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

[JG52Uther]

+1
I don't care if my plane is porked,as long it is historically porked to 1940's standards!

[DC338]

Kwiatek maybe right ref performance. From the state of it the Alpha testers (they released the beta) probably never got round to FM testing due to all the other problems. Hard to trust charts (in the manual) that have combat flap turn times for a Spitfire FFS!

[SturmKreator]

Originally Posted by SG1_Gunkan

This a very critical post for the sim. No matter the complexity of the engine model or physics, if the data is not reliable, people won't take the sim in consideration.

Thank you very much Kwiatek, this time let's make the data chars clear, public and historical.

Thats true, If we have the same stupid performances than Il2, I prefer fly the old il2, becouse at least we have a more finished job. I hate the Olegs team idea who thinks balance the game will be more fun, LOL, the people want realism, not a console game. Sorry, but if the game not changes at all in this way, I never bought him.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Originally Posted by SG1_Gunkan

This a very critical post for the sim. No matter the complexity of the engine model or physics, if the data is not reliable, people won't take the sim in consideration.

Thank you very much Kwiatek, this time let's make the data chars clear, public and historical.

Originally Posted by SturmKreator

Thats true, If we have the same stupid performances than Il2, I prefer fly the old il2, becouse at least we have a more finished job. I hate the Olegs team idea who thinks balance the game will be more fun, LOL, the people want realism, not a console game. Sorry, but if the game not changes at all in this way, I never bought him.

+10

Every one of us is claiming for realism in the sim till first Il-2, and creators also sell the sim to us as "the most realistic", so any sense in using incorrect data. By the way accurate data for most of aircraft are available for every people who wants to find it, Kwiatek demonstrate it, so non sense also trying to fool us with nobodyknowsfromwhere data... And not the only thing, everyone of us knows actually how an Emil's DB601 sounds, not to mention a RR Merlin, there are at least two airworthy Emil examples nowadays and you can see in youtube... does really make sense trying to say us a Db601 sounds like ingame? details like this only tell us what's the real level of research and finishing of the product, so please don't fool us any more and do things like you said it'll be do from start.

S!

[juamfra]

Originally Posted by SG1_Gunkan

This a very critical post for the sim. No matter the complexity of the engine model or physics, if the data is not reliable, people won't take the sim in consideration.

Thank you very much Kwiatek, this time let's make the data chars clear, public and historical.

Originally Posted by SturmKreator

Thats true, If we have the same stupid performances than Il2, I prefer fly the old il2, becouse at least we have a more finished job. I hate the Olegs team idea who thinks balance the game will be more fun, LOL, the people want realism, not a console game. Sorry, but if the game not changes at all in this way, I never bought him.

Originally Posted by Ala13_ManOWar

+10

Every one of us is claiming for realism in the sim till first Il-2, and creators also sell the sim to us as "the most realistic", so any sense in using incorrect data. By the way accurate data for most of aircraft are available for every people who wants to find it, Kwiatek demonstrate it, so non sense also trying to fool us with nobodyknowsfromwhere data... And not the only thing, everyone of us knows actually how an Emil's DB601 sounds, not to mention a RR Merlin, there are at least two airworthy Emil examples nowadays and you can see in youtube... does really make sense trying to say us a Db601 sounds like ingame? details like this only tell us what's the real level of research and finishing of the product, so please don't fool us any more and do things like you said it'll be do from start.

S!

+100

Totally agree, nothing to add.

[Biggs]

From my own testing of the Spitfires, my only issues are with the mkI variants in the game...

after repeated tries I was only able to reach the top speeds (@18500ft) of:
260 IAS with the mkI
220 IAS with the mkIa

they should both be at or around the 365 TAS mark (its a few MPH higher or lower depending on the plane, prop,engine II or II and fuel octane 87 or 100)

Also the mkIa (which should be using a DH 5/29 or 5/30 bracket CSP) should have a better rate of climb than the mkI which used the older 2-pitch De Havilland prop.

[Killerwatt]

Have a look at his thread on the A2A forums before you jump on your bandwagons: http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/...23585&start=30
Mod please delete if links arent allowed.

[Biggs]

all my references are from the book Spitfire: The History by Eric Morgan and Edward Shacklady.

All figures are the actual recordings made during testing... most seem to be from either facilities, Martlesham Heath or Boscombe Down.

[Blue Scorpion]

Originally Posted by Biggs

From my own testing of the Spitfires, my only issues are with the mkI variants in the game...

after repeated tries I was only able to reach the top speeds (@18500ft) of:
260 IAS with the mkI
220 IAS with the mkIa

they should both be at or around the 365 TAS mark (its a few MPH higher or lower depending on the plane, prop,engine II or II and fuel octane 87 or 100)

Also the mkIa (which should be using a DH 5/29 or 5/30 bracket CSP) should have a better rate of climb than the mkI which used the older 2-pitch De Havilland prop.

I was going to post my own conclusions, which are based on similar data from www.spitfireperformance.com that the spitfire as modelled in COD is considerably underpowered, and that turn rate for the Hurri appears off too.Sadly, an overzealous mod banned my account while I was in the process of typing a lengthy post on the subject and it disappeared into the ether when I hit submit.

Britain and the Commonwealth pilots at the Battle of Britain as seriously outnumbered as they were, 640 fighters facing 2600 Luftwaffe aircraft, where able to do what they did because of the relative performance of the machines involved, access to 100-octane fuel, combined with the advantage proffered by radar. Failure to portray the difference in performance is a huge disservice to everyone that was involved during that conflict regardless of the side they served.

As another poster pointed out, this has nothing to do with hating anyone; it is about accurate portrayal of the subject, THE single most important factor for any title that calls its self a simulation.

[fireship4]

I don't like to respond to a post and contribute to overall bickering (when it is better to stay on subject), but:

If I were a game developer, I would never cater to this segment of the playerbase.

If you were a sim developer? Or if you were a developer in general? If you mean the former then it doesn't really make sense as that is what a simulator is about (normally), and the playerbase of a simulator often has a large proportion of people who want it to reflect reality.

I think people shouldn't be complaining when people dispute facts and figures here (especially when backed up), for a lot of people it is very important.