Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/23/2017 in all areas

  1. 40 points
    Dear Players We will soon be introducing new economic changes to War Thunder for Realistic Battles, Simulator Ground Forces battles, and the Assault (PvE) modes. Please review the following changes and be sure to leave your feedback! Activity Awards in Aircraft and Ground Forces RB, as well as in Ground Forces SB, has increased by an average of 20% which leads to an increase in research points in these modes. Recalculated repair costs and multipliers of award-winning units. Detailed changes listed in the table (see attachment). Silver Lions rewards at Rank I in PvE mode have been increased by 15%. Increased research rewards in PvE-mode: - by 75% at Rank I - by 70% on Rank II - by 30% on Rank III - by 20% on Rank IV - by 25% on Rank V The cost of respawning in PvE mode has been increased by 30% Discuss and leave your feedback here!
  2. 37 points
    So an M4 Jumbo now costs more to repair than a T29 I don't know, sometimes it seems like you guys just pull numbers out of a hat.
  3. 30 points
    I know its just an April Fools event but, man, is it fun. Not only is it fun but it brings me back to Christmas many years ago when my parents got me Apache Air Assault and I played it nonstop. When I played that game, I had no idea that I would be so wrapped up in a game that Gaijin would make many years later. The smoke grenades work great and add another way of going about the battle. Even though they are here for just a little bit, the event tanks are ridiculously fun to play. Even the attack helicopters work smoothly and provide another way to go about the battle. The guns on the MBTs are too fun to play with and the 1700m/s velocity round draw me in. So not only is this a nostalgic event, but it is massive amounts of fun and sheds light on game mechanics still to come. So thanks, Gaijin. An excited gamer Tell me what you like about the events or express your own gratitude in the thread
  4. 29 points
    Greetings, commanders! Today we would like to shed some light on the Naval battles development process and to tell you about the problems we have faced and how we have solved them. We would also like to share our plans for the future in Naval development. From the very beginning of War Thunder naval battles development we understood that it wouldn’t be easy since our game format is maximum realism on the one hand, and a dynamic game experience with short game sessions on the other. We also took into consideration that implementing different vehicle types in one battle is complicated when we are talking about naval battles, that is why the mosquito fleet was a logical decision. Battles involving these vessels were both dynamic and interesting. The playtests we ran with your participation helped us a lot to identify the downsides of the gameplay as well as identifying a variety of bugs and errors, so we had to correct our plans. After analyzing your feedback we decided to focus on improvement in the gameplay and temporarily not to introduce new craft in the playtests until we had completed much of the improvements and tweaking. As a result of the tests, we decided to implement specific improvements, tweak some mechanics or even sometimes completely rework the following. Gun stabilization to compensate for sea motion We took the decision to model the rocking effects on naval forces, as without them, the vessels would become “tanks on blue grass”. Additionally, in real combat craft there were various and multiple systems to compensate for any rocking during firing, including three-dimensional compensation. We did our best to model and simulate manual and automatic gun stabilization for War Thunder naval forces, in order to make them effective at striking any enemy affected by sea swell and rocking. Damage system We improved the damage system for War Thunder naval forces: even small patrol boats can contain multiple systems, for example, up to 10-20 firing points. This variety and complexity makes targeting the exact component on enemy vessel almost impossible due to the small comparative size of these items. This is why we organized components into groups, that could be targeted and damaged, and would be visible in the hit camera. Also, we decided to distance our naval forces from the logic we use in the ground force battles, that is a craft is counted as destroyed when you have lost your last crew member. In larger and even huge naval crews there are numerous issues that were pointed out by our players, when you had to find and knock out the very last sailor of the enemy vessel. In our new damage model when you disable one of the enemy compartments, you also disable part of the total crew, specifically the crew assigned to this compartment. Controlling fire from guns of different calibres and purpose The multiple types of fire units using different calibres complicates reasonable aiming and fire correction, it also forces a player to focus all his fire on a single target. This is why we plan to divide different purpose weaponry to different groups, and a player will be able to choose which ones he will control himself and which ones will be controlled automatically, taking players commands into account. New vessel survivability mechanics Repairs, fire extinguishing and reducing or stopping flooding: we plan to add more gameplay to these important actions rather than use the existing fully automatic process. Smoke screens Smaller vessels usually do not have serious armour protection that is why smoke screens play a vital role in increasing a craft’s survivability and more diverse gameplay. We already demonstrated the smokescreen mechanics during the April Fool’s event this year and we are working to integrate them into naval gameplay. Other features We also plan to change the torpedo aim logic and add lead indication. As for the visuals we have added procedural destruction of the vessels - it is in the final testing stage at the moment. We also continuously improve the visuals of the craft, water and the environment. Besides general gameplay improvement all these changes will let us add larger ships to the game. And now some numbers - what has already been done and what you will be able to see in the nearest future. At the moment we have the following things either ready or in development: Over 70 vessels of various classes from different nations are completely ready and around 20 more craft are currently in development. 10 locations (both the one we have already shown and ones in development). Gun stabilization systems. Traversing torpedo tubes. Procedural destruction of vessels. New Damage Model mechanics. Torpedo gyro correction.
  5. 29 points
    What do I think? I think you are just another German fanboy who wants to club with their tanks as much as you can without caring about anyone else.
  6. 28 points
    Alright, this is my first actual post in the forums, so if this is in the wrong section, I apologize in advance. Here, I have a full list of all historical inaccuracies on the Maus in War Thunder that I am aware of. This list will have bullet points added as new problems reveal themselves to me. Not all of these will have the evidence presented here in the OP (though a few will), this is simply a list. An asterisk indicates that it is a possible historical inaccuracy that I will look into when I have the chance. Non-historical turret front armor. Should be 240mm Wotan Hart, not 220mm cast. Incorrect penetration values for the APCBC ammunition. Lack of APDS ammunition (300ish millimeters of pen, maybe it could finally compete!) Lack of rangefinder. Incorrect armor values for the grates on the hull roof. Any actual physical measurements that anyone could provide would be much appreciated, but it's definitely not 10mm. Turret rotation speed for the Maus, as well as many other tanks, should not be based on crew skills as the rotation is electrically driven. Current top rotation speed is 8 degrees/second, which is historically accurate; however, this is with an aced crew, but should be unaffected by crew skills whatsoever. Top speed in RB should be 22kph, this was the top speed with no motor field. Granted, this is only a 2kph difference, but with the Maus, that's still around 10% of its top speed. The Maus currently has 1x zoom. We currently have a single source for 3x being historically accurate. If anyone has a second source for this, that would be much appreciated. So. I just spent several hours poring through pages and pages of forum threads, looking left and right, and I found a bit of disturbing information. The Maus currently in War Thunder is nothing but a moving crosshair at the moment, I'm sure very few people will disagree with me on that front. Even in battles where I'm top of the matchmaker, and the only person at the top, I find myself in a constant state of worry, and often the Maus comes up short even in those circumstances. So, why not make some changes to make it actually competitive, especially changes that would increase the historical accuracy of the vehicle. I mean, honestly. The Maus has the potential to be a 7.7/8.0 (depending on if you do RB or are an AB scrub like me), but that potential is not reached in its current state. All of the various topics on the Maus at the moment are strewn across the forums, are disjointed, etcetera. So, I decided I might as well make a topic that includes several of the issues with the current setup. Before I begin, I'd like to post my top five list for the most important changes to be made to not only improve the tank, but make it more historically accurate. (Aside here: for a game that prides itself on historical accuracy, the fact that such a top-five list can exist for a single vehicle is rather embarrassing.) 1. The turret front is not 220mm cast, but actually 240mm of something called Wotan Hart steel, which is actually slightly tougher than normal RHA. This is discussed in great detail in this thread: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/255782-please-give-maus-v2-turret-or-make-a-new-vehicle-named-maus-v2-or-something-of-similar-concept/ 2. The lack of historical penetration capabilities for the APCBC round, as evidenced here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/239151-id-0028815-wrong-penetraiton-values-of-the-kwkpak-44-128l55/ 3. The APDS ammunition that was in development for the 128, to make it a bit more capable of competing with tanks that didn't appear until a decade or more later. Discussion here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/275083-128mm-apds-treibspiegelgeschoss-mit-h-kern/ 4. The Maus was supposed to have a vertical rangefinder, a vital tool which it lacks in-game. https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/272011-maus-rangefinder/ 5. Finally, the 10mm plates we have on the "vents" on the roof of the vehicle are closer to 20mm, as evidenced in this thread: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/275849-top-of-the-maus/ Okay, with that list of important things out of the way, along with links if you'd rather go to the individual forum posts instead of dealing with me derping around, here we go. Firstly, the elephant in the room (other than the Maus itself... and I guess Ferdie over there...), the turret face. Countless forum posts have been made requesting this change, and countless times it's been denied. Well over a dozen sources have been posted stating the armor at anywhere from 236mm to 240mm. There are even photos of people measuring the armor by hand and revealing it to be in that range. The current Maus in-game has 220mm of cast homogeneous armor on the turret front. The devs have submitted to this actually being RHA, and have said they'll change it. I don't know about you, but it still says "cast" in my armor viewer. However, Gaijin and their representatives stubbornly refuse to admit that the turret face is 240mm rather than 220, citing the fact that they're using the V1 turret. For those who don't know, this is what the V1 turret looks like, compared to the V2 that people are asking for: Yep. We've got the frontal turret armor of a literal block of steel that was only ever intended to be used as a weight to simulate the mass of the actual turret. The V2 turret, the only one with an actual gun, and the one the turret's shape is modeled after, had 240mm. Another important aspect is, the Maus is not actually constructed from RHA steel. It's constructed from something called Wotan Hart, the stuff used to make the armored deck of the Bismarck. 240mm of WH is about equal to 276mm of RHA. So, thanks to armor modifiers, the 220mm turret front we have (which is only worth 203mm) could be improved in effective thickness by a solid 73mm if the turret front were accurate. Suddenly, the Maus isn't just a moving crosshair anymore, it might actually be almost... competitive? Since two sources are needed to make a case, have five. Alright, next topic. The APCBC. The current APCBC fired by the Maus (and Jagdtiger) in War Thunder has a muzzle velocity of 930mps, the velocity of the shell when fired from the guns of those tanks. However, the penetration tables are from the infantry guns of the same size... guns with a muzzle velocity of around 845mps. This would logically coincide with a difference in penetration, and not an insubstantial one. The penetration reaches nearly 300mm at point-blank if that change is made. Again, sources, because I don't particularly like the idea of this topic being killed the moment I post it, given the hours I've poured into this. When the Jagdtiger and Maus are finally able to penetrate a medium tank (T-54 and T-62 and such), they might be a bit more practical to use. Alright, moving on. APDS, to make it actually capable of keeping up with its BR contemporaries for penetration. Yes, this was something that was actually in development. As can be seen here, they actually built one of these things: "Unterkaliber." Sub-caliber round. In other words, APDS. Nothing like firing 88mm APCR out of a 128mm gun with a sabot to allow it to actually hit. Again, sources used for this: When you actually are able to frontally pen a medium with a tank that's far too slow to get on the flank of a beached whale, it might actually start being pretty good. Moving on. Rangefinder. Many WWII German tanks were equipped with various kinds of rangefinders, yet there are only two WWII designs to get them, and neither of those were ever built (Panther II and Tiger 105). But several other tanks had rangefinders, or at least conversion kits for them. Given that they gave the Panther a way to get such a tool, one could expect that Germany's ultimate tank project would get the same treatment. And one would be right! The Maus wasn't equipped with a full-scale stereoscopic rangefinder like the Panther II or the Leopard, but it did have a vertical rangefinder. For the RB Maus driver trying to deal with a T-10M at 1200m, this could be life-saving. Finally, the 10mm "grates" over the radiators and such. They're not exhaust vents, they're cooling plates. And does this look like 10mm to you? Doesn't look like 10mm to me. Maybe 20, but if those slits on the center vent are 20mm, then that part there has to be at least 25-30mm thick. So why is it possible to kill a Maus with Rank-I HE shells, or even a .50-cal? Another angle: So, conclusion? There's something seriously wrong with the Maus' model. A month ago, it was practically impossible to use due to the weaker-than-IRL turret face, the massively underperforming ammunition, and so on. But now, with the chance of the ammo racks detonating increased, it's nothing. And in my personal opinion, no vehicle should be easily pointed at as the single worst vehicle of its BR. If that's a thing that can occur, then the vehicle is simply not balanced. I'm fully aware that sinking the Maus to 7.3 or below would be horribly unfair to the 6.3s and 6.7s, so what if instead of reducing its BR to balance it, we just made it historically accurate? I mean, a lot of the stuff proposed here couldn't be excessively difficult. We're not designing a new vehicle here. Alter a single number to bring the turret front up to 240. Change the armor type from RHA and CHA to near-universal Wotan Hart (everything but the mantlet). Changing a bit of the penetration data on a shell can't be impossible. Adding another could be a bit more difficult, especially given the lack of in-depth knowledge on the APDS round, but Gaijin's pulled out magical numbers for IS-3 ammo in the past. Adding a single module (rangefinder) shouldn't be out of the question. And the hull roof... again, just changing a single number from 10 to 25 probably isn't too hard. So, why is Gaijin refusing to make this vehicle playable? I don't know, and that's not for me to decide. My apologies for how long this is, I know I can be rather long-winded at times. If you made it this far, thank you for your time. Let's hope we can get this monster back into the meta, instead of it simply sitting in a puddle of sadness for the rest of its existence.
  7. 25 points
    A bug when the chassis of some aircraft was not displayed correctly in spectator mode has been fixed. A bug when components of the wing (aileron, flaps) of some aircraft were still being displayed when the wing had been separated in spectator mode has been fixed. A bug, where in the viewer mode the WEP of the aircraft was 0 has been fixed. The display of the speed in the viewer mode has been fixed. A bug, where in some cases the internal graphic card in notebooks were not identified by the game has been fixed (Source). The bug, where the explosion effect was not displayed by setting the distance of an aircraft missile explosion, has been fixed (Source). Smaller ai ships durability has been increased in air battle maps. Flight Model Changes J2M (all models) - Flight model has been updated. Speed values have been updated. Maneuverability and controllability have been improved, turn time has been reduced, balance has been corrected. Stalling has become more predictable, spin recovery has become easier, climb rate has been increased for J2M5. More details can be found in the data sheets. А6М (all models) - Flight model has been updated. Propulsion system performance has been updated. Roll rate has been corrected/ A6M3 - roll rate has been increased to 120 degrees per second at 300 km/h speed, A6M5 maximum diving speed has been increased to 740 km/h. Max. Speed of the A6M5 models has been increased to 564 km/h, roll rate increased to 95 degrees per second at 300 km/h. More details can be found in the data sheets. A7M (all models) - Flight model has been updated. Speed values have been updated. Maneuverability and controllability have been improved, turn time has been reduced, balance has been corrected. Stalling has become more predictable, spin recovery has become easier. More details can be found in the data sheets: А7М1 А7М2 A-20G, Boston Mk I, DB-7, Havoc Mk I - Flight models have been updated. Maneuverability and controllability have been improved, Speed values, balance, weight and aerodynamic characteristics have been corrected. Separate fuel tanks have been enabled. sheets: A-20G, Boston Mk I, DB-7, Havoc Mk I MiG-9L - Wrong engine name in X-ray view has been fixed F-84 - Wrong engine name in X-ray view has been fixed The current provided patchnotes reflect the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates and fixes may be not listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving all the time and certain fixes may be implemented without the client being updated. Leave feedback here!
  8. 23 points
    ======= NOTE: this suggestion has been posted during the WWII Chronicles event of April 2017, but it may apply to any other similar event in the future, whereas daily "trophies" can be earned by either fulfilling a certain number of tasks, or buying them for Golden Eagles in the game shop. ====== I wish that the cost of the trophy boxes in the store would change (progressively decrease) according to how many of the task you have completed for a particular day. Currently, it's just either complete 3 tasks and get the trophy for free, or pay the full price for a trophy box regardless of your efforts in the event. Example of what I suggest: - 0/3 tasks fulfilled: the trophy box costs 999 GE; - 1/3 tasks fulfilled: the price is reduced to 666 GE; - 2/3 tasks fulfilled: the price goes down to 333 GE. - 3/3 tasks fulfilled: trophy earned for free. --- Edit after feedback --- Someone pointed out that it can be relatively easy to complete just 2 tasks, in which case a 66% discount could be partly unfair towards those who put the effort to complete all 3. In this sense, it could be a good compromise to have smaller "discounts" than those suggested above. One task done would grant only 20-25% off, and two tasks would grant 50% off the price but no more. Still, there would be some kind of acknowledgement for the partial results achieved. ------------------------------ IMHO this would be a good thing, since it is nice to have a chance to get missed trophies sby paying, but now if a player commits to earning trophies by playing and, despite spending time and effort, he misses the 3rd task by inches, either he loses that day's trophy or he is forced to pay full price for it, so he eventually "paid it twice" (effort + money). In Gaijin's perspective, this could bring benefits since some players who wouldn't otherwise even bother trying the Chronicles event (judging that it's not worth their time or money) may change their mind, and possibly be satisfied with reaching the objective with a mix of daily playing and GE. This option would bring the added benefit that a player would feel less frustrated for "wasting his time" if he misses a daily trophy by a narrow margin. He would still need to buy the relative trophy if he wants it, but he would knew that his efforts weren't for nothing, since at least he managed to lower the price (and therefore may be more inclined to buy it and continue the event, instead of giving up and quitting altogether).
  9. 23 points
    I have spent over $600 on this game over the years, looking back that's crazy. In my mind this was going to be THAT WW2 game, you know the one, the one we all wanted. Where historical vehicles where correctly modeled and we could live out the fantasy of fighting the historical engagements. T34 VS Tiger or what have you. But never did I dream of fighting something like an ATGM or really anything post war in a Tiger 2. Honestly, can we just have a game mode or daily event that allows us to never face anything outside of the 1939-1945 timeline? No fake tanks, no paper tanks, no post war tanks, no post war ammo. Just WW2 tanks. Balance it how you like, 3 Shermans per Tiger, whatever just allow for this. Durring the WW2 Chronicles is when I spend the most money, because as least they are semi-historical matchups. I don't want all my money to go to waste, but eventually it will and I will leave the game. The power creep is too much for me, fighting WW2 vs Post war is the very reason I did not play that other tank game. So please, Gaijin if you are listening, I know I am not alone here. Give us something every day that allows for only WW2 vehicles.
  10. 23 points
    Missions - Balance changes. Some kind of explanation would be great.
  11. 20 points
    Submission requirements Your submission must be created specially for this contest. The image resolution must be at least 600x600 pixels. Submissions will be accepted in a special forum thread. One submission can be replaced with another – the participant must send a message to the forum moderator requesting the deletion of the old submission. Each participant can enter an unlimited number of submissions. We may ask the winner to send us their submission in the original layered image format, so make sure you save it! Adding a name and description to your submission message is welcome. The submission must not violate moral, ethical, or legal norms as well as the Forum Rules, Game Rules, or User Agreement. The winners will be decided by a panel of the War Thunder community team. The Contest Organizers reserve the right to alter these Conditions at any time. Any submission may be added to the game as a decal!
  12. 18 points
    (and this goes for both air and ground, so don't move this to air) The current version of Assault mode that we have is broken, IMHO. For any PvE mode to work, it needs to accomplish one of three things (only one is needed, not all three): Relaxing and fun. This is what Gaijin claims their new game mode is supposed to be. A relaxing warm-up or a place for new players to train their skills. But it's definately failing on that part. Because it's very stressfull right now. The waves are plenty enough that unless you have a well coordinated team (and how many randoms are that?) you're just not going to make it. And this seems to be what's happening. People are complaining that they simply can't complete an assault game because the team doesn't work well. And that is an indication that it's anything but relaxing. Rewarding. This is kind of the route that Armored Warfare took (along with the 3rd option), in that you almost make as much from doing PvE as you do playing PvP. But then it has to be balanced with being difficult. You can't have an easy and relaxing PvE game mode that gives tons of RP, because then nobody will play PvP. Right now, Assault is definately not this. Half an hours gameplay and you'll end up with about as much RP as you'd get during a 10 minute long mediocre PvP game. Not exactly rewarding. Varied and engaging. This i pretty much what AW did. Instead of just having wave after wave of enemy mindlessly crashing into the players, you have AI attacking at certain scripted or triggered moments from either random or at least varied directions. It's basically a Single Player Mission but with Co-op and a bit of a story. If Assault mode is to survive in WT, it needs to be one of these. I'd suggest the first one since it's the easiest one. Maby add one or two more bases for the AI to bomb so that you don't need a well oiled team to take down the enemies. Or maby you could simply start the bombers farther away or make them come in at a more spaced out interval. Either way, something needs to be done about Assault if you want it to succeed. Right now, there's barely enough people in line to do a run each time I queue up to play. Doesn't matter if it's prime time or not, there just simply seems to be no interest in the game mode. And that's because of the reasons I've mentioned above.
  13. 17 points
    Allied Forces High Command would like to invite Squads & Individuals to our biggest and most exciting campaign ever to be in War Thunder! A Fully Immersive Role-play Experience comprised of large Combined Arms battles, as well as air and ground specific missions. Unique elements such as No HUD navigation for air units, Custom made maps and objectives for ground combatants, Multilayered combined ops missions, and to top it all off: A Create-a-Character program that will increase immersiveness and allow you to track your Stats as the campaign progresses. AFHC Squadron has a long history of running numerous, well crafted, and historically accurate in-squadron Mil-Sim Campaigns - which allows us to be confident that we know how to run something on this kind of scale. This campaign will be concurrently running for both NA & EU time zones, meaning; one big campaign with specialized missions for each time slot, that will keep things interesting no matter when you play! Allied NA players will take the role of American Forces such as the 8th USAAF, while Allied EU players will take the role of British Forces such the 8th Airforce. Axis NA & EU players will play various different Air & Ground groups as the German and Italian Forces. The Battle For Europe The campaign will begin in fall of 1943 with the preparations for D-Day, in the skies of the English Channel and conquered France. At this stage NA-Time players will participate in daytime, long range, strategic bombing, escort, and interception missions. While the EU-Time players will predominantly see night bombing and fighting. Once Mid-1944 rolls around, the multiple stage missions for D-day will begin. Air units will take the lead and will battle over clearing of the beachheads, and support of ships during the landings. Then ground troops will take their part, in the fight for the securing a foothold. From this point onwards tanks will see extensive action, along with close air support, that will go all the way from Normandy to the heart of the Reich in Berlin. VE Day, 1945 will mark the end of the campaign. Though we will follow the historical defeat of Germany, Axis Forces could still prove themselves through stunning service and combat history. How will it be run? Though these times are still subject to change, The Battle For Europe Campaign will begin July 2017. The actual length of the Campaign will be determined by how many missions are able to be completed each Saturday session, and could last up to a year if we take it extremely slowly. Participants will meet for the Event Every Saturday at 20:00 GMT for EU and 20:00 EST for NA. - We will have a short briefing before the beginning of each mission; once the briefing is complete and a mission has started No additional personal will be allowed to join that particular mission. Late arrivals will have to wait for the following mission for the day or, if late enough, will just have to make sure they're on time the following week. Attendance for every session will not be mandatory, but continuous absences will impact your rank and place in the leaderboards. This event is open to everyone who is interested, you do not have to join a particular squadron in order to join the event. Individual players will not have to join AFHC, or any squadron for that matter, in order to participate in the campaign. Registration is now open! Individuals will sign up for their preferred roles and then be assigned accordingly on Training & Event days. Squadrons who join the event will have to go through the same sign up process as individuals, but will be able to take on greater roles. We would recommend interested squads have their administration contact ours. Any individuals or groups who choose to ruin the experience of other participants will be immediately booted from the campaign, we have Zero tolerance to people who are unwilling to follow along with the basic rules we've put forth. Registration is now open, when registering, you will be able to specify what kind of vehicles you'd be interested in operating (Fighters/Attackers/Bombers/Tanks) as well as what Faction you you will be on (Allies or Axis). Once you choose a Faction, you will not be able to change out of that team for the rest of the campaign. Our research team will compose a list of every mission in the campaign - Every mission will have the most historically accurate locations, objectives, and operational vehicles as possible - This means that vehicles, compositions, and ratio assignments will change on a battle to battle basis (all on the Squad and Company levels for air and ground). You will be notified exactly what vehicle you will need for every mission ahead of time. We created a rudimentary vehicle list that we will be updating in the next few weeks - If there are vehicles you believe are missing from the list, Please notify us on our Event site. For personnel who are interested in playing but do not much knowledge of the simulation environment, where in other players will be operating together in squads/platoons and moving in formations, we will be running open training courses! About 6 weeks before the campaign begins, we will run open-to-all fighter and bomber training schools for participants who do not have much experience in working as part of a large group in a simulation setting. These are not mandatory, but personnel who cannot prove that they know what they're doing during testing time will not be allowed to participate in the campaign. A tanking school will begin closer to when D-day operations are due to start. *As our Squadron’s name suggests, AFHC is mainly an Allied group, therefore we are looking for a dedicated group to take the Axis side of things - individuals could choose to be in either side of the conflict but we do want a balanced assortment of players on both sides. Registration is now open, simply follow the Instructions on the Right of the Main Page and you'll be prepared for The Battle for Europe: battle-for-europe.clansweb.us/ This Campaign is in the final planning stages now, you can be a part of this great project! For any interested in assisting in addtional campaign preparations, the following contains a list of jobs we are in still in need of. If you believe you can be of assistance to any of these departments, Please feel free to hit up our contacts with a PM here or on the Battle for Europe Site or hit us up on our teamspeak at: 69.65.49.248:10847. If you have any additional questions, or things you’d like us to expand upon - Feel free to comment, PM, or contact us on our teamspeak: 69.65.49.248:10847 and we’ll address the matter as soon as possible! Thank you for your consideration, AFHC Squadron Commander S_Morley AFHC Executive Officer CAN_Adler AFHC Propaganda Officer Capt. TheFroman
  14. 16 points
    It's also worth noting that RB and SB should naturally have more reward through the progression of each mode. We certainly would not overlook AB, but as the difficulty of each mode progresses, so naturally should the rewards.
  15. 16 points
  16. 16 points
    T-62 mod. 1972 Features compared to the original in-game T-62 mod. 1961 : Increased turret armor (242 mm). A DShKM anti-aircraft heavy machine gun is mounted on a race ring on the new loader's circular hatch. Increased headspace for the loader (increased from 1,48 m to 1,55 m) facilitating his work. Main gun depression is reduced from -6° to -5° due to the replacement of the TSh2B-41 gunner's sight by the improved TShS-41U. OMSh tracks (488 mm) replaced by the wider but heavier RMSh tracks (580 mm). Revised engine deck (appeared since the T-62 mod. 1967). Slightly heavier combat weight (~ 38 000 kg). Sources : - Steven J Zaloga, New Vanguard 158 T-62 MAIN BATTLE TANK 1965-2005, Oxford, Osprey Publishing Ltd, 2009 - T-62 BLACK SHEEP : https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.be/2015/12/t-62.html - Russian blog post about the T-62 : http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-299.html
  17. 15 points
    oh thank god the JS-6 got its costs lowered it definitely needed that.... though glad the KI-84 is dropping a bit from its stupidly high costs...
  18. 15 points
    i am suggesting that we remove the is6 ru251 and possible the t29 from sqd battles as the is6 and ru251 are teir 5 performance vehicles and a full team of is6 can completely destroy a team of non premium tanks. squadron battles at least in realistic is currently pay to win and it sucks.
  19. 15 points
    Not really sure what to say really, general consensus is that the "naval" aspect of this game is quite shoddy, the gameplay is bland, the boats in themselves are incredibly boring to use/ fight against and the maps are far too small. All in all if what we are getting is Gaijin's vision they need to remove the blinkers they have on because it currently has no future.
  20. 14 points
    Greetings, I would like to put forth a suggestion which I think would go a long way towards meeting the needs of the diverse RB Air playerbase. Background: As some folks may know, RB Air is the meeting place for both Sim (Joystick) and Arcade (Mouse Aim) players. It offers a perfect mix of arcade and simulator elements (enemy markers, 3rd person view, mouse aim, and realistic controls). Therein lies a major problem, with the balance between Mouse Aim and Realistic Controls. For years players in Air RB have been split down these 'ideological' control method grounds as to whether Mouse Aim and Realistic Controls can co-exist in this game mode. It has been a long held truth that the Realistic Control users face a pretty overwhelming imbalance when it comes to competing with Mouse Aim users. Although some may argue that JS/Realistic Control users are in the minority, that minority is substantial and contributes a great deal of money to this game. The dilemma: No one wants to take something away from either player 'camp', nor should that be a solution. Both Mouse Aim players and Realistic Control users enjoy this game mode equally. There remains a looming question of how to best balance Mouse Aim and Realistic Controls that does not seem to have an easy or logical answer. Continuing to not address this imbalance is causing many players to feel frustrated (their needs are not being addressed), cynical, and eventually, just leave the game completely. To ignore these players is both a folly and self-defeating from the perspective of the overall 'greater good' and success of the game. The principal I would like to remind here is that more players = more revenue = more development = better game for everyone. With that in mind, I think that there is a way we can address the needs of all the playerbase. The proposed solution: Create a RB Historical Battle or EC mode where Simplified/Realistic/Full Real Controls is enforced, and have it in rotation indefinitely (you can change/rotate the maps or planes however would be appropriate) so that JS players can have a place to play in a balanced setting. Doing this would have a number of benefits: Addresses the needs and concerns of the substantial RB Air JS community Increases player retention and game revenue Minimal split of the playerbase: in the past we have had regular RB Historical Events (for all players regardless of control method) which did not result in a substantial decrease in queue times or splitting of the playerbase. The impact would be even less so given the lower number of Air RB players that use JS in regards to the overall RB Air playerbase. Minimal development costs and resources needed to implement Simple solution that doesn't unfairly impact any particular group of players. In the RB custom battles that I have hosted with JS players, we have seen an enormous amount of satisfaction and fun - mistakes are more forgiving, gameplay more realistic and overall, the game gains more depth. It is my hope that this suggestion does not fall on deaf ears, because the possibilities and enjoyment this could offer for a subset of players are quite enormous. It is my sincere goal to help make this game better for all players and there is a substantial number of RB Air JS users that feel they are treated unfairly within the current system. I think addressing these needs and concerns for this portion of the playerbase will make the game more successful overall. I appreciate the time to consider this suggestion! o7
  21. 14 points
    Which attackers are you planning for the USSR with a BR within the 3.7-8.0 range? There’s an obvious shortage of assault aircraft with such Battle Ratings right now. I guess this would qualify as one of the "bad" questions we discussed yesterday. If any nation does not have a shortage of attackers, the Soviet Union would be it. They have 5 Il-2s, 2 Il-10s, the Su-6, 3 Pe-3s, 5 Pe-2s and, if you want to count the, the Il-28 and Tu-14T. So why was this question selected, when anybody can clearly see that whoever asked it has no idea what he is talking about?
  22. 14 points
    This is very nice but what about arcade battles? Without premium a battle with 4 or more kills will bring only ~1500RP which is very low... Again, good changes but don't forget about AB players
  23. 14 points
    I play these events, but not because I like them, I just don't want to miss out on the rare vehicles. But I hate the event itself. Just some negative aspects: - It takes a lot of time if you want to get both aircraft and tank tasks done (luckily I am a student and have lots of free time, but I can totally understand that people with a full time job and a family don't have enough time for it) or costs a fortune. - The game forces you to play vehicles you don't like. With some exceptions, I don't consider low tier vehicles fun, but I still have to play them for the event. - The events are quite poorly balanced. Just look at today's lineup, what is the F-4 doing there? It's totally op... Yeah, I know, the chronicles are supposed to be at least semi-historical, but that just shows me again and again why I would never want historical matchmaking. I think it should be done the following way: Each day, a new task gets unlocked for the players which they can complete in normal random battles. They have time to do so until the event ends, not just one day. If you miss a task, you can purchase them, the total price if you buy all of them for one vehicle should be about 50% higher than what a normal premium vehicle of the same tier costs. The tasks are never limited to certain vehicles, if anything, they are limited to classes (30 Kills with heavy tanks, 60 AI ground targets with attackers,...). Another thing that might be interesting for future events could be the PvE mode. If Gaijin ever makes that mode fun to play, than it might be the best way to run these events.
  24. 14 points
    i think this its the best EVER event, i never enjoy WT so much like i do now with T-90/LEO2. i think GAIJIN can add also abrams/challanger/type 10 and leave the event on. i really got sad when i see GAIJIN its planing to remove the event, thats mean who will not see this tanks in very long time until the develope it to add them on tech tree. come one guys its in our hands to vote to ask gaijin to leave the event for ever, the need to add 3 more tanks and the event can stay until GAIJIN develope this tanks.
  25. 14 points
    Dobra panowie, miarka się przebrała. Od ponad tygodnia nie potraficie normalnie dyskutować, ciągle te same argumenty, te same osoby i te same odzywki. Jeśli chcecie kontynuujcie swoje wywody na prywatnych wiadomościach, tam bez bólu i ograniczeń możecie się obrażać (albo zablokować daną osobę, każdy ma wyjście), ewentualnie umówcie się na jakimś TS/Discord i porozmawiajcie. Śmietnik na forum jest nam niepotrzebny. Temat zamykam, bo wiem że te ostrzeżenie nic nie da i dalej będzie się to toczyło (a blokować Wam kont nie chcę). Więcej spokoju i kultury, proszę Was.
  26. 14 points
    One way or another, they always end up having burgers in mind...
  27. 13 points
    What I'm suggesting today is a relatively simple suggestion, that being an A6M3 armed with 30mm cannons instead of 20mm. This was a modification done in an attempt to increase the firepower of the A6M series. The selected aircraft were a handful of A6M3 Model 22s that were stationed in Rabaul, at least 3 were modified. Their 20mm Type 99 cannons were replaced with the 30mm Type 5 cannon. This modification was field tested, so they saw combat. The Type 2 30mm cannons weighed 51kg each, were about 2 meters long, had a muzzle velocity of 710m/s, fired 380 rounds per minute, and carried 42 rounds per gun, adding up to 84 rounds total. The addition of the cannons would hamper maneuverability slightly, stall speed clean would go from 136kmh to around 138. Below are some images of the gun, round, and the weapon in a wing mount. The aircraft would just look like a standard A6M3 Mod 22, just with the new cannons in the wings. Preferably with a Rabaul camo. I think it'd be a good addition into the game, it's a unique vehicle that combines maneuverability and hard hitting firepower, saw service, and stands out from its brethren ingame currently. I think it'd make a nice addition at tier 3, whether it be as a premium or standard vehicle. What do you think? Vote and leave a comment. Sources: Mitsubishi A6M Zero by James D’Angina page 32 Japanese Report on Type 2, includes diagrams of ammo Japanese Manual for Type 2
  28. 13 points
    M4A3E2 (76) W - "Długi Jumbo" 1. Wprowadzenie - Czym jest M4A3E2 (76) W? Jest to amerykański czołg szturmowy M4A3E2 wyposażony w nową armatę M1A1 kaliber 76,2 mm (3.00 in). Jako czołg szturmowy posiada on dość gruby pancerz, a za sprawą nowej armaty, może on prowadzić walkę z wrogimi maszynami na znacznie większe dystanse niż na to pozwalała armata M3 kalibet 75mm. Ale przejdźmy do rzeczy czyli punktu drugiego. 2. Krótka Historia: Jeszcze przed inwazją w Normandii alianccy dowódcy zdawali sobie sprawę, iż Niemcy posiadają mocno ufortyfikowane linie obrony. Jednym z rozwiązań było użycie czołgów szturmowych w celu przełamania lini wroga. Początkowo zakładano iż role takiego czołgu spełni M26, lecz trudności z wprowadzeniem go do służby oraz opóźnienia zmusiły Aliantów do opracowania innego rozwiązania. Termin lądowania w Normandii sprawił, iż nie było czasu by opracować nową konstrukcję, a podstawowym czołgiem jakim dysponowała amerykańska armia był M4. Sherman był tanią i szybką w produkcji konstrukcją, co przesądziło o tym, by to właśnie on został nowym czołgiem szturmowym. Wybrano wersję M4A3 oraz przystąpiono do modernizowania jej w celu zwiększenia grubości pancerza z 76,2mm do około 102mm pochylonego pod kątem 47°. Wyposażono ją także w nową odlewaną wierzę, o znacznie grubszym pancerzu dochodzącym nawet do 177 milimetrów. W czołgu pozostawiono armatę M3, gdyż idealnie sprawowała się w walce z piechotą oraz umocnieniami wroga. W Marcu 1944 Armia USA zamówiła 254 sztuki M4A3E2. Cześć czołgów została przezbrojona w nową armatę M1A1 kaliber 76,2mm wraz z rozwojem kampanii we Francji. M4A3E2 dostał przydomek "Jumbo" od swoich załóg, które go uwielbiały, z racji ogromnej wytrzymałości na ostrzał wroga. Za sprawa właśnie tej właściwości, inne Shermany dozbrajano w dodatkowe płyty pancerne ze zdobycznych czołgów. W późnym etapie wojny, czołg ten był wręcz nietykalny dla wroga. Maszyny te brały udział w przełamaniu oblężenia Bastogne pod dowództwem Generała George'a S. Patton'a i służyły aż do 1948 roku. 3. Działo: Działo to jak już wspomniałem armata M1A1 kaliber 76,2mm długości 52 kalibrów z zapasem amunicji wynoszącym 71 pocisków. Poniżej porównanie kalibrów oraz długości armat M3 oraz M1A1: Jak widać armata M1A1 ma nie tylko większą średnicę, co pozwala strzelać większymi pociskami, ale i jest dłuższa, co przekłada się głównie na jej celność, prędkość wylotową oraz bardziej płaski tor lotu pocisku. Czas przeładowania wynosi 6.3 sekundy co przekłada się na 9.5 wykonanych strzałów na minutę. Porównamy to z konkurencyjnym działemi, czyli niemieckim KwK 40 L/48 montowanym w Pz.IV: Różnice są niewielkie. Niestety mam wrażenie, iż armata M1A1 jest mniej celna mimo iż posiada większą prędkość wylotową pocisków, co można zobaczyć w kolejnym punkcie. Depresja działa wynosi -10°, natomiast jej wychył w górę to aż 25° co daje nam możliwość ostrzału wroga zza przeszkody. Czołg ten posiada także jednoosiową stabilizację armaty, przez co możemy celnie ostrzelać wroga w trakcie jazdy o ile przekraczamy 15km/h. Prędkość tą można uzyskać za sprawą Cruise Control (CC) w pierwszym ustawieniu (Pierwsze przełożenie), domyślnie CC występuje pod przyciskami "Q" i "E". 4. Pociski: "Długi Jumbo" do dyspozycji dostaje 4 rodzaje pocisków, mianowicie APHE - M62, AP - M79, APCR - M93 oraz HE - M42A1. Pociski tak jak w normalnym Jumbo są ulokowane w podłodze w mokrym składzie amunicji, przez co znacznie trudniej dochodzi do ich detonacji. Porównajmy też parametry poszczególnych pocisków z działa M1A1 (po lewej) oraz M3 (Po prawej) oprócz pocisków HE: AP: APHE: APCR: Jak widać działo M1A1 jak i pociski radzą sobie znacznie lepiej od M3 zarówno jeśli chodzi o penetrację, jak i ilość ładunku wybuchowego. Ale jak to wypada na tle konkurencji? Kolejny raz posłużę się przykładem niemieckiego działa KwK 40L/48 Oraz z niemieckimi APHE: I niemieckimi APCR: W przypadku pocisków APHE pierwsze co rzuca się w oczy to penetracja. Amerykańskie pociski M62 radzą sobie delikatnie gorzej z pancerzem pod każdym kątem, lecz ich prędkość wylotowa jest większa. Mają także znacznie większy ładunek wybuchowy, przez co mimo gorszych właściwości penetracyjnych robią znacznie większe spustoszenie wewnątrz czołgu. Pociski APCR natomiast są w stanie przebić wieżę Tygrysa II (H) z odległości 800-900 metrów. Lecz ich podatność na rykoszetowanie może to skutecznie utrudnić. M93 są znacznie lepsze od PzGr 40 z armaty KwK 40 L/48. Przez to, że pociski ulokowane są w podłodze, nie musimy się bać zabierać pełnego składu. Ja osobiście zabieram 36x M62, 30x M93 oraz 15x M42A1. 5. Pancerz oraz Mobilność: To właśnie za sprawą pancerza te czołgi dostały przydomek Jumbo. Pancerz kadłuba składa się z dwóch płyt, dodatkowej o grubości 38,1mm oraz głównej posiadajacej 63,5mm grubości. Łączna grubość wynosi 101,6mm pod kątem 47°, co daje 145mm efektywnego pancerza. Boki to 76,2mm stali, a tył posiada 38,1mm. Jest jeszcze dolna płyta, osłaniająca skrzynię biegów, która też do najcieńszych nie należy, gdyż posiada od 114,3 do 139,7mm grubości, lecz ze względu na swój zaokrąglony kształt jest ją dość ciężko przebić. Ale czołg to nie tylko kadłub, to także wieża, a ta w M4A3E2 (76) W jest wyjątkowo opancerzona. Jarzmo działa ma od 177,8mm aż do 350mm przy samym dziale. Cała wieża natomiast ma 152,4mm grubości i to z każdej strony. Jak to się miewa w przypadku gdy wróg odda strzał pierwszy? Jeżeli jest to Tygrys H1 lub E, to frontalne starcie na dystansie powyżej 800 metrów nie powinno stanowić dla nas problemu. Jest tylko jedno miejsce gdzie Tygrys może nas przebić od przodu. Mianowicie gniazdo karabinu maszynowego w kadłubie, z racji iż jest ono pozbawione dodatkowej płyty pancernej. Można je zasłonić krzakiem, jeżeli jednak takiego nie mamy to nic straconego. Gniazdo jest na tyle małe, że niewiele osób trafia w nie od razu. Ale co jeśli spotkamy IS-2 lub SU-152? Skoro M4A3E2 z 75mm działem potrafi przeżyć takie spotkanie, to wersja z 76mm armatą też to potrafi. Problemem są długie "Acht komma Acht" (czyli KwK 43 znane z Tygrysa Bengalskiego), te potrafią przebić górną płytę pancerną kadłuba praktycznie z każdej odległości i jedyna metoda na walkę z nimi to Hull-Down Position, czyli chowanie kadłuba za przeszkodą. Mobilność względem wersji z 75mm armatą nie maleje ani nie wzrasta, obie wersje posiadają ten silnik. Silnik zapewnia dobrze przyspieszenie, a skrzynia biegów oferuje nam dość dobry wsteczny bieg. Maksymalna prędkość z jaką Jumbo może się poruszać to 38km/h po utwardzonej drodze. 6. Taktyka: Z racji iż jest to czołg szturmowy, to im szybciej przełamiemy obronę wroga tym lepiej. Lecz maszyna ta spisuje się także w roli snajpera. Czego nie można powiedzieć o wersji z armatą M3. Dlatego też mamy do wyboru 3 techniki gry: - Gra na dystansie większym niż 800 metrów (zalecam ustawienie się nawet powyżej 1 kilometra) i próba wstrzelenia się we wroga, lecz muszę zaznaczyć iż rozrzut pocisków może nam utrudnić eliminowanie wroga z dużej odległości. - Szturm, ostrzelanie wroga w trakcie jazdy (do 15km/h), oraz walka na średnim i krótkim dystansie - moja ulubiona technika. - Walka pozycyjna, czyli przesuwanie się od przeszkody dbając o to by kadłub cały czas był schowany za przeszkodą. 7. Wady i Zalety: Zalety: + Działo zdolne przebić frontalnie Tygrysa H1 z odległości 1-2km zależnie od użytych pocisków. + Szybkostrzelność na poziomie 9.5 strzała na minutę. + Stabilizacja armaty do 15km/h!! + Depresja działa wynosząca -10°!! + Dobry przedni pancerz kadłuba mogący wytrzymać więcej, niż by się wydawało. + Bardzo dobrze opancerzoną wierzę i to z każdej strony!! + Dobra mobilność jak na tak pancerny czołg. + Przeciwlotniczy M2HB zamontowany na dachu. Wady: - Dla mnie ten czołg posiada jedną, ale to bardzo ważną wadę, mianowicie Klasyfikację Biterną na poziomie 6.0 na trybie Realistycznym. Problem ten dotyczy nie tylko "Długiego Jumbo". To amerykański odpowiednik Tygrysa H1/E oraz IS-2, a oba te czołgi posiadają Klasyfikację na poziomie 5.7 i taką ten czołg powinien dostać.
  29. 13 points
    This is an interesting find, and probably also finally helps to explain what this value means in the shell profile stabilityThreshold For many shells its 0.1, which means 10% which is exactly what the quoted OP shows. When this value is indeed the RNG value for penetration variety: Default value is 5% APDS/FS,APCR: 0% HEAT/FS, ATGM, HESH: 10% HE, Rockets: 40% This is quite a hilarious, and just in my opinion disgusting, discovery. Not only we have a RNG applied to the penetration, we also have the RNG applied to ricochet chance based on slope angle, RNG for ammo and fire. Its disgusting, because there is zero explanation by the devs given how their damage model works, the stat cards in game are useless, and to actually get the correct slope modifiers which are based on T/D you have to dig into the game files. The wiki is useless as it most of the time gives wrong information for the game mechanics (I dont really blame the wiki editors as they also have to work with the same information we have) This is also quite laughable as with RNG penetration the RNG ricochet chance base on slope is redundant and only gives more advantage to vehicles with highly angled surfaces. With the percentage based RNG penetration modifer we dont need the ricochet chance, just increase it to 10%, like it is in WW2 Ballistics for the 50% criterion and we are done.
  30. 13 points
    Why should these "manufacturing flaws" be modelled in game? It's not like we model, say, engine reliability. Also, *certain* countries would have had considerably more flaws than others in some time periods. Surely we should model that? Would you like half of your APHE shells to shatter on impact when firing your 85mm? RNG doesn't make for fun gameplay at all, which is the key thing here. A competitive multiplayer game should be as skill based as possible. The less randomness there is, the better.
  31. 13 points
    Widzę, że wątek MM odnośnie Tygrysa się wyczerpał, bo na kilku ostatnich stronach nie ma żadnego postu na ten temat. Zamykam...
  32. 13 points
    It's a 7.3-7.7 tank. Anyone that argues against that is delirious. At this point it is pay to win.
  33. 13 points
    Except Messerschmitt's designs were often refered to as "Me [RLM number]" even before BFW got renamed to Messerschmitt AG. Also, there is no "u". I suspect that you refer to "you".
  34. 12 points
    I'll start out by saying that I don't think the IS-6 can be balanced in the current meta. It's one of those tanks that relies on its armor, which means it is extremely BR sensitive, especially when it lies at the edge of Postwar munitions technologies like HESH, and HEAT-FS that negate its armor. In other words, if it remains in its current BR, it will continue to stomp the opposition. If it gets raised to 7.3 then it will become another non-competitive T5 heavy tank like the IS-3/4M Maus, M103, Conqueror etc. But I'm curious what the rest of you think. The poll contains the two most common ideas about how to balance the IS-6: raise BR to 7.3 and give it the D shell to allow it to still compete at that BR.
  35. 12 points
    I am slightly perplexed as to why it cost so little Spawn points to get into a plane in TANK RB. Why is someone rewarded when I kill them? So because I kill someone, they have enough points to spawn in a plane (having no kills, assists or cap points), just from them taking weapon damage. Due to the killcam, they know my general area, I can't shoot and move far enough away before they arrive, having amazing ability to see me on the ground from the air from the way the graphics are in War Thunder, and they fire a barrage of inescapable rockets, or drop bombs on top of me, or suicide bomb me. Spawn Points needs to be reworked. I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be rewarded for dying the way you are in-game right now. You should have to get 5 kills at least, or cap like 3 zones in order to call in CAS. Not cap one zone in an AAA truck, or get hit once or twice and die. People also need to be penalised for suicide bombing deliberately. And I don't just mean losing the lions in cost of their plane.
  36. 12 points
    It's ridiculous thing I noticed when non Soviet team at 6.7 something have to face the Soviet team full fill with almost all tanks with br 7.0-7.3 like IS-3, IS-6 and T-54s. there would not be a big problem until you counted there more than 5 T54s in their team and in first few minutes they killed half of you team. thanks Gaijin for drow IS-2 down to 6.3, we have no 6.7 Soviet tanks now. what do you think ?
  37. 12 points
    "Besides general gameplay improvement all these changes will let us add larger ships to the game." Did I just sense a disturbance in the Force? Or was that just a collective "squeee!" from "Warthunder needs big ships" fans?
  38. 12 points
    Thank you for the following Sakuzhi. I finally have clear and defined statement that I can use to base my testing. For P-51D for instance, unsing 67" setting, AUTO engine control (so 100% is actually slightly slower due to rad opening, that's the shift. Within 2% accuracy, depends on human error on my side, based on unique test vs multiple + datareduction and normalisation from NACA From someone that has, for all, put for only equation P = MV, I don't know how to react. Using NACA theory, plane is characterized by 4 forces acting on it: Gravity, thrust, drag and lift. Based on the 4 majors directions. This allow me, based on my aerodynamic courses I had at my University, to estimate planes performances up to +- 2% accuracy, compared to maybe more complex models, for simple maneuvers. If you can't accept this 4 components decomposition, no need to read further, as you obviously were sleeping during physics classes. This thrust - lift - drag - gravity decomposition is also used for nowadays CFD softwares such as Fluent. You think that modeling thrust is easy ? Lift is a simple formula. Drag is a complex formula, due to Cd being part constant and part variable. Thrust is a nightmare. Prop efficiency IG is not simply a coefficient put for x speed y altitude. It is actually modelled in avery complex way, possibly more complexe than Il-2, I don't know. Are you for real blaming devs not to get all factors right in the first shot, when it takes *hundred" of hours for flight engineer to gather, reduce and analyse data? Data sometime not even available for the planes ? Or better, blaming devs for faulty Fm because they never had the proper documentation in the first place ? I will enjoy this one soo much. I did some testing for fun. Go to max speed at WEP (if available), 1000ft, then cut the throttle and keep the altitude. P-51 full fuel (blue) no fuel (red): Obviously, mass has no effect on speed reduction over time, it is a constant ! Better now: Yak-3 (30 min fuel, with first 10 seconds being a fail from me with engine at 6% throttle) vs P-47M, full fuel. P-47 is red. Now, the funny part is that P-47, to achieve the same speed, requires 1100kg of thrust, while Yak-3 requires less than 500kg of thrust, for 2350kg. Obviously, drag is much more important on P-47. Yet, it slows down less ! Aside from first 2 paragraphs being direct attacks, rants, homemade physics based, the 3rd paragraph has been proven wrong by the many IG gathered data above. So, as I assumed in the very first quote I did, mentioning you: Please provide fact for your homemade physics. And I did it for you, and it proved you wrong. LEL. I am laughing hard here. Acceleration and deceleration (because you, de-acceleration is not a thing) are the same thing. Acceleration is Thrust > drag, deceleration is drag > thrust. Thurst is modeled the same for every single plane IG (i.e Thrust = power * prop efficiency / speed), and same goes for drag, being 0.5* air_density * Cd * wing area *speed^2. Cd is the same for every plane IG, being Cd0 (constant) + Cdi (depends on Cl(speed)) + Cdwavedrag (for mach > 0.3 it should be considered). Please, PLEASE bring me an equation to show how acceleration and deceleration are not related, and are 2 different things. Indeed. You are the one assuming you know physics and game engine better than most of use, while your physics level is below highschool level from what I saw. You just discredited yourself in front of anyone with a little knowledge about ACM. E-M theory is the very principle of excess power (aka usable thrust), which basically defines how a plane can accelerate / decelerate at a given speed / G load. Since I provided testing, proofs, and since you cannot provide anything but sentences, without any IG example (you did not even tried to do a barrel roll IG to compared the video), I will consider my contribution here as over. I backed up my claims, you still haven't provided ANY testing, and your majors claims have been discarded. Because that's the whole point here: Rereading the past pages, the only thing I got from you was insults, elusive sentences and statement, a single misused equation, and not a single IG example of broken mechanics. Therefore, since that is not more constructive than a troll, I have no wish continuing this discussion further. enjoy spreading fake claims in this topic. Did Robertorolfo hack you account ?
  39. 12 points
    The Problems: - The Matchmaker tends to drag planes and tanks into certain distinct battle ratings due to popularity of certain tanks as opposed to others. A few things are capable of handling such uptiers but most are not. - The BR of a plane/tank does not take into account whether that plane/tank is spaded or not - often times a vehicle only deserves the BR it has when its reached certain critical modifications (Engine Injection/New Jet Engine on Planes, Unlocking Certain Ammo Types on Tanks which vastly improve their ability to fight enemies) The solutions: For the matchmaking itself, I've proposed many solutions on the RB GF forum where uptiering is most evident and problematic, but its also noteworthy for high tier aircraft matches as well, specifically jets. The following is the simplest and easiest to implement solution for the problem. - There would no longer be a fixed BR spread for the whole game. The reason is that some numbers work for some tiers and others do not work for later tiers. In general early tiers are markedly more balanced than later ones. - Instead, each plane and tank is assigned a BR range. What this means is that if a plane/tank is your highest BR vehicle, then you could be placed in matches anywhere within that range. If a plane/tank is very robust and flexible it could have a 1.0BR spread (things like the M18 Hellcat). If its not flexible (most heavy tanks and heavy tank destroyers fall here) it would have a narrow BR spread, sometimes even a single number. - The BR adjustment for a tank or plane for unlocking certain ammo types, gun accuracy upgrades, and engine power would be anywhere from 0.0 to 0.7, dependent on the tank/plane. Basically to wrap this up: - it fixes the problem of constant uptiers in many sections of all tech trees for tanks - it breaks up the clubber brackets in tanks somewhat as a result of point 1, those brackets being 2.3, 3.3, 5.3-5.7, 6.7-7.0, 7.3, and 7.7-8.3. Currently anything in between those levels gets forcibly shoved up. - it breaks up the clubber brackets in planes as well, which although less apparent, still exist. Those brackets are 2.0, 2.3, 3.7, 4.0, 5.0, 5.7, 6.3, 7.0, and 9.0. - it makes the BR of a plane/tank vary sensibly with how spaded it is, sometimes a stock plane is actually worse in performance than the fully spaded one preceding it, and sometimes without ammo unlocks a tank literally CAN'T do its intended job. - it mostly solves the problem of WWII stuff vs Postwar HEATFS/APDS problem. - players get happier overall with a fix of some kind for a major problem coming to the game, leading to increased player retention. Happier players are more willing to spend money to show their support. I know I would definitely show my support. - Finally, fixing this mess will prevent it from becoming a problem when boats go into open beta and beyond. Because with the player base stagnating at best and slowly shrinking at worst, if this is not fixed by the time boats come out it'll leave a bitter aftertaste in everyone's mouths, no matter what boats turn out to be.
  40. 12 points
    Acceptable and the best case scenario due to this recent change The Weekly Rumor Summary(03.04.2017) Change in the live.warthunder Contribution Agreement The Contribution Agreement of live.warthunder.com, the portal where custom maps, vehicles and other stuff is uploaded has been changed. Hide contents 6. Consideration 6.1. If and when Gaijin chooses to include Your User Generated Content into the Game, in consideration for the rights granted herein, Gaijin agrees to pay You (a) a fixed fee in the amount from 6,000 USD to 10,000 USD at Gaijin’s sole discretion – for 3D models of aircraft, tanks, ships; or (b) a fixed fee in the amount from 1,500 USD to 8,000 USD at Gaijin’s sole discretion – for 3D models of cockpits, or (c) a share revenue as provided in Attachment A for the period of six (6) months (“Consideration Period”) from the date of acceptance of User Generated Content (solely at Gaijin’s discretion) (“Share Revenue”) – for other types of User Generated Content. This means that player created vehicles are now no longer limited to premiums. I hope this means we will see more user created content in the future. https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/355719-169-rumor-round-up-and-disscussion/&do=findComment&comment=6874128
  41. 12 points
    Concern has been raised many times on the forum that countries such as Canada and Australia may not see full representation in game and may miss out on many of the vast number of fighting vehicles designed and manufactured by them in the game's period. To assuage such doubts and give due recognition, I suggest that the British tree be renamed to the 'British Empire and Commonwealth', 'British Commonwealth' or, maybe, 'British and Commonwealth' tree and include said vehicles when they are made. This should be a quick and easy change which would be preferred -- I think -- by many and which I cannot imagine any disliking.
  42. 11 points
    Lemme just write down the names of everyone that said yes to this, so I can laugh at you till the end of time. To think this absurd joke thread actually got support from people boggles my mind. You already got the T-34-85, and upgunned 3.3 tank, to the same BR as your beloved tiger, the tank that historically and in game, stomps the living hell out of T-34-85s all day, and now you seriously want it to be lower? I'm not really one for a slippery slope argument, but using the lowered BR of the Tiger E, to justify getting the Tiger H BR lower, is one of the most, head up butt, stupidest ideas I've seen on the forums.
  43. 11 points
    From reddit This effect every ammunition. Bug or feature?
  44. 11 points
    Z cyklu "wyczytane na czacie WT": Tło akcji: nocna bitwa. - I can't see a "szit"! - That's obvious because Gaijin didn't implement "szit" into the game. Przypadek drugi - komizm sytuacyjny (w innych okolicznościach nie byłoby tak śmiesznie): Gracz bombowca: - Nie strzelajcie! Mam bomby na pokładzie! Odpowiedź drużyny przeciwnej: - Nie negocjujemy z terrorystami!
  45. 11 points
    A bug where occasionally an APHE round would either not penetrate or the resultant explosion caused little spalling effect has been fixed Client stability has been improved. The current provided patchnotes reflect the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates and fixes may be not listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving all the time and certain fixes may be implemented without the client being updated. Leave feedback here!
  46. 11 points
    Gaijin is not modeling tanks to historical reliability. Engine is not getting on fire randomly and tracks do not fall off on sharp turns. So why is tank shell modeled with manufacturing flaws? It makes a much better game if gameplay is more predictable. Worrying about whether your 120mm HESH round would bounce off a 100mm plate of not is not fun.
  47. 11 points
    Download Wallpaper: 1280x1024 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 You need to get these rewards! On the eve of the Day of Victory on the 9th of May you will be able to tread the path of glory, use your skills and get rewards that are worthy of real winners! WWII chronicles has begun! From 15:00 GMT on the 14th of April till 13:00 GMT on the 10th of May Win in battles and get unique premium vehicles and other valuable prizes! Open Chronicles Calendar FOR TANKERS FOR PILOTS Matilda Mk.II F-96 A33 Excelsior PV-2D Harpoon Yak-3Т The vehicle model is under construction. How to get: For 6 received “Chronicle awards” for tankers For 11 received “Chronicle awards” for tankers For 6 received “Chronicle awards” for pilots For 11 received “Chronicle awards” for pilots The first batches of the British Matilda tank, that the USSR received under the Lend-lease program demonstrated the low efficiency of the British 2 pounder cannon. Soviet engineers tried to resolve this problem by replacing the native cannon with a 76mm ZiS-5 cannon, which was specially modified to be mounted in the British turret. How will the new “Matilda” perform with the KV-1 cannon we will see very soon! The heavy British attack tank. Was created as a universal vehicle, while in defense exceeding the famous "Churchill" and in mobility the lighter "Cromwell". Add to this an excellent British 75mm cannon and get one of the best tanks in the game at its own rank! The twin-engined strike aircraft of the US Air Force was produced at the end of the war. Strong, tenacious and maneuverable for his own class attacker carries a solid bomb load, missiles and even torpedoes. Especially for this model, aircraft designers strengthened offensive weaponry by installing 8 large-calibre "Brownings" in the nose. A Soviet fighter with a 37mm gun and a pair of 20mm automatic guns creating a massive second salvo surpassed all the fighters of Germany and the Allies. The unique combination of beautiful flying qualities and colossally powerful weapons! Definitely a new star in the sky of War Thunder! And other prizes: "Monster Jaws" "Tiger Jaws" "Shark Jaws" "Boar Jaws" "Crocodile Jaws" StG 44 Type 100 Lanchester Mk.1 M3 "Grease gun" PPSh-42 “Chronicles Trophy” Each trophy contains one of the following items: « 100-900% Silver Lions booster 100-900% Research Points booster A random talisman for ground vehicles or aircraft of rank 2-4 A random camouflage for ground vehicles or aircraft of rank 2-4 х10 random back-ups for ground vehicles or aircraft of rank 2-4 5 Unique decals Nose arts 5 vehicle decorations Sub-machine guns and assault rifles How to get: For each 2 received “Chronicle awards” for tankers and pilots For each 3 received “Chronicle awards” for pilots For each 3 received “Chronicle awards” for tankers How to receive ”Chronicle awards" In order to receive prizes, you must complete the event stages in order to achieve “Chronicle awards” which you can complete in the “WW II Chronicles”. You can complete three of the five tasks of your choice: Stages for tankers - by controlling ground vehicles: Stages for pilots - by controlling of the aircraft: Destroy 40 enemies (x2 RB, x3 SB); Get the achievement “Supporting fire” (help for destroying in a squad) 5 times; Win 10 times (with activity in battle of more than 70%); Finish the battle in 1st place four times (while either winning or losing the battle); Destroy 12/6/3 enemies in 1 battle (AB, RB, SB) while controlling a ground vehicle. Destroy 30 enemies (x2 RB, x3 SB); Get the achievement “Supporting fire” (help for destroying in a squad) 4 times; Win 10 times (with activity in battle more than 60%); Finish the battle in 1st place four times (while either winning or losing the battle); Destroy 10/3/2 enemies in 1 battle (AB, RB, SB) while controlling an aircraft. Conditions: You must complete tasks in special battles: Events and tournaments → WW II Chronicles. To receive “Chronicle awards” (ground vehicles and aircraft) you need to complete 3 out of 5 tasks for appropriate kind of vehicles. To receive a premium ground vehicle you need to complete the tanker stages, for pilots, to receive an aircraft you need to complete an air battle stage. Each stage is active for 2 days and will reset at 11:00 GMT on the third day when a new task will be started. “Chronicle awards” which will be marked in gold will be counted as completed. You will be able to purchase any missed stage using the in-game store. You can follow your progress in “Achievements → WW II Chronicles”
  48. 11 points
  49. 11 points
    Y€$, and th€y r€a££y ar€ tr€ating £oya£ p£ay€r$ quit€ w€££
  50. 11 points
    The penetration is still wrong, which is what I'm guessing the OP is talking about.