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

[ZaltysZ]

As talks begin to wander towards personals things, I want to point out one thing. This thread was created for discussions about inaccuracies between FM and RL data, however later it took the course of debating if planes present in game are suitable for BoB period.

Although Kurfurst doesn't agree that all Spitfires MK.I were on 100 octane, I think he won't disagree that Spitfire MK.I on 100 octane were not such rare and exotic breed (ala I-185, Mig-3U and so on), which would not be worth to be modeled. I think both sides would agree that we need 2 additional Spitfire MK.I models: CSP and CSP+100 octane. This is what is required from devs now. Everything else (debates about how much 100 octane were available) would be more helpful for mission designers and not to devs (somehow I don't think they would invest much time correcting campaigns).

[winny]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

As talks begin to wander towards personals things, I want to point out one thing. This thread was created for discussions about inaccuracies between FM and RL data, however later it took the course of debating if planes present in game are suitable for BoB period.

Although Kurfurst doesn't agree that all Spitfires MK.I were on 100 octane, I think he won't disagree that Spitfire MK.I on 100 octane were not such rare and exotic breed (ala I-185, Mig-3U and so on), which would not be worth to be modeled. I think both sides would agree that we need 2 additional Spitfire MK.I models: CSP and CSP+100 octane. This is what is required from devs now. Everything else (debates about how much 100 octane were available) would be more helpful for mission designers and not to devs (somehow I don't think they would invest much time correcting campaigns).

You're right, and personally I think that the Devs won't include the 100 octane Spit untill they've included the 109-F, simply for balance.
There would be too much flak.

I doubt if this discussion will sway them, they have their own ideas I'm sure.

This is really about ending the whole 'it shouldn't be there because...' argument. I think it's relevant and I aslo find it interesting (that's because I've nothing better to do )

[Glider]

Originally Posted by winny

You're right, and personally I think that the Devs won't include the 100 octane Spit untill they've included the 109-F, simply for balance.
There would be too much flak.

I doubt if this discussion will sway them, they have their own ideas I'm sure.

This is really about ending the whole 'it shouldn't be there because...' argument. I think it's relevant and I aslo find it interesting (that's because I've nothing better to do )

I might regret this but why on earth would they include the 109F? I believe that around a half dozen were sent to the front as a trial. You might as well say can we have Spit II with 20mm

[winny]

Originally Posted by Glider

I might regret this but why on earth would they include the 109F? I believe that around a half dozen were sent to the front as a trial. You might as well say can we have Spit II with 20mm

Because it's going to start to move forwards, I seem to recall the Devs saying that a 109-F was in the pipeline.

I'm looking from the MP side of things here, not the BoB. There will be more flyables, but it's a game, and developers balance games.

Maybe the 100 oct Mk I is so much better than a 109-E that they had to leave it out. , people have already complained that the Spit is too good, imagine what it would be like if the 100 oct was in there.. Mutiny

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by winny

You're right, and personally I think that the Devs won't include the 100 octane Spit untill they've included the 109-F, simply for balance.
There would be too much flak.

I doubt if this discussion will sway them, they have their own ideas I'm sure.

This is really about ending the whole 'it shouldn't be there because...' argument. I think it's relevant and I aslo find it interesting (that's because I've nothing better to do )

I think, if the balance would be the purpose, would be before E-4/N, E-7/N (these fit this period historically, no need new 3d modell), than F. Who flies on a German side, it does not understand it, why they are not those developments, with what the German aircrafts were equipped already under the BOB? Is this Balance too?

[Sven]

I thought the ingame variant was already 100 octane performance wise, but only the dial indicates a too low value of boost. Or did I miss something again?

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sven

I thought the ingame variant was already 100 octane performance wise, but only the dial indicates a too low value of boost. Or did I miss something again?

I have no idea, I was just speculating, wildly...

It could just boil down to faulty instruments.

(But where's the fun in that?!)

[Al Schlageter]

As Barbi puts much much stock in what Oliver Lefebvre says, this is what he said on the DB601N engines:

Wastel are you sure about the E-7/N for 41 ? AFAIR my delivery data show a much lower amount of E-7 with the DB601N. While the E-7 was planned for use with the DB601N, the installation of this engien was quite troublesome on the Emil and few were actually fitted with it.

I'll try to come up with my numbers if the documents have not already been packed away...

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...=515&hl=db601n

[csThor]

With the Bf 109 E you can't really take delivery numbers for the DB 601N engined crates. Most of them were re-engined after some time (even some E-1s).

[robtek]

One has to take in account also that more than half of the DB601N production went to the 110's, which used them in the BoB.