Complex engine management

[JG4_Helofly]

In various threads, complex engine management has been mentionned. I want to discuss this topic in this thread in more detail.

From what we know, the engine will be more complex in COD. The question is: how complex. And how will it affect gameplay.
I recently tried the A2A spitfire and I am impressed. After so many years with IL2, engine management wasn't a big issue. Only now I see how important it is.
I remember reading pilot storys in which they described that the airplane needed constant attention from take-off to the landing. They had to fully concentrate to fly these warbirds, let alone the fighting. I now understand why...

COD will probably not reach the level of detail of A2A simulations (we already know that there wont be a realistic start up procedure), but what can we expect? And how will it change the gameplay?

And of course: What do you think about it? Do we need a high level of complexity in this area?

[Feathered_IV]

I was never one to care for the full start up proceedure, but I've always found the Il-2 series method of "press 'I' to win" in-flight management to be very unrewarding. The current management system in Rise of Flight is very good from a tactical point of view. You can sucker an opponent into over revving or cooling their engine to the point where it seizes on them. I'd like to see something like that in CoD.

[Chivas]

I would much prefer a simple start up procedure that included switching fuel cocks, magnetos, fuel pump, and start button, but it appears the developers aren't interested. Hopefully a third party will be able to add some of these features.

[4H_V-man]

I understand that some aren't interested in engine management, but like Feathered said, in RoF engine management can win or lose a fight. I've over-revved more than one SE5 in a fight and had to force-land when I started with the upper hand.

As long as it is an option for those who don't want it, I feel that the more realistic the better. I wouldn't mind a full start up procedure (these aren't modern jets after all), the necessity to manage fuel tanks through valve selection, mixture where applicable, etc.

One thing that always kind of irked me in Il-2 was the fact that as long as you kept the coolant or cylinder head temps in the green, the oil temps could peg and you still didn't get an over-heat message. The Hellcat is one example. In real life you had to manage cowl flaps for cylinder temps as well as the oil cooler air inlet. Unfortunately, only the cowl flaps were modeled.

[Royraiden]

As realistic as it could be.That would add a lot to the immersion.

[ElAurens]

As far as in flight goes I'm fine with complex procedures. Fully realistic start and run ups though simply eat up too much valuable time, at least online and for myself and my friend's tastes. We are all adults, have jobs and real world responsibilities, and our time is precious. So we would rather get to the reason we have the sim, to "fly" and fight.

15 to 20 minutes start and warm-up/runups just are not going to fly for most folks that I know.

I realize that the off line crowd will want the whole thing, and that is fine, but the "realistic start up" must be an option, not forced on the entire community.

[Royraiden]

To be fair if it got implemented , it should be as an option.Totally agree with the guy above.

[JG4_Helofly]

Of course it would have to be an option. Everyone has different ideas of how a combat flight sim should be programmed. It goes from hardcore simulation fans, to fast action arcade flyers.

About lenghty start up procedures: Warbirds aren't modern jetfighters. There aren't 1000 subsytems to worry about. I looked at the procedures for the spit I. If the engine is already warm (ready for scramble) you only have to use about 6 switches and some prime strokes. So, ready to go in under 60 sec.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

Of course it would have to be an option. Everyone has different ideas of how a combat flight sim should be programmed. It goes from hardcore simulation fans, to fast action arcade flyers.

About lenghty start up procedures: Warbirds aren't modern jetfighters. There aren't 1000 subsytems to worry about. I looked at the procedures for the spit I. If the engine is already warm (ready for scramble) you only have to use about 6 switches and some prime strokes. So, ready to go in under 60 sec.

I agree totally. One thing I liked about BOB WOV is the quick and easy start up procedure clicking on the dual fuel pumps, and magnetos, priming the fuel pump seven times before hitting the start button. After attacking some bombers on one mission, I landed at Manston to quickly rearm to get back up at them. I taxied to the hanger area shut down the fuel cocks, and magnetos, rearmed, and just as I was about to start the engine, Manston was attacked by some Ju87's and 109's. I quickly flicked on the fuel cocks, and magnetos, primed the pump, but in my panic to get airborne I never primed the fuel pump enough and the engine wouldn't start. There was nothing worse than watching the prop and engine turn over, but not firing up. It was very immersive and an option that more than a few of us might enjoy.

[Sutts]

I'd like to see it as true to life as possible with switches for those who don't.

It would be great to be able to see realistic power/temp/consumption behaviour when operating with rich and lean mixtures.

I've also never been able to over-rev the prop in Il2 which was a dangerous situation in the real aircraft.

Also seeing engine problems develop from over and under boost and operating over and under the recommended temps/pressures would be a great step forward.

If the devs can make it operate as closely as possible to the numbers in the flight manual then I'll be a very happy guy.