Modelling engine wear and WEP limitations

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Some thoughts carried over from this thread:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=21632&page=6

Modelling max. output limitations perhaps could be solved with a 'soft limit' programming. For example you could fly with max throttle as long as you'd want (until the engine temperature limits are observed). But you'd carry over wear on the engine, and at an accelerated rate.

Using overboost doesn't really put much wear on the engine (at least on the Merlin), however, running it with gauges into the "red" does, so track the time that the engine is run in the "red" and engine failure probability should increase disproportionately over time for abused engines.

[Liz Lemon]

Have you looked at how this game is modelling engine? Physical wear is already there.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Liz Lemon

Have you looked at how this game is modelling engine? Physical wear is already there.

I am aware it was promised. I speak of multiplayer, where some may be concerned about players running WEP all the time.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Janes USNF had a similar arrangement for campaigns. Where the carrier had it complement of aircraft. After a mission each aircraft was presented with a list of damage/work that needed done.

You had limited maintenance resources that you had to allocate to fix up the problems. Sometimes you had to take out the less capable aircraft so that the good ones could be used in more important missions later.

Every so often new aircraft were brought added.

Ordinance also had to be managed in case you ran out special purpose weapons like LGB for pin point targets.

Now with the scripting language used in the COD mission builder I wonder if you can write information to a file, so that it can be read for subsequent missions?

Cheers

[Crumpp]

Using overboost doesn't really put much wear on the engine

It certainly does Seadog.

Ask any mechanic, if you want to save the engine, pull the throttle back......

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It certainly does Seadog.

Ask any mechanic, if you want to save the engine, pull the throttle back......

see:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...3&postcount=71

During the BofB RAFFC lost about 1000 Hurricanes and Spitfires from 10 July to 30 October 1940. The average fighter didn't last long enough for engine wear to become a major factor, even if 12lb boost caused major wear, and it didn't. These aircraft were expended at a furious pace and engine wear due to 12lb boost was a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things and I would suspect, that statistically speaking, pilots who "pulled the plug" were more likely to bring their aircraft home than ones who didn't simply because "pulling the plug" denotes situational awareness and the average pilot shot down, never sees his attacker.

[Crumpp]

engine wear

What you don't seem to understand is that engine is overloaded just as FC says. That means it can fail.

If it does not fail the first time, it's life is dramatically shortened in comparison to just running the engine at its rated maximum continuous power of +7lbs.

That is why FC dictates the engine is dead-lined, the use of +12lbs entered into the maintenance logs, and the engine must be inspected by a mechanic before it can be returned to service.

If your engine fails in an airplane, their is no re-fly button. It is the pilot life on the line and he only has ONE.

In accidents resulting from engine failure in flight, if the pilot deviated from published operating standards for the engine, it is a factor in the engine failure in EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT of the engine failures recorded by the FAA.

Let that sink in for a moment.