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

[CaptainDoggles]

I have a question to all major participants of this thread. When I ask it, I want you to please bear in mind that I am not trolling and do not have an agenda against anyone (except perhaps Osprey... that selective quoting a few pages back really destroyed any credibility you might have had).

Why is it important?

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

[bongodriver]

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

octane rating choice should be available yes, particularily for mission builders, regarding online it is unlikely anyone would choose anything other than 100 octane.

Why is it important?.....mainly because this is meant to be a BOB simulator and therefore it should accurately represent the state of affairs at the time and not a game for some people to act out an 'alternate version of history' fantasy.

Osprey makes one selective quote and his credibility is destroyed, Kurfurst can dedicate his entire online existense to selective quoting and bias and people take him seriously?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

octane rating choice should be available yes, particularily for mission builders, regarding online it is unlikely anyone would choose anything other than 100 octane.

Assuming they're available. What if someone wants to do a Battle of France scenario?

Why is it important?.....mainly because this is meant to be a BOB simulator and therefore it should accurately represent the state of affairs at the time and not a game for some people to act out an 'alternate version of history' fantasy.

An accurate BOB sim would have 87 and 100 octane variants available. Your beef ought to be with mission designers, it seems.

Osprey makes one selective quote and his credibility is destroyed, Kurfurst can dedicate his entire online existense to selective quoting and bias and people take him seriously?

I haven't said a single thing about Kurfurst in my previous post. The fact that Kurfurst edits wikipedia etc etc doesn't magically mean Osprey is exempt from criticism. That was a pretty blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Should there not be 87- and 100-octane variants in the sim regardless?

Hard to say for me if the Hurricanes had their props replaced with CSP's before the changeover to 100 octane fuel was done. Imho, a CSP Hurricane with 87 octane fuel would be unhistorical and doesn't need to be modelled. Effort would better go elsewhere.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by JtD

Hard to say for me if the Hurricanes had their props replaced with CSP's before the changeover to 100 octane fuel was done. Imho, a CSP Hurricane with 87 octane fuel would be unhistorical and doesn't need to be modelled. Effort would better go elsewhere.

Don't forget that there were some Spitfire and Hurricane (?) that were equipped with Rotol propellers well before the DH props were modified to CSP.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by JtD

Hard to say for me if the Hurricanes had their props replaced with CSP's before the changeover to 100 octane fuel was done. Imho, a CSP Hurricane with 87 octane fuel would be unhistorical and doesn't need to be modelled. Effort would better go elsewhere.

Well I'd agree there, but what about a Hurricane with the 2-stage De Havilland prop for Battle of France scenarios?

[bongodriver]

Assuming they're available. What if someone wants to do a Battle of France scenario?

I don't see where my post argues aginst that issue, my point is we just don't have accurate choice right now.

An accurate BOB sim would have 87 and 100 octane variants available. Your beef ought to be with mission designers, it seems.

I made no suggestion that it should be only 100 octane, it's just the way things are going we don't have even sifficiently accurate performance for 87 octane, my beef is with whoever is convincing 1C to give us the innacuracy.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

I don't see where my post argues aginst that issue, my point is we just don't have accurate choice right now.



I made no suggestion that it should be only 100 octane, it's just the way things are going we don't have even sifficiently accurate performance for 87 octane, my beef is with whoever is convincing 1C to give us the innacuracy.

Here's my thing: It just seems like an incredible waste of time and energy to argue about whether ALL or MOST or SOME of Fighter Command was on 100 Octane. I mean.... why is that figure important? Why is it important to know if all or some of fighter command was on 100 octane?

The sim should have both aircraft available IMO. Shouldn't we all be arguing for that?

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Here's my thing: It just seems like an incredible waste of time and energy to argue about whether ALL or MOST or SOME of Fighter Command was on 100 Octane. I mean.... why is that figure important? Why is it important to know if all or some of fighter command was on 100 octane?

The sim should have both aircraft available IMO. Shouldn't we all be arguing for that?

The real waste of time and energy is from those arguing that 100 octane should not be availabe, of course I would settle for seeing both fuels.
can't you see the reason for this debate is to get 100 octane included?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

can't you see the reason for this debate is to get 100 octane included?

Honestly and truly I really can't. The reason for this 160-page thread appears to be proving each other wrong.