Do we need Drop Tanks in the game or would you be fine without them?

[IckyATLAS]

21 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

For me a real fuel management would be much more important than drop tanks.

I see drop tanks as an must have option to fuel management. We were told that fuel management was of extreme complexity to do it scientifically correct. So if you have managed to have it done then drop tanks become a small addition that would be absurd not to have, as it would be the most visual immersing and action part of the fuel management consequence.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'd b e fine with drop tanks if they were implemented like they were in IL2 46.  That way, the few aircraft that actually need them could get a range boost for the tiny amount of missions where they are actually needed.  What I don't want is to turn IL2 into a DCS like study sim, where every switch, and function is modeled in elaborate detail, which will suck all the fun of the playing the sim and turn it into a job.  I enjoy engine management so don't think I am some kind of "wonder woman" view, all automatic systems all the time kind of player.  The game as it stands has a very good balance between complexity and "fun".  Don't screw it up to satisfy the desires of a very small number of players with a large pulpit to preach from on this forum.

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, IckyATLAS said:

We were told that fuel management was of extreme complexity to do it scientifically correct.

The question is how complex it is modelled. Is the change of the COG modelled when in a Bf 110 the front tanks get emptied, is it modelled, when the game then pumps the fuel of the rear tanks into the front tanks? From my experience I doubt that, and I am fine with it. And I would be fine if the change of the COG isn't modelled when I pump the fuel of one rear tank into both front tanks, because the rear tank was hit, or if I pump the fuel of both rear tanks into one front tank, because the other one was hit. It doesn't have to be a hardlined modelling like in DCS. There are other systems in game, which are not modelled hardlined, like the 'Kurssteuerung' for the Ju 88, He 111 and Bf 110, or like the bombsights. So a simplified modelling, which gives the player the chance to handle situation in which he needs it. And why not model simplified drop tanks as well? When aircrafts in the career mode need them, they should have them.

[dburne]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'd b e fine with drop tanks if they were implemented like they were in IL2 46.  That way, the few aircraft that actually need them could get a range boost for the tiny amount of missions where they are actually needed.  What I don't want is to turn IL2 into a DCS like study sim, where every switch, and function is modeled in elaborate detail, which will suck all the fun of the playing the sim and turn it into a job.  I enjoy engine management so don't think I am some kind of "wonder woman" view, all automatic systems all the time kind of player.  The game as it stands has a very good balance between complexity and "fun".  Don't screw it up to satisfy the desires of a very small number of players with a large pulpit to preach from on this forum.

 

I doubt there should be any concern there. DCS drops bombs, as does IL-2. Drop tanks I would think would not be a big deal but I am no developer either. IL-2 Devs have stated on many occasions that it will never be a study level sim like DCS. No click pits.

Edited May 13, 2023 by dburne

[czech693]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'd b e fine with drop tanks if they were implemented like they were in IL2 46.  That way, the few aircraft that actually need them could get a range boost for the tiny amount of missions where they are actually needed.  What I don't want is to turn IL2 into a DCS like study sim, where every switch, and function is modeled in elaborate detail, which will suck all the fun of the playing the sim and turn it into a job.  I enjoy engine management so don't think I am some kind of "wonder woman" view, all automatic systems all the time kind of player.  The game as it stands has a very good balance between complexity and "fun".  Don't screw it up to satisfy the desires of a very small number of players with a large pulpit to preach from on this forum.

I agree.  We have a simplified fuel system now as the sim uses fuel from the internal tanks in a sequence.  Example would be the P-51 where it takes fuel from the rear fuselage tank first, or the Bristol Fighter where it takes fuel from the under seat fuselage tank first.  These two have so much fuel that I reduce the fuel load to empty those tanks.  It would seem simple to add programming to do a "if this than do this" line to take from drop tanks if attached, but this would monkey up things like the P-51.  Would you take from the drop tanks and then the fuselage tank?  Bummer if you get into action with a full fuselage tank.  Most aircraft have enough fuel (some excess) for these maps.  The exceptions are the Spitfire V and IX (and to some extent the Hurricane), and the Bf-109's, which was a RL issue and why the Spitfire IX got regulated to short range ground attack later in the war.  If the bomber escort mission is too far for your fuel capacity, then you have to turn back and leave them unescorted, just like in RL.  It would seem that only the early Spits and the 109s have the range problem, and the 109s not so much as when they were in the BoB.  So, I don't think we need drop tanks (without the complex tank switching required) just for a handful of scenarios (and looks).  Unless you can figure out how to deal with issues like the P-51.  I'd rather see some fixes like the MiG flaps and FC prop stutters.

[357th_KW]

34 minutes ago, czech693 said:

I agree.  We have a simplified fuel system now as the sim uses fuel from the internal tanks in a sequence.  Example would be the P-51 where it takes fuel from the rear fuselage tank first, or the Bristol Fighter where it takes fuel from the under seat fuselage tank first.  These two have so much fuel that I reduce the fuel load to empty those tanks.  It would seem simple to add programming to do a "if this than do this" line to take from drop tanks if attached, but this would monkey up things like the P-51.  Would you take from the drop tanks and then the fuselage tank?  Bummer if you get into action with a full fuselage tank. 

It probably wouldn’t be impossible to program it such that the 51s would burn the fuselage tank down about halfway (as was typically done IRL), and then switch to the drop tanks until they were burned or dropped, and then back to the fuselage, and then the wings.  Given the map sizes we have, there’s no scenario where you would need 100% internal fuel in the Mustang after dropping tanks.  And you could still fly it with 100% if you wanted to without drop tanks.

[IckyATLAS]

9 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

The question is how complex it is modelled. Is the change of the COG modelled when in a Bf 110 the front tanks get emptied, is it modelled, when the game then pumps the fuel of the rear tanks into the front tanks? From my experience I doubt that, and I am fine with it.

I would agree too that we do not need to have a perfectly modelled fuel tank circuit as in that case the devs would have to do one for each plane. Maybe a simpler one could fit on more that one plane more easily and cut down on development. However the fuel status display instruments in the cockpit should display values that do correspond and can be used to manage the fuel situation. Due to this one fit's all is probably impossible and you need to derive from a base fuel management model some special variants to adapt to each plane.

[Guest]

I think we're going to have to accept that the new owners won't be motivated by any kind of artistic pride in the product, everything from now on will be calculated on the potential revenue new stuff will generate. And that won't include stuff like drop-tanks.

My opinion, fwiw.

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

I think we're going to have to accept that the new owners won't be motivated by any kind of artistic pride in the product, everything from now on will be calculated on the potential revenue new stuff will generate. And that won't include stuff like drop-tanks.

My opinion, fwiw.

I see this as a purely hypothetical discussion anyway. The developers are creating something new, so it is hard to imagine, they will put that much work into this existing game, except for some new aircrafts, which generate some income for them. Apart from that it will mainly be repairing some bugs, but even here their interest seems to be less than it used to be.

[czech693]

Since the fuel capacity setting is currently for internal fuel, if it could stay that way and the only change to programming would be to take from drop tanks first, if installed, that would let you still use 68% on the P-51 leaving the fuselage tank empty, but taking the drop tanks.  Then you could drop the extenal tanks and be in fighting trim when needed.  But, this is not the way it was done in RL.  However, since we're not flying 8 hour round trip missions to Berlin I guess it would be a matter of choice for the player.

[DFLion]

We need drop tanks! Historically both the Allies and the Luftwaffe increased the use of them as the war continued to the end.

As you know I’ve made several long range missions both on the Northern Europe map and Normandy map - drop tanks were needed.

I think the way to go is a ‘simplified’ version - your drop tank(s)increase your total fuel load and should be programmed to use first - if you drop them early you lose that fuel and then rely on your internal fuel which would increase your range. I am sure in the original IL2 Oleg Maddox did this - a simplified system?

DFLion

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Would be nice, but....many other things more important. IMO

[DBFlyguy]

@Han @Sneaksie

Are drop tanks still being worked on for this game?

[migmadmarine]

For the record, though I doubt it will change much, I'd be content with a old Il-2 style abstracted implementation, since as I recall (at least with settings) the fuel tank selections etc were handled automatically. Think having an implementation like that would be better than nothing. 

[DBFlyguy]

I messaged both Han and Sneaksie this morning to get some clarification if they are working on them or not.  Looking forward to getting a final answer, then we can all stop speculating ?

[BB-Madman]

On 5/11/2023 at 11:50 AM, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

 or adding incendiary ammo. 

 

Yeah, this.

[Dragon1-1]

On 5/13/2023 at 9:18 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

What I don't want is to turn IL2 into a DCS like study sim, where every switch, and function is modeled in elaborate detail, which will suck all the fun of the playing the sim and turn it into a job.

It does not suck out all the fun, far from it. In fact, if anything, DCS WWII aircraft are easier to operate, because you don't have to bind every single option to a keyboard, and you can use the mouse to operate controls in a logical way. Switchology in WWII aircraft is minimal, and the few switches that Il-2 outright doesn't model, like caging gyros and switching the fuel tank indicator, actually make using said features annoying. Even a fully modeled fuel system would only mean you have to occasionally switch fuel tanks during flight (and on most aircraft, not even that). In fact, I'd say fighting is easier with DCS fighters because there are no engine timers.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

7 hours ago, DBFlyguy said:

I messaged both Han and Sneaksie this morning to get some clarification if they are working on them or not.  Looking forward to getting a final answer, then we can all stop speculating ?

I could be mistaken, but I think they announced no drop tanks in the current game engine at the same time they announced they will be moving forward to a new game engine.

[DBFlyguy]

20 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

I could be mistaken, but I think they announced no drop tanks in the current game engine at the same time they announced they will be moving forward to a new game engine.

Not sure, but at this point, I think it's best if they just address it themselves.  It's a yes or no question.

[Gustav_Hagel]

3 hours ago, DBFlyguy said:

Not sure, but at this point, I think it's best if they just address it themselves.  It's a yes or no question.

 

Short answer: No, it won't come. Maybe if we are lucky in the next gen game, which will take some years to release.

[DFLion]

Thanks for showing 'Lofts' and 'Hans' reply on the situation regarding 'drop tanks'. The developer working on them nearly got there, though it obviously became too complicated. One thing that I really like about this flight sim is getting the planes flying as accurately as the real thing - the IL2 team's high programming standards obviously also apply to drop tanks. Hopefully in the 'next generation game engine' we will have them (+ 4 engine bombers?).

During the interview I liked 'Lofts' great sense of humor. When he was discussing a probable 'Malta/Italy' campaign somebody mentioned, will we see the Mt. Etna volcano erupting - he said I certainly hope so?

'Loft' this is what an erupting volcano really looks like! Attached is a 'box-brownie' photograph taken from my father's B24 in 1944, somewhere over New Guinea or Borneo - hope you like it?

DFLion

[[CPT]Crunch]

Wasn't the spitfires fuel bag a non-droppable?  Why couldn't that ever be an option for it?

[czech693]

The larger ferry tank could not be dropped.  I think that was used for missions to supply Malta.  The smaller tanks were droppable.  They didn't extend the range much.  The Spitfire gronards would know more about this.

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

IMHO, no, some of the existing flights are too long, to get to the action, adding fuel tanks would just make the flight longer. Time is tight in the real world, I for one would not use them. Thanks for asking