Thursday maybe
2 Likes
I mean it’s a one trick pony that only has funny good turn performance going for it.
Doubtful, it’s a stonger engine and TWR than both of those with better turn probably. It’s like comparing the F-20 to the F16 and calling them the same thing.
It’s like a 1000kg heavier than the ADF with the same engine, it’s going to accelerate considerably worse even with no loadout.
1 Like
And? So it’s okay to just be a better Viggen at the same BR? Which no offense, it’s only trick is the loadout and nothing else going for it.
Again if we’re gonna add 4th gen Fox 3 carriers at 13.0 might as well just lower the prem Su-30 while we’re at it
It’s a heavier F-16 with the older P&W F100 PW 200 it won’t perform much better than them, even in a clean configuration dude, you’re overestimating him
Actually partially untrue, the JA37DI has a stronger engine than the F-16XL-1. It’s just that the JA37DI is considerably heavier
Tbf this is gaijin were talking about, I don’t trust them to handle flight performance after they literally admitted they have no interest in fixing aircraft they made too heavy because they couldn’t properly model them.
Also I’m not expecting this thing to be Gripen/Su-27 dev server wonk and literally be able to take off upside but trying to say it’s on the same level as the bus like the Viggen in performance is silly.
Artificially heavier than it should be. It also loses to the F-35 in a turn fight which the Draken flight model is also below its historical values. What you get with the Di is a Delta that can’t turn or accelerate and bleeds speed like it’s a flying airbrake at any minor adjustment.
Not to mention non existent RWR.
Again no offense but the XL is a contemporary for the F-16 with AMRAAMs, not bottom of the barrel overtiered slop (cough cough Shar 2, or do the majority actually think an F16 delta wing is on par with a harrier with no guns?)
1 Like
I didn’t say that it’s on the same level of the Viggen just chill out dude, I say that it didn’t perform much better than a Viggen, similar A2A loadour, four Fox 3 and two non IRCCM Fox 2
As I said, you’re overestimating it based on speculations but anyways, i could be 13.3 with no problems
I’m more so tired of people being okay with blatantly lazy additions being added too low in BR just to bait people into a vehicle and it ruining BRs for years or months. (No offense but IRIAF comes to mind, and I also abused it because I knew gaijin put it that low to make more money.)
This vehicle is simply another case of a vehicle being released lower than it should be to generate more money from people looking to seal club.
Hey, @Smin1080p_WT will Minisini cannons on Giulio Cesare have classic Italian worse RoF or better RoF from the Soviet clone?
Or maybe they will finally get a single standard, not taking into account nation operator?
PS can Littorio class receive better RoF now, with the addition of the premium at least? 45 s aced is unplayable.
RN Vittorio Veneto probably, but it would be at same br as tops, plus actually I think, considering the fact that naval devs refuse to give Littorio class better RoF and possible additions of even more incomplete monsters as Soyuz for other nations, Cesare is probably the best option.
On the other hand there is basically no reason to grind Italian high tiers of naval TT in its current state with 45 s reloading time aced and poor accuracy, unless you are just collecting stuff.
PS if you are interested there is my theoretical TT (not all possible vessels though):
@Smin1080p_WT hello there!
Have you seen these insane pictures? Some people have managed to make DLSS 5 with War Thunder, and…
I can only wonder; may there be plans to implement it to War Thunder?
While some loud niches of the internet hate DLSS 5 deeply for stylized games like Final Fantasy (beause it’s obviously not meant for those, but for realistic-aim ones, like War Thunder), I’m sure the majority of players would welcome this with open arms.
Or is it a no-no zone for the Devs as to avoid any potential backlash from those loud minorities?
4 Likes
probably something better to ask when DLSS 5 is actually released (likely in Fall 2026, unless delayed)
2 Likes
Yep! I am looking forward to it, but I was wondering if the Devs were looking forward to implement it when released, or if they would prefer to stay out of it so that the loud minorities don’t bash them over using something remotely related to AI.
I mean, we can always install it manually like some people are doing already, but I would prefer an official, streamlined implementation under the vision of the devs instead of having to customize all manually. Apparently this can be flagged as cheating too, so best not to take the risk.
I imagine if it wasn’t added, it wasn’t because some people didn’t like it. DLSS has been a semi-controversial feature since its inception, its not something new.
3 Likes
who would be against that? what do they care how cool can someone play WT?
True! DLSS was always controversial because of AI usage, but the hatred towards DLSS 5 specifically is unlike anything I had ever seen.
People claiming that “this rendered artists obsolete”, that “this ruined the concept of artstyles”, that it ruined “stylization” (even though DLSS 5 is obviously meant for realistic looking games and NOT stylized ones), that it’s “soulless slop”, etc.
I don’t know, but 90% of the stuff I read on the internet about DLSS 5 is people hating on it.
I am aware that they are a loud minority, and that the vast majority of gamers in the world would enable it FOR realistic-looking games, but I fear the devs may be taken aback by potential backlash.