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

CaptainDoggles · #1 05-07-2012, 06:27 PM

Quote:

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 · #2 05-07-2012, 06:34 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 05-07-2012, 07:15 PM

Quote:

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.

bongodriver · #4 05-07-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

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

yeah...that too

.....I mean no it's not, youre wrong.

Kurfürst · #5 05-07-2012, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

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

Shhhhh!!!

http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

MB_Avro_UK · #6 05-07-2012, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Shhhhh!!!

http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y

Or proving each other right ??

I blame Willy and Reginald. Why couldn't they have forseen the internet chaos that their designs have caused?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

NZtyphoon · #7 05-09-2012, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MB_Avro_UK

Or proving each other right ??

I blame Willy and Reginald. Why couldn't they have forseen the internet chaos that their designs have caused?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Didn't you know that Willy and Reginald met in secret and planned the whole thing? It's a plot I tell you...

The Plot

tools4fools · #8 05-08-2012, 04:06 PM

This plane is 10 miles slower than in real, baahhh, the developers are biased.
That plane had super 007 fuel and performed better than in game, bahhh, the developers are biased.
This planes gun doesn't make big enough holes, bahhh, the developers are biased.
That planes DM is wrong, I looked at it twice and it did not fell apart, baaahhh, the developers are sooo biased.
And so on...

As the Captain says, both planes should be in the game.
However they aren't.
Developers are sure aware of it by now. They might include it at one point - or they might not.
In the meantime get over it and take what is given to you. Like those fighter jocks did back in the days. And they had to survive.
You are having fun.
+++++

#9 05-08-2012, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tools4fools

This plane is 10 miles slower than in real, baahhh, the developers are biased.
That plane had super 007 fuel and performed better than in game, bahhh, the developers are biased.
This planes gun doesn't make big enough holes, bahhh, the developers are biased.
That planes DM is wrong, I looked at it twice and it did not fell apart, baaahhh, the developers are sooo biased.
And so on...

As the Captain says, both planes should be in the game.
However they aren't.
Developers are sure aware of it by now. They might include it at one point - or they might not.
In the meantime get over it and take what is given to you. Like those fighter jocks did back in the days. And they had to survive.
You are having fun.
+++++

thank you!

tools4fools · #10 05-09-2012, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

thank you!

Hey, as a developer I would even go so far to put in the most optimisitc modeled top plane for both sides, making sure that both are slightly better than I real life.
Sort of a test-plane under optimum conditions.
That way the fanboys have their Ueberplanes to play with.

For everybody else there would be a realism option called 'variable preformance' where all planes of same type vary in terms of performance by a certain degree, the worse the condition (plane age, maintenance quality) the worse the performance.
Now I would LOVE that option - and it would be way more realistic than all those people who scream foul play because the in-game performance curve does not match exactly the (various) real life performance curves.

If one looks for realism variable performance would be what you want.
Not perfectly matching performance curves.
+++++