Load out configuration Poll

[Friedrich-4B]

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.

 

If players choose to use lighter fuel loads, that's their right/problem; expecting ED to add yet more features to the sim, when there are more important things to be concerned about, will simply slow down the development process.

 

 

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.

 

"Standard tankage" had nothing to do with fixing plug fouling, nor did the 8th AF ever use the option of 100/130 Grade to taxi, take off, and ingress, 100/150 Grade in the wing tanks for combat, egress, and landing. It was 100/150 Grade or nothing for all operations from June 1944.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B

[Cripple]

Maybe these short-fuel load aficionados should be flying Zeros instead? I understand it was historically appropriate (or historically "realistic") for some of them not to intend to land... at their home base.

 

Oooooo - someone used the 'C'-word - competitive. I always wince when I hear that in relation to people playing computer games. Personally I am playing for relaxation... but I was under the impression that a "competitive" environment had to be balanced.

 

Am I the only one who finds it odd that a community that will argue the toss over historical data or the font on an unused panel will condone (tacitily or otherwise) what is essentially pilots going on one-way missions to "improve" the performance of their aircraft?

 

Actually, it's a great idea; let's just all fly the Natter instead. Fantastic acceleration, for a start. It would make maps a whole lot smaller too! :P

 

NB: there is a world of difference between letting a (virtual) pilot experiment with what-ifs and I-wonders (like a diminished fuel load) in a off-line environment, and letting them do so online to allegedly grant them an edge against other players in a free-for-all. Please don't confuse the two.

[OutOnTheOP]

Maybe these short-fuel load aficionados should be flying Zeros instead? I understand it was historically appropriate (or historically "realistic") for some of them not to intend to land... at their home base.

 

Oooooo - someone used the 'C'-word - competitive. I always wince when I hear that in relation to people playing computer games. Personally I am playing for relaxation... but I was under the impression that a "competitive" environment had to be balanced.

 

Am I the only one who finds it odd that a community that will argue the toss over historical data or the font on an unused panel will condone (tacitily or otherwise) what is essentially pilots going on one-way missions to "improve" the performance of their aircraft?

 

Actually, it's a great idea; let's just all fly the Natter instead. Fantastic acceleration, for a start. It would make maps a whole lot smaller too! :P

 

NB: there is a world of difference between letting a (virtual) pilot experiment with what-ifs and I-wonders (like a diminished fuel load) in a off-line environment, and letting them do so online to allegedly grant them an edge against other players in a free-for-all. Please don't confuse the two.

 

Absolute bollocks, and totally hyperbole. I do not know *anyone*, nor have I witnessed anyone, "planning one-way trips". Absolute crap.

 

At least give us some consistency in your whinging: if you think people are using this as an "exploit" to rack up kills, then wouldn't it run contrary to the goal to plan on losing an airframe (and therefore getting a death attributed to yourself) in the process?

 

The fact of it is that in a P-51D, if you take ~40% total fuel mass (IE, about 2/3 of your main tanks), you have about the same fuel mass as the FW190 at full fuel, and *STILL* have longer loiter time. On most online missions, a pilot can take 30% total fuel mass (roughly half the wing tanks) and it's enough to get to the target area, loiter at max continuous for half an hour, dogfight at MIL for 15 minutes, and STILL return home. Ammo becomes the limiting factor rather than fuel, even at low fuel fractions.

 

If the mission as frag'd on the ATO is for a 45 minute CAP, there's not much good reason to take three hours of fuel. If it's a bombing run on a target 20 minutes away, filling the tanks to the tip-top is retarded. You take what you need for the mission profile, for 10-15 minutes fight, and 5-10 minutes reserve. No one in the real world expects to be in an hour-and-a-half dogfight. One side or the other will be dead long before then.

 

Seems to me some people just want to penalize the P-51 for the *ability* to carry a lot of go-juice.

[MiloMorai]

Seems to me some people just want to penalize the P-51 for the *ability* to carry a lot of go-juice.

 

Definitely another attempt on the P-51.

 

The 109 and 190 should have to load 400l and 525l.

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

useful.

 

Patently ridiculous. You can manage temperatures with other factors than purely throttle setting. And that link just says "you have to plan fuel for your descent." Why yes, you DO have to plan a relatively small quantity of fuel for the descent. Notice where it doesn't say anything about "you use as much on descent as on the climb-out". Maybe with turbines, where idle is still a fair percentage of full throttle fuel burn, but not piston engines. Your link proves *nothing*. Stop trying to browbeat people with professional-looking references that don't actually support your argument.

 

Yes, you have to have some fuel for the descent and taxi. It is a tiny fraction of what is used on the ascent, because gravity. :doh:

 

There's a reason it's "kampf- und steigleistung", instead of "kampf, steig-, und absteigleistung" :music_whistling:

Edited December 2, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

Definitely another attempt on the P-51.

 

The 109 and 190 should have to load 400l and 525l.

 

Funny how literally a day after I shut down his repeated (and increasingly ridiculous) attempts to explain why the M2 .50 should jam a lot, he's right back with another thinly veiled attempt at backdoor nerfing :lol:

 

If the real airplane performs better with less fuel, and the real pilots knew that the real airplane performed better with less fuel, don't you think they would take less fuel when there was no tactical reason to carry two hours surplus for a short-hop mission?

 

Yes, the distance to the targets in MP tend to be unrealistically short. But if we stretched them to more realistic distances, you'd have cases where the Mustang pilots could reach the target area, but the Luftwaffe birds would be bingo fuel by the time they made the intercept. Situations where the Mustang team could range to (and vulch unmercifully) the German airbase, but the LW aircraft couldn't reach the US base.

 

I mean, if you'd prefer things to be more realistic, then sure, we could go that way.

 

But most players don't particularly enjoy flying three hours just to get to the target area, because this ISN'T a real war. It's a game. And supposed to be enjoyable.

Edited December 2, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Echo38]

essentially pilots going on one-way missions to "improve" the performance of their aircraft

 

Don't be absurd. I never take so little fuel that I am unable to safely return to base after a successful mission. I take enough fuel for the distance I plan on travelling, the return trip, and the time I expect to be fighting--and then some extra, just in case.

 

Which isn't much different from how it was done in reality, by the way (not that it matters much). The difference is that, in the simulator, we generally fly super-short mission distances, and so taking several hours' worth of extra fuel is a liability here. Only a fool takes an extra thousand pounds of useless mass into combat for no good reason.

 

This is the reason why we competitive dogfighters drop the unnecessary mass, when dogfighting in our maximum-fidelity aircraft simulator. You make us sound all sneaky-devious, with your insinuations about trying to get an edge over our opponents, but it's simply common sense. No point in entering combat with bombs on, if you aren't going to be bombing anything. Same deal with a gross excess of fuel--no point entering combat with a bunch of extra fuel, if you know you aren't going to be using any of it.

 

In the actual war, pilots often had to enter combat with a much larger quantity of fuel than they needed. That was the reality of war. This isn't war; it's a competitive game taking place within a maximum-fidelity aircraft simulator. Outside of historical-style missions (where historical fuel loads actually make sense), taking the right fuel load for the mission range is no more gamey than having short mission ranges in the first place. Or are you one of those people who says that we're all just arcade gamers if we aren't flying hours-long-travel-time historical missions, every time? Please ...

 

What makes the aircraft simulation accurate isn't how people use it, or what we use it for. What makes the aircraft simulation accurate is the aircraft simulation--flight model, systems, engine, weapons, etc. Don't scorn simmers who prefer to use their max-fidelity sim for purposes other than recreating & participating in historical missions. We aren't "arcade gamers" just because we prefer instant action in our modelled-as-realistically-as-possible fighters, instead of long, boring, miserable historical war missions.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Echo38

[Cripple]

Absolute bollocks, and totally hyperbole. I do not know *anyone*, nor have I witnessed anyone, "planning one-way trips". Absolute crap.

 

At least give us some consistency in your whinging...

 

Seems to me that some people haven't read the Rules. Kindly rephrase or remove your post, as it seems to violate 1.2.

 

Whilst it evident you feel rather strongly about this, the manner in which you are expressing your position is currently unacceptable. Can I advise stepping away from the keyboard for a few hours?

[Echo38]

Whilst it evident you feel rather strongly about this, the manner in which you are expressing your position is currently unacceptable. Can I advise stepping away from the keyboard for a few hours?

 

Not cool. While I wouldn't have phrased it the way he did, you know perfectly well that you are deliberately goading him. You stop just short of open insult, but you're being plenty snide yourself.

[OutOnTheOP]

Seems to me that some people haven't read the Rules. Kindly rephrase or remove your post, as it seems to violate 1.2.

 

Whilst it evident you feel rather strongly about this, the manner in which you are expressing your position is currently unacceptable. Can I advise stepping away from the keyboard for a few hours?

 

1.2, eh? No, I can quite readily think your stance on a topic is absolute crap, and unwarranted whinging, without failing to respect *you* as a person. I'm sure you're a perfectly nice guy. I imagine Crumpp is also a good fellow in person.

 

I still think his stance on this is bollocks and whinging. I didn't say "you are irredeemable idiots", which would be a personal attack (nor do I believe such). No, I said that your argument was crap.

 

Please, let the moderators do the moderating.

Edited December 2, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Cripple]

....

This is the reason why we competitive dogfighters drop the unnecessary mass, when dogfighting in our maximum-fidelity aircraft simulator. You make us sound all sneaky-devious, with your insinuations about trying to get an edge over our opponents, but it's simply common sense. No point in entering combat with bombs on, if you aren't going to be bombing anything. Same deal with a gross excess of fuel--no point entering combat with a bunch of extra fuel, if you know you aren't going to be using any of it.

 

In the actual war, pilots often had to enter combat with a much larger quantity of fuel than they needed. That was the reality of war. This isn't war; it's a competitive game taking place within a maximum-fidelity aircraft simulator. Outside of historical-style missions (where historical fuel loads actually make sense), taking the right fuel load for the mission range is no more gamey than having short mission ranges in the first place. Or are you one of those people who says that we're all just arcade gamers if we aren't flying hours-long-travel-time historical missions, every time? Please ...

 

What makes the aircraft simulation accurate isn't how people use it, or what we use it for. What makes the aircraft simulation accurate is the aircraft simulation--flight model, systems, engine, weapons, etc. Don't scorn simmers who prefer to use their max-fidelity sim for purposes other than recreating & participating in historical missions. We aren't "arcade gamers" just because we prefer instant action in our modelled-as-realistically-as-possible fighters, instead of long, boring, miserable historical war missions.

 

I didn't "insinuate" anything. I am stating it quite openly: some people seem to be playing the meta (X-improves-Y) rather than the game itself.

 

Please do not conflate two very different scenarios. I have absolutely no issue with pilots not taking additional fuel tanks (or indeed ordinance), nor do I have an issue with pilots who drop said fuel tanks or ordinance before they enter combat. That said, I do take issue with the idea of short-fuelling the internal tanks, especially below a historic safe minimum, in order to be "more competitive". Feel free to correct me, but I don't recall even short-ranged interceptors like the early Spitfires in late 1940 being sent up with less than full tanks.

 

"Are you one of those...." No, but I am beginning to sympathise with them...

[Echo38]

Feel free to correct me, but I don't recall even short-ranged interceptors like the early Spitfires in late 1940 being sent up with less than full tanks.

 

Spitfires in the late 1940s weren't attacking targets that were five minutes away from home base.

[Cripple]

Please, let the moderators do the moderating.

 

As you wish... I'll let one know.

 

.... you know perfectly well that you are deliberately goading him. You stop just short of open insult...

 

Which I believe is the trick isn't it? Self control. It's also strange that an attempt to offer someone an opportunity to know they've overstepped the bounds of public civility, and politely suggesting a wee break to gain some perspective on the issue, before dealing with it is seen as "goading" him.

 

The point is, neither of you are now debating the preferred topic of conversation - Fuel: tanks or slider.

 

 

Personally, I'm for tanks...

[Echo38]

Which I believe is the trick isn't it? Self control.

 

It's also strange that an attempt to offer someone an opportunity to know they've overstepped the bounds of public civility, and politely suggesting a wee break to gain some perspective on the issue, before dealing with it is seen as "goading" him.

 

As you surely recognize, my comment about you goading him was a reference to your post(s) preceding his response, not to your post following it.

 

You've been liberally dispensing mockery in your posts, but then act all wounded when someone reacts unfavorably. You're playing a game of your own, where you see if you can incite others to break forum rules without actually doing it yourself. Bluntly, you're trolling, and it is not becoming of a flight simmer. Your behavior is something I expect of people who attend twitch-shooter forums, not something I expect on the DCS forum.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Echo38

[Terrificfool]

I've flown the Mustang extensively with lots of people on the DoW server, including all of my fellow squadron mates, and guests such as OutOnTheOp. I've taken off with 68% fuel + tanks, 68% fuel, 50% fuel, 40% fuel, etc. Not once have I been in an engagement where I thought 'man if only I had less fuel'. Nor have I heard any of those players that I regularly fly with make comments to that end.

 

On the other hand, I have been on climb outs over mountains where I wish I had taken less fuel. I have loaded down my aircraft with large amounts of ordinance, and wish I had reduced the fuel below 68%. In situations where I've jettisoned said ordinance due to enemy aircraft I have not seen a sudden fortuitous change in my BFM situation, even though I have suddenly reduced my weight to well below the clean + 68% fuel weight. With a fixed tank system, I can't make these changes, and am stuck carrying a2g ordinance at very high weights.

 

Similarly, I have never been in a German aircraft and felt 'man, this Mustang is so light, I can't take him.' Quite frankly, I don't think the advantage is as large as some may claim, or even very perceptable to your opponent. A slippery opponent is slippery because he is good, and/or you are bad. The enemy is on your six shooting at you because you made bad decisions, not because he loaded his aircraft lighter than you. Taking away someone's ability to reduce fuel to counteract payload or adverse weather does not change these facts.

 

Furthermore, if we want to talk about 'realistic' loadouts and sorties, I think we should first focus on some more glaring issues that are, imho, much easier to fix. Such as taking off in a 1-ship fighter sweep, and not using that wonderful radio simulator we call Teamspeak 3. Anyone can fix these with this free add-on (don't worry, it will never make you fail an integrity check!!) and by communicating with other players in the server. With this 1 SIMPLE TRICK you will have loner turn and burners off your six in no time, no fuel adjustments necessary.

 

Oh and one more thing: Since your fuel depletes during flight, you can't just expect every dogfight to be 'the way it was meant to be played'... you have to fly the aircraft, not the stick, or the ideal in your head about how your plane should behave. It's just like the BF-109 stick forces thread: move the control surfaces to get the maximum performance available out of the airframe at that time. Assess your performance relative to your opponent, and adjust your tactics accordingly.

[Crumpp]

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.

 

I agree, It does not have to be all or nothing. That is why the poll offers the choice of including both the percentage slider and the design fuel tankage as an option.

 

All I want is to know what the playing field is going to be...gamey or realistic.

 

I also think it should be a mission editor option to lock in the configuration for a specific mission design. That is a good idea.

[Crumpp]

It's a game. And supposed to be enjoyable.

 

Right.

 

Crumpp says:

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.

 

Do folks have something against others enjoying the game?

 

You can still take the 30% fuel fuel and fly around; just let others know that is an option and post it on the server. It is not a hard fix for the devs to give us a choice to remove that exploit from the mission editor and the server.

 

It is just that simple. There is a reason the market for a study sim is for people who are interested in realism. Not everyone enjoys a gamey situation.

[Solty]

I think that during a mission that is not "historical" (meaning recreation of a real operation, battle etc.) it would be impossible to take the "gamey" approach due to the lenght of the mission.

 

Therefore the issue is non-existant.

 

The only situation in which the "gamey" fuel load is taken, is a "gamey" one, in which bases are so close that you can see one from another.

 

But I have yet to see a person that takes fuel for 5-10min. I usually fly with 40% of the fuel in my stang for those "quake" type missions and thats about 45min of my flying.

 

Again, I don't see any reason for a change. If a server is hosted to recreate real life conditions people signing up for it will take the correct value no matter what, because the mission demands it.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Solty

[Echo38]

Quite frankly, I don't think the advantage is as large as some may claim, or even very perceptable to your opponent.

 

With some of these birds, a full internal load of fuel was ~15% of the total aircraft mass, with a normal combat load. Not a small difference. On the competitive extreme, 5% can sometimes be noticeable to the very best pilots. 10% is a large competitive advantage (or disadvantage). Ask an Olympic runner if he's okay with carrying, during the big race, a weight that weighs 10% of his bodymass ...

 

There is a reason the market for a study sim is for people who are interested in realism. Not everyone enjoys a gamey situation.

 

You say this like people who are interested in max-realism study sims don't/shouldn't enjoy non-historical scenarios. The two are not at all mutually exclusive. A real airplane can engage in "gamey" mock-combat. Air Combat USA is one of the more popular examples of that, these days. I don't think you're helping your case by implying that we aren't hardcore simmers, just because the thing we're hardcore-simming isn't the same thing you're hardcore-simming. Realism /= historical

 

For the record, I don't have anything against there being options within the mission editor, for mission makers to lock things like this in historical-style missions. However, like Solty, I feel that the case of historical fuel loads is a "self-correcting problem." If it's a historical mission, the distances involved will surely necessitate historical fuel loads, without requiring a lock in the mission options.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Echo38

[Solty]

+1 Echo realistic≠historic

[Crumpp]

With some of these birds, a full internal load of fuel was ~15% of the total aircraft mass, with a normal combat load.

 

The math is done, anybody who understands fuel planning can do it as well.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2580369&postcount=7

 

FWIW,

 

While the time in the air is pretty close, the consumption is not. For example, the Merlin needed more fuel at War Emergency Power than the Jumo213A.

 

Noteleistungen fuel consumption for the Jumo 213A was 161 US Gallons Per Hour. The Packard Merlin V-1650-7 used 194 US Gallons Per Hour at War Emergency Power.

 

Point being the fuel consumption changed but all of them needed ~ 2.2 - 2.5 hours of endurance and where designed for that.

[Crumpp]

 

You say this like people who are interested in max-realism study sims don't/shouldn't enjoy non-historical scenarios. The two are not at all mutually exclusive.

 

However, like Solty, I feel like this is a "self-correcting problem." If it's a historical mission, the distances involved will surely necessitate historical fuel loads.

 

Which is why I voted for both as an option.

 

It is not self correcting and I do not think many folks want to fly 4 hours to drop the tanks and fight on full internal fuel anyway. :smilewink:

[Echo38]

Point being the fuel consumption changed but all of them needed ~ 2.2 - 2.5 hours of endurance and where designed for that.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying, now. You're saying that, at cruise settings, U.S. fighters like the P-38 & P-51 had similar internal ranges to German fighters like the Me 109 and FW 190? That's difficult for me to believe.

 

Wait--you listed WEP consumption. I usually fly around at just below max continuous, in the sim, and IRL they usually flew around max cruise. That makes a big difference for fuel consumption; they weren't charging around at WEP all day, of course, and neither are we.

 

... I don't even see how this matters to my original point you quoted: 15% of the aircraft's mass is a relatively big portion. This is why we competitive simmers who desire maximum fidelity of aircraft/weapon/equipment modelling, but don't care for historical-style missions, decline to take massive amounts of fuel that we can't possibly use in our non-historical missions (in which the airfields are only a few miles apart), and which can only harm us by significantly & noticeably hampering our maneuverability.

 

I do not think many folks want to fly 4 hours to drop the tanks and fight on full internal fuel anyway.

 

Ah, but I thought people who aren't "doing it right" like this aren't serious simmers? >; )

Edited December 3, 2015 by Echo38

[Crumpp]

m not sure what you're saying, now. You're saying that, at cruise settings, U.S. fighters like the P-38 & P-51 had similar internal ranges to German fighters like the Me 109 and FW 190? That's difficult for me to believe.

 

Yes, that is correct. You got about 2.2 - 2.5 hours of flying out of World War II fighter on internal fuel.

 

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.

 

 

Wait--you listed WEP consumption. I usually fly around at just below max continuous, in the sim, and IRL they usually flew around max cruise. That makes a big difference for fuel consumption; they weren't charging around at WEP all day, of course, and neither are we.

 

Yes I did just as an example to show the Jumo213 consumes less fuel than the Merlin, therefore it needs less fuel to achieve a similar amount of air time.

 

See above for fuel planning. The flight endurance will be proportionally shorter if we included a reserve as well as combat maneuvering allowance. The argument the P-51 will suffer is just not based in fact.

 

Ah, but I thought people who aren't "doing it right" like this aren't serious simmers? >; )

 

"Doing it right" is doing what you enjoy. If you enjoy taking as little fuel as possible to reach the combat area then that is fine. Why is it so difficult to understand that not everyone enjoys that?

[Echo38]

"Doing it right" is doing what you enjoy. If you enjoy taking as little fuel as possible to reach the combat area then that is fine. Why is it so difficult to understand that not everyone enjoys that?

 

Two things: firstly, despite my normal competitive practice of taking a reduced fuel load (because that's the competitive norm, and I do not wish to place myself at an disadvantage), I actually prefer duels with high fuel mass (because this makes the fight more slow-paced & thoughtful, as opposed to fast-paced & reflexive)--in general, and only when it can be guaranteed that the fight will start with both participants having similar fuel states.

 

However, I said "in general," because this may break down when you get to high-mass, long-range fighters like the P-38 and P-51 versus low-mass, short-range fighters like the Me 109 or Spitfire. With matchups like this, when fuel masses are lowered across the board, the discrepancies between the dogfighting capabilities of the two opposing fighters are lessened. Keep fuel masses high, and--at least with factory WEP ratings on the U.S. birds--the lighter fighters have a big advantage in the duel, to the point of it being one-sided.

 

Now, I gather you aren't much interested in duelling & non-historical dogfighting, so that might seem irrelevant to you, but note my main point of all that: I actually prefer duels to be high fuel mass, in general, because they slow down the pace of the fight. So, it isn't that I can't understand how anyone would want battles to be fought with larger fuel loads, as you imply I don't.

 

 

 

Now, the second thing: my objection is, once more, not to your core proposal (mission editor option to enforce fuel states in missions), which I think is quite reasonable, even if I don't regard it as high-priority, myself. Rather, my objection was to your text which I quoted--your implication that my preferred type of simming was less high-fidelity than your preferred type of simming, which has been present in posts throughout this thread.

 

I'll slightly rephrase the key point of my bolded sentence from my previous post: I am a competitive flight simmer who desires maximum fidelity of aircraft/weapon/equipment modelling, but doesn't much care for historical-style missions. I hope you now see why I do not regard my non-historical simming to be any less hardcore, max-fidelity simming than yours. I want very much to be in the real aircraft; I just don't want to be in the real war. I do not see this manner of simming as a lesser, or a lower-fidelity, form of simming, and I rather resent the notion that it is.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Echo38