You seem to misunderstand the gaming industry as a entity.
They work for US, not the other way round. We pay them to create a video game. If they do not put what WE want then they do not get PAID. These people are allowed to complain no matter how unneeded it is. They will eventually read it all.

If there was a better WW2 combat sim, then MADDOX games would lose money if they where not an*l about the realism.

When I become a game developer, I will listen to EVERY fan I have. Things only get better when you listen.

ive never seen anyone deffinitively prove when and how many spitfire quadrons were operational with 100 octane fuel. sure it was there and used but when was it first introduced and how many squadrons used it?

further, the brits weren't the only ones with better fuel. 109s and 110s both were using C3 about halfway through as well. anything with a /N suffix was using C3 and 2700RPMs for 5 minute WEP.

oh and the spitfires didnt have variable flaps.

Go and look in WWII aircraft performance.com and Spitfire Testing.com. There are heaps of documents on 100 Octane fuel and when it was in service etc. In short during BOB all operational fighters were running 100 octane fuel.

Seek and ye shall find.

Frankly this was discussed a zillion times, but despite years of research, there's still no positive evidence that 'all operational fighters' were running on 100 octane. It simply appears to be wishful thinking from a few fanatic fans of the aircraft. WWII aircraft performance.com does list a large number of papers, unfortunately none of them state that all fighters are to or currently using 100 octane fuel. There's no doubt that a signficant number of Spitfires and Hurricanes were running on this fuel, this has been known since the 1960s, so nothing new here, but as to how many, or what percentage, nobody so far can tell for a fact.

The issue is further clouded by the fact that fighter stations (around 50 or so were used during the Battle), and not fighter units were supplied physically with fuel drums.. and the fighter units tended to change their bases every now and then, to be replaced by an another unit. If say, Squadron A, flying from Station X (which had 100 octane present), transferred to Station Z (which did not have 100 octane present but regular 87 octane) and its place was taken by Squadron B in mid-August which until then was flying from Station Z, then you would have Combat Reports from both Squadron A and B using 100 octane, but the reality was that one of them used it in the first half of the month, and the other during the second half of the month..

The closest evidence is a 18th May meeting record, which is still far off from that, as it states farily clearly that the changeover effected select units.

The paper - Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee, 7th meeting memo - says (direct quote):

"... satisfaction was expressed at the fact that the Units concerned had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel"

There's a reason why the articles you refer to tend to be dismissed - there seem to be always a case of subtle manipulation of the original papers. Take example the reference to this same meeting mentioned above at the wwiiaircraftperformance.org site, which interprets it as the following:

The Co-ordination of Oil Policy Committee noted in the conclusions of their 18 May 1940 meeting with regard to the "Supply of 100 Octane fuel to Blenheim and Fighter Squadrons" that Spitfire and Hurricane units "had now been stocked with the necessary 100 octane fuel".

Note how this reference to "the Units concerned" suddenly becomes "Spitfire and Hurricane units" in the text of the article; the original suggest that an unknown number (perhaps few, perhaps many), but definietely not all (otherwise why the distinction, if ALL units would be concerned?)

Unfortunately, the wwiiaircraftperformance.org article suddenly goes silent after what has happened after 18 May 1940. That's is unfortunate, because I saw the authors of said article discussing the same subject with an Australian researcher, who has informed them of the following at butch2k's board:

This has all been dealt with on another board in great detail with published authors weighing in with their facts, and you Kurfurst were banned on those boards for putting forward false information and refusing to back up your claims with actual documents and data.

You have no credibility in any kind of educated community, your opinions on this issue have been discredited completely.

All the original documents and accounts clearly point to the fact the RAF Fighter force during the Battle of Britain were converted to use of 100 octane fuel in all Fighter Stations in Groups 10, 11 and 12.

Your attempts to claim 100 Octane was not available was competely proven false in the two threads on the WWII aircraft forums.

The main poster in the threads who deals with every point at the beginning of the two threads, 'Glider' is the nickname of Gavin Bailey, a published author, who has written in detail on the subject, an article of his was published in the THE ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW, a well respected journal which only accepts papers and articles from those with impeccable credentials. Article is here:

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/conten...1/394.abstract

Mike Williams, who manages the WWII Aircraft site, was also a participant in the thread.

Here are the links to the two threads, if members of this board take the time to read through them the conclusion is obvious.

#1

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...bob-16305.html

#2

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html


Why you Kurfurst, continue to put forward your clearly false claims is a mystery to those who have studied this issue in depth.

I also know that there were at least 2 Hurricane squadrons based in France during the Battle of France which were using 100 octane fuel.
Taken from another post I made here;

"The 1st combat reports of a 12 lb boost being used in France are from 18th May 1940 with F/Lt I. R. Gleed of 87 Squadron (based in Lille) and S/L E. M. Donaldson and P/O John Bushell both of 151 Squadron (based in Vitry).
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ed-18may40.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e/bushell.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...dn-18may40.pdf "

which again supports the theory that not all squadrons were operational with 100 octane until late or after the BoB.

That doesn't really matter when we're considering a BoB sim, though, does it? Who cares what 13 group were doing when our map doesn't even cover the area anyway? The fuel was being used by someone, and if it wasn't 10, 11 and 12 group fighters out of these consumption figures for the whole RAF, who was it? Remember the fuel was doled out by station, not by squadron. July - August we see that 27% of ALL RAF fuel consumed is 100 octane, and I can't imagine that was going to Bomber Command or Coastal Command.

so you're suggesting we just blanket apply 9lbs boost to all spits and hurricanes because 1/4 of the fuel used by the entire RaF was 100 octane?

all i'm saying is if there is 100 octane gifted to the brits i want C3 fuel in my E3(4/7)/N as i can dig up as much evidence that it was in fact used by some JGs as anyone has shown me for the RaF.

A quarter of all RAF fuel consumption and the capability of every fighter to use this fuel adds up to a lot of fighter sorties. I'm not suggesting it be a blanket application, but it certainly ought to be an option.

By comparison the number of /N model 109s was positively measly. 20 E-4/Ns, am I right?

What's the comparison you are trying to make here? 10,000 tons of fuel is a lot however you look at it.

How many E-7/Ns saw service during the battle?

Anyway, go and make another thread if you feel C3 fuel should be modelled, this thread wasn't about Red vs. Blue. I do question why you consider 27% of all RAF fuel consumption to be insignificant, though. Perhaps you think that Bomber Command and Coastal Command used 100 octane? Or stopped operations entirely during the Battle (they didn't)? That's the only way that 27% of all RAF fuel consumption being 100 octane could not be interpreted as a significant proportion of Fighter Command using the fuel.