Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[6S.Manu]

Great! Good job Seadog!

Now we have to wait for the developers...

[II/JG54_Emil]

In my opinion there is too much emotional stuff inbetween the lines.

If you guys could keep it to arguments only and leave out all the rest this could be an interesting thread.

[robtek]

It isn't my fight and i have nothing to loose here, but having only the 100oct. versions represented is a loss for all.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by robtek

It isn't my fight and i have nothing to loose here, but having only the 100oct. versions represented is a loss for all.

But who is asking specifically for the removal of 87 octane? this is all about the acceptance that 100 octane was the main fuel used as evidence shows.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by robtek

It isn't my fight and i have nothing to loose here, but having only the 100oct. versions represented is a loss for all.

We should have both, I agree. It looks like we'll only have one though. And with that being the case, it should be 100 octane.

Or do you believe that there were any 87 octane fighters flying combat sorties in summer of 1940?

[GraveyardJimmy]

I think what it boils down to, as other have said is this:

The game needs 87 and 100 octane version to allow for pre-BoB scenarios and mission makers discretion.

However, if the devs are only going to implement a single variant of the aircraft with only one performance and boost model the decision has to be made as to whether it is 87 or 100 octane. This is not the optimum solution but failing to have both variants we need to have the one that was used for the most of BoB. In this case the evidence suggests that it is 100 octane that made up most of the fighter fuel.

Therefore if possible, everyone would want both variants modelled. If it is only possible to have one, then there has to be 100 octane represented.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by robtek

It isn't my fight and i have nothing to loose here, but having only the 100oct. versions represented is a loss for all.

You've been arguing against 100 octane use across FC in 11 group during the BoB, please don't pretend that you were arguing for multiple fuels in game now this evidence has refuted that claim. Now that you know the truth please go to bug 174 and add your support Thanks.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Osprey

You've been arguing against 100 octane use across FC in 11 group during the BoB, please don't pretend that you were arguing for multiple fuels in game now this evidence has refuted that claim. Now that you know the truth please go to bug 174 and add your support Thanks.

You wont find a post from me arguing against 100 octane fuel for the FC, only not to exclude 87 octane!

Oh, i'll vote, as soon as i see you've voted for bug #200

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by robtek

You wont find a post from me arguing against 100 octane fuel for the FC, only not to exclude 87 octane!

Oh, i'll vote, as soon as i see you've voted for bug #200

If there was the likelyhood that the devs would implement sub-types of fuel then I would vote for #200 immediately, the whole point of this is that the 'main' fuel for RAF FC is not modelled and we have to settle for FM's so bad they underperform even for 87 octane sub type.

So you see the point now?.....there is a massive error in the fuel modelled for the RAF, it's in the interest of accuracy to have 100 octane, the LW sub types would just be a bonus if the sub types feature were likely to be implemented.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by robtek

You wont find a post from me arguing against 100 octane fuel for the FC, only not to exclude 87 octane!

Oh, i'll vote, as soon as i see you've voted for bug #200

Hmmm, I might take up that challenge because you've certainly implied that it wasn't in full use. Nobody has argued to exclude 87 here though, we've been arguing that for BoB that 100 needs to be modelled, because it isn't.

I've said before, I only vote for things I know about.