Complex Engine Management

[BlitzPig_EL]

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

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

 

I'm hoping to be operating a Kawasaki Ha 40 at some point as well...

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

I'm hoping to be operating a Kawasaki Ha 40 at some point as well...

 

I'm hoping that my alias, Warrant Officer Yamaha Kawasaki might be back in action operating the Nakajima at some point.

Not holding out any hope for a Ki-61 honestly. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Sadly you are probably correct.  I do love the Ki 61 though, my favorite Axis aircraft, by far, oh except for the H8K.

[Gambit21]

9 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Sadly you are probably correct.  I do love the Ki 61 though, my favorite Axis aircraft, by far, oh except for the H8K.

 

I think you and I both have a "except for the H8K" disclaimer when we discuss these things.

 

[LColony_Kong]

Aside from the ongoing issue of contrast in the spotting system the engine management in this game is biggest problem. 

 

-Engine timers should be completely removed except in cases of limited water supply. 

 

-Planes without manifold pressure regulators(P-40) should have a reasonable max power setting without damage based on the available evidence. At or below this setting there should be no time limit. 

 

-Adjustment of fuel mixture should matter for both fuel consumption and for not blowing up the engine. For some unfathomable reason we have rigid by-the-manual time limits on engine power settings but many planes can fly around in "auto lean" at war emergency power. This is a simple thing that could be implemented with a scripted behavior. 

 

-High MP/Low RPM engine failure.

 

 

[Lusekofte]

To be honestly. No simulator get engine management right. I am no expert on the subject. But to me. Flying a radial or a inline engine make no difference. But I know there was. 

Throttlemanagement are different. We just has to face it. Combat flight sims ain't gonna make us pilots

[VilsonFarias]

Talking about complex engine management, this video below let me understand how the throttle and fuel mixture really works. 

 

Choke is the mixture, btw.

 

 

[Gambit21]

I don't like everything he does...but overall a great channel. I've watched hours of it - quality use of time. 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

On 7/17/2021 at 11:22 PM, LuseKofte said:

Combat flight sims ain't gonna make us pilots

What are you trying to say? That after all these years of practicing in IL2, I'm still not ready to take a classic warbird out of a museum, take-off with it, fly around in it and put it back on the ground in one peace?

 

 

Have a nice day.

 

[ZachariasX]

9 hours ago, VilsonFarias said:

Talking about complex engine management, this video below let me understand how the throttle and fuel mixture really works. 

 

Choke is the mixture, btw.

It‘s a nice video. Actually, he doesn‘t have a mixture regulator and uses the choke for that purpose. But it is very instructive.

 

Here is a nice description of the principle of float carburetors:

https://www.aircraftsystemstech.com/p/float-type-carburetors-float-type.html

 

I still can‘t understand why the British didn‘t send the person resonsible for chosing float type carbs to the tower and keep him there.

 

Then again, who would have thought that this most fantastic idiocy was only made possible by having iso-octane fuel at hand instead of aromatic compounds (as you‘d mostly get it by hydrogenation of coal etc.). Only with iso octane fuel you are permitted to have high temperature variations in the intake manifold (as they occur in supercharged engines) at the same mixture. With aromatic compounds, you have to greatly adjust the mixture when intake temperature changes. A float type carb cannot provide such regulation, but a thermometer hooked up to an injector pump can. The Germans were damned for having fuel injection due to their type of fuel and it made them build the superior solution.

 

People had to find out the hard way that XY octane fuel does not necessarily behave like another XY octane fuel, as that specifies only that rating at a specific (arbitary) mixture temperature. The blower installed on your engine has a lot of say on how good/suitable your fuel is.

 

Take fuel from Shell, a blower from RR, an injector system from Bosch and crankshaft from Jumo and you‘d have the perfect warbird inline engine package.

 

Take a Hispano-Suiza and you‘re a decade behind in almost everything regarding engine development.

[Venturi]

Still waiting on this very excellent addition..

[Supercharger]

On 7/28/2021 at 10:44 AM, ZachariasX said:

Take fuel from Shell, a blower from RR, an injector system from Bosch and crankshaft from Jumo and you‘d have the perfect warbird inline engine package.

Sounds like you've read an interesting book....

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, Supercharger said:

Sounds like you've read an interesting book....

Yes, indeed. I find it especially interesting if one has read Lutz Budrass‘ book on the German air industry as well, you get two sides of the story should one be intersted in how the German air industry as a whole was run. There are some gems out there.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

On 7/9/2021 at 2:09 AM, LColony_Red_Comet said:

-Adjustment of fuel mixture should matter for both fuel consumption and for not blowing up the engine. For some unfathomable reason we have rigid by-the-manual time limits on engine power settings but many planes can fly around in "auto lean" at war emergency power. This is a simple thing that could be implemented with a scripted behavior. 

 

-High MP/Low RPM engine failure.

 

That is definetly on the to do list. It's just that with the current pace of development with so many new faetures being worked on simultanely there cant be enought workforce dedicated to this, at least for now. This is no easy task given the great amount of engines, subsystems and varaibles to implement properly wihtout making it overfrustrating and difficult to learn. Here's the original post from the dev diary:

Quote

Complex tasks that require significant changes or research to find their cause:

1. Find and eliminate the cause of invisible planes sometimes appearing in multiplayer (which is very hard thanks to the system complexity);

2. Fix the issue that causes stopped engines to start and stop again for some time;

3. Fix the issue with a plane turret controlled by another player not correctly disappearing after plane crash;

4. Fix the issue with proppeler dust wash effect not disappearing immediately after crash;

5. Damage model imrpovements: make hits to wing roots damage longerons and cause wing fracture;

6. Fix the issue of Pe-2 propeller sound remaining after engine (and wing) loss;

7. Improve engine start procedures on all planes by setting engine control axes to positions convenient for taxiing and take off;

8. Add a button to reset rudder axis to middle position (useful for players who use buttons to control it);

9. Improve flight model control tools that will make development process of new aircraft FMs more efficient;

10. Additional research of airplane sideslip angle influence on plane roll;

11. Additional research of dynamic airflow compressibility and its influence on plane diving and control effectiveness (previously we based FM adjustments on manuals that stated 750 km/h velocity limits, while some test reports contain data of planes achievieing significantly faster speeds in dive, when dynamic airflow compressibility is ought to be taken into account);

12. Mouse control: make the control assist react to small direction changes less vigorously;

13. Fix the issue of BF 109 E-7 - it shouldn't 'squat' when you engage brakes;

14. Fix the issue of several planes: wind can somewhat swing them on the rear wheel while parked;

15. Improve wheels modeling, that will make large planes with low power engines, but big wheels to taxi easier;

16. Improve autolevel flight assist for non-dive bombers (He-111, Ju-88, Pe-2 s. 87 and Pe-2 s. 35) so it will use rudder instead of ailerons for corrections;

17. Add engine detonation affect caused by a variety of causes (wron mixture, high miture temperature, engine overboost, etc. );

18. Add weapon misfires caused by overheating;

19. Develop more sophisticated high-G effects system so it will affect plane crew depending on their weariness, oxygen amount, wounds, etc.;

20. Make bailing out impossible during heavy rotations or other hard maneuvers;

21. Make pilot head movement more realistic by adding a simple spine model;

22. Add united controls for different adjustable stabilizers;

23. Make twin engine coolers on Bf 109 F4, Bf 109 G2 and Ju 87 D3 more detailed (currently always left cooler emits vapor when any radiator is damaged);

24. Add emergency cooldown systems to aircraft where applicable;

25. Make fuel system simulation more complex (more detailed tanks system, allow player to control engine flow and control fuel amount manually, more detailed fuel leaks and self-sealing process, fire probablity based on remaining amount of fuel inert gas pressurization, external fuel tanks.

 

The advanced fuel system being worked on right now is point 25 btw. That gives a good idea of how long it takes to implement such huge changes.

Edited August 9, 2021 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[MikhaVT]

On 7/6/2021 at 3:20 PM, 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.

 

I'd love it if there was some system where while using the WEP/harder engine modes you had a slight chance of failure that would gradually increase as you drove the engine harder. Then on top of that a "theater" modifier to increase/decrease that chance overall to reflect the state of supply for that side in that area. Then also change the sudden failure to gradual failures that lead to sudden failures if ignored. (Though i assume many multiplayer pilots would be "triggered" by the idea of giving them a random chance to have engine failure in combat)

 

I dont really get why people worry about pilots WEPing everywhere -- every book i've read on US and Brittish WWII pilots has "I pushed the throttle past the emergency seal" or similar the second they spot an enemy aircraft. It's not like we're flying aircraft for hours prior to an engagement, and in a scramble to intercept, the WWII pilots often remark using emergency settings since takeoff. 

 

Personally, i'd just settle for a modification option for the P-40 and P-39 giving us mid-war engine models that are more durable -- then server owners can decide what they want to use. (The La-5 has such a mod to allow infinite boost...)

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 8/9/2021 at 4:21 AM, 6./ZG26_5tuka said:

 

That is definetly on the to do list. It's just that with the current pace of development with so many new faetures being worked on simultanely there cant be enought workforce dedicated to this, at least for now. This is no easy task given the great amount of engines, subsystems and varaibles to implement properly wihtout making it overfrustrating and difficult to learn. Here's the original post from the dev diary:

 

The advanced fuel system being worked on right now is point 25 btw. That gives a good idea of how long it takes to implement such huge changes.

17 on that list would be a game changer.