SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[Blackdog_kt]

So, in one single thread we have three separate topics:

1) availability or lack of 100 octane fuel during the BoB
2) IL2 compare
3) engineering discussions



This topic always generates wild discussions, but the one thing i can gather from whatever's been posted thus far is:

"nobody can convince me either way"

I think the best way is to have all versions available and then it's up to the mission designer to do the research and decide what to use. If i'm building a campaign and the squad i use was on a satellite field that day with 87 octane fuel only, i'll use the low power version of the flyable in the mission. If the next day they had moved back to their main base with 100 octane supplies, i'll use the high power flyables for the next mission. And so on and so forth for the aircraft of both sides (eg, the high power 110s).

I really don't see what the rest of the fuss is all about. We want accuracy, it's also up to us. It's not a case of the developer making a decision and forcing it on everyone and every scenario, especially when there are scenarios that would require having the other version of the flyable as well.

And even if everyone used their best fuel all the time in real life, we still need the low octane versions for a very simple reason. When the community or the developers release a dynamic campaign, it would be a great feature to have lack of supplies be reflected on the aircraft we fly: you let those 111s bomb your fuel dump in the previous mission and blow up your ammo shed, you're flying with 87 octane and half the amount of machine gun rounds in the next mission.

But i guess that's too imaginative and gameplay-enhancing, when we can just spend our time trying to force everyone to subscribe to and accept a single version of events instead

I'd say it's better to lighten up a bit and think outside the narrow confines of each one's favorite cockpit for a change

[svend]

Hi all,

First of all I will direct these first lines towards the moderators and apologize if this reply isnt seen as on topic, if not please delete it and I will open a new thread if found necessary


All the years I have been part of the WWII community (and that`s alot of years), these threads do pop up from time to time and alot of heart are brougt into it and do end up in alot of fire, insults, accusations and that
worries me.

Historical correctness regarding 100% octan fuel during the Battle Of Britain have been discussed
on WWII flightsim forums years back, as long I have been part of it (included FM`s as a result of 100% octan). The importance
in my own beliefs is/are not important for me to communicate out. Why? Simply because it will not change anything.

I do not post alot on forums and for a reason - I usually find, what Im looking for and keeping away from FM threads and the like simply because it`s not my job to convince others with opposite beliefs. Why? Se above .

The only thing that counts is, what the dev team have on print and researched, however it does not, guarantee a 100% correct sim. Why?
Because it have to reach out to alot of interest marked vice, both historical, game play and balance of game play.



Im an historical freak regarding Battle Of Britain and followed all topics on this and other forums (mostly other forums as Im new on this one).
I have seen 3rd party involvment, with no sim interest, what so ever, delever very interesting things forward to the community to help out abit and maby share some light. Through the years I have been doing my own research, both
from threads from this and other forums, through other channels aswell through the years (from a historical perspective)
and that`s why Im firm in my own belief, what`s historical correct or not.


The word "Sim" is very dear to us all, or most of us and to the devs aswell I hope . A sim to me is a product that
stay true to history as possible useing code (not everything is possible), especially, when covering a period like
the Battle Of Britain or all other periods for that matter. Can it be done? Yes it can - most important though, what will the consequences be if done,
that way? I will not answer that question for you, simply because the answer have to come from within youself and most important
what do I gain from it? Will it satisfie my style of play? Will my personal goals suffer from it? Hmm could be if
yes to last two question. I do not know if the dev team have the correct figures or not - or close to correct and
use them in future development updates (Im still talking about 100% octan). Would it be easy to test the community
and read the effects of it? Yes absolutely. Place one or two planes in the game as close as possible
number vice and se the reaction from the community (two will give a better result) and no harm done the FM can be changed.

Will this change history? Lol no it wont - it will change the game. Uuuups "GAME" or "SIM" It`s not my intention
with these words to hurt anyones feelings, especially the dev team and cant blame them if something have to be left out
or added to let the game/sim shine in it`s own light and give it it`s own special place in the history of WWII simulation. I
will say this though, that I have the right to call this a game aslong as "True to life aircraft" (from the CLoD website)
is not represented. If this put a smile on some dev faces I understand well - IM smileing myself AND do understand if
steps have to be taken to balance gameplay so peace be with you

The insults, accusations and words used in these threads AND not to forget, direct personal insults on non native speaking
english forum members is disgusting, total out of line. The arrogance I have seen some forum members use, to deliberately provoke
others to stay away from or continue a meaningful and positive debate on topic, may remotely be seen as an act of manipulation attend and distortion.
These individuals are easy to spot and known to the community and moderators and do not bring anything. As a result of this. I have found it necessary
for the first time during all those years, I have been part of the WWII sim community - been forced to add these people to my ignore list. I did this simply
because it`s the only way to enjoy the read of many, many interesting post on this forum. Im not proud of it - I se it as the only way to enjoy this forum.

I do apologize if some of this I have written here can be too much. It`s not my intention to step on anyones toes, but sometimes even I need to let off
some steam and thoughts.

Regarding the 100 octan fuel and my beliefs previously mentioned above, do not have any importans at all because it`s in the hands of the devs. They are
the ones, who will get the direction on where this sim will go (yearh I used the word sim this time) loool 50%-50% . Same goes for me being a blue or red flyer,
not important at all. I will reveal that I fly online mostly and offline to test things out, mostly planes and can be time consumeing.

My best wishes for CLoD, the devs and this forum and it`s members for 2012

Kind Regards
Svend

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I think the best way is to have all versions available and then it's up to the mission designer to do the research and decide what to use. If i'm building a campaign and the squad i use was on a satellite field that day with 87 octane fuel only, i'll use the low power version of the flyable in the mission. If the next day they had moved back to their main base with 100 octane supplies, i'll use the high power flyables for the next mission. And so on and so forth for the aircraft of both sides (eg, the high power 110s).

If you are looking for realistic missions, the satellite field would also have 100 octane fuel.

The squadron would be armed and fueled with 100 octane fuel fly out the satellite field very early in the morning and have their tanks topped up with 87 octane. They then would take off on an intercept mission. Some of the pilots would report rough running engines during combat but run OK while returning to base.

Upon returning to the satellite field the a/c would be rearmed and 87 octane fuel put in the tanks. They are scrambled on another intercept mission and the controller tells them Buster. The throttles are pushed full forward. Before they can reach any altitude, kaboom, kaboom, kaboom one after another 12 Merlins blow up and the squadron are now gliders looking for a place to crash land.

Not a very realistic scenario you presented.

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't know exactly how it was in the BoB, it was just an example (and in such a case, the pilots would be smart enough to use 87 octane power settings and their mechanics would warn them). What i'm really saying is, since we can't reach a consensus let's have both options and then each mission designer/server host can decide on their own and we can decide if we fly there.

Solves the issue pretty much

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I don't know exactly how it was in the BoB, it was just an example (and in such a case, the pilots would be smart enough to use 87 octane power settings and their mechanics would warn them). What i'm really saying is, since we can't reach a consensus let's have both options and then each mission designer/server host can decide on their own and we can decide if we fly there.

Solves the issue pretty much

That is the problem.

In the heat of the moment, tired and on an adrenalin high with their life on the line, you expect the pilots to remember they can't use full throttle?

Using 87 octane fuel on the CloD map is gaming the game.