Load out configuration Poll

[Crumpp]

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 ...

 

Who is telling you that the internal fuel of the Mustang is 15% of the aircraft?

 

(1089lbs of fuel / 9478 lbs of airplane ) x 100 = 11.4%

 

(500Kg of Fuel and MW50 / 4272Kg of airplane) x 100 = 11.7%

[Crumpp]

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.

 

If everyone had to take full internal fuel at a minimum....

 

How is the Mustang disadvantaged?

 

If there is choice between the arcade slider and full tankage based on the authorized load out sheets....

 

How are you disadvantaged?

[Echo38]

Who is telling you that the internal fuel of the Mustang is 15% of the aircraft?

 

That was the P-38L I was referring to. I never did the math on the P-51, but I still have the numbers for the P-38 floating around in my skull. Very roughly: 416 gallons @ ~6 lb = ~2500 lb., which is ~15% of a normal combat load (full internal, no external stores) of ~17000 lb. Something like that. IIRC, P-51 had higher internal range than P-38, but considerably less internal fuel mass.

 

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.

 

I'm still not sure what exactly you are saying here. Are you saying that { P-51D w/ 20% fuel versus Me 109K w/ 20% fuel } has the same competitive balance in a dogfight as { P-51D w/ 100% fuel versus Me 109K w/ 100% fuel } ? Because, if that's what you're saying, I'm almost certain that this isn't the case. The P-51 has so much more "unnecessary" mass in fuel (unnecessary for a 5-minute dogfight, understand) than the 109 does. Nix two thirds of the fuel on both, and the aircraft resemble each other a lot more, no?

Edited December 3, 2015 by Echo38

[VincentLaw]

So if you force players to start with full tanks, what stops them from flying in circles punching holes in the sky until they have the upper hand?

[Echo38]

If everyone had to take full internal fuel at a minimum.... How is the Mustang disadvantaged?

 

If there is choice between the arcade slider and full tankage based on the authorized load out sheets.... How are you disadvantaged?

 

There are two major scenarios where I see myself at a disadvantage when everyone is forced to spawn with full fuel. Firstly, if someone's been flying around for a while before I join the server, he has less fuel mass than me, and there's nothing I'll be able to do about it. "Doomed at the gate," if you know what I mean.

 

Secondly, even if we spawned around the same time, there's the case of different aircraft being affected differently--and not only in terms of pure mass--by the removal or addition of the same percentage of fuel. For example, the P-51 is an absolute mess at handling with that rear tank full. "Do not attempt aerobatics with full rear tank" and all that CoG fun. So, while 100% fuel 109 vs. 100% fuel P-51 sounds fair and dandy on paper, I think we all know that, in practice, it doesn't work out that way. The P-51 suffers far more from being saddled with full tanks than the 109 does from the same.

 

Now, if the map size is large enough, and it's a historical-style long-range mission, then there's time for the P-51 to burn off that rear tank. But, really, as you said--who really wants to fly for four hours before they see an enemy? I doubt even a real fighter pilot would want to do that in a simulator.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Echo38

[Crumpp]

Are you saying that { P-51D w/ 20% fuel versus Me 109K w/ 20% fuel } has the same competitive balance in a dogfight as { P-51D w/ 100% fuel versus Me 109K w/ 100% fuel } ?

 

Yes.

 

It becomes a guessing game as to how little to take...for each side. You cannot even accomplish your goal of outturning the Bf-109K4.

 

Here is the P-51 vs Bf-109K4 turn performance analysis. The Bf-109K4 is at take off weight and the P-51 has 10% internal fuel. That is 18 US gallons and will get your to the runway entrance or possibly to the crash site at the end of the runway in a real P-51.

 

 

[Crumpp]

For example, the P-51 is an absolute mess at handling with that rear tank full. "Do not attempt aerobatics with full rear tank" and all that CoG fun. So, while 100% fuel 109 vs. 100% fuel P-51 sounds fair and dandy on paper, I think we all know that, in practice, it doesn't work out that way. The P-51 suffers far more from being saddled with full tanks than the 109 does from the same.

 

The rear fuselage tank is not normally filled Echo38. The wing tanks are the only standard tank that is always filled.

 

Firstly, if someone's been flying around for a while before I join the server, he has less fuel mass than me, and there's nothing I'll be able to do about it. "Doomed at the gate," if you know what I mean.

 

There is risk in angle fighting for everyone in a realistic scenario. Why do you think Eric Hartmann did not do it if he could avoid it?

 

:smilewink:

 

You could also still join an arcade or custom server that did allow the slider. That is why I voted for a choice.

[Echo38]

Yes.

 

That simply can't be right. The CoG balance thing alone throws that off. And even if the cap for both is at the % that the P-51 is at when it's got full wing tanks & empty rear, I'm almost sure that the aircraft aren't affected equally (in terms of dogfighting ability) when equal percentages of fuel mass are removed.

 

You could also still join an arcade

 

There you go again. [scowl] You think I would even look at a server that wasn't full-switch? I get my flightsuit in a bunch if cockpit labels are on, even if everything else is right. Just because I don't like historical-style missions does not mean I care any less than you do about maximum-realism fighter simulation. Little could be farther from the truth.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Echo38

[Crumpp]

So if you force players to start with full tanks, what stops them from flying in circles punching holes in the sky until they have the upper hand?

 

 

What is to stop them from just altering the code? People will find a way to cheat. If they have a choice, then they can move to a server that offers the slider.

 

Choice two is not starting with full tanks either. It is full tanks by design loading options. In other words, you cannot choose something the airplane could not support and the chosen tanks would be full of fuel.

 

That basic choice for tankage would be found on the authorized load out sheets like the P-51 weight and balanced posted in this thread.

 

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

[Crumpp]

There you go again. [scowl] You think I would even look at, let alone touch, a server that wasn't full-switch? I get my flightsuit in a bunch & leave if cockpit labels are on, even if all other arcade aids are off.

 

Do you think it realistic then for a pilot to think, "how little fuel should I take?"

 

Seriously??

 

But, Do finish the sentence please and put it in context. I am about choice.

 

or custom server that did allow the slider.

[Crumpp]

I'm almost sure that the aircraft aren't affected equally (in terms of dogfighting ability) when equal percentages of fuel mass are removed.

 

Well, I can only show you facts. I cannot change your emotional beliefs.

[Echo38]

There is risk in angle fighting for everyone in a realistic scenario.

 

Fuel mass affects energy fighters as well as angle fighters. Climb is crucial to an energy fighter.

 

Do you think it realistic then for a pilot to think, "how little fuel should I take?" Seriously??

 

In the non-historical very-short-range scenarios I am simulating? Yes, seriously. I can't imagine an expert fighter pilot, in real life, would blindly choose to take a full fuel load if his mission objective were a few minutes away, and probability of encountering at least one enemy within a few minutes was nearly 100%. If he knew that his enemy was likely to be running light--and quite probably even if not--I firmly believe that he'd say, "Don't fill her more than that!" He'd be foolish not to.

 

There's no point in getting killed because you're carrying a bunch of extra weight for no good reason ... but I feel like I'm going in a circle now; I swear I said that a few posts ago. Lemme try this: the benefits of reducing fuel mass by far outweigh the risk (and, yes, I'm aware that fuel vapor is more dangerously explosive than liquid fuel), when facing a deadly enemy, with an excess of fuel-mass that great, and a flight distance so short. After a five-minute fight, that extra two hours of fuel will simply burn longer on the ground; all else equal, the guy with a half-hour's worth flies over your wreck.

 

Well, I can only show you facts. I cannot change your emotional beliefs.

 

You posted a bunch of graphs, but I don't see how they show what you state that they show. That is, I don't see how any of the graphs you've posted show that a 20%-fuel P-51D versus a 20%-fuel Me 109K have the same relative combat ability as the same two ships with, say, 60% each. If you would like to explain this clearly, I am listening.

 

Re: "emotional beliefs"--while I can't prove it with numbers (because I suck at maths) this isn't an emotional belief, my claim that lowering fuel masses by equal percentages affects fighter balance. It's rather an observation I've made over thousands of hours of competitive flight sim-gaming. I acknowledge that it's possible that it is incorrect, because most of those hours were in lesser sim/games, which were rife with errors, rather than DCS, which has far fewer errors. However, although you say that the observation is incorrect, you have yet to explain why, in a clear manner.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Echo38

[Friedrich-4B]

If there is choice between the arcade slider and full tankage based on the authorized load out sheets....

 

The only one who is saying the slider is "arcade" like, while accusing other players of

the aerial combat simulator version of the first person shooter jumping around with his weapon on full auto

is Crumpp.

 

Crumpp has yet to explain how many/what percentage of people are "exploiting" the sim by using very low fuel loads, thus turning it into a so-called arcade game.

 

So far, no-one else has complained about DCS's slider, no-one else has called into question what a small number of other players might choose to do, nor have the DCS developers seen the use of a slider as being an "issue".

 

Well, I can only show you facts. I cannot change your emotional beliefs.

 

The only one who seems to be getting emotional about this non-issue is Crumpp, who seems to regard other players as somehow being "cheats", with no evidence provided.

[Crumpp]

I don't see how any of the graphs you've posted show that a 20%-fuel P-51D versus a 20%-fuel Me 109K

'

 

They show a Mustang with 10% fuel vs a Bf-109K4 with 100% fuel.

 

 

I can't imagine an expert fighter pilot, in real life, would blindly choose to take a full fuel load if his mission objective were a few minutes away, and probability of encountering at least one enemy within a few minutes was nearly 100%.

 

Because in reality if they bomb his airfield or one of his buddies crashes blocking the landing area..he cannot land there and might have to fly someplace else. That happened quite a bit in World War II. Taildraggers do not do well at all landing downwind.

 

If there is weather at alternate field, he might have to fly even longer before he find a place to get down safely.

 

If tries to land on a unsuitable landing field clogged with wreckage or bomb craters or ended up in a fireball from a downwind landing, he could easily be just as dead as losing a dogfight.

 

Re: "emotional beliefs"--while I can't prove it with numbers, because I suck at maths, this isn't an emotional belief. It's rather an observation I've made over thousands of hours of competitive flight sim-gaming. I acknowledge that it's possible that it is incorrect, because most of those hours were in lesser sim/games, which were rife with errors, rather than DCS, which has far fewer errors. However, although you say that the observation is incorrect, you have yet to explain why, in a clear manner.

 

:music_whistling:

 

These experiments show that when people’s beliefs are threatened, they often take flight to a land where facts do not matter. In scientific terms, their beliefs become less “falsifiable” because they can no longer be tested scientifically for verification or refutation.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/

[Echo38]

Because in reality if they bomb his airfield or one of his buddies crashes blocking the landing area..he cannot land there and might have to fly someplace else.

 

Mm; my fictional scenarios don't ever have bombs. Guns only. Something my friends usually notice, to their chagrin, in jets: "What, no missiles"?

As I keep saying, my high-fidelity simulation is of fighters dogfighting, not war. War sucks; it always has.

 

They show a Mustang with 10% fuel vs a Bf-109K4 with 100% fuel.

 

I don't see how that demonstrates that 20% P-51 vs. 20% 109 is similar in relative combat ability to 60% P-51 vs. 60% 109, etc.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Echo38

[Ripcord03]

whats funny is how crump only starts complaining about this after net_man owned him in DoW, and netman took 40% fuel on takeoff.... there is absolutely nothing stopping you from adjusting your fuel load too crump. I see this as nothing more than an attempt to nerf the P51 yet again.

 

Routinely in DoW when we take off as a squad we all take the same loadouts, generally ~40% fuel and rockets/bombs depending on the mission, when im planning on loitering or providing air cover, i take around 45%, which is more than plenty considering most of the missions on DoW take around a 10-15 min flight to the target area. which with 40% gives us around 30-40 mins of combat before RTB, and almost everytime, ammo is the limiting factor, with me returning to base with 3 kills, and 20% fuel, and no ammo.

 

And its no different in the 190, where i will never takeoff with the rear tank full because is nerfs its handling. Please dont try to force an unnecessary change to the game just because you made a mistake in a dogfight and lost to someone who happened to change their fuel load to match the mission requirements.

 

Sorry to say it, but the majority of the time, the main cause of a WWII dogfight loss is because someone made a mistake in their fighting. I know one of my biggest mistakes i make is following a 109 in a climb, when i dont have the energy for it. I have yet to see fuel being used as an "exploit". I have flown against the 51 in game even when they took less fuel, and still beaten them, it comes down to who's the better pilot everytime, regardless of fuel.

 

"Never interrupt your enemy when they are about to make a mistake"

 

 

Back on subject, OutOnTheOP made excellent points as to why this shouldn't happen, just like he did when crump complained about how the .50's should jam more due to heat.

 

I don't know a single player in the WWII servers that doesnt check his fuel load before taking off. I have yet to lose a plane due to lack of fuel, I also have yet to find someone who only takes 10mins of fuel and is deliberately attempting to "exploit" the game. Everyone I have flown with takes the fuel required for the mission. Whether it be in any of the WWII birds, the F15, or the A10C, or any other Module. Plain and simple.

[Exorcet]

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 was referring to the idea that realistic implies historical as well. I would not consider non historical simulation less of a simulation. For those who focus on historical accuracy above all else, options that clearly indicate a historical mission are important so I'm definitely open to them. Labeling non historical simulations as gamey though seems misleading and not all that helpful to me.

 

 

 

 

Because in reality if they bomb his airfield or one of his buddies crashes blocking the landing area..

This raises the question of why would you take off without the fuselage tank in the Mustang at all then (or aux fuel in the German planes)? If wing tanks only is a viable option, then surely so to would 75% wings, right?

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Excellent point Crumpp and one that would contribute to further move DCS into what I really like it to be like - a study sim! with great attention to realism and detail in all systems being simulated.

 

I voted for the mid option - normal tankage options of the specific aircraft.

[Solty]

A study approach doesn't limit itself to arbitrary numbers. DCS is in fact more of a study sim now, then after crumps idea :)

[Crumpp]

Davison says:I see this as nothing more than an attempt to nerf the P51 yet again.

 

I see this as nothing more than a very immature and somewhat paranoid statement. I fly the Mustang as much as I do the Dora. I enjoy both aircraft.

 

 

Davison says:whats funny is how crump only starts complaining about this after net_man owned him in DoW, and netman took 40% fuel on takeoff....

 

It was not like I was hiding from him. :smilewink:

 

For the last week I have issues with my controllers and I have been trying to find a solution. Netman was nice enough to help out as I check out the latest attempt to fix it. He is a long haul trucker and I enjoyed talking to him as much as flying against him.

 

Which brings up the next point on maturity. Net_Man was a gentleman and very nicely confessed to the practice of taking reduced fuel. I enjoyed interacting with him and hope to get this controller issue taken care of so I can get back in the mix.

 

However, not everyone feels the same way you do about the practice of "racing to the bottom" for fuel.

 

I had intended to return that favor but using discretion not mentioning names or even servers.

 

So let's discuss the issue not individuals, Squads, Servers, or anything else not related.

 

Davison says:

Routinely in DoW when we take off as a squad we all take the same loadouts, generally ~40% fuel

 

I am glad to see your Squad has voted.

 

there is absolutely nothing stopping you from adjusting your fuel load too crump.

 

I have in the fact I do remove the drop tank the Dora spawns with on your server and told others who did not realize it was there too. I actually really like taking it until I found out about the 40% fuel practice.

 

I am not asking that you change your server, only that full disclosure occurs and that the community has options.

 

Exorcent says: I was referring to the idea that realistic implies historical as well. I would not consider non historical simulation less of a simulation. For those who focus on historical accuracy above all else, options that clearly indicate a historical mission are important so I'm definitely open to them. Labeling non historical simulations as gamey though seems misleading and not all that helpful to me

 

I agree and I am an advocate for choice. The current load out options leave the server/mission administrator with nothing to prevent abuse of the percentage slider.

 

I labeled it as gamey because it encourages thinking that no pilot would use. You take as much fuel as you can when you go up to get the job done and come home.

 

The thought process in reality is and should be, "Why can't I take MORE fuel?"

 

Exorcent says:This raises the question of why would you take off without the fuselage tank in the Mustang at all then (or aux fuel in the German planes)?

 

Believe it or not, it was more common to find auxillary fuel tanks and drop tanks mounted than 40% fuel going into combat or even a clean configuration fighter.

 

For the fuselage tanks, it was very likely you would use the fuel before entering combat, you would take it! If the chances are high you are going to get into combat with fuel in the tank, you would not.

 

The same question is answered by the German Pilots. Fuel or MW50?

 

Because in the Mustang and FW-190A series, the fuselage tank carried the limitation of "No Combat Maneuvers" due to the longitudinal instability. The Dora's AC change facilitated the addition of the tank and it is why there are no limitations on it.

 

That very nicely answers the pilots question, "Why can't I take MORE Fuel?" All sides developed or tried to develop fuselage tanks and other auxiliary tanks to carry MORE fuel.

 

Answer, you would be violating a limitation and therefore; no fuselage tank fuel.

 

Jcomm says:

 

Excellent point Crumpp and one that would contribute to further move DCS into what I really like it to be like - a study sim! with great attention to realism and detail in all systems being simulated.

 

I voted for the mid option - normal tankage options of the specific aircraft.

 

Thank You Jcomm! :thumbup:

[Solty]

Only you have seen it as an exploit. It is normal to set fuel settings for the mission at hand. It would be an exploit if it made the FM work improperly. But the FM works as intended. Therefore not an exploit.

[Crumpp]

It is gamey because it introduces a culture and thinking that is not present in the thing we are trying to simulate in a study sim.

 

It should be allowed as an option for those who want it and equally an option to eliminate for those who do not.

[Solty]

Introduces?! Lol it was like that even in lock on. So it was way before u came on board. It was never an issue for you. You yourself said " its the pilot not the plane that matters" so why now is this setting available for both sides an exploit? :)

[Crumpp]

Introduces?! Lol it was like that even in lock on. So it was way before u came on board.

 

Yes Solty it was not an issue when I did not play the game or was unaware of it.

 

Is that surprising to you somehow?

 

I have explained that it ruins cockpit immersion because it introduces thinking that the machines operators would not use.

 

Why are so scared of allowing people to have a choice?

[Exorcet]

I agree and I am an advocate for choice. The current load out options leave the server/mission administrator with nothing to prevent abuse of the percentage slider.

 

I labeled it as gamey because it encourages thinking that no pilot would use. You take as much fuel as you can when you go up to get the job done and come home.

 

The thought process in reality is and should be, "Why can't I take MORE fuel?"

 

I can appreciate the concern over player mentality in a server, but I don't think the slider can be blamed for being what might be considered under-cautious with fuel load. It actually allows you to be over-cautious as well, see below.

 

 

 

Believe it or not, it was more common to find auxillary fuel tanks and drop tanks mounted than 40% fuel going into combat or even a clean configuration fighter.

 

For the fuselage tanks, it was very likely you would use the fuel before entering combat, you would take it! If the chances are high you are going to get into combat with fuel in the tank, you would not.

 

The same question is answered by the German Pilots. Fuel or MW50?

 

Because in the Mustang and FW-190A series, the fuselage tank carried the limitation of "No Combat Maneuvers" due to the longitudinal instability. The Dora's AC change facilitated the addition of the tank and it is why there are no limitations on it.

 

That very nicely answers the pilots question, "Why can't I take MORE Fuel?" All sides developed or tried to develop fuselage tanks and other auxiliary tanks to carry MORE fuel.

 

Answer, you would be violating a limitation and therefore; no fuselage tank fuel.

Even then, couldn't you just plan your fuel use so that you would arrive in combat with full wing tanks? Example, 33 gallons required for egress, so put 33 gallons in the fuselage tank. Maybe only 25 if you're really paranoid about making sure you get to combat with absolutely nothing in fuselage tank. A slider lets you do this.

 

Technically the questions "how can I take more" and "how can I take less" lead to the same answer if you're 100% accurate. Whether or not you want to be realistic about it and how you handle risks are different questions, and I don't think the fuel tank system you're asking for is going to change mentality.

 

In any case I think having control over load outs is a good option for servers and even single missions.