Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[kendo65]

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?

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by kendo65

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?

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.

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by kendo65

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.
..........

So what exactly is your problem?

Fair enough Kendo,

Since you chose to answer on his behalf.

Please explain this sentense that Moggy wrote:

Originally Posted by Moggy

I provided them with ............ I just pray that they didn't use the performance data as I seem to remember they were for the fixed pitch prop and Hurricane Mk.Is when used\transported by the ATA (87 octane fuel).

And tell me what you deduct from this...

~S~

[von Pilsner]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

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...

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

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...

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~

[KG26_Alpha]

Ok


Thats enough speculation in this thread.

Too much personal stuff also.




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






.

[NervousEnergy]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

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

I am so stealing that.

[irR4tiOn4L]

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?

[Moggy]

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

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Moggy

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~