What… Sim always existed.
It was called full-real-battles in the beginning but it existed.
“It isn’t arcade anymore” it never was in sim. It was always good enough to be called a flight sim.
That doesn’t make it the most high Fidelity flight sim ever. War thunder is okay, it is good. At least for flying, tanks are a disgrace, but as a flight sim, yeah it is good.
No you cannot.
It really isn’t.
Accuracy needs realism to exist but realism does not need accuracy… Like at all.
95% of all realistic simulations calculate what if scenarios. And i talk about the stuff that makes DCS look cute in comparision. It’s kind of the point of simulations, predicting things.
The simulation-software that simulates crash tests in car developments, will rarely simulate existing cars, but the ideas engineers have of cars they want to create. So they have no precedent and are 0% accurate, because to what standard are they supposed to be accurate if the Car does not exist yet.
But they are veeeeeeery realistic in terms of fidelity they make DCS look amateurish. Of course that isn’t fair since one is a research simulation the other is a game.
I do run simulations about customer behaviour for work, tgey are purely mathematical but they are simulations they are realistic but usually not accurate.
So nooooooooooooo, claiming accuracy is realism in context is a cop out. It isn’t.
Realism is a necessary requirement for accuracy, while accuracy is completely unnecessary for realism.
Accuracy also is completely irrelevant to whether something is a simulation.
[Tengent]Btw. You always have to say what is simulated. The word simulator the way it is defined is actually meaningless on it’s own. Yes we use it here as a standin for “flight simulator” but technically you always need to say xyz simulator otherwise, it is pointless. [/tangent]
i want to start this off by asking if you meant precise in stead of accurate? i’ve seen the two confused all the time and want to make sure we are talking about the same thing before going forward.
That as well as the word realistic having two meaning and i think you are using one version and i another:
“having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected.”
or
“representing things in a way that is accurate and true to life.”
so with that in mind:
how does that logically follow?
i get it as a general statement. like a plane getting 2x the engine power compared to the real one isn’t accurate but it might be realistic as in that is physically possible.
BUT when talking about specific jets being as close to their real counterpart as possible then missing functions or technical data being wrong makes it less realistic for that jet.
It very much depends on what you are aiming for; would not break physics IRL or making as close a replica as you can.
which is why i specified exactly that when making the statement.
i wholeheartedly agree that accuracy isn’t generally necessary for realism. but if the realism you strive for is a 1:1 replica then accuracy IS needed to make the replica behave realistically to its real life counterpart.
oh yeah, semantically i totally agree. i actually wonder how much in WT is actually simulated.
colloquially the word is used way different though. just in the same way the community use “copy paste” in a way that isn’t the lexicon definition.
Roots are lost when a tree grows. Cause it becomes neglected. There is a case where it isn’t However many of these updates have prioritized Late Cold War/Modern over WW2.
Alpha Strike: Everything besides the BF-109C-1 and the Mislabeled “Zerstörer 45” are from Mid the late Cold War To the Modern day. (Total: 2 WW2)
Air Superiority and Kings of Battle didn’t provide anything new.
Sons Of Atilla: He 115 C-1 and the Swedish “T-2” aka the HE-115A-2. They are functionally the same plane. Total: 1.5
A lot of people including myself want to see a balance between both eras. 50% WW2, 50% cold war.
The best solution is just giving every nation a WW2 vehicle and an Early, Mid, or late Cold War vehicle.
Well…
If something is wrong than that is inaccurate. Only if it also is Impossible that it becomes unrealistic.
I mean for loadouts this is very simple, because certain weapons simply could not be available out of stock etc. Or your country never bought them in the first place, germany never bought sparrows so their early f4 phantoms only ever had sidewinders.
Even components could just be taken out of the jet. Not likely but realistic.
If you want a 1:1 reolica you usually want both realism and accuracy.
While i see how this isnpreferrable for kost people over more fictional aircraft, it depends a lot on what sim WT is. If it is a flight sim or a specific vehicle sim.
But this is more a resource thing, the percentage of available cold war material, that hasn’t been implemented yet,is far higher than ww2
No. The requirement isn’t “things that interest you personally”, it’s simply “things that are WWII and earlier”, full stop, no subjective qualifiers.
Alpha Strike - 7 (that’s not counting Kléber / Z 6, refitted post-war)
Air Superiority - 5
Kings of Battle - 7
Sons of Attila - 12
All four updates - 31 (that’s not counting event/BP additions)
We get it, you hate military games.
I don’t count ships. Their the minority in this entire case and most play air and ground since Naval is incredibly flawed to even be considered a somewhat functional gamemode with an interest.
In terms of Aircraft and tanks, there has been little to none at all for other nations.
As already said, listing only vehicles that appeal to you personally is at best worthless and at worst dishonest.
By the same logic I can simply claim top-tier additions don’t count, because they don’t appeal to me and balance at those BRs is generally awful (Ground RB is the most flawed mode in WT), and thus I can claim all we get is WWII stuff. But that’s not a useful and valid position upon which to form a seemingly objective claim, just as yours isn’t.
Dude, I don’t mind Top tier. However, there is an imbalance between them. The updates. Which have become heavily focused on Modern and stopped caring about WW2. There is a difference between making Top Tier your main focus and Alienating a certain chunk of your community who doesn’t enjoy it simply because it is no longer a battle of skill. But rather whoever can spam 15 missiles at you while in an aircraft that should not be engaging in those higher degree missiles at all.
It’s also deceptive advertising, as focusing on Modern makes a lot of potential consumers assume oh they gonna get Modern the moment they start the game only to realize that it’s an endless grind. All of it is done to make that consumer buy a Premium Jet fighter. This is why Top Tier currently is plagued with a lot of inexperienced players. This compared to a couple of years ago when Skill mattered and the top tier was originally where some of the more experienced players joined in.
Hell, I’ve seen new players and even players who only played for 4 years get surprised when I use HVARs to counter their missiles. A counter that was invented in Update 1.85 over 5 years, 3 months, and 16 days ago. The only reason they don’t know this was a tactic is simply because most do not use it due to their lack of experience. We had to get creative to combat things. Flares, and Chaff cool glad they’re in the game. I’m by no means against the new toys. But these newer players are simply not on par. To many of us who have accounts nearly as old.
Anyway though ill stop and wait to see what you respond with, coffee is giving me jitters.
These two frequent complaints directly contradict each other. If there wasn’t an “endless grind” then top-tier would also be “plagued” with inexperienced players.
Ideally, all parts of the game should have all skill levels, hand in hand with players having access to as much of the game as possible. Thus, I’m all for less grind.
And if top-tier is “no longer a battle of skill” due to increased automation (which is, in fact, the whole idea of progressing tech) then by definition those less experienced players are less of a problem at top-tier than lower tiers, as the skill gap is smaller.
If you read and not skimmed you would take notice that I pointed this out. Good damn, I know my schooling was shit and I was in Special Ed but do people at this point teach folks to read the cover and not the actual content inside of it? I’m not even old but every time people skim i feel old mentally not physically. Sigh…
I quoted the part that was actually relevant, not opinions of marketing/monetization.
That’s what I call picking and pulling(not nitpicking wrong wording on my part).
So let me simplify it.
Potential Consumer->See deceptive advertising ->Joins game->does arcade to learn the game and play->Want jets and MBTs ->does RB->goes into it assuming its similar to AB->Keeps trying and dies->Decides to buy MBT and Jet fighters->most of the time still struggling->eventually decides->bombing ground targets was a better decision->Does this->The player never learns and remains as nothing more than easy cannon fodder pickings. However, this is where there are 2 paths.
Someone comes by->Teaches them->They become experienced->They teach someone else.
However, the more likely case->No one does->Rinse and repeat buying premiums->ground targets.
This is how Gaijin keeps players dumb, while War Thunder players even when we bicker and bud heads try to steer folks to get better.
You can’t teach those who don’t want to learn.
No- we must advance further, even into the future! I want halo scorpions, and SBY Saruba S-VI Type Heavy Tanks! I want X-wings and Cosmo Falcons, and Starfuries!
/s
Sadly the core gameplay for ground hasn’t evolved at all since its introduction and with all the fast moving tanks rushing to spawncamp, stale gameplay and dominance from air it just leaves toxic gameplay in my opinion!
Remember attack drones?
We still have small crap maps for modern warfare, combined with game modes like conquest it gets boring fast…
Personally I find myself playing less and less and havent renewed my premium account for the past 4-5 months for many years.
I wish Gaijin would think new and be a bit innovative with what they already have, because I think WT could be so much better.
EC like naval or heli for combined arms with dynamic objectives would be awesome imo. Heck, with big enough maps you couod even put in naval to the mix as well!
Wrong. There is EC for Naval available from time to time, like I said. There is no SIM for Naval, but AB and RB EC. I don’t play SIM.
Who cares if you don’t play sim?
You said it isn’t always availabe, without clarification what gamemodes you were talking about. Helicopter EC in AB and Air SB are always available.
So without clarification your statement was untrue.