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

[SturmKreator]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thats true, If we have the same stupid performances than Il2, I prefer fly the old il2, becouse at least we have a more finished job. I hate the Olegs team idea who thinks balance the game will be more fun, LOL, the people want realism, not a console game. Sorry, but if the game not changes at all in this way, I never bought him.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by SturmKreator

Thats true, If we have the same stupid performances than Il2, I prefer fly the old il2, becouse at least we have a more finished job. I hate the Olegs team idea who thinks balance the game will be more fun, LOL, the people want realism, not a console game. Sorry, but if the game not changes at all in this way, I never bought him.

+10

Every one of us is claiming for realism in the sim till first Il-2, and creators also sell the sim to us as "the most realistic", so any sense in using incorrect data. By the way accurate data for most of aircraft are available for every people who wants to find it, Kwiatek demonstrate it, so non sense also trying to fool us with nobodyknowsfromwhere data... And not the only thing, everyone of us knows actually how an Emil's DB601 sounds, not to mention a RR Merlin, there are at least two airworthy Emil examples nowadays and you can see in youtube... does really make sense trying to say us a Db601 sounds like ingame? details like this only tell us what's the real level of research and finishing of the product, so please don't fool us any more and do things like you said it'll be do from start.

S!

[juamfra]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by SturmKreator

Thats true, If we have the same stupid performances than Il2, I prefer fly the old il2, becouse at least we have a more finished job. I hate the Olegs team idea who thinks balance the game will be more fun, LOL, the people want realism, not a console game. Sorry, but if the game not changes at all in this way, I never bought him.

Originally Posted by Ala13_ManOWar

+10

Every one of us is claiming for realism in the sim till first Il-2, and creators also sell the sim to us as "the most realistic", so any sense in using incorrect data. By the way accurate data for most of aircraft are available for every people who wants to find it, Kwiatek demonstrate it, so non sense also trying to fool us with nobodyknowsfromwhere data... And not the only thing, everyone of us knows actually how an Emil's DB601 sounds, not to mention a RR Merlin, there are at least two airworthy Emil examples nowadays and you can see in youtube... does really make sense trying to say us a Db601 sounds like ingame? details like this only tell us what's the real level of research and finishing of the product, so please don't fool us any more and do things like you said it'll be do from start.

S!

+100

Totally agree, nothing to add.

[Biggs]

From my own testing of the Spitfires, my only issues are with the mkI variants in the game...

after repeated tries I was only able to reach the top speeds (@18500ft) of:
260 IAS with the mkI
220 IAS with the mkIa

they should both be at or around the 365 TAS mark (its a few MPH higher or lower depending on the plane, prop,engine II or II and fuel octane 87 or 100)

Also the mkIa (which should be using a DH 5/29 or 5/30 bracket CSP) should have a better rate of climb than the mkI which used the older 2-pitch De Havilland prop.

[Blue Scorpion]

Originally Posted by Biggs

From my own testing of the Spitfires, my only issues are with the mkI variants in the game...

after repeated tries I was only able to reach the top speeds (@18500ft) of:
260 IAS with the mkI
220 IAS with the mkIa

they should both be at or around the 365 TAS mark (its a few MPH higher or lower depending on the plane, prop,engine II or II and fuel octane 87 or 100)

Also the mkIa (which should be using a DH 5/29 or 5/30 bracket CSP) should have a better rate of climb than the mkI which used the older 2-pitch De Havilland prop.

I was going to post my own conclusions, which are based on similar data from www.spitfireperformance.com that the spitfire as modelled in COD is considerably underpowered, and that turn rate for the Hurri appears off too.Sadly, an overzealous mod banned my account while I was in the process of typing a lengthy post on the subject and it disappeared into the ether when I hit submit.

Britain and the Commonwealth pilots at the Battle of Britain as seriously outnumbered as they were, 640 fighters facing 2600 Luftwaffe aircraft, where able to do what they did because of the relative performance of the machines involved, access to 100-octane fuel, combined with the advantage proffered by radar. Failure to portray the difference in performance is a huge disservice to everyone that was involved during that conflict regardless of the side they served.

As another poster pointed out, this has nothing to do with hating anyone; it is about accurate portrayal of the subject, THE single most important factor for any title that calls its self a simulation.

[fireship4]

I don't like to respond to a post and contribute to overall bickering (when it is better to stay on subject), but:

If I were a game developer, I would never cater to this segment of the playerbase.

If you were a sim developer? Or if you were a developer in general? If you mean the former then it doesn't really make sense as that is what a simulator is about (normally), and the playerbase of a simulator often has a large proportion of people who want it to reflect reality.

I think people shouldn't be complaining when people dispute facts and figures here (especially when backed up), for a lot of people it is very important.

[sod16]

Originally Posted by Tanner

This crap is so tiresome. If I were a game developer, I would never cater to this segment of the playerbase. My advice? If you can find a better WWII Combat Flight Sim, go play it; otherwise, shut up and be happy that you have anything to play at all.

You seem to misunderstand the gaming industry as a entity.
They work for US, not the other way round. We pay them to create a video game. If they do not put what WE want then they do not get PAID. These people are allowed to complain no matter how unneeded it is. They will eventually read it all.

If there was a better WW2 combat sim, then MADDOX games would lose money if they where not an*l about the realism.

When I become a game developer, I will listen to EVERY fan I have. Things only get better when you listen.

[madrebel]

ive never seen anyone deffinitively prove when and how many spitfire quadrons were operational with 100 octane fuel. sure it was there and used but when was it first introduced and how many squadrons used it?

further, the brits weren't the only ones with better fuel. 109s and 110s both were using C3 about halfway through as well. anything with a /N suffix was using C3 and 2700RPMs for 5 minute WEP.

oh and the spitfires didnt have variable flaps.

[JG14_Jagr]

Originally Posted by Blue Scorpion

Britain and the Commonwealth pilots at the Battle of Britain as seriously outnumbered as they were, 640 fighters facing 2600 Luftwaffe aircraft, where able to do what they did because of the relative performance of the machines involved, access to 100-octane fuel, combined with the advantage proffered by radar. Failure to portray the difference in performance is a huge disservice to everyone that was involved during that conflict regardless of the side they served.

Lets keep everything within the bounds of reality.. 2600 is the total LW airfleet deployed for the BoB. If you want to play with numbers, 600 Hurricanes and 357 Spitfires were lost... the Lw lost 533 109's.. so obviously the 109 is 2X as good right????

The relative performance of the Spitfire and 109E were more or less comparable. Neither had a decisive advantage that was enough to overcome engagement circumstances or pilot skill. Each had strong and weak points they would try to exploit.. Saying that because the RAF planes should be modelled to perform better because they won is ludicrous.

Model the planes as accurately as possible based on the data. Leave the anecdotal analysis out of the picture entirely. The circumstances of the combat had a FAR greater effect on the fighter on fighter combat than the relative performance.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Blue Scorpion

I
Britain and the Commonwealth pilots at the Battle of Britain as seriously outnumbered as they were, 640 fighters facing 2600 Luftwaffe aircraft, where able to do what they did because of the relative performance of the machines involved, access to 100-octane fuel, combined with the advantage proffered by radar. Failure to portray the difference in performance is a huge disservice to everyone that was involved during that conflict regardless of the side they served.

This is totally BS. I can't believe to hve to read this.

The fact that two third of the Vics were scored by courageous pilots tht had to fight in the inferior Hurri prove this fact. Britain wons due to it's superior Strategical & tactical thinking, inspired personnels, luck (?) and the poor level of strategical thinking of the opposing Nazi leaders. In other word Britain in 1940 put the demonstration that a Democratic regime with some rationalized organisation could defeat the most militarized regime the world had ever seen.

This are facts written with gold and bloods in the history pages

I suggest you to read HurriVs109 a rather complete collection of Pilots account during BoB with fear, the lack of sleep, the chattering lead and the horrifics agonies of pilots roasted alive and the tiny cans of their aluminium cockpit. Those men deserve more respect than you silly phrasing suggesting that it was a piece of cake.

If you are lazy enough for not re-enacting the BoB in the way it was, there is some lower settings available for you.