With Kurfurst's track record I take anything he publishes with a large pinch of salt.

Are you taking the spitfireperformance.com site with a pinch of salt, too? Cause that webmaster is under similar suspicions (spit-polishing the Spitfire's halo by posting selected data).

Every coin has two sides. ;)

Depends who is suspicious doesn't it?

I'm happy to go with results data from wartime testing though, I don't think you'll get more believable than that, and if that is still something we cannot believe to be true then forget any progress in WW2 flight simming forever.

Problem is too many people take such websites and the tests they publish as eternal truth and ignore that circumstances have to be taken into consideration. I, personally, take any website with a pinch of salt because you never know who made it and what motives that person has. I mean it's so damn easy to leave out data that doesn't fit an agenda ... :-|

So very true about the Hungarian's site.:)

Careful or we're going to fall into a "topic pit" which we wouldn't want. Okay? ;)

I agree that the developers probably won't make a dynamic campaign for COD, but I'm sure other talented people in the community, and third party groups will. COD isn't dead and far from it.

Currently the developers are reworking atleast the graphic engine, and fixing bugs in other features.

Aircraft made for the other theaters, will include some that were used over England and France.

The Dynamic Weather feature will be available to all theaters when implemented.
There is no reason that any feature built for the series can't be applied to COD if its applicable. ie DX11 water etc etc etc

The SDK will be released to the community. This will mean every aspect of COD could change and evolve over the next ten years.

You are right that COD financed BOM........... then BOM will finance The Med, then The Med will finance The Pacific, then The Pacific will finance Europe, etc etc etc etc

Right now, I'm hoping the series will survive long enough for the SDK to be released so that the community can get their hands on what the developer couldn't afford to continue work on.

Agreed 100%

Even when the whole report is provided (read not just the cherry picked data) little things can be missed that can make a big difference in the results. Things like ballest to simulate ammo loads, fuel loads, fuel type, carb jetting, etc just to name a few.

Therefore when the website does not provide the whole report for review, these little things will surly be missed

The problem is the Il-2/COD engine seem to just state the max. power, and max. speed at max power. The engine calculates the rest. And then engine power calculations are again relate only to max power, and a generic formula takes care of the rest for lower powers.

I guess , so you probably won't get exact speed results for lower RPM/MAP combinations, for example you probably won't get the exact cruise speed at ~1 ata cruise settings as in real life.

Well its a good thing then that it was Messerschmitt AG that published these papers, so you can trust them with your life for authenticy. :D

Anyone wishing to check the original Me 109E specs paper should check here - there is not much to add except that this is the official performance guaranteed by manufacturer within +/- 5% in speed (ie. 475 - 525 km/h at SL) and +/- 8% in climb.

http://www.2shared.com/document/-XYw...chreibung.html

This tended to be an average of performance - any plane that did not meet the above specs within tolerance was rejected by the LW's quality control group, abbreviated BAL.

Here is how the speed scatter works - the following is a test result compilation of thirteen 109G machines tested at ERLA producer. The thick line in the middle is the nominal (guaranteed) speed performance at altitude, the two other thinner lines are the +/- 3% tolerance on speed. The small dots are the speeds achieved by individual planes. The box is the nominal performance - 660 km/h at 7000m. Most flew quite close, but there were three that didnt match the specs and were rejected, while three were a bit faster than the nominal. The thick box is the median of the non-rejected planes. A small note that the speed runs were flown with the radiators 120 mm open, whereas nominal speed was understood with 50mm open radiators, so the tested planes should be a bit slower than the nominal speed anyway (more drag in tested condition than in standard condition).

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...catter_web.jpg