Post Bodenplatte Engine Timer Discussion

[LColony_Kong]

This subject has been discussed many many times before and during the last time IIRC Jason said something to the effect that they would eventually get around to doing something about this. Well, I really hope that time is soon because this problem is now more evident and critical than ever before.

 

The engine timers need to either go, or be greatly lengthened so that they have a much lesser effect on tactical decision making than they do now. In reality these ops limits (timers) existed to preserve the time before overhaul, and were not imposed to prevent immediate engine failure during combat. In game however, the must be followed rather rigidly with a bit of a safety margin. So a 5 min timer is more like 7min etc.

 

These timers create the following unrealistic tactical problems in game:

 

1) Some of the timers eat combat power with no rhyme or reason for this. Planes with this problem cant really use their WEP, and if they do might as well RTB right after any extended fight.

 

2) Planes have to make a choice between a dogfight and any other extended use of WEP or Combat power. Many planes are closely matched in max power top speed but the reality is that this doesnt matter because some planes cant afford to use high power to actually chase anyone. If the chase lasts a long time, they wont have much if any WEP for the actual fight.

 

3)Ultra strict timers mean that aircraft in general are in a unrealistically risky position after using WEP. If you have 5min and you use 2 in a dogfight, you dont usually know how much you have left for the next fight, and if the next fight lasts 3 mins....

 

In my opinion the problem could be solved in one of two ways:

 

1) Remove all engine destruction due to exceeding time limitations at any power setting, and only have engines fail from specific causes such as too lean mixture at max power.

 

2) Remove all restrictions from combat power, and give all planes 10-15min of WEP or until water runs out, whichever is first.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by [TLC]YIPPEE

[Rei-sen]

Timers are ridiculous. And in the meantime you can get away with leaning the mixture, lowering your rpm and slamming the throttle to the max position. Will the engine die due  to all this? No! What kind of realism are we talking about here?

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, Arthur-A said:

Timers are ridiculous. And in the meantime you can get away with leaning the mixture, lowering your rpm and slamming the throttle to the max position. Will the engine die due  to all this? No! What kind of realism are we talking about here?

Yeah that also needs fixed. The mixture system is way broken for bodenplatte planes. I am fairly certain it doesnt even affect fuel burn rate.

[Rei-sen]

6 minutes ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

Yeah that also needs fixed. The mixture system is way broken for bodenplatte planes. I am fairly certain it doesnt even affect fuel burn rate.

It happens with any plane that has manual engine controls. Even with automatic mixture control, if you lower your rpm but increase throttle the engine should be damaged. In the game your engine is not affected by the this.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Arthur-A

[Bert_Foster]

" t happens with any plane that has manual engine controls. Even with automatic mixture control, if you lower your rpm but increase throttle the engine should be damaged. "

 

Its a little more complex than that. That certainly isnt always the case.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Bert_Foster

[nighthawk2174]

+1 I would like to just see them removed entirely.

[Barnacles]

I think the simplest solution would be to have them as a realism setting, ie you could just negate the engine damage from exceeding the limits *if you (SP) or the server administrator (MP) wanted*.

 

Alternatively if the developers decided it was worth spending the effort, I'd prefer to see the current consequences of exceeding the limits (an almost immediate application of the "engine damage" message followed by total failure between 1 and 10 mins) replaced by slightly less serious and terminal consequences. (ie you become slightly more susceptible to engine knock, or you get warned you loose a small (1%?) of engine power every minute? you stay beyond the limit.) Just something more subtle but still with credible in game consequences that make it worth violating the limits if your virtual life depended on it, but also worth observing the limits if you wanted to not have a slight disadvantage. And most importantly, serious enough that it was undesirable to totally flout the limits by going a whole sortie on WEP.

Edited November 21, 2019 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[CountZero]

Your 5min limit will last in game 7min sometimes, but only 5min is safe zone, extra time is random it can be just 1s or up to 50% of safe time.

 

For me problem is that they still didnt fix messages that tell you exactly when your safe time limit expired or when it got recharged. As when you know that, you can play with more confidance and use airplanes power to exactly how its made by game.

 

Because time limits that brake your engine when you pass them is pure game thing, you have to inform player when game timer thing gets recovered and expired, so player can use it how you set it in your game.

 

How its now, when messages only show up when instrument panel is turned on in realisam settings, player cant use it on 90% online servers. So to me its broken, and airplanes that use it are to be avoided as im sure aint gona be conting minutes or seconds of some fantasy timer that didnt kill engines of airplanes if real pilots go over 5min. If it was working like it works in game, airplanes would have 3-4 timers and alarm bels informing pilots when they go over 1min, 5min , 15min, or 30min limits manuals in his airplane says so.

 

I understand why timers have to be in game, i just dont understand why they dont fix broken messages that inform player exactly when timer expired, so player know when game wonts him to stop using that power setting, and everthing abow it is random fail if player decides to use it more, its simple fix, messages are in game, they work on normal settings, so make them work on all setings like all other techchat messages and problem is sloved.

Edited November 21, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[LColony_Kong]

What is particularly frustrating about this issue is that it is ultra simple to fix or improve. Removing the limits or imposing reasonably long but equal WEP limits on all planes would probably require almost no work to implement and would instantly be a huge boost to both realism, fun, and fairness.

 

I also want to point out that concern over players abusing this is not valid point.

 

-For one, the current system is already a tale of abuse. Unless anyone here thinks that knowing your opponent is limited by a clock is not something that can be exploited.

 

-Second, there is no conceivable simulator (even if it simulated physical reality 1:1) that would not be subject to people "abusing" things because it is ultimately a game. People do not fear death, they can learn tactics and maneuvers to the nth degree because they have no constraints on how much they can practice or how far they can push the limits in learning something. I have learned maneuvers that might be possible but it would have killed me to learn them irl. I might add that this sort of thing is entirely what makes simulator games fun, they hand you something analogous to reality and you get to see what you can make of it. So calling this abuse is just kinda absurd in the first place.

 

Third, this logic is not used by anyone on any other game mechanic. I hear no one asking for random failures of flaps, brakes, controls, guns jamming, etc.

 

Fourth, both complete removal of the limits or equal amounts of considerable WEP times already impose problems for people "abusing" this. If they were to remove the limits entirely, people who fly at constant WEP would run out of fuel very quickly or forced to take larger fuel loads which would increase their weight. If there were to be 15min of WEP for all planes and unlimited combat, use of WEP outside of contact with the enemy would mean that you would no longer have the amound needed for extended dogfights or chases/running away. Additionally, even if a net increase in everyone cruising speeds were to occur, so what? There are also lots of totally realistic use cases for extended WEP use out of combat, like trying to climb up to intercept bombers.

 

Fifth, it is illogical to alter the physical mechanics of the sim in order to try to control player behavior. This entire idea is anti-sim, and anti-game, since it basically shoots both of these concepts in the foot by killing the physical reality of the game in order to try to tell players how to play it.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by [TLC]YIPPEE

[Heckpupper]

If engine timers were any realistic Battle of Britain would be a distaster for the RAF and London would look like a pile of rubble seeing how at cruise power it takes Hurricanes like 20 minutes to make 24000ft.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I personally think the extended 10 min WEP for all planes, 1:1 recharge and unlimited combat mode is a good compromise And bringing some detonation mechanics for cases such as unregulated engines like the P-40, A-20, cases like the DB K-4 at slightly less than 100% throttle where the manifold pressure is still really high but ADI isn't activated yet, and for all planes the low RPM, high throttle, lean mixture combinations.

Edited November 21, 2019 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[LColony_Kong]

Planes without manifold pressure governors will be the only tricky case in my opinion. Good thing they are relatively rare. Best idea would probably be to make as good an estimate as possible of the upward limits of the engine in these cases and then have some extremely simple detonation mechanics above that.

 

For the P-40 there is good documentation on what the engine was really capable of. 56-60inches should be doable since Allison agreed to re-rate the engine after further inspection.

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by [TLC]YIPPEE

[WheelwrightPL]

Engine could shake and make rough sounds before timer-inflicted self-destruction: good pilots who are attuned to their planes will catch this and throttle back, mediocre pilots won't. And if historically-speaking there were also some gauges which indicated imminent engine-destruction, let's simulate that as well, by all means. IMHO that's all better than a magical message otherwise known as "tech chat".

Edited November 22, 2019 by WheelwrightPL

[GP*]

For the love of God, please, yes. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

30 minutes ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

For the P-40 there is good documentation on what the engine was really capable of. 56-60inches should be doable since Allison agreed to re-rate the engine after further inspection.

 

It would be interesting to have it ^^ though a bit of a lottery given the indicator stops at 50" ? I would like to have a mod that fits the later one that goes up to 75" like in the P-39, we already have that mechanic in the P-51 when selecting 150 oct fuel, it fits an extended gauge that goes all the way up to 100" max (ideal for P-51H ? ), from the standard up to 75" one.

[peregrine7]

Yes!!
Personally, a closer look at planes that could have run higher (e.g. P39, P40) would be great.

Timers shouldn't exist as currently, some of these engines should wear and give less power, others will indeed seize completely.
Engines should make sounds before failing from overuse at time, give warnings through game not tech chat. There may be a few exceptions for engines that completely seize.

Engines should fail due to detonation if run lean at higher power, or low RPM high power. (With sound effects)

Engines should be able to lose individual cylinders

[Dakpilot]

6 hours ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

What is particularly frustrating about this issue is that it is ultra simple to fix or improve. Removing the limits or imposing reasonably long but equal WEP limits on all planes would probably require almost no work to implement and would instantly be a huge boost to both realism, fun, and fairness.

 

I also want to point out that concern over players abusing this is not valid point.

 

-For one, the current system is already a tale of abuse. Unless anyone here thinks that knowing your opponent is limited by a clock is not something that can be exploited.

 

-Second, there is no conceivable simulator (even if it simulated physical reality 1:1) that would not be subject to people "abusing" things because it is ultimately a game. People do not fear death, they can learn tactics and maneuvers to the nth degree because they have no constraints on how much they can practice or how far they can push the limits in learning something. I have learned maneuvers that might be possible but it would have killed me to learn them irl. I might add that this sort of thing is entirely what makes simulator games fun, they hand you something analogous to reality and you get to see what you can make of it. So calling this abuse is just kinda absurd in the first place.

 

Third, this logic is not used by anyone on any other game mechanic. I hear no one asking for random failures of flaps, brakes, controls, guns jamming, etc.

 

Fourth, both complete removal of the limits or equal amounts of considerable WEP times already impose problems for people "abusing" this. If they were to remove the limits entirely, people who fly at constant WEP would run out of fuel very quickly or forced to take larger fuel loads which would increase their weight. If there were to be 15min of WEP for all planes and unlimited combat, use of WEP outside of contact with the enemy would mean that you would no longer have the amound needed for extended dogfights or chases/running away. Additionally, even if a net increase in everyone cruising speeds were to occur, so what? There are also lots of totally realistic use cases for extended WEP use out of combat, like trying to climb up to intercept bombers.

 

Fifth, it is illogical to alter the physical mechanics of the sim in order to try to control player behavior. This entire idea is anti-sim, and anti-game, since it basically shoots both of these concepts in the foot by killing the physical reality of the game in order to try to tell players how to play it.

 

 

 

You just want Warthunder with BoX fidelity, your preference is as appealing as your desire for alternate Spotting to be the norm. 

 

There needs to be improved engine limits, but based on history, science and facts... Not gameplay 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

 

 

[LColony_Kong]

12 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

but based on history, science and facts.

Right, so Im glad you agree with my ideas then.

[Dakpilot]

6 minutes ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

Right, so Im glad you agree with my ideas then.

 

Nope, you were happy with 40km Spotting for gameplay improvement and would be happy with very unrealistic engine limits.for gameplay purposes with no base on facts

 

I would not be 

 

We will have to disagree

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[nighthawk2174]

34 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

very unrealistic engine limits.for gameplay purposes with no base on facts

lol wut, and what facts do you have to disprove all the first hand accounts and reports listed above?

[Dakpilot]

We can cherry pick charts and anecdotal evidence and discuss it all day/year, it will not change history or science. 

 

The subjects are not as simple as many want to be

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[nighthawk2174]

1 minute ago, Dakpilot said:

We can cherry pick charts and anecdotal evidence and discuss it all day/year, it will not change history or science. 

 

The subjects are not as simple as many want to be

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Right.... and I ask again what evidence do you have if you have none please just stop posting

Edited November 22, 2019 by nighthawk2174

[Dakpilot]

I am not allowed to post that a blanket 15 minute Wep for all A/C is laughable as historical? 

 

When did you get your moderator status? 

 

LolWut 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[nighthawk2174]

6 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

I am not allowed to post that a blanket 15 minute Wep for all A/C is laughable as historical? 

 

When did you get your moderator status? 

 

LolWut 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

No you can but you'd be still be wrong, also of note strawmaning the argument doesn't help your point either...

Edited November 22, 2019 by nighthawk2174

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

Nope, you were happy with 40km Spotting for gameplay improvement and would be happy with very unrealistic engine limits.for gameplay purposes with no base on facts

It hard to understand you when everything you say is completely wrong. Apparently you didnt read my posts well enough because my attitude toward alt was just that it was the lesser of two evils. Btw, you can see stuff at 50km in expert, possibly more.  My position on spotting since my very first post on the matter years ago is that long range spotting should be possible but that short spotting is where the real problem is.

 

1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

very unrealistic engine limits.for gameplay purposes with no base on facts

The engine limits I propose are very realistic and I have posted numerous facts to back this up. Many documents that literally say what I am claiming. You on the other hand have not posted a single document supporting your clearly absurd position that defies technical documents and basic knowledge of how the engines work. The closest thing you have come to an argument in the past few years is an appeal to authority fallacy where apparently you flying around in some old prop planes where you most certainly did not go around testing the engines under controlled conditions, is supposed to somehow mean something in the face of very explicit data from numerous sources that says exactly what I am saying. You know, from the actual experts who designed, operated, and tested these engines. And as you have said, you have no experience at all with in line engines. Apparently numerous documents intended for pilot consumption stating precisely my point of view is what you consider to be "not facts."

Edited November 22, 2019 by [TLC]YIPPEE

[LColony_Kong]

[[DBS]TH0R]

10 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I personally think the extended 10 min WEP for all planes, 1:1 recharge and unlimited combat mode is a good compromise And bringing some detonation mechanics for cases such as unregulated engines like the P-40, A-20, cases like the DB K-4 at slightly less than 100% throttle where the manifold pressure is still really high but ADI isn't activated yet, and for all planes the low RPM, high throttle, lean mixture combinations.

 

Without going into the length modifications of timers, they need to replaced with a better system. Not removed entirely.

 

+1

[Aap]

Better system to replace the timers would be nice of course, but I certainly hope that it is not some additional message warning about it or some artificial "look, I start to shake now, so throttle back and you will be fine". Even now, with the combat, emergency and overheat warnings it takes away realism, as people are fine-tuning their engine settings based on the warning messages on their screens.

[Mac_Messer]

The single thing that had been achieved during all these discussions is that the system needs a change, period. Not even the magnitude and type of change had been agreed upon. And your two solutions are also very simplistic to the issue that is much, much more complicated.

 

No. 1 is not doable since the high manifold/low rpm is not modeled.

No. 2 is 10 times more gamey than anything we`ve had to date.

 

In this case, any type of proposal should be an almost fullproof concept that covers all engine types and all airforces policy of engine usage restrictions. I`ve yet to see one.

[nighthawk2174]

1 hour ago, Mac_Messer said:

The single thing that had been achieved during all these discussions is that the system needs a change, period. Not even the magnitude and type of change had been agreed upon. And your two solutions are also very simplistic to the issue that is much, much more complicated.

I just don't see how you see this as complicated????  like... all the documents above support no engine timers at all.  

 

1 hour ago, Mac_Messer said:

No. 1 is not doable since the high manifold/low rpm is not modeled.

No. 2 is 10 times more gamey than anything we`ve had to date.

 

 

 

 

so wait.... how is this MORE gamey than what we already have?  Engines that just don't blow up after you pass a magical timer where two aircraft with very similar engines have vastly different timers (spit and 51).  Also you don't need to have the severe impacts of running at low RPM high manifold for a few minutes to make this change (not that I wouldn't want this to be included with the first change)

 

1 hour ago, Mac_Messer said:

engine usage restrictions. I`ve yet to see one.

And why does there have to be restrictions exactly?  When its quite apparent there weren't any in a tactical sense (HINT: IL2 isn't a strategic sim its a tactical one.).  You did what you had to do too both survive and kill the enemy.  (

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by nighthawk2174

[LColony_Kong]

Edited November 22, 2019 by [TLC]YIPPEE

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

IMO this speaks to what the main consideration in limiting engine use in a tactical situation should be - namely, preventing detonation and excessive high temperatures, which can actually damage the engine pretty quickly. I would really like to see a detonation model applied, it would make setting mixture, RPM and throttle more realistic as well. People could still use the timers as a conservative guide if they wanted to but you could push harder as long as you knew you risked detonation or high temperatures.

But, then again, I'd kinda like to see some random equipment failures thrown in sometimes just for the hell of it, but I know we'll never see it and its probably a bad idea anyway lol. 

However, it does say "definite maximum" which is actually stronger language than I've seen used in other P-47 manuals IIRC. I suppose they consider that the risk of detonation and engine wear only really set in five minutes of continuous WEP so it was a good time to settle on to be safe.

What bothers me most about the timers is the engine 'rest' period to get combat time back which really make no sense. I mean, cooling the engine after it gets hot makes sense. But how does simply resting the engine help at all, other than with temperatures which you can already monitor? if you've worn it excessively the metal doesn't grow back.

The current engine timers are an abstraction and it would be less irksome if it was just applied consistently, but when you compare for example the 109K4 and the P-47, the logic just doesn't work the same way between them and there's no real justification for it that I have seen.

[LColony_Kong]

7 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

However, it does say "definite maximum" which is actually stronger language than I've seen used in other P-47 manuals IIRC.

This is referring to limitations in general, not time specifically. Meaning temps, MAP, etc.

[Barnacles]

On 11/21/2019 at 5:43 PM, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

I think the simplest solution would be to have them as a realism setting, ie you could just negate the engine damage from exceeding the limits *if you (SP) or the server administrator (MP) wanted*.

Heck, you can even turn off things like running out of fuel, g effects and ammo limits. Why not have engine timers able to be turned on and off according to one's preference.

[Kurfurst]

I would be happier with the timers more or less going away. Replaced by keeping the engine within the proper coolant and oil temperatures and you should be more or less fine. Maybe with a very very small chance (like 1% in every minute above the timer) of suffering a random engine failure past the official limits.

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

I would be happier with the timers more or less going away. Replaced by keeping the engine within the proper coolant and oil temperatures and you should be more or less fine. Maybe with a very very small chance (like 1% in every minute above the timer) of suffering a random engine failure past the official limits.

Thats the way it should be imo, just keep the aircraft within heat limits, eventually you will start to overheat regardless of what you do and will be forced to run at a lower power. This would make it to where players don't constantly run WEP/Mil power and actually pay attention to their engines.

 

Timers need to go, a heat mechanic is much much better even if less realistic than a full detonation model.

[Barnacles]

58 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Thats the way it should be imo, just keep the aircraft within heat limits, eventually you will start to overheat regardless of what you do and will be forced to run at a lower power. This would make it to where players don't constantly run WEP/Mil power and actually pay attention to their engines.

 

Timers need to go, a heat mechanic is much much better even if less realistic than a full detonation model

The Developers have detailed tests of the efficiency of radiators and cooling in the aircraft simulated. (Including, ironically, tests at more than the stated limits). It'd be just as realistic to artificially overcool the engine, as to artificially overheat it, as your engine failure mechanism.

Edited November 23, 2019 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

Thats the way it should be imo, just keep the aircraft within heat limits, eventually you will start to overheat regardless of what you do and will be forced to run at a lower power. This would make it to where players don't constantly run WEP/Mil power and actually pay attention to their engines.

 

All the planes can sustain full throttle in level flight without overheating... and it's logical given the cooling systems are designed to make them able to climb at full settings which is much more stressful given the lower airflow with the slower speed.

The only exception is the Yak-7B which can overheat in summer conditions even with both radiators to 100% when climbing.

Edited November 23, 2019 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[LColony_Kong]

Yeah I'm also against the heat mechanic because it is not realistic and....

 

Because a heat mechanic....is just a timer

[=RvE=Windmills]

17 hours ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

Yeah I'm also against the heat mechanic because it is not realistic and....

 

Because a heat mechanic....is just a timer

 

it would be an improvement as at the very least it gives you warning to reduce power.

 

Currently the second you exceed it is instant engine death.