Engine durability

[=CFC=Conky]

Hello all,

 

I haven't played CoD in quite a while and with the new Med theatre coming out I was wondering if the engines in the sim are as fragile as they were a couple of years ago. One of the reasons I stopped playing is because the engines would fail at the slightest hint of a limit being exceeded. 

 

Thanks!

CFC Conky

 

[Dagwoodyt]

23 minutes ago, =CFC=Conky said:

Hello all,

 

I haven't played CoD in quite a while and with the new Med theatre coming out I was wondering if the engines in the sim are as fragile as they were a couple of years ago. One of the reasons I stopped playing is because the engines would fail at the slightest hint of a limit being exceeded. 

 

Thanks!

CFC Conky

 

1v1 single missions flying Spitfire IIa I have not found engine durability an issue when chasing AI 109 E-1 to altitude and down again in the current version of Blitz..

[dazako]

12 hours ago, =CFC=Conky said:

Hello all,

 

I haven't played CoD in quite a while and with the new Med theatre coming out I was wondering if the engines in the sim are as fragile as they were a couple of years ago. One of the reasons I stopped playing is because the engines would fail at the slightest hint of a limit being exceeded. 

 

Thanks!

CFC Conky

 

 

You're not being specific but engine management is different from one plane to another. And especially earlier models require a lot more care and attention. If you're blowing your engines then you are simply over revving and/or overheating them. Don't worry, I guarantee we have all learned the same lessons the exact same way. There are many posts and youtube videos giving examples of settings that work for each plane. They're based on historical technical data.

 

For eg early model Spitfires would very quickly overheat on the ground if not moving to get air through the small radiator. Putting the flaps down for landing also partially blocked the radiator meaning after touchdown they had to taxi and shut down asap. Cliffs is not so delicate.

 

If you're comparing Cliffs with other titles some are more 'flight simulator' and others are more 'flight games'.  Cliffs is definitely is more a simulator than game, much more difficult and frustrating and takes longer to understand and learn. Have patience and give it another go. Jump online and on Teamspeak and others will help - so long as they're not fighting for their lives at that moment !

 

Daz

 

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, dazako said:

If you're comparing Cliffs with other titles some are more 'flight simulator' and others are more 'flight games'.  Cliffs is definitely is more a simulator than game, much more difficult and frustrating and takes longer to understand and learn.

 

Hilarious!  Don't kid yourself - they are all games.

 

Cliffs is "much more difficult and frustrating and takes longer to understand and learn"  because so much of it is still broken and needs workarounds to try and make it work.

 

Cliffs was abandoned by the original devs as the game engine had too many flaws in it to make it an ongoing  commercial proposition. How much of a repair job TFS have managed to perform on the engine this time round is unclear as news of fixes has been almost entirely absent.

 

One thing is for sure;  Cliffs looks old.

[=CFC=Conky]

Hello all,

 

Thanks for the replies.

 

I might boot up the game again, but overall I prefer 'flight' simulators to 'engine management' simulators. 

 

For the moment I find BoX strikes a nice balance. You can't just ram the throttle to the wall and leave it there but you don't have to be constantly fiddling with engine controls. The Russian kites are more work but still manageable.

 

Good hunting,

CFC Conky 

Edited July 26, 2020 by =CFC=Conky

[dazako]

45 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Hilarious!  Don't kid yourself - they are all games.

 

Cliffs is "much more difficult and frustrating and takes longer to understand and learn"  because so much of it is still broken and needs workarounds to try and make it work.

 

Cliffs was abandoned by the original devs as the game engine had too many flaws in it to make it an ongoing  commercial proposition. How much of a repair job TFS have managed to perform on the engine this time round is unclear as news of fixes has been almost entirely absent.

 

One thing is for sure;  Cliffs looks old.

 

No kidding they're all games, and despite all the aces around I doubt very few could get an actual aircraft off the ground. My point was intended for differences between simulators and those that lean towards arcade games without using the actual term. Some people are sensitive about such terms.

 

Your comment has nothing to do with the OP question. 

There's plenty of threads for you to rant against Cliffs if you must. Go enjoy yourself.

 

Daz

 

 

39 minutes ago, =CFC=Conky said:

Hello all,

 

Thanks for the replies.

 

I might boot up the game again, but overall I prefer 'flight' simulators to 'engine management' simulators. 

 

For the moment I find BoX strikes a nice balance. You can't just ram the throttle to the wall and leave it there but you don't have to be constantly fiddling with engine controls. The Russian kites are more work but still manageable.

 

Good hunting,

CFC Conky 

 

It's all a balancing act between power and heat. Something you just get used to. Going from one game engine to another there'll be differences that require more or less attention. I don't fly the BOS series simply because I was never interested in the Russian front. I'm a middle aged Brit that loves warbirds and the BoB in particular. Some players prefer one game or the other while some appreciate aspects of both. Enjoy.

 

Daz

Edited July 26, 2020 by dazako

[Rei-sen]

45 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Cliffs looks old.

CloD looks amazing, a lot of things are actually looking better than in other product. As of 4.57 it's a better combat flight simulator and I'm sure with the release of 5.0 it'll improve further. I'm just playing original Cliffs of Dover SP campaign and I'm having TONS of fun. I don't see what is it so broken about it. What I do see is a great potential of this engine for various WWII air combat scenarios which some other products are not capable of.

As for the visuals, as I said earlier - it looks amazing. Sure, there's always room for improvement, but look at DCS 1.5 and 2.5 - I think the same level of improvements in graphics is possible for CloD, it's just a matter of time. I'd say give the devs enough resources and ability to work on the engine full-time and you'd be amazed.

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, Arthur-A said:

CloD looks amazing, a lot of things are actually looking better than in other product. As of 4.57 it's a better combat flight simulator and I'm sure with the release of 5.0 it'll improve further. I'm just playing original Cliffs of Dover SP campaign and I'm having TONS of fun. I don't see what is it so broken about it. What I do see is a great potential of this engine for various WWII air combat scenarios which some other products are not capable of.

As for the visuals, as I said earlier - it looks amazing. Sure, there's always room for improvement, but look at DCS 1.5 and 2.5 - I think the same level of improvements in graphics is possible for CloD, it's just a matter of time. I'd say give the devs enough resources and ability to work on the engine full-time and you'd be amazed.

eye of the beholder after all

[Sokol1]

16 hours ago, =CFC=Conky said:

One of the reasons I stopped playing is because the engines would fail at the slightest hint of a limit being exceeded. Thanks!

Depends on plane, in some you can "firewall" the throttle and forget, but doing this, for example, in an Spitfire Mk.I RPM will surpass 3.000 RPM in a slight dive, temperature goes up and engine "kaput".

 

 

But if you respect the above limits (game limits, not necessarily RL limits), things goes well.

[DD_Arthur]

2 hours ago, dazako said:

Your comment has nothing to do with the OP question. 

There's plenty of threads for you to rant against Cliffs if you must. Go enjoy yourself.

 

Daz

 

Hey Daz.  In these forums I can say whatever I want as long as it remains within forum rules.  If you're more used to other places where everything is awesome then this might come as a shock.  

I don't believe I 'rant' and I don't see others ranting either.  I have questions to ask - as have others - and things to say too.  Thats what these forums are for.  If you don't like it?

Well, frankly.....thats tough.

 

As to the relevance of my statement?   I was simply giving another slant to your everything is awesome response to the OP.  In this thread;

you participate in a bit of classic "It's CLoD!" action;  OP asks where the weather and his gunsight have gone. You reply it's a known issue that might be fixed for Tobruk.  Then - unusually - one of the Devs chips in with 'you've reached the particle limit'   Thats okay then!    Remind me again how much this is going to retail for?

 

 

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

56 minutes ago, Sokol1 said:

Depends on plane, in some you can "firewall" the throttle and forget, but doing this, for example, in an Spitfire Mk.I RPM will surpass 3.000 RPM in a slight dive, temperature goes up and engine "kaput".

 

 

But if you respect the above limits (game limits, not necessarily RL limits), things goes well.

My pitch settings are in %. I use 80-85% mostly when at max throttle and rarely experience engine failure unless I forget to manage my radiator opening %. What prop percentage approximates ‘coarse” pitch?

[56RAF_Stickz]

Spit 1 in game has 2 speed prop but has the ability to roughly select partly in between as in rl. However the 1a has rotol constant speed device in game.

So for DH5-20, 2 speed In % terms this would be 100%(fine) and 0%(coarse) because there is only intermediate positions left on the pull lever control. This was how the pilots fiddled it in BoB, sliding it part way. But it isnt constant speed. And it wont necessarily relate to a rotol % (you would probably have to look up data for the actual angles these props used for a true comparison for %). Rotol could vary over 35deg.

So if you are using a dual speed prop spit 1 (or hurri) then prop pitch % is almost irrelevant. In principle you only had 2 settings and usimng  2 speed prop you really have to watch the rpm gauge (or be able to hear it overrev) rather than watching your pitch %. Coarse was for cruise and fine for t/o and combat but you really really need to beware rpm cos it will overrev very very quickly as soon as you dive (even in coarse), there is no constant speed mechanism to help you. Its like flying a P40 in BoX if you ever have that (or the P40 on it). Your engine will destroy itself pdq especially in fine pitch. Much quicker than it will overheat.

Edited July 27, 2020 by 56RAF_Stickz

[vipe155]

9 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Hilarious!  Don't kid yourself - they are all games.

 

Cliffs is "much more difficult and frustrating and takes longer to understand and learn"  because so much of it is still broken and needs workarounds to try and make it work.

 

Cliffs was abandoned by the original devs as the game engine had too many flaws in it to make it an ongoing  commercial proposition. How much of a repair job TFS have managed to perform on the engine this time round is unclear as news of fixes has been almost entirely absent.

 

One thing is for sure;  Cliffs looks old.

 

 

5 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Hey Daz.  In these forums I can say whatever I want as long as it remains within forum rules.  If you're more used to other places where everything is awesome then this might come as a shock.  

 

Saying anything you want has nothing to do with being accurate.  Do you have any actual technical knowledge regarding the Cliffs of Dover engine?  The original sim was underdeveloped, which has nothing to do with how viable the engine for the game is.  I think you would find that the engine is actually (still) very capable, and always had potential.  Personal opinion, it's easily a better platform than the Great Battles series is built on.

 

Doesn't matter, as you think it looks old...which it doesn't.  As others have said, Cliffs does some things better than BoX.  TFS isn't doing a "repair" job.  They aren't stringing workarounds together while fixing stuff, as if that's how commercial game development works.   They needed the source code to fully dig into the workings of the engine, do things the correct way, and finish what the original developer half finished.

[Dagwoodyt]

53 minutes ago, vipe155 said:

 

 

 

Saying anything you want has nothing to do with being accurate.  Do you have any actual technical knowledge regarding the Cliffs of Dover engine?  The original sim was underdeveloped, which has nothing to do with how viable the engine for the game is.  I think you would find that the engine is actually (still) very capable, and always had potential.  Personal opinion, it's easily a better platform than the Great Battles series is built on.

 

Doesn't matter, as you think it looks old...which it doesn't.  As others have said, Cliffs does some things better than BoX.  TFS isn't doing a "repair" job.  They aren't stringing workarounds together while fixing stuff, as if that's how commercial game development works.   They needed the source code to fully dig into the workings of the engine, do things the correct way, and finish what the original developer half finished.

Maybe we can revisit your post after the DW release. I am sure there were autos made in 2011 that looked “amazing” to me back then. They might still look “amazing” to me now, but probably not 2021 “amazing”. How much TFS has “fully dug into” the Blitz engine we will soon see and can discuss at length thereafter. 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

People mock CloD for whatever reason. I have not had any issues after initial ones firing it up after a long break. Sure, it has some things here and there that could be improved, but in general it works. Online has been a blast, graphics are not dated to me. Especially cockpits still are very good looking and lighting/spotting is better than in many other products. 

 

CloD has a lot of things under the hood that show Oleg had a sound vision where to go after original IL-2 was getting older. Hopefully Tobruk sells well and we will see more added to this sim, it deserves to shine and be among the others in the limelight. 

[Dagwoodyt]

So back to engine durability topic I now understand the issue with the Spitfire 1. In some instances I felt need to reduce pitch to 0% in order to avoid over rev. Several times I noted 3200 rpm. I was still able to get back to base and land without incident after the AI crashed. Regardless, juggling gauge numbers is what flying is all about.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Dagwoodyt

[FTC_Karaya]

All depends on the Spitfire model, there's basically 3 types of props modelled in game:

 

Spitfire Mk.I - 2 pitch prop that only allows to switch between fine and coarse. In theory it's the fastest Mk.I in level flight at altitude but the worst to fly and fight in as you are stuck with the option of either over- or underreving the engine.

 

Spitfire Mk.I 100octane - Has a variable pitch propeller and allows for the use of +12 lbs boost. It's lighter and a tad faster than the Mk.Ia as it lacks the bulletproof windshield. However the disadvantages with this model are that 1) you have to constantly adjust prop pitch on the fly based on boost, engine rpm and air speed and that 2) due to limits of the prop itself the engine will overrev at full power in a high speed dive. You have to reduce power as well in order to avoid engine damage. In terms of handling and workload it is comparable to the E-1 and E-3 models of the Bf109.

 

Spitfire Mk.Ia 100oct/IIa - Both have a Rotol CSP which allows to set a desired engine rpm and the prop mechanism will automatically adjust prop blade incidence to keep said rpm, "fire and forget" so to say. By far the easiest in terms of handling, takes a lot of workload off the pilot during flight.

[Sokol1]

On 7/26/2020 at 2:10 PM, =CFC=Conky said:

I might boot up the game again, but overall I prefer 'flight' simulators to 'engine management' simulators. 

 

Then you have no reason for leave this two options under "Engines" enabled for SP, neither join a MP server with then enabled. ?

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Sokol1

[=X51=VC_]

On 7/26/2020 at 6:10 PM, =CFC=Conky said:

For the moment I find BoX strikes a nice balance. You can't just ram the throttle to the wall and leave it there but you don't have to be constantly fiddling with engine controls.

 

BoX has those annoying fake engine timer limits though, so in some planes your engine just siezes after 1 minute at full throttle, with no indication, even if you do manage all the other controls and temperatures perfectly.

 

As others have said, CloD engine management is only more punishing if you fly the really early variants of the planes. There I agree you can blow something easily especially in a 109. But to compare, just set the prop pitch to manual in the BoM Bf 109E-7 and see what happens. Mid and late war planes were just better in terms of engine automation.

 

When Tobruk comes out I expect that planes like the Bf 109E-7, F-2 , F-4, the P-40E and the Spitfire Vb, will all be less punishing to manage in terms of engine settings than those planes are in BoX today.

[ATAG_Flare]

It's almost impossible to blow engines on the planes with the constant speed props, Spitfire Ia, Hurricane Rotol, 109 E-4, etc. Just set the rpm to 2800 on the merlins and you're good to go. You can basically firewall the E-4 with radiators mostly open and you can fly it around like that for ages.

 

It does get a lot trickier on the earlier Spits, Hurris, and 109 E-1 and E-3. But still I think CloD's engines are very forgiving.

 

The Spitfire IIa for example can run full boost at 3000rpm on the deck without overheating at all, you can close the radiator almost to nothing too, I remember some deck chases with 30% rads across the whole channel.

[FTC_Karaya]

17 hours ago, ATAG_Flare said:

It's almost impossible to blow engines on the planes with the constant speed props, Spitfire Ia, Hurricane Rotol, 109 E-4, etc. Just set the rpm to 2800 on the merlins and you're good to go. You can basically firewall the E-4 with radiators mostly open and you can fly it around like that for ages.

 

Yes, you can run full power pretty much indefinitely with fully open rads but that way you wont get anywhere near max speed out of the aircraft. In the Bf109s getting the most speed out of the aircraft is tricky business. The prop pitch automation is very helpful in a dogfight because it takes workload off the pilot but in a high speed chase situation (chasing or being chased) it is best to go manual and manage rpms yourself as in some variants the automation runs too high rpms which can and will lead to overheating and engine damage. It takes experience and quick reactions to handle rpms, radiators and the aircraft itself all at the same time.

Edited July 29, 2020 by JG4_Karaya