Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

He sent them the data, the Hurricane data was for a plane that is not currently in-game so he hopes that they did not use the performance data he provided for the Hurricane flight model.

I also deduct that this makes you angry for some reason...

Indeed,

Why does he write it? To boast about it? That he is the one who screwed up the Hurricane?

ehem #1... hold on a second! Who said the Hurricane got screwed up??? I have not seen the new patch, or have you?

ehem #2... hold on another second! Who said they used his data??? They used Sean's (and he is not Sean).

So, recapitalising: why on earth does he not keep his precious mouth shut and his precious rear part sit tight and wait instead of trying to make us deduct that the Hurricane will be flying with 87oct fuel in the new patch????


~S~

[KG26_Alpha]

Ok


Thats enough speculation in this thread.

Too much personal stuff also.




Wait till the patch is out, then gentlemen, start your whinegines.






.

[NervousEnergy]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Wait till the patch is out, then gentlemen, start your whinegines.

I am so stealing that.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I thought many aircraft were undermodelled, not overmodelled (possible exception spit IIa and hurricane speed)?

Could someone give a definitive yes/no on whether the developers are working on the assumption of 87 or 100 octane fuel, or at least whether the data fits one or the other? How can there be so much disagreement about such a simple thing here?

Also, if the devs are testing the top speed etc on the basis of a testing program that maximises engine management which players may not necessarily be able to replicate, is that an accurate reflection of how test pilots in WWII would have got the aircraft to perform?

All in all, I am more and more baffled about how these aircraft were supposed to match up against each other in fairly basic ways. How is that possible in a simulation on well documented data? Why was this wrong in the first place, for so long?

[335th_GRAthos]

"87 or 100 octane fuel"

Please let's stay away from this madness and I admit I am one of the subjects who threw oil in the fire...

In order to give an answer though, Blacksix has mentionned it somewhere some 2-3 months ago after having spoken with Luthier:
They do not model the engine so accurately in order to be able to do adjustments of the octanes.
Instead, they create the flight model of a specific airplane according to the historic performance data they have in their posession.

~S~

[IvanK]

Amen GRAthos well said !

[Talisman]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

"87 or 100 octane fuel"

Please let's stay away from this madness and I admit I am one of the subjects who threw oil in the fire...

In order to give an answer though, Blacksix has mentionned it somewhere some 2-3 months ago after having spoken with Luthier:
They do not model the engine so accurately in order to be able to do adjustments of the octanes.
Instead, they create the flight model of a specific airplane according to the historic performance data they have in their posession.

~S~

Historic information shows that the RAF fighters used 100 Octane fuel and the engine was designed to use it and that the aircraft were modified accordingly at the factory and front line. Therefore, I would have thought that we could reasonably expect historical aircraft performance data should be used to model the extra boost available when the boost cut-out was used for the RAF fighters using 100 Octane fuel in CloD.
Why the boost cut-out operation does not work properly and why we appear to have less boost available than was the case in history with 100 Octane fuel is a puzzle to me. To read so many combat reports by veterans about how they used the boost cut-out and the surge of extra power they obtained and not get that experince in CloD has been very dissapointing to say the least.
Dev team, if you are reading this, please may we have red fighter performance and aircraft specification for BoB as per the historic record. But surely we should not have to ask for this, it should be a given. This sim has been so long in the making and has been released for some time now, but still we do not have properly accurate historic flight models for most aircraft; as a customer, I find this amazing. I am a big fan of CloD, but it is starting to get me down, particularly when I read so many threads on this forum with rude remarks to other people and a distinct lack of objectivity. Surely we can all adopt a more reasonable approach for the future.
A big thank you to the dev team for this flight sim and for trying to get things correct for aircraf from so many different countries and pushing the boundries of combat flight activity for the WWII era. Good luck with the next patch.

Talisman

[Osprey]

A little bird told me that Luthier is being educated about 100 octane performance as we speak. I am confident we'll get it purely because there are many people who have made a lot of effort in researching it and will pursue it.

For the record I would back any similar case for the Luftwaffe, this is about history and fact, not gaming.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

"87 or 100 octane fuel"

Please let's stay away from this madness and I admit I am one of the subjects who threw oil in the fire...

In order to give an answer though, Blacksix has mentionned it somewhere some 2-3 months ago after having spoken with Luthier:
They do not model the engine so accurately in order to be able to do adjustments of the octanes.
Instead, they create the flight model of a specific airplane according to the historic performance data they have in their posession.

~S~

This raises an interesting question for me. Perhaps someone out there can enlighten me please?

Luthier has recently mentioned improving the flight model to take account of lift created at various points along the wing. This suggests that the flight model may be power independent - which is the way it is in reality of course. To me it's all about the potential lift that a flight surface can produce. Plug in more power and you overcome drag and increase speed, thereby producing greater lift.

So...ideally, to me a flight model should:

1. Be engine independent

2. Specify lift of various surfaces at specific speeds and angles of attack

3. Allow new power units to be easily plugged in which will immediately affect flight characteristics by overcoming drag and increasing lift


Personally I think this is how CloD handles the FM. I can't believe they'd hard code a flight model to a particular engine.
Engine power should be a completely separate variable.

What do you guys think?

[Moggy]

Does anyone else get the feeling this is turning into personal attack and abuse?