Load out configuration Poll

[Crumpp]

In playing online there appears to be some "room for abuse" in the aircraft loadouts.

 

Players are able to take an unrealistic reduction in fuel capacity. To me, this is the aerial combat simulator version of the first person shooter jumping around with his weapon on full auto.

 

Gamey and a big turn off that destroys the fun. I recognize this maybe the fun for others.

 

What I would like to see if players having choice. That is limited by ED time and resources.

 

1. Keep the fuel on a percentage slider bar:

 

This is open for abuse. Some may argue it is "more realistic" because you can only fill real fuel tanks with the amount of fuel you want. The counter to that in a real airplane, the only time you have too much fuel onboard is when you are on fire. So while in exceptional circumstances, aircraft take off with reduced fuel loads; those times are well planned and include fuel reserves. While General Aviation allows more freedom in fueling options and hence invites more inflight fuel emergencies......Government, Military, and Commercial aviation is greatly restricted in comparison.

 

Yes, even in an market driven by high fuel prices and large transport category aircraft which do routinely take off without "full" fuel tanks; the amount of fuel is based on the weight being carried to keep the aircraft within acceptable limits and enough is carried to reach multiple planned destination (Take off/landing alternates) as well as a hefty reserve for both Taxi fuel and inflight reserves. In reality, aircraft are always overfilled with fuel whereas gamers take the minimum amount necessary to take off; turn a few times; and come back to base. The unrealistic practice is fostered by the percentage slider of those "gaming the game".

 

2. Modify the Loadout menu by specific aircraft to include only full tanks by fuel tanking options. This more realistically reflects the operating constraints of Military aviation.

 

In other words, our basic choices would be Internal fuel (wing, or normal internal tankage), Auxiliary fuel (Rear fuselage Tanks or ferry tanks), and external fuel options (drop tanks or slipper tanks). The menu would reflect the individual design choices of the module for fuel tankage.

 

For Example, it would look something like this:

 

P-51D Mustang fuel options:

 

1. Wing Tanks

2. Wing + Rear Fuselage Tank

3. Wing + External Fuel Options (separate menu for fuselage/wing options)

4. Wing+Rear Fuselage Tank+ External Fuel Option

 

The third option would be to include both types of menus, the percentage slider and the authorized load out model.

 

The percentage slider would be included under the "game options" and tankage menu under the "sim" option. This way players and servers can have a choice.

[Crumpp]

Couple of points:

 

Standard tankage would offer an easy solution for such options as was actually used by the 8th USAAF for example. It became the "Fix" for plug fouling in 1945.

 

Wing tanks could be filled with 100/130 grade to taxi, take off, and ingress. 100/150 Grade in the wing tanks for combat, egress, and landing.

 

Such options are included in separate menus for the German aircraft to take either MW50 or fuel in the auxiliary fuselage tank.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I understand your point, but I'm not sure this is a feature ED should be worried about. I mean, IRL you can fill your tanks as much or less as you want to and so you can do it with the slider. It's true, in a GA POV you don't left empty room in your tanks for a foreseen long flight, but it's also true many times you check your tanks and go flying with the remnant amount you find for a short ride. In my school two, three, four and sometimes even more pupils/pilots can easily go flying with a single tank filling, so you fly in many different conditions and that can't be a point to consider forcing full tanks IMO.

 

 

Even in the most hardcore simulation like DCS is, sometimes RL features can be used as exploits, and exploits have existed since the born of games. You can't blame DCS for that.

 

Furthermore, having a so nicely modelled fuel load incidence in flight dynamics as DCS has, IMO forbidding the possibility to experiment that by selecting the amount of fuel you want would be a shortage in realism. Don't forget Fw190 indeed is the wonder aircraft we all have read about only when rear fuel tank is empty, and a so carefully modelled detail would be lost forcing to load and burn full tanks to experience it. Not to mention forcing a P-51 to combat with a full fuselage tank I'm sure you wouldn't do yourself...

 

 

I mean, yes it's an exploit sometimes used (personally I don't load a full tank myself to combat in between Novorosyisk and Gelenzhik in ACG server, it would be stupid, it depends on the mission), but it's there for everyone so it isn't any cheat and it's also a part in the simulation experience IMHO.

 

S!

[Crumpp]

I understand your point, but I'm not sure this is a feature ED should be worried about. I mean, IRL you can fill your tanks as much or less as you want to and so you can do it with the slider. It's true, in a GA POV you don't left empty room in your tanks for a foreseen long flight, but it's also true many times you check your tanks and go flying with the remnant amount you find for a short ride. In my school two, three, four and sometimes even more pupils/pilots can easily go flying with a single tank filling, so you fly in many different conditions and that can't be a point to consider forcing full tanks IMO.

 

 

Even in the most hardcore simulation like DCS is, sometimes RL features can be used as exploits, and exploits have existed since the born of games. You can't blame DCS for that.

 

Furthermore, having a so nicely modelled fuel load incidence in flight dynamics as DCS has, IMO forbidding the possibility to experiment that by selecting the amount of fuel you want would be a shortage in realism. Don't forget Fw190 indeed is the wonder aircraft we all have read about only when rear fuel tank is empty, and a so carefully modelled detail would be lost forcing to load and burn full tanks to experience it. Not to mention forcing a P-51 to combat with a full fuselage tank I'm sure you wouldn't do yourself...

 

 

I mean, yes it's an exploit sometimes used (personally I don't load a full tank myself to combat in between Novorosyisk and Gelenzhik in ACG server, it would be stupid, it depends on the mission), but it's there for everyone so it isn't any cheat and it's also a part in the simulation experience IMHO.

 

S!

 

It is being used as exploit. Put the exploit in the game section where it belongs instead the sim. Folks are paying for a study sim. There is no point in trying to use the realism of the FM by developing the skills to turn the aircraft at Best Rate or its design performance speeds when it is just a race to take the least amount of fuel available.

 

It is just as much an immersion killer as the first person shooter my kids play hopping around machine gunning everything in sight on XBox.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Crumpp

[Cripple]

Would making the combat airspaces bigger help with this? Or increase fuel consumption to make the effective range seem bigger without meaning people have to fly for an hour looking for a fight?

 

I mean, aircraft IRL fly with enough fuel to complete the flight with a bit to spare. Improved performance is worth nothing if your engine splutters out mid-combat.

 

(Personally I like the idea of having to drop external tanks too, from time to time.)

[MiloMorai]

Until there is a map where one has to fly for hours before any combat takes place then full tanks are a handicap for those a/c like the P-51 that can carry a lot of fuel.

[Crumpp]

Personally I like the idea of having to drop external tanks too, from time to time.

 

Me too. I found myself on one map having the default tank installed. It was not much fun because the choice becomes having to reload the aircraft in order to try and compete with those exploiting the fuel slider.

 

handicap for those a/c like the P-51 that can carry a lot of fuel.

 

Has anyone ever ran a comparison of endurance on internal fuel to compare. I am sure it has been the argument used to justify the exploit, but the truth is the P-51 got its long legs from the addition of a fuselage tank and carried a whole lot disposable wing tanks. It's internal fuel capacity is the same as most World War II fighters in terms of how long it can stay in the air.

 

Look at the P-51D's Take Off and Landing charts and plan the fuel consumption.

 

Total internal fuel capacity (Wing Tanks) = 184 gallons. Yes there is unusable fuel included in that figure but it will only shorten our endurance slightly.

 

First flight, Take Off, climb to 20,000 feet, Descend, Land. This does not include go-around or any reserve fuel.

 

Taxi, Take Off, and Climb fuel = 33 Gallons

 

Descent, Landing, and Take Off = 33 Gallons

 

 

66 gallons total to get up and get down from 20000ft.

 

184 gallons - 66 gallons = 118 gallons to fly around with...

 

At our most maximum fuel efficiency, conducting a perfect flight we need:

 

 

We are burning 48 gallons per hour at 20,000 feet. The is the LEAST amount of fuel the aircraft is capable of consuming and remain airborne.

 

118/48 gallons = 2 Hours and 27 minutes of doing nothing.

 

Let's compare that to the BMW801D2

 

 

20,000 feet = ~ 6Km (6.09Km so we are a little conservative in favor of the Mustang)

 

A little extrapolation puts our BMW801D2 FW-190A8 at 2 hours and 10 minutes for the same flight profile.

 

A advantage of 17 minutes or 13.5 gallons of fuel extra which equal = 97lbs of weight.

 

97 lbs of weight = ~.4 degrees/sec rate of turn gain.

 

It does not make a practical difference.

 

The Dora would be much closer in the fact the Jumo 213 consumes less fuel than the BMW801. The BMW801 uses ~450liters and hour while the Jumo213 uses ~375liters and hour at 6 Km.

 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

There is no point in trying to use the realism of the FM by developing the skills to turn the aircraft at Best Rate or its design performance speeds when it is just a race to take the least amount of fuel available.

But do you really think is it that much? Please tell us some examples you found, what aircraft against what other and how do you possibly know that fuel "exploit" is being used.

 

You all know the immersion killer would be to force people flying for an hour burning fuel before entering combat just to be killed ten seconds later... And those using the "exploit" supposing they are in fact and we know it for sure also are risking getting out of fuel, isn't it? You can always do the same. I mean, I don't see why the use people do of the simulator should be regulated with "prohibitions". That would also kill some aspects of the realism indeed. May be mission creators should be who say what rules they apply in their missions.

 

S!

[Crumpp]

But do you really think is it that much?

 

I would not have put the poll up if I didn't!

[Random]

I kind of get where Crumpp is coming from. Perhaps the ideal solution would be a mission editor setting to allow either a percentage fill or just tanks as per the OP.

 

Percentage fill for "air quake" servers. Per tank for more historical scenarios.

 

Though I personally would like to be able to fill as a percentage per tank. Get to see how much a full rear tank with NOTHING in the wings in a mustang messes things up!

[OutOnTheOP]

First flight, Take Off, climb to 20,000 feet, Descend, Land. This does not include go-around or any reserve fuel.

 

Taxi, Take Off, and Climb fuel = 33 Gallons

 

Descent, Landing, and Take Off = 33 Gallons

 

66 gallons total to get up and get down from 20000ft.

 

Um, pardon? The chart does not say 33+33. It says THIRTY THREE. PERIOD. It takes, technically, zero gallons of fuel to get DOWN from 20,000 feet. You do not have to run the engine at much any power setting. Sure, you'd want to keep at least a high idle to keep pressure in the hydraulics, but to suppose that you need the same amount of fuel to get down from altitude as to get up is such an inherently flawed premise I can't believe you'd seriously suggest it.

 

 

We are burning 48 gallons per hour at 20,000 feet. The is the LEAST amount of fuel the aircraft is capable of consuming and remain airborne.

 

Um, no. Again, you are misinterpreting the data. Or, at the very least, misrepresenting it. That chart does NOT say that the minimum fuel burn per hour to stay airborne is 48 gallons. It says that the fuel burn rate at the best fuel to RANGE settings is 48 gallons/hr. It does NOT say that the best fuel to TIME setting burns 48 gallons/hr. I know you already know that best range is not attained at best loiter, NOR at stall speed. See where it clearly indicates that's at 205 mph indicated? Yeah, not exactly stall speed, 205 IAS. Think maybe it might burn fuel more slowly when run at half that speed? As in, actual stall speed? As in, the TRUE "least amount of fuel the aircraft is capable of consuming and remaining airborne"?

 

 

118/48 gallons = 2 Hours and 27 minutes of doing nothing.

 

Yes, yes, it is SUPER realistic to carry fuel for a climb-out to 20,000 feet and 2 and a half hour loiter, when the mission is a single-pass bomb run against a target 20km away. Or point defense intercept.

 

Also funny how your proposed method would permit the FW190 to carry a mere 232 liters/ 61 gallons (just under an hour endurance) for with a "fill only this tank" (forward tank only) option, meaning it could run at 44% of "standard full tanks", but the Mustang would be stuck with 100% "standard full tanks" (IE, wing tanks full) and 2 and a half hours worth at 184 gallons. Seems legit to me, sure.

 

If people want to risk running out of fuel and having to ditch, that's their risk to take. Just like it was real pilot's risk to take.

 

You argue for custom convergence (an involved process to set), but think selecting an alternate fuel quantity (the work of minutes) is unreasonable. Unbelievable. *rolling eyes*

 

*edit: also, you seem to have accounted for the fuel burn in getting to altitude for the Mustang, but not the Dora. The Dora carries 524 liters, and the lowest consumption rate shown there is 375 liters per hour (granted, that's max continuous, which again is not necessarily best endurance), which means 1.39 hours WITHOUT accounting for the climb-out. Or, we can just take the BMW801 listed flight time at face value: 2.1 hours INCLUDING the climb-out. By the way, 2.1 hours is 2 hours 6 minutes, not 2 hours 10 minutes. At any rate, why we would care about the fuel burn rates for a TOTALLY different engine, at a lower HP rating (BMW801), on a different airframe configuration, I have no idea. Anyhow, that's 2.1 hours INCLUDING climb-out, as opposed to the Mustang with over two and a half hours AFTER the climb-out (actually, after TWO climb-outs, since your math is flawed).

 

What you are actually proposing is that the Dora should be permitted to select a loadout providing a mere 0.62 hour's (max continuous) fuel, while the Mustang should be stuck lugging around 3.5 hours' (again, max continuous) worth. Totally fair, ja?

Edited December 2, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Solty]

I understand your point, but I'm not sure this is a feature ED should be worried about. I mean, IRL you can fill your tanks as much or less as you want to and so you can do it with the slider. It's true, in a GA POV you don't left empty room in your tanks for a foreseen long flight, but it's also true many times you check your tanks and go flying with the remnant amount you find for a short ride. In my school two, three, four and sometimes even more pupils/pilots can easily go flying with a single tank filling, so you fly in many different conditions and that can't be a point to consider forcing full tanks IMO.

 

 

Even in the most hardcore simulation like DCS is, sometimes RL features can be used as exploits, and exploits have existed since the born of games. You can't blame DCS for that.

 

Furthermore, having a so nicely modelled fuel load incidence in flight dynamics as DCS has, IMO forbidding the possibility to experiment that by selecting the amount of fuel you want would be a shortage in realism. Don't forget Fw190 indeed is the wonder aircraft we all have read about only when rear fuel tank is empty, and a so carefully modelled detail would be lost forcing to load and burn full tanks to experience it. Not to mention forcing a P-51 to combat with a full fuselage tank I'm sure you wouldn't do yourself...

 

 

I mean, yes it's an exploit sometimes used (personally I don't load a full tank myself to combat in between Novorosyisk and Gelenzhik in ACG server, it would be stupid, it depends on the mission), but it's there for everyone so it isn't any cheat and it's also a part in the simulation experience IMHO.

 

S!

 

+1 it is OK as it is. Sometimes people want to fly some aerobatics and taking less fuel for that alone is a valid point. Not to mention testing of the plane's flight characteristics at different fuel loads.

 

I just want to say. If it works, don't fix it. The current system is fine

[Crumpp]

Um, pardon? The chart does not say 33+33. It says THIRTY THREE. PERIOD. It takes, technically, zero gallons of fuel to get DOWN from 20,000 feet.

 

It might seem that way OutOnTheOP but is just not correct. In real life, engines need fuel and you run the a piston engine at pretty close to the same power setting ideally in the descent so you do not cool it down too quickly.

 

Now turbines love to be pulled to idle in the descent and that is proper. You are still burning a considerable amount of fuel as turbines are thirsty engines anyway.

 

 

The Trip fuel is the required fuel quantity from brake release on takeoff at the departure aerodrome to the landing touchdown at the destination aerodrome. This quantity includes the fuel required for:

Takeoff

Climb to cruise level

Flight in level cruise including any planned step climb or step descent

Flight from the beginning of descent to the beginning of approach,

Approach

Landing at the destination <Crumpp says>....includes taxi fuel

Trip fuel must be adjusted to account for any additional fuel that would be required for known ATS restrictions that would result in delayed climb to or early descent from planned cruising altitude.

 

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Fuel_-_Flight_Planning_Definitions

 

Um, no. Again, you are misinterpreting the data. Or, at the very least, misrepresenting it. That chart does NOT say that the minimum fuel burn per hour to stay airborne is 48 gallons. It says that the fuel burn rate at the best fuel to RANGE settings is 48 gallons/hr. It does NOT say that the best fuel to TIME setting burns 48 gallons/hr. I know you already know that best range is not attained at best loiter.

 

Good catch! Yes, we are comparing best range times to best range times. It is apples to apples and the comparison is valid.

 

 

Yes, yes, it is SUPER realistic to carry fuel for a climb-out to 20,000 feet and 2 and a half hour loiter, when the mission is a single-pass bomb run against a target 20km away. Or point defense intercept. :music_whistling:

 

War will be won in a day! :smilewink:

 

What makes that unrealistic is the thought process. Pilots do not look at an airplane and say, "I wonder if I can take less fuel? Let's get this down to the last drop."

 

It is exactly the opposite of what pilots think.

 

The fuel calculation is not realistic because there is no fuel for reserve. Who cares what you do during the time you are trying to fly at minimum fuel consumption.

 

It overestimates the amount of time both of the aircraft can do anything useful.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Crumpp

[Crumpp]

+1 it is OK as it is. Sometimes people want to fly some aerobatics and taking less fuel for that alone is a valid point. Not to mention testing of the plane's flight characteristics at different fuel loads.

 

I just want to say. If it works, don't fix it. The current system is fine

 

But it does not work. It is mostly used as an exploit and unrealistic for normal combat servers.

 

There is no option or way to fix it either at the moment.

 

Which is why having both gives the community options.

[Cripple]

Spitfire seems pretty similar. Just under 2 hours of idle time on normal tanks (no rear or drop tanks). I can show the working if anyone is that bothered.

 

Hmmmmm, I certainly don't want to ever play Quake, let alone an airborne derivative of it. Another factor to consider is the conservation of fuel for the trip home and landing, or not as the case may be. Would a Quaker be concerned about getting back to base, or just fly about until shot down (then respawn, which I am pretty sure isn't in real-life aircraft)?

 

Here's an idea, modify the slider so the zero point is the mimimum amount of fuel to get up to X altitude and back down again? Nothing to stop people still flying on this, of course.

 

I seem to remember reading that a rather high percentage of spitfire combat patrols didn't see an enemy. I might be out on a limb here, but I'd like to see *that* replicated. The experience of beetling about a beautifully simulated sky in a similarly simulated sky, not knowing if I was all alone or about to get "ganked" - with the appropriate level of tension that produces.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Which is why having both gives the community options.

IMHO it isn't so that big problem, but as I already said, may be asking ED to have an option in mission editor so creator can fix fuel load and allow or deny the possibility to use the radio option. Is that option for fixed payload already available? (really, I'm not a mission editor expert). That way you can blame mission creators for the fuel load you have and not ED for their totally unrealistic simulator. Anyway, still I think that would be only useful (and a fight reason for the community flying online... :music_whistling:) in quick dogfight style missions, but not everything is a dogfight mate.

 

S!

[Crumpp]

Spitfire seems pretty similar.

Hmmmmm, I certainly don't want to ever play Quake, let alone an airborne derivative of it.

 

They are all about the same in terms of endurance on internal fuel.

 

You are right about the airquake. Finding out that people do this kind of gamey behavior really diminished the "shine" DCS had for me.

 

Hear I am climbing at Vy, using appropriate power settings, paying attention to how I am maneuvering the aircraft.

 

Treating it like the real thing and enjoying the heck out the "cockpit immersion" a study sim gives you and have the chance to pit my skill at operating this thing against someone elses skill.

 

Not pit my ability to take the least amount fuel available.

 

I have no issue if guys want an airquake game. Let's just keep it separate from the those who do not and have full disclosure on the servers.

[Cripple]

 

I have no issue if guys want an airquake game. Let's just keep it separate from the those who do not and have full disclosure on the servers.

 

Amen to that!

 

If people want to start 5-10 mins apart and Zooooooooom-dakka-dakka one another on bingo fuel then fair play to them. However I'd like to know that's what they want before I decide to join the server.

 

Edit: Actually, no - it's not okay. If DCS are pimping the Mustang as "the most realistic simulation ever done of this legendary World War 2 era fighter", allowing (either intentionally or through exploits) people to fly one with a blatantly unrealistic fuel-load totally undermines their commitment to realism. Might as well fly with infinite ammo and claim that is "realistic" too...

Edited December 2, 2015 by Cripple
Thought more about it...

[Crumpp]

IMHO it isn't so that big problem

 

Only if this is a study sim. If I looked at my boss at work and said I wanted to plan to land at my destination on fumes....I would be fired before you could period on the end of sentence.

 

It is just not a realistic line of thought that enters a pilots head.

 

may be asking ED to have an option in mission editor so creator can fix fuel load and allow or deny the possibility to use the radio option.

 

The load out menu is already set up with fixed drop down selections so it would be very easy to modify I think.

[Solty]

I still think this is an unnecessary feature request. To me more options the better. When we will have large events with mustangs flying cover for few hours, certainly the event will push high fuel settings even with the current system, so inclusion of a additional fuel system is a waste of resources.

[Echo38]

It is just as much an immersion killer as the first person shooter my kids play hopping around machine gunning everything in sight on XBox.

 

Apples and oranges, Crumpp. Surely you see this. Bunny-hopping in shooters is viable because the shooters have broken-ass physics. However, that isn't the case with low fuel loads in high-fidelity simulators. It isn't as though there's something wrong with the aircraft simulation because it lets the user choose to fill the fuel tanks up to only a third of capacity.

 

It's obviously not the historical way of doing things, but not all max-fidelity simmers are trying to role-play a pilot in the actual Second World War. One of the core purposes of a high-fidelity simulation is to allow the user to create & engage in hypothetical scenarios which would be inadvisable in reality. This does not compromise the fidelity of the simulator.

 

From another thread:

 

[...] like suggesting that we shouldn't be able to choose a fuel load of 15% capacity, because the pilots weren't meant to be taking off with such a low fuel load. It's a high-fidelity simulator; it's not a simulator's job to artificially dictate user behavior, to force them to conform to real-life recommended operating procedures. The simulator's job is to simulate the tools as they are in reality, and let the users decide what to do with those tools within the simulation (and let them see what happens when they use the simulated tools in a manner contrary to the recommended operating procedures--e.g. engine failure due to fuel starvation)

 

 

I don't see anything inherently wrong with there being an option in the editor to enforce certain loadouts on spawn, but I myself am not interested in joining servers which force an impractically high fuel mass for the job I'm looking to perform, in a competitive environment. As such, I have a difficult time seeing this as a high-priority item. If you want a historical mission, then the mission itself will necessitate historical fuel loads, by nature of the extremely long distances, yes?

Edited December 2, 2015 by Echo38

[Exorcet]

It is being used as exploit. Put the exploit in the game section where it belongs instead the sim. Folks are paying for a study sim. There is no point in trying to use the realism of the FM by developing the skills to turn the aircraft at Best Rate or its design performance speeds when it is just a race to take the least amount of fuel available.

 

I am more bothered by things like mission design where you might take off and go a couple of miles before being in enemy territory.

 

In any case I disagree with your statement on realism/simulation. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. For me the FM is the most important bit and it is still valuable whether or not other aspects of the sim are as realistic. I also don't want to be arbitrarily limited to historical battles and then further arbitrary limited to those historical battles ED can research and implement. Your fuel load out idea isn't so much a sim setting as a history setting. Fine to have, but I don't want to be boxed into that.

 

As far as implementing into the sim, you could probably combine both ideas. Instead of making an entirely new menu for these loadout options, add more control to the warehouse. I've repeatedly suggested that an option to lock players from changing loads should be added for those who would like to use this in mission design. The same idea can be tied to fuel. Good for pilots who want to be just the pilot instead of pilot and general.

[Echo38]

Actually, no - it's not okay. If DCS are pimping the Mustang as "the most realistic simulation ever done of this legendary World War 2 era fighter", allowing (either intentionally or through exploits) people to fly one with a blatantly unrealistic fuel-load totally undermines their commitment to realism. Might as well fly with infinite ammo and claim that is "realistic" too...

 

Again, apples & oranges. It is physically impossible to put an infinite ammunition load on a real aircraft. It is entirely physically possible to put a short fuel load on a real aircraft. Not usually advisable, in real life, but it is not in the slightest unrealistic for a pilot to be able to choose to take a foolish fuel load. See?

 

Recommended /= possible. A high-fidelity simulator isn't supposed to let you do things that are impossible in the real thing (barring basic functionality like respawning). A high-fidelity simulator is, however, supposed to let you do things that are possible in the real thing, even if it would be a dumb idea to do it in the real thing.

 

Or increase fuel consumption to make the effective range seem bigger without meaning people have to fly for an hour looking for a fight?

 

This, on the other hand, would absolutely reduce the fidelity of the simulation. Regardless of what fictional or real scenario you are placing the simulated P-51D into, it is officially an inaccurate simulation of a real P-51D, if the fuel burn rate is higher than the real P-51's, under the same conditions.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Echo38

[Exorcet]

A high-fidelity simulator is, however, supposed to let you do things that are possible in the real thing

 

I agree that this is the important part. Model everything well is the top priority. After that it is user choice to make use of that modeling. For various reasons, it is not helpful to have your options arbitrarily limited.

[Echo38]

I also don't want to be arbitrarily limited to historical battles and then further arbitrary limited to those historical battles ED can research and implement. Your fuel load out idea isn't so much a sim setting as a history setting. Fine to have, but I don't want to be boxed into that.

 

This is precisely my point. For a more extreme example, the simulator isn't flawed for letting users wear a modern flight suit in the P-51D. It's simply well-simulating a P-51D that is out of its historical wartime context. I myself would prefer to be wearing the WWII flight gear, but I'm not going to say that people who choose the modern flight suit--in a non-historical-mission--are "compromising the realism of the sim." That's just silly.