Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[bomath]

robtek, you fail to see the point: yes, it's almost unreal that Oleg and his crew put all the effort to model CEM. But the big let-down is that you can't simply fly most of the planes without fiddling waaay to much, while online.
More than 90% of the online servers require CEM; there should have been the users' option if they want it or not; give me an OK-ish automanagement and I'll be happy to join in. If you want to personally manage the engine, great; but I don't want, yet I'm forced to.

With optional automanagement, the game would still compute the inner workings.

[Blackdog_kt]

I think when people say CEM in BoB, they don't mean complex starting procedures and engine warm up. What they mean is correct use of throttle, pitch and mixture combinations.

I would like to see this modeled as well and Oleg's latest answers somewhat confirm that they've planned something like this, probably according to aircraft manuals of the time.

Of course, some people would not like this. Well, the solution is simple. It should be a realism setting just like black outs, realistic gunnery and so on. Maybe have more than an on/off option, say something like no CEM, simple (AI aided) CEM and full complex CEM.

However, in an online game it wouldn't make sense to allow an on-the-fly switch between CEM modes. It should be a realism setting that's enforced by the server. Why? Well, for the reason robtek mentioned. If i go online and fly an aircraft with an automatic system, i obviously want an aircraft with an advantage in engine management and trade something else for it. If i want good maneuverability i'll fly a Spitfire, if i want to have carefree engine handling i'll fly a 109.

It would make absolutely no sense to allow multiple CEM realism settings in the same server environment, as this obviously becomes an advantage for those using AI assisted CEM and also forces everyone else to use it too. In a high/full real server and such a server's admin and player population these things obviously matter.

Imagine for example flying in a locked cockpit server. Does it make sense to allow people to choose if they want to enable external views with the same ease they can switch the speedbar between metric and imperial units? Of course it doesn't, because then even those who wanted to fly a cockpit-only map would be forced to use externals to make up for the other player's advantage.

Make it a setting in the realism panel and there will be servers that run with simplified CEM and complex CEM, so everyone can take their pick. If however people who want to fly with complex CEM are forced to compete with people who want simplified CEM, then they will be rightfully annoyed that someone is essentially dragging their intended realism settings down.

[robtek]

@bomath
i can only agree to the post from blackdog_kt.
I think it is you who misses the point.
Obviously the majority of online players want cem on or it would be turned off by the server providers.
So if you want to compete on a level you also have to use it on a server where most of the people want it.
Just see it as a challenge. In a football game they also don´t change the rules just because someone complains.

[bomath]

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...5641027835/p/1

Yeah, the Zoo can have useful info too. But the problem is that whitin a game/sim you don't get any feedback about how you set up your engine; the classic example is propeller pitch, which *sounds* like the engine is running suboptimal while in fact you get more power. It's simply weird to have memorized pages and pages of technical sheets just to be able to fly effectively; where's the much-appreciated „flying by the seat of your pants”?
One more example: radiator settings. It's counterintuitive to have higher temps with the cowls open (because you don't get the same speed, mainly). How can a game simulate that?

You know, the term „overmodelled” can have an equivalent: over-simulated. It aplies when one game simulates the feature X while it can't give a sensible feedback on that X setting...

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by bomath

the classic example is propeller pitch, which *sounds* like the engine is running suboptimal while in fact you get more power. It's simply weird to have memorized pages and pages of technical sheets just to be able to fly effectively;

In real life you got most available engine power at maximum boost + maximum rpm (which is 100/110% boost and 100% rpm in game).

See this diagram: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin3curve.jpg

It shows that maximum power for Merlin III (blue line), which is achieved at 3000 rpm (maximum allowed rpm for that engine) and 6 1/4 lbs (maximum boost for 87 octane fuel) or 12 lbs (maximum boost for 100 octane fuel) respectively.

So every setting below 100/110% boost and 100% pitch gives you less engine power in real life.

The "only reason" to reduce engine rpm is "to treat the engine with care"; 100/110% boost and 100% pitch is only allowed for 5 minutes in real life.

[Oktoberfest]

Do that with the Me 110, and your engine will burn within 15 seconds....

[JG53Frankyboy]

Originally Posted by Oktoberfest

Do that with the Me 110, and your engine will burn within 15 seconds....

just because the manual systems of the DaimlerBenz engines (where you control the propellerbladeangle direclty) and the system of a ContantSpeedPropeller (where you control the engine rpm, the propellerbladeangle is actually controlled automaticly) both are naming "this" thing pitch.................................

[JG53Frankyboy]

Originally Posted by robtek

@nearmiss
As more complex as better -> it trains the situational awareness when you have to fight
and to control all aspects of the plane.
Then you can profit from the automatic systems the german planes had and the allied didn´t, like the automatic prop pitch in the 109 ....................................

im still ooking forward what kind of propellersystem MAddox will programm in SoW:BoB
->

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Oktoberfest

Do that with the Me 110, and your engine will burn within 15 seconds....

I had the Merlin III in mind, sorry for the confusion.

In DB60x its the same rule: Max Power is at max permissable RPM and Boost. The only thing is that in DB60x the pilot has to control the prop angle himself (in manual mode) to keep the max permissable RPM.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy

im still ooking forward what kind of propellersystem MAddox will programm in SoW:BoB

That's one of the main questions for both "sides".

Maybe we have to choose between 2-pitch (Hurri, Spit) and manual variable pitch (Bf 109, Bf 110) ... disputable which one is better.

2-pitch allows easy flying without much thinking about engine RPM (except for power dive) but you will have suboptimal power output while climbing or in combat. (The "fine" setting was only allowed for take-off and landing, not for climbing or fighting)

Manual variable pitch requires constantly attention on the engine rpm and adjusting the propeller pitch, but when set properly gives you optimal power in any situation. If set wrong you get suboptimal power in the best case, but in the worst case it kills your engine in a few seconds.

Or we have constant speed for Hurricane and Spitfire and automatic for Bf 109 and Bf 110, then not much will change to the current situation. Propaby damage from overloading the engine with high boost and low rpm with the constant speed unit.