PDA

View Full Version : Some thoughts on Spitfire overheat in TF4.00



camber
Dec-09-2013, 22:16
TF (er, Buzzsaw?) has probably already figured out how to incorporate Spitfire overheat changes in TF4.01 and has moved on....but anyway:

I am a huge fan of TF mods. Thank you, especially for visibility fix + zoom, which increase immersion a huge amount. I fly Spits almost exclusively but I don't actually consider that ATAG server balance would really benefit from better Spits, (I rarely survive long in a 109)

However, I have some background in coding process simulations including temp effects and I was thinking about how CloD models overheat.

I think that using overheat as the limiting factor for Spitfire boost use in typical flight regimes (i.e not climbing at 120mph IAS) is likely not historically correct because of the rapid way temp changes occur...I have not come across any historical material (anecdotal or data) that suggests that the typical limiting factor in Spitfire 100 oct overboost was short term damaging overheats...more like reducing the motor life to 10's of hours due to a combination of higher stable temps and other factors related to greater manifold pressure/power generation, (which of course was a large problem in the actual battle).

The trouble with penalising overboost in the sim with overheat is the time dynamics of the sim temp rise..... Currently the sim Spit tends to sit at around 110'C over quite a wide range (on the performance side) of rad flap settings, IAS and boost. Cross a threshold (say by going +12psi) and temp very rapidly rises to 120'C and blows the radiator.

So if you change the heat dissipating ability of the Spit radiator in TF4.01 (say by increasing whatever constants control this in CloD code), the penalty for say selecting +12psi 3000rpm will change in a binary way from:

* engine failure within seconds/minutes due to overtemp
* no engine failure in Clod terms at all (you get new engine every sortie so who cares if engine life is 10h?)

The latter appears to be more historical but changing it increases Spit performance..which I don't consider current ATAG multiplayer TF4.00 is really screaming out for (as opposed to some previous retail patches, which were diabolical for red )

So I have mixed feelings about fixing it but would argue for historical (as I see it). Unless there is actual historical thermal data to work with that contradicts this, I would suggest Spits should be able to sustain combat climbs at +12psi 3000rpm say at 140mph IAS (as long as the supercharger can deliver it) without damaging overheat. I would love some penalty for people spending a whole sortie under such conditions (continually increasing probability of random engine failure?) but I don't want to nitpick the sim in current condition, which is fantastic.

Cheers, FS~camber

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Dec-09-2013, 23:11
Salute

I have already considered going down an overheat modelling route you are suggesting, and rejected it.

This post is also a good time to mention my overall philosophy towards modelling overheat in the Sim.

In the real life situation the real Battle of Britain pilots faced, the possibility of an engine failure due to mismanagement of cooling systems demanded their attention to a far greater degree than it would of one of us sitting in front of a computer screen in our jammies. When you are faced with the possibility of an engine failure during landing, or at a critical point in combat, with the result being your own death, you are far more likely to be careful with the management of your engine.

In addition, unlike the situation in the game, whereby a pilot takes off in what is to all intents and purposes, a brand new aircraft every time he flys, for the real pilots, they were most often faced with managing engines which already had many hours of use. Unless they were Werner Molders or Adolf Galland, they weren't assigned their own aircraft. An ordinary pilot would not have the same aircraft every mission, and he wouldn't know if the engine in it had 20 or 200 hours, whether it had just come off the factory line, or was almost ready for a major overhaul.

We could introduce random engine failure into the game, that parameter does exist in the game and could be implemented. And we could randomly assign players newly spawned aircraft with a random number of hours on those aircraft, with the obviously corollary that if you had bad luck and got a lemon, you would have less horsepower to work with, and you'd have to baby it or it would fail. However, I suspect many players would be very unhappy to discover their engine suddenly beginning to grind ominously just as they were about to perform a perfect bounce on an enemy aircraft, thereby setting them up for a quick death through no fault of their own.

Conversely, if you got a brand new aircraft, with a brand new engine, you could rev the P*ss out of it and probably get away with it.

We don't have that system.

Right now we have players taking off with a brand new aircraft and a brand new engine, but an overheat system which makes them fly as if they really had to be concerned with their own safety.

Because the fact is, if players knew they had a brand new engine and aircraft, and thought they could get away with abusing it, there is no doubt the great majority would run full throttle and rpm constantly without any concern for the unrealism of that behaviour. So I have modelled a system based on the concept of an average level of wear, and forced pilots to take that into consideration when flying. I think that approach provides more of a challenge to the players and allows them to better understand the considerations the real pilots had to take into account.

Cheers Buzzsaw :salute:

AKA_Knutsac
Dec-09-2013, 23:27
Don't know about the guts of the software so trust TF to make the best of it, but I do like the idea of random malfuntions. And yes it is a bitch to close for a kill and have the engine shit the bed. I once chased a Ju-88 in a Spit I for a looonnngggg way and as I was getting close, bam, shaking plane and oil on the windscreen. Temps were good but I guess I pushed it too hard for too long. How about a random engine failure on takeoff or landing...that would be exciting. I wonder how this feature would effect online behaviour?

~S~

AKA Knutsac

camber
Dec-10-2013, 00:59
Thanks for reply Buzzsaw


Salute

I have already considered going down an overheat modelling route you are suggesting, and rejected it.

This post is also a good time to mention my overall philosophy towards modelling overheat in the Sim.

In the real life situation the real Battle of Britain pilots faced, the possibility of an engine failure due to mismanagement of cooling systems demanded their attention to a far greater degree than it would of one of us sitting in front of a computer screen in our jammies. When you are faced with the possibility of an engine failure during landing, or at a critical point in combat, with the result being your own death, you are far more likely to be careful with the management of your engine.



Well actually I support this philosophy....it is very appropriate to make engine monitoring critical. If I understand in effect all Spitfires have sub-pristine cooling, thus altering aspects of the Sim which can never be historical (flying in office chair/jammies, new plane everytime, every new plane identical) and tweaking to compensate closer to historical reality. This seems sensible to me.

Thinking about this before I thought the best solution (if possible) would be to turn on random failures whenever overboost was used, that way you could stay totally safe but at lower performance. But I think you are right, random failures in any context will be unpopular.

However calibrating the cooling the way you describe is somewhat equivalent and has the virtue of being simple and predictable. I think just tweaking to make say 2800rpm or 3000rpm +6psi safe for climbing from low down might improve things (currently +6psi 2600 rpm is engine safe for climbing for me)

Cheers, FS~camber

Roblex
Dec-10-2013, 01:51
I stumbled across something last week that has some relevance here. On page 18 of the following book extract here (http://goo.gl/1qEaPw), a pilot describes accidentally flying almost his whole sortie with BCO engaged and the only ill effect was that he ran out of fuel very quickly. This a scramble to 25,000ft with BCO engaged from the beginning then a long stern chase.

Perhaps it would be better to not toast the engine after 5 minutes unhistorically but greatly increase the fuel consumption?

bolox
Dec-10-2013, 03:22
Some of my thoughts on points brought up:


I wonder how this feature would effect online behaviour?
How would this affect offline behaviour? This also has to be considered. Personally I think this should be a mission builders choice for offline IF there is any change, ATM it is quite possible to script a variety of failures (random or not) and is something I use occassionally- it's a fine balance between adding a further challenge and pissing players off. Personally I think this is better handled by mission builders, but IF introduced would have to be a conf.ini/server switch choice.


This a scramble to 25,000ft with BCO engaged from the beginning then a long stern chase.

Well you can do this to a point already (certainly with Hurri)- revs are more important in overheat than boost in my experience. I've been writing/testing alot of historical SP October missions which involved battle climbs to 25k+ and atm there is almost no chance of blowing an engine once over ~15k. Infact it is actually possible to keep up with the AI in such a climb- with a degree of care!
I also find fuel consumption increases quite rapidly at high boost/revs (again revs seems to be the more important factor). Again in SP missions I often try to choose fuel levels that can leave a player with a challenge regarding fuel consumption

Overall, I can understand why people are making these suggestions, but changes must be thought out carefully

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Dec-10-2013, 03:54
This a scramble to 25,000ft with BCO engaged from the beginning then a long stern chase.

Once above Full Throttle Height, the extra boost has no effect anyways; fuel pressure continues to drop. So, the risk is only during the climb up to about 16,000ft or so. At 2500ft/minute that's around 6 minutes of risk.... only just above the 5-minute recommend anyhow. If the pilot pushes the climb rate to 3000ft/min then he will be at 16,000ft in less than 5 1/2 minutes.

If the pilot has less than 3000rpm, then there shouldn't be a great risk of overheat doing that climb, if the 3000rpm+12lb limit is 5 minutes.

ATAG_Colander
Dec-10-2013, 09:18
A note about random malfunctions...

The vanilla version randomized several parts of the planes and that was removed by TF (remember the times one spawned and the plane didn't start?).
Now imagine this is re-introduced, If we said that plane X did Y speed and some one could not replicate it because he was randomly assigned a bad engine, tons of threads would start.

The random plane differences could be re-enabled but from then on, no one would be able to say that a certain plane has X problem in the FM.

Do we want consistency or random plane issues?

Zisi
Dec-11-2013, 12:46
Random performance would be exceedingly annoying and I will tell you what would happen right now. You would rev up the engine or take off to see what kind of plane you rolled, and if it wasn't good you would respawn. I would rather match skills alone than luck of the draw or be encouraged to respawn some number of times to be on level playing ground with another plane I may possibly encounter. As for "realism", this isn't a simulation of the BoB, this is a simulation of 100 some people with hundreds+ hours of flight experience hunting each other. In essence, this is sim Werner Molders. The average life expectancy of an RAF pilot was four weeks, almost everyone up there had no idea what they were doing and were pretty much just getting slaughtered by those few pilots that had had a clue. Such a change would not add any level of realism whatsoever.


.... I fly Spits almost exclusively but I don't actually consider that ATAG server balance would really benefit from better Spits, (I rarely survive long in a 109)

....

The latter appears to be more historical but changing it increases Spit performance..which I don't consider current ATAG multiplayer TF4.00 is really screaming out for (as opposed to some previous retail patches, which were diabolical for red )


I'm usually more thoughtful than this... but your nuts, sorry. The Ia 100oct is very broken right now, the spit II is faster at all altitudes, by a lot, and is slower than the 109's by a full 15 kph at sealevel where before the patch it was only slightly slower. I would defer to Buzzsaw's judgement on any historical debates on performance, however I do know that performances throughout BoB were very similar, at points seeing certain spit variants outperform 109's in level speed and even climb. In many ways our handful of variant's must be a generalized interpretation covering more time and the many variants we don't have. Both sides were changing their aircraft constantly to try and get an edge. The slow speed of the Ia 100oct right now I don't think could be a fair interpretation by a long measure.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Dec-11-2013, 13:06
Random performance would be exceedingly annoying and I will tell you what would happen right now. You would rev up the engine or take off to see what kind of plane you rolled, and if it wasn't good you would respawn. I would rather match skills alone than luck of the draw or be encouraged to respawn some number of times to be on level playing ground with another plane I may possibly encounter. As for "realism", this isn't a simulation of the BoB, this is a simulation of 100 some people with hundreds+ hours of flight experience hunting each other. In essence, this is sim Werner Molders. The average life expectancy of an RAF pilot was four weeks, almost everyone up there had no idea what they were doing and were pretty much just getting slaughtered by those few pilots that had had a clue. Such a change would not add any level of realism whatsoever.

Great points all round Zisi.

This summary of yours is very important/ interesting, and the first time I've seen it expressed like this;

this isn't a simulation of the BoB, this is a simulation of 100 some people with hundreds+ hours of flight experience hunting each other. In essence, this is sim Werner Molders. The average life expectancy of an RAF pilot was four weeks, almost everyone up there had no idea what they were doing and were pretty much just getting slaughtered by those few pilots that had had a clue

:salute::thumbsup:

Kling
Dec-11-2013, 13:24
A note about random malfunctions...

The vanilla version randomized several parts of the planes and that was removed by TF (remember the times one spawned and the plane didn't start?).
Now imagine this is re-introduced, If we said that plane X did Y speed and some one could not replicate it because he was randomly assigned a bad engine, tons of threads would start.

The random plane differences could be re-enabled but from then on, no one would be able to say that a certain plane has X problem in the FM.

Do we want consistency or random plane issues?

Personally I would like random issues but maybe thats because what real life is like.

Ideally the server would remember your name when you go online and assign you your own aircraft that would lose a little bit of performance every time you use boost/wep for example or push beyond certain Gs but flightsims are not that far yet... that would make people think twice before using it :)

But surely a random +-15kph wouldnt hurt??! That would add realism. I dont think people would be able to take off and in a few secs figure out if they have a good or bad aircraft and then reland. I think a very small minority would do this. 5%?? It take a few mins to reach top speed so by the time you are there you are already far from your base.

However im not sure the community is ready for this kind of realism. After all, look at all the low alt furballs. That is how realistic people fly... :(

Zisi
Dec-11-2013, 15:23
But surely a random +-15kph wouldnt hurt??! That would add realism. I dont think people would be able to take off and in a few secs figure out if they have a good or bad aircraft and then reland. I think a very small minority would do this. 5%?? It take a few mins to reach top speed so by the time you are there you are already far from your base.
That depends on implementation and what signs there would be. For example if it could be seen in the maximum rpm or boost at full throttle, then you could just test this on the ground. 15kph difference in the spit1a100oct and the 109's is already *very* noticeable, it makes a huge difference. If both planes at current numbers fluxuated by +-15kph you could actually see a speed difference of up to 45kph, that's not realistic, not fun, and I'd rather be measured by my ability (or lack thereof).


However I'm not sure the community is ready for this kind of realism. After all, look at all the low alt furballs. That is how realistic people fly... :(
Realism or reenactment? They are two different things, Given the scenario that we have in the public server, I think thats exactly how people would fly. The only reason people were flying at 20k+ in the war is because thats where the bombers were, and shooting down/protecting bombers is the whole point of having fighters at all. Random failures happen in RL, but in a properly taken care of aircraft, rarely. In ww2 I cannot speak to the frequency of failures, however I would imagine that in a well taken care of aircraft it was also fairly uncommon. I personally have no interest in reenacting the flights of those majority pilots who got shot up or messed up their aircraft.

Reenactment is different from realism in that given your current knowledge, you intentionally do things that place you at a disadvantage for the sake of simulating what actually happened in whatever particular situation you are concerned about. If doing a thing, in the context of the online mission, places me at an advantage, then I will do it! If not then I'm not going to, because I'm not terribly interested in reenactment.


The random plane differences could be re-enabled but from then on, no one would be able to say that a certain plane has X problem in the FM.
Colander makes a good point here I had not thought of actually. Consistency is kind of necessary if we are going be able to continue talking about fm's and balance. If it's random then it becomes really hard to test and converse about.

Roblex
Dec-11-2013, 17:36
If I understand what Buzz is saying properly, excessive use of Boost etc should not actually cause an engine failure 5 minutes later but instead increase the likelihood of poor performance in later sorties and perhaps failure a few sorties after that. We cannot do that because, in effect, we throw away our stressed aircraft after each sortie then get a factory new one.

On that basis what we really need is a 'personal' record of how we treated our engine that is carried forward to the next sortie (I am talking pure pie in the sky here :D) This means that we start with out SpitIIa engine being factory fresh but after abusing it for an hour our engine is down to 80% and when we take a new SpiIIa that aircraft now has an '80%' engine that does not perform as well. At about 50% it would probably be withdrawn in real life and overhauled. First problem (ignoring coding it in the first place :D) is how to stop people just destroying their degraded plane to get a new one. Do we set a minimum flight time that they must achieve before they can get it overhauled? What if its performance is severely restricted and flying the minimum hours is not practical? Maybe you need to fly your spit somewhere far inland to fetch a new one?

Just throwing wild ideas out :-P

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Dec-11-2013, 18:00
Studies by quality control experts with both the RAF and Luftwaffe determined typical aircraft arriving from the factory could vary as much as 5% in performance. As the war went on, and with the increased use of slave labour by the Luftwaffe contractors, German aircraft engines often would produce 10% less power than book values.

Add to this the fact that, like any high performance engine in combat situations, the Daimler Benz and Rolls Royce engines which powered the fighters were subject to stresses and demands for which they were not designed, and therefore failed more often than comparable civilian types.

Sometimes combat damage which occurred in a previous mission would be overlooked or missed.

Add to this the fact the service mechanics and technicians who worked on these engines were subject to stresses and strains which mechanics in civilian life or those on the factory floor would never ecounter. During the BoB most service on aircraft was done during the night hours, meaning the technician's sleep patterns were not the best. Add to this that both side's conducted night bomb harrassment raids on each other's airfields, and those same mechanics and techs were frequently awakened by these raids, and forced to spend hours crouched in slit trenches.

Factor in this issues, (and many others endemic to wartime) and you can expect the servicing of these aircraft to often suffer, and for mistakes to be made.

A lot of pilots died simply because they were unlucky.

What we are playing is a simulation and a game. And to expect us to be able to factor in all of these real life elements is simply a pipe dream... and likely, people wouldn't be happy with them anyway, and would do everything they could to cheat and get around them. (as in crashing their worn out plane deliberately so they get a brand new one, something which in real life which would see them stripped of their wings and sent to some low end job)

This mod is an evolving one... and we do hope at some point to introduce further elements which increase the level of 'realism'.

I think the future possibility of random engine failure and pilot assigned aircraft is a good possibility for single player campaigns... that was what Oleg originally intended to do.

But all this is very much a case of theoretical right now... we have much bigger issues to deal with and bigger priorities.

I'd like to remind everybody once again, that you had a team of paid professionals who spent years and years working on this game, (was it 7 years?) but were not able to fix the issues which we, a bunch of rank amateurs working in our spare time, without the keys to the code, without any of the normal levels of access which developers take for granted, have dealt with in 1 year. How long has 777 and its extremely experienced team been working on BoS? How far have they progressed? How much longer will they take?

We very much understand your enthusiasm for implementing all kinds of new and different elements to the game... believe me, these issues have been considered and discussed for many many hours and days, but we are also the guys who are hands on, and we know how much work and time each one of these changes require. So please, be patient, and understand when we sound a note of caution.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Dec-11-2013, 18:23
Oh yeah, one other thing... :D

We guys in Team Fusion appreciate the thanks of the community and the kudos we get. :thumbsup:

But I have to say one thing again... pardon me if I sound like a broken record.

This is Oleg's game... his genius is written all over it. :respect:

What it could have been had he remained in control would have been almost unlimited... it's a tragedy of our hobby that he (left) :recon:

All we can do is fumble around with the pieces he put into place and try to re-capture his vision.

The fact we have been able to go as far as we have is a tribute to the foresight and planning he put into the structure. :salute:

56RAF_klem
Dec-11-2013, 19:32
My 2c.

Personally I think we're paying too much attention to 'what if', 'wear and tear' etc. The RAF, and I expect the LW, pilots weren't a bunch of errant schoolboys abusing their engines behind teacher's back. It was in their own interest to report use of BCO or any other 'abuses' or unusual running of the engines. Having said that there are many anecdotes in auto-biographies telling how engines were 'overused' but did not always lead to failure and some of them express surprise at just how much abuse the engines could take and still get them home. These weren't temperamental F1 engines living on the edge of tolerances and operations, they were built to do a hard job. Again, these pilots didn't go out of their way to abuse their engines, sometimes they just had to do it to stay alive. So let's leave aside the mistakes (BCO on for the entire sortie) and any idea that these pilots fooled around or didn't report issues at the risk of their own lives. They were intelligent trained young men who were fond of staying alive.

And when the engines were reported as 'abused' (which came down to a very few possibilities like overuse of BCO) or simply hadn't performed properly what happened? They would be pulled out of the line and periodic Overhaul would be brought forward if it's 'abuse' was thought bad enough to warrant it and/or if a pilot reported an apparent reduction in power or inclination to overheat or any other problem (why wouldn't he?). I'm attaching an excerpt from a Merlin maintenance manual that clearly says that the Overhaul Period would be brought forward if thought necessary (and note btw how little servicing is though necessary even after 120 hours). That is the system that was operated and I think we should accept that is what should be represented in-game, i.e. your aero-engine is on top-line every time you climb into the cockpit.

One of the unknowns we have to deal with is just how long and how badly you could run an aero-engine (RR or DB) before it failed? What evidence is there that incorrect use always led to overheating and what evidence is there that a particular temperature absolutely meant failure? As someone here indicated, pilots weren't inclined to put it to the test and I don't think we have any evidence of testing to destruction by test pilots either. Some ground tests were conducted of the Merlin indicating it could withstand a lot of 'abuse' but they weren't in the confines of an aeroplane with its limited cooling system.

The thing that occupies people's minds is that they are put in a difficult situation if their engine fails or the other guy's does not fail when our hero thinks it should. We don't like to lose. I think Buzzsaw has been trying to create a situation that eliminate's the unknowns including everlasting abuse by setting limits like temperature failure to push us into flying as we would really have done if our ar$e was really in the cockpit and didn't want it to drop out of the sky - all balanced against the other guys who want your ar$e to do just that. For every argument against 'artificial overheating to failure' or other attempt to keep it within the bounds of common sense there's someone on the other side arguing the opposite. With the limitations on 'reality' imposed by a simulation, not to mention some of the CoD quirks, we just have to accept a few anomalies, learn them and stay away from them.

I think it would be a big mistake to over-complicate the engine failure scenarios. If there are to be random effects they should be server-side settings and I think guys would vote with their feet if that was implemented on line.

ATAG_EvangelusE
Dec-11-2013, 20:14
I think it would be a big mistake to over-complicate the engine failure scenarios. If there are to be random effects they should be server-side settings and I think guys would vote with their feet if that was implemented on line.


+1

Incog
Dec-12-2013, 01:22
This thread had a lot of very interesting points being tossed around, very interesting read.

Keep it up you guys!

Roblex
Dec-12-2013, 03:17
Is there not a stronger argument for degradation of engine performance after extended BCO use rather than just blowing up (though obviously it will fail if the pilot keeps stressing it)?

Kwiatek
Dec-12-2013, 04:43
6220

Osprey
Dec-12-2013, 06:04
I completely agree with Roblex. I would be left bemused if my engine popped a hose and gave up after my allotted 5 minutes BCO @3000RPM leading to failure. At the same time I'm not so stupid and impatient that I expect a final solution overnight and in the meantime I could certainly deal with 5 mins of BCO at top whack - we should be able to 2850 rpm 12lbs climb out without a pop though (best climb in the Hurricane measured at 160mph IAS approx). IIRC this is in the manual.

Anyway, TF certainly have looked at the manual, I trust that, and hopefully in the longer term there's a solution more aligned with Roblex's suggestion of loss of performance/increasing wear.

For the record, RR tests on the Merlin III and Merlin XII engines cited 10 and 20 hours of use of BCO before overhaul respectively - that's a lot of sorties (given that you don't use BCO all the time and it only works below the FTH.

Talisman
Dec-12-2013, 10:46
We already get real life random failures and a variation of performance between us all anyway, through our differing PC set up, joysticks, monitors, resolution, distance from server and graphic cards, TIR (or not), etc, etc. So, in reality we already have faster, slower or better rigs, fps, joystick wear and tear, launcher failures, loss of connection and different ping rates, etc, built into our reliability and performance simulation experience, LOL.

I am not sure that I would consider random engine failure a 'value added' feature of a flight sim, unless it was an extremely sophisticated one that was also able to give a much more rounded quality flight sim experience than is currently possible.

After all, what next? Not being allowed to fly for 24 hours after bailing out miles from home to simulate hospitalisation and travelling back to base by road and getting a nights sleep before the next sortie? Or being grounded for 72 hours, or sent for retraining, if you are bad at landing and damage 2 otherwise serviceable aircraft on the trot on landing?

How much aggravation do we want? How much simulation do we want? The reality of 'walking the walk' as far as trying to fairly implement random engine failure is more likely to lead to people walking away IMHO.

And who is going to be the great judge of what is abuse and not? There is good evidence, including the above post from Osprey, that the Merlin engine could be used to a level far beyond the guidance in pilot notes, but what about other aircraft types. How could random aircraft failures be seen as being introduced historically and fairly on all aircraft across the board unless equivalent data was available on all engines? I can't help thinking that trying to implement random engine failure would be a step too far. Far better to use time and energy on other things me thinks.

It may be better to leave the random failure aggravation factor to our software and hardware.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Kling
Dec-12-2013, 13:00
We already get real life random failures and a variation of performance between us all anyway, through our differing PC set up, joysticks, monitors, resolution, distance from server and graphic cards, TIR (or not), etc, etc. So, in reality we already have faster, slower or better rigs, fps, joystick wear and tear, launcher failures, loss of connection and different ping rates, etc, built into our reliability and performance simulation experience, LOL.

I am not sure that I would consider random engine failure a 'value added' feature of a flight sim, unless it was an extremely sophisticated one that was also able to give a much more rounded quality flight sim experience than is currently possible.

After all, what next? Not being allowed to fly for 24 hours after bailing out miles from home to simulate hospitalisation and travelling back to base by road and getting a nights sleep before the next sortie? Or being grounded for 72 hours, or sent for retraining, if you are bad at landing and damage 2 otherwise serviceable aircraft on the trot on landing?

How much aggravation do we want? How much simulation do we want? The reality of 'walking the walk' as far as trying to fairly implement random engine failure is more likely to lead to people walking away IMHO.

And who is going to be the great judge of what is abuse and not? There is good evidence, including the above post from Osprey, that the Merlin engine could be used to a level far beyond the guidance in pilot notes, but what about other aircraft types. How could random aircraft failures be seen as being introduced historically and fairly on all aircraft across the board unless equivalent data was available on all engines? I can't help thinking that trying to implement random engine failure would be a step too far. Far better to use time and energy on other things me thinks.

It may be better to leave the random failure aggravation factor to our software and hardware.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Good post! Im not agreeing on all points but that doesnt mean i dont like the post. ;)
What I think is that only because we can replicate the real thing, doesnt mean we shouldnt try at all.

Its like the refuel/rearm function that is always widely debated in flightsims (actually in Clod its only well recieved ive noticed) where some people argue that its more realistic to take a completely new aircraft instead of refueling/rearming the one you have only because in re life refueling would take much longer than 2-3min. I dont follow the logic there as 2-3mins of RR is more realistic than no RR at all.
And here as well some randomization in engine performance is more realistic than non at all. Its all about the immersion factor if you ask me.

But of course a game developer must also walk a thin like between keeling it realistic and not losing players.
Usually one can get a very good feeling by just reading the forums.
I personally think many would object to having random engine failures,although I am for it, but im not sure many would object to have some random engine performance due to wear and tear or just a random performance for your aircraft when spawning. Maybe +-15kph is a bit much as it then could differ 30km/h between the best and the worst. But how about +-10km/h? Or +-8km/h?

Kling
Dec-12-2013, 13:14
Colander makes a good point here I had not thought of actually. Consistency is kind of necessary if we are going be able to continue talking about fm's and balance. If it's random then it becomes really hard to test and converse about.

Not sure I see the problem here. Lets assume that the Spit or 109 when shiny, waxed and polished will only reach the max speed we all read about and try to aim for. Every other plane that is not in the above state would reach reach a speed lower than this, down to say 15km/h lower.

It could be a server setting maybe to enable randomization and for anyone who doesnt believe that planes can reach the full top speed potentinal when online can try them offline and see what speed they can actually reach when given a plane in top condition.

The reason we read so many different max top speeds when searching different sources I thought was just that, different planes perform differently IRL.

Roblex
Dec-12-2013, 14:17
Personally I hate the idea of random failures, it is bad enough having random 'crash to desktop' or 'screen freeze' or 'TiR glitch' :D. Maybe I missed something but I thought Buzz only mentioned random failures as an example of something TF does not think is an acceptable solution.

What I would accept is having to RTB carefully or fly the rest of the sortie with reduced engine performance because I spent too ,long haring around at full throttle & high revs at the start of the sortie. At least then I know that I brought it on myself and can stop it getting any worse by being gentler for the rest of the flight. Maybe it is possible to give a few spots of oil or slight grinding noise as a first warning then ramp it up gradually every time the engine is stressed. One of the things CLOD still lacks is the concept of minor engine damage that can be stopped from getting any worse by careful handling; everything seems to be based on 'Too late! I have started the failure countdown and nothing you do will make a difference' When you get a punctured radiator and want to RTB the best thing you can do is go full power and gain as much alt as possible before the two minute countdown finishes and the glide starts. That is not realistic. Before I get flamed; I am not blaming TF, it is a function of the CLOD code.

SoW Reddog
Dec-13-2013, 05:38
Roblex,

Are you sure that the engine doesn't do "minor" damage though. The other night I was trying to escape a couple of 109's who objected to me vulching their comrade and using up my ammo on one of them. In the process of the 5-10 minute dogfight & chase, I thought I'd blown my engine and immediately throttled back and she carried on like a good 'un for another 5 minutes or so before I stressed her again and she finally blew oil all over my screen. In that time the engine was making the "juddery sound" which normally precipitates a blown rad and oil everywhere 2 seconds but all the time. I was slower than I thought I should be which allowed the 109's to catch up to me but still very much flyable and in control.

Maybe I was just REALLY lucky to drop the temp and pressure at the very last second before it went?

Roblex
Dec-13-2013, 06:52
Roblex,

Are you sure that the engine doesn't do "minor" damage though. The other night I was trying to escape a couple of 109's who objected to me vulching their comrade and using up my ammo on one of them. In the process of the 5-10 minute dogfight & chase, I thought I'd blown my engine and immediately throttled back and she carried on like a good 'un for another 5 minutes or so before I stressed her again and she finally blew oil all over my screen. In that time the engine was making the "juddery sound" which normally precipitates a blown rad and oil everywhere 2 seconds but all the time. I was slower than I thought I should be which allowed the 109's to catch up to me but still very much flyable and in control.

Maybe I was just REALLY lucky to drop the temp and pressure at the very last second before it went?

To be honest, I am not 100% sure there is not some minor damage code there in some circumstances but nobody who knows for certain, ie TF, have ever claimed there was. Maybe I missed them saying it amongst the thousands of posts. It would be nice to know what damage will allow you to limp home if you are careful and what damage is just 'Two minutes and you are dead' (apart from rad perforation that we already know)

ATAG_Snapper
Dec-13-2013, 08:55
Well, all I need is just another 10 mph on the deck in my Spitfire 1a 100 octane....because I know the 109 pilots won't adjust and extend a little bit more out of reach.....:devilish:

Kling
Dec-13-2013, 09:02
Well, all I need is just another 10 mph on the deck in my Spitfire 1a 100 octane....because I know the 109 pilots won't adjust and extend a little bit more out of reach.....:devilish:

;)

Well, I fly both the Spit and the 109 and I want it to be as realistic as possible, if that means the Spit1a100oct is faster on the deck, then so it shall be.. It will hurt when I fly the 109 but if thats how it was, it SHOULD hurt! ;)

ATAG_Snapper
Dec-13-2013, 09:50
;)

Well, I fly both the Spit and the 109 and I want it to be as realistic as possible, if that means the Spit1a100oct is faster on the deck, then so it shall be.. It will hurt when I fly the 109 but if thats how it was, it SHOULD hurt! ;)

Agree!

TBH, for me the extra 10 mph is not so much for dogfighting with 109's but to reduce closing speed on bombers. I find Ju88's and Do17's very fast (as I'm sure they were in real life). Many times I've been in an intercept situation where seconds count between detection and before they drop their bombloads. Plus every second I'm pursuing is an extra second that I'm vulnerable to attack from escorting 109's -- which I'm very conscious of as I'm inching closer towards the speeding twin-engine. I just want to get in, hammer my target, then get out as quickly as possible.

In the Spitfire 1a 100 octane I can squeeze 300 mph - on the deck - for a short length of time (2 minutes? I'll have to check) at 12 lbs boost, 2850 rpms (= 92% pitch), and rad set half open (ie rad = 50%). That's not too bad. If I push a little harder the Merlin blows very quickly. A steep sustained climb (2500+ fpm) requires reduced engine settings and a more open rad (3/4 open, 6.25 lbs boost, 2800 rpms); a near vertical climb requires the radiator barn doors to be fully opened as speed rapidly decreases.....which is like pulling a drogue chute in terms of energy retention. A little more robust radiator (ie better cooling) would give the Spit 1a 100 octane an appreciable amount of endurance in a knife fight.

I was caught low and fast off Boulogne last night by Keller and Dice; one flying an E1, the other an E3. They flew their tag team boom & zoom technique to perfection, refusing to get into any kind of turning match with me. The best I could do was to deny them an easy firing solution and hopefully score a lucky high-deflection shot with very short bursts of my 15 seconds of ammo. XE90 was at the French Point and coming to my aid, so if I could hold on long enough the odds would greatly improve. Unfortunately, like a noob, I forgot to open my rad from 50% (level flight) to 100% (steep climb) and burst my rad. Within a short time I had to bail out, which denied us all an even better dogfight once XE arrived. Oops. My bad.

I'm very much looking forward to 4.01. I don't foresee any great speed increase (10 mph would be great), but I'm hoping the Merlin will be a bit tougher under duress as its real life counterpart was. It'll make for more interesting scraps between us expertens and aces IMHO. :D

:)

Dutch
Dec-13-2013, 20:01
I've read this thread with great interest. It never fails to amaze me that this community has so much knowledge and experience of WWII aircraft. And engines.

I have some questions. Given that this whole thread is about overheating in the Spitfire, how come we don't have a similar thread about the 109? Or the Hurricane? Or the 110? Or the Blenheim? Or the 88? Didn't they ever overheat? Under what conditions does a 109/110 overheat? How do our LW pilots cope with this ever-present disadvantage, where their pre-occupation is in keeping their engines cool, as opposed to seeking and destroying the enemy?

How come we need a thread about 'Spitfire overheat'? And how come it seems to be going on forever, without any kind of rectification in sight, whilst people justify why it should be so?

'And it makes me wonder, sure does'. - Thankyou Robert Plant.

ATAG_Snapper
Dec-13-2013, 21:09
Spitfire FM's and CEM have always been problematic in Cliffs of Dover right from the start in March, 2011. For those of us who are avid students and aficionados of R.J. Mitchell's creation, this has been an almost unending series of frustration and disappointment pre-Team Fusion with each disastrous patch release. You and I had an inkling, Dutch, when we had a chance to peruse the dump files back then. Clearly, Oleg didn't like Spitfires. (Hopefully, YoYo over at DCS does!).

I see Team Fusion taking us down the right path to developing the Spitfire into the tough, high performance fighter that it was in its day. Not an uber fighter, but a true and accurate match for its LW counterpart, the 109 E variants. The low altitude overheating problem will be licked, I trust, in the upcoming 4.01 patch.

On a very relevant note, Catseye and I earlier today were dogfighting three 109's (probably E3's) in our Spitfire 1a 100 octanes at 28 - 29 angels. No overheat problem up there! The 109's were a bit faster, but they could not out-maneuvre us at that altitude. They had no shot opportunity on us. I did "cut the corner" at one point and squeezed off a burst, but missed. One 109 pilot abruptly left the server as Cats drew near, the other 109's disengaged and dove for home. Catseye and I owned the sky over Deal at that moment. :D

I'll be the first to admit that I've been utterly disheartened many times with Cliffs of Dover because of the non-stop problems with the Spitfires. Since reading Al Deere's Nine Lives as a nine year old lad over a half century ago, the many volumes I've read since then have all had actual BoB combat pilots extoll the rugged virtues of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. They entrusted their lives to its famed and well-deserved reputation of documented reliability. We haven't seen that as yet in Cliffs of Dover, but hopefully we will soon!

:)

varrattu
Dec-14-2013, 06:28
... how come we don't have a similar thread about the 109?

If you respect the guidelines or maybe limits of the game the 109 doesn't overheat. It's simple.

Regards Varrattu

ATAG_Snapper
Dec-14-2013, 07:25
If you respect the guidelines or maybe limits of the game the 109 doesn't overheat. It's simple.

Regards Varrattu

If you fly the 109 in this sim per its historical settings, it won't overheat. The same can NOT be said for the Spitfire 1a 100 octane. Dutch is asking why this disparity is only with the Spitfire in this sim, and no other, for such a damnably long time. It's that simple.

The solution is obviously not that simple, otherwise it would've been fixed long ago. I am confident that Team Fusion, under Buzzsaw's direction, will get every aircraft to fly as close to its historical parameters as closely as this sim will allow. Certainly in the Spitfire's case, this has been difficult and elusive objective to fulfill.

camber
Dec-17-2013, 01:33
Thanks for all replies, turned out to be a very interesting thread!


I'm usually more thoughtful than this... but your nuts, sorry. The Ia 100oct is very broken right now, the spit II is faster at all altitudes, by a lot, and is slower than the 109's by a full 15 kph at sealevel where before the patch it was only slightly slower. I would defer to Buzzsaw's judgement on any historical debates on performance, however I do know that performances throughout BoB were very similar, at points seeing certain spit variants outperform 109's in level speed and even climb. In many ways our handful of variant's must be a generalized interpretation covering more time and the many variants we don't have. Both sides were changing their aircraft constantly to try and get an edge. The slow speed of the Ia 100oct right now I don't think could be a fair interpretation by a long measure.

Well, I accept your apology for calling me nuts :)

Perhaps I was overstating but I was just trying to say that it wasn't my intention to make this a thread "please make my favourite ride better". I still find myself having fun and getting kills mixing it up with 109s in all British planes.

If I was selecting Spit and 109 performance based on historical sources, the RAF would be relatively faster than now and more robust. But I also think that historical matching can never be as totally precise as people want it to be (see long, convoluted arguments on ubi forums). I don't have a problem with small tweaking for balance once you are in the historical range but realise that's a minority view.

What I really wanted pre-TF was some sort of FM czar that had the power to set FMs in light of historical sources/ various arguments who was reasonably neutral and motivated to get it as right as practical. During the pre-TF days it always felt like that whoever had originally set FMs had long since gone and current staff were putting out fires generally just hoping not to alter things too much. Now we have that kind of arrangement and I think it is great for the sim even when I don't quite agree with every current FM setting

Cheers, FS~camber

ATAG_Torian
Dec-17-2013, 05:13
Roblex,

Are you sure that the engine doesn't do "minor" damage though. The other night I was trying to escape a couple of 109's who objected to me vulching their comrade and using up my ammo on one of them. In the process of the 5-10 minute dogfight & chase, I thought I'd blown my engine and immediately throttled back and she carried on like a good 'un for another 5 minutes or so before I stressed her again and she finally blew oil all over my screen. In that time the engine was making the "juddery sound" which normally precipitates a blown rad and oil everywhere 2 seconds but all the time. I was slower than I thought I should be which allowed the 109's to catch up to me but still very much flyable and in control.

Maybe I was just REALLY lucky to drop the temp and pressure at the very last second before it went?

If u were low over German airfields then very likely flak had hit u that u weren't aware of. I can probably count the number of times I've actually made it home relatively unscathed from a low sortie over France on the fingers of one foot. I don't know if its modelled or not but I'm wondering if bullet or flak hits to the British fighters wooden propellers is what sometimes produces the "juddery" effect from the damaged prop.
Anyone from TF know whether wooden prop damage/imbalance is modelled ? Pretty awesome if it is.

9./JG52 Ziegler
Dec-17-2013, 08:54
I'm in agreement that the overheat issue should (and is) being looked at but the extra 10mph in level flight not so much.
There are already many decided advantages(turning, climbing) and making them faster takes away some of the best defensive advantage a 109 has.

If it is really the way it was, then so be it, but I'm not convinced of this one at all.
JMO but have a look at Collander's poll (or Lucky's?) and it's still close to 80% who feel that other than the overheat issue, it's not a problem.

ATAG_Snapper
Dec-17-2013, 09:04
Team Fusion uses hard data from a wide number of archived documented sources. My understanding is that it does not use thoughts, feelings, anecdotes, or polls.

Kling
Dec-17-2013, 09:27
I'm in agreement that the overheat issue should (and is) being looked at but the extra 10mph in level flight not so much.
There are already many decided advantages(turning, climbing) and making them faster takes away some of the best defensive advantage a 109 has.

If it is really the way it was, then so be it, but I'm not convinced of this one at all.
JMO but have a look at Collander's poll (or Lucky's?) and it's still close to 80% who feel that other than the overheat issue, it's not a problem.

Well its a fact that the Spit1a100oct should be ca 10mph faster on the deck that it currently is. As much as I hate that as 50/50 109 pilot, if that was the case it should be the case.

Maybe the 109s could accelerate a bit faster in a dive but the Spit1a100oct was indeed faster in level flight than the 109 up to ca 10 000 feet.

9./JG52 Ziegler
Dec-17-2013, 12:11
If that is the case Kling/Snap, (and I hope it is, and applied across all flight models) then I have no problems with it. It just seems to me (just my opinion) that the red planes keep getting better and the blue stay the same or are taken back.

If in fact there was a disparity and the 109's were better (in game) then they should be, then that's acceptable. History is history and I agree with Snapper that facts should be the only information that counts. It would be nice to see those facts. :thumbsup:

PFT_Endy
Dec-17-2013, 12:56
It would be nice to see those facts. :thumbsup:

A lot of data is available on the internet, on both the 109 and the Spit. Both websites quoted below have lots of historical documents on them, from performance tests in form of graphs and charts to other documents, operational and combat records, reports etc. Lots of good stuff :)

109E trials and data: http://kurfurst.org/#Emil or more generally 109 http://kurfurst.org/

Spit MkI: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html

Spit and 109 comparison (though it's good to read descriptions for each graph to see exactly what is being compared in a given figure :thumbsup: ) http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html''

Other Spit models, other plane types - British, American, German, Japanese etc., performance trials, comparisons and similar things: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/

I hope this helps :)

Incog
Dec-17-2013, 14:23
A lot of data is available on the internet, on both the 109 and the Spit. Both websites quoted below have lots of historical documents on them, from performance tests in form of graphs and charts to other documents, operational and combat records, reports etc. Lots of good stuff :)

109E trials and data: http://kurfurst.org/#Emil or more generally 109 http://kurfurst.org/

Spit MkI: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html

Spit and 109 comparison (though it's good to read descriptions for each graph to see exactly what is being compared in a given figure :thumbsup: ) http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html''

Other Spit models, other plane types - British, American, German, Japanese etc., performance trials, comparisons and similar things: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/

I hope this helps :)

It seems the Spitfire is slightly better than the 109 however both planes remain quite evenly matched.

AKA_Knutsac
Dec-17-2013, 15:12
"It just seems to me (just my opinion) that the red planes keep getting better and the blue stay the same or are taken back. If in fact there was a disparity and the 109's were better (in game) then they should be, then that's acceptable."

Maybe this perception is a result of the allied planes being so poorly modeled in the beginning...there's been lots of room for improvement. Now we have what most seem to agree is a semblance of historical performance reflected in the sim for both sides. From my perspective as a Spit driver, I still have issues with the 109 climb rates (especially the 4N), but all in all, I think the allied/axis match up is great. Pilots have to fly their respective planes to their strengths and exploit the other guy's weaknesses.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Dec-17-2013, 15:48
Historical performance is ideal so long as it's applied consistently. The higher end Spit I docs show ~310 mph while the higher end 109 docs show 500 kmh, that is as close to even as you can get. Now that Spit speed is achieved at a boost setting with a 5 minute limitation but lately there seems to be an attempt to argue that wasn't really a limitation, but more of a suggestion. That if in level flight and temp was this and the wind was that and blah blah blah. I think that is what might be worrying blue pilots some. That facts are going to be skewed like we have seen in IL2 mods of past. But Buzzsaw has been very fair to date with the FM's so let's see what comes of 4.01. It amuses me that nothing has changed with these a/c for over 70 years but here we are still interpreting the data to fit our own agendas ad naseum.

Kwiatek
Dec-17-2013, 16:11
Just for remind the higher known speed for SPit MK 1 at +12 lbs at sea level is 314 mph ( 505 kph) and 359 mph (577 kph) at 11 000 ft ( 3.3 km). 109 E best known result was 500 kph at deck and 545 kph at 3.3 km. RL German report from serial production 109 E-3 with 601 A claimed 467 kph at 1.3 Ata 2400 RPMs ( 5 minutes power settings) at the deck ( 475 kph for serial E-1 at the same power settings)

56RAF_klem
Dec-17-2013, 16:35
A lot of data is available on the internet, on both the 109 and the Spit. Both websites quoted below have lots of historical documents on them, from performance tests in form of graphs and charts to other documents, operational and combat records, reports etc. Lots of good stuff :)

109E trials and data: http://kurfurst.org/#Emil or more generally 109 http://kurfurst.org/

Spit MkI: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html

Spit and 109 comparison (though it's good to read descriptions for each graph to see exactly what is being compared in a given figure :thumbsup: ) http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html''

Other Spit models, other plane types - British, American, German, Japanese etc., performance trials, comparisons and similar things: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/

I hope this helps :)

Hi PFT_Endy,

it seems that you may only just have found this info but you might like to know that this - and much more - has been available to the community and used/discussed/challenged etc for the entire period of CoD, even back in the Banana forum days when 1C were still stumbling around trying to get it right and in which they miserably failed. TF's focus is on genuine historical data.

Be assured, there is only ONE TF criteria. A solid determination to get the FMs as historically correct as possible.

"What ifs" and "maybe's" have no place here. Neither does "My Side" paranoia.

ATAG_Snapper
Dec-17-2013, 16:41
Thanks to everyone for some excellent opinion and perspectives. I'm sure we're all anxiously awaiting 4.01.