Managing fuel in IL-2

This weeks developer diary mentioned the P-51D and its rear fuel tank issues – namely, a nasty centre of gravity change that makes the P-51D quite a handful when full and a beautifully performing airplane wen empty. That has spawned a whole bunch of discussions on the forum with some notable and key responses from Petrovich and from Jason Williams too.

Updated fuel system

Long on the list has been an update to the fuel system. Currently there is no real management of fuel tanks and the fuel system but that is set to change with a future update. Petrovich reports that it will come later this year:

We have a plan to improve the fuel system for this year.

AnPetrovich on the IL-2 forums

That’s not a huge shock but it is a nice confirmation. Next, we get to talk about the scale and scope of that system.

However I must say – please, don’t expect from us a high-detailed level of fuel systems for all airplanes, like a “professional simulator of cockpit procedures”. We are going to develop just some really important features, that could increase the interest in the gameplay, nothing more.

AnPetrovich on the IL-2 forums

Jason also jumped into the conversation and has helped to refine some expectations:

Petrovich is just setting expectations as players dream sometimes of super complex things we may or may not do. We want to have a more complex fuel system that includes drop tanks etc. but it’s not what we are actively building at the moment. Petrovich just wanted you to know that we will have a more complex fuel system that will be realistic, but fit within our design philosophy. Let’s see how that development goes before we promise too much or comment further to not confuse anyone. We’ll speak more about it later in the year.

Jason Williams on the IL-2 forums

I find myself seeing a strong sense of balance here with IL-2 choosing not to go down to the same level of detail as DCS, for example, yet still offering a detailed experience. This seems very much consistent with what the series has offered in nearly all respects and it’s good to see the series focus on maintaining that fine balance between ultra-realism and unapproachable complexity – that niche in the middle is what has made IL-2 a success since 2001 as far as I’m concerned.

Confirmation on the P-51’s fuel management

Going back to my original point in the opener, the P-51D in particular has a very specific fuel tank management requirement. Don’t empty that rear tank first and you have an aircraft that will behave poorly but follow the proper procedure and it should handle extremely well.

In case of P-51 – 100% of fuel – wing tanks and fuselage tank are full. ~68% of fuel – fuselage tank is empty, wing tanks are full.

Gavrick on the IL-2 forums

Good news! The Mustang may also be providing the impetus for the work on this kind of detailing but it will no doubt filter through the rest of the series too.

Though we may yet be waiting a bit for the P-51D (its still expected in June at this point), it seems the wait will be hopefully worthwhile with the team not only tackling this iconic American fighter but also working on some key features that surround it – in this case, which fuel tank to empty first. It’s a small thing that makes a big difference.

7 Comments Add yours

  1. boxcarleader says:

    any word on the other allied aircraft… as i have posted before another 3 month split between aircraft releases is rediculus … and honestly bad planning… thats what happened in kuban and i honestly thought that after the consumer backlash they would be working to not have that happen again


    1. ShamrockOneFive says:

      I don’t see things the same way here. We’re going to see a lot of content from Flying Circus, Tank Crew and Bodenplatte between now and this summer. I don’t think we’ll be starved for new stuff.

      Keep in mind, entirely new planes take longer to make. Especially when supporting systems like expanded fuel management are more critical for a good experience. I expected the last bunch of types to take longer. Jason’s comments from part two of my interview series for more.

      We want these aircraft done right.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. 1_Robert says:

      These are small developers in a small niche market. Lower your expectations.

      These guys are doing an amazing job. They are developing new planes, tanks, ww1…etc all while continuing to refine the game engine.

      These last few patches have pushed the game even further forward as far as quality. Both SP and MP have improved drastically lately and I commend the team on that.

      They understand that developing new aircraft is a priority, I actually commend them that they don’t abandon those other things I mentioned, in the pursuit of more planes.

      It’s about finding a balance and I believe they’re doing a bang up job of it.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Boris_CRO says:

        Game engine is the root of all evils for this game and hardest to fix.


  2. boxcarleader says:

    in reply to shamrock and Robert i will just point out that building the Jet engine physics … modeling air and doing on the mathmatics probably used enough time to build two prop aircraft.. while i know they were excited to build the 262 it does not seem that they work efficently more like we wanna do this so we will.. and the customers that are 262 fanboys will be happy but what about the thousands of others who could honestly care less about the aircraft or the bomber guys who are asking for a new aircraft or even the group which includes me that see the 262 as a deathknell to most sims that include it at least as far as multiplayer goes… cuz even if servers do not offer the 262 you still loose pilots who want to fly it. turn around and if they want to be accurate the low numbers of 262s available will cause issues for pilots who want to fly it. Also i will point out that this company has significant experiance building aircraft models and they are nowere near as deatiled as DCS so while i respect you defending the team i take issue with the way they handeled the kuban expantion and how they have handeled the production of this expantion… while i respect and ejoy what they are doing for FC and TC i must ask could those teams or at least some of the members been used to work on another aircraft?.

    Now on to complaints about the developers … first i will say the game is alot of fun and is good overall there are some issues for me like the only aircraft i can consistantly black out in are the spitfires… this brings up a GIANT red flag about their G modeling … it seems extreemly inconsitant because i can dive at 425mph in a P-47 or follow proper tactics and not black out .. while in a P-47 this was a concern and in Ju87s this happened on almost every pull out … but almost never in this game … i more often rip the wings off than black out… that is just wrong… and seriously needs fixed… and before you say anything about well atleast its with all aircraft i will point out that aircraft handel high speed and high G differently and the great leveler in the air in world war two is pilot skill AND the fact that 95% of pilots could not stand more than 5.5 Gs so these 6,5-9 G pullouts would be instantly deadly. i think this has a large effect on the balance of the game.

    Also there is nothing wrong with Complaining about balance of aircraft coming out i do not see why you guys think it is so bad to think that they should keep the entire community in mind when they plan their release schedual.. while i fully understand its easier to modifiy an exsiting aircraft your only serving a small portion of your fan base … think long and hard how many people want a new 109 or 190 varient compaired to the number of players who would like to finaly get their hands on the American Hardware. Also not to focus on the 262 as a strait negitive but what about all the bomber pilots who want somthing newer bigger or better for the allies and have been asking for it for the last two expantions it realy limits replayability if you only have a few level bombers to work with … The He111 has been around from the get go and the Ju88 has been around from the second expantion that A-20 while manuverable and fun never got the hard nose with the .50 cal machine guns and the varrient that was introduced has proabaly one of the least effective bomb loads unless you are pinpoint striking ground units. B-25 /26 would be nice but there is a large chunk of the community which would pay extra for a B-17/B24/ or even a Lancaster. and with as many hours as has been put into all the changes needed for the 262 could they have not introduced one if not two of the aircraft requested.. also i think the 262 would have served 1CGS better as a premium aircraft as i respect that a large part of the community would love it and selling it for $20 a pop would actualy net them more profit for the work than including it in Boddenplatte. so the time they have just spent could have added a heavy bomber (probably) or maybe even two medium bombers.. or a few more fighters even and the 262 would have garantied more sales than a B-25 or B-17 ever could… so yes i think im right after the experiance from Kuban to be grumpy that they are pushing everything a little difficult back while pushing their pet projects to the fore… also like everyone else who pre-ordered Boddenplatte im a paying customer and honestly i could care less about the German aircraft i have been flying them since i bought the game i want the new aircraft the D9 is one i would like to see how they modeled and compair it to the one in DCS in therms of flight charictoristics. to see how close the flight models are to each other (i do expect IL2s model to be more forgiving). but there is absolutely nothing wrong with say hey you need to focus on the completely new more than the older designs and that they need to balance releases for both sides so the pilots who prefer german aircraft are not getting instant gratification while the people who realy want to get their hands on American planes get to sit back and wait and hope that they dont all release with the expantion like with Kuban …. that was a rediculus Travesty that shoudl have been handeled in numerus better ways than it was… i am discusted after the Charlie Foxtrot of the release of Kuban that they would even think of risking that again … but what i see is oh this is harder or hey we just want to go with the easy or most fun first and the stuff we actualy have to work on will wait … so we will get to those of you who realy want this last… it silly and imature and shows very low growth on the part of the company as a whole that is why i say that if this happens the way that kuban did again they will probably loose my support because i dont want to give my money to a company who only focuses on their idea and not about their customers … its the same reason i dont suport star citizen anymore … they have more than enough tech to lauch a good and useable game but they are intent on more preorders and slow yet perfectionist building wich at this point i honestly beleive the deves will pass away of old age before they lauch an actual game to the public.

    so while your opinions are noted i think that they are rather narrow in scope that or you dont care about the aircraft yet to come. at least it does not matter to you the way it does me.


  3. Novice-Flyer says:

    Something related to fuel that I find odd is that in games like CFS3, IL-2 FB, PF, droppable fuel tanks have been in those games since they were first released. But for some reason, haven’t been added in IL-2 GB yet, despite them being available historically in theatres covered.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. ShamrockOneFive says:

      I’m pretty sure it’s just a matter of priority. People were asking about fuel tanks in 2013 during Battle of Stalingrad’s development but they were stretched thin bringing that product to life.

      Now that we’re going west… the tanks and fuel management in general become more important.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s