Ground AB, RB, and sim is where you experience your vehicles.
War Thunder has no flavors of the month, all vehicles are valid in this game which is why I play War Thunder so much.
They’re point seems to be that WT hasn’t made an effort to change and add new gamemodes and gameplay.
There haven’t been any meaningful changes to Air RB gameplay in the past few years, same with GRB. There are no unique scenarios, nothing different. Air RB for props is still just climb and kill other planes, GRB is still “Cap points to win and kill enemies.”
2 Likes
cant agree more
we need more AIRSIM BATTLE MAPS, 5 eyars and same maps. Danimark is the best now for air sim, but is very old
That’s BS, for AB/RB you got:ace combat, WoT, AW.
For sim: GHPC, DCS, IL-2, there is a lot onnthe market.
There is more than that, IL-2 for example.
Also WT isn’t anywhere near DCS. War Thunder is decent and comparable to the old IL-2 1946, but it doesn’t go much further in quality. It does have other strengths though.
War Thunder is good enough and gets anything needed mostly right. It doesn’t go into too man in necessary details.
EC isn’t just available from time to time it is the main and only mission design for SIM. Which is what it was created for.
EC was always for Sim, it is available to you use it.
You cannot complain about WT not having this mission available if it is always available to you but you just choose not to use it.
Within the limited AI code, War Thunder has added at least 5 game modes since the start of War Thunder.
Of course removing some very unpopular game modes.
Of course once Gaijin overhauls their AI which may take upwards of 2 more years.
There is nothing really they can add that wouldn’t just be what exists already with different compass direction.
@DerGrafVonZahl
DCS and War Thunder are far ahead of GHPC.
Also you haven’t played DCS or WT that much then, cause after playing over 500 hours of DCS and thousands of War Thunder, they play identically today with DCS’s unrealistic ground physics still existing, and of course War Thunder’s simplified radar missile tracking.
Extreme detail isn’t needed for realism & simulation.
No just no.
Tanks in DCS are terrible.
5000+ hours WT
And 1000 in DCS and a huge unknown amount when it was still called lock on and before DCS World.
So yes i know what i am saying.
War thunder isn’t close to the full Fidelity dcs modules in detail. War thunder gets the basics right, but it isn’t nearly as detailled. They aren’t equivalent.
1 Like
for me it’s not the vehicles at all.
It’s mostly the maps.
since ive started playing ive seen a clear degrading of the maps, i loath the idea of making them smaller, flatter and in cities.
I absolutely hate the new trend of rewamping old maps and somehow makes them worse
I like big maps with hills so there are places for all kinds of vehicles and that lack so bad atm.
I
1 Like
Well yes, DCS tanks are indeed terrible.
War Thunder and DCS flight models are equally complex, “full fidelity” in DCS terms, which is all that matters.
Clicky cockpits are irrelevant to realism which is why there are DCS players that support simple cockpit aircraft being added.
DCS and War Thunder have identical atmospheric drag as of present [DCS’s atmosphere was denser than reality for over a decade].
And War Thunder’s fuel tanks don’t cause enough drag currently, but that’s a bug I ain’t bothering to report as of current; oh and it’s possible DCS fuel tanks cause too much drag. Anything’s possible when none of us know exactly where they should be.
An AI overhaul would be nice, but Gaijin has done very little to change gameplay. Why aren’t there any attack/defend scenarios for GRB, or more historical scenarios for air RB. I have been playing since 2020, and the gameplay for air and ground are nearly identical.
They can atleast try to make something different and keep it permanently instead of for a week. The advance event a while back was awesome and a great change of pace from the standard GRB gameplay.
It might not be needed, but you want alot of detail in a simulator game.
False.
They can add alot of realism to the game. Being able to interact with an aircraft directly and not though keybinds would be a huge change and would feel much more realistic.
1 Like
This is simply not true.
1 Like
Historical was extremely unbalanced and thus unpopular, and rightfully removed.
Attack/defend was unbalanced and removed.
Realistic battles replaced both really.
@DerGrafVonZahl
Clicky cockpits only matter for training. No, seriously.
Switches on panels is no different than a keyboard with keybinds, just set out in a specific manner.
Idk I find modern stuff much more enjoyable overall, especially ground battles - but that’s just me
1 Like
Sure… But your claim was they don’t increase realism. They do. Since with them the depiction of the aircraft is closer to a real plane. Which is what realism is.
2 Likes
No, that’s authenticity to a cockpit. The functionality of the plane is not impacted whether or not switches in the virtual cockpit function.
Build a sim pit if you want clicky buttons. ;)
That’s not true. Since realism also includes inner workings.
2 Likes
Yea, WoT and WoW are another can of beans. I played them WoT until it became Pay to Win
The advance event proved it could be done in a more balaced way, it just needed polish.
My point is, is that Gaijin has done very little to change the gamemodes.
Clicking on buttons in a cockpit is much more immersive and can be more enjoyable.
1 Like