Oh my god. Ive literally said time and time again that my argument is the bomber doesnt fall apart, not that it necessarily makes it home
currently they are doing both
Ill be damned, that battery was just 75mm spam, ima find the recording and analyze further
I would also argue that it looks more egregious because visual modeling is very light with the damage.
so it makes it look worse.
In the same vein though, if you adjust bomber DMs, fighter DMs will need an eventual adjustment too.
Because you now have DMs basically going into two diffeeent directions now
Alright, took a good look at that video and figured out what happened, want an explanation?
So after taking a look I noticed this very thing happening
We got the B24 flying, and the very next frame
BOOM, but notice this, there is fuel blasting OUT the bottom of the wing next to the fuselage nearly as much as the top. This timed shell went off INSIDE the wing, coincidentally right next to the main spar/into the front quarter of the fuel tank. disasterous
Now, your HE shell goes off on the surface, well, 20cm fuse delay but wt messes that up anyway, so your shell ends up doing this, showering the spar with fragments instead of actually blowing it to hell
But look what happens if I take an APHE shell from that very gun, which has very close amounts of TNT filler (460 vs 490), and shoot it there.
Boom, black spars, wing comes off. BUT the B24s wing detach points ingame arent there, infact they are all the way out here
Not the bombers fault, just gaijins old damage model showing its age
So you’ll need to shoot it out here
And voila, if you get that APHE to fuse, that wing is coming off due to direct spar blasting
I need a guinea pig in a b24, or a guy with aphe on his ki109
Basically if I re create the parameters of this irl hit, WT (if it wasnt the games funny wing section limitation), would’ve recreated that
Though the X ray model of wing spars in this game do not actually represent how big these spars are irl, so this does look ridiculous, but this is supposedly what it actually looks like
More believable this could eat 600g of tnt on the outside but not from within
aircraft in general need some better xray models lmao
1 Like
Hoping this also means that the Ju 87s can actually dive without breaking their engines soon
What do you mean by this
This is an issue with .50 cal overperforming he high heaven and back not a damage model issue.
Those incendiary rounds act like thermobaric bombs while a lot of 20mms are generally pointless beyond their AP-T
2 Likes
Have you not discovered the airbrake?
maybe hes overrevving that db with MEC
Having the engine set to idle and deploying the airbrake before I even turn over and my engine is dying at 530 kmh, despite having an IAS limit of 680 kmh.
Ive never encountered this? here ill dive on dev ig
B-2, 1000kg, live server, is happening consistently for me
Well i dove on dev from 7km up to 650 and nothing happened, so ig its fixed?? idk
Strange, I even have been making sure to start below 3km thinking maybe I was still passing the IAS limit despite the brakes. I JUST had a match where I never passed 530 kmh and my prop broke.
not happening to me on live bro, idk what to say
Yes, I totally don’t know about dive brakes on the most famous dive bomber in the world.
Not sure if we talk about the same topic - i was referring to one hour long matches in which you managed to damage a B-29 or B-17 and you had to break off (either to fuel, damage or no ammo) and the bomber crashed 15-30 minutes later as he could not land and repair as landing without horizontal elevators needed a lot of experience.
I am not sure if we have played the same game - from my pov bomber game play those days was binary and strongly depending on map size. Binary: You managed to stay undetected until you got to 8 or 9 km alt or not - and on small maps all enemy fighters were heading straight to the spawn location of bombers, on some maps even their dots were immediately visible.
That means that axis team worked mainly with their top down approach and your survival as US bomber was depending on map size and your ability to space climb.
And i disagree with your way too general view on fighters - the skill floor on average was way higher and until today most experienced pilots avoid attacking bombers in general as fighters are the main threat. The only real difference was that certain scenarios required to kill at least 2 of the 4 enemy bombers before they reached your airfield or you lost the match.
I was criticising the replacement of B kills with A kills :
- As a way of shortening matches (if you ever tried to find a B-29 on the Norway map in one hour long matches you know what i mean)
- As a way of giving fighter pilots an immediate success instead of having to wait for a delayed kill
- A rather easy way to nerf the income of bombers due to higher plane losses. Iirc a successful match in a B-29 (=all bombs used perfectly) granted you ~ 100k SL - but a plane loss was around 60k SL.
Your general view on impatient (fighter) players today is a valid point - but as written earlier the skill floor on both sides were way higher in the past. So whilst those day no experienced player tail sniffed a bomber the bomber players were much better too.
This was always the case - war thunder is first and foremost a vehicle based shooter - i wrote somewhere else:
But - war thunder controdicts themselves as they try to paint a picture (with bomber game play as it looks today) which has nothing to do with historical accuracy or aerial warfare in the broader sense:
This nails it somehow:
…but it misses the shift within the player base. WT as an arcade-style vehicle based shooter is way more attractive for a broader audience than a flight simulator (or what gaijin offers in SB modes).
That means if the majority of your income is generated by players looking exactly for this game play you (as game developer) adopt to their needs - and that’s why SB modes are a niche product and Air RB is basically just Air AB+.
Players with higher demands are forced to find their own niches within the game - seeing this and similar threads as a whole it looks for me that some folks still believe gaijin’s fairy tales about their claims of “accuracy”. A quick look in any bug reporting feedback thread shows that gaijin decides if accuracy is useful or not.
As a final remark to this:
- Your personal views about the topic are as valid as the views of others.
- Advocating for censorship is rather sad, nobody forces you to participate or contribute.
- The thread contains some interesting views which are imho worth to read - the fact that some participants see some things different (=debate vs exchange) is present on all social media platforms and nothing new.
1 Like
are you diving from space while youre keeping full throttle on?
I was finally able to get into a custom game with a friend, instead of shooting at the AI B29s endlessly.
from the hour plus of testing we did. both with and without gunners shooting back, we have discovered the tail destruction strategy I worked out on the AI B29s is non viable, not when they are shooting back. You get obliterated.
Trying with multiple different fighters and bombers, the ONLY safe engagement pass we found for the fighter was taking as fast a pass as possible in a front on attack from above. Strafe it as you fly pass and GTFO, or you will be deleted. This almost never did enough damage to the bomber to prevent it from flying, or at the very least being able to safely RTB. Even using the Ta-152 vs a B17E.
Other than pilot snipes, the main way the bomber player died was by losing all of his tail control surfaces, which would make the bomber eventually crash.
there was very few other amounts of damage either of us received when flying the bomber that would have prevented us from being able to RTB and land that the fighter was able to inflict without being killed by gunners or while safely avoiding gunner fire.
Engine fires and even fuel fires do no structural damage, to the point where you can just ignore them honestly. they’ll either go out by themselves or only blacken the engine pod. Even if you lost all 4 engines there wasnt really any other damage done that prevented us from being able to glide back to base, assuming we had enough altitude.
We also found that the G8N1 is basically unapproachable a well. It has too many 20mms, even in a P-59A with its 37mm my friend was unable to find an angle that would do any damage capable of even eventually forcing me to crash in the G8N1 without also costing him his life. I was even flat out not bothering to shoot either. I let the AI gunners do everything. (oh by the way AI gunners seem to be buffed as well)
For a start, fire damage needs to be fixed. In a fighter on live, an engine fire is a dead aircraft. But on dev in a bomber an Engine fire currently does nothing to the surrounding structure of the aircraft. It needs to slowly weaken the structure around it and eventually break it if not put out.
I also think that yes, Either Morvans idea of more modules/stuff inside the structure to be destroyed would work, as I think we are in a bit of a similar issue to the 2S38 and such where you used to shoot through empty space and do nothing, or the structure does need to be made a bit weaker.
While attacking a bomber should come with risks to the attacker, and bombers should be strong and sturdy enough to tank some hits. In the current state on dev bombers are practically invincible.
4 Likes