hat in the ring

[hoongadoonga 5]

I just installed HitR and now every flight starts with 100% fuel regardless of where I set it. This is true for both campaign and quick combat missions.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Now that you mentioned it I've noticed exactly the same thing. I tried various amounts of fuel in various planes (DFW, Tripe, Pup, SE5a, Nupe 17) and they all had 100% fuel at the start of mission. And the fuel gauge of the DFW didn't seem to work at all. I could see the consumption of fuel only by moving the mouse over the gauge. All other gauges seem to be fine though.

[+Polovski 460]

Seems to be a glitch there we'll look thanks.

[hoongadoonga 5]

Until the 100% fuel issue is fixed I'd rather continue with V1.32g.

 

Is it a bad idea to use system restore to return to that version?

 

In other words, is it better to uninstall the entire program and reinstall from scratch or will system restore accomplish the same thing?

[Von Paulus 8]

Until the 100% fuel issue is fixed I'd rather continue with V1.32g.

 

Is it a bad idea to use system restore to return to that version?

 

In other words, is it better to uninstall the entire program and reinstall from scratch or will system restore accomplish the same thing?

 

Yes it's better to fully uninstall or wait for a couple of days because there will be a pach to correct that.

http://forum.combatace.com/topic/50795-off-hat-in-the-ring-cpu-and-gpu-loads-and-known-issues/

[Olham 164]

Aaahhh! That explains, why my beloved Albatros suddenly behaves like a stuffed goose.

[+Polovski 460]

System restore.. to revert a major patch into the same folder I never tried it with OFF so who knows.

 

Looking into the problem, it is because of the Player custom skin feature, the player's craft is now a unique instance and so affects loadout workings etc. We can't have that and custom fuel at same time.

 

Thanks for reporting it, see known issues sticky.

 

Olham that's because it IS a stuffed goose lol. Well a stuffed Albatros anyway.

[Olham 164]

Bulls**t - she is a beautiful bird, and with 30 % of petrol filled in, I climb vertically after your

a*s, even when you fly a Camel, until I have shot it away!

You all should try petrol management - and see what a great craft a D II or D III can be.

Even with 100 % (which I didn't know then) I managed to turn with a Nupe and shoot it

down in the end! Tch!!! Crumpets!!!

[hoongadoonga 5]

System restore.. to revert a major patch into the same folder I never tried it with OFF so who knows.

 

Looking into the problem, it is because of the Player custom skin feature, the player's craft is now a unique instance and so affects loadout workings etc. We can't have that and custom fuel at same time.

 

Thanks for reporting it, see known issues sticky.

 

Olham that's because it IS a stuffed goose lol. Well a stuffed Albatros anyway.

 

I tried system restore and it didn't work so well. Now I'll do the full re-install. Thanks.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Well, at least for me having the option to choose my plane's fuel and ammo load is a lot more important than having a personal custom skin. The latter has no practical impact in the battle, while the fuel and ammo loads can be the deciding factor in the plane's behaviour.

[Olham 164]

Well, but now we got soooo close, it would be nice to have both, still.

But about the flyability, you are right. Petrol management is an absolute MUST.

[+Polovski 460]

OK checking it's not possible to have both. Not sure how much control a pilot had over fuel loads they would be usually be 100% load in case you get a hole over the front.

[Olham 164]

Bullethead just claimed, that only the instrument showed wrong, but when he

went over the fuel gauge with his mouse, it showed 30 %, like he had filled in.

Must check that out.

[Olham 164]

Pol, I have checked it with HUD now, and it's true - no petrol management in a craft

with individual skin.

Now I was among the happy ones to get my individual skin all for my self.

But without fuel management, flying and fighting in an Albatros would be useless.

It would just take the edge out of it, and the fun.

I hope you find a solution - or change it back to as it was before.

I'd rather share the skin with my wingmen, than fly a brick with 100% fuel.

That would spoil it for me.

[Siggi 10]

I'm with Pol, if it's the realistic option that's superior the fuel-load should not be customisable. The real pilots didn't do it, but they sure did paint their planes pretty colours.

 

I wondered how you Krauts were surviving so long in those Albatross barges, I was trying one out yesterday (various versions) and they suck.

[Olham 164]

Well, it's your oppinion, Siggi.

I think, that something, that was part of the whole briefing all the time,

and that made it possible for me to get some better agility out of the craft,

should not suddenly be dropped.

For me, it would spoil the sim, cause I am mostly flying the Albatros.

And with 100% fuel filled in, it isn't fun anymore.

 

And how would you know the real pilots didn't do it? It would be one of

the easiest measures to make a craft more agile.

[+Winder 32]

I'm with Pol, if it's the realistic option that's superior the fuel-load should not be customisable. The real pilots didn't do it, but they sure did paint their planes pretty colours.

 

I wondered how you Krauts were surviving so long in those Albatross barges, I was trying one out yesterday (various versions) and they suck.

 

 

Yes it certainly seems that the pilots in WW1 did not manage fuel load...and given the short range of the craft they were always refueled to capacity

 

WM

[Olham 164]

That sounds to me like a rather helpless attempt to explain something, that got messed up

and cannot easily be changed back.

Had you asked me before, if I would prefer fuel mamagement, or to fly my individual skin

really alone, I would have prefered the fuel management any time.

 

I mean - if it never had been there in the first place, that would be different.

But it was an important part of my campaigns, always.

[Olham 164]

And one last point: most craft didn't have throttles either. So why not cick those out, too?

[VonGuber 2]

I'm with Olham on this one. I don't think it's proper to say in a definitive way that there was no such thing as fuel management in the Great War. Armies have always had to manage resources, and I don't think it's a good idea to assume that all sides had so much fuel as to have the luxury of squandering it. I know the Kaiser's armies didn't. Logistics officers have in all times been misers, and it's possible to read first hand accounts from Roman legionaries who complained about their rations. Of course we should research it and find out the real answer, but to make the common historian's assumption that all earlier people were idiots is a bad idea. Even in WWI, supply officers and ground crews would have known that it's not necessary to carry 30 gallons of fuel for a 30 mile flight. Given soldier's tendency to stockpile things for the future (and my own military experience...) I'd say it's almost a certainty that fuel was managed. That's without even mentioning that aviators of the day were terrified of fires.

 

That said, no, I don't have it somewhere in print yet... but I'll be looking. It's an interesting question. Please consider this as constructive criticism from a supporter....

 

Question: didn't many of the fuel systems on our birds require pressurization? If so, the 'extra fuel in case we get a hole' theory won't work.

Edited December 14, 2009 by VonGuber

[Von Paulus 8]

Maybe there could be an option in the WS and people could opt for skin or F/A management.

That way would please everybody except the ones who want both.

[hoongadoonga 5]

Maybe there could be an option in the WS and people could opt for skin or F/A management.

 

 

 

I second this solution.

[Broadside uda Barn 0]

The sim is all about realism, right?

That's why there's all this "DiD" realism posted all over the forums. So, seems that

the options are two:

 

1--leave it the way it is, 100% fuel load, which means 100% realism, and the way the plane was flown in WW1.

 

2--Make it an option in the settings, to "allow variation in fuel load" and subtract for realism rating. Adjustment being = -40% realism*

 

*This puts the fuel load adjustment on par with turning off claim forms (also 40%). Really it should be -50%, which is the same as 'flight model realistic' being adjusted to 'flight model medium realism', since this is essentially what is being done...adjusting the realism factor.

 

I fly my camel with full fuel, and it's rare that I find anything/anyone that can keep up, loading less fuel will REALLY take it to the next level....

[JimAttrill 24]

From my reading of lots of books about WWI flying, there is never a mention of altering fuel loads except for quick test flights, and after those the plane was refuelled up to max. The quirk would 'fly for about 2½ hours or until it was shot down' (War Story), and the other autobiographical pilots talk a lot about getting their engines right, and the trim right, but seemingly never about fuel except when they had to turn back because of a lack of it. After all, wasn't Lanoe Hawker shot down because he had to run away from a fight as he was running out of fuel. And the same possibly applies to Werner Voss.

 

Maybe the Germans would fly with less fuel as they could be blown home by the prevailing westerly winds. Any Entente pilot would carry as much fuel as possible in order to fly home against a headwind.

[Olham 164]

Von Guber: ...didn't many of the fuel systems on our birds require pressurization?

If so, the 'extra fuel in case we get a hole' theory won't work.

 

Another good point.

A pilot like Udet, who did a lot on his plane with his mechanics, would have known,

if it made a huge difference between 30% and 100% tank filling, right?

So, if he knew, the next flight needed 30 %, he might have filled in more of course,

like 50% for some safety, but never 100%.

 

I cannot think of a simpler way to keep my fighter as agile as possible.