Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Schutze]

Indeed, the problem root is map scaling, not FM. 90% of maps are not 1:1 scale but usually half sized over the ground and over seas even worse, so what is the point of having a realistic fuel capability and consumption if everything is 2 times closer than reality? none at all.

Who is willing to spend 12 hours missions for 2 minutes of action? No one! We have too much to do as to waste 12 hours of GAME without action while RL takes most of your gaming time, and this is without considering that we usually play more than 1 game. Surely this takes away the fuel stress factor, but you can't have everything.

So better do as usual: calculate the factor "game distance in map "x" against real distance", then use that factor to divide 100% fuel by that amount and then take that as max fuel. Do the same with all planes (friendlies and foes) in the mission. This will approximate the "fuel stress" factor close enough.

No mod can adjust your fuel to unconsistent map scaling and get a "realistic" fuel capacity for that map: as said, not only scaling is not consistent between maps, but inside the VERY SAME map, distances could be 1:2 in some parts and 1:100 in some others..

Welll true but then again only certain maps are used on realistical servers. With pre-set planes, ammo, etc.

Obviously there is no need to use it on freemode server. And fuel doesnt make impact on the gametime since time acceleration is turned off  on online servers so the distance need to be crossed anyway with extra fuel tank.

Did some testing...full realism on. BF-109 G6. Cruise speed, prop pitch auto.

10% Calais-Canterbury one way trip
30% Calais-London-Gloucester one way trip
50% Calais-London-Calais (16vs16 air battle over london)

Seems that 10-30% fuel - planes will never make it back. So it was just for range testing.
Close to historical accuracy is 40-50% fuel (i used 50% as buffer). That means 50-60% ingame extra fuel is ridiculous ammount.

Again each plane has different range and used only on certain maps obviously it doesnt make sense to use it in pacific theatre. In european theatre it takes 10 minutes to cross a channel no biggie.

[CWMV]

But which map are you using?
For that matter which servers use the 352nd cross channel map that IS 1:1?
Most use the (excellent) Cannon maps but they are only around 60-70% scale.

Simple solution: figure out the scale of the map, and set fuel accordingly.

[US_GRANT]

Personally, I would rather a mod that allows you to select fuel tanks to use. As most are aware, the P-51 pilots used the fuselage tank first to change the CG and give them better stability and maneuverabilty later in the flight when they were likely to encounter action. Also, pilots would be able to select external tanks to use first and then deselct them before getting rid of them, switching to internal fuel. Right now that is all automatic in the game, but was not the case historically.

[max_thehitman]

The longest I've gone in game was about 5 hours from take off to landing on the western europe 1944 map
That was in a P-51 with drop tanks and I had plenty of fuel left. About 3 hours if the accounts about those 8 hour shuttle missions are correct.

You flew in the IL-2 game on a 5 hour mission??  ???
Damn , that is what I call "Really Loving the Game" 
I would never have that sort of time available on my hands

[ANDYTOTHED]

I used the speed 32x mod to get around to the action and then back home. killed me two Fw-190s too.

[Kopfdorfer]

Hey Guys,

              I just wanted to chime in here as it is a subject that I have considered before - and made a request about - though it was buried in a "several coding changes for consideration" type post.
It's really simple. I shouldn't involve changeing any existing code,  just adding the following.
For all non-1:1 scale maps , a simple subprogram could be made to increase fuel consumption according to the scale of the map.
For example a map scaled at 1:2 (50%) the fuel consumption would be increased to 2x the normal rate.
For a map scaled at 2:3 (67%) the fuel consumption rate would be at 3/2 or 1.5x the normal rate.
For  a map scaled at 3:4 (75%) the fuel consumption would be at 4:3 or 1.25x the normal rate.
Etc Etc.
The reason I feel this is a really important consideration is that it raises the value of those aircraft whose consumption rate made them more significant.
A couple of obvious ones are the A6M2, the FW200 and the P51.
And the good news is, for those who do not like realistic full length missions over long distances ,
they can fly those great maps that are scaled by necessity in a doable length of realtime.
The only difference is you would really have to keep and eye on that gas guage.


I really hope someone that knows how to code considers doing this.
It would seem a very basic type of coding mod.
It would require map makers to include the scale of the map in their install , and ideally on the map itself.

kopfdorfer

[Verhängnis]

It's annoying when people say that these sort of changes should be relatively simple... but anyway, on that, if there is a way where the mod could Identify a new classfile that lists map types or mod maps and if present, and when used, given the dimensions of the map it should tap into maybe Engine main class and double/triple/1.5 fuel consumption formula based on the given dimensions of maps that are within ranges of values.

[Kopfdorfer]

Verhangis,

              I don't mean to be flip with the "relatively simple" comment.
              And no I couldn't hope to write a line of code if my life depended on it.
              What I meant was that it wouldn't affect the complexities of either FM or DM (or at least to my simple mind I can't
              see how it would) -  it would be an addition that shouldn't change any other aspects of the game engine other
              than a mathematical change in how fast fuel is consumed based on a map scale size and a formula that would
              affect all aircraft operating on a given map .
              All the existant aircraft fuel consumption rates would stay the same relative to each other.
              It would have no graphic or sound component.

              My intent is not annoying the people who can do what I can't , but perhaps to nudge someone towards some
              aspect of the sim that they might not have considered or tackled otherwise.
 
              I've said it before - thought is all I have to offer here.

              The last thing I would say is that in such a case as the "impossible request" perhaps a layman's explanation of "why"
              an idea wouldn't work would help educate those of us who don't know the why and why not certain things can or
              cannot be done.

              The long term "education" of those mod users like me who know jack about computers and code might lower the
              angst caused by well meant ideas and suggestions.


              Sorry to annoy you.

              Kopfdorfer

[SAS~Malone]

this whole fuel consumption issue has been bandied about since modding started.
believe me, it's not something we haven't thought about.
simple truth is - it iis in no way a simple mod, adding one or two lines of code. not at all.
there are so many inter-dependencies in this game, that it really would require a massive, and i mean massive, rework of the entire game code, just to make those 'one or two extra lines' work.
and that is why it hasn't been done yet, and i'm sorry to say, at this point it is unlikely that it will.
hence guys offering alternative workarounds and a bit of creative thinking to reproduce accurate fuel consumption.

[Kopfdorfer]

Okay Malone,

                  I'll jump in here at the risk of ticking you guys off - which is not what I am about. I want to understand as far as my intelligence will allow - though admittedly that could be in short order.

                  When you say "there are so many interdependecies" , this is the kind of statement where some further info might help alleviate people like me who don't know , asking questions that tend to irritate you people who do know . Might help.
Some of us are just irritating. Most of us don't intend to be.

                   I am not asking for a post secondary education in programming - which is certainly beyond my range of mental aquisition, but I would really appreciate a response a bit deeper than "this is a bit annoying" and "so many interdependencies".

I know everyone does this on their spare time, and most might not have the patience or interest to go where I am suggesting , but a little more info might evolve into less unintelligent or less annoying questions (by people like me who are just interested and would like to contribute) , or more realistic ideas to throw around.

The current question under discussion is a good example  - again it SEEMS to me - because it looks (on the surface) like this particular coding is or could or maybe ought to be a bit isolated from many of the "complexities" of coding that are included in this simulation , and therefore simpler than many.


It doesn't change aerodynamics , or aerial ballistics , or changes on consumption based on altitude , or flight model ,.
All it would do is take the numer "R" that IL2 calculates as consumption for aircraft Type"x" and multiplies it (albeit constantly, or more likely again and again at intervals) x the map scale multiplier , let's call it "M".
Clearly this would be simplified (less multipliers)  if maps were restricted to certain overscales such as 1:1 (no changes),2:1, 3:2 , 4:3 etc. (with corresponding multipliers of 2x, 1.5x , 1.25x).

Please bear with me if you would , or lock the thread if you feel the need, and tell me to knock it off.

(To my reasoning) What relates to fuel consumption that is complicated ought not to be affected by a multiplier based on map scale.  If this is not so , what is making it more complicated?
It would seem to me that the multiplier need only take the rate that the IL2 engine is (already ) calculating based on all the complicated data - aircraft/altitude/throttle setting/air temperature/pilot experience (which by the way I'll bet IL2 does NOT include in the calculation, though it should) etc etc and multiply it again by the "Map Scale Rate".

Okay . I've repeated myself I guess, except to ask for a bit more info - I guess it would have been less painless just to ask that. Sorry.

End runoffatthemouth.
Kopfdorfer