Engine management and power settings

[SupremeLoser]

Will Korea abandon the engine timer method used in Great Battles?  There has been much discussion in the past, but in reality, engine timers really are not how an engine works when running in combat or WEP mode.  The manuals have these times stated, but exceeding this time didn't mean you would definitely start risking some random occurrence of immediate engine damage or out right failure occurring.  From what I have read on the subject, what it meant was a rule of thumb.  That if you exceeded this time limit you risked shortening the engine life, which is normally somewhere around 200 hours (just an example... varied depending on the engine and usage).  So, for example, running WEP for 15 minutes instead of the stated 5 mins (for typical US WW2 fighter), may reduce the engine life from say, 200 hours to about 150.  This, provided of course, that you don't have overheating or engine knock occurring during the operation of it.  Also, there is no recharging of time that would occur when you are back at cruise or continuous power setting.  This doesn't occur in real engines at all.  They don't fix themselves when you are easy on them.  Wish they did :D. That supposed time limit in the manual refers to maximum recommended continuous operation at that power setting (not to be confused with continuous power setting).  So, for example, if I just was running in combat power setting, which suppose is good for 15 min, and I ran it for say 10 min, but then I backed out of it for a couple minutes... if the temps look good and there is no knock when engaged I can run combat power again for up to 15 min if I want.  In fact, I could run it longer than that, but what would occur is engine wear.  But this engine wear would not cause immediate engine damage nor failure... as long as the temps are maintained within where they should be and there is no engine knock.

 

So, that does mean players would be more aggressive with engine power settings.  They could run it all the way at WEP and not back off for shorter missions (for example, the multiplayer stuff that lasts no more than a couple hours), again, though, AS LONG AS engine temps are kept within specs and there is no engine knock.  But, that is just the thing... to abandon engine timers a more complex engine model would need to be adapted.  It may become increasingly difficult to maintain engine temps at higher power settings due to varying flight speed that is occurring in combat... but also, knock itself is a fairly complex situation.  My direct experience in tuning force inducted automobile engines (Miatas mainly, be it supercharged or turbocharged), is that knock is a function of engine octane, environmental conditions, engine condition (wear) and also the water/oil temps.  So, in an aircraft the knock would be more likely to occur when you are running closer to the limit (i.e. combat through WEP range) and also if the engine temps are on the high side.  And it would certainly start happening if you are at WEP and also the temps now just entered the red.  That is probably how they tuned the WW2 engines to determine the max boost they can handle.  They can "just" keep from knocking with the octane they are requiring IFF the coolant temp is not exceeding max AND the rpm is not exceeding max and the boost is at max.  Now, in this particular situation of where everything is maxed out, but the engine is not overheating (barely) and the engine isn't knocking (barely), in theory, you could run the engine like this until it is out of fuel without damage or failure.  However, as soon as it exceeds the max recommended time duration, excess engine wear is occurring.  But I suppose the question in order would be how much?  Drawing from my experience with automobile engines, I would make a guesstimate.  That guesstimate is based on a fairly general statement that is also reasonably accurate, that 100 miles on the road = 1 mile on the track.  Basically, when you are racing a car, you are wearing it at 100x the rate of normal street (i.e. continuous/cruise mode) operation.  Thus, I think, for the aircraft engine modelling a reasonable first step is that when you exceed the engine duration for say WEP (and say that is 5 minutes), for every minute you run it further, you would wear it out at 100x the rate or 100 min worth.  So every minute at WEP past max duration would actually reduce the engine hours by 1 hour 40 min.  Still, it would give you a good 1 hour of WEP (if temps are maintained and no engine knock), before wearing out 100 hours worth off the engine.

 

This leads me to the next point however.  It is quite possible that the engine wear situation is independent of any time limit at all.  In that case, it may be more accurate to simply look at starting out for example with a fresh engine that has 200 hours of "normal" operation it can handle.  When running at continuous or cruise you simply are removing 1 minute from that time for every minute of time at that power setting.  However, as soon as you go into combat power, it immediately is wearing at whatever the determined wear rate for combat power is... say for example it is 1 hour wear for every minute operation at that setting.  And then when you are at WEP, it could be perhaps 2 hours wear for every minute operation at that power setting.  Furthermore, you could interpolate the wear rates throughout these (as soon as you go past max continuous... every under the umbrella of max continuous is 1:1).

 

So why would engine wear matter?  Well, two things.  First, the immediate effect is both the power the engine makes and also how easily it is kept from overheating.  As an engine wears it loses compression, which means power, but also this loss in efficiency would make it more prone to overheating.  This is not a linear relationship however.  Easily for the first half of the hours for the rated engine life, there would be essential no effect.  Most of the second half of the hours would have no effect too.  It would be in the last 1/4 or so that engine power would start to be effected more than 1-2%.  For example, probably nearing the end of the engine life before rebuild, power may be down 10-20%.  The engine would also similarly run hotter.  Probably 5-10 deg F hotter, with the same circumstances, perhaps a little more.  These are just very rough estimates.  Once one goes beyond the engine rated hours, that is where things really nosedive.  That brings me to the second thing about engine wear.  Perhaps in Korea, at least when you are in career mode, you don't get a fresh engine after each mission.  You have the same engine you started with on the first mission in that plane.  Engines would have to be rebuilt.  There would be a price to that.  For example, perhaps the plane would not be ready for the very next mission if it then needs an engine rebuild.  Similar for airframe damage and other things.

 

Getting back to the immediate.  When flying and especially combat, you still would probably need to exercise a little restraint with engaging WEP, or even combat power, all the time.  As mentioned, without timers there would theoretically be no time limit to run a given power setting... AS LONG AS THERE IS NO KNOCK and the engine temps are kept within spec.  That is the thing however, I think in real combat situations, especially when you have a speed drop after a series of maneuvers, it will be hard to keep the pedal to the metal and not have the engine knocking/overheating.  You need airflow and radiator flaps at the best positions for that airflow to get the cooling.  Even then, it depends.  Furthermore, again drawing from my experience tuning automobile engines, if you have any knock, ESPECIALLY DURING BOOST, engine destruction happens VERY QUICKLY.  We are talking seconds.  If I stay on the throttle when there is audible knock at say, even 10psi boost, after about 3-5 seconds the engine is toast.  10 seconds would be amazing if it stayed together.  If you get just a blip of engine knock (1 second or less), you might be "ok", but even then you get enough of those and it is time for engine rebuild.  So, in the simulation, in addition to the engine temp gauges, the engine itself would need to make the sounds to let you know how it is running and what is happening.  It should be pretty noticeable when engine knock is occurring.  It basically sounds like rattling marbles in a can.  Gets louder the more intense the knock (and damage) and also the higher the boost.  The tachometer would also probably fluctuate slightly in an aircraft (not sure, but a reasonable guess).  Ditto with the MAP gauge.  Indeed, with even the current IL-2 GB you can see the tach and MAP gauges flutter a little... but only after the damage is already done and the engine is about 1-5 min from total failure.  What I am talking about is them giving you indicators (in addition to how the engine sounds) when some minor (or major) damage is occurring but the engine isn't minutes away from being toast yet.

 

Finally, there would be a distinction between engine hours and engine damage.  Engine hours would only really make sense with an undamaged engine.  As soon as an engine is damaged, it would need a rebuild immediately.  What would damage an engine?  Well, of course the obvious (maybe I should be CaptainObvious instead of CaptainBill? :D), damage from weaponry.  Holes in engine block, holes in cooling system (well, technically, this wouldn't damage the engine, now another detail to consider... damage of engine system by location).  But also, during engine operation if it overheats, first if it is a minor overheat for not too long is would only reduce the engine hours life.  However, overheating more or for a longer duration it would start to actually damage the engine.  Likewise for engine knock.  You catch the knock in under a couple seconds and back off the throttle, essentially no engine damage, but there would a significant reduction in engine hours left.  However, it knocks for too long (more than a few seconds) and/or the boost is high and there is very loud engine knock... that is damage.  The damage in any of these scenarios could range from minor to outright immediate engine failure.  There would be some randomness to it once you are in the "damage zone" of engine operation.  But not too much randomness.  I.e., the damage would be happening regardless.  That is, if the engine is overheating for a minute at 20 deg F into the red, there really is no question that engine damage is occurring.  Likewise, if the engine is knocking like nobody's business at 75" and 3000rpm, there is really no chance that the engine isn't being catastrophically damaged at that point (i.e., you have 2-3 seconds to back off the throttle before the engine has a hole in the side of the block).

 

Well, that was long winded.  But, inevitably getting into the specifics about engine modelling is.  I am hopeful that the Korea game will take the engine modelling to the next level.  I am not trying to dictate how it should be above.  Just some things to consider, if you haven't already.  And of course, the fun part here, to discuss it a bit more.  Perhaps we can talk about these things here.  In a polite and constructive way of course.  My intent is something constructive and helpful.  Also, if any of this can trickle down to Great Battles... 😄

Edited June 13 by CaptainBill

[Zooropa_Fly]

[ST_Catchov]

True. Except the bit about trickling down to GB. Won't happen. BoX is ancient history, and if there's anything gamers hate, it's ancient history. We like to move on to the next big thing, the last big thing quickly forgotten. Sure, some people stick with old stuff, but they are unimportant.

[Dragon1-1]

IMO, removing engine timers really should be backported to BoX, if the devs decide to do away with them in Korea. They're frustrating to deal with, and run counter to the "detailed historical simulation" angle the devs seem to be going for. While other inaccuracies and simplifications in BoX are reasonable enough, the timers are all-round horrible.

[BlitzPig_EL]

While I agree with you about timers, the fact remains that backporting from the new engine won't be possible.  Same with porting existing aircraft and maps from BoX, to Korea and beyond.

Edited June 14 by BlitzPig_EL

[Dragon1-1]

Wrong. Backporting a concept would definitely be possible. It's as simple as setting the damn timers to 999 minutes, effectively disabling them. That's all we're asking for.

 

The entire problem with engine timers in BoX is devs being convinced that they somehow improve gameplay, realism, or anything else. They don't. Should they realize that, coming back to BoX and deleting them all should go without saying. Timers are ahistorical BS.

Edited June 14 by Dragon1-1

[LukeFF]

Let's watch the tone with how we react to someone's POV. 

[Dragon1-1]

It's not POV, it's a factual statement that is wrong. If devs suddenly decided all BoX aircraft were to lose all engine timers, they could do it fairly easily. This is just an arbitrary value, which can be set to whatever the devs want, including longer than the fuel tank will last.

 

Equating that with porting maps, assets and other technology is nonsense. Literally the only thing preventing timers from being fixed (i.e. removed) is the devs not acknowledging that this would improve the game. Should that change, such as by Korea proving timerless gameplay works better, it's not unreasonable to expect them to go back and make that fix.

Edited June 14 by Dragon1-1

[ST_Catchov]

Ok respectfully acknowledging everyone's POV and their right to formulate opinions contrary to others .... but why the heck do we need stinkin' timers anyway. What's their point?

[Aapje]

To prevent you from running the engine at 100% all the time. Basically, to force you into engine management, which is more realistic.

[Trooper117]

23 minutes ago, Aapje said:

To prevent you from running the engine at 100% all the time. Basically, to force you into engine management, which is more realistic.

 

People don't need to be 'forced' into engine management... enthusiasts will find out what is needed and try to run the engine to the correct numbers, because they want to 'flight sim' the game.

Others who want to fly to a more 'gamey' experience can simply go into options and make their flying as easy, or as hard as they like... 

[Aapje]

What about the people who are not enthusiastic enough to figure out and keep track of these things on their own, but do like the game to have some restrictions that increase realism?

 

BTW, if you don't care about engine timers, you can turn on the 'unbreakable' realism setting and then you can ignore the timers.

Edited June 15 by Aapje

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

you can turn on the 'unbreakable' realism setting and then you can ignore the timers.

 

Exactly my point... people can alter settings to suit their playstyles, it's a no brainer.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Keeping the game open to varied play styles seems to be a no brainer for sure.  The more people that you make happy, the more sales you will have, and the cycle will continue.

Personally I manage my own engine, mostly because I fly the P40 a lot, and it's the only way to get the most out of it.  But I don't force that on the folks I play with when I host, keeps us all happy, and playing together.

 

Edited June 15 by BlitzPig_EL

[Irishratticus72]

20 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Ok respectfully acknowledging everyone's POV and their right to formulate opinions contrary to others .... but why the heck do we need stinkin' timers anyway. What's their point?

Because I like my eggs soft boiled.

 

[SupremeLoser]

My opinion on this is whatever makes it realistic.  I don't think the timers are realistic.  But, some other method that would be closer to reality and not be to make it easier than reality, but simply more correct.  I think it comes down to tracking engine hours remaining in addition to percent engine damage.  Engine hours would start with the hours at normal operation for that particular engine.  Then, as you run the engine it would deduct based on how hard it is being run.  Anything at max continuous/nominal/cruise or below would simply reduce it by 1 hour per hour it is run at that setting.  Going beyond that is where there would be a little figuring out to do, but I think it would be something on the scale of 50-100 hours wear per hour run at combat power and somewhere in the 200+ range for WEP.  And interpolate in between.  There would be no set time when it would start deducting at these varying rates... it would happen immediately.  The other thing would have to do with cooling management.  Perhaps the oil and water temps heating rates would need another look in some of the planes to be realistic, I don't know there.  Maybe it is perfect as it is?  It would run hotter the harder the engine is run, along with many other things.  As it stands, it looks like the simulation does pretty well with the realism in water and oil temps.  If the engine is run when it overheats it would start to take damage.  This would be a separate things from engine hours remaining, and more serious.  Also, if it is run past certain manifold settings that are "forbidden", this would mean knock right away and also damage right away.  How much would be a function of how far past the max allowable manifold pressure the engine is run.  Ditto on rpm.  The effect on engine power and also how hot is runs would be a function of both hours remaining and engine damage.  For most of the hours remaining, there would be a very small effect, probably just a few percent at most.  Perhaps nearing using up all the hours there would be a more drastic loss in power and also the engine would run hotter.  Probably 5-10%.  It would get a lot worse if you exceed the hours without a rebuild (if applicable to the game... if not, well, it would only matter for the mission I guess which in turn would mean probably the hours wouldn't really matter).  The effect of damage would probably be pretty much 1 for 1 and linear.  That is, 10% damage would mean 10% loss in power.  And it runs hotter too.  By the time you are at 50% damage, the engine would run but barely limp you home.  Wouldn't need timers for any of this.  I think it would be fairly realistic.

 

BoX I am thinking since the engine is fresh at the beginning of each mission (correct me if I am wrong), then hours wouldn't need to be worried about.  So, at that point it is simply a matter of keeping proper heat management as you fly so as not to overheat and not exceeding into forbidden manifold pressure settings (for example, on the P-40).  I think the game already takes these things into account pretty well and damaging engine as a result if you do this?  I think therefore, that all that would need to be done is remove the engine timers and you would be able to run these engines like you really could in real life.  The exception being is that in BoX you are not worried about engine longevity beyond the mission?

Edited June 15 by CaptainBill

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

I think engine wear is something that would be better handled being tracked at the meta game level, like using a resource system, not at the micro level, like artificially accelerated wear on a fresh plane like we currently have. You could improve the current timer system and make it more realistic , but it would always be what it is. Artificially accelerated wear, and not realistic.

We focus on engine timers because they're in our face, but it should also be brought up that we can land battle damaged planes over and over again with no consequences, and just instantly grab a new fresh one, so why only focus on the realism of engines being run too hard, but not think about all the other sources of damage? I've played racing games that would penalize the player money for repairs. We'd need some type of resource system at the meta game level that players care about to simulate engine/plane wear accurately. 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Why just engines, there were other major faulty components and structures in many specific marks of these planes that aren't modeled to any degree.  

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Yeah, its a rabbit hole from hell. I would rather not have accelerated wear mechanics in short term settings, and leave modeling wear like that for long-term settings like career mode.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

I think engine wear is something that would be better handled being tracked at the meta game level, like using a resource system, not at the micro level, like artificially accelerated wear on a fresh plane like we currently have. You could improve the current timer system and make it more realistic , but it would always be what it is. Artificially accelerated wear, and not realistic.

We focus on engine timers because they're in our face, but it should also be brought up that we can land battle damaged planes over and over again with no consequences, and just instantly grab a new fresh one, so why only focus on the realism of engines being run too hard, but not think about all the other sources of damage? I've played racing games that would penalize the player money for repairs. We'd need some type of resource system at the meta game level that players care about to simulate engine/plane wear accurately. 

In general I agree, although there are also instances where engine abuse should have immediate implications.

 

As the Devs have revealed, there is something of a squadron/plane management system coming where you have to take care of fuel/pilots/repairs/replacements etc. for your squadron. I can't recall if they already mentioned if that takes into consideration in-flight issues. E.g. if you get hit or you abuse your engine, your aircraft requires repairs before it can be flown again. @LukeFF can you enlighten us, or is this still T.B.D.?

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Yeah, they mentioned that system awhile ago. I thought it looked interesting.

[Aapje]

@AEthelraedUnraed

 

Yeajh, that would be my guess too. However, for multiplayer and for single missions/campaigns, that would probably not work. For MP, I can see a penalty points system, and perhaps something similar for single missions and campaigns (where you can see how you did, and you can aim to lower the penalties).

 

Bonus points if they include a video of a crew chief swearing at you.

 

PS. I get the impression that they don't really want to tell us too much beyond what they put into the DDs and Brief Room episodes & want to keep a bunch of surprises for the proper reveal/EA/launch, so we don't just go 'meh' at that point.

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

can you enlighten us, or is this still T.B.D.?

 

It will almost certainly be discussed at a future date.

[E69_julian57]

On 6/14/2025 at 1:34 AM, ST_Catchov said:

True. Except the bit about trickling down to GB. Won't happen. BoX is ancient history, and if there's anything gamers hate, it's ancient history. We like to move on to the next big thing, the last big thing quickly forgotten. Sure, some people stick with old stuff, but they are unimportant.

Not all of us think like you.

[SupremeLoser]

I just found this very interesting video from the designers of IL-2 Korea.  In the last few minutes of the video, the engine designer Alexander Mironov says almost verbatim what I was hoping.  The idea of removing engine timers and then needing to model engine temps and possible resulting damage to a higher level of detail.  And also, the fact that engines would not be brand new after each mission but rather you would have to repair the engine if damaged.  This in turn could effect the game play in that you would have a cost involved, such as the aircraft is not available for the next mission.

 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

It sounds interesting, I like that it will also be communicated to players better through the gauges and sounds, and the damage will increase gradually instead of dying suddenly. One big question is how long of a time frame would this damage happen? If the real engine could run for 100+ hours, and the manual says you get 5 mins of WEP, does this damage occur over 5+ mins, 100+ hours, or something in between? I'd hope we get times that are much more forgiving than the manuals, which often are more of a overly cautious guideline, not a bible.

[the_emperor]

Yes, the timer mechanic is an artificial game mechanic and the option to turn it off would be great and fly by the other limits that are simulated in this game (eg temps) 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

It'd also be nice to be able to adjust the time scale that damage happens in the new series' system. It's hard to be specific when we don't know the details of the new system, and I'm thinking of planes that get neutered based on neurotic manual writers, but if people end up liking the damage system but think *something* happens too fast or slow, it'd be nice to change the time scale on the damage to 1/2, 1/8, or w/e, if we think the limits are too neurotic. 

[Dragon1-1]

The limits should be based primarily on oil and coolant temperatures, and for engines equipped with such, on anti-knock measures like water injection. The idea of engine failing just because a timer has expired is ridiculous. It fails because it overheats, blows a gasket due to overboosting, or due to knocking, which was the big thing to watch out for in WWII aircraft engines. The manual limits are guidelines which are supposed to help the pilot manage those factors, not hard limits which cause engine to seize when exceeded. If atmospheric conditions are such that overheating is not a danger, you could run the whole mission in WEP, as long as you weren't going far, because just like afterburners, WEP would generally chug gas, particularly with mixture full rich for extra cooling. There's zero need to use timers to prevent people from flying in WEP all the time, the fuel tank will do that just fine.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Yes, generally abuse should be more related to environmental conditions than simply pushing normal operating parameters.  The two combined are when things are most likely to go wrong, with super hot weather or extreme cold, and asking for maximum performance. 

 

Your normally not going to have landing gear issues either, but when you start plowing through slush in sub zero temps, or taxi and take off through tropical mud and rains your going to have to adapt special procedures to compensate and minimize the results.

 

Be nice to see the environmental factors play a much greater role in these sorts of failures also.   

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

This is copied from the subtitles in the last 3 minutes of the vid above:

 

"We still do have timers, but not in the way you might think, like exceeding the maximum speed by one revolution per minute and immediately triggering a countdown timer. No, we don't have that. What we do have now is the concept of event probability.
And we arranged it so that after this limited time, the probability of the event increases as time goes on. And after some time, this probability reaches 100%. This means that the engine that is supposed to work in this mode only for a limited time will definitely break down at some point, but it won't break all at once. It just has increased friction in the crankshafts, so to speak.
This causes the engine to start producing less power, possibly causing even more friction, with the potential for an avalanche-like event to occur when the engine just freezes up and stops. But when you're already beyond that safety limit, you can simply reduce the throttle.
And already, these potential problems, their probability may decrease. It certainly won't be as new as it was before the damage. But at least it will be able to help the pilot reach his base. Yes, there is such an idea of getting rid of the timer altogether. But for that, it is necessary to introduce some entity.
Local overheating, something like that, to model it separately, it would be very fair to our players, because this thing can be implicit, not to show it like in the old IL2 1946.
When it overheated, they opened some kind of 'radiator', even on planes that didn't have one. And everything was fine, the engine didn't overheat. To avoid that, we have to make it implicit, but the player should be able to judge the state of the engine indirectly, by the RPM fluctuation, and the temperature rise, and we can add something audible.
This will add elements of variety and make it more interesting to play. But we're not going to change the fact that we have a new plane on every flight for now.
Well, yes. This is the fundamental stance of this design.
Well, yes. That is a fundamental design principle. Yes, it is. If we go further and maintain the condition of the engine from flight to flight, then this new system I'm talking about will really shine. You're going to preserve the engine between flights so that it lasts until the next flight. And, for example, if you introduce an element of economy, yes, you can order to repair the engine, but it's going to cost you, let's say, how many days you're grounded, I don't know. Well, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I don't know, not being able to fly.
There are a lot of interesting things you can do, but again, that's a game design question, I would say.
Well, there's also this point: in each specific aircraft, the time limitation of the takeoff mode or the combat mode, or the forced operation of the piston engine can be caused by completely different reasons.
On one engine the cylinder heads overheat, or there may be a problem with the compressor. If it has a turbocharger, something may be wrong, such as overheated oil in the turbocharger.
The problem is that they didn't specify anywhere what causes these time restrictions. There's just no data, that's all. It's mentioned occasionally, on one plane, and we have 100 of them. But not on the others. And now we have to make an informed guess as to why this is happening.
Why exactly is there such a restriction on this particular engine, and based on that assumption, to put the appropriate module into the physical model of that engine so that something starts to heat up and break, that is the challenge, the challenge of research. But we are moving forward. I think one day we will get there."

 

So there's still some type of timer in the background, but it's not just a simple countdown based on your RPM/boost. Whatever it is it could be influenced by temperatures, overboosting, the environment, etc., but we won't know until the future. Garbage in, garbage out though, so if they plug in bad data (like overly cautious temperature limits from a manual) into this new mystery system, then we'll still get falsely neutered planes, so I hope we can adjust the time scale that this new mystery system will operate under to make it take longer until bad things happen, and also be able to turn it off ideally as well if desired.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm assuming that this is for single player only?

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Maybe the last half about carrying over mission to mission is single player only, but the first half seemed to be universal.

[BlitzPig_EL]

That's how I'm hoping in will pan out.

I want a combat flight sim, not a logistics simulation.

Edited July 1 by BlitzPig_EL

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

I hope it's an option in multiplayer, among all the other things that might get tracked between flights/missions. I could see lots of potential in different types of game modes, but not forced in every setting.

[the_emperor]

On 6/30/2025 at 5:55 PM, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

neurotic manual writers

That is one of the main problems.

 

The manuals are often written very conservatively (somestimes contradicting) to give the engine a healthy service life.

On 6/14/2025 at 4:12 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

removing engine timers really should be backported to BoX

no backporting needed. it has already been implemented in the La5-F...it can run WEP for an unlimited amount of time (no explenation why, but that would certainly make the M-82f the best Aero-Engine ever built).

expand that option to all other planes (except those that need additional injection)...et voila probleme solved 😁

Edited July 2 by the_emperor

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

I hate the timers, I'm just playing devils advocate with this, but this line from my giant subtitles quote above "Yes, there is such an idea of getting rid of the timer altogether. But for that, it is necessary to introduce some entity." makes me think that if you remove the timers in BoX, then whatever is left doesn't meet 1C's standards to run standalone without the timers. They'd need to add new systems to the BoX planes (like the mystery systems the Korea planes are getting) in order to make removing the timers acceptable to 1C.

[Dragon1-1]

There is a system for both overheating and overcooling the engine. What more do you need to "meet the standards" when the standard is a ridiculous and unrealistic timer that takes the manual as a hard limit? The timers are worse for realism than no timers, and "resting the engine" to reset them is just a load of bull.

 

BoX models most factors that can cause engine failure over a single flight. You can overboost, overheat and overcool (not sure about knocking, but timers are irrelevant here). It doesn't model mechanical wear, but that's probably the least important factor, and when it isn't, it'd be perfectly realistic to fly the aircraft in WEP all the time. Soviets did exactly that with their lend-lease aircraft, and aside from (already worn out by that point) Spitfires getting a reputation for engine trouble, they didn't have problems.

Edited July 2 by Dragon1-1

[Trooper117]

Can't you just stop the engine being damaged in the settings anyway?... then just fly the plane as recommended in a set of pilots notes.

Cumulative engine wear over time isn't modelled anyway,  so you would not end up with an aircraft that was needing a replacement engine.

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

45 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

There is a system for both overheating and overcooling the engine. What more do you need to "meet the standards" when the standard is a ridiculous and unrealistic timer that takes the manual as a hard limit? The timers are worse for realism than no timers, and "resting the engine" to reset them is just a load of bull.

 

BoX models most factors that can cause engine failure over a single flight. You can overboost, overheat and overcool (not sure about knocking, but timers are irrelevant here). It doesn't model mechanical wear, but that's probably the least important factor, and when it isn't, it'd be perfectly realistic to fly the aircraft in WEP all the time. Soviets did exactly that with their lend-lease aircraft, and aside from (already worn out by that point) Spitfires getting a reputation for engine trouble, they didn't have problems.

The cases like the spitfire is likely an issue. Some planes would still be OK without the timer, but some planes would feel naked like the Spitfire. Although from memory the Vb will overheat if you're naughty, but I think planes like the IX might become full derp without a timer. It should still be an option though, as we have options for being invincible and having infinite ammo.

 

46 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Can't you just stop the engine being damaged in the settings anyway?... then just fly the plane as recommended in a set of pilots notes.

Cumulative engine wear over time isn't modelled anyway,  so you would not end up with an aircraft that was needing a replacement engine.

 

In single player yeah, but in multiplayer turning on unbreakable makes the engine immune to collisions, so you can get ram shenanigans.