Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

So tell me if you, and Robtec, with your absolutely unbiased minds, if the game makes it far enough and the developers model late war a/c, would you support the inclusion of the 1.98ata boost Bf109K-4 in the game?

I, for my part, am for the inclusion of ANY variant of EVERY model of airplane from any nation which flew between 1935 and 1947.

It is up to the server operator/mission builder to create his version of the most accurate picture of the intended scenario.

To have a unlimited fundus to create this scenario from would really help.

But you miss the question here, it is not about having the 100 oct. versions included in game, that is what we all want.

It seems it is about to get the 87 oct. versions excluded, as the claim is that only 100 oct. was used by the FC.

I am against ANY exclusion of a plane, or a version of a plane, that did fly between 1935 and 1947.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by robtek

It seems it is about to get the 87 oct. versions excluded, as the claim is that only 100 oct. was used by the FC.

I am against ANY exclusion of a plane, or a version of a plane, that did fly between 1935 and 1947.

I appreciate what you're saying, it would be really great to have all variants. I am all for 1938 Spitfire with early canopy, manual gear control, Woodbridge propeller, 87 octane fuel and early antenna mast, although this variant has been never used in a combat (except for Battle of Barking Creek lol). But for what this simulator is - Battle of Britain, summer of 1940, we should have upgraded version of the fighter and that includes 100 octane spirit. There is no question that this is what they had in the fueltanks since Dunkirque. Yes, 87 octane fuel has been used but is irellevant to what we have in the game - 11th group, summer 1940, frontline fighters facing Luftwaffe. No 87 octane fuel in this case. 100%-ly.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Robo.

...... There is no question that this is what they had in the fueltanks since Dunkirque. Yes, 87 octane fuel has been used but is irellevant to what we have in the game - 11th group, summer 1940, frontline fighters facing Luftwaffe. No 87 octane fuel in this case. 100%-ly.

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by robtek

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

And it's never been disproved that the Luftwaffe weren't using HP brown sauce sachets in their MG's either. You are using the exact argument that religious people use about god - "Prove he doesn't exist". The thing is you cannot provide evidence for something that is not there, you can only say it is not there because there is no evidence.

Imagine if our courts worked like this - "We have no evidence that you were at the murder scene so we cannot rule out that you weren't there - Guilty". It's nonsense Robtek i'm afraid.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by robtek

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

it's not about wether 87 octane use can be disproved, it's about only evidence for 100 octane exists and common sense.

[Crumpp]

You are using the exact argument that religious people use about go

Do you guys actually believe yourselves when you say stuff like this??



We are not talking some abstract concept.

An airplane must use a specified fuel. Dtd 230 was 87 Octane.

What was the service specification for 100 Octane? You know, the non-provisional one?

[bongodriver]

An airplane must use a specified fuel. Dtd 230 was 87 Octane.

Precisely.......so when they filled Blenheims with 87 'and' 100 octane the fuel was specified.....besides wasn't 100 octane DTD 224?

[Osprey]

It would take a little common sense to understand the logic I demonstrated. I'm not interested in your red tape based argument, it's complete nonsense.

[Crumpp]

besides wasn't 100 octane DTD 224?

Yes, the provisional specification that does not appear anywhere else.


On the otherhand, DTD 230 is commonly referenced both in the Operating Notes and Air Ministry.

Common sense dictates.....

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by robtek

There we have to agree to disagree.

The possibility of of 87 oct.use in combat hasn't been disproved, and possibly won't be ever.

The 100 oct. models must be present, but not as the sole representants!

I respect your opinion, of course. But with this logic, you can not disaprove anything, really. Somebody mentioned orange crows in here already...

With all due respect - there is lots of literature written about this era. It's one of the most researched in all aspects. I've never heard of pilot account mentioning something like ''Oh blimey I've been just transferred to this new squadron and they still fly on low octane fuel and gosh is it difficult now to fight the Jerry''. I hope you agree that the difference was big enough to be mentioned. Somewhere. I've just spent last year reading all these books and articles again while I am involved in this sim. Fascinating stuff on both sides. No mention of 87 octanes whatsoever.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence (direct and indirect) about 100 octane spirit since the French campaign. Please don't get yourself confused with certain claims some people here are trying to make, these theories are rather ridiculous.

Although I agree we never know if all the RAF fighters got only 100 octane fuel, it is the most relevant for what this sim represents. Unless you want to fly some OTU Spitfire in Scotland. Yet, we haven't got it modelled.