Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[fruitbat]

I don't think that they will model 100 octane fuel.

I've pretty much given up on this game having any historical relevance to the BoB.

In fact, I've pretty much given up on the game being fixed full stop.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

I don't think that they will model 100 octane fuel.

I've pretty much given up on this game having any historical relevance to the BoB.

In fact, I've pretty much given up on the game being fixed full stop.

I hope you're wrong, but I understand how you feel.

It's pretty incredible that the RAF fighters are so poorly modelled.

[fruitbat]

to be fair its not even just the RAF fighters.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

In fact, I've pretty much given up on the game being fixed full stop.

This one...

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Ernst

I agree with this Robtek. I do not see any definitive proof by both sides. Outstanding claims requires outstanding proof. And both failed to provide.

So tell me if you, and Robtec, with your absolutely unbiased minds, if the game makes it far enough and the developers model late war a/c, would you support the inclusion of the 1.98ata boost Bf109K-4 in the game?

[Crumpp]

Crummp have been insulting people for pages now

Feel free to point that out fruitbat.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

So tell me if you, and Robtec, with your absolutely unbiased minds, if the game makes it far enough and the developers model late war a/c, would you support the inclusion of the 1.98ata boost Bf109K-4 in the game?

I, for my part, am for the inclusion of ANY variant of EVERY model of airplane from any nation which flew between 1935 and 1947.

It is up to the server operator/mission builder to create his version of the most accurate picture of the intended scenario.

To have a unlimited fundus to create this scenario from would really help.

But you miss the question here, it is not about having the 100 oct. versions included in game, that is what we all want.

It seems it is about to get the 87 oct. versions excluded, as the claim is that only 100 oct. was used by the FC.

I am against ANY exclusion of a plane, or a version of a plane, that did fly between 1935 and 1947.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by robtek

It seems it is about to get the 87 oct. versions excluded, as the claim is that only 100 oct. was used by the FC.

I am against ANY exclusion of a plane, or a version of a plane, that did fly between 1935 and 1947.

I appreciate what you're saying, it would be really great to have all variants. I am all for 1938 Spitfire with early canopy, manual gear control, Woodbridge propeller, 87 octane fuel and early antenna mast, although this variant has been never used in a combat (except for Battle of Barking Creek lol). But for what this simulator is - Battle of Britain, summer of 1940, we should have upgraded version of the fighter and that includes 100 octane spirit. There is no question that this is what they had in the fueltanks since Dunkirque. Yes, 87 octane fuel has been used but is irellevant to what we have in the game - 11th group, summer 1940, frontline fighters facing Luftwaffe. No 87 octane fuel in this case. 100%-ly.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Robo.

...... There is no question that this is what they had in the fueltanks since Dunkirque. Yes, 87 octane fuel has been used but is irellevant to what we have in the game - 11th group, summer 1940, frontline fighters facing Luftwaffe. No 87 octane fuel in this case. 100%-ly.

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by robtek

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

And it's never been disproved that the Luftwaffe weren't using HP brown sauce sachets in their MG's either. You are using the exact argument that religious people use about god - "Prove he doesn't exist". The thing is you cannot provide evidence for something that is not there, you can only say it is not there because there is no evidence.

Imagine if our courts worked like this - "We have no evidence that you were at the murder scene so we cannot rule out that you weren't there - Guilty". It's nonsense Robtek i'm afraid.