Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[Flanker35M]

S!

I wonder why you guys outright deny rotation of squadrons. That is mentioned even in memoirs of Johnnie Johnson, Geoffrey Wellum etc. that squadrons were pulled back for resting, refitting, training for new planes etc. Pilots were too tired to fight and losses did cut the effectiveness of a squadron. Are you so obsessed with this 100 Octane Crusade that you fail to see the trees from the wood? This same rotation was used throughout the war by Allies and even today rotation is a principle used by armed forces.

What will be next you guys want? Luthier slaps in 100 Octane to all Sissies and Hurricanes. Next you start the crusade that it was not 5min clearance for maximum boost but indefinite time and engines suffered no damage even some exceeded it? With the kiddyplay CEM we have now 100 Octane and 5min limit will be abused to hell and back, like the 25lbs boost Sissyfire Mk.IX in IL-2 1946. CEM is a joke and simplistic at the moment.

You call names like Eugie and Barbi and still sit on your high horse to be the High Priests of Truth? You fall in to the same pit like everyone and pat eachother in the back in a circle for this. This thread could have been a VERY INFORMATIONAL one without this mud being slung and stubborn dug in attitudes seen. None of you know EXACTLY what happened or how things were no matter how many documents you scan. There is more than just a few scans seen here. I bet none of you would have the time to go through the archives in such manner that you would know in detail what happened. Now merely scratching the surface.

And bottom line is that Luthier does not need to put in to CoD this 100 Octane at all. Just changes the FM and voilá..you got it. Small text in GUI to tell which version you fly. And the crowd cheers. But it does not turn your planes into some magic X-Wings I fly offline for different testing purposes BOTH red and blue planes, online mainly blue as I have done so since I started flying online 1997. So do not pull the blue bias on me This is a GAME after all.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

I wonder why you guys outright deny rotation of squadrons. That is mentioned even in memoirs of Johnnie Johnson, Geoffrey Wellum etc. that squadrons were pulled back for resting, refitting, training for new planes etc. Pilots were too tired to fight and losses did cut the effectiveness of a squadron. Are you so obsessed with this 100 Octane Crusade that you fail to see the trees from the wood? This same rotation was used throughout the war by Allies and even today rotation is a principle used by armed forces.

No one is denying the rotation of squadrons. There is the theory that a squadron used 100 octane fuel when at a certain location (e.g. 11 Group) but didn't used it when rotated to another location(e.g. 13 Group). This would mean that not mroe than 30 squadrons used 100 octane fuel but maybe only 16 squadrons at the same time.

The point is: If a squadron used 100 octane fuel in 11 Group and also in 13 Group this mean a) either 100 octane fuel was used in 11 and 13 Group
b) or the fuel was transferred together with the squadron (which is of course very unlikely)

Case a) and the reported use 100 octane fuel in at least 30 squadrons proofs that the "16 squadron" limit was not effective.

What will be next you guys want? Luthier slaps in 100 Octane to all Sissies and Hurricanes. Next you start the crusade that it was not 5min clearance for maximum boost but indefinite time and engines suffered no damage even some exceeded it? With the kiddyplay CEM we have now 100 Octane and 5min limit will be abused to hell and back, like the 25lbs boost Sissyfire Mk.IX in IL-2 1946. CEM is a joke and simplistic at the moment.

It's well documented that +12 boost was a overload condition. The 5min real-life limitation of course doesn't mean the engine is dead after 5min 1sec. IIRC there is a document that states that engine life drops from 100hours to 20hours if +12 boost is used.
It's a gaming convention to use the real-life limitation as a trigger for engine damage, this has nothing to do with the negative effects in real-life.

You call names like Eugie and Barbi and still sit on your high horse to be the High Priests of Truth? You fall in to the same pit like everyone and pat eachother in the back in a circle for this. This thread could have been a VERY INFORMATIONAL one without this mud being slung and stubborn dug in attitudes seen. None of you know EXACTLY what happened or how things were no matter how many documents you scan. There is more than just a few scans seen here. I bet none of you would have the time to go through the archives in such manner that you would know in detail what happened. Now merely scratching the surface.

Agreed.

And bottom line is that Luthier does not need to put in to CoD this 100 Octane at all. Just changes the FM and voilá..you got it. Small text in GUI to tell which version you fly. And the crowd cheers. But it does not turn your planes into some magic X-Wings I fly offline for different testing purposes BOTH red and blue planes, online mainly blue as I have done so since I started flying online 1997. So do not pull the blue bias on me This is a GAME after all.

The benefits of +12 boost and 100 octane fuel are documented, there is a increase of speed and climb rate below FTH.

It may not add s-foil servomotors, lasers and a droid but at least it installs a warp drive, photon torpedoes and a Vulcan science officer

[Al Schlageter]

Note: errors in the 2 OoBs that Eugene posted

July - Turnhouse - 243 squadron - no such accredited BoB squadron
Sept - Kenley - 233 squadron - no such accredited BoB squadron

There was a 253 squadron though.

[Flanker35M]

S!

NZ Typhoon. Do you think I do NOT have access to historical data? For example the people of Finnish Virtual Pilots(part of that too) has access to the war archives here and the amount of stuff to trawl through is immense. And this from an Air Force smaller than RAF, but older So do not preach to me about researching. I also did go through original documents on planes from pilot's notes to mechanic side of things. So please keep the insults to yourself, with all respect. I have resorted to it as well so I am not even claiming to be a saint

Osprey, I want only accurate values in a GAME. Do not call this a "simulator" as it is far from it or has very few really modelled things. Compared to those simulators I see at work in military this is just a console port, if you get the picture I fly blue because it offers more challenge than red. But I fly red too to learn their planes, so no bias here. And testing is fun, no matter which side. When you work with real fighter aircraft the more you see how little we have in this game, or any other title "simulated". Knowledge increases the pain so to say. The day I see a game that has been modelled without blue or red goggles I will be more than happy. But for now we have what we have, pot and kettle fights

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

Osprey, I want only accurate values in a GAME. Do not call this a "simulator" as it is far from it or has very few really modelled things. Compared to those simulators I see at work in military this is just a console port, if you get the picture I fly blue because it offers more challenge than red. But I fly red too to learn their planes, so no bias here. And testing is fun, no matter which side. When you work with real fighter aircraft the more you see how little we have in this game, or any other title "simulated". Knowledge increases the pain so to say. The day I see a game that has been modelled without blue or red goggles I will be more than happy. But for now we have what we have, pot and kettle fights

I agree, and that's what we are after by this very thread, so how you can deride the work of others without so much as reading and absorbing what they are saying before commenting is a little rude don't you think? I would like as much accuracy as a computer can muster, advantages, disadvantages, the lot.

I find your comment about working with aircraft condescending at best though. It's like you are telling us that you work with real aircraft so you should be listened to, yet also stating the bleedin' obvious that a computer game is not real. You are stating this because?

Finally, I am staggered if you think that blue is more of a challenge than red. It's pretty obvious what major, and thoroughly inaccurate, advantages blue have right now. Please do not complain when things get evened up, because they will, and you are going to find the Spitfire a world of pain for you.

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

S-Foils and all that was funny Banks. Good one! I agree on the benefits of the fuel, but it seems many think it will be the I-Win button when it is not. After all it is the pilot, not the plane. CoD has the chance to be THE game when fixed and still waiting for that. Meanwhile have to settle what we have now I shoot down some and I get shot down..part of the game No hard feelings as this is a hobby in my scarse past time.

I'm confused Flanker, a moment ago you stated that it's a game, doesn't compare etc, and now you say it has a chance to be the best and that fighter tactics play such a big part. I agree with the latter and I would suggest that the former is mostly separated mainly by a few million £'s worth of hydraulics.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, on red are after an 'I-win' solution. I would argue that plenty on blue do though - take Kurfurst here for example, and even yourself who has an active dislike of Spitfires (you frequently call it a Sissyfire - why? Can you not recognise it is one of the most defining aircraft of the World? Do you not love flight?).
Most red fliers I know are historian types, re-enactors, and are not interested in competition at all. I'm one of them, I've flown competition in the USL and been a member of teams winning closed and open pit. I have nothing to prove, I want to enjoy a hobby and learn about this history, and replicate it as accurately as possible. I get really p*ssed off with these types who believe in hype and seek advantage at every turn.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Is this 869 posts about 100 Octane fuel?

I have only one thing to say. More of a question if you will.

If these results were gathered about how fast an aircraft goes, would that data not already include the 100 octane fuel? As it is well known most RAF fighters flew on it is it not already included in the data?

[Osprey]

Yes indeed Farber. The fuel gave an increase in performance up to FTH and we want that modeled. If it's modeled with 87 then the Spitfire will be slower than the 109 below 16 kft, which wasn't true when 12lbs was used and thus the reason this is on post 1 zillion is because a couple of people want a slower Spitfire in game than what was represented in the BoB.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
There is a graph on spitfireperformance.com which shows a considerable advantage but I would like to see more official data than the one displayed before I could be sure about that. This is the one they have vs the E-1 plus other data, some of it official.






roll rate


Dive acceleration is not here but combat reports all state that the 109 got away comfortably. Steep climbing turns are the opposite in game as IRL where the 109 should stall first on a 120mph climbing turn.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Osprey, english is not my first language so some posts can sound harsh. What I meant with working with planes is that I bet most people here have only been in a Cessna or an airliner, seen planes in an airshow etc. Very few actually fly planes or maintain and work with the inner parts of a plane or with their weapons systems, depot level repairs and maintenance etc. When you do that and are in contact daily with real fighter jocks the flaws and limitations of a simulator/game become more and more obvious. So there it is: Game.

Spitfire was a great plane but IMO a bit over glorified. It did not win the BoB or WW2 alone, Hurricane did the grunt of the work in BoB for example. In other theatres it fared like any other fighter, but it suffered from same as Bf109: short range. It had it's vices too Sissyfire came from the idiotically modelled 25lbs Mk.IX which everyone and their aunt/granny/uncle flew and touted it being historical. The Spitfire is still a graceful sight, but for me the Bf109 has a sweet spot always.

Osprey, you contradict yourself a bit. You say the Sissyfire will be the "world of pain" for blue. Is that the only plane that will be checked by Luthier? Flying blue is a challenge and with the comment "world of pain" you just confirmed it How about later when the Fw190A's whack the Sissyfire Mk.Vb silly? The tables turn later with Mk.IX to more even etc. The circle goes on and on. So there is no "world of pain", just adaptation to the changing situation And when you learn to fly blue against the reds flying red is a breeze. Agree?

So after all..this is a game we enjoy to play. That's it. Sure creates heated debates but still we play. And tactics work in this game in most situations as the features(FM/DM/CEM etc.) of the game make it possible.

Well, over with this. I think all just want a game that is as accurate as possible within the constraints of our hardware and software.

[bw_wolverine]

This argument continues to be ridiculous.
There should be no debate that 100 octane was used in the battle. You'd be far better off telling all the red pilots to stop using DeWilde in 4 of 8 guns, because THAT'S a valid argument.

The REAL issue here isn't even anything to do with COMBAT in the game. I just want a Spitfire that flies like a Spitfire. End of story. I want to roar by Dover Castle doing a level 280+ MPH. I want to be able to flip the boost cut out and really feel it.

Any of those things going to win me more dog fights? Maybe in one or two, but the majority of the combats I get in? No. The majority of the combats I get in that I win are the result of superior positioning. That's not going to change.

So I put it thusly:
If the Spitfires are not modelled correctly, and everyone seems to AGREE on this, then fix it. I don't even understand where we got onto this 87 vs 100 argument ANYway. Where in the game does it say that 87 is being used? In the performance of the aircraft? That could be because of ANY number of reasons, including that the devs just plain screwed it up.

If ANY planes aren't being modelled correctly, fix them.

The biggest cause of all these arguments? Missions are not being made to reflect actual operations. The planes are performing roles they didn't perform during this simulated era, so its NO WONDER that we're getting people complaining that things aren't working out "right".

No more objectives for RED that involves bombing targets in the interior of France. The Battle of Britain was a fight for SURVIVAL. DEFENCE. PROTECTION OF GREAT BRITAIN. Fat lot of good I'll do shooting down the Luftwaffe masses if I'm just north of Paris. And 100octane fuel won't even get me back in time. If Bleheim pilots want targets to bomb, give them some! Just don't make those targets critical to Red winning the map.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

This argument continues to be ridiculous.
There should be no debate that 100 octane was used in the battle. You'd be far better off telling all the red pilots to stop using DeWilde in 4 of 8 guns, because THAT'S a valid argument.

The REAL issue here isn't even anything to do with COMBAT in the game. I just want a Spitfire that flies like a Spitfire. End of story. I want to roar by Dover Castle doing a level 280+ MPH. I want to be able to flip the boost cut out and really feel it.

Any of those things going to win me more dog fights? Maybe in one or two, but the majority of the combats I get in? No. The majority of the combats I get in that I win are the result of superior positioning. That's not going to change.

So I put it thusly:
If the Spitfires are not modelled correctly, and everyone seems to AGREE on this, then fix it. I don't even understand where we got onto this 87 vs 100 argument ANYway. Where in the game does it say that 87 is being used? In the performance of the aircraft? That could be because of ANY number of reasons, including that the devs just plain screwed it up.

If ANY planes aren't being modelled correctly, fix them.

The biggest cause of all these arguments? Missions are not being made to reflect actual operations. The planes are performing roles they didn't perform during this simulated era, so its NO WONDER that we're getting people complaining that things aren't working out "right".

No more objectives for RED that involves bombing targets in the interior of France. The Battle of Britain was a fight for SURVIVAL. DEFENCE. PROTECTION OF GREAT BRITAIN. Fat lot of good I'll do shooting down the Luftwaffe masses if I'm just north of Paris. And 100octane fuel won't even get me back in time. If Bleheim pilots want targets to bomb, give them some! Just don't make those targets critical to Red winning the map.

And this. I totally agree, although I am personally not bothered about ATAG's choice of mission. Our server (Air Combat Group) runs historical missions, as do other servers, and that is a personal choice for the punter.

I'm really looking forward to the JG27 campaign regardless of FM anyway.