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

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Bobb4

Okay lets' cut a long story short, if only for game purposes. What is modelled in Clod, 87 Octane or 100 Octane?
Is this just a debate between intellectuals with different viewpoints or a game breaker?
I struggle to find the relevance if it is not game related and if it is why have the developers not weighed in?
If it is just two standpoints then to each his own but if it materially affects game play the I want 100 Octane fuel to be an option at least and let the mission designer decide on it’s historical merit

It seems that 87 octane is being used in the FMs, but to many people, including myself, a game like this is only of interest if it simulates RL performance. If it doesn't simulate RL performance, it is just another arcade game, of no more interest than Star Wars.

[Bobb4]

Originally Posted by Seadog

It seems that 87 octane is being used in the FMs, but to many people, including myself, a game like this is only of interest if it simulates RL performance. If it doesn't simulate RL performance, it is just another arcade game, of no more interest than Star Wars.

100% agree with you. But can someone quote in game stats supporting this. It is all good and well this entire theoretical debate goes on but if the developers are not being told X should actually be Y and Y should include input from Z...
Nothing will ever be changed. I doubt whether a Russian developer is going to wade through 20 to 30 pages of a thread to figure out what the end result is.
I am 100% for 100 Octane but the developers need it in a simplified form and with documents to back up why the change needs to be made.
They could maybe just introduce field-modified 100 Octane Spitfire 1’s and 1a ‘s and have the Spitfire 2 already with 100 Octane as an example. Again this will leave the choice to the purists when mission building.
I doubt even Kurfürst can argue against that.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Bobb4

100% agree with you. But can someone quote in game stats supporting this. It is all good and well this entire theoretical debate goes on but if the developers are not being told X should actually be Y and Y should include input from Z...
Nothing will ever be changed. I doubt whether a Russian developer is going to wade through 20 to 30 pages of a thread to figure out what the end result is.
I am 100% for 100 Octane but the developers need it in a simplified form and with documents to back up why the change needs to be made.
They could maybe just introduce field-modified 100 Octane Spitfire 1’s and 1a ‘s and have the Spitfire 2 already with 100 Octane as an example. Again this will leave the choice to the purists when mission building.
I doubt even Kurfürst can argue against that.

Ok but then can we hve a <CFS friendly> and a <COD as advertised> buttons added as well


I don't understand the spit lover that are arguing for 100oct when the Spit FM makes her Zip Zapping the air like a cartoon rubber ball