New Sonic Boom Effect [Feedback]

[Reddоt 3,441]

On 22/03/2023 at 18:07, Cpt_Bel_V said:

True,... but if i remember the current pilot manual,... it isn't recommanded to pass through Mach 1 when being fully loaded as you're.

 

Because of wing vibrations around the Mach number.

 

So,... maybe you should pitch up and loose some speed ^^"

 

Maybe you shouldn't try and decide what other people like or don't.

 

If you like the effect, good for you. Many don't. Don't try and argue your liking of the effect with people that don't like it. It defeats the purpose of a feedback thread when you go around trying to invalidate everyone's feedback. It's not for you to decide how someone else feels about it.

 

Edited March 24 by GarbageFlying

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,748]

52 minutes ago, GarbageFlying said:

 

Maybe you shouldn't try and decide what other people like or don't.

 

If you like the effect, good for you. Many don't. Don't try and argue your liking of the effect with people that don't like it. It defeats the purpose of a feedback thread when you go around trying to invalidate everyone's feedback. It's not for you to decide how someone else feels about it.

 

K, then get it fixed through bug report instead of trying to get it removed(which will not happen,... as you've been told for 10years, War thunder wants also to make the game great graphicalymly.)

 

Those effects aran't bad,... they simply annoys you,...

[WinstonWolfe 308]

If we have it let it appear from 1m to 1.03 not 1.2M. Will be there, will be shorter all will be happy.

[x1BRAVO9x 188]

On 24/03/2023 at 00:37, Cpt_Bel_V said:

K, then get it fixed through bug report instead of trying to get it removed(which will not happen,... as you've been told for 10years, War thunder wants also to make the game great graphicalymly.)

 

Those effects aran't bad,... they simply annoys you,...

 

 

Your point is just as much opinion as his is.

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,748]

44 minutes ago, x1BRAVO9x said:

 

 

Your point is just as much opinion as his is.

Free comment to say nothing,...

 

I mean my PoV is clear, i like those effects, i'm not annoyed by it.

 

But people here seems willing to bend physics, just "BeCoSe iT's A gAmE"

 

So,... 

[x1BRAVO9x 188]

2 minutes ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

Free comment to say nothing,...

 

I mean my PoV is clear, i like those effects, i'm not annoyed by it.

 

But people here seems willing to bend physics, just "BeCoSe iT's A gAmE"

 

So,... 

 

An opinion is just that, an opinion.

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,748]

Just now, x1BRAVO9x said:

 

An opinion is just that, an opinion.

Well at least bring yours on the table,... your commenting is currently useless,...

[x1BRAVO9x 188]

 

 

11 minutes ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

Well at least bring yours on the table,... your commenting is currently useless,...

 

 

I don't think its a bad thing necessarily but I think it could use a little tweaking.

 

You seem to oversimplify it because you are in favor of it, and that's fine I have no problem with that.

 

Just don't allude to the idea that your opinion is better than anyone elses.

 

My problem with you is that you can barely make a post without inserting your condescending attitude.

 

First its your opinion is better than anyone else, then my post are useless.

Edited March 28 by x1BRAVO9x

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,748]

2 hours ago, x1BRAVO9x said:

 

 

 

 

I don't think its a bad thing necessarily but I think it could use a little tweaking.

 

You seem to oversimplify it because you are in favor of it, and that's fine I have no problem with that.

 

Just don't allude to the idea that your opinion is better than anyone elses.

 

My problem with you is that you can barely make a post without inserting your condescending attitude.

 

First its your opinion is better than anyone else, then my post are useless.

I can hear and talk over subjects,... and as told previous page the effect still are requiring some improvement.

 

But yes i'm against an option to make those physical effect out of the game.

 

The reasons invoked for those who asked the removal are that it affects their gameplay, but:

-> you have an UI which make you able to spot anything through the Mach Cone

-> you can judge speed differential by watching the distance closing, thanks to UI

-> you can use the keybind to use a different view for the few seconds of Mach cone.

-> you have at high tier jet, radars which are capable today to help you aim guns at close ranges (0.5km- 1.2km)

 

In such we can see through the Mach cone, and there is no trouble (might be only me) to kill anyone coming upfront.

 

So i feel like the problem isn't related to Mach cone itself, but it serves as pretext to explains one trouble with the overall gameplay. ^^"

 

That's why i'm so categoric on this matter.

[Khomuna 66]

On 21/03/2023 at 19:54, NoBombersInJetRB said:

Is it still possible to turn off when I switched to ULQ graphics?

 

I think so, but then you're compromising your whole visual fidelity because of 1 effect, not worth it.

[x1BRAVO9x 188]

8 hours ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

I can hear and talk over subjects,... and as told previous page the effect still are requiring some improvement.

 

But yes i'm against an option to make those physical effect out of the game.

 

The reasons invoked for those who asked the removal are that it affects their gameplay, but:

-> you have an UI which make you able to spot anything through the Mach Cone

-> you can judge speed differential by watching the distance closing, thanks to UI

-> you can use the keybind to use a different view for the few seconds of Mach cone.

-> you have at high tier jet, radars which are capable today to help you aim guns at close ranges (0.5km- 1.2km)

 

In such we can see through the Mach cone, and there is no trouble (might be only me) to kill anyone coming upfront.

 

So i feel like the problem isn't related to Mach cone itself, but it serves as pretext to explains one trouble with the overall gameplay. ^^"

 

That's why i'm so categoric on this matter.

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

You've played almost 16K battles in Air RB, how many of those were in first person?

 

Be honest.

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,748]

5 minutes ago, x1BRAVO9x said:

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

You've played almost 16K battles in Air RB, how many of those were in first person?

 

Be honest.

With all honesty i can give to you:

 

Around 67 RB (maybe 71,... but i'm not sure) + approx.150 custom battles RB modes + 3 Arcade battle.

 

(And about 4500 battles from take off to 30 seconds before merge, using keybind only control, and mouse only for camera view --> i wish i could use this setup in Sim Battle)

 

All sim battle in aircraft was done with joystick and mouse as camera.

[x1BRAVO9x 188]

18 minutes ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

With all honesty i can give to you:

 

Around 67 RB (maybe 71,... but i'm not sure) + approx.150 custom battles RB modes + 3 Arcade battle.

 

(And about 4500 battles from take off to 30 seconds before merge, using keybind only control, and mouse only for camera view --> i wish i could use this setup in Sim Battle)

 

All sim battle in aircraft was done with joystick and mouse as camera.

 

Damn! Lot more precise than I expected. 

 

That being said I just think its a bit disingenuous to nonchalantly tell people to play in first person view if they are having trouble seeing. Obviously you value 3rd person view and if this change was affecting you its a good chance your opinion would be different.

 

Second, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous to hang your hat on "realism" and mock people who say "BeCoSe iT's A gAmE" when you have taken advantage of and used a very unrealistic game mechanic that is used ....... ie "BeCoSe iT's A gAmE"?

Edited March 28 by x1BRAVO9x

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,748]

3 hours ago, x1BRAVO9x said:

 

Damn! Lot more precise than I expected. 

 

That being said I just think its a bit disingenuous to nonchalantly tell people to play in first person view if they are having trouble seeing. Obviously you value 3rd person view and if this change was affecting you its a good chance your opinion would be different.

 

Second, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous to hang your hat on "realism" and mock people who say "BeCoSe iT's A gAmE" when you have taken advantage of and used a very unrealistic game mechanic that is used ....... ie "BeCoSe iT's A gAmE"?

Oh, but i didn't tell them to go 1st person view,... it's just that they're having so much trouble with some white-grey effect on their screen, so if the effect is behind them, they wouldn't have those trouble.

 

Yet, i can agree that it was different our days before,... yet most jets didn't reached Mach 1, yet the cone effect only was added after some Mach 1+ jets were added in the game.

 

Therefore the historical experience is bit odd argument, but was true for the like of 3-6 months after F-100D and MiG-19 update.

 

 

I won't hide it,... most people claims something and are harsh about anyone giving them different claims/asks,... but this is not only from my side, yet you argue on me as if i were hardly mocking those players.

 

I simply wanted them to think more of what details in the game they could use in order to "see through it", because it is working great for me

 

I do however mock people telling us that this kind of feature makes them less efficient in game,... i mean, they are the one getting distracted by it, and it's not like you can't prevent it from happening or planning it to happen.

 

This effect is strictly based around Mach 1 speed number, and it is possible not to go over or to plan when to pass over mach1.

 

For bomb carriers, like F-4's, heavily loaded to max possibility by users, it tends to stick at Mach 1,... well my own solution is to make a 2°/5°degree angle climb, than dive the same.

 

As the result is that you're not affected by cone effect for 2km of slight climb, then you pass over Mach number thanks to gravity --> this is a player solution to à "pseudo-problem"

 

Again, UI makes people able to see ennemies, distances and aircraft type,... so we can basically use those informations to "see through" while staying in 3rd person view. (Let alone commands to move camera in 3rd person view)

 

This is no real problem to have some realistic effect,... but i feel like it's downgrading game to want it to be removed.

 

 

This said, i can agree on one point: my way to say things is horrible.

(But clearly when i see most people here on this forum,... i know that i can't elevate the "debate").

[x1BRAVO9x 188]

59 minutes ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

Oh, but i didn't tell them to go 1st person view,... it's just that they're having so much trouble with some white-grey effect on their screen, so if the effect is behind them, they wouldn't have those trouble.

 

Yet, i can agree that it was different our days before,... yet most jets didn't reached Mach 1, yet the cone effect only was added after some Mach 1+ jets were added in the game.

 

Therefore the historical experience is bit odd argument, but was true for the like of 3-6 months after F-100D and MiG-19 update.

 

 

I won't hide it,... most people claims something and are harsh about anyone giving them different claims/asks,... but this is not only from my side, yet you argue on me as if i were hardly mocking those players.

 

I simply wanted them to think more of what details in the game they could use in order to "see through it", because it is working great for me

 

I do however mock people telling us that this kind of feature makes them less efficient in game,... i mean, they are the one getting distracted by it, and it's not like you can't prevent it from happening or planning it to happen.

 

This effect is strictly based around Mach 1 speed number, and it is possible not to go over or to plan when to pass over mach1.

 

For bomb carriers, like F-4's, heavily loaded to max possibility by users, it tends to stick at Mach 1,... well my own solution is to make a 2°/5°degree angle climb, than dive the same.

 

As the result is that you're not affected by cone effect for 2km of slight climb, then you pass over Mach number thanks to gravity --> this is a player solution to à "pseudo-problem"

 

Again, UI makes people able to see ennemies, distances and aircraft type,... so we can basically use those informations to "see through" while staying in 3rd person view. (Let alone commands to move camera in 3rd person view)

 

This is no real problem to have some realistic effect,... but i feel like it's downgrading game to want it to be removed.

 

 

This said, i can agree on one point: my way to say things is horrible.

(But clearly when i see most people here on this forum,... i know that i can't elevate the "debate").

 

 

For starters I am enjoying your conversation, and I think you're making some good points.

 

I don't think it should be removed either, I think it's a good visual for the game and something I think makes the game more appealing.

 

That being said, I think that 3rd person view is a gaming aspect that most gamers will agree is a universally accepted as a dynamic that is useful and necessary for the gaming experience. Not just WT but across all of the gaming spectrum including sports games such as football and soccer, and FPS as well. 

 

Therefore, I think it's safe to say that it is a fair opinion to want the integrity of that aspect protected for all players.

 

I didn't realize it before, but I must play a lot of planes that hover (no pun intended) around the sound barrier. It is constantly blocking my view and in fact has cost me several kills as well as cause me to be killed.

 

From my experience it seems much worse in some aircraft and not noticeable in others.

 

I don't think switching to 1st person view is a fair response because doing that IMMEDIATELY puts you at a disadvantage. Hence why Sim is a much more difficult game mode.

 

IMO the best thing to do is have the option to turn it off for the players aircraft in 3rd person view where they don't see it but everyone else does. This way it won't affect the overall visual aspects of the game and it does cause someone a disadvantage.

 

I guess similar to historical camo, except the opposite.

 

Just my dos centavos.

Edited March 29 by x1BRAVO9x

[Reddоt 3,441]

He doesn't play any of the planes that really suffer with this effect, so you're barking up the wrong tree. No point to discuss with him, because of that.

 

 

Edited March 29 by GarbageFlying

[SGTBlackburn 0]

i think the effects would be best with a toggle feature, sometimes ill be flying and just sitting at mach 1 i cant see anything at all, especially when loaded with bombs and heavy

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,748]

5 hours ago, GarbageFlying said:

He doesn't play any of the planes that really suffer with this effect, so you're barking up the wrong tree. No point to discuss with him, because of that.

 

 

I played every aircraft that have those difficulties too,... and i never got annoyed from that,... you talked of me with no knowledge.

 

Please consider i played this game twice you did, and that you don't own anything than can relate my in-game experience,...

 

Since you are soft-insulting me, please gimme a list of aircrafts which have this problem, and in which situation --> Fully bomb load? Fuel? Number of missiles carried?

 

In order to make you understand what YOU do wrong.

Edited March 29 by Cpt_Bel_V

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,748]

5 hours ago, x1BRAVO9x said:

IMO the best thing to do is have the option to turn it off for the players aircraft in 3rd person view where they don't see it but everyone else does. This way it won't affect the overall visual aspects of the game and it does cause someone a disadvantage

Yet, i can agree about 3rd person view. (Not for Fps though).

 

As told already, i feel like there is no need for any removal at all(not even by the option)

 

Because

1- UI is giving you ennemies locations --> that's for everyone

2- you can plan when to break the Mach --> navigations skills of players (as described earlier)

3- you can twist you're camera to have a slight different angle :

pressing a keybing to move mouse of 5/10°, having the visual in front you being "cleared", while still being able to turn by associated keybind and still being in 3rd person --> getting off keybind make camera to return back to normal.

 

So there is already enough mechanics to "see through" Mach cone.

Edited March 29 by Cpt_Bel_V

[x1BRAVO9x 188]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

Yet, i can agree about 3rd person view. (Not for Fps though).

 

As told already, i feel like there is no need for any removal at all(not even by the option)

 

Because

1- UI is giving you ennemies locations --> that's for everyone

2- you can plan when to break the Mach --> navigations skills of players (as described earlier)

3- you can twist you're camera to have a slight different angle :

pressing a keybing to move mouse of 5/10°, having the visual in front you being "cleared", while still being able to turn by associated keybind and still being in 3rd person --> getting off keybind make camera to return back to normal.

 

So there is already enough mechanics to "see through" Mach cone.

 

 

I don't really understand your points and I disagree.

 

You shouldn't have to do all the things you do just to get the same field of view as the next person in a different plane.

 

Doing the things you say in a combat situation immediately puts that player at a disadvantage.

 

That should never be the case.

 

If all you are worried about is visuals, why are you against the toggle idea, it would have absolutely no affect on you whatsoever?

 

 

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,748]

On 17/03/2023 at 19:37, Khomuna said:

Some aircraft like the F8U-2, Yak-141 as well as most supersonic aircraft carrying bombs, stay at transonic speeds for prolonged periods of time, the vapor cone obstructs view and forces players to either tilt their cameras to see obstacles ahead or go into 1st person to avoid it, that's annoying and shouldn't be necessary.

@x1BRAVO9x:

That's the main reason invoked to have Mach cone effect removed.

 

I told you that you could planned a shorter period of time, by preparing a slight dive during flight (navigation skills)

 

But i also missed one major facts:

IRL fully bomb loaded aircrafts were restricted to Subsonic speed, because of the Stress the wings would have to support.

 

In-game (and only there), the wings works as if nothing is loaded on, therefore you'll rip at same G, being loaded or not.

 

And that's also why i think that the effect is not a problem either, as you normally shouldn't be allowed to reached it.

 

 

However i would agree to a setting making you able to put the camera further in the back --> this will makes you able to see around the Mach cone effect, without removing it.

 

It's only a distance to set between you and the aircraft tail.

3 hours ago, x1BRAVO9x said:

all you are worried about is visuals, why are you against the toggle idea, it would have absolutely no affect on you whatsoever?

I'm not worried,... i'm not impacted as others are.

 

I like both on me and on others-> it visually indicates me what speed i just reached, and not to hard turn ripping my wings off.

 

It is currently useful to me, rather than annoying.

 

I just feel like the toggle idea, is possible, but it's an option where players won't adapt ( adapting to a situation is what pilot faces everyday,... and facing this Mach cone effect in this game is not really something hard, because of all the points above -> mostly thanks to UI)

 

3 hours ago, x1BRAVO9x said:

Doing the things you say in a combat situation immediately puts that player at a disadvantage.

I can do it in combat already, when i'm defending vs guns or missile, i check on the ennemy with direct visual using the same keybind.

 

At this point this is only "Player Finger Management"

 

And when you're in combat ennemies are rarely in staging in front of you(apart head-on situations), as you're rarely keeping Mach number for long time, therefore it is not something that should bother any player to the point they can't aim s-word.

 

3 hours ago, x1BRAVO9x said:

You shouldn't have to do all the things you do just to get the same field of view as the next person in a different plane.

I only does one of them:

Using UI

Or using keybind to "see through" --> depending on my "PFM"

 

 

[x1BRAVO9x 188]

4 hours ago, Cpt_Bel_V said:

@x1BRAVO9x:

That's the main reason invoked to have Mach cone effect removed.

 

I told you that you could planned a shorter period of time, by preparing a slight dive during flight (navigation skills)

 

But i also missed one major facts:

IRL fully bomb loaded aircrafts were restricted to Subsonic speed, because of the Stress the wings would have to support.

 

In-game (and only there), the wings works as if nothing is loaded on, therefore you'll rip at same G, being loaded or not.

 

And that's also why i think that the effect is not a problem either, as you normally shouldn't be allowed to reached it.

 

 

However i would agree to a setting making you able to put the camera further in the back --> this will makes you able to see around the Mach cone effect, without removing it.

 

It's only a distance to set between you and the aircraft tail.

I'm not worried,... i'm not impacted as others are.

 

I like both on me and on others-> it visually indicates me what speed i just reached, and not to hard turn ripping my wings off.

 

It is currently useful to me, rather than annoying.

 

I just feel like the toggle idea, is possible, but it's an option where players won't adapt ( adapting to a situation is what pilot faces everyday,... and facing this Mach cone effect in this game is not really something hard, because of all the points above -> mostly thanks to UI)

 

I can do it in combat already, when i'm defending vs guns or missile, i check on the ennemy with direct visual using the same keybind.

 

At this point this is only "Player Finger Management"

 

And when you're in combat ennemies are rarely in staging in front of you(apart head-on situations), as you're rarely keeping Mach number for long time, therefore it is not something that should bother any player to the point they can't aim s-word.

 

I only does one of them:

Using UI

Or using keybind to "see through" --> depending on my "PFM"

 

 

 

Great response.

 

But you did seem to dance around what I would consider the most important question.

 

Why are you so steadfast against something that you agree has no effect on you, positive or negative?

 

 

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,748]

1 hour ago, x1BRAVO9x said:

 

Great response.

 

But you did seem to dance around what I would consider the most important question.

 

Why are you so steadfast against something that you agree has no effect on you, positive or negative?

There is maybe one answer that can explain why i think it is normal to fight against any removal of things that are "annoying" other people:

 

The gameplay level of this game community.

 

I play since 2013, so far i rated the ability of players in this game:

 

As "Today", with all the "helps" (missiles, radars, G-suits, at jet BR's, the community have the worst gameplay level (this is true for around 95% of current community, i know people way better than me).

 

While i considered that many more players were better back in 2013-2015 period, with an amount of maybe 35% of community of that time being better than me. (I also consider my own experience increasing my own abilities, but this is not on par with the community level which have drastically dropped around 2016-2017, and which never come back.)

 

 

All of that to say, that i expected players to bother making their way through this little thing of Mach cone, that they consider being annoying for them.

Edited March 29 by Cpt_Bel_V

[WinstonWolfe 308]

 

 

 

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,748]

3 hours ago, WinstonWolfe said:

 

 

 

Well : 1st of all,... you dive at Mach 1 into a known area of high buildings,...

 

you did search trouble, you found them,... nothing else to say than navigational skill issue from the pilot.

 

With 2nd review:

You could saw this building nearly 5 seconds before you crashed in it (pilot skill issue)

and as you were faster than target, no need to dive at Mach one, you could have kept on a level flight to stay safe from environnement. --> avoidable situation,... 

(It even triggered me to know if this wasn't made on purpose,... but it seems like it's not).