Ground SB has to be more immersive

You don’t really know what a simulation is do you?

It’s the emulation of one system (in this case a tank) by another (a computer program). Since we have a operator in both cases, the operation needs to be emulated as well. Mouse aim does not emulate real tank controls.

Not a complicated concept.

Suere, what’s your point? i am advocating for the removal of mouse aim. It’s not about what you can do but what you are required to do. There is a reason mouse aim is disabled for aircraft controls.

arguable true, there are enough that come closer though. And the fact that others don’t do it does not make WT SB GF a ground force simulation… it still doesn’t meet the definition.

sure, but in a simulation, it should be more than just as easy, it needs to be a psychomoter equivalent of the real driving. And it isn’t.

Simulator is a seperate definition from video game. most simulaions aren’t games. So i do not know why you bring video games into this. Since we are talking about having GF SB as a ground combat vehicle simulation.

All you got were tangents, if you cannot adress the points then why anser at all?

1 Like

Here’s the deal. Of all the software in the world that made driving realistic there are exactly 3 companies that had success: Polyphony Digital, Turn 10, and Kunos. All racing game developers.
And all allow controller input that’s as realistic as using a wheel and pedals.

Now to swing this back to War Thunder as to avoid a racing sim discussion: War Thunder only needs to simulate how the vehicle moves.
No one cares if button selector on the Abrams automatic transmission is simulated [yes it uses buttons], nor should they.
We’re here to simulate war games, not driving procedures. It’s also why no [standard computer usable] military vehicle simulator on the planet simulates driving of vehicles to any degree of success.
That also extends to the gunner’s position: We’re not here to simulate the gunner’s position.

Air sim uses virtual joystick which is superior to mouse aim in cockpit, it’s literally easier than mouse aim. However in aircraft, “mouse aim” also forces instructor, which isn’t a thing on tanks.

Tank mouse-aim is already realistic, there’s no instructor. We tell where the gunner should aim, and the gunner uses their simulated gun laying speeds to bring the gun on target.

Also you still haven’t clarified what gameplay features are allegedly bad.
I’ve addressed your other point of “proper controls” with this line of discussion directly.

1 Like

yeah youare either delusional, or trolling.

Thoe are the three? are you sure about that?

What about the developers of the simulator of the Mercedes F1 Teams simulator?
You really think they didn’t get it right?

You are a fool to look at game devs for simulations.

not in AB/RB is agree. But the handling of something basic as the gun and driving, yes the sim players should care. Otherwise what are the doing in sim?

Mouse aim is synonymous with the instructor. Hell the WT wiki even states that Tanks always have the instructor enabled. you are lying (to yourself)

"So what about ground vehicles, you ask? Yes, in ground warfare, the Instructor directly controls the ground vehicle itself. "

A direct quote from the article about the instructor oin the ground SB section. You are wrong.

The controls… the only gameplay feature that exists, since gameplay is defined asthe interaction the player has with the games enviroment, and all interaction is done through a vehicle, so only the interaction with said vehicle are directly gameplay. Sionce all directions are done through the controls, this makes gameplay almost excelusively focussed on the controls of the vehicle.

so yes i am going on about this for several posts…

No you didn’t you stated the current ones are realistic, as a statement but didn’t argue anythin. you didn’t provide any reason why this is suposed to be the case. instead you went on tangents.

1 Like

Then yeah, there’s zero issue with ground SB gameplay in my eyes if your primary and allegedly only issue is the controls.

War Thunder using “instructor” when talking about tank crews is weird and inaccurate on their part. If that’s how they see their crew system… that’s not great, but the wiki team aren’t the devs so IDK.

I did give reasons why this system is realistic. Maybe it wasn’t easy to understand, which is partially my fault partially the fault of this complicated subject matter.
Translating vocal thoughts into text is hard sometimes.

The existing system accurately simulates the movement of the tank itself.
The system has a gunner whose gun laying speeds are accurately simulated [with inaccuracies in stabilizer speed for now].
In-gunner’s view and CITV view, the gun laying is directly managed by you and is correctly limited.
And optics are simulated to the best of their ability while lacking a picture-in-picture system for optics.

So yeah, I see no issues with controls currently.

dude the instructor translates mouse inputs to the vehicles inputs. it IS the instructor. There is a long definition on that article what the instructor is.

I will put it simply: YOU ARE WRONG.

No you just claimed it is. you didn’t provide anything that goes with any definition of realism of simulation. You just imagined it to be so.

It doesn’t, Guns phase through objects, when moving. And again, when there is a human operator this isn’t sufficient. So no not a sim of groundvehicles.

no it isn’t you have not direct control over the turrets rotation speed with mouse aim, a real gunner would have that. you are delusional or lying.

1 Like

it should be like Red Orchestra: Eastern Front 41-45 …18 years ago. 9:40 Min Commander View:

Gaijin could also base the commander perspective on Iron Front Liberation 1944 or WWII Battle Tanks: T-34 vs. Tiger. less complicated, of course.
The driver and gunner positions can remain as they are now. however, the commander position should be significantly improved. the commander really sits on top when the hatch is open.

Why?

contradictory. the vehicles themselves are an important part of military history. so everything in the game is full of history, unlike Mad Thunder!

Small maps: Goes without saying.
Time travelling broken tanks: Also goes without saying.
Broken APHE: Definitely needs fixing. APHE shouldn’t be a 1-hit death orb that can kill crew from your engine bay… HE filler is essentially a useless metric most of the time.

Overpowered eardar: You can hear tanks half a mile away while your own noisy engine is running full chat. You aren’t hearing anything over the sound of your own tank especially when it’s moving.

The main thing killing most War Thunder modes is pandering. Heavy tank players complained about light tanks and fast tanks flanking to the spawn and spawn killing (which is bull to be fair) so Gaijin shrank the maps. Then light tanks can’t flank and get force fed into heavy tanks they can’t kill. So to fix this Gaijin then make sure that most light tanks can frontally penetrate even heavy tanks as now they can’t flank.

So now you’re left with Puma’s fighting M3 Lee’s, Fiat’s lobbing HEAT at Tortoises, PT76’s launching HEAT at Tiger II’s, Type 60’s etc you name it.

The game has essentially turned into Call of Duty, one big point and click game of TDM. Just reopen the maps and balance the tanks so light tanks can’t or struggle to pen heavies frontally but they have a ton of room to flank. It won’t cure all of the issues but it’ll massively improve the game in my opinion.

4 Likes

Couldn’t agree more.

Perhaps it is possible to try reducing the accuracy of the shells in simulated combat. And make the warhead tilt according to the angle of descent.

In reality. APFSDS can no longer guarantee a hit rate at a distance of 2000 meters because it is easily affected by wind. So, just like WOT, the projectile moves within a conical range.

This will give many vehicles with lower armor coverage a better performance.

At the same time, it is more in line with reality, and the probability of the turret being hit is much higher than that of the hull

Another suggestion is that simulator combat requires some AI vehicles. There are currently too few players in this mode. Playing it feels like playing hide and seek

1 Like

Yes, but what you are saying here is that the tank’s movement is accurate. What he is saying is that player’s interaction with the gun/turret is inaccurate.

Simply put it’s too easy to aim with mouse aim. Aiming in a tank looks more like aiming with a controller, than with a mouse. In my opinion aiming system from Steel Beasts/GHPC is sufficient to realistically represent aiming, while still being usable with just a mouse.

2 Likes

Exactly, in one period one side is stronger, in the other the other side is stronger. It is how it is. As long as it’s historically accurate and no claim can be made that devs have a bias towards one side I think no one will mind imbalance in sim at least, unless it’s unplayable.

2 Likes

I agree, but make sure accuracy is realistic. In WOT all guns are manure spreaders ;p

Edit: I agree battles in ground sim feel empty. I am for adding AI vehicles, because I would like ground sim missions to be like EC in air sim, but battles wouldn’t feel that empty if this mode was simply more popular.

1 Like

I have a issue with this statement, unless the pilot is using some kind of 3rd party program to spot enemies, then I would argue it is way easier to look up into the sky and see a dot, than having to look down on the ground, finding a target, between buildings, trees and bushes whilst flying 200-1400 km/h.

Yeah, but thats not the point. Realistic battles are not realistic at all, big name tags, no FF, arcadey movement and gameplay in general.

They should rebrand the 3 gamemodes as such:
Simulator battles would be realistic battles
Realistic battles would be arcade battles
Then, maybe, just maybe make an actual effort on making a SIMULATOR gamemode that isn’t just arcade with less HUD.

I want to get PTSD after fending off the Warszawa pact in my Leopard 1, not immediately que up for another game, because my Maus got ATGM’ed by a BMP-1.

The issue is any other system is more clunky than real life, cause software hasn’t been able to emulate turret movement better than War Thunder.
Even GHPC is clunkier than real life due to that.
Steel Beasts as well, which is why Steel Beasts recommends you use a HOTAS stick to get it closer to reality.

1 Like

That’s what i mean with psychomotor equivalent.
There are studies on this. When the mouse position only directly influences the turrets Rotation speed and the player has to inderectly get to the desired position that way, it has a severly different effect on the brain as if you directly choose the position with the mouse and by that you only indirectly control the rotationspeed, since that is controlled by the instructor.

This is why mouse and keyboard is always more effective in a shooter than a stick or gamepad. Because it is different on your brain. Since real tanks are stick operated, mouse aim shouldn’t be allowed since your brain can use it more effective than the real tank controls.

3 Likes

If Hunter-Killer was a thing, or mouse aim actually improved accuracy above real-life then sure.
However, the only thing that really improves accuracy isn’t a thing in sim: Aim down boresight.

In-fact, mouse aim puts less shots on target than Abrams’ own fire control system.

I think cas is stronger in ground sim, because you can take it as your first spawn and there are only a few players on often bigger maps. It’s easier to pick off enemies scattered across a big map in a plane, than in a tank.

2 easy kills in a plane are much more impactful if you have 5v5 players each having 3 or 2 spawns, than 12v12 players each having 5 spawns or more.

Also because you have only 3 spawns, there are less people willing to sacrifice one of them for an spaa. On top of that I would say the majority of players who play tanks in ground sim either don’t know how to fly planes in sim or don’t have the hardware to fly them comfortably.

Ironically I quite often first spawn in SPAA, because its an ideal way to spade them, farm some easy kills. CAS never expect it and despite being an ASB main, with all the hardware needed. I actually found CAS in GSB kinda dull actually. Was a bit of a shame.

1 Like

I think you’re contradicting yourself here. ‘It’s easier to pick off enemies scattered across a big map in a plane’ - If the SPAA players look up, they don’t even need to have 20/20 vision, because the plane will show itself nicely compared to a tank, on the ground, from a plane, 2-6 km’s in the air.

I understand your frustration, but CAS is so easily countered in sim.

Spaa’s effective range is limited.

However maybe it only feels more powerful, because it’s there from the very beginning of the game.

1 Like