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

[JtD]

If they were using 87 Octane in the BoB, a tiny bit of evidence should have turned up by now. Instead we have a lawyer doing the Chewbacca defence.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by JtD

If they were using 87 Octane in the BoB, a tiny bit of evidence should have turned up by now. Instead we have a lawyer doing the Chewbacca defence.

[TomcatViP]

I think your answer might rely in what kind of fuel was available in France and how they might hve used 100oct as a blend substitute.

Regarding the result of the Brit exp corp during the Fr campaign, a recent study has shown tht they did outperform the French's Armée de l'air. And even if the nbr of plane shot down is a close match, it tells a lot about how things went wrong on the Fr side.

[Blackdog_kt]

I still fail to be convinced by either side in this. There's just too much conflicting evidence, couple that with personal interpretations and, in some cases, a "multiplayer advantage" agenda and it's a royal mess to keep track of

That's why i still think the best way is to have all possible variants in the sim, especially since they will be the same 3d models (the only thing that would change is the engine parameters).

So when we open up our aircraft selection screen, we would have:

Spit Mk.Ia 87 oct
Spit Mk.Ia 100 oct
etc etc

Me 110 low octane
Me 110 high octane (DB 601N)

and so on.

Then the player can choose what they want to fly in single player and the server admins can choose what their campaign will depict. Even more importantly having both variants allows for better dynamic campaigns, both offline and online: if your fuel supplies get bombed your side has to fly on 87 octane until new shipments come by ship convoy, which would then be targeted by the opposition and epic fights would ensue protecting that AI ship convoy.

Apart from debating for the sake of historical scrutiny which i can understand, in terms of gameplay this issue is blown up way too much in my humble opinion. Give me both high and low octane versions of the flyables, a script to track fuel supplies and a whole lot of tactical and strategic possibilities open up.

Having just one version of the flyables no matter what is just a sterile representation: it's like modeling an air show piece, not an aircraft during war that depends on a host of other factors to operate at its peak ability.

If i bomb the enemy's fuel dumps and their aircraft are slower as result, i have an incentive to try it and the other team has an incentive to stop me. If the aircraft fly the same no matter what i bomb (because the "slow" version is not modeled), i have no incentive at all and we can all just hug the white cliffs of Dover and keep flying furballs on the deck until battle of Moscow comes out

Nothing wrong with flying for fun, but why limit the possibilities of better dynamic campaigns by giving the mission designers less to work with? I don't get it, after all for the majority of pilots who get bounced +12 boost will not make much of a difference anyway. It's not the instant win button many think it is. It's just something to use on the climb out to an interception, or on a long chase at lower altitudes.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

The pilot's after action reports is enough proof IMHO that 100 oct was used.. Thus the only argument left is how widely it was in use..

But the fact that it was used at all is enough reason to include a 100 oct version of the planes in the game and leave it to the mission builders to decide.

I think we can fairly assume that 100 octane was used by at least a couple of squadrons in BoB in sufficient numbers to justify the addition of a 100 octane spit as an additional plane.

So that's for the wishes.

What I understand though is that the devs clearly said there won't be new planes for Cliffs of Dover so I have doubts that we will see it. As implementing an additional 100 octane Spit is the same work as modifying the existing one it won't matter imho.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I think we can fairly assume that 100 octane was used by at least a couple of squadrons in BoB in sufficient numbers to justify the addition of a 100 octane spit as an additional plane.

lol.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I think we can fairly assume that 100 octane was used by at least a couple of squadrons in BoB in sufficient numbers to justify the addition of a 100 octane spit as an additional plane.

So that's for the wishes.

Based on the information presented in this thread alone I think it is safe to say it was far more than a couple!

Unlike the K4 fletner tab issue that Kurfust team trys promote and say all K4s had based on one picture of an assembly line of G models and an drawing of a K4 scribbled on a napkin.. When there are more than a half dozens of pictures of actul K4s with no fletner tabs.

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

What I understand though is that the devs clearly said there won't be new planes for Cliffs of Dover so I have doubts that we will see it. As implementing an additional 100 octane Spit is the same work as modifying the existing one it won't matter imho.

True, but the next sequal is the russian front, and the ruskies bought alot of spits from the Uk, so the devs could add this plane at that time. Not that it would be used on the russian front, but the current UK map will be part of the sequal, thus giving the mission makers a chance to make BoB missions in the comming sequal with 100 oct spits and hurries

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Based on the information presented in this thread alone I think it is safe to say it was far more than a couple!

May be so - I just retained from the discussion that 100 octane was used - and I got bored of the discussion if it was all or some squadrons - which would not change a bit of what I think

If the 100 octane was used on a regular basis it should be present. I wish to retain the 87 octaine spit because we might want to create pre BoB scenarii in the future (Dunkirque for instance) and it would be a shame to eliminate the 87 octane spit from the game which would prevent any historical mission for pre BoB scenarii.

[Al Schlageter]

Even worse than the flettner tab is the 1.98ata boost for the K-4. Next to nil, nada, zilch documentation compared to what has been put forward for 100 octane fuel. The fantasy speculation even carrying over to the G-10s