Honestly i’ve got a bad feeling over this.
In my opinion they just realized there’s an encrasing market for VR air “simulator” games and they’re trying this new unpaved road.
It’s wildely known that even the WT “simulator” mode it’s arcade compared to DCS or Il-2 Great Battles, i’ve got the feeling that the same will be for this new Aces Of Thunder.
1 Like
I’m not abandoning the planes I researched or paid for, so I’m staying clear of any other game. In the long run, Gaijin probably wants people to dobule dip on the same vehicles they acquired in WT, but I’m not doing that.
Willing to bet Gaijin will kill SB by breaking it even more or outright removing it so that people go to the new game, so I do believe this game mode is doomed.
What you say is true… but even now WT is played in VR… IL2 would be perfect, but meeting players is not easy. Too many servers. I play both WT and IL2 and I don’t find this particular difference in difficulty between the two games. On IL2 the engine start procedure is automatic so no problem… you take off even if you don’t use the correct procedures… the on-board instruments are now known… for me the biggest difficulty is on servers where the position of your plane is not on the map… and if you don’t know the map, visual flight is difficult. Then there are other differences, but they depend on the server you play on.
I kind of disagree with you honestly.
The different of realism between WT and Great Battles in night and day.
"you take off even if you don’t use the correct procedures… " this is not correct, for some aircraft maybe, but for the Bf 109 for example, if ur not setting the prop pitch correctly, and leave it too “low” or attempt to take of with the automatic mode set, your engine will exeed the 3000rpm (since the automatic mode can’t keep up with the fast up throttle) and the engine quits and you crash.
And this is just one example, and i’m not even talking for the “physics” of the planes, and how off they’re on WT.
It’s true that depends on the difficulty mode of the server you’re in!
2 Likes
So now you’ve fallen into the trap set by Gaijin, commonly known as “sunk cost”. If this game mode is eventually ruined by the developers and forces you to repurchase vehicles you already own, I can only hope that War Thunder goes bankrupt too. Unfortunately, player behavior will never lead to such an outcome. As it stands, the Sim mode is actually populated mostly by players from the Realistic mode—true Sim players are as rare as those in games like IL-2 Sturmovik and DCS World.
3 Likes
Yeah I’m thinking no one is going to play AoT. They’ll likely cut their losses in some years like they are doing with enlisted now and bring the ww1 stuff to WT. They really need to improve the realistic & sim modes like holy hell. What are they doing over there?!
3 Likes
This ace of thunder game will cease support in like 1-2 years. Gaijin doesn’t know what long term support is. They hardly support War Thunder as it is.
1 Like
I literally take off with 109F4 and the Gustavs by just… pressing throttle forward. Gently.
On Finnish Pilots, so no auto engine controls there.
109s are just easy mode. Fw190s even more so for flying/engine (dogfighting is another deal)
Same deal with Yak-1 and Yak-7. Or even spitfire Mk Vb or P-39.
It’s not hard or complex.
Edited to add:
Demonstrating just how "incredibly" difficult IL2 take off is in the Bf 109 F4 while also showing the difficulty settings for Combat Box and Finnish Pilots (actual flight is in quick start because I prefer to land in pattern while combat box's training server encourages straight-in approaches. Also, I am way out of practice for IL2!). Includes minor joyride (self-induced accelerated stall & recovery, soft stall, landing, taxi)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB-uiNtA04o
00:00 Finnish Pilots & Combat Box
02:00 My difficulty settings
02:45 Engine Start-up
08:35 Taxi
10:30 Take-off
11:30 Airborne
13:30 Self-induced skid & accelerated stall & recovery
17:15 Landing Start
19:20 Touchdown & Taxi
22:20 Engine Shutdown
I don’t completely agree with that perspective, because I personally love high-level simulation and I started playing SIM specifically for modern aircraft. However, Simulator Mode suffers from the same fundamental problem: the maps and game modes are completely inadequate for the types of vehicles used and the playstyle that modern-era simulation should offer. I can guarantee you that even at high tiers, it requires significant skill and knowledge to master your missile systems and to know exactly how to evade incoming threats and counterattack.
What many people miss in discussions about SIM is that true simulation isn’t just about replicating flight controls or ‘sitting’ on top of a tank. (Actually, tank simulation deserves a separate mention because it is currently poor; it should simulate the commander seeing through his optics like every other crew member. If you are looking from above, it means you are out of the hatch, and machine guns should be able to kill or incapacitate the commander, just like in Enlisted).
Returning to the main point, simulation is, above all, about simulating a real theater of war. There should be an ‘unknown factor’ not knowing exactly where the enemy is coming from which would force players to employ real tactics with their teammates to complete a mission. As it stands, Simulator Mode is essentially just Realistic Mode viewed from the cockpit (or from above the tank), simply without markers and requiring players to distinguish friend from foe. If Gaijin invested time and resources into developing a SIM mode closer to the DCS experience instead of creating a separate game, they would attract an entire demographic of simulation enthusiasts who want to play with the eras and vehicles they love most.
1 Like
On pedantry, I disagree with this.
There’s many sub-categories of simulation. For me, the focus is on the feel of operation and use. Re-enactment is a far lesser concern. One of my favourite simulators is Sailwind for a reason - it has nothing to do with “real life” - it’s a fictionalized system of archipelagos optimized to provide a very thorough, complex experience of historical seamanship. The simulation emphasizes rigging, wind-sail, wind-hull, water-hull interactions, ballast/cargo balancing, supply consumption and navigation using 17th century tools.
KSP is another example of a simulator that cares little for “re-enactment” outside of player mods. The focus is on an accessible (consumer hardware in 2015 - hence patched conics, reproducible and consistent simulation of orbital mechanics and interacting with those.
For Warthunder, I think the focus of simulation ought be quality of the flight physics themselves and accuracy of individual aircraft flight models and providing scenarios where both can be explored to their maximal limits.
Re-enactment is fun, but outside of keeping matchmakers sensible I don’t think it either detracts or contributes to Warthunder’s value as a simulator.
It’s prolly the best idea to clearly define what kind of simulation one wants: Immersion simulation, systems simulation or re-enactment rather than declare their own favoured variant as the ultimate form.
1 Like
The operational feel and user experience do not compensate for the inability to use vehicles correctly as a result of the game design. We are not discussing historical reenactment here, but rather the implementation of advanced technology into battlefields too small for strategic use. This results in entire classes of vehicles and aircraft being rendered obsolete in WT. Case in point: self-propelled artillery is unsuited for the current gameplay loop, while bombers and strike aircraft are unable to perform their missions particularly at top tiers where they are detected at vast distances. These objective problems persist despite the high fidelity of the models; the satisfaction of realistic handling is consistently undermined by a game design that becomes more restrictive at higher Battle Ratings, particularly in Air Simulator Battles.
That’s pretty laughable - you can go solo as a pilot IRL in about 2 weeks of you put your mind and money into it - get a pilot’s licence in 3 months, and be a C category instructor in a year (basic instructor teaching other people while being supervised by a higher level instructor)
At that point (about 2-300 hrs) you have more time in flight than any WW1 pilot or some WW2 pilots!
An aerobatic rating might be obtained at the same time.
The USAF will train you for 3-4 years before letting you loose on any operational jet - and before then you need to have done ROTC, OTS, Airforce Academy or similar as well!!
People I work with that are ex-various commonwealth airforces often served as mechanics for 2-3 years before being selected for flying training.
2 Likes