A Modest Proposal for Engine Timers

[Rattlesnake]

1. There are many people pointing out, quite reasonably, that engines in fact did not break if you left WEP on for a minute longer than manual guidelines state, or in many cases MUCH longer, and pilots pretty much seem to have used as much WEP as long as needed in combat situations.

2. Other people have pointed out equally reasonably that while the above is is true pilots most certainly did not fly entire sorties at WEP, and that virpils most certainly would do this thing if there were no limitation. The primary reason why limitation is desirable from a gameplay perspective is that some planes (109s for examples) were much simpler to take from cruise settings to "balls to the wall" than others (P-47s, for example) and it's fun to include this bit of historicity/abject lesson in user-friendly design.

So here is a proposal: Instead of BOOM your engine porked when WEP times are exceeded available power is simply automatically reduced till WEP recharges to a certain extent.

It's a compromise on reality, and not a perfect one, but perhaps simpler than full-bore thermodynamic engine modeling and more acceptable to all than simply tossing the timers.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[JonRedcorn]

I don't like that idea one bit. Limiting my throttle like that is even worse than the current system.

[Rattlesnake]

2 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

I don't like that idea one bit. Limiting my throttle like that is even worse than the current system.

Two things:
First, I don't think you can make a reasonable case that being limited to combat or even continuous power for an interlude is *worse* than looking at a stopped prop.

Second, when is Big Mountain Fudgecake gonna release their new album?

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[Dakpilot]

Isn't this just simplified/auto engine controls? Or am I missing something? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Ehret]

4 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

2. Other people have pointed out equally reasonably that while the above is is true pilots most certainly did not fly entire sorties at WEP, and that virpils most certainly would do this thing if there were no limitation. The primary reason why limitation is desirable from a gameplay perspective is that some planes (109s for examples) were much simpler to take from cruise settings to "balls to the wall" than others (P-47s, for example) and it's fun to include this bit of historicity/abject lesson in user-friendly design.

 

There are few popular planes in which you can fly "full-bore" as long you want no problem. Yaks, the LaGG, the La-5F... does it bother anyone?

For a contrast consider the P-39L - not only it has short timers but the emergency eats into (!) already mediocre combat... Full rest takes a whooping 25m - it's better just RTB, then. And no - timers aren't the only limiters when using boost in the Airacobra. You have to deal with rampart overheats, high fuel consumption (50% fuel load would last for 15m of full WEP) and occasionally throttle down because the sluggish pitch governor can kill engine.

[Matt]

You're suggesting a feature we already have.

 

It's called throttle auto-limit.

[JonRedcorn]

Like I've suggested many times people should go read the FM section on the russian forum since petrovich posts there almost every day. Might give people some insight.

[Rattlesnake]

24 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

There are few popular planes in which you can fly "full-bore" as long you want no problem. Yaks, the LaGG, the La-5F... does it bother anyone?

 

Lagg3 frequent flyer here. It tends to overheat rather quickly in fast-as-she-will-go config, which isn't all that fast. Still I get your point, getting an overheat message and opening your rads is far, far better thing and a more comprehensible and manageable system than "We have determined that you have used your allotted quota of competitive power settings, boom your engine is porked."

6 minutes ago, Matt said:

You're suggesting a feature we already have.

 

It's called throttle auto-limit.

I've never played in an arena that had it switched on. I would suggest ditching the "You left WEP plugged in too long, now your motor go bye-bye" methanic entirely in favor of it, since the auto-reduction is less unrealistic.
The most realistic option of course would be to have absolutely nothing happen during the sortie but later mechanics and/or a superior officer would berate you for 30 minutes for shortening engine life by using WEP outside of necessity. But that seems hard to model effectively.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[Ehret]

5 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

The most realistic option of course would be to have absolutely nothing happen during the sortie but later mechanics and/or a superior officer would berate you for 30 minutes for shortening engine life by using WEP outside of necessity. But that seems hard to model effectively.

 

Not that hard at all. Just scrap the over abused plane, zero the streak and give some score to anyone who landed hits on the plane.

[Dakpilot]

28 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

There are few popular planes in which you can fly "full-bore" as long you want no problem. Yaks, the LaGG, the La-5F... does it bother anyone?

 

Why should it? You can fly all the other aircraft at max continuous just like Yak's etc. (within temp limits of course) 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Ehret]

8 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Why should it? You can fly all the other aircraft at max continuous just like Yak's etc. (within temp limits of course)

 

There is a marked difference between maximum continuous of the La-5F and the P-39L. You don't see it? The former's performance is time unlimited; the latter's performance is time limited.

 

edit: open full throttle/boost in La-5F and (thermals allowing) nothing happens. Do the same in the P-39L and engine seizes after 2m. The La-5F has max setting which is continuous; the P-39L has not. A huge difference.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Ehret

[Rattlesnake]

52 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Why should it? You can fly all the other aircraft at max continuous just like Yak's etc. (within temp limits of course) 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

If it were the case that some planes have unlimited max settings because at these settings the engines are being run less hard than they physically could be, equivalent to max continuous in other airplanes then this argument would make sense. This is not the case. The max unlimited settings of the airplanes that have them are most analogous to the WEP settings of aircraft with WEP.

In the past I've examined the case of the Yak versus the 109 Fritz, two aircraft with strikingly similar engines. I'd have to look up the full analysis again for the details, but to put it shortly there is no difference in terms of all the things that stress engines, no logical reason for the power settings of the one to be time-limited and the other to be unlimited in terms of boost and RPMs. In WEP and Combat the 109 is running very little "harder" or somewhat less hard than the Yak at its max unlimited setting. The entire difference seems to be the amount of concern for engine life/needless wear with which the plane's respective manuals were written

Edited April 1, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[LColony_Kong]

The other thing they should do, if not remove all limits at all, it as least make it so all limits are the same. At least then we wont have X plane being faster than Y plane because once country gave less [edited] about engine life.

On 4/1/2019 at 8:34 PM, Dakpilot said:

 

Why should it? You can fly all the other aircraft at max continuous just like Yak's etc. (within temp limits of course) 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Because "max continuous" is just a word in some sense. The max continuous on a yak is a much higher relative power setting for the Yak's engine than for the 109s "max continuous". The yak at max continuous is already being push more or less to the limit. Max cont on a DB605 is very much below full power.

Edited April 3, 2019 by SYN_Haashashin
Language

[Dakpilot]

1 hour ago, Rattlesnake said:

If it were the case that some planes have unlimited max settings because at these settings the engines are being run less hard than they physically could be, equivalent to max continuous in other airplanes then this argument would make sense. This is not the case. The max unlimited settings of the airplanes that have them are most analogous to the WEP settings of aircraft with WEP.

In the past I've examined the case of the Yak versus the 109 Fritz, two aircraft with strikingly similar engines. I'd have to look up the full analysis again for the details, but to put it shortly there is no difference in terms of all the things that stress engines, no logical reason for the power settings of the one to be time-limited and the other to be unlimited in terms of boost and RPMs. In WEP and Combat the 109 is running very little "harder" or somewhat less hard than the Yak at its max unlimited setting. The entire difference seems to be the amount of concern for engine life/needless wear with which the plane's respective manuals were written

 

Nope

 

It has been discussed and explained   many times in extreme detail. You are wrong. Run a DB engine on the same octane fuel producing similar HP, it will run for ever (simplification but the principal remains) 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[LColony_Kong]

3 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Nope

 

It has been discussed and explained   many times in extreme detail. You are wrong. Run a DB engine on the same octane fuel producing similar HP, it will run for ever (simplification but the principal remains) 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Yes it has be discussed. And it was not us who was wrong. And run a DB engine at WEP and it will run forever as well, at least during the first mission.

2 hours ago, Matt said:

You're suggesting a feature we already have.

 

It's called throttle auto-limit.

It is a feature that should be mandatory so that it functions in multiplayer.

[Rattlesnake]

51 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Nope

 

It has been discussed and explained   many times in extreme detail. You are wrong. Run a DB engine on the same octane fuel producing similar HP, it will run for ever (simplification but the principal remains) 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

This reveals a a misunderstanding of what higher octane fuel does, and is a bad argument already discussed and refuted in the past. Higher octane fuel does not reduce wear and tear, (in fact according to some accounts the 150 octane used by the Western Allies late in the war necessitated more frequent engine maintenance) it simply allows for higher boost settings to be used without detonation.

Higher octane fuel is indeed the major explanation (along with water injection) for why certain otherwise similar engines can access HIGHER boost settings than others safely. But this is related to pressure, not time. Higher octane gasoline is completely irrelevant to the question of why arbitrary timer limits exists on engines for boost settings that are by definition already safe with the fuel in question, by virtue of being cleared for use by pilots.

Which is to say, a boost setting which is safe for a DB engine for say 30 minutes is not going to suddenly and arbitrarily start causing detonation when that amount of time has passed. A sufficient temperature rise could cause detonation to begin, but if we want to go down that road then it is justification for a temperature-based model, not a set timer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTD7DqXfRno

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[LColony_Kong]

Incidently, the Yak1B with the PF engine could not maintain a climb without overheating. In il2 you can just open up the rads and keep going, something I imagine they would have done if they could have. You can also close the Yak rads COMPLETELY in game for over 4min even in the summer. IRL it was only 2 min. 

[DD_Arthur]

10 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

This reveals a a misunderstanding of what higher octane fuel does, 

 

 Dammit Dakpilot!  You wuz wrong agin! 

 

Roflmao 

[Rattlesnake]

9 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

 Dammit Dakpilot!  You wuz wrong agin! 

 

Roflmao 

Please share with us your understanding of what higher octane gasoline does, and how it justifies the engine timers of BoX. Watching the attempt be made could be enlightening.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[LukeFF]

7 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Please share with us YOUR understanding of what higher octane gasoline does, and how it justifies the engine timers of BoX. Watching the attempt be made could be enlightening.

 

Well, for one thing, @Dakpilot is a professional pilot who has years of experience flying commercial DC-4s, in some fairly hostile parts of the planet. You? 

Edited April 1, 2019 by LukeFF

[DD_Arthur]

I understand very well how petrol engines work thank you.  As to the engine timers in BoX?  I only fly squad coop with friends these days.   We enjoy what the devs have given us.  

 

However, I was amused by your dismissal of the opinion of someone who is possibly unique in this forum in having thousands of flying hours under his belt piloting large,  piston-engined commercial airliners.  

[LColony_Kong]

2 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Well, for one thing, @Dakpilot is a professional pilot who has years of experience flying DC-4s professionally, in some fairly hostile parts of the planet. You? 

Which is like saying a taxi cab driver is an auto-engineer.

 

-Knowledge is not exclusive to hands on experience. 

-Much of the counter is based on OTHER PEOPLES real world experience, so why should Dak-Pilots opinion matter more than theirs.

-Pretty sure Dakpilot was never spent any of that RL time intentionally breaking his airplanes engines just to see what they could do, and I am also fairly sure neither was a Yak1 or a 109.

-If I need to talk to someone who has hands on ww2 plane experience I already have direct contact with people flying those birds today. Weird how they dont agree with dakpilot when I talk about this issue to them. 

 

but anyways, nice argument from authority.

5 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

   We enjoy what the devs have given us.  

 

 

 

Translation: I am a good little boy who is not ungrateful. Stay in your place!

[DD_Arthur]

Or be a forum asshole like you?  Hmmm....toughie.....

[Dakpilot]

4 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

 Dammit Dakpilot!  You wuz wrong agin! 

 

Roflmao 

 

Yep you are right. I obviously don't understand. ? a DB engine on lower octane fuel producing more power than a Klimov is surely under less stress.. Or something like that.

Somewhere back in the day it was analysed carefully and accurately how hard a DB would have to be run to produce comparable HP. The result was that it would be simarly able to run at this state unstressed at a 'comfortable' max continuous. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

[LColony_Kong]

5 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Or be a forum asshole like you?  Hmmm....toughie.....

Its rather remarkable that you see the world as "forum assholes" and "thankful supplicants"

Edited April 1, 2019 by Fumes

[LukeFF]

25 minutes ago, Fumes said:

-Knowledge is not exclusive to hands on experience. 

-Much of the counter is based on OTHER PEOPLES real world experience, so why should Dak-Pilots opinion matter more than theirs.

 

ROTFLMAO!!!

 

Wow, my goodness. You really don't know much at all about his experiences with DC-4s, do you? Here, let me help you with that:

 

 

Quote

one of the bonuses of being a pilot on old aircraft is that you also have to be a mechanic

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by LukeFF

[LColony_Kong]

7 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

ROTFLMAO!!!

 

Wow, my goodness. You really don't know much at all about his experiences with DC-4s, do you? Here, let me help you with that:

 

 

No, let me help you

 

"Personally I have no experience of flying or operating liquid cooled In line high performance aero engines so cannot really compare "

 

Second, there is nothing in the post that demonstrates expertise on the subject we are discussing. Lots of SPECIFC documentation on the subject has been posted however. I mean there is tons of engineering and anecdotal WW2 data that tells us how these engines really operated. A person's incidental experience with equipment really means jack and shit on its own, and it certainly says nothing of how something should be modeled in general. Again this is like saying that a person who drove the crown vic as a taxi for 20 years is an expert on the engine of the crown vic, and by extension all other engines, and all contexts in which this engine could be discussed.

 

What is evidence? Knowledge of the engineering behind the engines, documents pertaining to the testing and design of the engines, the BULK experience of people using them. You know, the stuff I and others posted.

 

If I do need anecdotes from pilots, ill take them from people in the war flying the planes, thanks. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Fumes

[Rattlesnake]

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Well, for one thing, @Dakpilot is a professional pilot who has years of experience flying commercial DC-4s, in some fairly hostile parts of the planet. You? 

This is the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority, although a rather weak attempt at such since there is nothing listed that directly implies knowledge of the precise issue we are discussing.

 

I’m a farmer and WWII aviation enthusiast who has *actually read about how octane, power settings, and detonation relate.* I’ve already outlined my understanding of the subject. If I misunderstand something then please say what that is instead of resorting to logical fallacies/rhetoric. Because otherwise it looks precisely like you are wrong/don’t have a refutation but are are unwilling to admit it

 

Again, how does octane relate to the engine timers as modeled? For instance, how does the octane rating of German gasoline allow the 109 F to use a given setting for half an hour without problems as modeled, never any shorter, never any longer, regardless of other factors?

[DD_Arthur]

9 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

 logical fallacy 

 

I’m a farmer 

 

Good night

[LColony_Kong]

3 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Good night

Your record so far:

 

-The world is divided into supplicants and assholes.

-Farmers saying something about logical fallacies seems contradictory to you. 

 

It aint lookin good for ya bud. I think you might be a farmer. 

[Rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Yep you are right. I obviously don't understand. ? a DB engine on lower octane fuel producing more power than a Klimov is surely under less stress.. Or something like that.

Somewhere back in the day it was analysed carefully and accurately how hard a DB would have to be run to produce comparable HP. The result was that it would be simarly able to run at this state unstressed at a 'comfortable' max continuous. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

If higher octane gasoline reduces engine "stress" in some broad sense, as opposed to simply allowing higher compression/boost to be used without detonation then that contradicts other information I've read, which is that higher octane gasoline confers no benefit unless the engine in question will knock without it. Are you saying that higher octane gasoline reduces wear/increases engine life in ways non-related to the problem of detonation?

At sea level the Yak-1 on its unlimited max is producing 1240hp, whereas a 109F on its 30-minute limited  "Combat" setting is producing 1200. Since I assume a setting the 109 is cleared to use for half an hour is fairly safe from detonation, precisely how does this limitation relate to the octane rating of the German gasoline? And if detonation onset IS the issue, why does this begin occurring at right at half an hour, no more, no less regardless of temperature considerations?
 

31 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Good night

I must warn you, it is now looking a LOT like you don't have a good refutation and are too petty to admit this. Maybe you should go ahead and tell me what I don't understand about the virtues of higher octane gasoline, or how the seemingly arbitrary engine timers in BoX have a legit physical explanation.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[Ehret]

For a "modest" and simplest "proposal" I would accept :

- emergency will not deplete combat

- there is some kind indication (tech-chat maybe) how much time is left

 

It wouldn't change much once you are (emergency lasts the same) engaged but it'd allow to have some flexibility after that.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Ehret

[Legioneod]

Timers need to go, simple as that.

 

They make little sense and the fact that there is a large disparity in how each aircraft timer is modeled instead of it being one set of rules.

 

-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)

 

Imo aircraft with water injection (for the most part) shouldn't have such a strict timer at WEP unless it was detrimental to the engine to go any longer.

For aircraft like the P-47 there is an absolute maximum WEP time that exist unlike in aircraft without water (15 min total) Once the P-47 runs out of water that's it, no more WEP.

 

The P-47 should be able to go it's full 15 min without having to rest, this is shown to be possible in combat reports and test. Couple with the above rules of not eating into each setting, the P-47 should have a decent chance at defending/attacking before having to go back to nominal settings to reset power. (In this case only the military power would be reset since WEP boost can no longer be attained due to the loss of all water (if used to full 15 min).

 

Id prefer timers to be simply done away with, they have little basis in reality and don't represent what is actually possible. Instead they handicap some aircraft while giving others great advantages.

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Legioneod

[nighthawk2174]

I honestly don't see what's so bad with making this option a standard feature. (WEP times aside as that's a whole another can of worms) seems reasonable to auto-retard the throttle back to full military if your about to hit that timmer that once passed = you engine dies.

[Dakpilot]

5 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

If higher octane gasoline reduces engine "stress" in some broad sense, as opposed to simply allowing higher compression/boost to be used without detonation then that contradicts other information I've read, which is that higher octane gasoline confers no benefit unless the engine in question will knock without it. Are you saying that higher octane gasoline reduces wear/increases engine life in ways non-related to the problem of detonation?

 

 

Simply that the DB engine is designed and able  to produce much more HP when using lower octane fuel, to achieve this there have to be compromises . The DB is much more of a "racing" engine than the Klimov, if you look at all of the specs of the Klimov you will find that although far from a tractor engine it is under less stress being designed to produce maximum power using a higher octane fuel

 

(again simplified argument with holes, don't have time or inclination for more in depth) 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Mauf]

Nice to see how these threads tend to derail. Maybe bring it back to topic, here's my suggestion:

 

Premise one: What we currently have is not a proper simulation of the way engine wear would have applied to the real planes. Timer -> Boom is here to stay though as per devs decisions.

Premise two: The goal of the current system is to punish overuse of high and max settings in lieu of a logistical simulation of engine replacements. This function has to stay, as per devs decision, for any alternative we can suggest.

 

The current system is not great because it requires mental timer tracking which is a really quite impossible to get right in most combat situations. Add short cool down times into the mix and you quickly end up with no idea what your remaining time is (which is also affected by some other factors that quickly muddle the waters so to speak). Combine that with quite different treatment of WEP, MW50 cooling (K4 going WEP -> Mil -> WEP -> Mil for example while the Thunderbolt runs both timers at once not having this luxury) or the aforementioned different modelling of the Yak and the 109 and you get a mess that people not without reason complain about. Not to mention that limits follow manuals of which we know these limits did not represent physical limits and often were quite relaxed at the end of the war for one side.

 

My suggestion: Move the mental timer tracking to an awareness task (again, for gameplay reasons). Instead of tech chat or simple "suddenly goes boom", add a little knock sound that gets louder and more frequent as the engine approaches the critical time limit (of course not over obnoxious but it should become more noticeable). Since we're already dealing with a system that is not proper simulation (Premise one), I see no problem with bending the sim on this end if it allows us to have little bit more control over what the state of the engine is. It still fulfils the goal of limiting the use of the WEP as on the timers, nothing changes but people now have a bit more control over the risk they run. 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Mauf

[Rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Simply that the DB engine is designed and able  to produce much more HP when using lower octane fuel, to achieve this there have to be compromises .

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

If you are saying that the DB is simply physically under-built compared to the Klimov, well then thank you! Finally an explanation that makes some damn sense. Unfortunately that simple explanation is not what has been repeatedly stated by others on this forum. The canard has been "Russians have higher octane gas" and leaving it at that, as if the higher octane rating fuel itself somehow extends engine life, outside of of knock situations. Again AFAIK the only advantage of higher octane fuel is to allow higher compression/boost to be used without detonation.

Question: You said in an earlier post " Run a DB engine on the same octane fuel producing similar HP, it will run for ever (simplification but the principal remains)  "-Well according to game specs the DB in it's 30 minute "combat" mode *is* producing similar horsepower to the max continuous setting of the Klimov, 1200 versus 1240, both at sea level. Exactly how would having 95 octane gasoline in the tank allow the DB run indefinitely at a boost setting that it can (presuming from game timer modeling) only survive for 30 minutes when burning 87 octane? I am confused by this point.

I note with some interest that the Pratt and Whitney R-2800, legendary for it's robustness and designed from the get-go to run on higher quality gasoline, is nonetheless "by the book" limited to half the WEP time of the DB605 in the Kurt and the BMW 801 in the Fw-190 A8, all three of them being on water injection. So the delicate DB601 explanation, while perfectly plausible for the 109F versus Yak-1 dilemma, doesn't explain everything going on with the engine timers in this game.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[LColony_Kong]

Let us not forget the even the Yak1b could not maintain a climb without having to stop and level out to cool the engine. Yet this is nowhere to be found in the game.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

11 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

If it were the case that some planes have unlimited max settings because at these settings the engines are being run less hard than they physically could be, equivalent to max continuous in other airplanes then this argument would make sense. This is not the case. The max unlimited settings of the airplanes that have them are most analogous to the WEP settings of aircraft with WEP.

In the past I've examined the case of the Yak versus the 109 Fritz, two aircraft with strikingly similar engines. I'd have to look up the full analysis again for the details, but to put it shortly there is no difference in terms of all the things that stress engines, no logical reason for the power settings of the one to be time-limited and the other to be unlimited in terms of boost and RPMs. In WEP and Combat the 109 is running very little "harder" or somewhat less hard than the Yak at its max unlimited setting. The entire difference seems to be the amount of concern for engine life/needless wear with which the plane's respective manuals were written

Read yak engine manual from WW2 period, those max settings are continuous workload of an engine. Only heat can interrupt it. BTW 109 WEP time limit has some randomness building in it I think. 

[FTC_Woop]

Hey here's a corker, why not have it like it is in reality?