PDA

View Full Version : Complex Engine Start



Mercanario
02-03-2011, 04:14 PM
Anyone know if we going to get this? I know for a online dogfight server it wouldn't be convenient, but it would be a nice option.

mortoma
02-03-2011, 08:00 PM
Pretty sure there will be a complex start up which will be much more realistic than the IL2 procedure. But the IL2 procedure would be easy to beat of course. There will probably be a simpler start up too via a difficulty switch most likely. At least that was discussed at one time.

BOA_Allmenroder
02-04-2011, 05:43 AM
Yes there will be. The game will ship with a USB connected hand crank so that when you fly the Me 109 you have to have an additional player sit next to your pc cranking the inertial starter.

The 'expert' pack will include, for a small additional fee, a 6 inch ballpine hammer that you use to bop yourself on the head after you fail to close the canopy prior to engine start.

All this will be done for the sake of 'realistic' complex engine starting procedures.

M_Gunz
02-04-2011, 08:01 AM
I could see it making a difference if we had planes in mediocre to poor repair condition like Guadalcanal 1942 and at different stages we had to decide to fly or not knowing how badly we're needed. Wouldn't want to miss a checklist step then and we'd also need to be able to do a walkaround if not during scramble. But still, how to simulate malaria symptoms?

Ba5tard5word
02-04-2011, 10:18 AM
A swarm of malarial mosquitos will ship with the upcoming Pacific expansion pack "Il-2: Cliffs of Dover: Fever of War."

Also for $932,000 you can get the Uber Collector's Edition which ships with a replica Spitfire for more realistic flight simming.

stalkervision
02-04-2011, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
Yes there will be. The game will ship with a USB connected hand crank so that when you fly the Me 109 you have to have an additional player sit next to your pc cranking the inertial starter.

The 'expert' pack will include, for a small additional fee, a 6 inch ballpine hammer that you use to bop yourself on the head after you fail to close the canopy prior to engine start.

All this will be done for the sake of 'realistic' complex engine starting procedures.

Hay that's exactly how I start my computer ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Mercanario
02-04-2011, 09:38 PM
One of my favourite parts of flying IRL is doing the pre start checks,and then going through the full start up procedure. Each to his own i spose.

kimosabi79
02-05-2011, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
Yes there will be. The game will ship with a USB connected hand crank so that when you fly the Me 109 you have to have an additional player sit next to your pc cranking the inertial starter.

The 'expert' pack will include, for a small additional fee, a 6 inch ballpine hammer that you use to bop yourself on the head after you fail to close the canopy prior to engine start.

All this will be done for the sake of 'realistic' complex engine starting procedures.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Weasel53
02-05-2011, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
Yes there will be. The game will ship with a USB connected hand crank so that when you fly the Me 109 you have to have an additional player sit next to your pc cranking the inertial starter.

The 'expert' pack will include, for a small additional fee, a 6 inch ballpine hammer that you use to bop yourself on the head after you fail to close the canopy prior to engine start.

All this will be done for the sake of 'realistic' complex engine starting procedures.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

ElAurens
02-05-2011, 09:56 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The option of a somewhat realistic start will be there, but, as Oleg has said over at the 1C forum the start procedure will not be 100% accurate.

I suspect that adding that much detail for the many aircraft that will be added over the life of the sim might be more work than is warranted.

M_Gunz
02-05-2011, 02:30 PM
Watch the Roaring Glory videos, the pilots count so many blade tips passing (sometimes 9) between activating the starter and giving it spark, and that after a trail of switches between the plane being OFF and FIRE IT UP! Some planes, you blow a step and you've got a puddle of gas right under the engine and the exhaust about to erupt flames. That's a big fear in their vintage Zero but not that one alone.

Yeah start up could prove interesting.

WTE_Galway
02-17-2011, 07:58 PM
... and if you let that round engine sit too long without cranking expect a start like this ...


<span class="flash-video"><object codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
width="480"
height="390"
><param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="never"
></param><param name="wmode"
value="transparent"
></param><param value="never"
/><param value="transparent"
/><param value="never"
/><param value="transparent"
/><param value="never"
/><param value="transparent"
/><param value="never"
/><param value="transparent"
/><param value="never"
/><param value="transparent"
/><param name="movie"
value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-XVgCqsHi3g?fs=1&hl=en_US"
/><param value="true"
/><param value="always"
/><embed wmode="transparent"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
allowScriptAccess="never"
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-XVgCqsHi3g?fs=1&hl=en_US"
width="480"
height="390"
/></object></span>

another R985 startup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkcX0KGIBwk



We need to go back to round engines

Anybody can start a turbine, you just need to move a switch from "OFF" to "START," and then remember to move it back to "ON" after a while. My PC is harder to start.

Cranking a round engine requires skill, finesse and style. On some planes, the pilots are not even allowed to do it.

Turbines start by whining for a while, then give a small lady-like poot then whine louder.

Round engines give a satisfying rattle-rattle, click-click BANG, more rattles, another BANG, a big macho fart or two, more clicks, a lot of smoke and finally a serious low pitched roar.

We like that. It's a guy thing.

When you start a round engine, your mind is engaged and you can concentrate on the flight ahead. Starting a turbine is like flicking on a ceiling fan: Useful, but hardly exciting.

Turbines don't break often enough, leading to aircrew boredom, complacency and inattention.

A round engine at speed looks and sounds like it's going to blow at any minute.

This helps concentrate the mind.

Turbines don't have enough control levers to keep a pilot's attention. There's nothing to fiddle with during the flight.

Turbines smell like a Boy Scout camp full of Coleman lanterns. Round engines smell like God intended flying machines to smell.

gonk66
02-17-2011, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
Yes there will be. The game will ship with a USB connected hand crank

I just hope that is a USB-3 hand crank.... I expect nothing less....

Buzzsaw-
02-17-2011, 11:41 PM
Salute

If you bothered to read the 1C boards you'd already know the answer to this question.

For those who haven't, here is Luthier's reply to a question re. this subject:


Originally Posted by alexei1789
What about cooling ? when air-cooled engine is at idle in a long descend, it stresses the engine (fast external cooling and slow in the center). Is this modeled in the sim ?
Our engine model is insanely compelx. I dare say it's the most complex engine model in any game of any genre by far. There's multiple points of interest for every piston, every cylinder, every hose, every exhaust, etc. The guy who wrote it can build an internal combustion engine from scratch in his garage. Working on engines is a huge hobby of his.
So rest assured that cooling, overheating, combat damage, or normal operation of our engines is as precise and as detailed as you'll ever see in any game in the next several years.


Originally Posted by klem
Luthier, have you seen the new A2A Simulations Spitfire? It's for FSX so I don't think you'll mind me mentioning it here?
It has the full start up procedure including mixture, prop, loading start cartridges, Air tank, oxygen management, etc and a real need to manage rpm, boost and radiator to avoid engine overheat/coolant loss and wear.
Does the CoD Spitfire go to anywhere near that level? (and if so it can presumably be dumbed down if not wanted).

We always held the opinion that complex start-up procedures are a waste of our time.

Everyone else does them as gimmicks. What you see is just a simple sequence of "press button A to press button B to press button C to press button D to enable pressing Start Engine." They don't model the individual systems involved. Neither do we, and we don't want to pretend that we do. We don't do gimmicks.

All the hotspots in our cockpit work. All the controls are animated. You can set fuel c*ck levers and work the priming pump and flick the magnetos and all. Do that if you like, or don't. We feel that most people will only try that once, if at all.

The systems we do model are crucial however. Watching the gauges and controlling mixture, prop pitch and radiator is essential. Our office is obviously filled with Il-2 online veterans, and for a while we could only play online with Complex Engine Management disabled completely. We could barely fly the Spitfire, and the 109 not at all. We fly with CEM on now, but we still to this day fly with Overheating disabled because damn it is hard!

So all of the cockpit controls are clickable, but there is no requirement to manually do a start because it would be objectively impossible/and/or ridiculous to model all the elements required to simulate a manual start absolutely scientifically.

M_Gunz
02-18-2011, 03:38 AM
How many times do you test magnetos when you KNOW they will both always work? Same with the rest.

Skoshi Tiger
02-18-2011, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How many times do you test magnetos when you KNOW they will both always work? Same with the rest.

+1
The difference in a real aircraft is that you know your life or the lives of your passengers may be at risk if it doesn't work.

In a scramble in a sim the consequences of firewalling the throttle and taking off on the taxi way aren't as dire.

Maybe a polls is in order! Your squadrons lined up ready to scramble to intercept aflight of bombers! You check your Magnetos and ones faulty. Do you a) ignore the fault and take off knowing you may not make it back (War is Hell!) or b) call in a fault and let your team mates take off under strength, exit the mission and get a new plane, re-do your complex engine start and join your squadron 5 minutes later?


I'll start off with an a! I guess IRL I'ld probably be put on a charge for poor airmanship and not following safety procedures.

Cheers!

BM357_Sniper1
02-18-2011, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How many times do you test magnetos when you KNOW they will both always work? Same with the rest.

+1
The difference in a real aircraft is that you know your life or the lives of your passengers may be at risk if it doesn't work.

In a scramble in a sim the consequences of firewalling the throttle and taking off on the taxi way aren't as dire.

Maybe a polls is in order! Your squadrons lined up ready to scramble to intercept aflight of bombers! You check your Magnetos and ones faulty. Do you a) ignore the fault and take off knowing you may not make it back (War is Hell!) or b) call in a fault and let your team mates take off under strength, exit the mission and get a new plane, re-do your complex engine start and join your squadron 5 minutes later?


I'll start off with an a! I guess IRL I'ld probably be put on a charge for poor airmanship and not following safety procedures.

Cheers! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll also say that you may not have ever tried a real take off with a bad mag in a fully fueled, somewhat heavy plane. You may not know that you lose a bit of power with a lost mag and that you'll barely clear the trees at the end of the runway or you climb as badly as a wounded bird. When you've done that, you'd know that you're better off staying on the ground. Not arguing, I get it, its a game, just saying is all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
02-18-2011, 12:42 PM
I had a book by a Marine pilot at Guadalcanal where he told of taking off in less than pristine fighters not for scramble but because there was a mission and every gun carried along meant higher chances of success and more marines making it back. He also told about the collection of planes that didn't make it past the lagoon and how many of those Marines did not make it back.

I have emailed in requests to have planes with faults allowed in mission starts. Maybe some day there will be but not with the players we have who see conspiracy over every little thing they can build into one. Besides that it would bloat the code and take long time to write on top of long time to verify just how much and what faults to use where... and then the forum whining for years and years... I can see why such an idea might not be implemented despite of why if done well it would add realism.

Real flying often involves more planning and checks than 95% of gamers are willing to be required to do. The real pilots that don't work things out ahead are more often the ones that make or become accident statistics.

That's why I say when you know that it will be right, and why, then why bother to check? If it could bite you then you would.

WTE_Galway
02-18-2011, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How many times do you test magnetos when you KNOW they will both always work? Same with the rest.

+1
The difference in a real aircraft is that you know your life or the lives of your passengers may be at risk if it doesn't work.

In a scramble in a sim the consequences of firewalling the throttle and taking off on the taxi way aren't as dire.

Maybe a polls is in order! Your squadrons lined up ready to scramble to intercept aflight of bombers! You check your Magnetos and ones faulty. Do you a) ignore the fault and take off knowing you may not make it back (War is Hell!) or b) call in a fault and let your team mates take off under strength, exit the mission and get a new plane, re-do your complex engine start and join your squadron 5 minutes later?


I'll start off with an a! I guess IRL I'ld probably be put on a charge for poor airmanship and not following safety procedures.

Cheers! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll also say that you may not have ever tried a real take off with a bad mag in a fully fueled, somewhat heavy plane. You may not know that you lose a bit of power with a lost mag and that you'll barely clear the trees at the end of the runway or you climb as badly as a wounded bird. When you've done that, you'd know that you're better off staying on the ground. Not arguing, I get it, its a game, just saying is all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a bad mag ... stupidly did not turn the mag switch fully back to "both" back when I was still training. Same deal though, with only one plug firing per cylinder instead of two it was pretty obvious something was wrong immediately and aborted the takeoff after 100 feet or so.

Airplanes designed to run on two spark plugs per pot do not like it with just one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BM357_Sniper1
02-19-2011, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Sniper1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How many times do you test magnetos when you KNOW they will both always work? Same with the rest.

+1
The difference in a real aircraft is that you know your life or the lives of your passengers may be at risk if it doesn't work.

In a scramble in a sim the consequences of firewalling the throttle and taking off on the taxi way aren't as dire.

Maybe a polls is in order! Your squadrons lined up ready to scramble to intercept aflight of bombers! You check your Magnetos and ones faulty. Do you a) ignore the fault and take off knowing you may not make it back (War is Hell!) or b) call in a fault and let your team mates take off under strength, exit the mission and get a new plane, re-do your complex engine start and join your squadron 5 minutes later?


I'll start off with an a! I guess IRL I'ld probably be put on a charge for poor airmanship and not following safety procedures.

Cheers! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll also say that you may not have ever tried a real take off with a bad mag in a fully fueled, somewhat heavy plane. You may not know that you lose a bit of power with a lost mag and that you'll barely clear the trees at the end of the runway or you climb as badly as a wounded bird. When you've done that, you'd know that you're better off staying on the ground. Not arguing, I get it, its a game, just saying is all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a bad mag ... stupidly did not turn the mag switch fully back to "both" back when I was still training. Same deal though, with only one plug firing per cylinder instead of two it was pretty obvious something was wrong immediately and aborted the takeoff after 100 feet or so.

Airplanes designed to run on two spark plugs per pot do not like it with just one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good thing you spotted it before you got off the ground. I had a mag go out on rollout and didn't know it until I was trying to clear powerlines with a full load of fuel and people. I remember trying to lift my butt off the seat thinking it would help. lol

trumper
02-19-2011, 12:25 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI would love to see complex engine management,after all not all flights are combat.
In realityfor combat flights the engine tests etc would've been done by the groundcrew,the engines were turning before the pilots got in them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bremspropeller
02-19-2011, 03:28 PM
Taking unservicable aircraft into battle is what gets you medals IRL..."for complete disregard of personal safety"

Medals are often awarded for actions that would be called stupid under any other circumstances than combat.

If sending an accident waiting to happen on a mission that includes extensive time "feet-wet" is such a good idea in wartime, is another question.

I wonder how many Marines are now living next to Spongebob as a result of that policy, MG.