Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Pfffft. What good will that do, David? Really? The devs have had a year to correct it, they've had over seven years to research it. They don't care. The fix is in. We get it. As Wolverine very capably outlined, the Red fliers will adjust tactics to accommodate the new FM changes. This is a game after all; many of us mistook this as a simulation.

To blame the dev team of 2011 is hardly the answer -- might as well blame George Bush while they're at it. Ten minutes flying the Spitfire Ia (including the warmup time) will tell you somethin' ain't right. Don't need a chart to figure that out!

If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

If it's so obviously wrong then you should have no problem finding test data to back up your complaints. It may not convince the dev team to change things, but at least you won't look like you're whining (which is kinda what it looks like you're doing right now).

David, my priorities in life don't mandate me proving myself to you. The data has already been presented in this forum, as you well know. Or you may prefer to use Kurfurst's "data" since it would no doubt suit you better.

Whatever. I'm not going to indulge your wish for a "chart war" -- that's been done to death already. Not whining -- just saying we know the current flight models are wrong and the patch is making them worse. Unlike yourself, we actually play the game and we know what is -- is. Just don't expect us to believe otherwise.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Unlike yourself, we actually play the game and we know what is -- is. Just don't expect us to believe otherwise.

Are the numbers he posted for the game wrong?

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Are the numbers he posted for the game wrong?

Actually, not too far off and I'm a red-mostly pilot.

Black 6's Figure for "the patch" - as I read them:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 350 mph (563 km/h)
@3000m / 9,850ft: 303 mph (489 km/h)

Figures from the weblinks posted:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 355 mph
@3000m / 9,850ft: 320-355 mph (depending on fuel 87/100)

So the patch is 1.4% on the low side at 6000m (I can live with that)
And the patch is 5% on the slow side at 3000m if you're assuming 87 octane, but a more significant 14% on the slow side if you're using 100 octane

I'd like to see sea-level Flight model information for the above, but it seems to me the model is very close to the 87 octane fuelled spit 1a. VERY CLOSE. And I am now happy to accept that.

The real question is - will/should they model 100 octane?

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by pstyle

Actually, not too far off

Black 6's Figure for "the patch" - as I read them:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 350 mph (563 km/h)
@3000m / 9,850ft: 303 mph (489 km/h)

Figures from the weblinks posted:
Spit 1a: Max level speed:
@6000m / 19,700ft: 355 mph
@3000m / 9,850ft: 320-355 mph (depending on fuel 87/100)

So the patch is 1.4% on the low side at 6000m (I can live with that)
And the patch is 5% on the slow side at 3000m if you're assuming 87 octane, but a more significant 14% on the slow side if you're using 100 octane

I'd like to see sea-level Flight model information for the above, but it seems to me the model is very close to the 87 octane fuelled spit 1a. VERY CLOSE. And I am now happy to accept that.

The real question is - will/should they model 100 octane?

So, B6's numbers are good, assuming the lower octane. Obviously they should add a 100 octane version.

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

So, B6's numbers are good, assuming the lower octane. Obviously they should add a 100 octane version.

yeah, I think B6's numbers are pretty close at least from 3000m up.

Like I said; it would be nice to see the figures for sea-level too.

And you're right, some modelling of the 100 octane would be ideal, especially given it's almost ubiquitous use from April/ May 1940 onwards in the RAF.

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by pstyle

some modelling of the 100 octane would be ideal, especially given it's almost ubiquitous use from April/ May 1940 onwards in the RAF.

It´s coming :



So yeah, that´s lower octane.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by Buchon

It´s coming :



So yeah, that´s lower octane.

The thing is, surely they could just make two version of the spit and hurri flight model. Rather than model the effect of different grade fuel on the engine, have a spit 1a- 100 and a spit1a- 87 with different characteristics at different altitudes. If they can change aircraft individually (as they have for the new patch) then hopefully it is possible.

Or is it perhaps because it is tied into boost it might be that the change is not plane specific but (game) engine-wide?

[Osprey]

Yup, could've read that in my first post pages ago though.......

It's 87 octane model as per bug #84 by klem, but unfortunately, and us RAF are all to blame for not picking this up really, the modelling of 87 octane is historically incorrect for the Battle of Britain.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Yup, could've read that in my first post pages ago though.......

It's 87 octane model as per bug #84 by klem, but unfortunately, and us RAF are all to blame for not picking this up really, the modelling of 87 octane is historically incorrect for the Battle of Britain.

Available evidence shows that about half the stations received 100 octane fuel.