Are these listed in the bugtracker? http://www.il2bugtracker.com/project...s?set_filter=1

If these issues do not have many votes the devs may consider it not important. Please register and vote to let them know what community priorities are.

I can see only one entry for Spit Ia there. http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/84
This should mean to the devs that others are modelled correctly. They can not read all forum threads.

Good to hear!

As a 10-year-old lad in 1963 I read Al Deere's "Nine Lives" and learned back then about 100 octane fuel and overboost. This was repeated and reinforced reading many dozens of accounts, books, documents, etc. in the intervening years to the present day. And Luthier, Head Developer for Cliffs of Dover, is just being educated about 100 octane fuel.......NOW?????

Boggles the mind......

This raises an interesting question for me. Perhaps someone out there can enlighten me please?

Luthier has recently mentioned improving the flight model to take account of lift created at various points along the wing. This suggests that the flight model may be power independent - which is the way it is in reality of course. To me it's all about the potential lift that a flight surface can produce. Plug in more power and you overcome drag and increase speed, thereby producing greater lift.

So...ideally, to me a flight model should:

1. Be engine independent

2. Specify lift of various surfaces at specific speeds and angles of attack

3. Allow new power units to be easily plugged in which will immediately affect flight characteristics by overcoming drag and increasing lift


Personally I think this is how CloD handles the FM. I can't believe they'd hard code a flight model to a particular engine.
Engine power should be a completely separate variable.

What do you guys think?

My cover's been blown! Would it help my case if I come clean now and say I live very close to the old Hawker's factory and they made me do it or is it the firing squad for little old me? :grin:

Maybe the issue shouldn't be called "100 octane" but "+12 emergency boost". It doesn't matter if the flight model can't simulate the effects of different octane ratings, but it can for sure simulate more horse power for a engine.

With all due respect and again, I may be ignorant, but shouldnt this be a given? Shouldn't the devs' own research have been used to establish what the correct engine paramaters and historical data was?

If historical data is genuinely split on whether 87 or 100 was used, why not introduce 87/100 variants of all planes, or of only the hurricane, lets say, and leave only 100 octane spits, for example?

But most of all - regardless of the engine management, boost cut outs etc, are the ingame planes showing performance that accords to an 87 octane or 100 octane version? Or neither? What historical data is even being used here?

Also, lets keep in mind that just making the planes perform like 100 octane, 12lb boosted versions at normal engine boosts is not a good solution, because the real things couldnt operate fully boosted all the time.

What we clearly need here is a proper set of graphs showing just which historical data is being used, and how the ingame planes compare.

You're right, assuming the engine didn't perform any better at lower boosts on the 100 octane stuff. But I think we all know what is being talked about here and that is whether the allied planes we have ingame are acting like 87 octane, 6lb? boost planes or 100 octane, 12lb (for a short time) boosted planes - and whether they match the historical performance of one or the other.

Myself, I don't know what the correct figures and octane is. But I want this SORTED above all else save framerate. This is one of the most basic aspects of the sim, and it shouldnt take a bug ticket to have it fixed. It's been a year+ since the sim came out. This should have been fixed on R(elease) day + 1

i hope we can have some news from the patch today...
i'm impatient to beta-test it ;)

well, i would like to have the beta patch instead of the news :grin:

.............Surely you mean the 'Alpha' patch:lol:hehe

No no no, it's simple. It's the beta version of a patch for the beta version of a game.:cool: