Yes, it may be that some weapons are not 100% accurate, but at least the flight models are.
Especially since DCS works together with some manufacturers.
- Hornets outraing vipers.
- Missiles having made up values, have been nerfed and buffed in past for how they feel.
- being able to flare proper modern IIR missiles like 9x cutting afterburners, most IR missiles are filled with RNG mechanics rather than actual IR mechaanics
They do depth modeling, but it still questionable. Radar modeling is also much more better or worse depending how you look at it on warthunder, I’d argue other games like VTOL VR whilst cartoony have some more depth modeling of mechanics.
Whats immersive about DCS and very realistic is some what of the main operation of airframes, it is not just about BVR or whatever. The general thing is flying to operating airframes for long hours on normal flight missions. Delivering strike missions which also takes times and effort rather than click of a button but more rewarding after multiple interactions.
Warthunder is fundamentally different as a whole game from that. You arent touching every button inside a vehicle to get something done neither do u want or have the time.
And I would like we stick with the thread topic in mind
Maybe some day gaijin will reach out, but from where warthunder started, it is unrealistic to expect them to work on every aircraft accurately. It is because of how much time they have to spend adding multitude of things to this game compared to what DCS adds in terms of playability.
I mean you can probably find it from videos of anraam launches.
R-77-1 for example has sub 0.3 seconds delay when launched from an ejector rack, but I can’t use a video source to report that, only written sources (and I only got one secondary source, not 2 for guidance delay). Video sources can only be used in addition to substantiate claims, not be the source of the claim if you get what I mean.
It would make a big difference if someone would say: “We take you seriously, we’ll look into this issue and see if we can do something .”
But the only answers you get are, “We don’t care, show us proof.”
Well yes. If they already have sources provided to them that say 35g and then someone random on the forum says it’s 40g without any actual proof why would they spend time, effort and money to look into a baseless claim?
2 Likes
2.2.4. Information or content that is based on, and properly cited from, the following sources:
Websites of manufacturers of military equipment/weapons (and other related products).
Official government websites and portals or other government sources (e.g., speeches, statements, letters) related to documents produced by the state.
Public conferences, forums, exhibitions, etc.
Documents held in national public libraries.
Literature legally sold or otherwise available to the public.
Legally published media materials.
Official publications, including scientific publications.
Information or content that does not fall under the above categories but cannot reasonably be considered export-restricted military-technical data by the laws of the applicable jurisdiction.
Information that is otherwise permissible under this Military Restrictions Section.
Official recognition: The Library of Congress lists janes.com in its directory as a major provider, highlighting its integration into the US government’s information services.
(Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons)
Janes (Janes.com) does have contracts with the U.S. government.
Why are you posting about the rule that states what kinds of documents/information are allowed to be posted on the forum?
It has very little to do with if those sources are acceptable for reporting historical issues.
Edit:
Also, did you use AI as a source without double checking what it says again?
I cannot find that information on the The Library of Congress website.
they arent
do you really think that it is accurate that the F-18 is the best ratefighter followed by the Mirage 2000, with both being better than the F-16
3 Likes
Can you please stop copy pasting Chat GPT answers to the forum. It does nothing to help informed debate, and in the case of this comment is laughably incorrect.
1 Like
i know how google works
Digital Resources - From the Submachine Gun to the Assault Rifle: Their History, Development and Use: A Resource Guide - Research Guides at Library of Congress and another for assault rifles
I found both those yes, neither of them say what you wrote previously. They just list Janes as a place where you can get access to free open source information.
It’s just a Vendors list. https://www.loc.gov/flicc/contracts/vendorservicedirectory.html
I cannot find anywhere that The Library of Congress list them as a “major provider” .
Either way that does not matter for reporting anyway. Janes is not a reliable source for reporting. (And you have also not even provided a source from Janes in the first place so it’s not even relevant to the discussion anyway)
Additionally, the source you have actually provided doesn’t say 40g anywhere in it.
In relation to what? One circle? Two circles? Rage Fight? Acceleration?
ratefight is 2 circle
The problem is the separation damping and guidance initiate delay which end after about 0.8 seconds (by which time the missile has travelled 80 ft from the aircraft). It would seem that during that time no steering signals can be sent to the actuators.
2 Likes
Look, you say two circles, but what about one circle? Or acceleration?
It’s pretty obvious that the F/A-18 is pretty good in two circles, so if you can’t see that, you’re blind…
They should remove this catapult-style launch that causes the G-lock, if that is indeed the cause. It’s simply annoying that it can’t pull its full G until after several seconds, whereas missiles like the AAM-4 or PL-12 can use their full G shortly after launch. It may reflect reality, but in War Thunder it is a pretty major nuisance.
Other players, myself included, would be very happy if this G-lock were removed. I’m actually satisfied with the 35 G.
so a Porsche GT3 has the same HP as a Ford Focus becasue they both use pump octane petrol
it can after 0.6 seconds. Its just that other arh missiles have 0.31 seconds delay, or in the case of the mica, 0.16 seconds.
OEM files/data from manufacturers for a missile that is still in production and most of it’s parameters are secret to public. From where did the Gaijin took the stats / performance parameters for this missile when RTX is not sharing anything (or almost nothing) about it’s real performance at all.
Same sh** for BMPT, you say that we need to proof stuff with OEM files, nothing based on guessing, but somehow you’ve added “external ammo belts” to Terminators even though the BMPTs brochure states that they are using only 2 belts (1 per cannon). SELECTIVE REALISM
In reports about Abrams and the DU in the hull armor, you / Bug Reporting Manager said that it was only used in ~5 tanks that were used in schools/training (we have files for that). Yeah, now find a picture of a Russian SU-30SM with mounted KH38MT (NOT ML, not a brochure, but a picture of them actually using them). We still didn’t get StormBreakers for the US F-15E even though almost every country already has some kind of IR bomb.
Half of your game doesn’t work. Targeting pods are broken. Tanks physics is terrible. Russian fuel tanks work better as a spall liners than the actual spall liners. Russian tanks can still reload a shell even though their autoloader is destroyed (destroying autoloader and gunner/commander when you have ~<3s left)
1 Like