Will the P-40 engine limits be fixed at some point, or it will just be left as it is now? :(

[CountZero]

17 minutes ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

 

The problem with this approach is that it is not a methodical or perceivably fair approach. It would be entirely up to popular consensus/the loudest voices in the room as to what aircraft should have their limits "relaxed". Ultimately it would lead to a never ending chorus of voices who believe they have been wronged/the game has been unbalanced. 

 

I truly think there are three good potential solutions. One, leave it as is... at least there is a baseline to make the decisions on (the service manuals). Two, remove/make an option to remove the timers completely. 

 

Or number three as I outlined, make it so that the timers are soft limits where once breached, "a dice roll would be performed every 30 seconds. Every 30 seconds it would roll with say a 2-5% chance of engine failure. The odds of failure could be open to discussion, but I would suggest very low odds of failure that would not be overly punitive and would allow pilots to take small risks to push past the service manual... knowing that it could lead to a very small chance they damage their engine."

 

To clarify, hard limits where we know engines had very high likelihood of instant failure once passed (over-rev etc.) should remain as is. 

On what bases they decide that recovering times are what they are, i dont see that mentioned in any manuals, it creates favoratisam situations now with how timers work. Some have 1:1 recharges while some 1:3, on what bases ? also some have emergancy power timer eat combat timer while some dont, on what bases ? it shows how its not same and it favors some airplanes engines already, what we have now it isent any fair then anything proposed. If we have timers like in manuals, but recharg same on every engine and timer effecting other timers of same engine same, then it would be fair system.

 

example of K4 compared to 51:

K4: 10min emergancy then you can use 10min combat and then again 10min emergancy and then again 10min combat, recarg is 1:1 and emergancy dont eat up combat timer.

51: 5min emrgancy then 10min combat then cant use emrgancy or combat, 45min continuous to recover 15 min of combat. 1:3 recovering time and emergancy timer eat combat timer... what manual states that ? why its not 1:1 like on K4 or why emergancy dont eat combat ? or why K4 dont have it how its on 51 ?

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by CountZero

[SCG_Wulfe]

 

38 minutes ago, CountZero said:

On what bases they decide that recovering times are what they are, i dont see that mentioned in any manuals, it creates favoratisam situations now with how timers work. Some have 1:1 recharges while some 1:3, on what bases ? also some have emergancy power timer eat combat timer while some dont, on what bases ? it shows how its not same and it favors some airplanes engines already, what we have now it isent any fair then anything proposed. If we have timers like in manuals, but recharg same on every engine and timer effecting other timers of same engine same, then it would be fair system.

 

example of K4 compared to 51:

K4: 10min emergancy then you can use 10min combat and then again 10min emergancy and then again 10min combat, recarg is 1:1 and emergancy dont eat up combat timer.

51: 5min emrgancy then 10min combat then cant use emrgancy or combat, 45min continuous to recover 15 min of combat. 1:3 recovering time and emergancy timer eat combat timer... what manual states that ? why its not 1:1 like on K4 or why emergancy dont eat combat ? or why K4 dont have it how its on 51 ?

 

 

Fair enough, a way to handle this part would be to remove the recovery... have the risk calculation kick in once the limit is reached with no re-set on any plane. Make the risk variable to the limit that has been breached (higher limits breached = slightly higher risk)

 

(I would suggest that for known combat power settings as stated in the manual the risk would be extraordinarily low for time spent over the manual limits, potentially under 1%)

Edited January 19, 2022 by SCG_Wulfe

[Alexmarine]

This and other endless arguments regarding timers (and timers related topics) slowly convinced me that an option to have a timer-less mode in the game would be more than welcomed. Have it like the option for technochat, so servers can decide if they want to run with or without timers for all their players. Without timers players will have to focus more on the heat management of their planes (which along fuel consumption will still restrain people from flying at full throttle all the time) over having to check on a clock how long they have been on a particular engine mode, water/MW-50 injections systems will work as long as they are not exhausted, though still in the limit of the engine temperature limits.

 

Providing players a choice would definitely be nice

[NanashiAnjin]

Also, an engine doesnt have to break instantly, it could degrade over time, so that 1 min over the time, you might notice some wear on the engine, and then certain engines that were known to be very reliable would have a higher "health" so wear would go slower.

 

In combination with audio cues we could decide to keep pushing or take it a bit slower, to lengthen our flight.

[Jason_Williams]

Guys,

 

There are no hard or fast answers to this issue. What I plan to do is make an engine durability slider so mission makers and server ops can decide how durable engines can be beyond its current limits. The extreme setting being infinite. That’s really the only option. We’ve spent a lot of time trying to make our limits match the data we have found. It’s not easy. And to make our engines act exactly like real world engine failures is a huge engineering task and right now I can’t even get our one engineer/programmer to finish fuel systems and drop tanks. I’m limited in what I can do.

 

Jason 

[Danziger]

That sounds like a good plan.

[Jade_Monkey]

Sounds good @Jason_Williams. Would this be a per-plane/unit setting or a global mission setting?

 

As a mission maker, I think implementing this at the unit level would be the most flexible as you can allow P-40 to run longer but maybe not Mustangs (random example).

 

Maybe sopmething like the fuel box where:

• -1=infinite
• 0=Standard
• X= # minutes

[Alexmarine]

3 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Sounds good @Jason_Williams. Would this be a per-plane/unit setting or a global mission setting?

 

As a mission maker, I think implementing this at the unit level would be the most flexible as you can allow P-40 to run longer but maybe not Mustangs (random example).

 

Maybe sopmething like the fuel box where:

• -1=infinite
• 0=Standard
• X= # minutes

 

While a nice idea I already see endless forum wars as people accuse that server or that other server to give higher timer limits to a specific side or to another. Better keep it universal

 

[Psyrion]

I'm not too excited about the idea of a slider for MP. This might be the sort of box that you can never close again once you open it. I suspect servers would just be forced to turn timers off entirely just to avoid endless circular discussions and the inevitable accusations of bias one way or the other. 
After all everyone seems to have entirely different ideas on how the timers for various planes should work.

 

I very much appreciate the communication.
My two cents is that the timers are fine for 95% of the aircraft. The one thing I don't understand is the different "recharge" rates of the airplanes.

[CountZero]

Im not fan of slider idea.

No one would know when timer runs out because tech chat dont show up that, so how would players know what time they have on what server ? would server have to have in breafing or forum timers are 75% longer here ? that still dont solve problem of unfair recovering or timers eating other timers and so on... why not make it simple and just have on/off option, shown that works with undestructable realisam option. Its clear and not confusing, server either have timers how they work now or they dont exist when option is off.

Edited January 19, 2022 by CountZero

[purK]

Certain planes really suffer from the current engine durability, anything to improve this would be much appreciated.

If it's possible, a slider or a setting to adjust engine recharge rates would be extremely useful too. For example, if you use 1 minute of emergency power, it might take 3 minutes or more of continuous power to regain your full emergency ability again, currently this varies between aircraft. Being able to adjust this recharge rate to 1:2 or even 1:1 along with an improved durability setting would greatly help planes like the P40 or P39, and probably improve the game balance overall.

[Alexmarine]

I agree with @CountZero. A on/off option will be more straightforward and avoid unnecessary barters about it as he said. I commend the idea for giving a variety of choices but this can be tricky given the topic and it's repercussions on the MP scene

[CountZero]

4 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

Certain planes really suffer from the current engine durability, anything to improve this would be much appreciated.

If it's possible, a slider or a setting to adjust engine recharge rates would be extremely useful too. For example, if you use 1 minute of emergency power, it might take 3 minutes or more of continuous power to regain your full emergency ability again, currently this varies between aircraft. Being able to adjust this recharge rate to 1:2 or even 1:1 along with an improved durability setting would greatly help planes like the P40 or P39, and probably improve the game balance overall.

Then techchat messages that work when instrument panel is on would have to be fixed and work when only techchat is on. So playe knows when timer runs out, as if server/mission maker is able to adjust all that stuff for each airplane, without in game info when timer is out or recharged you are counting on players to read briefing and mission makers to say for each airplane what new timers are... its to complicated to work if techchat stays as now without info about when time runs out or recovers.

[Hitcher]

I and many other community members would really appreciate some dev input on why different aircraft/nations have varying recharge/cool down rates for their engine power settings.

[Denum]

1 hour ago, Jason_Williams said:

right now I can’t even get our one engineer/programmer to finish fuel systems and drop tanks. I’m limited in what I can do.

 

Is it just a time issue or is it proving to be alot more in-depth then anticipated?

 

AnP does really nice work. Hoping it can still happen.

[purK]

1 minute ago, CountZero said:

Then techchat messages that work when instrument panel is on would have to be fixed and work when only techchat is on. So playe knows when timer runs out, as if server/mission maker is able to adjust all that stuff for each airplane, without in game info when timer is out or recharged you are counting on players to read briefing and mission makers to say for each airplane what new timers are... its to complicated to work if techchat stays as now without info about when time runs out or recovers.

The durability slider will most likely be like a multiplier, we don't know yet so we shouldn't even be assuming. If your engine has say 1 minute of emergency time, you can multiply this by the durability setting, that's not so complex to figure out. I'm sure the technochat will be adjusted to match this as well.

An on/off switch isn't going to help anybody, especially in multiplayer where servers will most likely opt to keep the engine limits in place to promote more realistic gameplay. The complaints will never stop in this case.

But give servers the ability to incrementally adjust engine durability as Jason mentions, then they will be more likely to experiment and implement a balanced solution.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

IDK know about this "slider" mode.   TBH, the P-40 has "dummy" marks on the gauges that work well enough.  With good speed, altitude and energy management, plus smooth throttle adjustment, I've never had to push into combat or emergency mode for more than 30 seconds at a time.  Since I've owned the P-40, I've only blown the engine on the first flight I took with it.

 

The most I'd really support is perhaps a hard cap to the timers with a RNG "durability cap" added on top. (maybe 0 seconds to 5 more minutes?)

 

And before we get into "it's still RNG so, no good".... As long as it's digital and counts numbers, it's ALL hitboxes, hard-capped values or RNG no matter the engine or damage model that's employed.  Even if every single sparkplug, wire and gear were modeled within the engine, it would still be hitboxes, RNG and/or hard-capped values for each tiny little thing.

[ZachariasX]

It depends on the weather what works. Just use a density altitude calculator and see how much air you actually have in your #MAP.

 

An arbitary picked day in St.Petersburg in winter can have ~5% more air in the same #MAP than the engineers at Allison feed in their engines to do bench runs.

An arbitary day during the Battle of El Alamein can have ~5% less air per #MAP than back at the shop @Allison.

An arbitary day in NewGuinea may have ~10% less air per #MAP than back at Allison.

 

If the engineers at Allison certify the engine for 56'' MAP, this can mean in fact ~53'' in the Russian winter. IOW, over at Allison, they know that the rated 56'' MUST contain a safety margin for winter flying. We know the engine has that margin.

 

It also means that what reads 59'' MAP fighting Rommel may actually be well within specs of certified 56'' MAP standard atmosphere. Doing 60'' in the desert is then not that much beyond certified tolerances.

 

If sweaty Joe is pulling 70'' in NewGuinea, he may be pulling what corresponds 62'' reference. Overboosted yes, but not that much as it seems.

 

If you look at it this way, you can understand the utter reluctance of of Allison engineers certifying their engine for 60'', because in russian winter, this can well translate to what is 63'' on their bench.

 

In this light, it is just logical why Allison never published bench runs at these ratings just because some dude in the desert or on a hot, rainy island was nervous. I agree that the engineers in these days were top of the pop and certainly educated enough to take the yapping from the squadrons for what that is. And it also should put internet claims that pilots were always squeezing 1800 hp from their Allison in a new perspective.

 

Somebody just telling you he pulled XY'' MAP doesn't mean all that much if you don't know ambient temperature and dew point as well. Or have you heard on anyone happily pulling 70'' over Leningrad?

[Alexmarine]

11 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

especially in multiplayer where servers will most likely opt to keep the engine limits in place to promote more realistic gameplay. 

 

More probable it's the contrary.

 

Also timer by themselves do not perfectly equal realism in any case

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I like the slider idea because it allows for a more granular control. Individual per plane adjustment would also be nice simulating changes in engine ratings that happened for some of the planes along their life, simulating earlier or later variants. 

 

Limiting max throttle available would be good too, to simulate some of the early derated variants like in the 109F, Spit V, Fw 190 in 1941 timeframe. Could also work for Yak and LaGG. 

[Gingerwelsh]

Please don't do this.

 

..

[Alexmarine]

12 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Limiting max throttle available would be good too, to simulate some of the early derated variants like in the 109F, Spit V, Fw 190 in 1941 timeframe. Could also work for Yak and LaGG. 

 

This is what modifications are for, no need to move that to the timer system.

 

(Also, PVO-lackeys opinion are irrelevant, you will soon be judged for your anti-soviet behaviour (don't worry guys, it's a running joke between us, not gonna use a tokarev... Yet ))

[354thFG_Panda_]

1 hour ago, Krupnski said:

Certain planes really suffer from the current engine durability, anything to improve this would be much appreciated.

If it's possible, a slider or a setting to adjust engine recharge rates would be extremely useful too. For example, if you use 1 minute of emergency power, it might take 3 minutes or more of continuous power to regain your full emergency ability again, currently this varies between aircraft. Being able to adjust this recharge rate to 1:2 or even 1:1 along with an improved durability setting would greatly help planes like the P40 or P39, and probably improve the game balance overall.

100% agree. Even if there are no changes to the timers the recharge rates are too restrictive and vary greatly from the different planes. The planes hit hardest have extremely poor combat endurance. As soon as one fights ends you are completely done for if one starts in few mins and you are in recharging in cruise. While planes that have great recharge rates wont care.

If there could be a universal 1:1 recharge with no emergency/wep power eating into the combat mode it would help these tougher timer planes a lot. WEP could be recharged in Combat/Cruise and Combat can only be recharged in Cruise (unless these things are specified in a manual). All can be done while keeping the timer limits the same.

 

If any dev or someone who is knowledgeable about the engines comment where do these recharge rates come from?

Edited January 19, 2022 by LR.Panda_

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

1 hour ago, Alexmarine said:

 

This is what modifications are for, no need to move that to the timer system.

 

(Also, PVO-lackeys opinion are irrelevant, you will soon be judged for your anti-soviet behaviour (don't worry guys, it's a running joke between us, not gonna use a tokarev... Yet ))

Ideally it would be done with new modifications yes, but the chance of new mods implemented to old planes is very low sadly.

And VVS mad the PVO gets all the high performance planes first, from the MiG-3 to Spit IX and finally the 25 and 31 ?

[Noisemaker]

Left field idea here, but what if we introduced a RNG engine failure for all aircraft, even in spec (at a low percentage), whereby the engine failure percentage would increase as the engine is pushed into combat and emergency, and beyond (and would maintain that higher percentage of failure indefinitely if pushed beyond the written limits).  That would satisfy the variety of engine failures due to maintenance quality and usage for all players, equally, and would punish players who abuse the engines, equally.

[Alexmarine]

57 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

And VVS mad the PVO gets all the high performance planes first, from the MiG-3 to Spit IX and finally the 25 and 31 ?

 

VVS aces scores speak for themselves, PVO is only good for padding Sabres scores and shooting down airlines 

Edited January 19, 2022 by Alexmarine

[CUJO_1970]

Sliders = worst idea I've heard since we had to grind for skins back in 2012.

Edited January 20, 2022 by CUJO_1970

[Alonzo]

As a server admin, I'm not particularly in favor of making this a server adjustable setting. I don't really think it would succeed -- as others have said, fast-food style servers will simply remove the limits, and more realistic servers will likely keep them at 'standard'. It would also be an additional non-obvious setting that might surprise players as they move between servers (simplified physio and alt-viz being the other two).

 

I do think the inconsistency in the recharge rates should be tweaked, and I think we would all agree that a higher fidelity system (rough running engines if pushed too hard, gradual degradation, a chance for catastrophic failure, etc) would be a preferable long term goal. But such a system would be quite a lot of development effort and would need to be balanced against developing other game features.

 

Part of what increases the uniqueness of the airframes and the skill ceiling for pilots is that these engine limits exist and pilots need to be aware of them. I think it would be a pretty dull state of affairs if you could just run the engine at max all the time, limited only by fuel. Removing the limits would also remove an advantage that some aircraft, such as Yaks, currently have -- they can legitimately be run at 100% all the time.

 

Especially in multiplayer, this is not supposed to be a symmetric game. The sides have different airframes. Missions have asymmetric layouts. Differing sized forces will encounter each other at different energy states throughout a mission. The weather is not always CAVOK, and it's not always high noon. These things create a richness in the game, make it interesting, and make it a skill for mission designers to offer compelling -- not necessarily 100% balanced -- experiences to pilots.

 

While I think engine timers could use some improvement and an increase in consistency, they are part of the rich fabric of the game. Pilots campaigning for their removal should think twice.

[354thFG_Panda_]

Where do the engine mode recharge ratios come from? Are they from manuals as rest times?

[=621=Samikatz]

There's a handful of interesting scenarios you could do with an engine durability settings like that (ie in Career having only a couple of new airframes that can be run hard while the rest are aged? Make pilots excited to get replacement airframes? Could be fun!) but there has to be a consistent UI to communicate this to the player, I think

 

Also voicing my agreement in having timer "recharge rates" normalised, or at least the reason behind them explained. I think there's also value in having different and sometimes less severe forms of engine failure for running over the limits. Degradation of performance for example. Still punishing, but could lead to more complex decision making

[Alexmarine]

1 minute ago, LR.Panda_ said:

Where do the engine mode recharge ratios come from? Are they from manuals as rest times?

 

[SAG]

I like the slider Idea, specially if it can be different for every type of plane.
 

If a server wants to be "casual" turn timers off (Berloga?)

If a server doesn't want people complaining about bias or whatever, leave it at 'standard' (like what we have now) (Wings?)

If a server wants the option to change durability to do things like simulate maintenance, supplies, etc (think simulated wars like Finnish or TAW) based on destroyed factories, etc. then let them do it.

 

The freedom to "move" these sliders opens the possibility for many more gameplay options than what we have now or what an "on-off" option ever could.

 

[EduardoMCfly]

8 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

Guys,

 

There are no hard or fast answers to this issue. What I plan to do is make an engine durability slider so mission makers and server ops can decide how durable engines can be beyond its current limits. The extreme setting being infinite. That’s really the only option. We’ve spent a lot of time trying to make our limits match the data we have found. It’s not easy. And to make our engines act exactly like real world engine failures is a huge engineering task and right now I can’t even get our one engineer/programmer to finish fuel systems and drop tanks. I’m limited in what I can do.

 

Jason 

Good idea Jason, glad that you found my post and gave us an alternative/solution...

Many thanks!  

8 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Sounds good @Jason_Williams. Would this be a per-plane/unit setting or a global mission setting?

 

As a mission maker, I think implementing this at the unit level would be the most flexible as you can allow P-40 to run longer but maybe not Mustangs (random example).

 

Maybe sopmething like the fuel box where:

• -1=infinite
• 0=Standard
• X= # minutes

I hope we get the per-plane setting... 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

9 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

Left field idea here, but what if we introduced a RNG engine failure for all aircraft, even in spec (at a low percentage), whereby the engine failure percentage would increase as the engine is pushed into combat and emergency, and beyond (and would maintain that higher percentage of failure indefinitely if pushed beyond the written limits).  That would satisfy the variety of engine failures due to maintenance quality and usage for all players, equally, and would punish players who abuse the engines, equally.

This

[BlitzPig_EL]

Is there good documentation from the day that shows failure rates of the various engines that we have portrayed in the sim?

 

Seems to me that since we need documentation for performance changes of any kind for the devs to do something about it, we should have some kind of numbers before we start putting dice rolls, or other RNG gamer nonsense onto the reliability of our pixel plane engines in the sim.

 

Some of you may remember the random spark plug fouling that was in the early days of the original IL2, and how it was eventually taken out as it was universally hated by the player base.

Edited January 20, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[[Rapaces]Vietcong]

I like this idea to an extent. As others have pointed ideally I'd like to have freedom on a per-plane basis.

However, im not sure if it's a good idea as accusations, bias and more drama will fall on server admins. I don't think the timer limits was a terrible idea to start with but there are some inconsistencies with a few aircraft with chosen limits (p-39 for instance). I would have gone for a random failure probability that increases with every passing minute over the timer. Still arbitrary, but better than the current system.

On a side note, if this gets included, an option for tweaking recharge rate MUST be included. Having the current rate maintained or included at all while being able to go 30 min WEP (for ex)  makes no sense. 

[the_emperor]

2 hours ago, [Rapaces]Vietcong said:

However, im not sure if it's a good idea as accusations, bias and more drama will fall on server admins. I don't think the timer limits was a terrible idea to start with but there are some inconsistencies with a few aircraft with chosen limits (p-39 for instance).

Agreed. But a look should also be taken into some Engine Models due to a weird connection between MAP and RPM when using emergency boost.

E.g. the La-5fn boosted mode is rate 1200mm(-20)/2500rpm for 10min. If you reduce rpm to 2400 it doubles the boosted time to 20min, generating a slight increase in speed and decrease in climb (as ist probably should at low level accourding to document Regaring Yaks, desrcibing the effect) -> so 1000rpm less grant the La-fn double the boost time (that the rated 10min are also probably incorrect is another debate). That all of course mean back tracking to older FM/engine models, and binds rescources, which seem to bee needed elsewhere at the moment.

Cheers

[Dennis_Nedry]

21 hours ago, Psyrion said:

I'm not too excited about the idea of a slider for MP. This might be the sort of box that you can never close again once you open it. I suspect servers would just be forced to turn timers off entirely just to avoid endless circular discussions and the inevitable accusations of bias one way or the other. 
After all everyone seems to have entirely different ideas on how the timers for various planes should work.

 

I very much appreciate the communication.
My two cents is that the timers are fine for 95% of the aircraft. The one thing I don't understand is the different "recharge" rates of the airplanes.

After thinking about this for a while I think your last point about recharge rates is something that could be adjusted to make things more universal.

 

Universal cooldowns for all aircraft as an example.  Could be different of course.

Emergency - 5min cooldown

Combat - 2 minute cooldown

 

Also, having WEP on the US planes not eat into Combat.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Be best if the cool down, timers, and recharge was all connected to and related to oil, cylinder, and coolant temps being displayed on the instruments.  Timers don't kick in till your oil, cylinder, or water actually passes their operating limit, and the total time you get is based on the level of heat indicated.  Get your temps back within normal operating limits and you are recharged.  Keep them hot for to long into your time limits and your next use has the total time to failure reduced.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Is there good documentation from the day that shows failure rates of the various engines that we have portrayed in the sim?

 

Seems to me that since we need documentation for performance changes of any kind for the devs to do something about it, we should have some kind of numbers before we start putting dice rolls, or other RNG gamer nonsense onto the reliability of our pixel plane engines in the sim.

 

Some of you may remember the random spark plug fouling that was in the early days of the original IL2, and how it was eventually taken out as it was universally hated by the player base.

Although I agree with you that it wouldn't be a good idea for in-spec engines, I think it would be a huge improvement to the current system if combined with the time limits, as others have already alluded to, even with less-than-perfect historical documentation (0% chance of failure if within the time limit, an increasing chance for every X seconds beyond the limit ending at perhaps 50% failure chance per minute after twice the time limit).

 

Although still not perfect, I think such a system would instantly make the timers much more realistic. Random numbers can - and are, in engineering - after all be used to approximate real-life results as nearly every real-life process has some dependence on stochastics. They'd remove the game-ish feel of having a timer fail at an exact pre-determined point in time, and even expand your gameplay choices (do you use WEP for one minute extra with a chance your engine fails, or do you play safe and throttle back, letting your target run away?). Coupled with perhaps some more damage types (a generic loss of some of your power, oil leaks, etc.) I think it'd be a nice solution and a real improvement, as opposed to adjustable limits which wouldn't solve any of the fundamental problems with the current system except make it adjustable (still an improvement though).

 

Anyhow, I'm sure the Devs will come up with something, just as they've improved the pilot physiology system