Jump to content
[TLC]MasterPooner

Post Bodenplatte Engine Timer Discussion

Recommended Posts

Correct me if I'm wrong here, as far as heat and engine stress go.

I thought I had read at some point of certain engine settings or abuse of the engine actually producing 'hot spots' in the engine  that could precipitate detonation, and that this could occur without temperature readouts alerting the pilot, because the overall temperature was within normal range? Not sure if I am crazy or not here. Well, more crazy than usual anyway.
 

17 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Yeah literally just about anything is better than what we have right now...

Gonna have a hard disagree here. What we have now is not ideal but there are definitely worse ways to implement it (of course, there are better ones too). Like, they could just ignore engines completely and let people fly around with any settings they like, or base engine damage on throttle percentages that are the same for every aircraft rather than the actual MAP/RPM settings, or give every aircraft boosted settings when they didn't have them IRL (I seem to recall old Il-2 did this, there was a boost setting on the Yak-1 for example).

The original design choice was to base things on directions in the manual, probably so that they had a firm number to point to when people cried about things being realistic/not realistic. They could just point to the numbers and say "here is our documentation". But the system really just looks more and more flawed over time and the quirks of that implementation produce weird player behaviour and minor exploits (like people running at super low mixture settings and high engines settings to avoid leaving smoke trails). And you get illogical things like where it becomes practically impossible to use all of the available water in some of the American planes over the course of a flight. So IRL, why would they carry water they couldn't use, especially when weight is at a premium for long range missions?

A more realistic engine management model is obviously desirable. It wouldn't even necessarily be more complex for new players than the current one we have already, where the timers draw down differently depending on RPM/MAP settings in ways that aren't documented, and the 'recharge' of the times works differently for different planes. With realistic engine management players could learn how to recognize avoid detonation and the other engine problems that led to the manuals having the time limits specified, and those principles would work pretty well across the board in most aircraft, and at least be consistently applied.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

A more realistic engine management model is obviously desirable. It wouldn't even necessarily be more complex for new players than the current one we have already, where the timers draw down differently depending on RPM/MAP settings in ways that aren't documented, and the 'recharge' of the times works differently for different planes.

The thing about this is that it a complex system for this is completely unnecessary. The most realistic option, is to allow completely unlimited amounts of time at WEP. If we had some kind of 1:1 engine simulation in the game, the frequency of failure due to prolonged use of WEP would be so rare as to be for all intensive purposes the same result as no specific modeling whatsoever. Before the 150 octane WEP ratings were approved, the engines had to undergo 7.5 hour tests at WEP. In the case of the P-38 I posted, the plane was checked after the test and they specifically mentioned no evidence of detonation or damage. The plane was then subjected to an additional 5 hours before it failed. This was not done all at once, but the later P-51 manual states that the effect of wear on the engine at time limited setting is the same if you use it in intervals or all at once. Hence why the other P-51 manuals list 5 hours of WEP before the engine must be taken down for inspection, as this is almost certainly a buffer to the 7.5 hour standard which is itself subject to a safety margin.

 

What should be modeled, and would not be all that hard to implement I would imagine, would be relatively simple scripted management mechanics that have nothing to do with time. It should not be possible to run WEP at lean mixture, and there should be various possible consequences of certain throttle mix ups etc.

 

It is also unnecessary to wait for some total solution since those who want to wait for the perfect solution are in effect advocating for the horrible stopgap that exists now. Having no limits would dramatically improve the combat realism of the game. It is perfectly obvious that the ability to use long periods of wep, or at least longer than possible now, in combat is more important than preventing people from cruising at WEP in situations where IRL it would be be prudent not to. There is also no way to prevent people from doing this without intentionally making the engine function in the game less realistic in a irrational attempt to control player behavior.

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

Having no limits would dramatically improve the combat realism of the game

 

LoL

 

It would do the exact opposite 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

LoL

 

It would do the exact opposite 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Maybe from the standpoint of anyone who buys into your nonsensical fantasy view on how this stuff works. Remember Dakpilot, "facts, science, and history" of which you have posted exactly nothing, and yet you have an absolutely curious capacity to persist in a notion that has no basis in facts. Truly, a remarkable talent.

Edited by [TLC]YIPPEE
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are happy to invent a universe where WEP is maximum CONTINUEOUS power for ALL aircraft engines, based on a few engine Bench tests and isolated Info. 

 

And say there Would be more realism

 

LOL 

 

There is plenty of info already posted to factually prove this as nonsense without me needing to post it again. 

 

I certainly wont bother doing so, with your rude belittling attitude, luckily the lead FM engineer has an aviation background and qualifications in Aviation Engineering, so I will happily leave it to him and his team. I don't have time to argue with willfully ignorent Internet warriors. 

 

All the best

 

Dakpilot 

 

 

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, [TLC]YIPPEE said:

The thing about this is that it a complex system for this is completely unnecessary. The most realistic option, is to allow completely unlimited amounts of time at WEP. If we had some kind of 1:1 engine simulation in the game, the frequency of failure due to prolonged use of WEP would be so rare as to be for all intensive purposes the same result as no specific modeling whatsoever. Before the 150 octane WEP ratings were approved, the engines had to undergo 7.5 hour tests at WEP. In the case of the P-38 I posted, the plane was checked after the test and they specifically mentioned no evidence of detonation or damage. The plane was then subjected to an additional 5 hours before it failed. 

 

 

 

This has been discussed endlessly in the past, check the report again, that is a bench test where the engine is on a "bench" in a controlled environment,  not in an actual airplane. Bench test results and actual airplane results are totally different. Apple and oranges.

 

Over the past 5 years, there have been 50-100 threads dealing with engine limits, about 1 a month, sometimes you had 2-3 going on at the same time. All presented exactly the same cherry picked evidence to support a particular POV. Despite that the Devs have not changed their approach one bit, this thread will not move the needle either.

 

Current modelling is simplistic and we all want improvements, but the current lints are more "realistic" whatever that means, than no limits at all.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue with engines in my opinion is the discontinuous nature of the game.

 

The engine condition does not translate from mission to mission. Real pilots had to fly on same engine sortie after sortie, and abusing ones engine could eventually lead to its failure...when you least could afford it. The overhauls, new engines and all that logistical jazz that this game currently does not model, it all contributed to war readies of units.

This is, ofc, possible to implement and make part of the game... with work and effort. Some might feel it is not worth the effort, some might feel it is.

 

Idea is that status of plane service condition could look something along the line of hours flown: new, 50 hours, 100 hours, 200 hours, 200 hours (overhauled) etc. 

Along with condition of how well maintained, part shortages etc  and how much abused (WEP timer used). Generally, the same thing pilots and mechanics had to deal with.

Very worn engines that are not overhauled should have performance and failure rates reflecting that state.

 

This can be transferred to MP servers via airfield specific conditions. Frontal AF's could have worn planes, rear airfields have new planes, and server owner decides what worn and new means.  

 

Engine timers are a shortcut in all of this, they assume you have the best possible engine when you are in normal operation mode, but worst possible condition when you abuse your engine to its limits. It is a compromise... I don't want to go in more details about timers and my opinions about them because i don't want to get yelled at again. I just wish the MP server owners could have some leeway in the severity of the WEP timer "chance to fail" after timer runs out, plane by plane basis if possible. This way, players themselves could find the Goldilocks zone for acceptable timers, as there is clearly some disagreements among some segments of players who play MP about how certain planes handled abuse based on actual technical reports and memoirs. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

This has been discussed endlessly in the past, check the report again, that is a bench test where the engine is on a "bench" in a controlled environment,  not in an actual airplane. Bench test results and actual airplane results are totally different. Apple and oranges.

 

Over the past 5 years, there have been 50-100 threads dealing with engine limits, about 1 a month, sometimes you had 2-3 going on at the same time. All presented exactly the same cherry picked evidence to support a particular POV. Despite that the Devs have not changed their approach one bit, this thread will not move the needle either.

 

Current modelling is simplistic and we all want improvements, but the current lints are more "realistic" whatever that means, than no limits at all.

?  Ok then what evidence do you have to support that the current system is more realistic than no timers at all?  It is well known that these two facts are true:

 

a) There was a 5hr time between checks for the use of WEP in the 51

b) It doesn't matter the individual time in WEP, continuous WEP for 5hrs is the same as 5hrs in 1hr increments.

 

So how is the current system where your engine dies after passing 5min of wep anywhere near realistic?  Do you have any reports, first hand accounts, studies, or any kind of documents that support this at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

that is a bench test where the engine is on a "bench" in a controlled environment,  not in an actual airplane.

Irrelevant, since it is a test of the engine itself. But also because there would be no point of the Army doing a WEP test to approve the rating for use if this was not useful for the actual plane. So actually, this isnt apples to oranges. Its apples and apples on a bench.

 

15 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

50-100 threads

No?

 

15 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

about 1 a month,

also no

 

15 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 Despite that the Devs have not changed their approach one bit,

Actually they finally stated they were planning on doing something different at the end of one of the more recent threads. Which was about a year ago. And it makes perfect sense to bring this up again now that we have bodenplatte and a whole new slew of complicated caused by this mechanic.

16 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

WEP is maximum CONTINUEOUS power for ALL aircraft engines, based on a few engine Bench tests and isolated Info.

Well I guess I have to explain the patently obvious again. And also what is explicitly stated by some documents.

 

Continuous power is just the power setting that can be used as long as you like such that the engine will last to the specified TBO. Use of higher powers wears the engine out faster and will mean more maintenance must be done on the engine. These time limits have absolutely nothing to do with the engine failing 5min and 1 second after the 5 minute mark. The engine will eventually fail even at "continuous" power. And you can have sudden engine failures at continuous power as well. Time restrictions only exists to prevent nonsensical use of the WEP that would eat into the service life of the engine.

 

16 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

There is plenty of info already posted to factually prove this as nonsense without me needing to post it again. 

Nope.

 

16 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

rude belittling attitude

Explaining 2+2=4 to you over and over only to have you keep telling me its 5 becomes tiresome. I might add that you started your posts with such an attitude, so your just being a hypocrite. You are the one that talking down to everyone else in threads some time ago peddling an argument from authority and essentially directly implying that anyone who didnt see it your way was some ignorant fool. You are the one that came into these conversations with an attitude, I am just reacting.

 

16 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

I don't have time to argue with willfully ignorent Internet warriors. 

Weird, because you have spend such a large amount of time arguing with the supposedly willfully ignorant.  Apparently you do have lots of time in fact. But I am not complaining, as I have not seen you add a single useful thing to one of these threads yet.

 

 

16 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

based on a few engine Bench tests and isolated Info

Not only is this a counterfactual statement, but even if my evidence were scant, its better that zero evidence you have for your position.

Edited by [TLC]YIPPEE
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i think there needs to be some sort of limit ingame.

 

Just to encourage players to fly in a realistic manner instead of flying at 100% at all times.

 

But this limit does not have to be the sort of hard time limit we have now.

 

Personally i think they should remove the current time limits (other then Water injection limits and MW50 / C3 etc)

and handle it through the score system instead.

 

How many points you get in MP is already calculated based on if you get back or not with almost no points if you die,

50% if you bail our or crash land and 100% if you land at base (if i remember correctly).

 

My suggestion would be to add another level to this as regards to engine status.

If you return to base without having exceeded the manual engine limits you get a bonus 25% (125% score)

(except for aircraft without time limits like the Yaks or aircraft with very leniant limits like the German Bodenplatte fighters etc)

 

If you exceed the manual limit but do not double it you get no bonus (100% score)

But if spend more then twice the permitted time in WEP or Combat power you get a 25% penalty (75% score)

 

So if we take the P-51D as an example it would look like this.

Less then 5 min in Wep (or 15 in combat) = 125% score on landing,

5-10 minutes in Wep (or 15-30 in combat) = 100% score on landing

and more then 10 minutes in Wep (or 30+ in combat) = 75% score on landing.

 

This would leed to a more realistic balance as pilots would be encouraged to cruise on continous to save WEP and combat power for when needed,

but at the same time allow players to break the time limits if needed in order to either secure a kill or to save themselves and this is what was done historically.

 

(Since its better to return to base with a kill but having broken the time limit by a minute or two then to return without a kill

and its better to get home with worn out engine then not getting home at all)

 

This would not be the perfect solution as there would be players that would exploit this and run on wep for the entire flight but i think its better then the alternatives of either having the current time Limits or just removing all limits completely. (As pilots spending the entire Flight in WEP is not very historical either)

 

Maybe there could be a hybrid model where they was a hard limit for wep at 20-30 minutes just to dissuade the players trying to exploit it.

(Since historically it would be extremely rare that pilots would have to spend that much time in WEP)

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like fuel will already be the balancing factor, if you want to keep competitive fuel loads for dogfights (especially in the 51 which is a pig at high fuel loads) it will already have people pulling back to continuous if not cruise to save fuel.  Especially in planes like the spit with really limited fuel.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2019 at 11:15 PM, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

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.

Try lagg3 on map that has temps 15+ and you cant climb even with 100% open rads without overheating up to 4-5km, , you have to use ~90% power or less. Judging by game its probably the worst rad design in world that airplane had.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detonation modeling is the answer. 

 

The problem is it takes willingness to invest time into it by the devs. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have already said it is on to do/intention list 

 

Hopefully it is higher up the schedule now

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 5:46 PM, RedKestrel said:

...or give every aircraft boosted settings when they didn't have them IRL (I seem to recall old Il-2 did this, there was a boost setting on the Yak-1 for example).

M-105P/PA engines had forsazh = Yak-1 produced till May 1942. In M-105PF, after factory and state trials,forsazh regime has been redesignated as max continuous. IIRC the TBO has been consequently decreased from 125h to 100h.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the main problems that makes the game need* to have timers in the first place, is that the engine temperature model is (for lack of a kinder word) simply wrong.

*highly arguable, citation needed

 

It is quite apparent that most engines in the sim have a marked tendency to overcool, even in conditions where RL manuals state that overheating should occur (such as ground idle).

 

Since overheating results only from relatively extreme abuse of high power settings, mostly with radiators all but completely closed, there is a huge missing element to the simulation which by itself should provide most of the "incentive" for pilots not over-running their engines.

 

In the old IL2, an overheated engine was the very thing that quickly taught pilots not to go "full retard" with the throttles. Even if not accurately implemented to match historical accounts, it did a reasonable job at providing the gameplay mechanics of engine limitations.

 

 

Yet here it seems as long as radiators are fully open, it is practically impossible to overheat most planes. So, as if instead, we get timers....

 

 

Edited by 19//Moach
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War Thunder had rather pleasant thermodynamics for their engines few years back. It worked surprisingly well. It was simple, short term overheating was good as long as you let the engine rest for a while. But if you kept it in high power settings(overheated) for to long, it would gradually lose the power for duration of the flight, depending on the level of abuse. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, D3adCZE said:

War Thunder had rather pleasant thermodynamics for their engines few years back. It worked surprisingly well. It was simple, short term overheating was good as long as you let the engine rest for a while. But if you kept it in high power settings(overheated) for to long, it would gradually lose the power for duration of the flight, depending on the level of abuse. 

 

It says a lot when even war thunder can offer valid suggestions....

 

If only there was a difficulty setting option to turn off engine mode-time limits enforcement....

 

 

I wonder how many realism-oriented MP servers would opt to have it disabled if it were there. :unsure:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@19//Moach
These planes cooling systems were designed to withstand full power at their slow climbing speeds, otherwise it would be forbidden to climb in those settings, and you can see the climbing tests at max power for all of these planes. So in level flight the engines shouldn't be irreversibly overheating when using emergency power as long as they have proper airflow and radiator shutters position (prophanging and very slow dogfights in hot weather would cause problems).

From a Yak-1 manual, at 15ºC ambient temperature in max speed level flight and the radiators shutters positioned in flush position the water temperature should be around 100ºC and oil temperature slightly below 110ºC, which is just below their limit. If you take the Yak-1B and try it in game (35% water and 50% oil radiator) the water and oil temps sit at around 108ºC both, so it's more or less correct, water maybe a bit too hot even.

When there is overcooling is on the ground at idle, and this could translate to prophangs, but in flight with some speed I haven't noticed big discrepancies, except for maybe the P-40, though every plane should be checked with proper data to back it up to be sure.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2019 at 9:42 PM, 19//Moach said:

I would say the main problems that makes the game need* to have timers in the first place, is that the engine temperature model is (for lack of a kinder word) simply wrong.

*highly arguable, citation needed

 

It is quite apparent that most engines in the sim have a marked tendency to overcool, even in conditions where RL manuals state that overheating should occur (such as ground idle).

 

Since overheating results only from relatively extreme abuse of high power settings, mostly with radiators all but completely closed, there is a huge missing element to the simulation which by itself should provide most of the "incentive" for pilots not over-running their engines.

 

In the old IL2, an overheated engine was the very thing that quickly taught pilots not to go "full retard" with the throttles. Even if not accurately implemented to match historical accounts, it did a reasonable job at providing the gameplay mechanics of engine limitations.

 

 

Yet here it seems as long as radiators are fully open, it is practically impossible to overheat most planes. So, as if instead, we get timers....

 

 

I find that where historical test data is provided, the cooling model in game matches well in flight. As for on the ground, I can live with the lack of overheating; it's a flight simulator after all, not a taxiing simulator.

 

It's practically impossible to overheat my car and motorbike too. It's almost as if they designed the cooling systems to provide sufficient cooling to prevent that.

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the problem but I can't see any realistic suggestion in the comments. The one wich I somewhat agree is to have consistent ones, that means, same time for recovery for every plane but I would prefer something else. The 24/7 WEP is ridiculous and even worse outcome that any timer.

Edited by LF_Gallahad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

I agree with the problem but I can't see any realistic fix in the comments

The current system is the lesser of the evils. If any good comes of it I'll be able to bore people by quoting the engine limits of ww2 aero engines for the rest of my life.

But if your grandchildren ask you how you started the engines, you'd just have to say ' you just pressed 'e' '

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2019 at 7:14 AM, JustMeVenturi said:

Detonation modeling is the answer. 

 

The problem is it takes willingness to invest time into it by the devs. 

They have stated it's an ambition to model detonation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'd much rather read the condition of the engine on the gauges, then by reading my stopwatch.

 

 

This is still the biggest thing to me. Timers I can live with, but give me something in the cockpit to tell me when I am running it too hard. Slight power fluctuations or temperature climbing or *something*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why they dont actvate techchat message i simply dont understand, we have many more miningless messages showing up but this important one dont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...