The Spit II rolls too fast, the Hurri rolls a bit too slow. Sorry if it was misunderstandable.

look at the link he provided, it's clearer.

8 seconds for a 90 deg roll at 400mph in a spit II.....yeah sure, now give your sphincter a break and start talking sense.

As long as it's documented by RAE in a proper test for the period then I will believe it. Even if it is 8 seconds it out rolls the 109 @ 400mph. The 109 roll is better below about 300mph and improves as speed slows.

Taildraggernut said:

>>you are demonstrating a total failure of charisma, it really doesn't hurt to be polite. <<

Then Taildraggernut said:

>>yeah sure, now give your sphincter a break and start talking sense. <<

Anyway, about the Bf109's speed...

#puts on helmit#

The recoreded speed by anyone side, RAF or Luftwaffe, is not achievable in game...;)

Again ... FM vs. historical performances is an important aspect, but the playability is more affected by the contact visibility issue atm.

Agreed on both counts.

I hope that the cloaking device fitted on planes at med range is fixed in the up coming patch, as as to fm's debate, i see it as pointless until we have our hands on the patch.

Are you stalking me? I thought it was a polite way to say stop talking crap.

I am sorry to be persistent Moggy,

I do not give a rat's xxxx how the fuel tanks of the Hurricane Mk.I work (or don't).

What I understand between the lines is that you gave them historical data regarding the Hurricane MK.I including performance data.
The performance data you gave to them are historically correct but due to the test environment used, they do not reflect the maximum performance of the Hurricane.

Now, for some reason, you decide to wonder whether 1c used the data you provided them with, although you do not have any indication that they used it, rather the contrary (they thanked Sean and not you).

Which brings up following troubling aspects:

#1. This reminds me of the cases when people give loaded guns to children and then wonder why accidents happen... Responsibility and foresight of what our actions may cause is important in this world.

#2. What do you want to achieve mentioning what you mentioned???? ("I pray that...")
- That we congratulate you for your XXXXXXX???? <- I live the choice of descriptive word at your discretion and judgement
- That we congratulate 1c for their XXXXXXX for using historical data they should not be using ???? <- I live the choice of descriptive word to anybody's imagination
- That we all run like scareless chicken because the Hurricane will now be running with 87oct performance instead of 150oct (do not know what the current oct rate is for the day, I lost count). ?????

Besides, since you are not Sean why on earth do you open a discussion aknowledging something which could potentialy make people consider congratulating you for your XXXXXXX???? <- I live the choice of descriptive word at your discretion and judgement


And what for?
we have not seen how the frigging Hurricane performs as per the new patch that we do not have!



~S~

I am sorry to lash out on you, it is not personal and I mean no insult, it is just that you gave me an excellent example to point out some of the madness that has been going on since last Friday's announcement.

So you guys are already complaining about the flight models for the FM revisions in the patch that hasn't been released yet...

The common saying here is usually: "Wait until the body is cold", but can you at least wait until it's born before you start trash talking?

Taildragger...

>>Are you stalking me?<<

Simply getting involved in something which doesn't really have much to do with me, and pointing up a contradiction. As you did, and tried to do, with me previously. Now, see how silly it is?

>>I thought it was a polite way to say stop talking crap. <<

No, it wasn't. Don't be silly.

Ben

Grathos, I'm no expert in these matters but I easily understood what Moggy was talking about. Are you sure you can't work it out for yourself. Seems a bit disingenuous to me.

The main point is that he gave the Hurricane data for startup procedures. The reason the devs shouldn't use the performance data supplied is because they are for Hurricanes with inferior fixed-pitch propellors - something that isn't modelled in COD. (there's also the 87 octane V 100 octane debate of which enough has been said already.)

And he also stated at the bottom of that post that he wasn't Sean.

So what exactly is your problem?

hold a grudge much?

at least you admited the circumsatnces for my original interaction with you was for hipocrisy on your part.
yes I can see how silly you are.

No..it really is, repeat the 2 to yourself and let the wisdom sink in.

Taildraggernut said:

>>hold a grudge much?<<

Not a whole bunch, but I do have a memory for holier-than-thou types.

>>at least you admited the circumsatnces for my original interaction with you was for hipocrisy on your part.<<

Ok, spot the typos....

>>yes I can see how silly you are.<<

Great

Ben

I just act it, I don't really believe it like you do

point in case, yes I made a bad spelling....oops....I'm only human.

Need a ruler you two? Might be faster.
Use Pm's for the sake of the rest of us. Thank you.

Quite right, sorry folks.

Stipe use the ignore function, it works brilliantly.
User CP > Edit ignore list > Add member to list

;)

But what if that user gives some vital info from time to time? I know how it is. I was the same. Got into it with Wolf Rider once for 40 pages of spam. :oops:
One step back from both sides goes a long way. Anyway, enough OT now.
Can't wait for the patch. :-)

Thank you kendo, the devs cared enough to fit a proper fuel tank selector in Cliffs of Dover. I saw a picture back last year of them holding pilots notes and 1 of them looked a lot like a Hurricane mk.II notes (could be wrong but there aren't too many orange coloured notes around). The mk.I notes are very detailed (158 pages) but most of the performance data is purely for the fixed pitch prop as the notes were made in March 1939 and as such non applicable. However, the procedures themselves didn't change too much so knowing how rare the mk.I notes are I contacted Black Six and sent them in along with ATA notes and the film I mentioned previously.
You're spot on about the 87\100 octane debate that's why I left it there, enough has been said already.
I'm glad someone at least understands my reasoning.

[QUOTE=BlackSix;408445]Good day everyone!

"We're very glad to announce that the beta patch is largely done. It's going into wide internal testing today, which will last through the weekend and probably a couple of days more. After we make sure nothing is amiss, we'll make the beta patch available to everyone"

Since a couple equals two, the Patch should be available Wednesday, unless something is amiss. But then B6 actually said "and probably a couple of days more". "Probably" is a good out... even though intentions are good.

Let's hope nothing is amiss...or all bets could be off....:cool:

I see the Cage fights continue....Bet there were not this many "experts" in the RAF and Luftwaffe combined! :-P

If you ever work(ed) for Intel...you would learn there is a such thing as "disagree and commit"

Sad...Oh to be moderator for a day.... :Flush: :rolleyes:

Fair enough Kendo,

Since you chose to answer on his behalf.

Please explain this sentense that Moggy wrote:
And tell me what you deduct from this...

~S~

My deduction:
He sent them the data, the Hurricane data was for a plane that is not currently in-game so he hopes that they did not use the performance data he provided for the Hurricane flight model.

I also deduct that this makes you angry for some reason...

Air Transport Auxillary, very brave male and female pilots who transported aircraft to frontline units. The performance figures used reflect the fact they are not fighter pilots. However, the procedures used for starting the aircraft etc. is the same as what fighter pilots would use.

Indeed,

Why does he write it? To boast about it? That he is the one who screwed up the Hurricane?

ehem #1... hold on a second! Who said the Hurricane got screwed up??? I have not seen the new patch, or have you?

ehem #2... hold on another second! Who said they used his data??? They used Sean's (and he is not Sean).

So, recapitalising: why on earth does he not keep his precious mouth shut and his precious rear part sit tight and wait instead of trying to make us deduct that the Hurricane will be flying with 87oct fuel in the new patch????


~S~

Ok


Thats enough speculation in this thread.

Too much personal stuff also.




Wait till the patch is out, then gentlemen, start your whinegines.


:)



.

Does anyone else get the feeling this is turning into personal attack and abuse?

I already apologised to you about this Moggy, in my second post. It is not personal, it was just the perfect example of the madness, hysteria and misinterpretation that is rampant in the forum since the week end.

~S~

So do you think he's a spy for the Blue side??

P.S. it is only levity!!

Now that was freaking funny... :D

Wow a year later and maybe it is time to come back? Can't wait and thanks for not giving up!

i cant bellieve there is nothing about fixing the spit mk1 and mk1a and hurri boost. do they not realise it dosent work or am i just crazy?

It's a Beta, there will be plenty of 'feedback' ( I use the term very loosely...:grin:).

But look on the bright side, If the Spit2 is dumbed down it could be back on servers without limits - the boost does work on that!

Not sure what I am more excited about - Hmm? - the 'patch' or the responses to the revised FM. It ain't even released yet and the arguments have started ....:grin:

I am so stealing that.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I thought many aircraft were undermodelled, not overmodelled (possible exception spit IIa and hurricane speed)?

Could someone give a definitive yes/no on whether the developers are working on the assumption of 87 or 100 octane fuel, or at least whether the data fits one or the other? How can there be so much disagreement about such a simple thing here?

Also, if the devs are testing the top speed etc on the basis of a testing program that maximises engine management which players may not necessarily be able to replicate, is that an accurate reflection of how test pilots in WWII would have got the aircraft to perform?

All in all, I am more and more baffled about how these aircraft were supposed to match up against each other in fairly basic ways. How is that possible in a simulation on well documented data? Why was this wrong in the first place, for so long?

"87 or 100 octane fuel"

Please let's stay away from this madness and I admit I am one of the subjects who threw oil in the fire...

In order to give an answer though, Blacksix has mentionned it somewhere some 2-3 months ago after having spoken with Luthier:
They do not model the engine so accurately in order to be able to do adjustments of the octanes.
Instead, they create the flight model of a specific airplane according to the historic performance data they have in their posession.

~S~

Amen GRAthos well said !

Historic information shows that the RAF fighters used 100 Octane fuel and the engine was designed to use it and that the aircraft were modified accordingly at the factory and front line. Therefore, I would have thought that we could reasonably expect historical aircraft performance data should be used to model the extra boost available when the boost cut-out was used for the RAF fighters using 100 Octane fuel in CloD.
Why the boost cut-out operation does not work properly and why we appear to have less boost available than was the case in history with 100 Octane fuel is a puzzle to me. To read so many combat reports by veterans about how they used the boost cut-out and the surge of extra power they obtained and not get that experince in CloD has been very dissapointing to say the least.
Dev team, if you are reading this, please may we have red fighter performance and aircraft specification for BoB as per the historic record. But surely we should not have to ask for this, it should be a given. This sim has been so long in the making and has been released for some time now, but still we do not have properly accurate historic flight models for most aircraft; as a customer, I find this amazing. I am a big fan of CloD, but it is starting to get me down, particularly when I read so many threads on this forum with rude remarks to other people and a distinct lack of objectivity. Surely we can all adopt a more reasonable approach for the future.
A big thank you to the dev team for this flight sim and for trying to get things correct for aircraf from so many different countries and pushing the boundries of combat flight activity for the WWII era. Good luck with the next patch.

Talisman

A little bird told me that Luthier is being educated about 100 octane performance as we speak. I am confident we'll get it purely because there are many people who have made a lot of effort in researching it and will pursue it.

For the record I would back any similar case for the Luftwaffe, this is about history and fact, not gaming.

Are these listed in the bugtracker? http://www.il2bugtracker.com/project...s?set_filter=1

If these issues do not have many votes the devs may consider it not important. Please register and vote to let them know what community priorities are.

I can see only one entry for Spit Ia there. http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/84
This should mean to the devs that others are modelled correctly. They can not read all forum threads.

Good to hear!

As a 10-year-old lad in 1963 I read Al Deere's "Nine Lives" and learned back then about 100 octane fuel and overboost. This was repeated and reinforced reading many dozens of accounts, books, documents, etc. in the intervening years to the present day. And Luthier, Head Developer for Cliffs of Dover, is just being educated about 100 octane fuel.......NOW?????

Boggles the mind......

This raises an interesting question for me. Perhaps someone out there can enlighten me please?

Luthier has recently mentioned improving the flight model to take account of lift created at various points along the wing. This suggests that the flight model may be power independent - which is the way it is in reality of course. To me it's all about the potential lift that a flight surface can produce. Plug in more power and you overcome drag and increase speed, thereby producing greater lift.

So...ideally, to me a flight model should:

1. Be engine independent

2. Specify lift of various surfaces at specific speeds and angles of attack

3. Allow new power units to be easily plugged in which will immediately affect flight characteristics by overcoming drag and increasing lift


Personally I think this is how CloD handles the FM. I can't believe they'd hard code a flight model to a particular engine.
Engine power should be a completely separate variable.

What do you guys think?

My cover's been blown! Would it help my case if I come clean now and say I live very close to the old Hawker's factory and they made me do it or is it the firing squad for little old me? :grin:

Maybe the issue shouldn't be called "100 octane" but "+12 emergency boost". It doesn't matter if the flight model can't simulate the effects of different octane ratings, but it can for sure simulate more horse power for a engine.

With all due respect and again, I may be ignorant, but shouldnt this be a given? Shouldn't the devs' own research have been used to establish what the correct engine paramaters and historical data was?

If historical data is genuinely split on whether 87 or 100 was used, why not introduce 87/100 variants of all planes, or of only the hurricane, lets say, and leave only 100 octane spits, for example?

But most of all - regardless of the engine management, boost cut outs etc, are the ingame planes showing performance that accords to an 87 octane or 100 octane version? Or neither? What historical data is even being used here?

Also, lets keep in mind that just making the planes perform like 100 octane, 12lb boosted versions at normal engine boosts is not a good solution, because the real things couldnt operate fully boosted all the time.

What we clearly need here is a proper set of graphs showing just which historical data is being used, and how the ingame planes compare.

You're right, assuming the engine didn't perform any better at lower boosts on the 100 octane stuff. But I think we all know what is being talked about here and that is whether the allied planes we have ingame are acting like 87 octane, 6lb? boost planes or 100 octane, 12lb (for a short time) boosted planes - and whether they match the historical performance of one or the other.

Myself, I don't know what the correct figures and octane is. But I want this SORTED above all else save framerate. This is one of the most basic aspects of the sim, and it shouldnt take a bug ticket to have it fixed. It's been a year+ since the sim came out. This should have been fixed on R(elease) day + 1

i hope we can have some news from the patch today...
i'm impatient to beta-test it ;)

well, i would like to have the beta patch instead of the news :grin:

.............Surely you mean the 'Alpha' patch:lol:hehe

No no no, it's simple. It's the beta version of a patch for the beta version of a game.:cool:

This is what they did. If you think your research results are different from the devs' ones you have a great opportunity to let them know using the bugtracker to post data, graphs, test videos, etc. Otherwise they may never find out their research was not correct.

As we know they fired some guys who failed to deliver a perfect sim in 2011. New guys probably are fixing only those things which they are aware of and which have enough evidence supporting them because the devs are extremely pressed for time with the sequel by the publishers including UBI. They are a small team and can not afford paying testers for thorough flight tests and research. If we do not tell them something is wrong they will never know it is wrong.

If we want to help there is a bugtracker to post all relevant proofs, graphs and figures. Just a tool to have all data in one place because the devs do not have time to read many forum threads.

I'm very curious about this little snippet of text from the update.:)

It simply means= Lots more waiting

The problem Ataros is that the community have gone to enormous lengths to highlight issues (with little official response from the devs) and have not bothered or just given up repeating the same set of bugs over and over again.

Most of us expected that threads such as this had the same purpose.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29526

Well that I take for granted my friend.:)

It had. The advantage of the bugtracker is it has a voting system.

I can not imagine the 1st entry in this thread which is "The current Ju 87 B is missing a label on the Flaps Control Box" can have the same priority as the missing COOP gamemode which received max number of votes in the tracker so far. (screenshots are missing already btw)

The devs may get their priorities wrong if we do not tell them what the market is asking for.

I do not know what could be Luthier's reaction if he saw "a missing label" being the 1st listed bug in a sticky bug thread. He could think that the sim is not that bad if customers do not have more serious things to place first.

I am not saying these bugs must not be reported. I am saying the bugtracker voting system is the only tool that can let the devs know about community priorities without confusing them.

I haven't signed up to the bugtracker as yet, but it seems to me that as this imminent patch may address many issues, or introduce new ones, it would be sensible to hold back and then vote for whatever bugs/features are there/not there after patch release. ;)

To all those following the development of the 87 vs XXX octane fuel (XXX= fill in the number as per your discretion), JG52Uther posted a very interesting screenshot on another thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1334660119

~S~

Thanks for the heads up, I can wait for the sequel.

I have voted but didn't add the non-functioning boost on the Spit Mk1a as I was hoping that the devs would be aware of this by now.

The Bugtracker is another example of the communitys desire to aid in the improvement of this title but sadly, for whatever reasons, the number of votes on many of the important issues is very low with only a handful of enthusiast participating - sadly the numbers give the wrong impression.

I don't know what the solution is regards collating the bug data and trying to make some sense in terms of prioritising them. Like you say, there are a lot of minor ones listed and the important ones buried in amongst them with just 2 or 3 votes.

Will you think that adding 100 octane add realism? i think not since every time a pilot must take a fresh new ac. In the real thing the pilots did not use 12 boost at will and when they used this was an overloading condition. And the engine lifetime was seriously reduced.

Since the sim has not some way to manage engine weathering since the pilots take a new ac every sortie this ll make the things just unrealistic like now. The lifetime of the ac components were considered while projecting the same. Is really a big thing use a feature that reduce the engine lifetime 5 times?

If the devs implement some kind of model that obligate the pilots to use the same ac (at least in virtual wars, like adw or il2.org.ru) and simulate the cumulating weathering of the engine and random failures of the same due excessive use of overload conditions in previous sorties then the things ll make sense.

It ll be amazing a pilot overconfident about their superplanes using excessive boost at all time in one, two or three sorties and then in the four be surpreside by some random malfunction. Adding advantage without adding the following disadvantages is far from reality. Just my 0,02 cents.

Acctualy the pilots (allies and axis) activate the boost one after another with no interval. Totally unrealistic, since there is not a DM that simulates the effects of the massive use of this overload condition. The things appears more STAR WARS than a sim.

I have to hit the WEP all time too to have some chance. I am so hardcore that i really feel bad using the boost in the unrealistic way. Frustrating...

Same goes for the 1min takeoff/combat power of the Bf 109.

Yes.

I try to promote issues that I consider important on the forums (like COOP or medium LOD bug).

You can copy some links to issues to this thread for instance asking to vote for them http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=30906&page=12
or link to them in appropriate forum threads, add to your signature, promote at other forums, etc.

The tracker exists for 2 weeks only and requires long-term effort I think.

I've voted for both, the more people who do the better, both are key issues imo.

In Cliffs of Dover the top speed of the Spitfire Mark I and Ia is 240 mph at sea level. (Overboost Control Cut Out yields 0.25 lbs increase in boost 6.25 ---> 6.5 and no measureable increase in engine performance in this sim). The actual speed of the Mark I and Ia Spitfires was 280 mph at 6.25 lbs and 305 mph at 12 lbs. This compares to 273 mph (sea level) of the 109's in this sim. And yes, the 109's are also undermodelled in this sim, just to a lesser degree than the Spitfire Mark I's.

Red pilots are apparently already flying clapped-out Spits, so yes, a functioning 12 lbs boost would be a realistic thing to have in this sim since that would render them as something more than the pitiful joke they're portrayed here. Hopefully Luthier will be convinced, or at least be made aware, of the existence of 100 octane fuel in time for the sequel -- then enable it backwardly compatible with a 2- or 3- year old Cliffs of Dover.

We shouldn't be denied full performance of +12lbs boost just because engine wear and ground crew/maintenance aren't modelled. The RAF Pilots were well aware of the effects of using +12lbs boost, they had to report it on landing, but it would not have stopped them using it when necessary. They would certainly use it if they were in a difficult situation.

As you say we don't run continuing missions that accumulate aircraft wear. If we did and both engine wear, ground repair and resources were modelled the problem would take care of itself.

Not agreeing or disagreeing but Im sure I read somewhere after 10 hours the Bf109 had to be serviced. Im assuming this means oil change etc. The RAF in the BoB had 2 servicable aircraft for every one pilot. For the RAF, ruining aircraft was not a problem.

Does anyone know what maintenance/checks were required when a pilot returned an aircraft with the cutout wire broken? Was it just a check for metal in the oil perhaps....or a full tear down!?

Yeah, maybe for the 2025 release "IL2 Pigs Might Fly" then we can have ground crew, factories and droplets of dodgy oil modelled.

When is "IL2 Pigs Might Fly" coming out though, Osprey? I DEMAND it NOW or I'm uninstalling. :D

You only need to give to every flyable plane a random wearing value (hours?).

When you enter in the cockpit you are informed of the engine's limit... it's not a real problem.

Wouldn't getting the base speed fixed be more important than getting 12lb boost added to game ?
Otherwise you may end up getting "normal" speed only by using boost = still not realistic.

ie.
a) top speed problem is a bug.
b) lack of 12lb boost is separate modelling issue.
Getting (a) fixed is (theoretically) easier for the devs than modelling 12lb boost and should be prioritised over (b), don't you think ? Or at least the 2 issues should be kept separate.

If you are going to model the wear and tear that degraded an aircrafts performance. It also would be necessary to model the poor design and workmanship of the early VVS designs, to be fair.

Most of the early (BOM) VVs aircraft could not take off without overheating and spewed so much oil the windscreens were difficult to see out of. You would have all sides up in arms, best just to model the " showroom " perfect craft.

It's a neat concept.

I just installed A2A's "Power 3 Spitfire", (Marks I, Ia, IIa, and IIb) including their "Accusim". This is a civilian addon to FSX, so it's really apples-to-oranges to CoD in many respects. It has no functioning guns, no battle damage modelling. But as you describe, Manu, it has a TON of wear & tear engine and airframe modelling which carries over to successive flights. Hit SHIFT 7 and you go to the maintenance hangar. There you are given a detailed report on what's good (green labels), what's so-so (yellow), and what needs immediate attention (red).
The detail is impressive, IMHO.

Imagine if this could be modelled in CoD, with repercussions for hard flying in terms of squadron points/demerits.....or rewards for careful flying (but not as great a reward as for downing e/a!). Or you have to make a choice to risk flying in your beat up aircraft on the next scramble, or fly a Tiger Moth to Castle Bromich to pick up a new one. That kind of thing.

The number of additional switches in the A2A Spit cockpit is an eye-opener. But despite that it feels extremely familiar to anyone with stick time in CoD's Spits. I'm finding it's easier to break stuff, overheat stuff, and generally muck things up --- but give me a few days and I'll have it all sorted out. And with the CoD Spitfires we can SHOOT stuff -- there's no beating THAT!!! :-P

Agree 100%

You worded it much, much better than I did.

That doesn't solve it at all. In fact, you can model that right now using scripting anyway. The player need not think a jot about managing his engine because if he screws it up he has a random chance anyway of getting a good one or screwed one, and if he's gets a screwed one he can just respawn anyway.
Unless the server mission can track an individual players treatment of an engine and store it for use in that mission or subsequent related missions then it won't work at all.

I believe that COD has this feature but it is not 'switched on' / implemented in the current build.

I recall Oleg talking about it - not sure if there was a screenshot (?) - there was another slider for mechanical wear beside the physical weathering slider. Setting it high could lead to engine or other malfunctions during the course of a mission.

Also, in the planned campaign accumulated wear and tear would be tracked.

So, I believe it is all there, but maybe not in fully functioning form as yet. Maybe will be introduced with the sequel? (or when they finally code the dynamic campaign)

edit: found the screen..!

Enough is enough. Tired of waiting, here it is

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

Get voting

I initially had your same idea, BUT I realize that is too much for the current condition of the software (CloD). It could be really interesting for the next versions of the game...

Right now IMO my idea is simpler to build in this moment: it does not solve it at all... but something si better than nothing. :-)

I had a radiator failure message just driving around sightseeing, not sure what was up with that.

Done.

Well I just voted a negative to neutralize that vote:evil:...:-P

Aaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! :grin:

So what you are saying is that, even though the research was wrong and the team knows the earlier team delivered a flawed product which needs across the board revision, its up to us to do the analysis (with no tools)? What kind of development team relies only on a community bugtracker?

I realise that this is not the fault of the present team, and that they are being pushed in other directions, but I want to voice my DEEP displeasure at whoever is ultimately responsible for this mess (not the dev team) for releasing a flawed product and refusing to allocate the resources needed to fix it. Sims are not the most popular games but this is surely the best way to kill them altogether.

Having been made aware very early of the flaws in their FM's, it's the publishers/devs responsibility to check each FM, make sure it conforms to the historical data, including correct engine parameters, and to deliver a TIMELY patch to correct such serious deficiencies. Most of the FM's HAVE been raised on the bugtracker anyway. Fixing them does not mean restraining yourself to the issue raised on that bugtracker though. If the research shows they are not using the proper fuel and not performing like the period aircraft, it doesnt matter whether the fix includes things (like 87/100 octane boost issues) that are not on the bugtracker. They are not here to respond solely to a bugtracker (that is only an aid).

And anyway, if what you said was true, and only the Spit Ia was on the bugtracker, then the devs would not be changing almost every plane's FM. Either the data used is correct, or it is not!
It sounds like that quote is talking about loadouts and selecting fuels to use, not whether the plane FM's will be changed to the proper fuel.

Having said that, correcting incorrect engine performance and fuel grade is not a 'feature' it's a research cockup. It is not something for a sequel!

I mean, what exactly are we simulating here? A hypothetical battle of britain where the RAF used inferior fuel instead and likely lost the war? Why the hell are we simulating that?

i fully agree with that, the main errors like no 100% octane available to all spitfires and hurricanes FROM THE START OF BoB, is a major error that needs to be corrected QUICKLY and as a matter of priority, its a MAJOR oversight that significantly reduces the value of the game as a SIMULATOR !! they are in fact penalizing the allied side with a approx 10% performance hit across the board

however ........

up untill now, for many people like myself, the sim just hasnt performed well enough to even test this out properly. with my mid end pc that according to release information should have played the sim fairly well with some elements toned down, i still have:
- micro-freezes, and major slowdowns and total screen freezes when approaching some ground objects (like trying to fly through a hanger or low over some buildings),
- and some CDT's at other points in gameplay.
- plus, right now you cant even set your FoV to the correct setting for the screen size you have, so all ingame objects (houses, planes, etc) are distorted in size by either roughly 30% to large or to small, totally destroying the correct sense of speed you should get from visual ques while flying in the game, aside for it being rather silly to expect us to fly around in Lilliput land or play with dinky toy objects and pretend we are "simulating" anything.

and there are a few more serious problems like this.........
- for eg the 109 ground handling is totally artificial and very "console game like" instead of simulating a ww2 pilot experience. the plane is nowhere near as difficult or sensitive to land or takeoff as it should be (iirc over 50% of 109's during ww2 were lost during takeoff and landing accidents, rather then in combat). right now a 9 yo with a few pointers can safely do it, is that really simulation ?

but we simply havnt gotten to the point of being able to address most of those issues because the grafix engine has been performing so poorly, only once that is running well will the other aspects be more glaringly obvious, and requests for fixes be more vocal

this was discussed several times with Oleg and Co in the leadup to SoW-BoB, and all indications are that this level of detail was built into the sim. exactly how deep and extensive it goes i dont know exactly, butt definitely they were talking about modeling engine wear and component failures that stayed with the aircraft used, and it limiting that same aircraft performance over subsequent sorties (with a ticking clock type scenario, if the plane was on the ground at a friendly base for a period of time, gradual repairs would be done to restore it back to 100%).

what wasnt exactly discussed is that a pilot could also be given a "track record", where him repeatedly thrashing or damaging aircraft (or causing friendly fire incidents), would get him to be relegated to other "missions" or tasks because he was wasting to many resources

my hope is that they simply havnt completed that aspect, and will be able to add it in at some point in the future with minimal effort. in the same way they can already add driving vehicles, controlling some ships, AI civilian traffic on roads including buses following a time tabled route with specific stops, integrated AA systems where damaging search lights or them running out of ammunition will affect their performance and effectiveness, articulated skeletal human figures that will animate certain human activity sequences of players in game,.....etc

there is a whole load of unseen goodies under the hood that still can surface fairly quickly, and we should also create some threads where we can work out what exactly we want implemented as some of these major features, and how we see it working. it is those aspects that will take SoW series to the "next level" that is was intended to be, we have just been distracted by the forced buggy and rushed release so far. once the sim is running (in the next few weeks), we more or less will have it as intended for release, and the other main aspects can be worked upon

Great update fellas.

Here's hoping we can have skins, clouds, and no CTD's. I can't wait to be able to use some of the great skins floating around and then be able to hide away in the clouds when I'm in trouble :)

Here's hoping for huge formation flying, skins, and of course, those sorely needed clouds in the sky!

Hope we get something this week. Can't wait to test.

Don't have a heart attack Barbi.

As long as the wheels weren't on the ground the 109 was very docile when taking off and landing.

You might want to look at other a/c and the losses they incurred.

As for the 50%, not even close to the actual number.

You might want to look through this pdf of JG2, http://www.ww2.dk/misc/jg2loss.pdf

A study was done of accidents for JG26 when it operated both the 190 and 109. Guess what, the 190 had more accidents.

yes you need that type of "wearing value", plus...

a "memory" associated with each plane as to how much it was "worn", damaged, or abused/stressed during flight (all numbers which the game already computes and records during the duration of a flight), we now just need this information to stay with the plane for a duration of time determined by:
- normal service time/hrs/days needed for a plane (usually just a few hrs, and many went on a 2e or 3e flight of the same day after just re-arming and re-fueling, with maintenance crews working overnight to service it for the next day again)
- "repair time penalty" for major structural or engine damage, with same plane being unavailable for a few days
- airfields that only have a specific number of new and ready planes available should be directly affected by the above, and not perpetually have available new lanes to respawn to. limits should be placed on availability determined by, planes ready and present, repair time needed, and rate of resupply to each airbase with new planes (as occurred during wartime)

pilots should even have a "track record", where careless pilots who damage a number of planes (or cause friendly fire incidents) are relegated to rear airfields for training purposes only, or fly other missions from other airfields that dont drain the limited supply of good aircraft from frontline airfields (for ex online the player il number could be used for this)

As a WW sim veteran, War Eagles!, anyone ? (Cosmi -1989)
The last decades were very harsh for this industry and the vast majority of our beloved companies have gone kablooie
(Sierra/Dynamix, Microprose, Origine/Jane's, Rowan/Empire, DID/Rage, Microsoft Aces Studio etc ...
The last straw was the selling of MFS engine to Lockheed Martin in 2009.

It was a real war but the good guys are still in the cockpit here @1C
This is the biggest day since IL2 sturmovik release for me, a real milestone, at last 1C will show the quality of their work.
Luthier & co, worked their a** off, for years and he nearly killed himself by exhaustion trying to save the baby. But he eventually did.

CoD will become the new WWII sim reference. The bird will fly and bring high in the sky 1C colours (especially with the lightning :-P).
Of course there's still tons of features left in the garage, and CoD itself will keep the stigmas of a badly rushed product.
But the team is already working on a better platform and when the big merge will come, the champagne will pop! (i pay my bottle and i send it from France) because it will be IL2 all over again (just imagine the pacific omygosh).
I'am confident they have a better control of the publishing (at least in russia) and the russian market is rising. Also we won't see any serious competitors at this level, too much work has been done already.

It's a niche but the dog is a bear :cool:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

I think this could be made to work for off-line play just as it is in the MSFS Spitfire by A2ASimulations.

For on-line play it seems to me, logically, that the aircraft 'state' would have to be attached to the player, simulating his use of the aircraft over a period of time. It would be tricky to tie his use of a particular aircraft to someone else's use of it unless there was some cleverly scripted tracking of the airfield's aircraft and use. Of course new and/or partially worn aircraft could be made available for a player when he 'reports' to an airfield.

This could be made effective over the period of the server's mission map or even a continuing campaign with, as someone said, a time penalty for servicing needs or a resource tracker if a replacement aircraft is used and a repair time penalty applied to the original aircraft before it became available again.

Food for thought, I doubt there's time for the dev team to even glance at this just now.

Wear and tear in a flight sim? Maybe it makes sense with an all out dynamic campaign generator for off- and online, where attrition of resources is a major goal.

One thing I know for myself is: I wouldn't want to fly a plane, that's not 100% combat ready. Ask yourself: would you?

Many thanks.

lets say... i get assigned a plane... then my team starts sucking and we lose a bridge that would have carried my shiny new replacement plane... i can take my old weathered plane up and try to stop them from doing it again... or just sit on the ground waiting for a replacement... I'd like a game where I'm forced to wait for resupply instead of just automatically be given the best of the best... i think even in real life not everyone got a brand new plane...

I think if this is to simulate war, not just air combat, then attrition, and the fact that things need to be made, and then somehow brought to the front lines would be a nice addition and give our bombers some targets that not just count towards an objective, but weaken the opposing teams ability to fight back too.

i hope that explains why i would fight with a plane thats not 100%...

In a sim? Sure, why the hell not! Especially if everyone else is. Just more exciting. Why else do you think people fly the G50?

In reality planes were hardly ever 100% combat ready. There were always extra challenges. Sims have not, till now, had the fidelity to simulate these challenges well. Some create scenarios and random chances of failures to test pilot skill (Ms flight sim for example) but these have little bearing to the pilot's skill in handling the craft prior to failure. As such, sims have always lacked the 'granularity' of real flight and aircraft.

The ability to finally simulate these kinds of events and failures should be seen as a major step forward, not back. Let's not forget that many great pilots, for example Marseille, lost their lives to nothing more than engine trouble.

In reality? No way in hell.

lol, your going to try and argue that landing and taking-off doesnt involve the landing gear touching the ground ?

affected by a bad case of forum'itis, are ya ?

you might want to compare instead the relation between losses through enemy action and other operational losses for the Me 109 for all units of the Luftwaffe for the time period in question. using a reliable data source, for ex " Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, 3.42 - 12.44" states as results:

for the losses without enemy action, by far the majority of 'other causes' was directly losses in take off and landing mishaps. in addition to direct incidents at takeoff and landing (which is responsible for about 1/3 of ALL lost 109's, and 2/3 of all non-combat losses, the losses due to engine or other mechanical failure following take off is not included in the landing/takeoff incidents, and with the aircraft notoriously hard to land at the best of times this adds another significant %. also note that this states LOST aircraft, not minor damage that could be easily repaired, and which would then simply be defined as an incident rather then loss. for ex, on gear up belly landings with a 109 the wing or fuselage structure was often bent out of alignment (much more so then the fw-190), and this has lead to higher aircraft losses of the Bf 109.

you cant claim one isolated group record like you are doing ( and even then i dont trust your numbers, have you been reading kurfurst's site maybe ?) and then extrapolate to large generalities and try and draw conclusion. % wise compared to combat losses, the german units saw much more intense action and combat losses were much higher, even then for them as a total of aircraft losses, directly related landing and takeoff accidents are still responsible for 1/3 of all 109's lost (and this is with trained pilots, not pc armchair wannabe's with a bad attitude and a short attention span who have never even flown ANY aircraft). if most of us were plonked down in the seat of a 109 and told to takeoff, most of us would simply not make it :) in a cesna, sure. but not a hot rod war machine like the 109 with all its quirks and dangers.

for ex, in the Finnish Air Force 69% of the accidents being take-off/landing related (does not specify if aircraft lost or damaged), while in JG 26, the share is just 22% (a likely reason being maybe more highly trained pilots at the start of the war ? since stats are counted over the 5 war years, and german 109 pilots had time on these aircraft since 1938 approx ?).

another reference text (Suomen Historia) provides the following information on all of the finnish 109 losses during their part in the war:
Total war-time losses: 61 aircraft
Losses at landing: 9 aircraft
Losses at take-off: 10 aircraft

that is 31% loss of their total number of available aircraft directly documented, counted aircraft per aircraft on incidents directly at takeoff or landing. there were 29 "accidents" total, 19 or 20 losses being directly in take-off/landing, the others to mechanical and fuel related faults (not combat related).

another poster summarizes the context and difficulties rather well for the german 109 pilots

another part of the puzzle is how easy/hard it was to emergency land a combat damaged or mechanically faulty 109. for allied pilots for ex many battle damaged P-47s and Mustangs that actually made it back to England, many were repairable and returned to service. Ditto for landings on Continent within Allied lines. aditionally, more german 109 pilots were seriously wounded or killed in these landing/takeoff incidents compared to allied pilots, because the canopy was hard to open and could not be kept open during landing/takeoff to provide easy escape.

conclusion, direct aircraft loses in takeoff and landing could be argued down to being just over 30% if you want to be very strict on the definition of terms, but when you look at that in context of the total non-combat losses being 50% of all 109's lost, you will find that even if the residual 20% is not quoted as direct landing/takeoff, it would still be a related to malfunctioning 109 having to try and make it back safely onto the ground for emergency landings or the pilot having to bail out and abandon his machine, and for the 109 this was much more hazardous than most other single seat fighters of the same period.

so yes, it is very close to the number i quoted, and for the 109 specifically this was a major problem. and this historical behavior and hard to land/take-off is NOT represented in CoD right now

I agree that this could be modelled better - not just on the 109, but on ALL aircraft, since its way too easy to land and take off from all surfaces with all aircraft at the moment. Theres a reason emergency landings were done gear up!

But in all seriousness, this is not a training simulator and its primary purpose is not to teach you proper landing and take off procedures. This issue trails far behind many others.

Also, the simulation of proper attrition rates of 109's due to landing/take off accidents is not something that will add significantly to this sim. Most people fly CoD for the combat that happens IN the air, not the feeling of schadenfreude invoked by enemy 109's getting INTO it.

Landing and taking off really isnt that hard, done it loads of times as a kid in a light a/c and i think its modeled very well as it is, landing could be a little more tricky i will admit to that.