For one you talk like someone who’s never fought a war who’s never stepped in one of these vehicles before let me assure you, son in Afghanistan and Iraq we were hit with multiple rounds That should have destroyed us I’m talking about 155 Shells flown in by drones still didn’t do anything what are you saying your talking to a vet that fought in the m1a1 to the sep v2 block 1 Ik what I’m saying
yeah whatever, Falcon bms, derived from the 1998 Falcon 4.0, but you still need 4.0 to install bms
1 Like
Use your Big boy brains there’s a reason only 58 Abrams have been destroyed versus the literal thousands of the T 70s and 80s They’re literally built more superior built, better built to survive not to send its crew into the upper atmosphere
The very basis of the instructor system is necessitated by it being an arcade game.
It isn’t? SAS doesn’t calculate slip angle and doesn’t adjust baed on it, with sideslip being very crudely calculated.
Honestly… Play any busted FM and you’d see this. F-14, EF-2k, even the Jeff when it released.
Torque is a simple function to calculate and implement.
If you want to talk about propeller physics, how did prop feathering cause the P-63 to hit 780km/h on the deck?
Again, engine torque was already addressed.
P factor is just a simple, and can be implemented alongside torque applications on most propeller driven aircraft and rotorcraft.
Spiraling slipstream isn’t implemented in-game. Hell, rudder effect on the ground and wheel steering isn’t even in-game, let alone this.
3rd time here, torque is a very simple thing to implement to ANY game. Hell, I have arcade flight games on my phone that model it.
4th time, torque is a simple function that is almost arbitrarily applied to aircraft based on their throttle input and thrust.
Increasing drag profiles on different sections of an aircraft’s DM? Brother… Battlefield 5 did this same exact thing and it’s as much of a flight simulator as Ace Combat 7.
Not indicative of a simulator, and half of its functions aren’t implemented in-game. Mixture is useless and does nothing except for kill your engine at a VERY specific altitude threshold, while turbo adjustments do nothing to your power and simply shut down your engine (no damage whatsoever) if you change it.
No wing flutter or flex adjustment to FMs, radars that are about as realistic as World of Warship’s hydrophones, there are a LOT of blatant issues with RB that would be apparent if you had more than 3k total matches in the mode.
MSFS is known for its disgusting flight models and horrible quality of output. At this point there are entire communities that pledge that it ISN’T a simulator.
LOMAC has more simulated systems than this game… And it’s a Falcon knockoff.
wtf are you talking about
1 Like
No what are you talking about your just rambling off bullshit are you even English?
I think you replied to the wrong comment I was just talking about falcon bms and you suddendly start yelling about abrams and flying T-72 turrets, I didn’t say anything about this
I would suggest that you take some time to practice. Skipping straight to top tier is not a good idea. Especially is you are going in expecting the abrams to tank hits from t80 and t90 like it could tank hits from t55s.
3 Likes
You can literally abuse forward slips to land a plane from too much altitude without overspeeding. It’s my favourite way to land my props.
Hard left rudder, stick to the right, plane flies straight ahead while nose points to the left. You’re plummeting out of the sky like a brick and make a clean touchdown.
And what does the instructor have to do with coordinated flight?
Coordinated flight is using appropriate rudder/trim to keep the nose of the plane properly aligned despite left-turning tendencies, both in and out of turns.
Average US main schizo posting/ragebait
4 Likes
I’ve fought in 3, though I’m not suicidal enough to do it through the army.
I’ve stepped in an M1, M1IP, M1A1HA, M1A2 SEP, and stood on a SEPv3.
Where have you put your ass, a sofa?
And 155s won’t do shit to any Abrams in-game.
Between PG-7s and PG-9s, Afghanistan was nothing. It was nothing more than irregular militias vs a developed nation with the bonus of training other militaries.
I’m saying that 3BM60 or DTC-10 will absolutely eviscerate a chemical-centric composite profile.
Are you trying to say War Thunder’s nonexistent FPVs are too effective?
1 Like
The amount of conflicts they’ve been in is a major factor
What are you talking about. I have a pic of him when he was deployed.
7 Likes
Yes, because it is simply that good compared to other modern equipment from nations.
Only slow people would just “quit” the game because they died once.
^^”
Classic case of “Russian Bias” genuinely and honestly cry more.
6 Likes
“why do people hate us mains so much?”
2 Likes
I wouldn’t really say that, I feel it would be perfect if it were 1:1 with current hardware, as well as the SEPv3 being added to match current russian top-tier.
I feel ground should be 13.0 max at the least
All that talk no real points made just dancing around the fact that I’m right lol it’s simple just admit the example were given is an incorrect model of the real tank. And the US TECH tree is an improper example of the actual US military
I’ll rephrase it since it’s apparently too incomprehensible to you.
They absolutely do.
This is a 71.6 tonne tank.
Armor is an entirely subjective field of design, and varies greatly over the span of a vehicle.
The armor in-game is as realistic as it can be with substantiation.
What’s incorrect about it? You’ve done nothing but whine about arbitrary comparisons to the Abrams, saying that it fights modern vehicles and is a “light tank”. None of that outlines what could possibly be “incorrect” about it, and your only backing is seemingly being a grunt that fought alongside them.
How so?
4 Likes