|
|
#29
01-04-2012, 12:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
So, in one single thread we have three separate topics:
1) availability or lack of 100 octane fuel during the BoB 2) IL2 compare 3) engineering discussions  This topic always generates wild discussions, but the one thing i can gather from whatever's been posted thus far is: "nobody can convince me either way" I think the best way is to have all versions available and then it's up to the mission designer to do the research and decide what to use. If i'm building a campaign and the squad i use was on a satellite field that day with 87 octane fuel only, i'll use the low power version of the flyable in the mission. If the next day they had moved back to their main base with 100 octane supplies, i'll use the high power flyables for the next mission. And so on and so forth for the aircraft of both sides (eg, the high power 110s). I really don't see what the rest of the fuss is all about. We want accuracy, it's also up to us. It's not a case of the developer making a decision and forcing it on everyone and every scenario, especially when there are scenarios that would require having the other version of the flyable as well. And even if everyone used their best fuel all the time in real life, we still need the low octane versions for a very simple reason. When the community or the developers release a dynamic campaign, it would be a great feature to have lack of supplies be reflected on the aircraft we fly: you let those 111s bomb your fuel dump in the previous mission and blow up your ammo shed, you're flying with 87 octane and half the amount of machine gun rounds in the next mission. But i guess that's too imaginative and gameplay-enhancing, when we can just spend our time trying to force everyone to subscribe to and accept a single version of events instead I'd say it's better to lighten up a bit and think outside the narrow confines of each one's favorite cockpit for a change 
|
|
|
Threaded Mode