Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[pstyle]

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).

there is certainly no data here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

A link that has not been posted more than any other link to date with respect to this issue.

Neither is there any data here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

neither link has ever been posted on these forums... over, and over, and over again

[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?

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Are the numbers he posted for the game wrong?

David, I snapped at you and I sincerely apologize for that. It's borne of frustration and it was wrong for me to direct it at you --it was a fair question you posed of me. Plus, for all I know you may (and likely do) have hundreds of hours logged online/offline under a different name -- I of all people should know that. Again, very sorry for that and I hope you accept my apology.

I'm ending my part of the discussion here, mainly because of the frustration and disappointment at my end. When it ceases to be fun, then what's the point?

Hopefully others with more debating skills and/or motivation can continue this with you.

Snapper

[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.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

David, I snapped at you and I sincerely apologize for that. It's borne of frustration and it was wrong for me to direct it at you --it was a fair question you posed of me. Plus, for all I know you may (and likely do) have hundreds of hours logged online/offline under a different name -- I of all people should know that. Again, very sorry for that and I hope you accept my apology.

I'm ending my part of the discussion here, mainly because of the frustration and disappointment at my end. When it ceases to be fun, then what's the point?

Hopefully others with more debating skills and/or motivation can continue this with you.

Snapper

I don't have a lot of hours, but the number of hours playing the game does not change the 1940s test data. I'm not trying to debate this, I'd just like to know why everyone is angry when the test data appears to match game data. If the problem is octane used for testing, then they should model 100 octane in the game.

[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.

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

I don't have a lot of hours, but the number of hours playing the game does not change the 1940s test data. I'm not trying to debate this, I'd just like to know why everyone is angry when the test data appears to match game data. If the problem is octane used for testing, then they should model 100 octane in the game.

David, I think the 87/100 octane is the real issue here.