Engine cooling question

[Blackdog_kt]

Interestingly enough BadAim, what you say is one of the things FSX does well, despite its other shortcomings (apparently there's some funkiness in the FMs, especially in helicopters).

The default aircraft are usually sparse, but even if you download a freeware add-on that doesn't have the ingame checklists, you can add them yourself. All it takes is typing up a .txt or .html file, name it under the convention recognised by the sim and drop it in the aircraft's folder and you have ingame checklists.
On payware add-ons it goes way beyond that. There are pop-up panels that not only give you checklists, but in some cases include commands for hard to reach switches, permit you to interract with the crew in bigger aircraft and so on. Take a look at some videos of the A2A simulations B17 and you'll know what i mean.

Generally speaking if the sim has html/txt/xml compatibility, people can create all sorts of interesting documentation and interface options on their own.

Yeah, i guess we did get derailed, but it's for a good cause (or because we're so keen on talking flight sims). So, back to cooling.

[IceFire]

Thanks for the answers and discussion all

(Keep going if you'd like)

I find lowering the throttle a bit usually resolves most overheat issues and I try to manage the rest of the issues that poses tactically. I'd love some more complexity and detail in the engine modeling system but I'm not sure how much more I want to handle up front. I do like being able to jump from warbird to warbird without too much trouble. I love the simulation aspects and the realism but sometimes there can be a bit too much realism. This isn't my job... it's supposed to be a fun thing to do

But that all said... options are brilliant so settings can be what they need to be. I like the level of complexity we're currently at but I'd love to see more complex modeling behind the scenes if that would have an impact on the game.

[AndyJWest]

I do like being able to jump from warbird to warbird

Yes, this is one of the problems with 'ultra-realistic' engine modelling. Learning how to get the best of a complex aircraft in a dogfight situation takes more time than many of us can realistically spare, unless we want to dedicate ourselves to one type. Flying in the Ubizoo Saturday coops, TeamSpeak conversations like this are a regular ocurrence:

'My gear won't retract!'

'It's an I-16 - it 's manual...'

'Where's the fuel gauge?'

'Should I have brought bombs?'

'Did anyone read the brief?'

Probably the most precise depiction of the realities of aerial warfare you will ever see...

Well, perhaps not, but entertaining - we do this for fun, remember...

[Blackdog_kt]

I think it's not that hard to jump from one AC to the next once you know how a piston engine works.
The learning curve is all about understanding what control affects what. After that, it's simply a case of following these guidelines in every aircraft you fly.

I'm not sure if i'd be able to 100% cope with it in a combat scenario, but as Icefire says i want to see it just because it has the potential to radically change the way people fly and fight online. It would make a lot of encounters more realistic and closer to what we read in the history books for one.

The hard part here is documentation. I don't know if the developers will take the time required to come up with a guide for each aircraft or even provide a general primer, in printed or pdf form in the manual. It's a possibility that we'll have to go all trial and error on it.

Never the less, we could just use manuals from other simulators, if the modelling is correct they will work just fine. If anyone wants to understand more about it, i suggest downloading and browsing through the accusim manuals by A2A simulations (i think the manuals can be downloaded for free from their website). They are the same guys who made BoB:wings of victory and they have a few very high quality warbird add-ons for FSX. Taking a glimpse through the P47 and the B17 manuals would clear up a lot of things.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

It would make a lot of encounters more realistic and closer to what we read in the history books for one.

History is bunk

Henry Ford

Really, what we read in books, is what the survivor remembers at best, it's not that realistic most of the time.

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't entirely disagree with that, but don't entirely agree either. What i mean when i say realistic is having the game mechanics to force inconclusive sorties or even engagements.

For example, how many times have we heard of two big flights engaging and at the end of the fight there's only a few losses on each side? Or a leader-wingman pair surprising a huge enemy formation, getting a couple of kills and managing to escape? This is all because of the complexity of flying a real aircraft, you could get surprised and have no time to react properly or both sides could be cautius and the engagement ends in a draw.
Currently, in most flight sims it's a case of "flight A wipes out flight B", because it doesn't cost that much to be careless.

After 10 years we know exactly how each plane performs when damaged. That's why we see smoking aircraft keep turning in furballs, racking up a few more kills and going home at full throttle. Advanced engine modelling will inject enough parameters to make everyone uncertain (even when there's no damage to the aircraft the pilot can damage it himself), the careless pilot's chances of returning to base will be much lower than those of a pilot who plans ahead. It's already like that to an extent but it mostly includes SA and maneuvering. It could be expanded to include "take care of your ride, or ditch in the sea" as well

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

For example, how many times have we heard of two big flights engaging and at the end of the fight there's only a few losses on each side? Or a leader-wingman pair surprising a huge enemy formation, getting a couple of kills and managing to escape? This is all because of the complexity of flying a real aircraft, you could get surprised and have no time to react properly or both sides could be cautius and the engagement ends in a draw.
Currently, in most flight sims it's a case of "flight A wipes out flight B", because it doesn't cost that much to be careless.

Yeah, that is right. However, it's always going to be that way in a game, because people keep fighting when they're losing, because they're not going to really die.

I suspect that the "90% never saw the plane that shot them" statistic means that it's actually impossible to shoot down a plane that is manouvering against a particular aircraft by that aircraft unless the pilot makes a mistake.

[KnightFandragon]

Sooo, opening the Radiator doesnt help with cooling and just slows the plane down? Dang I guess that explains alot of why my P47D cant catch ME109 E7 1940s.........and why my F4U1C cant either haha. I always open my radiator in order to keep the engine cooled so I can run 110% longer. If it makes no damn difference I guess I should just leave it closed hahah

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

Sooo, opening the Radiator doesnt help with cooling and just slows the plane down? Dang I guess that explains alot of why my P47D cant catch ME109 E7 1940s.........and why my F4U1C cant either haha. I always open my radiator in order to keep the engine cooled so I can run 110% longer. If it makes no damn difference I guess I should just leave it closed hahah

There isnt that much difference! Max 20kmph TAS out of the TOP speed - you will barely notice it. P47 and Corsair dont have a too awesome power to weight ratio, let them speed up, but once you're there, not many of your typical opponents that is not a jet will even dream of catching you.