Speed graphs for Spitfire and Hurricane

[SEE]

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.

I don't see a lot of anger David or any reason to be 'shocked'. Of the many threads regards FM this is one is pretty reasonable (so far) and the responses to the graphs on the Russian forums have been similar from what I have heard.

I simply don't understand why the proposed FM (for the Spit Mk1a at altitudes below 6000m) has been changed given that it seems to be very close to the test flight graph as currently modelled in game.

Not 'whining' just asking a question. I fly at altitude but would still like to know the reason for that decision and one that I am unaware of.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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

That then would explain the development team's stance on this subject, they may have figures/charts/graphs/testimonials on fuel distribution of the 100oc .

[Kurfürst]

It's rather premature to draw any conclusions about the FM. The patch isn't out yet. If something is wrong with it, I am sure the developers will polish it further. It never will be perfect, depending on what source you are looking at, but consider this: they have shared some of the upcoming patches results to satisfy the community's curiousity; will they be inclined to do so in the future if it gets so much negative response before its even out as a result..? I doubt it.

Twelve pages on something that nobody yet has tried out *sigh*

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

According to whom..? Luftluuver?

Seriously, based on the availabe combat reports etc., such a list of "100octanened" fighter stations was put together a long time and many post ago. I see a lot of stations of 11 Group w/o 100 octane. See: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...8&postcount=43

Precisely. the only 11 Group airfields I don't see on that list are Manston and Debden. Of those major fields and their primary satellites on the list, only 6 have not got 100 octane by the time of Adler Tag (and that assumes a worst case scenario that the August fields did not get it till the end of the month).

Some of those airfields you mention - e.g. Martlesham, Detling, West Malling - are barely that - they are at worst meadows which can support the landing and takeoff of aircraft or at best have minimal infrastructure and hangarage. Aircraft were generally not based at these fileds overnight but flown to and from the parent field at dawn and dusk. Smilarly the parent airfield was responsible for the supply and logistics of these smaller satellittes.

That looks like some good research btw. Still would need to see the source docs for proof of derived data.

[fruitbat]

in that thread that Kurfurst posted from, a later collated list from combat reports,

The following Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons are known to have used 100 octane fuel before or during the BoB:
1, 17, 19, 41, 43, 54, 56, 64, 65, 66, 72, 73, 74, 79, 85, 87, 92, 141, 145, 151, 152, 222, 229, 234, 245, 249, 264, 303, 602, 603, 605, 609, 610, 611, 616

These squadrons were stationed at the following airfields (bold text) at sometime during the BoB.


11 Group

RAF Biggin Hill

- RAF West Malling

RAF Debden

- RAF Martlesham Heath

RAF Hornchurch

- RAF Hawkinge
- RAF Gravesend
- RAF Manston, night fighter base
- RAF Rochford

RAF Kenley

- RAF Croydon

RAF Northolt

RAF North Weald

- RAF Martlesham
- RAF Stapleford

RAF Tangmere

- RAF West Malling
- RAF Ford
- RAF Lee on Solent, RN airfield
- RAF Gosport, RN airfield
- RAF Thorney Island
- RAF Westhampnett


Not sure which Sector airfield these were assigned to but as all the sector airfields had 100 octane fuel, these to would need a stock of 100 octane fuel.

RAF Detling

RAF Eastchurch

RAF Hendon

RAF Lympne


In 10 Group, 5 of the 6 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel.

In 12 Group, 7 of the 8 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel.

In 13 Group, 7 of the 10 airfields had stocks of 100 octane fuel. Of the 3 that possible didn't have stocks of 100 octane fuel, one was based in the Shetland Is. and the other in the Orkney Is.

There is some really good info from all participants and from both sides in that thread amongst the arguing.

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

It's rather premature to draw any conclusions about the FM. The patch isn't out yet. If something is wrong with it, I am sure the developers will polish it further. It never will be perfect, depending on what source you are looking at, but consider this: they have shared some of the upcoming patches results to satisfy the community's curiousity; will they be inclined to do so in the future if it gets so much negative response before its even out as a result..? I doubt it.

Respectfully disagree. Blacksix has very kindly posted graphs detailing proposed / planned changes to the flight models of the Hurricane and Spit Ia on the CoD public forums where they are open to discussion. Surely if people have an opinion about these proposed changes it is appropriate to comment upon them now so that the devs are aware rather than ignorant of any problems / concerns e.g. we posted the proposed changes to the FM on the forums and no-one objected so what’s the problem...

So with that said, I have to say I am disappointed as others are - we seem to have Spits and Hurries modelled on 87 octane (only), and incidentally with performances lower than 87 let alone 100 octane. The most perplexing is the change to the Spits performance below 6000m, which is being reduced to a speed below that currently modelled in game and below the ‘historical’ valves currently presented in the graph.

Like most who post on the board and in this thread I want to see accurate and realistic modelling of all aircraft in the game, not for game play sake but because CoD is a WW2 combat flight simulator.

[Bokononist]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

It's rather premature to draw any conclusions about the FM. The patch isn't out yet. If something is wrong with it, I am sure the developers will polish it further. It never will be perfect, depending on what source you are looking at, but consider this: they have shared some of the upcoming patches results to satisfy the community's curiousity; will they be inclined to do so in the future if it gets so much negative response before its even out as a result..? I doubt it.

Fair point, but as someone who tries to keep an open mind I'm finding it hard to make sense of the info from the devs. It does seem that even in comparison to the data that they're working from, that their flight models are consistently worse, and that's ignoring the fact that they're not even trying to model 100 octane, the fighters that fought this battle. It doesn't even make sense from a partisan point of view, the Germans screwed the soviets over during ww2 in the worst way posible, why would they be biased toward the luftwaffe?
All I can say is that is with all these changes is let's see how it works out after the patch is live, and that any servers that don't allow the spit IIa at the moment should let it back on and see how things play out. It may not turn out to be so bad as the red side think it will.
Before I sign off and order another pint, there is one other thing to bear in mind, the graphs provided only pertain to velocity at altitude, where the spit had the advantage was turn rates, the graphs we have been provided do not take this into account. Maybe 1C know what they're doing and we'll get an awesomely balanced mp after the patch, Maybe not, but I am going to reserve my full vitriol until after the patch is released.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I believe this is the case.

Red pilots are just going to have to deal with this and try to use tactics.

If you seriously fly red, then you should be circling back by Eastchurch and the Thames estuary climbing to at least 16,000ft and higher before heading into the combat area.

Otherwise, you get what you get.

what a load of bollocks !

where have you ever read/heard anything like that about the historical BoB ? do you really think that allied command told their fighters "dont fly below 6000 meters guys, or the very superior performing 109's will make mince meat of you" or "let all bomber formations get through if they fly below 6000 meters, because we'd like to save your planes for later in the war and we'll try and avoid you engaging the 109's" ? you'r making poor excuses for major technical errors/bugs in the game and suggesting "gaming the game" is somehow a solution

the whole point of a SIMULATION of anything that claims to be a ww2 plane sim is that it should as close as possible SIMULATE the performance relationship between those main fighter aircraft. to willfully handicap the red side and then pretend "its the pilot that matters, not the plane" is a load of nonsense.



Blacksix,

extensive data has been provided to you and 1C for some time now that all hurricanes and spitfire squadrons were provided with 100 octane fuel AT THE START OF THE HISTORICAL BOB DATE, yet MG and 1C still dont seem to understand they have used older 87 octane fuel data and you thereby crippled the hurricanes and spitfires in their engagements with 109's

either cripple the 109 in speed to make both planes wrong (but both equally proportionally reduced in speed compared to historical data), which obviously would be silly, OR GIVE US 100 OCTANE FUEL FOR THE SPITFIRES AND HURRICANES !! frankly, i wouldnt bother bringing out the "post-beta patch" (once the gfx engine performance is fixed, and you are adding game bug fixes) without it, since we might as well all go back to using il2-1946 then

the single most important aspect of a ww2 FLIGHT SIMULATOR is to have the performance characteristics between those competitive fighter aircraft correct, if that isnt the case then dont bother wasting development time on making pretty houses, driving cars, or other elements that ENHANCE the core flightsim aspect of the game. please understand those priorities correctly

[jibo]

Originally Posted by BlackSix

Yes

hopefully the adjustments needed on the rendering side is no a big deal

*fingers crossed* i'am with you