sense for them to occur beforehand since we are still within the limits.

 

-RPM/Manifold fluctuation : Just like when our engine is damaged, I think it would be a good indicator that we need to throttle down to give our engine a break.

-Overheat : Once we go over the engine timer we should see a steady increase in heat until engine failure, this would give a good indication that the engine is being overworked.

-Noise variation : Another good indication is if we get some noise variation like we are losing power or have some power fluctuation.

 

These three indicators would help us know that we have gone over the engine timer and that we need to throttle back in order to preserve our engine.

 

EDIT: Here's the rules again. If timers are going to stay then we need rules to apply to all aircraft and not just a few like they do now.

-Aircraft all recharge timers at the same rate (1:1 seems to be the most logical)

-WEP and Combat power shouldn't eat into each others timers.

-WEP should recharge in Combat and lower power settings.

-Combat should only recharge in lower settings not WEP. (No more WEP/COMBAT cycle)

 

-Water injection is a special case and should be considered. With aircraft that have water injection WEP should be allowed for the whole time the aircraft has water (if this was possible in the real aircraft (P-47 as an example). Once water runs out WEP isn't available anymore at the same power if at all, so the short advantage of having WEP longer is short lived due to a finite amount of water.

 

Having these standard rules would go a long way in improving a poor game mechanic.

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Legioneod

[-SF-Disarray]

Why not a timer that counts up, instead of down, and has no hard end point? The longer the timer runs the more likely engine failure is, say on some kind of logarithmic scale with a % chance that grows as the timer ticks and grows faster the longer the timer runs. No hard stop after 4 or 5 minutes but a creeping chance of catastrophic failure and a failure check every few seconds. It would remove the harsh limits and prevent the use of WEP all the time as eventually the failure chance will reach 100% though the engine would probably fail sooner.

 

A system like this would be simple enough to implement if a timer is already in place and it would forgo the necessity of modeling all the major moving parts of an engine in real time on top of all the other things they have running in the background. This would eliminate the need for recharge timers as well. As soon as you lower the power settings the timer stops and the failure chance returns to 0, but picks up right where you left it when you turn the power back up; or maybe the timer should tick down if that is more in line with reality. This could be put over the top of the thermal failure model they have too.

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, Disarray said:

Why not a timer that counts up, instead of down, and has no hard end point? The longer the timer runs the more likely engine failure is, say on some kind of logarithmic scale with a % chance that grows as the timer ticks and grows faster the longer the timer runs. No hard stop after 4 or 5 minutes but a creeping chance of catastrophic failure and a failure check every few seconds. It would remove the harsh limits and prevent the use of WEP all the time as eventually the failure chance will reach 100% though the engine would probably fail sooner.

 

A system like this would be simple enough to implement if a timer is already in place and it would forgo the necessity of modeling all the major moving parts of an engine in real time on top of all the other things they have running in the background. This would eliminate the need for recharge timers as well. As soon as you lower the power settings the timer stops and the failure chance returns to 0, but picks up right where you left it when you turn the power back up; or maybe the timer should tick down if that is more in line with reality. This could be put over the top of the thermal failure model they have too.

 

I like this system. Coupled with the rules/indicators I suggested above would make for a much better experience than the system we currently have.

 

A timer that ticks down as you rest the engine would be best imo.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Legioneod

[Ribbon]

3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I think we can all agree that if timers are going to stay then we need to abide by some rules like I posted above.

Currently there is no indicator that our engines are about to fail or that they are being pushed too hard. What we need is some way to tell that our engines need a break and that we have gone over the time limit for our engine.

 

Here are a few ways we can better see that our engine need a break. These indicators should only begin to occur once we go over the limit and are in danger of killing our engine, it makes no sense for them to occur beforehand since we are still within the limits.

 

-RPM/Manifold fluctuation : Just like when our engine is damaged, I think it would be a good indicator that we need to throttle down to give our engine a break.

-Overheat : Once we go over the engine timer we should see a steady increase in heat until engine failure, this would give a good indication that the engine is being overworked.

-Noise variation : Another good indication is if we get some noise variation like we are losing power or have some power fluctuation.

 

These three indicators would help us know that we have gone over the engine timer and that we need to throttle back in order to preserve our engine.

 

EDIT: Here's the rules again. If timers are going to stay then we need rules to apply to all aircraft and not just a few like they do now.

-Aircraft all recharge timers at the same rate (1:1 seems to be the most logical)

-WEP and Combat power shouldn't eat into each others timers.

-WEP should recharge in Combat and lower power settings.

-Combat should only recharge in lower settings not WEP. (No more WEP/COMBAT cycle)

 

-Water injection is a special case and should be considered. With aircraft that have water injection WEP should be allowed for the whole time the aircraft has water (if this was possible in the real aircraft (P-47 as an example). Once water runs out WEP isn't available anymore at the same power if at all, so the short advantage of having WEP longer is short lived due to a finite amount of water.

 

Having these standard rules would go a long way in improving a poor game mechanic.

 

 

 

WEP and Combat should eat each other as stress on the engine rises exponentionaly....it's just how things are IRL.

WEP should recharge on Combat but at much slower rate or not at all, depending how much stress cobat power hits on the engine, physicaly, maybe temps and such would stop rise exponentionally but rather keep constant...which us mortals can't determine without real test as we tend to realism.

We usually don't want fictional DM.

Reading that thread in russian forum where Petrovich explains it as not being just timers and simple script, seems there is much more details under the hud which made me stunned, only one question is left; is that game logic modeled according to flight manuals or engine tests?

 

1 hour ago, Disarray said:

Why not a timer that counts up, instead of down, and has no hard end point? The longer the timer runs the more likely engine failure is, say on some kind of logarithmic scale with a % chance that grows as the timer ticks and grows faster the longer the timer runs. No hard stop after 4 or 5 minutes but a creeping chance of catastrophic failure and a failure check every few seconds. It would remove the harsh limits and prevent the use of WEP all the time as eventually the failure chance will reach 100% though the engine would probably fail sooner.

 

A system like this would be simple enough to implement if a timer is already in place and it would forgo the necessity of modeling all the major moving parts of an engine in real time on top of all the other things they have running in the background. This would eliminate the need for recharge timers as well. As soon as you lower the power settings the timer stops and the failure chance returns to 0, but picks up right where you left it when you turn the power back up; or maybe the timer should tick down if that is more in line with reality. This could be put over the top of the thermal failure model they have too.

I like this 100%, and it is how it would react IRL given some logic.

Petrovich explained it in that russian thread above, that it works that way (but seems at much faster rate as we would want).....again i think problem is as different operators use different limits for same or similar engines and engines are modeled according to flight manuals not engine tests.

Edited April 5, 2019 by EAF_Ribbon

[Legioneod]

15 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

WEP and Combat should eat each other as stress on the engine rises exponentionaly....it's just how things are IRL.

WEP should recharge on Combat but at much slower rate or not at all, depending how much stress cobat power hits on the engine, physicaly, maybe temps and such would stop rise exponentionally but rather keep constant...which us mortals can't determine without real test as we tend to realism.

We usually don't want fictional DM.

Reading that thread in russian forum where Petrovich explains it as not being just timers and simple script, seems there is much more details under the hood which made me stunned, only one question is left; is that game logic modeled according to flight manuals or engine tests.....latter one could be the solution!

Rest i agree with you!

 

I like this 100%, and it is how it would react IRL given some logic.

Petrovich explained it in that russian thread above, that it works that way (but seems at much faster rate as we would want).....again i think problem is as different operators use different limits for same or similar engines and engines are modeled on flight manuals.

 

If that's the case then you might as well make Combat/WEP into one timer and not separate as it makes little sense to have separate timers if they eat into each other.

 

No such stipulation is listed in manuals so there shouldn't be this requirement in-game. The rules as I listed still make the most sense imo.

 

These engine were made to handle much more time at power than listed in the manual, so it makes little sense to have the timers eat into each other especially when this rule is not required on some aircraft currently in game.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Legioneod

[Ribbon]

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

If that's the case then you might as well make Combat/WEP into one timer and not separate. These engine were made to handle much more time at power than listed in the manual, so it makes little sense to have the timers eat into each other especially when this rule is not required on some aircraft currently in game.

Could be, i don't like speculate when there are documentation of those factory tests, they should be only valid point.

I never worked on piston engines but on turbine engines even when limits are reached and beyond engine will still work for hours but it's lifespan will be shorten and damage on internal pars occur such as bearings, orings, metal chips from rgb, metal properities change...etc. 

And will rise exponentionally.

But i believe piston engines are much more fragile.

Again if p47 engine tests did 7h on WEP than i would want similar in game.

 

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Could be, i don't like speculate when there are documentation of those factory tests, they should be only valid point.

I never worked on piston engines but on turbine engines even when limits are reached and beyond engine will still work for hours but it's lifespan will be shorten and damage on internal pars occur such as bearings, orings, metal chips from rgb, metal properities change...etc. 

And will rise exponentionally.

But i believe piston engines are much more fragile.

Again if p47 engine tests did 7h on WEP than i would want similar in game.

 

 

Keep in mind those test were done over a period of a few days. However, there was no failure during the test and the engine was used on more test when done. (Without any repair or break I might add.)

 

What the test do show is that the times listed in the manual are nowhere close to the failure point of the engine (If that was the case then the power and time would never have been allowed). The limits are for engine life over the course of multiple sorties.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Legioneod

[Ribbon]

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

Keep in mind those test were done over a period of a few days. However, there was no failure during the test and the engine was used on more test when done. (Without any repair or break I might add.)

 

What the test do show is that the times listed in the manual are nowhere close to the failure point of the engine. The limits are for engine life over the course of multiple sorties.

Yeah, now thinking about it where does it stop, we want realism and realism is that there were limited number of spare engines and parts, best is to fly as those guys did in ww2.

We're sitting in our comfy chairs and push planes to the limits and beyond not caring about virtual life while reality was different and those guys had only one chance.

If they model factory tests we will all fly "jets" in game cos we couldn't resist.

Tough subject this is!

 

Ribbon out! (Still wan't 150 pctane fuel )

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Yeah, now thinking about it where does it stop, we want realism and realism is that there were limited number of spare engines and parts, best is to fly as those guys did in ww2.

We're sitting in our comfy chairs and push planes to the limits and beyond not caring about virtual life while reality was different and those guys had only one chance.

If they model factory tests we will all fly "jets" in game cos we couldn't resist.

Tough subject this is!

 

Ribbon out! (Still wan't 150 pctane fuel )

 

The fact isn't that they have limits, it's how they are implemented in game with no regard for standard rules or common sense. Everything has a limit in reality but the way it is in-game has no basis in real life.

 

Having a standard of rules/engine indicators that I listed and the timer that @Disarray mentioned would be much better than the system we currently have.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Legioneod

[Ehret]

Personally I would prefer to have a hp multiplier which starts at 1.0 and gradually decrease when you are running at higher power levels. To ensure that people would stay for whole match there would be maximum floor for this variable and it should be a server side setting. Per configured amount of time the multiplier would increase gradually up to 1.0 again.

 

Add to that current thermal limitations and scale fuel loads to fit map sizes and we could have something resembling logistics and historic power use. You would care to maintain the multiplier at highest (1.0) level possible but if a need arises you could use it without fear of seizure. Yet, there would be a practical limit and abuse would result in a penalty.

[Bert_Foster]

is there actually a confirmation from the Devs that timers are actually used ? Reading the translated version on the Russian forums the devs are saying timers are not used ... well thats how I read the Ruenglish

[[CPT]Crunch]

Realism was when there was a Hun on your hind end you had no concern whatsoever with engine limits.

 

When deep over the Reich not in direct contact, you bet your @ the engine was a concern.

 

Simple question, what exactly was the cause of a particular make of engines failure, WEP is not a direct cause.  Oil seal blowing out, rod busting, oil cooking ect, as a result of pushing it are.  None of those can ever be recharged and reset.  None of them seem to happen either, the complexity and depth just ain't there, yet.

 

Arguing over historical play out or reality is rather pointless, realistically no program is ever going to play out such a desired result.  Real question, is it good enough to fool via suspension of disbelief and be fun while doing it, should be able to do "that" via programming, been a looong time since the war, not in any danger of the many having direct knowledge or connections with that era.  So stick to what sells, screw the history, it shouldn't ever be nothing more than a secondary consideration. 

[Legioneod]

58 minutes ago, Bert_Foster said:

is there actually a confirmation from the Devs that timers are actually used ? Reading the translated version on the Russian forums the devs are saying timers are not used ... well thats how I read the Ruenglish

If that was the case we would be able to push the engines longer than we can. In game the engine will always fail a short time after exceeding time limit, unlike irl where the variables are far greater.

 

Timers are used in-game, though the time of failure varies a little bit.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Legioneod

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

For what I could test the engine time works in a way that after reaching the limit there is an extra random time before damage happens, it tends to be around 50% of the original time limit but it has some variation. I guess what Petrovich mentioned were the variables that dictate how much extra random time you have.

I tested with the P-39 a while back with 51" which has 5 minutes limit, and these were the different times before engine damage I got:

7:36
5:36
7:03
6:30
5:24
7:32
8:39
6:12
7:52
6:36

[LColony_Kong]

Those who want timers are forgetting that the main purpose of a simulation is the tactical result.

 

It is already unrealistic to have engines that do not fail at max continuous. Higher power settings merely increase that possibility, but as a matter of scale not quality. Simply put, things under greater stress tend to fail more often. 

 

It is stupid in a video game to model random failures. Random failures are not a simulation of anything. They are a statistic regarding deterministic failures that were not expected. So if a engine rated for 1000hp to fails during a long use, it is not because the power itself killed the engine. High power use could kill through wear, but not in a single mission if using a rated power. 

 

The reason engines fail at rated powered is because some assumed condition the rating is based on is not present. Factories sometimes put out bad parts, mechanics forget maintenance, the engine might already be super worn out, pilot error, etc. ALL of these can happen at even continous settings. They are more likely at higher settings because at higher approved ratings it takes less of a deviation from a ideal engine to cause a problem because tolerances are less.

 

The key here is that these failures are not part of the engines design. They occur because something not planned happens. Which means they should not be part of the simulation because they are not explictly part of the engine. 

 

The same could be said of every mechanical object in this game. Yet I dont see anyone asking for factory deviations on other systems.

 

The timers are not a discrete model of the engines function. They are a model of factors that are NOT designed into the engine. 

 

Arguing for timers to control unrealistic in game behavior is not an argument for realistic mechanical modeling. It is an attempt to smuggle secondary conditions into the engine model as if they are primary engine failure mechanisims. 

 

What this does is make all planes not perform correctly when it actually matters: in combat. What matters in this game is speeds, climb rates, turn rates, etc. 

 

When you introduce a timer to control for extraneous factors related to engine reliability, every planes combat performance on the whole is degraded because it is no longer being modeled as the plane, but as the plane plus external factors that are not explicitly modeled.

 

The time limits, excepting water, were dictated by operational and strategic concerns, not tactical ones. All of which are beyond the scope of this game. This is why the same engines were sometimes uprated. For example, the p38 had no less than 3 different recommendations for what it's appoved settings should be. The official rating was something else entirely. This was entirely due to disagreements on what was practical for long term use.

 

The bottom line is that flying around at wep all the time is a player behavior problem, not a discretely mechanical one. And the engine model should never be altered to enforce behavior.

 

I typed this on my phone, please forgive all the punctuation and other errors.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Fumes

[PatrickAWlson]

Been reading and not really seeing an answer:

Would these engines actually fail in the scope of a single flight due to excessively long use of certain power ratings?

If Yes, how?  Instantly and catastrophically?  Partially?  

What warning would the engine give before failing?

 

I am absolutely against any attempt to model random engine wear.  I want to take off with a good engine.  If failure of a good engine due to running too long at a certain power setting is a thing then I would not mind some randomization after limits are exceeded.  This way you could take your chances if you had to.  If this sort of failure is not a thing then don't model it.  

 

 

 

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Been reading and not really seeing an answer:

Would these engines actually fail in the scope of a single flight due to excessively long use of certain power ratings?

If Yes, how?  Instantly and catastrophically?  Partially?  

What warning would the engine give before failing?

 

I am absolutely against any attempt to model random engine wear.  I want to take off with a good engine.  If failure of a good engine due to running too long at a certain power setting is a thing then I would not mind some randomization after limits are exceeded.  This way you could take your chances if you had to.  If this sort of failure is not a thing then don't model it.  

 

 

 

 

Short answer is it depends. Could a perfect engine run a very long time at high power, yes but it will fail eventually. Would a perfect engine fail just because it went over a 5 min limit, no it wouldn't.

 

Sometimes there is no warning before an engine fails, sometimes there is plenty, it all depends and there is no set value or outcome.

You might see power dropoff, you might start to hear the engine acting up, or it might just blow up, many different warnings as well before a failure.

 

Basically what we see in game with perfect engines failing a few minutes after exceeding the limit is unrealistic and wouldn't happen in reality. What you would see is likely power drop off over time the longer you run it full power, eventually the engine will give out but only because you pushed it for a long period of time, and not because you went a few minutes over.

 

The type of failure depends completely on what actually fails in the engine. Throw a rod at full bore and the failure will be pretty catastrophic. Blow a gasket and the failure would probably be a lot less violent, you likely wouldn't even notice it when it happens.

 

 

Another thing to consider is boost pressure and octane rating. If you run your aircraft at too high of a pressure with the wrong fuel you'll probably destroy the engine in a short period of time.

P-47 for example was rated at 64" with ADI and 100/130 octane fuel, if ADI wasn't used the likelihood of failure was pretty high and it's unlikely you'd last long at all. With ADI the likelihood of failure was greatly diminished and you could run it far longer with very little trouble (longer than the 15 min of water the tank holds)

Once the P-47 got 150 octane fuel it's power was increased to 70" with ADI and 64" without ADI. This was because the high octane fuel enabled it to run at 64" safely without needing ADI to prevent detonation, try the same thing with 70" and the engine would fail shortly (probably not an instant seizure but it would be damaged).

 

Should engines be able to run 2-3x longer than specified limit? Yes, the likelihood of a perfect engine failing after this amount of time is slim.

Should they be able to run 1-2 hours full bore: Probably not, the likelihood of failure is pretty high after this amount of time at power, and the stress only increases the longer you run it.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Legioneod

[LColony_Kong]

15 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

 

What we have is a 1941 P-40E being used in Russia, using later engines as examples of what it might achieve with further development is moving the goalposts a bit. 

 

The 1780hp P-40 is a perfect example of why engine limits are needed, if P-40's/Allison's could really have been operated like that for more than a few minutes don't you think Allisons would have replaced all Klimov's and featured heavily on the allies radar considering what HP axis aircraft were producing at that time? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

Completely different things are being discussed here. The P-40 is a special case of what is to be done, because it does not have a MP regulator. It is a totally different discussion between the P-40 running MORE power than was authorized for LONGER than was authorized and letting other planes run rated power for longer periods.

 

The 1780hp P-40 moreover, proves exactly the opposite of what you contend. No 1100bhp or 1300bhp P-40 was going to die in 5min if planes were successfully run for 4 times that duration at  61% higher power.

 

 "if P-40's/Allison's could really have been operated like that for more than a few minutes don't you think Allisons would have replaced all Klimov's and featured heavily on the allies radar considering what HP axis aircraft were producing at that time? "

 

That above quote is just gibberish. There are any number of reasons why this was not the case

 

-Did they have the supply of allisons to replace all the Klimovs?

-Power is not the only metric behind engine selection

-The Allison DID feature heavily in the allies radar. It powered just about every early war non-radial american plane. It didnt feature as high on the radar in the later stages because reasonable solutions to its high altitude performance that werent a turbo didnt come about till later, such as the P-63s hydraulically coupled supercharger. The reason the allison didnt take off is well documented. 

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Fumes

[SCG_OpticFlow]

15 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

As has been stated repeatedly temperature, which is already modeled as the primary restriction on some planes and can be clearly seen on gauges, could be used. The WEP setting could be modeled to build up more heat than the cooling system can completely dissipate, causing a gradual rise. 

 

Planes which use water injection to access their WEP should probably be able to do so as long as they have the fluid, and not at all after they run out, for the obvious reason. Planes which don’t use such a system would have less WEP time at a go, but would have the capacity to cool down and use it again. Sounds fair enough.

 

i don’t know how many of games of this genre you’ve played besides BoX. I’ve played several. There is a reason why the timers are hated and a point of controversy here, while the limitation systems in other games are a non-issue. 

 

Realism would be using the highest power settings you could as long as you thought you needed them inside combat with perhaps an eye to the gauges every once in awhile, with a small chance of engine failure. And not using them at all outside combat need, with a smaller but still real chance of random failure on cruise settings anyway. This is unenforceable in a game and would function like nearly unlimited WEP in many situations anyway.

 

One major limitation on power settings in the real world was fuel consumption. It would be interesting to see what would happen if server managers had the ability to set fuel to be consumed by all planes in the arena  at perhaps twice it’s normal rate. 

The P-40 is a special case in the lack of a mechanism preventing the pilot from wildly overboosting. Very well, let the engine management in-game be handled something like that of the Fokker D7F and its altitude throttle. Keep on rocking as long as it ain’t knocking. Again a mechanic we already have can do it bettter.

 

The case of the P-40 is not relevant  to the question of whether it is realistic and desirable for a water-injected P&W, an engine type which was WEP tested for hours, should blow up with little warning after as little as ~5 minutes in game. 

 

 

 

 

 

We have been debating the 1 min timer on 109-F4 for years (I had supported the same idea to use temp limits) and been called the usual names. I hope finally these ideas gain traction as more allied virtual pilots are affected by the timers and experience themselves the frustration of their engine blowing up without warning at the worst possible time.

 

I wonder if we can use the oil pressure gauges as indicator that something is going wrong with the engine?

[Legioneod]

Just now, OpticFlow said:

 

We have been debating the 1 min timer on 109-F4 for years (I had supported the same idea to use temp limits) and been called the usual names. I hope finally these ideas gain traction as more allied virtual pilots are affected by the timers and experience themselves the frustration of their engine blowing up without warning at the worst possible time.

 

I wonder if we can use the oil pressure gauges as indicator that something is going wrong with the engine?

 

Not sure if it's modeled in game but oil gauge acting up can indicate a number of problems.

[Dakpilot]

Obviously the Russians did not have enough supply of Allisons even to support their own small P-40's my point is only that in 1941 if it could reliably produce 1700+hp it would have been a game changer. Engine limits in game stop this from happening 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot