As said elsewhere, full idle, airbrakes before I even turn over, no higher than 3km altitude when I start the dive.
It would appear the actual problem is that the swing cradle doesn’t seem to be properly implemented (or otherwise isn’t swinging far enough out) or perhaps I’m accidentally putting in more nose-down input, but I’m still experimenting to figure things out properly.
More brain power
Cooperation is not a bad game design. Especially since devs considered this and noted on devstream, that with better reward mechanic (when multiple people can get a kill for participation in destruction of an enemy), it is not a problem at all.
Especially since in ARB, iirc, there can only be 4 bombers per team (bombers, not attackers), and in ASB a bomber without engines/with fuel leak/without fuel couldn’t return to its base due to bigger distances and thus, still provide “a kill” despite the fact that it won’t rip apart in mid air as air players are used to see in combat.
Yes, but changing the very nature of a mode after its been basically the same for 14 years, with a community thats proven to be afraid of change (aphe thread, 2800 messages of discontent) and even this thread, not sure how that would play out, it needs to be a gradual change that the community makes on their own
Make bombers tanky, they cry, and theb they start to learn, THEN they request changes besides nerfing bombers like reward sharing, then you add that, etc
Literally taking it at their pace and easing them into it
2000 messages debating whether airplanes should disintegrate like LEGO or not lol
Idk why gaijin listens to community, community is always against any change to their familiar playstyles, while simultaneously demanding changes and new things. In any online game.
They are against the very nature of the game - realistic features with arcade crutches for players to not be crushed by the realistic/sim demand of skill. APHE change, new regenerative steering, new bomber survivability feature. I wouldn’t be surprised if Gaijin will reject them all because someone cried that he will have to change his playstyle once in a while.
This is disingenuous and you know it. No one thinks the current damage models are ok, but Gaijin severely overbuffed the new ones, which will make the game worse and will make bombers too hard to kill.
Yeah, and in about 6 hours time were gonna find out if irl that b17 was genuinely eating 37mm like a 400 pound ogre at the airport mcdonalds 😭😭😭
Not sure what video you are talking about, but I thought it was kinda obvious that the damage on the wing wasn’t a massive hole, but rather regular sized 30mm hole with fire damage around it lol
hence all the cope that MG151 isnt a death ray
Gaijin said these changes are not the only one they will do, they are a part of more changes that will arrive in future.
4 bombers in ARB won’t make it unplayable. ARB is unplayable in any case, lol, better play Nuclear Thunder.
Maybe the biggest obstacle to War Thunder’s development isn’t the Gaijin, it’s us! LOL
The poll at the start of the thread is 51 against and 49 for bombers, and that was before sources were even posted
I could swear someone was defending the models on Live 500 messages ago. And after that message, I hardly ever tried to prove anything to anyone LOL
ive seen plenty of people doing that. However i think all of us can agree how they were on dev initially was too much, they are very good now
Yes, I think the initial version wasn’t very good in terms of both realism and gameplay performance.
It was highly resistant to cannons of at least 30mm and above.
how it is now is ideal for War Thunder Simcade gameplay.
Bombers are killable, but they are mighty. We finally have aircraft that arent one shot by the 47mm, 50mm and 57mm gunned aircraft.
people need to learn how to position and aim rather than just go vertical from below and hit a bomb with a 7.7
True
Yeah, you actually have to define the fucking ballistic problem. You can’t just throw out ridiculous hypotheticals that obviously have nothing to do with a realistic scenario.
“wOuLd yOu StAnD iN fRoNt Of An R-40 WiTh OnLy PlAnE sKiN tO pRoTeCt YoU”
What am I supposed to be here? Somebody’s dead grandma after her body was donated to ballistic research?
I wonder why. Maybe it’s because we simply don’t have that many documented examples to work with.
Then that is obviously an issue from a realism perspective.
That said, I severely doubt Gaijin is ever going to completely remodel missile damage together with their fragmentation cones and ballistic behavior. And even if they did, I’d bet a significant part of the community would reject it anyway.
Until something like that happens, there really isn’t much that can be done. At that point, it sounds more like a missile-damage modeling issue than a bomber-specific issue.
I don’t want to be that guy, but of course flak cannons scored kills. That isn’t really the question.
What we generally don’t know from a random photograph is how many shells were fired, how many detonated nearby, where the aircraft was hit, what damage accumulated before the fatal hit, or what exactly caused the aircraft to be lost.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure there isn’t some convenient damage log for every random B-17 photographed on October 15, 1943, telling us exactly what happened shell by shell.
Listen, man, I cannot deduce every variable required for a physics-level ballistic analysis simply by looking at a screenshot.
Seeing the aircraft, general aspect, and weapon is not the same thing as knowing the exact distance, impact geometry, detonation point, relative velocity, fragmentation distribution, structural interaction, and every other variable involved.
I already know about that collision. No need.
And yes, obviously the examples I posted involve survivorship bias. My point is not that aircraft generally survive catastrophic collisions.
The point is that they demonstrate how simplistic War Thunder’s structural modeling can be. Aircraft skin is not the primary structural support system of an aircraft. Spars, frames, longerons, bulkheads, and other internal structural members are what actually carry much of the load.
As far as I’m aware, War Thunder does not model an aircraft’s complete internal structural skeleton with that level of detail. In the example I posted, the relevant internal structure was still sufficiently intact despite the extreme external damage.
That is the point I was making.
I’m not against teamwork, but in as anti teamwork of a game that is war thunder it would not be liked by the masses