Very funny. So APHE should stay unrealistic so that some players can have fun?
Makes no sense. What we need is that it’s possible to knock out vehicles quickly, regardless whether solid shot or APHE is used.
3 Likes
No,…
There is several gamemode in which Arcade happen to be in several of them.
The game is based on physical interaction, with calculation based on real physic, there is some buffs for some gamemodes, simplified system for others.
But the game is All, but arcade.
If you really want a full arcade game, go on Wargamming / Ace combat / … ect.
“War Thunder” (as it is registered in the trademark information on the website) is certainly not a full arcade game.
You are right.
Also, APHE have spoiled so many people it’s absolutely crazy. They’ll move on from APHE slingers and start using something like 105mm APDS in higher tiers, then go completely crazy about how it does no damage whatsoever (it does).
Sure, it’s better that only some nations are extremely frustrating, good reasoning.
I know what it is ive been on it 3 years.Some if it is literally arecade and even sim is miles away from being a simulation
I think you’re wrong, I wouldn’t have said no to you for a long time, but every time War Thunder is becoming a weird copy of WOT, the penetration model is garbage, the damage model is another garbage, the maps are getting worse. smaller and more closed, with more and more planes at the beginning of the games. Simply with each update they become more similar to WOT and moving away from what was initially a game that was based on realistic things, which in the end It was what attracted the first players who left WOT to come here, and that mostly gaijin dedicated themselves to throwing them away by making the game more and more arcadey, with silly damage, absurd bouncing, extremely small maps, etc.
But apparently the players we have now like the way the game is now more, since they believe they are playing something realistic, unlike the WOT players, when in reality they play WOT 2.0.
1 Like
My point is it less arcadey then WoT but still a arcade game
Yes, it is clear that WT uses more realistic things than WOT, but it is funny that people usually respond when you ask them to change things (which is often to make it more realistic) that if you don’t like realism, go to WOT, when That’s what I’m saying, the WT is increasingly similar to the WOT.
2 Likes
The current asked change,… is far from being accurate aswell.
But if you all wants to make cupola an unpenetrable part, i’ll be laughin on sight of:
→ US mains jumping on T95
→ UK mains jumping on Tortoise
And that’s the easiest ones to found, but frenchies also have AMX-50 Foch TD.
Those three sniping at range will destroy a lot of tanks, trust me there.
And then you’ll have more and more raging people on the fact that those tanks are unpenetrable → it was already why Cupola have been made that weak in 2016 when T95 appeared and no one was thoughtful enough to turn around it.
You’re maybe trying to get the game to a better state but you have both no history of the game, and no reflexion on what it will bring back or new to the gameplay.
1 Like
Gran Turismo is the perfect example of a simcade. It has realistic tuning and racing, but the physics are both arcadey and simulation-like. War thunder fits perfectly into what a simcade is. The air physics are good, the simulation of certain aspects is quite good. However War thunder lacks good tank and collsions physics, with certain aspects of combat made much simpler and easier to use and understand.
What I meant by proper sim was a full on simulator.
2 Likes
Single person control is a simulation tactic, see DCS.
Matches being quick is based on how players play them, a factor that takes place in real life war games as well. It’s the definition of realism.
All munitions in War Thunder were made IRL.
The BR system you claim is “unrealistic balancing”… sir, it’s exactly what war games IRL does.
Respawn is war games IRL as well.
@Mytho61734
DCS was considered a simulator before it became on-par to War Thunder this year in physics simulation.
So claiming War Thunder is arcade is claiming DCS was & is arcade.
@Ion_Protogen
Not sure why you claim there are zero racing simulators ever made.
Gran Turismo 5 was THE standard for simulators, so much so that Assetto Corsa was the FIRST PC released game to match [it also someone exceeded] the physics simulations of GT5.
GT7 currently is unmatched in simulation. PC releases are still around GT6 from PS3 in simulation.
War Thunder is a full on simulator, it just has better controls for accessibility.
Because GT is not nor it was standard for race simulators. For example rFactor/rFactor 2 are light years ahead in racing simulation than any of the titles you mentioned.
WT is arcade shooter with different difficulties (Arcade, Realistic Simulation). The only sim part of WT is sim air. If tanks were sim in SB those would at least have relative gun controls as planes have instead of mouse aim.
Currently the only games which can be called tank sims are The Steel Beasts, GHPC & Tank Crew (Il-2 ground part). Even Post Scriptum & The Squad have better simulation of ground vehicles.
3 Likes
Mouse aim is realistic, and people don’t realize this because they’re use to clunky unrealistic messes.
IRL tanks are far more controllable than relative control simulators, and mouse control gets closer to IRL tank movement.
I’ve seen Steel Beasts, their movement physics is terrible.
Same with GHPC.
If GT5 was never the standard, why was Assetto Corsa the first to match & slightly exceed GT5’s simulation for PC?
I can’t speak for rFactor 2, but rFactor didn’t even match GT5.
I mean when a german main says it, it is true.
Jokes aside, you have said it well.
1 Like
Well, you would simply have to know how to confront them, in the case of the T95 its great deficiency is speed, so you will have time to see where it is coming from and you just have to wait for it to be on its side to destroy it, apart from the natural enemy of the T95 would be the Maus and all the prototype models from after 1945, such as the IS4M, IS6 etc., which despite not being able to pierce it from the front, can withstand its shots and attack it from the side. In the case of the tortoise, needless to say, it would never I have needed to shoot them in the dome, or I break their transmission and kill them calmly, or I shoot them in the flat area where there is a machine gun. In the case of the AMX50 Foch two things happen, one is that it should be Br 7.7, since it would be the counterpart of the Surbasse, without a tower and slower in reloading, but more armored from the front, apart from in Br 7.7 you already face a lot of tanks with HEAT-FS, so that armor advantage would depend on who you are in front, because a AMX 50 Foch from the side is an extremely easy prey.
That’s why I don’t see a crisis in changing the bullet damage model to make them more realistic, in the same way there would still be stronger tanks and weaker tanks, but the game would be the same, except that all sides would have more or less the same chances of killing (unlike how the game is now), also keep in mind that an important thing that should come along with that damage change would be the spalling rebounds inside the tanks, because it is also realistic that fragments of The bullets that penetrate and the pieces of armor that enter through the perforation rebound inside the combat chamber, causing damage, especially to the crew.
No its not realistic. IRL tanks have exact that, relative gun controls (I wonder do you even know what relative control means). Mouse control is game invention and very arcadey in regards to real life.
Sure thats why some armies are using Steel Beasts to train their tank crews. GHPC is still in development and even now it has more simulation elements that WT. One prime example is multicrew. I player controling 4-5 crewmembers is also game invention.
rFactor surpassed both of those even with initial version with very realistic phisycs both of cars and track. I played both and GT is very arcadey in regards to rFactors physics.
4 Likes
IRL tanks also have lock & following functionality since T-72A, and a mouse isn’t a joystick.
You’re more than welcome to plug in a HOTAS and use it for tank control.
However, mouse aim is the correct control scheme in leu of requiring people to get HOTAS.
GT5+ isn’t arcade at all for physics.
I should know having driven dozens of cars IRL to know their traits.
Lock and following is not the same as mouse aim its part of FCS. Tanks have joysticks for gun control. How is anyone using HOTAS related to WT been arcadey?
Yes, mouse control is correct control for game only because its easier for gamers not because its more realistic way of control. Also you don’t need joystick to have relative controls. You can do it with mouse too.
GTs physics are good enough for what GT represents and thats not a sim. iRacing is a sim, rFactor is a sim while GT is arcade game with good enough physics.
Yes, you need a joystick for relative control, as using a mouse with relative control is FAR worse and infinitely unrealistic.
iRacing puts more money into anti-cheat than improving physics & animations, which is why their physics is behind the rest of the industry, but it’s good enough for their simulation goal.
While it less realistic than using joystick (even though there are some great tutorials for mouse-joy) its far more realistic than mouse aim.
Sure it is. Thats why some professional drivers are using iRacing to sharpen their skills or try something new. And thats why iRacing physics has title as “the car physics” in racing sim world.
1 Like