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.
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.
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.
Professional racers use GT as well.
iRacing simulates the rules & regulations more than the physics.
And GT simulates the physics which matters more to the rest of us seeking realism, as rules & regulations are subjective while physics aren’t.
… exploit?
No… that’s an intended feature because shooting the Cupola is a definite weakpoint…
How is this thread still unlocked? Do we take requests to make parts of tanks invincible because someone invoked “muh realism” without linking any data while very clearly malding?
the cupola is weak, sure… but why would it cause significant damage to the tank or the people inside of it?
Hint… it wouldnt. So if they want to make a mechanic where the cupola gets shot off, then sweet, other than that it is an Exploit because it should do Little to NO damage… both to the tank itself or the inhabitants inside the tank.
Just because you like to ignore this response, doesn’t mean the rest of us do as well.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
The irony is palpable.
Regardless, a quick google search led me to this quote, from Roman Töppel’s “Kursk 1943: The Greatest Battle of the Second World War.”
“An after-action report from the 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion, which was equipped with Tigers, later commented: 'What was striking was how frequently the commander’s cupola was penetrated by direct hits or badly damaged […]. The Russian instruction on how to combat Tigers spread suprisingly quickly and was followed by all enemy arms of service with great stubborness”
One of the principle weaknesses of the early Tiger models was the large size of the cupola, and this fault was identified by both the Germans and Russians pretty soon after the Tiger hit the field. By the Battle of Kursk, it was well known, and Soviet leaflets from that period instruct their solidiers to aim for the cupola (Among other identified weakpoints) with weapons incapable of dealing with the frontal armor (45mm or down).
Clearly, the Germans agreed with this assessment, as one of the more notable changes in the later model Tigers was the serious reduction of the size of the cupola, as clearly seen comparing the Tiger H1 and E in game. In fact, there was a general reduction in the size and shape of cupolas as war experience went on. Compare an M3 Stuart to an M3A1, or a Panther D to an F. The only exception were the Soviets, who went from no cupolas on their early tanks (And accordingly terrible situational awareness) to a larger cupola to improve that awful situation awareness.
Now, this didn’t kill the entire crew as depicted in game, obviously, but it often seriously affected the combat capability of that tank, if not rendering it combat incapable. The commander would often be seriously wounded or killed, and the tank would lose a good portion of it’s situational awareness, both from losing the crewmember responsible for that and also the majority of it’s sights. They’d be forced to rely on just the gunner and driver sights, and just ask some Jadgpanzer 38t crews how combat capable you are when you can barely see out of your tank.
As I’ve already intomated above, I’m fine with jacked damage being a stand-in for damage that would render a tank combat incapable. Imagine taking a hit to your cupola, and then losing your third person camera. That would be more realistic, but in no way more fun.
The damage also depends on the shell and the cupola itself.
If the APHE shell overpens, then only the commander dies, or even survives, if the shell itself, and the few shrapnels do not hit him.
Try shooting a Tiger H1 in the cupola with something like the soviet 100mm or 122mm guns. It just straight overpens
When it explodes, it not only sends shrapnel all under (and a bit to the side), but it also creates a shockwave inside a metal box with thick inner walls.
Even with ear protection, it would damage the crew’s ears, deafening them temporarely, or even permanently.
And this is just the best case.
A strong enough overpressure can also damage the body.
If it actually detonates, it will send pieces of the unfortunate (or rather, in this situation i’d call him the fortunate one for at least not suffering) commander’s body everywhere, while painting the whole tank with blood.
If the shockwave did not stun and/or deafen the crew, then the psychological shock of seeing small pieces of your commander everywhere certainly would.
Blood is also gonna make verything slippy.
And if it is not enough, there is still the shrapnel. Watch this video:
it is a so-so similar case.
Tank shells are usually bigger and more powerful than a hand grenade, and even in the video, shrapnel got through.
An average 57mm APHE will have less explosive inside, however, it would likely create larger shrapnels with more penetrative force, so they are more likely to go through the commander’s body, and still inficlt significant, if not lethal damage to the crew nearby.
Lastly, for WT, there is this mechanic, called overpressure.
Now, you can debate if it is a better mechanic, than hull breake (i’d vote that both of them are BS), but around 190g of TNT equivivalent will trigger an overpressure effect with APHE.
This means, that all crew in the same compartment will die, regardless if shrapnel did hit them or not.
A great example are the following tanks:
Fcm 2c (with the 75mm gun)
Strv m/42
Ho-I
All those 3 has a 75mm gun, and 200g+ of TNT, and they will always 1shot enything, if their shells pen.
Yes, even an FCM 2c with it’s 12 crew memebers will be destroyed. Just shoot the cupola on the turret, and even the rear MG turret crew will die.
That mechanic is a gameplay choice.
A similar thing happens in this video (tho shrapnel still hits the driver. There is just no 2c in the test drive, but i did this once to it with the Ho-I) :
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Maybe not the strongest counter-argument you could have come up with.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
How else am I supposed to take it? I take the time to do a brief amount of research, come back with a sourced historical quote that’s relevant to the thing you’re speculating about, relate it to another easily observable historical detail, the justify the current gameplay as a standin for these historical phenomena, and not only do you refuse to read it, you then go on to claim that it proves nothing.
Meanwhile, the basis of your argument seems to be that you think that the concept of cupola shots dealing any meaningful damage is an exploit. And that the damage from such a shot should be negligable. No references to historical accounts of cupola shots. No justification of why that would be a good thing gameplay wise. Hell, you aren’t even arguing that APHE is overperfoming and should be nerfed, even though that is the single thing making these shots more effective than they would be IRL.
If you want to prove anything, you need to A) Give some actual evidence of your own and B) Devote the tiny amount of time required to read the proof offered by those trying to counter yours.