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

[Matt255]

Did you actually check, if the ingame performance of those planes, matches the charts in the manual?

Or are you just assuming that this would be the case?

[Rickusty]

Fiat G.50 HAS NOT the overboost function - WEP (it was called "+100" and added 100 mmHg for the engine)
Engine power could be increased, for a short period of time, to 960 HP at 3.000 m.
The engine should be then running at 890 mmHg pressure.
In the game, manifold pressure at max throttle is 710 mmHg... A lot less than what it could achieve.

As it is now, the plane feels so underpowered.
It certainly wasn't. Power to weight ratio was 0,35 HP-KG... way better than Hurricane I for example (0,24 HP-KG).
I certainly doesn't feel like that in the game.

Whenever you start to make a shallow climb with a G.50, it stalls.
It wasn't fast, but... it could outclimb an Hurricane 1 so...

And it can just reach 350 km/h at sea level. IRL it could master about 40 km/h more.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Rickusty

Power to weight ratio was 0,35 HP-KG... way better than Hurricane I for example (0,24 HP-KG).
I certainly doesn't feel like that in the game.

Whenever you start to make a shallow climb with a G.50, it stalls.
It wasn't fast, but... it could outclimb an Hurricane 1 so...

And it can just reach 350 km/h at sea level. IRL it could master about 40 km/h more.

Hurricane Mk1 with MErlin III, CSP and aditional armour ( pilot armoured seat, fuel tanks and armoured windshield) had take off weight 3061 kg. With 100 octan fuel - power at 6 1/2 lbs was 1030 HP and at +12 lbs was 1310 HP so power to weight ratio was - 0.33 HP/Kg ( +6 1/2lbs) and 0.42 HP/kg ( +12 lbs).

Im not wonder that G50 had also wrong power settings in COD. Such problems have near all COD planes.

You could post here reliable data for G-50 also. Maby developers will be interesting in these.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by scorpac

looks like it will be the same like the old il2... they hate AXIS!

It is not about Axis or Allied or any side. It is just about inaccuracy which is in both side data. Just all.

Originally Posted by T}{OR

I missed the thread where this was copied from.

So I have just one question: where is this data from? Sources and references?

Data which i posted are mostly from these kown site about performacne WW2 planes where you can find scans of many RL documents and datas:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

and here about LW planes:

http://www.kurfurst.org/

Plus many data and scans, manuals, books etc. which i got from many years reaserching

Originally Posted by Matt255

Did you actually check, if the ingame performance of those planes, matches the charts in the manual?

Or are you just assuming that this would be the case?

I dont check it in game actually beacuse i dont have it yet. I just look at COD manual data for these planes and also read some topic where some other people write about FM issues in COD, like here in these topic:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19754

So i clearly see that there is a problem here and it would be good if developers would make it in right way in future patches. I see that they just have a problem with accurate data for these birds so i i think they need help here - if they want of course.

[JG4_Helofly]

Well, if the numbers in the manual match the actual performance of the plane in game, then it's way off (according to the data shown here)...

I wonder what source they used for the FM.

[SG1_Gunkan]

This a very critical post for the sim. No matter the complexity of the engine model or physics, if the data is not reliable, people won't take the sim in consideration.

Thank you very much Kwiatek, this time let's make the data chars clear, public and historical.

[JG52Uther]

+1
I don't care if my plane is porked,as long it is historically porked to 1940's standards!

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

+1
I don't care if my plane is porked,as long it is historically porked to 1940's standards!

Likewise. Besides, if my plane is correctly porked, I can always switch sides

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

+1
I don't care if my plane is porked,as long it is historically porked to 1940's standards!

Exactly. No screaming rubbish about bias to one flavour. I too am only interested in historical accuracy. What worries me is that in the long run the FM'S will get sodomised in oder to balance online dogfights. No, I want a planeset that performs as it did, even if it means I die a lot.

[DC338]

Kwiatek maybe right ref performance. From the state of it the Alpha testers (they released the beta) probably never got round to FM testing due to all the other problems. Hard to trust charts (in the manual) that have combat flap turn times for a Spitfire FFS!