Mmm, those Oleg dreams are good stuff. Makes those 16 year old dreams of the good looking young teacher feel boring ;)

Mazex

HA! Brilliant! :-P:-P:-P

Thanks luthier, you are going to move the sim in another "levels" now :) i will be happy if the flak is more "realistic" and chanign ammo like the planes, and later, the tanks and vehicles :), Thanks :)

Thanks, BlackSix. This is good info which I will share with the ATAG Forum.

Thank you BackSix and thanks for the update.
If it is a question of development resources my I suggest a middle road for now (although selectable fuel in the long run would be appreciated). It would mean changing the modelling of only one Spitfire type.

Keep Spitfire I with 87 Octane and two pitch prop
Update Spitfire Ia to 100 Octane fuel and keep Rotol prop (most used type in BoB)
Keep Spitfire II with 87 Octane and Rotol prop (could have 100 octane later, not so many used in BoB)

This along with Ilya's forecast that the basic FMs are being corrected anyway (Spitfire I, Ia, and 109s).

Only the Spitfire Ia would need new power modelling.

Engine Variants!!
 

Black6,

This is like a non-answer to all the questions posed here regarding the issue of engine and performance. If this is to be a simulation (which I feel is still one of the best and done by a great company) of the real thing then why is the spitfire mk1a so way off. As to your not going to deal with the issue is evident. Maybe if your not going to deal with it then why not allow those that have the ability to do so or get the head dude in charge to address what plans he has for the Battle of Britain Arena. Because this is why so many bought the sim in the first place. to see all the movement to the BoM leaves us that bought the sim for this era of the war a little miffed.

If you came back and said king they are on it and they have plans for more with this area and the new engine would help in that development would have been a better answer to me. This does not mean that I will stop flying if I dont get the right answer it just means that when they MOD it i will fly on a server without VAC enabled. Hoping that someone in the British arena will compile the data need and begin to fix the error in both LW and RAF fighters.

Now I wish that the developer would be working on this issue so that you could come back with a friday update with a little more for this BoB game and not BoM.

Anyway I do like that you are fixing many bugs I was wondering if you are addressing the ghosting issue left by planes in online play? As well as the dreaded Launcher crashes locking up. These I feel are key to the tattered online community jumping back and forth from a modded 1946 to CloD.

I made the move back over because it is the era that I most wanted to fly in and enjoy. However 3 allied planes are not enough since that is where I want to fight and since no server will host the spit IIa then I am stuck in a rotol to do the work online.

Anyway keep working hard you have a TOUGH COMMUNITY TO PLEASE LOLOL.

King

Thanks for the update, BlackSix. Keep them coming!

Hi Snapper,

I would like to thank BlackSix for his last reply regarding 100 Octane fuel. However, I do not fully understand all that he has said and am a little confused; I am a bit slow you know, LOL. From your post you appear to have understood him. Can you help me out here and let me know what your understanding is of what he said.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Thank you Black Six and team for the nice update and video!!
We all appreciate your hard work and continued weekly communication!! :-P

God bless. :grin:

Big, is very Big

I only hope that if they are going to include a tank game play inside the series, tanks will come with the same quality in all aspects as air crafts. With nice cockpit, crew positions and cem. That would be simply gorgeous. To say in other words... not go arcade, please. For arcade tanks we already have world of tanks. Anyway, to drive a tank with crew positions shared in multi player have to be a experience.
About clod what I really would like to see is real hundreds of planes formations running smooth. Whitout that the bob experience is not full at all.

Not only Spitfire IA need FM revsion. I think need it many planes in CLod.

During BoB both Spitfire MK1 and Hurrciane MK1 used 100 Octan fuel and +12 lbs boost emergency power. We need it both like it was historicaly.

Also 109 E need FM revision - atually there were too slow.

All planes need changes in service celling which now in CLOD is really off.

In sum most planes from CLOD need FM and performacne revsion.

Here in these topic there are RL data and comparision with CLOD:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110


So:

Keep Spitfire I with 87 Octane and two pitch prop - AGREE

Update Spitfire Ia to 100 Octane fuel and keep Rotol prop (most used type in BoB) - YEP 100 OCTAN for Spit IA but with DeHaviland Constant Speed Propeller Unit

Spitfire II with 87 Octane and Rotol prop (could have 100 octane later, not so many used in BoB) - DONT AGREE - NEED 100 OCTAN FUEL SPIT II which used +12 lbs Emergency Power - everthying is in SPit MK II manual

Also there could be 2 types of Hurricane:

- MK1 early with 2 stage DH prop pitch - 87 Octan fuel
- MKI late with Rotol prop - 100 Octan fuel

ALso 109 E need performance revision beacuse with 1.42/1.45 Ata there are too slow - 109 E should reach about 490-500 km/h at deck - now is only 460 km/h.

All these planes have too low maxiumum service celling


So for accurate and historical both online and offline gameplay we need deeply FM&Performacne revision.

I know what im talking about beacuse im in the topic for long time and made some FM revsion for IL2 mods planes expecially BOB fighters like Spitfire, 109 and Hurricane and 110 C-4.

So i think if in incoming patch there will be not solid and professional FM revision for these planes many people will be really dissapointment expecially when Luthier promise that there will be FM and performacne revsion in coming patch some time ago.

In real life people often abandoned the AA guns when attacked (and took cover). The gun is much more survivable than the gun crew.

It would be great if a "duck and cover" key could be added to the anti-aircraft gun (and if the AI could also be suppressed - as in ZloyPetrushkO's excellent mod for the original Il-2).

Hey, I've seen you fly.....you ain't so slow. LOL

Like most of us here, I appreciate the tough job BlackSix has here. His information he gives us can only be as good as the information he gets from Ilya. The lack of specifics drives some of us nuts, and regrettably that frustration comes through at times which is directed at BlackSix -- and it's not his fault.

By "public tests" I took it to mean that Ilya uses engine performance information from similar/same sources like the one I linked to earlier. For the Spitfire Ia and Hurricane Rotol that would mean 100 octane fuel -- that's what the BoB RAF fighters were using and that's what the tests were done on. I could be dead wrong here, but that's what I chose to understand.

Nice update but it may be too arcade (easy)?

Thanks for the Update Black 6 & for your quick response to our questions as a result,the new AAA feature looks well.
The screenshots for BoM look good & I am glad to see we will have Maps to match the seasons .Will the German Armour bog down in the spring thaw ?;)
Relay my thanks to the 1c team for their efforts as I am sure things will start to be rectified in CLoD soon.

Mmm, if they did the tanks with simulator level detail and modelling it would truly be a dream come through. That would bring a whole new audience as we would get tank only servers in that case :)

But really, I can't imagine they have done it anywhere near the aircraft level of detail and systems modelling etc... Unfortunately... Just imagine the whiner roar if all systems in that Pz-III where working ;) Awww! Those hours could have been spent on doing my He-115 etc...

+1

This and your original post (which you linked to above) covers it precisely IMHO. Hopefully Ilya's data matches this.

Thanks for reposting.

Thanks for the Update! Am I hearing right, that we can hear new parts of the Sound Engine Beta? Guess the Stuka sounds way better than in our present version?! :grin:

@ BlackSix

I wonder how much chances do you see that the systems inaccuracies listed in this thread are being corrected? -> http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29526

There are a number of bugs to be fixed but also real mistakes (probably misunderstandings of foreign manuals) which need correction. Any chance that such things get fixed at all?

Have you tried WoT (World of Tanks), a bit arcade but still good fun for an hour at the time.

Its free to download.

1) I showed this post about the fuel Ilya, he will think about this problem
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=112

2) I gave a link to this post to all who need on Monday

3) Information about the patch
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthrea...=1#post1789544

Graphic component is almost ready, but there are still a few problems.
We do not have time to make a patch next week, will have to wait

Nice update! Russian villages will make a very cool landscape.

Thanks a lot. For some odd reason I feel a great interest in the Stuka (don't ask me to explain it - I just can't :mrgreen: ) and found a few inaccuracies which should really be fixed. All I found are listed in said thread ... among many others. :)

PS: If you guys need help in understanding the german manual (which I have here, I can provide it) just ask. Ilya has my e-mail and you can contact me via PM here.

It´s not a bit arcade, it´s completely arcade. I can´t think any way to do it more arcade not making flyings/submarine/space tanks XD

Quick google translate from the sukhoi.ru post linked by B6:


Posted by alexmdv
Yes I just said, to emphasize the future prospects of your same engine. Of course, to fly I do not need it.
Ilya, better say anything about the patch, here is all worn out waiting for him


Luthier:
So we try very hard to make it more habitable, believable landscape.

With the patch, the main task - graphics - is almost ready, but, as always, for three days on this part of it, two on the other, five on this one. The problems were only with decals yes yes sprite transparencies, until we solve as collect, verify until - well, not next week for sure.

I believe that translates to........2-3 weeks.:)

Unless we get the early (pre Battle of France / pre Dunkirque) versions of Hurricanes or Spitfires with Weybridge propellers etc, there is no point having them modelled with 87 octane fuel in game. DH propeller has nothing to do with the fuel. :o

Exactly, definitely 100 octanes for Merlin XII.

I understand you suggest it this way due to playability, but it is rather unhistorical. Again, DH airscrews or Rotol - nothing toi do with the fuel used.

Exactly!

Good point, I believe it's a mixture issue. Same with Blehneim.

Yes indeed, but not exactly the way you propose. Unless you'd like to represent very early mark I RAF fighters, 100 octane fuel should be used in game.


:D :D :D

Much Better Response.
 

Thanks B6,

Now how you came across on the last post gives much of us hope that these things are at last being looked into so a BIG Thanks.


Have a good day looking forward to another update and the PATCH!!!:razz:

Yes, thank you BlackSix for not only posting the update but coming back later to address issues raised by users. Great service from my point of view.

I'm really encouraged by your words and the way CloD is heading. Keep up the good work.:)

mmmh, i don't really care simulate artillery. Only planes.


anyway, my 109F, any news??? and Mig-3, whant to see this planes.!:-P

Robo sure that Prop Unit have nothing to do with fuel octan. Even during Battle of France some Birtish Squadrons based in France used 100 Octan fuel in their Hurricanes.

I think we got a few variants of the same planes in Clod so why not to model them with different fuel octan performacne - 87 and 100 Octan. So early planes with 87 Octan fuel performacne like SPit MK1 with DH 2-stage prop and Hurricane with 2-stage prop and 100 Octan for Spit MK1 with constan speed prop the same like Huriccane with Rotol.

It's really got to be seen from the point of view of attracting a wider audience and providing more funding for our favourite sim. I know my sons will pick it up if we get working tanks and guns...I've tried hard to get them to like planes but no luck I'm afraid.:(

Awesome possums!!! Can't wait for the Flack guns and tanks.

Thx for your action BlackSix but truly speaking i think most here though that flight model and performacne of BoB planes in CLOD got high priority in incoming patch?



I could say that if you need some help regarding BoB planes performance ( expecially fighters planes) i could be usefull.

Flak guns and tanks, seriously? In a flight sim? How about a "fix first and add features later" policy?

BlackSix - thank you very much for today's update and further information. That's great service indeed.

Like the Merlin III +9lbs rating... :grin::grin:

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/view...188357#p188357

No offence mate.

Well i didn't create these document for Merlin III engine 100 Octan fuel:

http://i53.tinypic.com/r0p095.jpg

In these case i really not sure if +9 lbs boost was not possible to set in Merlin III engine. I just dont have uptated original Manual for Spitfire MK1 with +12 lbs modification - i just got manual for Spitfire MK II Merlin XII which look very similar to document posted above for Merlin III

Robo
 

Kind of funny you posted that:

9lbs at climb

12lbs 3000rpms tho is what we have been asking for and also the correct variants on the 109 engines would be nice to create well rounded maps for an online air war scenario. Like I said if you build it they will come and a lot are waiting which could change very quick if the right stuff is fix first:

1- launcher crash
2- Ghosts in online missions
3- DM completed
4- FM and performances corrected
LAST MORE THEN 3 RAF CHOICES lol.

These few things may be a lot of work but in my book are at the top of my list.

Anyway I am looking forward to flying tonight, however seeing great flux in FPS with new 580 card could that be a bad power supply?

King

The new features bode well for the future of the series with cross over genres expanding the base. In the long term this could make the series much more profitable, allowing for even more complex aircombat features. I always get a laugh out of those that think some advancements are too the detriment of all other features. What do they think that the guys working on the patch, FM, AI, etc stop working to watch the guy working on flak, tanks, and vehicles.

There are actually several versions of Spitfire Mk.I pilot notes (various updates etc.) and even me, far from being an expert I am aware that the above document is from XII development (eg Merlin III that became XII after various modifications) If you're expert offering your services within this specific era you should really know that, that's basic stuff. ;)

Sorry about off topic.

Manned Airfield Flak would deter "Vultching" for sure, not sure about tanks though!! World of Tanks caters for Tank Commander aspirations admirably. I'm the only one of a squadron of 12 pilots who still flies in CloD, the rest have gone back to Combat Flight Sims that don't give them PC woes. If the new graphics engine is as good as the Dev's would have us believe, then I'm sure a lot of disillusioned pilots will come back into the fold. So my advice to the Dev's would be to get CloD working as specified first and add the "glitz" afterword's.

'driveable tanks' is just a speculation right now, the video doesn't give any actual hint of the tank being player controlled.

Well nothing is such simple like you think.

Generally rising fuel octan casue higher engine ratings - it is clearly show in many different manuals for different planes ( Spitfire MKII, Tempest etc).

E.x. Spitfire MKII manual:

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/9...tiialimits.jpg

Brackets - 87 octan fuel, no brackets - 100 octan fuel engine ratings.

I dont want to lead academic debate but there is any info that document about Merlin III new engine ratings is taken from XII development (eg Merlin III that became XII after various modifications) - it is only someone speculation.

Some short uptades in Spitfire MK1 Merlin III manuals said only that with 100 Octan fuel +12 lbs boost was allowed for emergency power - there is no mention about full engine ratings with 100 Octan.

BoFo FTW! ;)

After seeing this, hopefully we won't be seeing any more questions as to WHY the ground vehicles in CoD are SO DETAILED! ;)

C'mon Bongo, read this answer by BlackSix on my previous fishing attempt regarding if the second surprise they did not have time to do was that the tanks are driveable in this post:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...2&postcount=28

So - how can:

Originally Posted by mazex
Great stuff - and that Pz-III looks rather much like someone is driving it?

Response by BlackSix:
I don't know, Ilya made ​​this video, maybe he's hiding something))

be interpreted in any other way? Hook, line, and sinker?

if I wanted to I could interpret it to say I must wear a leather thong every tuesday (instead of my regular wednesdays), bottom line is it does 'not' actually say tanks are driveable....just a suggestion......admittedly the jury is still out.

I bet Ilya is driving that tank, the driver is observing USA rules of the road:)

As a matter of fact I have - even though it's like saying I like to read Michael Connelly when having a glass of red whine with my cultural elite friends ;)

I did rather enjoy the fact that they really have done a lot of their homework on the sheer volume of nicely modelled tanks in WoT. Even though they have a bunch of Frankenstein configurations and "1946" models it's hard to deny that it's a bit fun collecting experience to upgrade that PzIV main gun to a 75 L/70 :)

The main problem is that the game itself is way to much arcade with no real physics or bullet trajectories etc.

The second problem that to a large extent is worse is that my son who is nine got an IS-3 and complains that most people in WoT "don't understand tactics" :) Says a lot if a nine year old says that...

But I did have a bit of fun with it at first... I guess the "100 octane" / ".50 cal" / "FW190 bar" crowd chews their worn out copies of "The most dangerous enemy" to pieces after a statement like that :)

Even though I swing off topic above it's friday and we are talking a possible tank sim extension of CloD here so...

Rubbish, Blacksix quite clearly promised it ;)

Thank you for the update team :)

Maybe youre right....must have been another one of my Oleg dreams :grin:

Well, if my wife says: "It's Friday, don't you want to come and have a glass of wine in the sofa instead of sitting there in front of the computer?", I could interpret that as a question - or a non negotiable order? ;) Good night! :)

Goodnight...and errmm......enjoy ;)

It was possible (but not common) to fill Spitfire Mk.II's Merlin XII with 87 octane fuel, hence the brackets.

That is not a speculation but a known and well documented fact. I suggest you get more information (other that those available to anyone online) before you offer your services to 1c. ;) No offence ment, just a frank observation. You are, of course, totally right about assuming that higher octanes allowed higher boosts, but you happen to be wrong here as for Merlin development history and few important details that give a bigger picture. I found it quite amusing as you, an expert in BoB fighter performance, came over to a2a with that post. :grin: You surely don't lack confidence.

Of course, 100 octane fuel was necessary to achieve the +12lbs. boost in BCC-O setting on both Merlin III and Merlin XII, but the actual nominal rating has not changed to +9lbs on Merlin III. That was purely later mark Merlin (XII) with different coolant and various modifications (or improvements over Merlin III) that allowed higher boost, not the higher octane fuel itself.

Early Merlins as such were able producing much higher MFPs, but the nominal ratings were considered safe by the manufacturer and MoD and they were certainly +6.25lbs for Merlin III no matter what fuel you poured in it. The document you present confused you because there was certain time when the Merlin III has been further developed (as it was always the case with RR) and only later became Merlin XII.

I think I have to put it in bold:
Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game

maybe and bold and bigger:
Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game


Rarely has one sentence meant so much as this sentence!

Rarely have I seen so much whinning (actually I am lying, I have seen a lot of whinning here and in the Ubi-zoo and the "octane fuel" saga is is no more spectacular than the "FW190 gunsight view limitation", nor the "ammo belt loads", nor etc. etc. etc...ROFL)!

It becomes obvious that the Spit and Hurri pilots are getting so much annoyed having their sensitive parts kicked by the Bf109 that are looking for every possibility to say "Luthier, my plane was historicaly faster than it is in the game" maybe it was the octane fuel, maybe it was the landing gear wheels inflated with nitrogen instead of air...

Gents just get used to it:
#1. The flight model is not there where it should be.

#2. The Bf109s owned the air at that period (historicaly correct, if you do not believe me (and you shouldn't) watch the documentaries posted in the forum and the comments of the RAF pilots!). Yes! You won the battle of Britan! Because the Bf109s had to fly besides the bombers. In CoD they do not have to, and you feel the impact.

#3. Get used to appreciate the guy's work (Blacksix) and enjoy the moment that we get timely accurate updates and stop overtaking this thread with more questions to him than he can give answers!


~S~

PS. I am waiting for the day the Spitfire will run with 120octane fuel (or anything that makes it faster than my Bf109). Then, I will bring up the technical papers up to prove that the size of the turbine in my Bf109-E4 was larger than the one modelled by the 1C team therefore the 1,2ata (turbine pressure) gives a much lower performance than the one my engine in real life would bring... And since I am sure they never modelled the size of the turbine exactly (why should they) I am sure to be on the winning side ;)
Crazy world...

Disclaimer: I accept that my post may be deleted, re-phrased, moved out of this thread as per the will of the admins. I just felt I had to vent off some frustration because of this mess :D

Negative GRAthos, I hope the actual performance ratio of RAF Fighters (Mk.Is) to the 109s remains the same, e.g. Emils will stay faster, better climbing etc.
I mean if RAF gets 100 octane performance and Emils will perform better as they should do. No one is expecting the Hurricane to outperfrom the Emil. ;)

I am not annoyed by RAF performance, I quite enjoy it as it is and I hope we can get them all even closer to what they were (fuel is just one part of that), that's all.

I have the Merlin III engine manual (AP 1590B) updated for the use of 100 octane fuel. Amendment List No. 4 to AIR PUBLICATION 1590B includes a completely new page with "Performance" and "Limiting operational conditions" that is dated November, 1940 and gives nominal ratings with +6.25 lb. per sq. in.
I'm confident that these new pages from November 1940 wouldn't state outdated values. So I'm convinced that there was no rated power of +9 lb. per sq. in. on a regular Merlin III engine (without modifications to bring it to Merlin XII standard).

The infamous +9 boost document is useless without knowing the source. It is Page 40 of a larger document. At least we need to have the other pages to bring it into the correct context. It even could be a typo (III instead of XII).

Looks cool..

Battle of Moscow is looking good,but considering I bought Clod a B oB sim I couldnot careless,please fix what I paid for which is a Battle of Britain sim.

The landscape is muched improved , the trees still look like they have been Photoshopped onto the image at a later time though. They look too sharp around the edges , I think post processing effects if they were added into the game would make them alot more realistic looking.

It's like Arma2 - when you run it on al old computer it looks average but when you turn on next generation graphics that can be used these days it's like " holy hell " so bloody realistic looking.

I don't know what settings your using but the terrain video has the same graphics as my version of COD. According to BS the video uses the old graphic engine, and I believe the new graphic engine is more an optimization than a change in visuals.

I believe he is talking about the screenshots which look like renders from a 3D app, and not the game engine...

LoL, i know exactly what u are talking about.


Back on topic. :)

Love the A4 and the Russian village looks great. It reminds me of the tank sim T-34 V Tiger.

As for the Flak ... meh.

Wow, BFD..................Stutter, sutter, CTD.

Hi Kwiatek,

I can't disagree with any of that in principle but I was really making the suggestion for immediate work (next patch or one soon after) with other 100 octane options to follow in time. That would at least give us something to fly BoB with on a reasonable footing with the 109s and assumes that the FMs for the existing Spits/Hurris/109s are already being corrected anyway in the upcoming patch. It was meant as a practical short term solution. Lets face it, thet don't have time for much more at the moment whether we like it or not.

If the 100 octane problem is too big to be solved quickly for all aircraft I think we coud live without the SpitII 100 octane as a trade off. I believe the main variant flying in the BoB was the Spitfire MkIa, MerlinIII, 100 octane, CSP - but I'll take the flames if I'm wrong :)

Anyway BalckSix is putting this to Ilya so hopefully he will consider the various options.

Luthiers' philosophy over what makes for a good flight sim and player experience are very, very different to mine.

Good job your not making one then :)

Actually, I wish you were making this one. Then it would work, but wouldn't have tanks or FLAK which I do not care about. The shimmering stuttering and bad fps are game killers, the other stuff is not important. This other stuff is just a diversion from the real problems of this sim.

I didn't want to get into exchanges here - its breaking my own rules - but I would like to say...

Properly modelled engine performance (if it is properly modelled) doesn't necessarily translate into aircraft performance, there are other factors involved. Are the MkI/Ia aedrodynamics modelled very differently from the MkII? Is the Merlin MKIII modelling very different from the MkXII? Whichever, they are being looked at.

So, yes, the FMs aren't where they should be.


And yes we're fed up getting our parts kicked with a/c that are slower than they should be. Whether the 109s 'owned the sky' because of tactics or performance is dependent on those tactics and the actual a/c models. In level flight the +12lbs boosted Spitfire was faster than the 109E at medium and low altitudes according to
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
But 109 Tactics (not tied to bombers) generally seem to have prevented very effective RAF defence in the initial engagements as admitted by many of the veterans. But there are many BoB combat reports that said if the 109 simply dived and ran away the Spitfire (presumably 100 octane and boosted) could eventually catch it. And on co-E terms, apart from the Negative G problem, the Spitfire could outfight the 109. We would like those chances. The 109 did not 'own the sky' in all circumstances.

Thanks for the update BS.

I am more interested in the flight sim aspects and, along with others, would appreciate the relative FM of the current plane set corrected as a priority. At the moment we have a Rotol Hurricane that outperforms the Rotol Spitfire Mk1a and a Spitfire MK11 that outperforms everything else and is thus banned from most servers - and, still no definite response wether these glaring issues are to be addressed.

Ju88
 

Oh Good another Axis Bomber!

Thank you,looks promising, maybe after while i start play again,pls add some good campaigns and fix multi,game without great gameplay value is worhless.
keep up the good work.have a nice weekend.

Spot on. TBH I don't know who's right about the 87 vs 100 octane fuel etc, I just want a reason to get back in the 1a instead of the Hurri (which seems about correct).

Robo?
 

Robo, Please list your publications own by you that are pilots manuals on the Merlin II and III production and list the fuels tested since the Battle of France where most RAF Hurricanes were being tested at 12lbs boost instead of 6.25 WHICH IS A JOKE. Most if not all front line fighter air bases received 100 octane fuel. Douglas Bader Biography wrote about the main issues as well as many RAf fighter pilots documented the configuration.

You come on here and post no actual documentation owned by you proving that everything you say is right about the engine power plants in the spitfire MKIa and Hurricane. Can you agree that the Spit MkIa is a joke and that major fixes in both allied and axis planes need fixed.

Again Post your scanned in data that you have purchased to prove to us you are not full of hot air and that the only fuel produced in Britain was 87 and that this was the only fuel available and no planes in the historical record of the BoB did not reach 12lbs boost and that the LW won the war because it had the superior aircraft. So I guess your the only one supplying 1c with your data which I have never seen.

Since Forgotten battles we have had these issues and the allowing of 25lb spit on servers with that game and everyone WHINEDDDD!

So same BS! So just give us all the possible variants for both LW and RAF and allow the servers to design the WAR.

My final

Good to see a Ju88A-4
 

I am very pleased to see a Ju88A-4, keeping up this aircraft's progression line within the sim.

The Ju88A-4 was the Luftwaffes defintive Junkers bomber during WWII with increased wingspan, heavier defensive armament and improved armour protection. It was extensively
used in all theatres. (e.g. 'The Med' )
Hopefully this aircraft's progression line will continue with minimum modelling changes to produce a Ju88C-6a anti-shipping dayfighter and a Ju88C-6b nightfighter with solid nose armament. Perhaps later a Ju88A-17 torpedo bomber.

Although I am not crazy about manning anti-aircraft guns in the sim, I can see a strategic land warfare gameplay starting as an alternative scenario, for those of us interested.

Hopefully you are keeping the best aircraft releases to last - a Bf109F-2 would be exciting to see?

DFLion

The following, in bold type, are squadrons and the date for 100 octane fuel useage. Info came from mostly pilots combat reports.

The Aug and Sept dates don't necessarily mean this was the first use of 100 octane fuel but the first reference date I found on 100 octane fuel use.

Please add to the list if you have any other references of 100 octane use.

Hurricane Squadrons

No. 1 (Cawnpore) Squadron - May 1940
No. 3 Squadron - May 1940
No. 17 Squadron - May 1940
* No. 32 Squadron
No. 43 (China-British) Squadron - June 1940
* No. 46 (Uganda) Squadron
No. 56 (Punjab) Squadron - May 1940
No. 73 Squadron - May 1940
No. 79 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - May 1940
No. 85 Squadron - May 1940
No. 87 (United Provinces) Squadron - May 1940
* No. 111 Squadron
No. 145 Squadron July 1940
No. 151 Squadron - May 1940
* No. 213 (Ceylon) Squadron
* No. 229 Squadron
* No. 232 Squadron
* No. 238 Squadron
* No. 242 (Canadian) Squadron
* No. 245 (Northern Rhodesia) Squadron
No. 249 (Gold Coast) Squadron - 6 Sept 1940
* No. 253 (Hyderabad) Squadron
* No. 257 (Burma) Squadron
* No. 263 (Fellowship of the Bellows) Squadron
* No. 302 Polish Fighter Squadron
No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron - 9 Sept 1940
* No. 310 Czechoslovak Squadron
* No. 312 Czechoslovak Squadron
* No. 401 Canadian Squadron
* No. 501 (County of Gloucester) Squadron
* No. 504 (City of Nottingham) Squadron
* No. 601 (County of London) Squadron
* No. 605 (County of Warwick) Squadron
* No. 607 (County of Durham) Squadron
* No. 615 (County of Surrey) Squadron

Spitfire Squadrons

No. 19 Squadron - e May 1940
No. 41 Squadron - June 1940
No. 54 Squadron - May 1940
No. 64 Squadron - 5 Aug 1940
No. 65 (East India) Squadron - 12 Aug 1940
No. 66 Squadron - 6 Sept 1940
* No. 72 (Basutoland) Squadron -
No. 74 Squadron - May 1940
* No. 92 (East India) Squadron
No. 152 (Hyderabad) Squadron - 4 Sept 1940
* No. 222 (Natal) Squadron
No. 234 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - 18 Aug 1940
* No. 266 (Rhodesia) Squadron
No. 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron - pre BoB
No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron - 31 Aug 1940
No. 609 (West Riding) Squadron - pre BoB
No. 610 (County of Chester) Squadron - June 1940
No. 611 (West Lancashire) Squadron - June 1940
No. 616 (South Yorkshire) Squadron - 15 Aug 1940

Other aircraft

* No. 23 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
* No. 25 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
* No. 29 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
* No. 141 Squadron - Boulton Paul Defiant
* No. 219 (Mysore) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
* No. 235 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
* No. 236 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
* No. 247 (China - British) Squadron - Gloster Gladiator
* No. 248 Squadron - Bristol Blenheim
* No. 264 (Madras Presidency) Squadron - Boulton Paul Defiant
* No. 600 (City of London) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
* No. 604 (County of Middlesex) Squadron - Bristol Blenheim and Bristol Beaufighter
* No. 804 Naval Air Squadron - Fairey Fulmar
* No. 808 Naval Air Squadron - Fairey Fulmar

Every Sector Station on the CloD map had 100 octane fuel.

Well the tree shadows do flicker, but other than that it is the same (can't see much tree shadows in the video though...). I don't think There is anything new here, graphics wise.

All settings to max, except ssao and epileptic filter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that one of the United States's early contributions to the war effort.. supplying the RAF with 100 octane fuel... thought I heard that in a documentary...

Would that have been on the History Channel? Take with a large pinch of salt.

Some reading for you Ribbs.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...bob-16305.html
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...2-a-20108.html

For the BF109/N
 

The E4 series had 100 octane gasoline
From Wikipedia ;)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

Bf 109E-4 fighter aircraft, engine such as E-1, new cockpit cover as standard, armament 2×7.92× -mm gun, two 20mm MGFF/M in the wings

Bf 109E-4/B fighter-bombers, engine such as E-1/B; weapons such as E-4, up to 250 kg bomb load

Bf 109 E-4/Trop: fighter and fighter-bombers, such as E-4, with additional features tropics (sand filter, auxiliary equipment)

Bf 109E-4/N: fighter, such as E-4, but DB 601N engine with 1020 PS, higher compression, 100-octane gasoline-C3

Bf 109 E-4/BN: fighter-bombers, engine and armament as E-4/N, up to 250 kg bomb load

If you want gasoline octane 100
I want a BF109E4/N(BN) :rolleyes:

Who cares about fuel. Geez , this is why it takes a milliion years to get anything finished around this joint.

I guess everyone is waiting for you to do it right.

Isn't the point of the fuel discussion that this is directly related to lack of performance? I.e. if the currently rubbish 1a had 100 octane it might out perform the Hurri? Please correct me if I'm wrong...

In R.M.2.S. nomenclature it says +8.25lbs as a take-off rating (one minute), but just as you say, nominal ratings were never +9lbs for Merlin III.

Hello King, perhaps you haven't read properly what I've written. I said exactly what you're saying. :o

:confused::confused::confused: I am confused. Why are saying this? If you notice, I am actually stating that all the planes in the game should be filled up with 100 octanes unless we want some very early pre BoF versions.

As for the documents, I have got Spitfire Mk.I pilot's notes (few versions with updates etc.), Merlin III manual, Merlin II too actually, good source of detailed info is Merlin in perspective - the combat years (Alec Harvey-Bailey). I am not sure if I can publish scans from copyrighted materials, I'd say not. In this book, interesting information about Merlins page 2-207, page 155 Merlin III ratings in developement, page 134-135 comparsion of British fighters to Bf 109 109 with a speed and performance chart (as appendix V to the discussion on page 71), page 85 is about Merlin and 100 octane fuel. Hope that helped.

Yes, this is obviously very important as for having the a/c in game performing 'correctly'. Although I understand that it is fairly annoying for some folks because it's going on an on like a soap opera.

As for Hurricane Mk.I vs Spitfire Mk.I performance, I guess that's not the reason why is the Hurri faster etc. The effect of 100 octane fuel was not 'miraculous'. Especially at the altitudes where the BoB fights usually took place (16-18k +) the gain was none whatsoever!

At 16.000 feet already the Merlin III would give exactly the same power as on either fuel on full rpm = 1.030hp. The Merlin XII sith different supercharger gear ratio had this with better FTH at +12lbs. It was actually later Merlins XX and other two speed engines, that took full advantage from 100 octane fuel.

Jimbo! The Ia is not rubbish btw :eek:

Quite right about high altitude performance and if the 87 octane Spits were properly modelled we could have no complaints about their performance. But with 100 octane performance we would at least have the advantage below 16000 feet which is where, in CoD, we meet most of them. Actually it would encourage the 109s to flt more historically. Altitude performance is where you could perhaps argue they did 'own the sky'. But remember they were tied to the bombers after a while which meant more combats at a lower altitude and better opportunities for the 100 octane Spitfires.

Thanks for the explanation Robo and, yes, maybe 'rubbish' was a bit strong :)

Sorry but i'd like to do a critic...
What is the sense of the flack controllable by player in a flight simulator? Sincerly, If I want an infantry sim i go to play to Arma 2... I guess the priorities for the flight simmer are other like FM, DM and the "famous new graphic engine" (and other...) and not these little embellishments that they haven't sense. I'd like to fly in a complete ambient with aircrafts without stupid bugs, and I think I'm not the only who think the same.
For this reason I fly with IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 yet, that with the new patch 4.11 and the next HFSX 6.0 will be very simulative... I'm sorry only for the graphic, but I prefer low details but with a better simulation.
I'm sorry, but IL-2 Cliffs of Dover is very backwards after 11 month from release yet.

I stay here to wait a real Update of this sim and I hope to fly earnest soon in the skies of CloD.

Cheers

Duke - A purchaser since IL-2 CloD was in pre-order.

Unexpected video you put there, a truly maned AA gun :D, that sneaky Panzer gets pinned hahaha :eek:

From a wide point of view, the the improvements in game-play that suppose a lively ground are exciting.

I can see dynamic targets/fronts, that are driven by players, no more static targets with no brain ai :)

What would be fantastic is a controllable pilot that can, for example, leave a damaged/no ammo aircraft and pickup a new one in the airfield, can be a form of refuel/rearm ;)

Looking for the second part of the surprise :D

What we need now is a free to download and play AA position option so we can recruit people that way :)

A little bit of Flight sim history!

The first time that someone managed to create an online combat flight sim and they realised their opponent was a milisecond slower at start up, they thought it would be cool to shoot them while they were on the ground still warming up their engines. Thus the time honoured tradition of Vulching was formed!

Over the years individual (and even squadrons of ) online supermen have perfected the practice of camping over a enemy base and frustrating the efforts of their opponents to get off the ground. The biggest justification of this is that if they were serious about the game the defenders would, well, put up a defence! Maybe this is a method of doing just that?

I was vuched in my first ever time online - didn't even get a chance of getting my engine started! Even in that first game I though "Man Wouldn't it be great to get my hands on a Bofors gun!" Now my dream will (eventually) be fullfilled!

Hey, you don't wan't to use it? Don't!

Cheers!

+1

Duke88, the ability to man an AAA gun is a very welcomed option in online gaming due to the enormous disadvantage of the british warplanes which require long engine warm up times which causes them to be mercilissely vulched while on the ground!
(in combination with the AI AAA guns astonishly inadequate accuracy).

It is a great option if you fly online.
It is of the same importance as the COD's current capability of entering as a gunner in a bomber airplane that is already in flight (online gaming).

~S~

I love Trap and Skeet...PULL:-P

Stuka power :shock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8omGCPpoSJo

Sorry but I don't see the big issue with having playable flak and I see less issues with the flak not being 100% historically accurate. Judging from that short clip it didn't look very easy to hit something that isn't coming straight at you at low altitude. Finally I say, they bring some fun in to this sim. It's clear that they have a vision for future expansions to create some kind of online combat simulator, it's a vision that probably stretches far beyond the narrow-mindless of this forum. Also, how do some of you know that it's taking resources away from other things? How do you know who does which job in this sim? These features have probably been in development for a long time, just go in to the control setup menu in CloD and see for yourselves.

I like when stuff are realistic that's why I play(ed) CloD but I'm not that guy who freaks out when the label of a certain knob on a certain planes control panel is misspelled. I get you guys though, you want 100% realism but you have to understand compromises has to be made so the game itself will be financially viable. I bet if they went and just tried to create everything 100% accurate all at once then the game would've never been released.

On a less serious note, I guess a lot of vulchers will loose a lot of sleep over these new features. ;)

first thx for another update.
i can imagine, that manable aaa guns and maybe even tanks and other vehicles, will spice up the online experience.so thanks for that, although we were "promised" that we would have this feature from the beginning.
and i would like to thank especially blacksix, that he really tries to give us answers as much as he can.without you, the situation would be even worse in my view.so again, thx blacksix, i appreciate what you are doing....
but although i really try hard to be patient to get answers, every update is a dissapointment in some ways.though an update is better than none.

i think, at this point, the majority is interested about the state of the upcoming patch.where are we at, when approximately can we expect one, and what will it contain?
what about the graphics engine, the fms,ai?

your lack of answers on these aspects of the game provoke doubts(at least for me)
that 1c focuses on the right priorities.
and also some actions you took in the past year, rise disbelief that 1c is heading in the direction, I want them to.(steady compasses for easier gameplay for example)

of course i can speak only for myself, but i say it again....i want a simulator as realistic as possible.flight& damage models and ai has top priority in my view to achieve that, to be worth to call this game a sim one day.
but in my view, this is not achieved yet.
i want a prop pitch which needs only 4 and not 6seconds to turn 360° or 1hour on the gauge.i want the correct performances for all planes.i want the game to simulate drag when i open my radiators, and damn, i want a shaky compass like muhammad ali, if its realistic.
i want the whole start up proceedures,.......the list goes on.but its all summarised in realism.
thats where this game should be heading, this would be the difference to other half baked sims/games.....this is where the success of this series is desperately waiting to rise and i desperately try to be patient, waiting for answers on these questions.

but dont get me wrong, i appreciate your updates.

Well said David

+100!