you guys dont even do most 3d models in house
doesnt mean that gaijin is allowed to leave an unfinished product that would be easly done since bomber cockpits arent that flashy than the new jets.
being a “historical” game it really doesnt honor the term if they’re not willing to do something that simple
2 Likes
It costs them over 10K per cockpit. Since remember this is Hungarian money which is worth 0.0028 Hungarian Front for 1 USD dollar.
For 10 cockpits would cost them over 4,930,000 which is over 10 months of salary.
Should this excuse them in other countries where some departments are located not? Those departments should have the ability to make more cockpits. But from a standpoint, it’s simply difficult to do. Not defending just doing a tiny bit of math so take this with a grain of salt since I could simply be wrong on the calculations.
i mean they could just reuse assets from previous cockpits, would be better than having those bland looking placeholders
That would be nice however it would likely cause reports of the wrong cockpit and do more harm than good. Always keep an open eye from multiple perspectives which are theirs, yours, and what another person might assume.
SB players will recieve anything to remove those ugly cockpits at one that wont let you see nothing
Doesn’t matter if you want to look at this from the POV of the game, I’m suggesting looking at this from not just the game. Game->People get placeholder cockpits Issue->Bug reports get overwhelmed. This means it would become increasingly difficult to figure out what plane has a placeholder and what doesn’t and putting “Placeholder” next to the improper cockpit is only going to lead to more confusion. From the player base.
This means the “Good idea” becomes a nightmare for the devs.
it wouldnt be a “nightmare” if the devs just added the cockpits in the first place, bugs are bound to happend but at least the bombers haves an actual solid cockpit that isnt just an ugly low poly placeholder that barely let you see stuff.
3 Likes
Do you even read? cause I’m starting to think you don’t and given your responses are regurgitated responses I’d assume so.
Let me make this simple: Cockpits are too damn expensive and copying and pasting them will only piss off people. I dislike their not-in-game, there are multiple factors on why. Should this be an excuse to add one or 2 a year by no means no.
So here’s your option: Deal with it, all of us continue to do so and we have been playing for a long ass time.
Which game? Positive Warthog would likely be wondering that as well. Since if we don’t know what game it was how do we know you aren’t lying and anyone can lie even us New Yorkers and we are known to be very blunt about what our thoughts are.
yeah they make no money so they don’t add it, maybe if your bombers where not made of paper and where not sent on suicide missions’ people would play them a b17 does not fall apart from 1 20mm cannon round takes a lot of them
What you are currently reffering too is what is known as survivors bias. Bombers are quite realistic in warthunder if only the issue being the damage component models are not intricate enough to the scale of fighters. But one difference to irl compared to ingame is that you have better accuracy with a 3rd person perspective and there is no insentive not to keep attacking a bomber. Irl a pilot cares for their life and if their plane gets a water or oil leak/some minor or major damage, they would immediately turn away from the bomber formations.
Coupling this with the fact you don’t have bomber formations covering eachother with gunners to try and reduce the likelyness of being shot down, war thunder makes quite realistic models.
A thing to keep in mind if a bomber gets hit with minengeschoß rounds they will break apart as easily as shown due to overpressure (and in the replay you can see how many rounds hit the airframe before it broke apart). War thunder allows pilots the rare ability to take loadouts not commonly used. Most fighter aircraft on bomber interception used armour piercing belts and targeted engines or fuel tanks because in the map space of war thunder a bomber can easily make it back to an airfield so players keep shooting you. Irl once enough damage was done you would switch targets because the vast majority of bombers shot down due to fighter interception did not have their crews bailing out at the moment of the attack, but over france or areas of germany on the return journey.
1 Like
Quick google search from Imperial War Museum.
Operational flying was perilous. Chances of survival varied during a tour, depending on factors such as inexperience, fatigue, type of aircraft flown and target. The most dangerous were the first and last five trips. During the whole war, 51% of aircrew were killed on operations, 12% were killed or wounded in non-operational accidents and 13% became prisoners of war or evaders. Only 24% survived the war unscathed.
2 Likes
This is imho correct.
The rest of your post has imho some things worth to comment:
- Bombers are realistic regarding their form, size and shape. Everything else is based on a compromise in order to make a video game playable.
- Your point of 3rd person view advantages vs irl is somehow correct, but the main and imho decisive factor is based on way too large combat distances of fighters vs bombers (in modes outside SB). If you look some things up you find out that the RAF used gun convergences of 250 yards (220 m) in the BoB and LW fighters were trained to close the distance below 400 m before they opened fire.
- So in wt the fighter benefits way more from the combination of artificially increased accuracy and far greater combat ranges as he has usually an armament optimized to kill a bomber - so his fighting power is much higher than irl.
- Your point with fighters breaking off after being damaged is somehow correct, but the main reason for breaking off was a mix of lack of accuracy (leading to rather high ammo consumption) and the lack of fuel to continue the fight; most single engine fighters used as interceptors had very limited combat ranges / flight duration.
- The rather exaggerated effects of hits on bombers in wt were discussed dozens of times and have to be seen as a mix of the compromises of being a video game and gaijins effort to avoid delayed kills (“B” kills) in favor of instant take downs (“A” kills).
- Your point of “freedom of loadouts” for bombers is correct, but imho wt (again compromises) allows way too high cruising speeds of bombers. Irl the speeds were determined by fuel consumption in order to make it back to base and were far lower.
- Your claim of fighters using AP ammo vs bombers is factually wrong. HE/HEF was the preferred choice. Engines and fuel tanks is correct for night fighters as the usual combat ranges were far lower than 400 meters which allowed with way smaller closing speeds accurate shots. Fighting daylight bombers was marked by way higher closing speeds and the need to increase hit probabilities whilst decreasing the time to face defensive fire - leading to head-on tactics.
Have a good one!
This is referring to the RAF BC and 100% correct.
The USAAF bomber crews had at certain points of the war statistical chances of ~25% to survive their tour of duty (so without getting killed, wounded or captured).
Have a good one!