Complex Engine Management

[Gambit21]

47 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I'd love to see the P-39 and P-40 get an engine modification with some sort of "extraordinary procedures" or something along those lines representing field restrictions. That way, if someone has an issue with it, the aircraft can be run with the default limitations. Or it can be run with a different set of limitations that are more approaching standard usage by the Russians in 1942.

 

...or the standard American usage of that Allison for that matter.

But...but...the manual says...... 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

What we need is a full engine limits overhaul. In many cases, engines (especially if they were new) could be run in WEP for hours. This would completely change the meta, but I think it'd be for the best. Some forms of engine wear could be introduced on servers and in campaigns (where the supplies are limited), but overall, I think the limits should be brought inline with physical reality, not enforcing what the manual says by magic engine blowouts.

 

For those worrying about people WEP-ing everywhere, don't worry: WEP uses up a lot of gas. Not as much as afterburners in a jet, but enough to make cruising in it a very bad idea, especially on larger maps. Also, there could be thermal considerations (radiators unable to keep up), although I'm not sure about that.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

IIRC you can switch to manual rads on the 109...?

 

Yes, but it's not really a great idea - its intent was to be used as a manual backup system or when the plane was going to be idling on the ground for a really long time. Manually closing them to gain that 0.000000002 % speed increase is a surefire way to blow up the engine.

Edited July 6, 2021 by LukeFF

[Gambit21]

32 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What we need is a full engine limits overhaul. In many cases, engines (especially if they were new) could be run in WEP for hours. This would completely change the meta, but I think it'd be for the best. Some forms of engine wear could be introduced on servers and in campaigns (where the supplies are limited), but overall, I think the limits should be brought inline with physical reality, not enforcing what the manual says by magic engine blowouts.

 

For those worrying about people WEP-ing everywhere, don't worry: WEP uses up a lot of gas. Not as much as afterburners in a jet, but enough to make cruising in it a very bad idea, especially on larger maps. Also, there could be thermal considerations (radiators unable to keep up), although I'm not sure about that.

 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

50 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

...or the standard American usage of that Allison for that matter.

But...but...the manual says...... 

 

 

I'd be happy with either really. I appreciate the engine limits as a historical means of sticking to a set of rules but occasionally you need to bend them a bit and I'd like to see that here. There's ample justification for it.

Edited July 6, 2021 by ShamrockOneFive

[Reggie_Mental]

On 6/5/2021 at 12:06 PM, Gimpel said:

P-39, P-40.

Add to that P47 and P38

[DBFlyguy]

Adjustments to make the engines closer to their real life counterparts would be very welcome!

 

Please?

Edited July 6, 2021 by DBFlyguy

[Pict]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

...or the standard American usage of that Allison for that matter.

But...but...the manual says...... 

 

 

 

If I read that right, nobody really ran the Allison by the manual. 

 

The people who wrote the manual must have been aware of all this at some point if not from the start. So why did they under-rate the engine so badly? Was it some kind of disclaimer?

 

The Allison engine was a top end aero-engine by any accounts that I've read, the Mustang I for example quite a hot rod on the deck.

 

I got the following quotes from a USAAF memo of 26th August 1943 about British Army Cooperation Tactical Employment of the Mustang I (P-51), from this cool site.

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-I.html

 

Quote

Performance of the Mustang I and IA

   32.       The record of the Mustang I is excellent. The pilots all like to fly it and its success has been due to its reliability, simplicity and the fact that it is faster than any contemporary aircraft at low and medium altitudes.

   33.       This aircraft is powered with the Allison 1710-39 engine having a rated power of 1150 H.P. at 3000 R.P.M. and 44” Hg. at 12,000 ft. The engine was originally equipped with an automatic boost control limiting the manifold pressure at the lower altitudes to 44”. The British remove this so as to get the vastly increased performance at lower altitudes thru the judicious use of over-boost. As has been mentioned before, they have had exceptionally good service out of these engines and due to its smoothness at low RPM’s, they are able to operate it so as to obtain a remarkably low fuel consumption giving them an operational range greater than any single engine fighter they possess (the fact that the Merlin engine will not run well below 1600 prevents them from obtaining an equivalent low fuel consumption and therefore limits its usefulness for similar operations).

   34.       Actual combat has proven that the aircraft can run away from anything the Germans have. It’s only inferior points are that it can’t climb as well as the ME-109 and FW-190 and that at the slower speeds of close combat it loses effectiveness of aileron control and therefore has a poor rate of roll – but its turning radius with a slight amount of flap is shorter than either of the German aircraft.

   35.       In view of the British experience, it is felt that we have a plane excellently fitted and suited for long range, low altitude daylight intrusion and for a medium altitude escort fighter to accompany our medium bombers. It must be realized that an aircraft will fulfil the conditions for a medium bombardment escort fighter might not be completely suitable for a long range intruder due to the inability on the part of the engine to run at the exceptionally low R.P.M. necessary for such long range operation. This is also assuming an operation which will allow a major portion of such missions to be made over waters where interception would be unlikely, such as from North Africa or the Mediterranean Islands to the mainland.

   36.       In view of the British operation and the fact that we have an approved war emergency rating on the 1710-39 engine of 56”, it is suggested that immediate steps be taken to remove the automatic boost controls from our P-51 airplanes in this theatre and that the instrument dials be marked with the proper lights. The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72” Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearing ruined.

   37.       It is suggested that the Allison powered P-51A may lend itself better to a combination low altitude fighter-intruder and a medium bombardment escorter than will the Merlin powered P-51B due to the inherent difficulty of operating the Merlin engine at the low RPM’s necessary for a low fuel consumption. It is felt that definite engineering and flight information should be secured in these two aircraft immediately.

CHARLES F BORN 
Brigadier General, CSC, 
Asst Chief of Staff, A-3.

 

It's fairly illuminating stuff and should lend some more weight to the argument to toughen up the BOX Allison's.

[PatrickAWlson]

@Pict if I read the response right, it wasn't so much that Allison underrated the engine as much as the Russians just didn't really care.  Burn it up and put in a new one.  Better than getting killed.  

[cardboard_killer]

The US did send more P-39s to the USSR than the Germans made Bf-109Fs.

[Gambit21]

IRL engine abuse or operation somewhat outside of manual specs (depending on what we're actually talking about) at worst manifested in somewhat shorter lifespans or shorter interval between tear-downs and deteriorated performance over time etc...NOT sudden "I'm done now, bye" response in the middle of the flight on the part of the engine in question, especially if it was an Allison or R2800.

 

The 7 1/2 hour R2800 WEP test says it all really.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Gambit21

[Dragon1-1]

I believe a Griffon was also ran for hours, someone posted the relevant docs in one of the Spit XIV threads. In fact, I suspect any WWII engine could do that, except perhaps the very late German ones (and even that was due to inferior materials they had to do with by that point). Either way, they shouldn't quit mid-flight, and dogfights should be flown in WEP from start to finish, aside from the moments where you reduce throttle for tactical reasons.

 

In fact, it's running at too low a throttle setting that can quickly degrade engine performance through spark plug fouling. Remember, a throttle basically controls the air flow into the engine, and if there isn't enough of it, you get soot. So it's the low throttle, high mixture regime which should be avoided for an extended period of time.

[CountZero]

In Realisam settings there is option caled Unbreakable, when you turn it on your airplane cant be destroyed by crash, but can be shoot down.

More importantly engine timers dont destroy your engine when this is turned on, why who knows, but overheat will, and you can run out of fuel. So this option is almost like turning on real ww2 engines on.
So atleast in SP you can turn off engine timers with this option, only sideefect is you cant get destroyed by colisions, crashes or wings failing apart.

[Gambit21]

The Jug had 15 minutes worth of water...that means 15 min at WEP - the end. That's the only Jug I'd care to fly.

If you had strapped a large enough water tank to it, it would have ran at WEP until the water ran out, and who knows how long past 7 1/2 hours it would have gone.

The engine didn't die, they just ran out of water while running that test.

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

The Jug had 15 minutes worth of water...that means 15 min at WEP

But at 2500 rpm it should be seconds at WEP.

[purK]

P38 7-1/2 hour WEP test at 75 inches/150 octane fuel ?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/Allison_V-1710-91_ENG-57-531-267.pdf

and there's plenty of proof P38s operated in combat with 150 octane fuel, but for some reason it's not available in game.

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

The Jug had 15 minutes worth of water...that means 15 min at WEP - the end. That's the only Jug I'd care to fly.

Of course, limitations like water and GM-1/MW50 tanks would still apply, so it wouldn't be quite "unlimited WEP" on designs that inject something into the engine (good for balance, since those are the most powerful ones). 

 

Also, it would allow unlimited climb/combat power, which would be nice, too, especially for the Stukas carrying those huge bombs.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Dragon1-1

[Pict]

15 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@Pict if I read the response right, it wasn't so much that Allison underrated the engine as much as the Russians just didn't really care.  Burn it up and put in a new one.  Better than getting killed.  

 

It wasn't just the Russians that ran the Allison hard. That was the point of the memo I quoted, but I see that the quote is mostly hidden.

 

Here are some highlights, but the whole memo is well worth a read for better context.

 

============================

 

"This aircraft is powered with the Allison 1710-39 engine having a rated power of 1150 H.P. at 3000 R.P.M. and 44” Hg. at 12,000 ft. The engine was originally equipped with an automatic boost control limiting the manifold pressure at the lower altitudes to 44”. The British remove this so as to get the vastly increased performance at lower altitudes thru the judicious use of over-boost."

 

"The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72” Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearing ruined."

 

=============================

 

This whole memo is the USAAF commander commenting at the time on RAF use of the Allison powered Mustang I. He had access to RAF data and reports and of course his own USAAF material with regards to their Allison powered Mustangs.

 

It's not some anecdotal memories from a VVS combat pilot interviewed after the fact and then subjected to translation.

 

It led him to some interesting conclusions;

 

======================

 

"In view of the British operation and the fact that we have an approved war emergency rating on the 1710-39 engine of 56”, it is suggested that immediate steps be taken to remove the automatic boost controls from our P-51 airplanes in this theatre and that the instrument dials be marked with the proper lights."

 

======================

 

I'm somewhat skeptical about the idea that the VVS just burnt engines out of hand, particularly since reading the above info on RAF use of the Allison. I'd first like to see some hard data on VVS use, maintenance and supply of these engines including the oils and fuels they used.

 

The info above was from North African operation's and no doubt with the availability of high quality fuels and oils, so that could well be a factor in the claimed longevity of the engines over the speculated shorter life of those used by the VVS.

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.

[EAF19_Marsh]

12 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, but it's not really a great idea - its intent was to be used as a manual backup system or when the plane was going to be idling on the ground for a really long time. Manually closing them to gain that 0.000000002 % speed increase is a surefire way to blow up the engine.

 

Yep, am sure very few did it but I enjoy it alongside a bit of manual pitch managment just for fun.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

This has turned into a great thread...between the anemic .50s, overmodeled he, and artificial engine limits, being an American in this sim is expert mode.

[EAF19_Marsh]

I am trying to recall a single pilot autobiography where they broke their engine. This may be because they did not push their engines so hard or because the ones that did never returned, but while I can think of several who had engines running at very high temperatures (and were worried what would happen) or an engine failure through damage, I cannot remember any of the famous books where someone got to 5:01 and everything stopped. Specifically I do recall that Hannig had the restrictions on his training flight's Fw.190 removed, but he did not mention any engine damage as a consequence. Clostermann speaks of his Tempest getting up to the red lines, but never that it failed (and that was a somewhat delicate piece of kit). Boiling coolant, yes, but a sudden failure I do not recall.

 

Maybe others can think of examples? I appreciate it is difficult to model but exceeding recommended limits leads to T&P issues which then leads to failures, not directly from exceeding to breaking - mechanical apparatus does not function that way. 

[CountZero]

15 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

The Jug had 15 minutes worth of water...that means 15 min at WEP - the end. That's the only Jug I'd care to fly.

If you had strapped a large enough water tank to it, it would have ran at WEP until the water ran out, and who knows how long past 7 1/2 hours it would have gone.

The engine didn't die, they just ran out of water while running that test.

 

 

 

if unbrakable option is turned on in realisam settings, you get exactly that, after 15 min on max power wep run out (on D22 after 7min). On top you can use combat as long as you have fuel or engine dont overheat.

There is just need to make this one realisam option into two separate option, remove it from making airplane not explod on crash or collisions, dont know why is this so hard to make, no engine timer option works in game, its already in this option, just make it that is not combined into unbrakable.

Easy way to please players is already in game it just need to be separate option, and then it would be posible to use it also in MP.

Edited July 7, 2021 by CountZero

[Pict]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

if unbrakable option is turned on in realisam settings, you get exactly that...

 

Does that setting effect the AI?

[CountZero]

13 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

Does that setting effect the AI?

From what i expirianced in single play, i think i cant brake their wings when its on , i can damage any other parts and i saw tail wings brake off, also they do explod when i putt enought bulets in them when they crash, i didnt expirianced any other strange behaviors. If they use max power more then timer alowed i dont know.

[Gambit21]

7 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

I am trying to recall a single pilot autobiography where they broke their engine. This may be because they did not push their engines so hard or because the ones that did never returned, but while I can think of several who had engines running at very high temperatures (and were worried what would happen) or an engine failure through damage, I cannot remember any of the famous books where someone got to 5:01 and everything stopped. Specifically I do recall that Hannig had the restrictions on his training flight's Fw.190 removed, but he did not mention any engine damage as a consequence. Clostermann speaks of his Tempest getting up to the red lines, but never that it failed (and that was a somewhat delicate piece of kit). Boiling coolant, yes, but a sudden failure I do not recall.

 

Maybe others can think of examples? I appreciate it is difficult to model but exceeding recommended limits leads to T&P issues which then leads to failures, not directly from exceeding to breaking - mechanical apparatus does not function that way. 

 

I’m not sure I’ve read about a pilot who’s buddy’s friend’s cousin’s squadronmate broke their engine.

 

In all seriousness we know it had to happen here and there, the pilot likely not making it back to complain. The point being of course that it was a very rare occurrence. Even in the harshest environment - combat. Even the late 1930’s - 40’s Japanese, who were somewhat behind the west in the overall quality department could manufacture a basically rock-solid, reliable engine. 

 

Pilots in combat often just pushed it to the firewall - the engine management discipline wasn’t that great in such circumstances with the average pilot. The result was usually an annoyed crew chief.

 

It’s very difficult to make an engine just die. Don Bryan actually had the max boost on his Jug increased via his crew chief. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Gambit21

[Ghost666]

Second lieutenant Dick Curtis in his book Dumb but lucky, talks about having 1 or 2 spare plans take off with the squadron. These planes would fly with the squadron to replace any planes that had trouble and had to turn back. The spares, if not needed would turn back before entering enemy air space. He flew P-51s in Italy in 44.

 

So they had enough spares for up to 11% loss do to mechanical/engine trouble. 

[Gambit21]

Just now, Ghost666 said:

Second lieutenant Dick Curtis in his book Dumb but lucky, talks about having 1 or 2 spare plans take off with the squadron. These planes would fly with the squadron to replace any planes that had trouble and had to turn back. The spares, if not needed would turn back before entering enemy air space. He flew P-51s in Italy in 44.

 

So they had enough spares for up to 11% loss do to mechanical/engine trouble. 

 

Yeah that was a common practice - but we’re not talking about a leak, or missing on a cylinder etc - we’re talking sudden “done” failure.

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Even the late 1930’s - 40’s Japanese, who were somewhat behind the west in the overall quality department could manufacture a basically rock-solid, reliable engine.

Actually, even the best vitage engines are just jokes compared to what is deemed „reliable“ today. And we only have the very best left. The reliability of a Merlin is somewhere between bad and catastrophic compared to a Lycoming. And yes, it is possible to instantly destroy even the most liked of all those high performance engines with a single (wrong) action. You indeed can push the limits with those engines, but there‘s a lot of things in concert that you have to do right as well. Just shoving the lever forward is not it.

[Gambit21]

46 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Actually, even the best vitage engines are just jokes compared to what is deemed „reliable“ today. And we only have the very best left. The reliability of a Merlin is somewhere between bad and catastrophic compared to a Lycoming. And yes, it is possible to instantly destroy even the most liked of all those high performance engines with a single (wrong) action. You indeed can push the limits with those engines, but there‘s a lot of things in concert that you have to do right as well. Just shoving the lever forward is not it.

 

Of course - that we’re talking ‘for the day’ is an “of course” that I didn’t think I needed to call out. 

 

By the same token, other ‘givens’ with regard to durability/stupid actions or lack thereof goes without saying. The point remains that grenaded engines were not a common occurrence even under the conditions mentioned - the end. Nobody including me has uttered the word ‘impossible’

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Gambit21

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

9 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Not fair or called for.

 

8 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Good luck kid, you’re gonna need it.

 

8 hours ago, Krupnski said:

You don't need to be rude about it, that doesn't help us in the end. Jason has already shown an interest in making a new system for engine limits, and I think if they see how positively productive this conversation has been, they will be more likely to improve it.

My apologies, awful sense of humour on my part.

 

In general I think a "soft failure" would relay the issues of pushing an engine beyond its stated limits better then the hard failure that is in the game now. In career mode that would be something like your plane gathering wear and tear and increasingly disappointed notes from the squadron's mechanic (à la Chief Tyrol from Battlestar Galactica) as the plane would eventually have to be replaced even if you do bring it back safely each time. The player would get punished through their squadron being undersupplied thanks to there being higher attrition then usual or having to take off in a sub-optimal plane. Whilst in multiplayer that would be a score reduction based on an overstressed engine or airframe. Having a scoring system that encourages "by-the-book" flight whilst also allowing people to sacrifice their engine's reliability for the sake of survival would allow for some more lenience in engine reliability whilst still encouraging realistic behaviour from players.

Edited July 8, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[Dakpilot]

You only have to look at the unfortunate P-38 Allison saga to see how easily (and instantly) engines can 'grenade' when operating outside limits 

 

"insert 1940's P-38 con rod exiting engine meme/cartoon here" 

 

Or you could look at the thousands of engine failures experienced by airlines operating R2800's in far less extreme conditions 

 

To make the statement 'the end' seems far from plausible 

 

I agree that generally when operating within limits 40's high performance engine could be very reliable. 

 

However I cannot count the amount of engine failures I have experienced on my fingers..

 

Hopefully more complex engine management/DM including detonation will be introduced (as hinted at by Dev's) sooner rather than later

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

So, to summarise, if you go over the time limit:

- engines should not just stop,

- performance might degrade somewhat though,

- through high temperature or pressure, some other problems might occur (oil/coolant leaks?),

- the engine needs replacement or at least a major overhaul much sooner than usual.

 

Then, might it be a solution if, when going over the time limit:

- there is a small chance, increasing with time, for some minor engine damage causing some performance loss (though never a complete failure),

- similarly, there's a small chance to spring a leak,

- regardless of actual engine damage, the plane is counted as "damaged" upon landing, and removed from the aircraft pool in career and multiplayer modes (if the server is so configured), to simulate engine replacement?

 

In that way, players would still be penalised for over-using WEP, though less so and in a more realistic manner than is currently the case.

[Denum]

https://youtu.be/aUkXriHjQeI 

 

Engine failures happen in all types of ways. 

 

The game can't simulate everything, but I don't think handing out wildly long engine timers is it either. 

 

Engines were luck of the draw. Some guys went to WEP for the first time and the thing died right there. 

 

The P38 had a horrific time over Europe, blowing up intercoolers, fragging engines etc. Heck if you just threw the throttle forward in it you'd have detonation and that was pretty much it.

 

One pilot had mentioned he had 11 R2800 failures in a year, and that was as a airline pilot.

 

 

 

In game the engines give plenty of warning that you're getting close to their limits. Manifold pressures start bouncing, RPM isn't steady and some you hear a difference. 

 

 

I'm only here for multiplayer, but personally if everyone was just running around on combat settings all game that seems pretty janky to me, we start going to arcade vs simulator. 

 

Unless the devs are going add realistic engine management. 

IE, increased manifold before RPM. Hope you've got a nice place to land. But I feel this is just to far outside the scope and a total rework isn't a realistic expectation.

 

I do feel the P40 and P39 are a bit on the ridiculous side but it's usually manageable. They definitely are not rookie friendly.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Denum

[PatrickAWlson]

8 hours ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

 

 

My apologies, awful sense of humour on my part.

 

In general I think a "soft failure" would relay the issues of pushing an engine beyond its stated limits better then the hard failure that is in the game now. In career mode that would be something like your plane gathering wear and tear and increasingly disappointed notes from the squadron's mechanic (à la Chief Tyrol from Battlestar Galactica) as the plane would eventually have to be replaced even if you do bring it back safely each time. The player would get punished through their squadron being undersupplied thanks to there being higher attrition then usual or having to take off in a sub-optimal plane. Whilst in multiplayer that would be a score reduction based on an overstressed engine or airframe. Having a scoring system that encourages "by-the-book" flight whilst also allowing people to sacrifice their engine's reliability for the sake of survival would allow for some more lenience in engine reliability whilst still encouraging realistic behaviour from players.

 

I don't think career mode even manages individual aircraft, never mind managing individual engines, accounting for wear and tear in a mission, noting it and tracking it in the campaign, and persisting the data.  Then you would have to note what parts of the engine failed, were they replaced, etc.   All of that data would have to be tracked during the mission, persisted after the mission, and extra logic added for logistics and repair.  Anything is possible, but that is a lot of work to pull off convincingly.

 

Right now, you start each mission with a perfectly good engine.  What should realistically happen to that perfectly good engine in the course of the mission?  A nice enhancement might be more subtle and varied failure scenarios.  That would be the big fix.  Maybe a smaller fix is a review of the Allison use case.  Seems there is a lot of disagreement on that one.

[Dragon1-1]

3 hours ago, Denum said:

Unless the devs are going add realistic engine management. 

IE, increased manifold before RPM. Hope you've got a nice place to land. But I feel this is just to far outside the scope and a total rework isn't a realistic expectation.

I think you can blow the engine on the Jug like this already. Never had it happen on any other plane, though. I think that sort of thing should definitely be simulated, especially on radial engines (inlines were more resistant to that sort of thing). 

[Gambit21]

 

•  

I think IL2 comes very close to getting things right and striking a nice balance between accessibility and realism. I for one have had a great time managing the engine, rpm etc in the Yak, IL2 and others. That said I’m ignorant about their real life characteristics.

 

I have faith in this team - it will get there. What they manage to accomplish with such limitations is astounding. I would love to see some time put into each engine and it’s nuances, with attention payed to it’s actual performance - not just the manual.

 

In any case I fully expect that I’ll be tending to a Nakajima Sakai radial one day.

[DragonDaddy]

40 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

In any case I fully expect that I’ll be tending to a Nakajima Sakai radial one day.

One can only hope. I, too, have faith in the developers 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I don't think career mode even manages individual aircraft, never mind managing individual engines, accounting for wear and tear in a mission, noting it and tracking it in the campaign, and persisting the data.  Then you would have to note what parts of the engine failed, were they replaced, etc.   All of that data would have to be tracked during the mission, persisted after the mission, and extra logic added for logistics and repair.  Anything is possible, but that is a lot of work to pull off convincingly.

I don't think MoerasGrizzly necessarily means that individual engines should be modeled and a "damage state" be kept between missions. Rather I think he means what I also suggested above, that an aircraft is marked as "damaged" when returning after you've used too much WEP. This damage system is already in place in the career (and, AFAIK, the multiplayer aircraft pool), along with very simple logic for logistics and repair (although I've never had a squadron completely run out of planes). So there'd be no need to program anything additional regarding the career system.

Edited July 8, 2021 by AEthelraedUnraed

[CountZero]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

So, to summarise, if you go over the time limit:

- engines should not just stop,

- performance might degrade somewhat though,

- through high temperature or pressure, some other problems might occur (oil/coolant leaks?),

- the engine needs replacement or at least a major overhaul much sooner than usual.

 

Then, might it be a solution if, when going over the time limit:

- there is a small chance, increasing with time, for some minor engine damage causing some performance loss (though never a complete failure),

- similarly, there's a small chance to spring a leak,

- regardless of actual engine damage, the plane is counted as "damaged" upon landing, and removed from the aircraft pool in career and multiplayer modes (if the server is so configured), to simulate engine replacement?

 

In that way, players would still be penalised for over-using WEP, though less so and in a more realistic manner than is currently the case.

It would be better, how its now your airplane frame is in best posible condition when you take it out, your guns never jam no mather size, but your engine is in such state that can last only few min on max power in most cases every time you take it out. It dosent seam right when looked how other things are simed.

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, Denum said:

IE, increased manifold before RPM. Hope you've got a nice place to land. But I feel this is just to far outside the scope and a total rework isn't a realistic expectation.

 

I don't think it's outside the scope at all, and it has been something mentioned by the developers in the past that they would like to implement.

 

3 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I don't think career mode even manages individual aircraft, never mind managing individual engines, accounting for wear and tear in a mission, noting it and tracking it in the campaign, and persisting the data. 

 

It does track individual aircraft damage, but at the moment it is very simplified - you have one box showing the number of planes that are ready to go and another of those that are down for repair - and any planes down for repair are only out of action for the rest of the day in question.