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

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Kurfurst
Just so there isn't any confusion what is your belief re 100 Octane in France?

AFAIK Hurricane Squadrons used it, not that it helped them that much, given the results of the campaign. I don't think it has any relevance for BoB, given that all the fuel in France was either destroyed by the British or captured by the Germans.

[bongodriver]

are you saying all available 100 octane was lost in France?

[Kurfürst]

Obviously no, it's what you are suggesting.

What I am suggesting is that the fact that some Squadrons were using it over France is irrelevant until we know how and if they were supplied with 100 octane fuel once their remnants returned to England.

[bongodriver]

it's what you are suggesting.

Where does that failed logic come from? I suggested nothing...merely asked a question.

until we know how and if they were supplied with 100 octane fuel once their remnants returned to England.

How and if are redundant questions, if it was available in France then it 'will' have been available on the homeland, if Hurricanes were already using it then they would have continued to do so, there is no evidence of any retrograde steps in that area.

[JtD]

If they were using 87 Octane in the BoB, a tiny bit of evidence should have turned up by now. Instead we have a lawyer doing the Chewbacca defence.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by JtD

If they were using 87 Octane in the BoB, a tiny bit of evidence should have turned up by now. Instead we have a lawyer doing the Chewbacca defence.

[TomcatViP]

I think your answer might rely in what kind of fuel was available in France and how they might hve used 100oct as a blend substitute.

Regarding the result of the Brit exp corp during the Fr campaign, a recent study has shown tht they did outperform the French's Armée de l'air. And even if the nbr of plane shot down is a close match, it tells a lot about how things went wrong on the Fr side.

[Blackdog_kt]

I still fail to be convinced by either side in this. There's just too much conflicting evidence, couple that with personal interpretations and, in some cases, a "multiplayer advantage" agenda and it's a royal mess to keep track of

That's why i still think the best way is to have all possible variants in the sim, especially since they will be the same 3d models (the only thing that would change is the engine parameters).

So when we open up our aircraft selection screen, we would have:

Spit Mk.Ia 87 oct
Spit Mk.Ia 100 oct
etc etc

Me 110 low octane
Me 110 high octane (DB 601N)

and so on.

Then the player can choose what they want to fly in single player and the server admins can choose what their campaign will depict. Even more importantly having both variants allows for better dynamic campaigns, both offline and online: if your fuel supplies get bombed your side has to fly on 87 octane until new shipments come by ship convoy, which would then be targeted by the opposition and epic fights would ensue protecting that AI ship convoy.

Apart from debating for the sake of historical scrutiny which i can understand, in terms of gameplay this issue is blown up way too much in my humble opinion. Give me both high and low octane versions of the flyables, a script to track fuel supplies and a whole lot of tactical and strategic possibilities open up.

Having just one version of the flyables no matter what is just a sterile representation: it's like modeling an air show piece, not an aircraft during war that depends on a host of other factors to operate at its peak ability.

If i bomb the enemy's fuel dumps and their aircraft are slower as result, i have an incentive to try it and the other team has an incentive to stop me. If the aircraft fly the same no matter what i bomb (because the "slow" version is not modeled), i have no incentive at all and we can all just hug the white cliffs of Dover and keep flying furballs on the deck until battle of Moscow comes out

Nothing wrong with flying for fun, but why limit the possibilities of better dynamic campaigns by giving the mission designers less to work with? I don't get it, after all for the majority of pilots who get bounced +12 boost will not make much of a difference anyway. It's not the instant win button many think it is. It's just something to use on the climb out to an interception, or on a long chase at lower altitudes.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by JtD

If they were using 87 Octane in the BoB, a tiny bit of evidence should have turned up by now. Instead we have a lawyer doing the Chewbacca defence.

Actually we only have a handful of raffanatics doing the good old character assassination campaign, because they can't come up with anything better, mental or material, as they lack in both.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Actually we only have a handful of raffanatics doing the good old character assassination campaign, because they can't come up with anything better, mental or material, as they lack in both.

I asked you for what proof you have to support your claims, and you came up with nothing. Since then, you're only hanging around to throw out insults and red herrings, just look at the ten last posts you made here. Imo, no one is assassinating your character, your character committed suicide many, many pages ago. I guess some are desecrating the corpse, I wonder what made them this mad at you.