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

[Osprey]

Can somebody please update the bugtracker with the 100 octane boost issue please

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/projects/cod

This needs to encompass the boost needle animation, the increase in power and all the other FM effects such as limits, temperatures etc.

I would recommend that 41Banks does it, he is an admin on the bugtracker and knows all about the discussions in this thread.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Can somebody please update the bugtracker with the 100 octane boost issue please

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/projects/cod

This needs to encompass the boost needle animation, the increase in power and all the other FM effects such as limits, temperatures etc.

I would recommend that 41Banks does it, he is an admin on the bugtracker and knows all about the discussions in this thread.

I would not recommend that..

First off it is not a bug by definition..
Second it will just give the biased hand full of 100 octane nay sayers another place to repeat their dribble

I see this issue as more of a historic information update.. Where we provide the information to the people who can actually change things.. That is to say, even if you were able to change the minds of the hand full of 100 octane nay sayers, they have no say let alone any power to change anything. Basically you don't need them so best to stop wasting time talking to them, or worse yet arguing with them! The only people who mater here is Luither and his team.. And based on past experience (P38 ROC increase) if you take the time to do the leg work and provide them the info, they will make the change if the change can be made. Therefore I would not post any request for change in the open forum, just gives the biased nay sayers an excuse to chime in. The best thing to do is submit it to Luither via a PM or email! You guys have already done all the leg work! All that is left is to organize the info, stick a bow on it and give it to Luither

[Crumpp]

who's built up a resistance to evidence

There is no resistance to evidence. I just don't call random clippings of documents out of context combined with assumption evidence.

Let me give you an example. We still heavily research the airplanes we restore to get them right. I have Hans Sanders flight reports, BMW's initial, endurance, and Rechlin's test flights, the operational test squadrons, the time frame the motor was tested, an emergency order from BMW directing the engine to be modified and the new boost pressure to be use AT ONCE, the Chief Technical Officer of the Luftwaffe war diary entries clarifying the new boost was just a straight manifold pressure increase without the use of any ADS and it would be operationally approved in February 1945 for the BMW801D2 to use 1.8ata.

You know, I am still not ready to say it happened. Wanting and doing are too different things. I deal with real airplanes and it takes time to enact some very simple changes. Couple of years ago, an AD came out on Cessna 310 circuit breakers. This isn't a special circuit breaker, just replacing the outdated design with a modern standard aviation circuit breaker. Planes were down for months and the FDSO was writing extensions left and right so people could fly. The demand had simply exceeded the ability to make the breakers. Of course, in times of national emergency it will go quicker but still won't be simply "poofed" into existence.

You are talking about running the engine at 3 times its original design maximum capacity. Really guy? You think just changing the fuel did that?

You think they did that without extensive testing to ensure they did not lose all of their aircraft? You think they just said, "Great!! everybody use this right now all at once!!" Who cares about logistics or technical mumbo jumbo....

I don't think so.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

There is no resistance to evidence. I just don't call random clippings of documents out of context combined with assumption evidence.

No, you take just one pre-war document discussing 16 Squadrons by September 1940, and stick to that no matter what.

*Please name the 16 Squadrons, and describe the logistical arrangements the RAF made to ensure that only 16 Squadrons of fighters were supplied with the fuel, with your documented evidence please.

*Please explain how it was possible for only 16 squadrons to fly operational trials on 100 octane, yet 62,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel was issued, with 51,000 tons of it being consumed while only about 15,000 tons was needed to fly all defensive frontline sorties flown between July and 6 October 1940 - and provide some documented evidence please.

*In a previous post you made a claim that reserves of 100 Octane would have sunk to "unrealistically low levels" had the RAF used 100 Octane for all defensive sorties flown during the Battle of Britain. You have not yet provided any documentary evidence for this, plus you have ignored the fact that reserves of other grades of fuel progressively sunk well below the levels of those for 100 Octane fuel throughout 1940.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You are talking about running the engine at 3 times its original design maximum capacity.

So you think the Merlin was designed to run at about 400 hp? Unfortunately the Merlin II and III were designed for much higher power than that - in fact the Merlin was tested and approved for +12lb boost by November 1939 and the Merlin XII for 12½ lbs boost with no ill effects (attach 1)

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You think they did that without extensive testing to ensure they did not lose all of their aircraft? You think they just said, "Great!! everybody use this right now all at once!!" Who cares about logistics or technical mumbo jumbo....

I don't think so.

Nope, that's just your assertion - you completely ignore the fact that testing of the Merlin on 100 Octane fuel and +12lbs boost was completed in November 1939. You also ignore the fact that the same document observes that there were adequate reserves of 100 Octane available to allow the conversion of all Hurricanes and Spitfires to use +12 boost. (attach 1);

*You completely ignore the fact that squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes had converted to 100 Octane by February 1940;

*You completely ignore the fact that Hurricane Squadrons of the BEF in France, as well as home based units used 100 Octane in combat in May 1940. Bearing this in mind please explain why the RAF decided to continue to use 16 Squadrons for "operational testing purposes only" until at least September, and please provide documented evidence for this assertion. Then, once again, please explain how these 16 Squadrons - and some Blenheim units - between them consumed 52,000 tons of 100 Octane fuel in three months while doing "operational testing".

*You are the one asserting that all the RAF was interested in doing throughout the Battle of Britain was making operational trials of 100 Octane, so kindly provide some documentary evidence for this claim; and please don't bother using a pre-war document, nor the fact that Morgan and Shacklady cite the document - all that proves is that the country was not yet at war and facing full scale air attack.

Until you provide some evidence you can stop dissing all the evidence presented by Glider, lane et al as " random clippings of documents combined with assumption", because the only thing you have presented is assumption, assertions and surmises - based on modern, civilian peacetime practices, which you seem to think is a reflection of what happened in 1940, while a nation was undergoing full scale attack - with absolutely no evidence to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

I would not recommend that..

First off it is not a bug by definition..
Second it will just give the biased hand full of 100 octane nay sayers another place to repeat their dribble

I see this issue as more of a historic information update.. Where we provide the information to the people who can actually change things.. That is to say, even if you were able to change the minds of the hand full of 100 octane nay sayers, they have no say let alone any power to change anything. Basically you don't need them so best to stop wasting time talking to them, or worse yet arguing with them! The only people who mater here is Luither and his team.. And based on past experience (P38 ROC increase) if you take the time to do the leg work and provide them the info, they will make the change if the change can be made. Therefore I would not post any request for change in the open forum, just gives the biased nay sayers an excuse to chime in. The best thing to do is submit it to Luither via a PM or email! You guys have already done all the leg work! All that is left is to organize the info, stick a bow on it and give it to Luither

The bug tracker is for all issues, enhancements, corrections. It is moderated by a handful of hand-picked guys, and it is reviewed by Luthier and B6 directly. It's there precisely because it is the way to handle change requests of all types in software, we just don't do it by PM. Others should not be able to edit somebody else's item.

It is more than FM, the boost cut out just plain doesn't work, the boost pressure gauge shows incorrect boost levels when cutout is engaged and the engine overheats with damage way before the specified times of use in the pilots notes - these are bugs.

It needs raising in the tracker.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Osprey

and it is reviewed by Luthier and B6 directly. It's there precisely because it is the way to handle change requests of all types in software, we just don't do it by PM.

That may well be..

But

We have had similar bug/error/request threads in the past.. Even the original IL-2 had such thread.. And based on my experience with getting changes made to several planes in IL-2, most notable was the P38J ROC, your better off going direct to the source via PM or e-mail. For example I posted for months in the open forum (than the ubi IL2 forums) about the error in the P38J ROC and got no where.. Than I sent Oleg an e-mail with a short to the point message pointing out the error.. He e-mailed me back with one question, to which I responded with the answer, and the next IL2 patch corrected the P38J ROC error. wala change we can belive in!

As this thread will prove.. Posting in the open forum does have an up side, that being you get input from like minded people (read team effort).. The down side is you get input from the biased nay sayers that have no proof what so ever, but will do everything in their power to keep planes they don't like operating below their historic values.

So once you got your info, and you don't see any new info coming from the discussion, best to cut it off because keeping it open only gives the biased nay sayers another opportunity to spew their rant..

As you have seen in the past few pages.. They will never answer your questions.. In that they know any attempt in doing so will only prove how wrong they are.. So instead they will just keep ignoring those questions and either go off on some tangent topic or re-iterate something they already said that has already been debunked..

They are the purest definition (poster boys) of a waste of time!

Every min you spend typing to them is a min you could have spent typing up a report to send to 1C.

[Osprey]

You're not listening mate, forums and PM's are not how change requests are handled in the real world. The fact that Oleg chose this in the past underlines just what an unprofessional process he must have there. Anyway, I'm not going to argue about it, I make my living out of software QA so I'll just be smug and say that I know what I'm talking about.
It needs raising as a CR, but if you want to spam Luthiers inbox go ahead.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Osprey

You're not listening mate

Hardly..

I hear what your saying about that bug thread..

And I hear you about how things should work in a perfect world..

But as we all know the world is not perfect.. So i''ll just be smug and say that I know what works.. but if you want to contine to argue with the nay sayers in the open forum go ahead.

[Osprey]

It's not a thread or an open forum, it's a database. We're not talking about a perfect world, it's just basic software development process.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Osprey

It's not a thread or an open forum, it's a database. We're not talking about a perfect world, it's just basic software development process.

Ah.. my bad

I thought you were refering to one of the bug threads here in this forum.. That link you provided is a much more formal softare issue tracking system.. We use something simular (in house) where I work for the software I write.. With that said.. what section are you posting the 100 octane request in? I assume the 'Feature' section and not the 'Bug' section? Again, sorry for my misunderstanding! The day I saw your post I had just seen a bug list posted in this forum and I ASSumed you were refering to that thread! My bad!