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

[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.

[Osprey]

Fair enough Flanker. Regarding your point though I don't think it compares tbh. I don't see how a modern pilot flying Eurofighter fly-by-wire and using BVR systems has anything remotely similar to the fighters of 1940. In actual fact things are moving closer to 'games' anyway with pilotless drones flown from California in Iraq and Afghanistan. The comparison is pointless, we have what we have.

Regarding the Spitfire and glory, this has nothing to do with facts which is what we are dealing with. What has the fuel discussion in this thread got to do with whether somebody wrote a book, told a story or made a film about the Spitfire and it's endevours? We are dealing with facts, not romantic fiction. I would argue that the 109 has the problem with glory because (a) so few survived and so much data was destroyed as Germany lost, and (b) it was all a part of German propaganda to state how Germany had such an amazing machine. Some people live this romance and cannot understand how Germany lost with such a superior fighter, they big it up way way too much imho.
All I can say about the Spitfire is that it was an excellent short range local supremacy fighter which was extremely versatile.

The BoB could've been won without the Hurricane, but not without the Spitfire.


PS, I flew 190A for years in '46, P-51, P-40 mainly. The USL makes squadrons fly allied and axis so you will fly all. I have no preference but accurate representation.

PPS, I can't understand why you carry over the 25lber insult into CoD. It's not here, and it wasn't in the list in Spits v 109s nor Warclouds either anyway.

~S~

[Crumpp]

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

Again, I don't know the answer and neither does anyone else in this thread.

I am sure the RAF would want data on continuous operational use. That is the whole purpose of operational trials. It would make sense to have some of the 16 squadrons that converted use the fuel continuously.

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Again, I don't know the answer and neither does anyone else in this thread.

I am sure the RAF would want data on continuous operational use. That is the whole purpose of operational trials. It would make sense to have some of the 16 squadrons that converted use the fuel continuously.

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.

Another song and dance routine.

How much 100 fuel did the RAF use during the BoB?

How much reserve stock of 100 fuel did the RAF have at the end of the BoB?

We are all still waiting for you to name these 16 squadrons that used 100 fuel.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.

Believable to whom? You?

You have a reserve tank on your own aircraft. So let us say that you are flying along and run out of fuel in the main tank and you're over the sea somewhere. According to your logic you will decide not to switch over and use it because a reserve is a reserve after all, it's not to be used.

I 'believe' that the UK would've used up every drop if they had to. I 'believe' that all engines were converted in the event that Germany invaded and we had to throw the lot at them from the other groups. It wouldn't make sense to keep converting back and forth.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Again, I don't know the answer and neither does anyone else in this thread.

I think we do. We know that stations across the country were equipped with 100 octane including those in Scotland

I am sure the RAF would want data on continuous operational use. That is the whole purpose of operational trials. It would make sense to have some of the 16 squadrons that converted use the fuel continuously.

1940 is nothing to do with operational trials. If you can find anything to support that then please post it. 1940 is about using it in action

The simple calculations in this thread trying to prove the entire RAF Fighter Command used the fuel do not leave the RAF with a believable amount of fuel in strategic reserve.

Again this is rubbish. Using 10,000 tons a month there was more than enough fo Fighter Command and at that rate they had a 2 1/2 year stockpile. Put it another way, do you know any country that had a 2 1/2 year stockpile, of anything.

I am afraid that you continue to put forward nothing more than conspiracy theorys.