Fuel Loadout/Weight

[SCG_Neun]

Guys, don't beat up on an old man, especially since I don't know squat about programming and the like, but one thing I'd like to see modeled more realistically in these sims, is the FM in direct relation to the weight of onboard fuel.  I've been playing these sims since they first came out in the 90's and nothing modeled it any better than the online Aces HIgh.  I mean, what.....at 8 pounds a gallon......you can't tell me that the planes performance is not going to be hindered somewhat when coming up against a lighter fuel loadout.  Maybe, this is already factored into these sims...like COD, which I do play, but I don't feel it in the FM the way I should be feeling it. 

[FTC_Karaya]

Fuel loadouts and the weight decrease over flight time has been modelled every since the very first IL-2 (dont know about other sims). If I recall correctly Oleg once said that the weights of every aircraft made up of the base weight, fuel, ammo, etc. in the old IL-2 were checked once every 10 milliseconds or so.

 

And from my experiences with RoF fuel loadouts make a huge impact on an aircraft's flight characteristics, it is most noticeable in some of the more unstable fighters such as the Fokker Dr.I and Camel. Go for a quick dogfight offline in a Camel with 100% fuel and then shortly after with just 20% or so, should immediately be noticeable!

Edited August 11, 2013 by JG52Karaya

[I/JG27_Zimmi]

As already mentioned in another thread, I would appreciate a comprehensive presentation of game physics, either as part of a Friday update or written in the manual. Reading such information out of forums is really hard and most of the customers simply can't be active in the forums for 24/7. As the official release is approaching one could probably declare updates or information videos on certain topics of the game. This would also be suitable for advertisement and attraction of new customers.

[leitmotiv]

As already mentioned in another thread, I would appreciate a comprehensive presentation of game physics, either as part of a Friday update or written in the manual. Reading such information out of forums is really hard and most of the customers simply can't be active in the forums for 24/7. As the official release is approaching one could probably declare updates or information videos on certain topics of the game. This would also be suitable for advertisement and attraction of new customers.

 

I saw your question, i was looking at Russian side for more info also, but its hard to expect from them to re-post some good posts from there also on this forum, would take them to much time, i was even surprised in good way how much info and time developers spend already to discuss flight physics there, but with google translator i could read it somehow ok

 

I think the best we can expect is some Russian guy on forum to collect them/translate and post on this forum

[Finkeren]

Have no worries. Il2-BoS is being built on the same engine as Rise of Flight. In RoF fuel loadout has a huge impact on aircraft performance, affecting overall handling, stall characteristics, stability and (to a lesser extent) acceleration and top speed. Fuel levels also has an impact on the risk of damage causing a fire or an explosion in the fuel system, since a mostly empty tank has far more fumes and thus ignites more easily.

 

In Il2-BoS we'll most likely see a few details added like self-sealing tanks, posibility to dump fuel and instability in case of fuel leaks in wing mounted tanks.

[SCG_Neun]

This sounds really good to me.  I don't really fly ROF that much....not that it's not an excellent sim...I just can't get into those WWI planes and barely moving......Im really excited about all these features....and 777 at the helm.

Edited August 11, 2013 by 9./JG54JagdNeun

[Zorin]

I do hope they implement features like overweight and restrictive loadouts. For example, if a bomber is carrying an optional overload of bombs, its fuel level is automatically decreased. Additionally, you should be prohibited from spawning at an airfield if your weight is too high to allow for a save start on the runway as your take-off run would be longer than the runway itself.

[Bearcat]

I do hope they implement features like overweight and restrictive loadouts. For example, if a bomber is carrying an optional overload of bombs, its fuel level is automatically decreased. Additionally, you should be prohibited from spawning at an airfield if your weight is too high to allow for a save start on the runway as your take-off run would be longer than the runway itself.

 

 

The less restrictions the better.. I think it is better to attempt a take off and crash and burn, adjust the load  and then try again.. I think it is better if the mission designers have to test it out and if necessary give a recommended fuel/ordinance loadout.. Like it is in IL2. You try to take off with too much ordinance/fuel on a carrier or a short runway and you will not make it.. That's how it was .. that's how it should be ..

[ACG_Kraut]

I do hope they implement features like overweight and restrictive loadouts. For example, if a bomber is carrying an optional overload of bombs, its fuel level is automatically decreased. Additionally, you should be prohibited from spawning at an airfield if your weight is too high to allow for a save start on the runway as your take-off run would be longer than the runway itself.

 

IMO they need restrictions on minimum fuel more than max loadout. There was nothing worse in RoF than getting dominated by the jerk that took a 5% fuel load.

 

I very much enjoy overload setups, nothing wrong with overload if you want the extra challenge. My normal A10 loadout in DCS is 9000 pounds overweight.

Edited August 12, 2013 by [AKA]Kraut

[Zorin]

The less restrictions the better.. I think it is better to attempt a take off and crash and burn, adjust the load  and then try again.. I think it is better if the mission designers have to test it out and if necessary give a recommended fuel/ordinance loadout.. Like it is in IL2. You try to take off with too much ordinance/fuel on a carrier or a short runway and you will not make it.. That's how it was .. that's how it should be ..

 

That is not how it was. Every flight manual I have seen so far states exactly what to do when the loadout is excessive. No one was allowed to just crash and burn a plane worth the equivalent of millions of todays money just to find out what is possible and what not. I thought this should be a simulation.

[Finkeren]

I sorta have to agree with Zorin. Even though it's always nice to have flexibility, historical accuracy is on the side of restrictions, even if there were people who went around the rules. Maybe have adjustable fuel loads and loadouts be an unlockable feature (though online it should be server-side controlled)

 

I remember reading about a B-17 crew, who almost crashed their plane on takeoff during the nov 9th 1943 mission to Anklam and Mariensburg. The idiots had brought an extra 6,000 rounds of .50 cal. ammunition and stocked it up against the tailgunners compartment. The plane took off in a three point position and only just cleared the trees outside the airfield.

 

That's why there are manuals telling you what to do and what not to do.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Finkeren

[FuriousMeow]

No one should be restricted from doing something stupid.

 

A warning though "Your plane is above maximum weight" when loading up would make more sense.

[vyyye]

No one should be restricted from doing something stupid.

 

A warning though "Your plane is above maximum weight" when loading up would make more sense.

I'd prefer to not have it. Remember first time I stuck a really big bomb on my. .can't remember what US carrier plane in IL-2, pretty hilarious conclusion but lesson learnt.

[Zorin]

I'd prefer to not have it. Remember first time I stuck a really big bomb on my. .can't remember what US carrier plane in IL-2, pretty hilarious conclusion but lesson learnt.

 

Really? You rather damage the carrier and might even take out other planes because of your idiocy and ruin the mission for your fellow pilots. That is a great attitude. Same applies for the stupid guys crashing their bombers on take-off attempts and completely ruining the airfield and leaving it a burning pile of rubble.

 

I am sorry, but this nonsense will not be missed by me.

[LukeFF]

There's only one plane that I can think of in ROF that practically won't take off with max fuel and max weapons (i.e., weapon mods), and that's the Felixstowe. All of the other loadouts, while very heavy, still allow the plane to take off. So, with that in mind, I don't think we need to worry about loadouts in BoS being overweight to the point of being unable to take off.

[FuriousMeow]

The Re8 with 60% fuel, full bomb load out and the twin turret mod can take off... eventually.

 

Guess I'm one of the few that tests out the plane and various load outs offline before bothering to go online just to find out what it can and can't do.

[FuriousMeow]

What would be interesting is if weight distribution will be modelled based on fuel tank drainage - which Aces High does model. So if one wing tank is full - in an aircraft with such a fuel tank arrangement, other is empty, flying level requires trim and fighting is pretty much out of the question.

Edited August 12, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[SCG_Neun]

What would be interesting is if weight distribution will be modelled based on fuel tank drainage - which Aces High does model. So if one wing tank is full - in an aircraft with such a fuel tank arrangement, other is empty, flying level requires trim and fighting is pretty much out of the question.

I remember fuel management in Aces High.  I never really had the feeling of weight in any other flight sim the way AH had it modeled. 

[Dutch]

...like COD, which I do play, but I don't feel it in the FM the way I should be feeling it. 

 

Well you should. Try flying a Hurricane, the easiest and most obvious one is the Rotol 100oct, and check out it's manouevrability with first 100% and then 50% fuel. The difference is huge. Whether or not you experience the same differences you experienced in an ancient and relatively simplistic simulator flying WWI a/c, is kind of a .....bad comparison, if you see what I mean.

[vyyye]

Really? You rather damage the carrier and might even take out other planes because of your idiocy and ruin the mission for your fellow pilots. That is a great attitude. Same applies for the stupid guys crashing their bombers on take-off attempts and completely ruining the airfield and leaving it a burning pile of rubble.

 

I am sorry, but this nonsense will not be missed by me.

Yes? I want a WWII aviation sim, that should include dangers that aren't directly related to combat. I don't want restrictions because you don't want to deal with new players not knowing how to play perfectly well, no, I don't.

[Bearcat]

That is not how it was. Every flight manual I have seen so far states exactly what to do when the loadout is excessive. No one was allowed to just crash and burn a plane worth the equivalent of millions of todays money just to find out what is possible and what not. I thought this should be a simulation.

 

I disagree but let me explain why I say that is exactly how it was. There was a reason why excessive loadout information was available in the flight manuals so that people would not exceed them. What I am saying is that it should not be automatic. I know what I can and cannot get off of a carrier deck with in IL2 based on experience and if I exceed those limits I go in the drink..

 

I sorta have to agree with Zorin. Even though it's always nice to have flexibility, historical accuracy is on the side of restrictions, even if there were people who went around the rules. Maybe have adjustable fuel loads and loadouts be an unlockable feature (though online it should be server-side controlled)

 

I remember reading about a B-17 crew, who almost crashed their plane on takeoff during the nov 9th 1943 mission to Anklam and Mariensburg. The idiots had brought an extra 6,000 rounds of .50 cal. ammunition and stocked it up against the tailgunners compartment. The plane took off in a three point position and only just cleared the trees outside the airfield.

 

That's why there are manuals telling you what to do and what not to do.

 

Exactly .. but it should not be automatic..

 

No one should be restricted from doing something stupid.

 

A warning though "Your plane is above maximum weight" when loading up would make more sense.

 

That would IMO be a better option than this:

 

 

 

For example, if a bomber is carrying an optional overload of bombs, its fuel level is automatically decreased.

 

.. at least I think so...

 

What would be interesting is if weight distribution will be modelled based on fuel tank drainage - which Aces High does model. So if one wing tank is full - in an aircraft with such a fuel tank arrangement, other is empty, flying level requires trim and fighting is pretty much out of the question.

 

Yeah that would be nice.. I guess that would fall under CEM though right? We don't really know how the CEM will be modeled yet.. I know in te DCS Mustang you can switch tanks. That would be a very nice feature.. It would add another level of immersion.

[FuriousMeow]

Well you should. Try flying a Hurricane, the easiest and most obvious one is the Rotol 100oct, and check out it's manouevrability with first 100% and then 50% fuel. The difference is huge. Whether or not you experience the same differences you experienced in an ancient and relatively simplistic simulator flying WWI a/c, is kind of a .....bad comparison, if you see what I mean.

You can ground loop in AH because the wheels have lateral traction modeled. Not so much in the advanced CoD. Also CoD also only subtracts fuel weight from total weight, not individual tanks.

Yeah that would be nice.. I guess that would fall under CEM though right? We don't really know how the CEM will be modeled yet.. I know in te DCS Mustang you can switch tanks. That would be a very nice feature.. It would add another level of immersion.

Not necessarily. Fuel tanks could have an auto process to drain per recommended order based on the flight manual. The actual weight allocation of the tanks and impacting flying would be the flight model side.

[Zorin]

I am not going to argue anymore. Lets just wait and see what the devs have in mind for their simulation.

[gavagai]

I remember fuel management in Aces High.  I never really had the feeling of weight in any other flight sim the way AH had it modeled. 

 

People do not give AH enough credit.  It looks like crap, but the flight modeling and physics are pretty darn good.  The Rise of Flight viewing system is inspired from AH, and I bet it will be the same way in BoS.

[Bearcat]

I am not going to argue anymore. Lets just wait and see what the devs have in mind for their simulation.

 

We aren't arguing.. we are discussing.... aren't we? That's what I was doing ... and that's what I thought you were doing..

[Skoshi_Tiger]

You can ground loop in AH because the wheels have lateral traction modeled. Not so much in the advanced CoD. Also CoD also only subtracts fuel weight from total weight, not individual tanks.

 

Not necessarily. Fuel tanks could have an auto process to drain per recommended order based on the flight manual. The actual weight allocation of the tanks and impacting flying would be the flight model side.

You might want to re check your info on CoD Furious. I think it depends on the aircraft in COD. In the Spitfire/Hurricane the two tanks are directly linked with the top tank draining in to the bottom tank, As it is part of the design there is no way to stop it. In a plane more complicated like the Blenheim the fuel is loaded in accordance to SOP, Inner tank first, then outer tank. Fuel cocks allow you to use each pair of tanks independently if you want. SOP would tell you to use up the outer tank first. As far as I know it's all used for CoG calculations.

 

Aircraft weight management in the Blenheim is extremely important to be successful.  One of the components for determining if you will successfully take off is strip length.  Overload the Blenheim then try to takeoff on a short grass strip and your in for a world of hurt. Use the same weight on a long prepared strip and you'll make it!

 

I'm not as familiar with ROF and it's physics model , but I'm sure that this will all be taken into account in the new BoS sim.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[SCG_Neun]

Just an example of some fuel strategy modeled within Aces High which is factored into the simulation.  Weight shifts as fuel is burned.....pretty cool.....

 

Aces High notes that the fuel system in the P-51 D Mustang consists of two 92-gallon wing tanks in addition to an 85-gallon fuselage tank.  The readout for this plane warns that....loading fuel in the fuselage tank hampers the stability of the P-51 by shifting the center of gravity aft. Within fuel management they recommend that this tank was to be used first- even before the drop tanks so that the CG would shift back to a more optimal position.  In Aces High, no fuel is loaded into the fuselage tank until the wing tanks are full.  If you take a large fuel load, you should follow the same strategy and use the fuel in the fuselage tank first.

Edited August 13, 2013 by 9./JG54JagdNeun

[Bearcat]

I never got into Aces High to that extent.. I never knew it was that detailed..

[Dutch]

Just an example of some fuel strategy modeled within Aces High which is factored into the simulation.  Weight shifts as fuel is burned.....pretty cool.....

 

Aces High notes that the fuel system in the P-51 D Mustang consists of two 92-gallon wing tanks in addition to an 85-gallon fuselage tank.  The readout for this plane warns that....loading fuel in the fuselage tank hampers the stability of the P-51 by shifting the center of gravity aft. Within fuel management they recommend that this tank was to be used first- even before the drop tanks so that the CG would shift back to a more optimal position.  In Aces High, no fuel is loaded into the fuselage tank until the wing tanks are full.  If you take a large fuel load, you should follow the same strategy and use the fuel in the fuselage tank first.

And your point is what? There are no P-51s in Stalingrad, Rise of Flight or Cliffs of Dover. There is one in dcs, and I've found so far that the fuselage tank is largely empty by default. Seems no-one would like to fly that pony with a full fus. tank. wonder why that should be?

 

So, Aces High. Never flown it. don't want to. got enough flight sims already thanks. Is this some sort of recruitment drive for all of us to go fly 'Aces High'? No, ta.

[FuriousMeow]

I understand your point JagdNuen.

[Bearcat]

And your point is what? There are no P-51s in Stalingrad, Rise of Flight or Cliffs of Dover. There is one in dcs, and I've found so far that the fuselage tank is largely empty by default. Seems no-one would like to fly that pony with a full fus. tank. wonder why that should be?

 

So, Aces High. Never flown it. don't want to. got enough flight sims already thanks. Is this some sort of recruitment drive for all of us to go fly 'Aces High'? No, ta.

 

I think he is just referring to the fact that AH has some kind of loadout management..

 

If you have never checked out of AH go to their site and check it out.. and then give yourself a  for that last statement..      

 

The last time I checked out AH it was still pay to play.. I was in CFS1 then so.. I have no idea what it is now.. all I know is ..

mid autumn... mid autumn... mid autumn  mid autumn .

[Zorin]

We aren't arguing.. we are discussing.... aren't we? That's what I was doing ... and that's what I thought you were doing..

 

You made your point and I made mine, anything that could follow now would be an arguement of a rather pointless nature, because at the end of the day all that counts is what the devs will do and not what either of us wants or considers to be preferable.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Well, the load out issue is ever present What will stop the mockery of using too low fuel loads, for example, is that the planes have realistic fuel consumption. Original IL-2 did not have that nor did it have realistic fuel load outs on some planes. Easiest example is Bf109 having the 407 litre fuselage tank. It lasts over 1h if you fly optimally at low power settings and all that. Slam the throttle and you see that fuel gauge go down faster than a paid woman drops your pants  So all comes down to how well devs model the fuel consumption and stuff. No more "honda engines" = no more 25% fuel mockery like in IL-2. So CEM plays a big role in your combat radius...

 

 While experimentation with load outs is fun I prefer having it the "right way" aka how the manuals state it and how they were done operationally. Having an online war, for example, spoiled by goofing around just kills the fun from others trying to achieve the goals etc. Want to goof around? Do it offline or on an own "Goofy Server"   Having the possibility does not mean you HAVE to use them