Sim community wishlist - small fixes/changes

You did not present any data, just that document whith unreadbale data tables, yet you claim that WT planes are to struddy. And then it easy to extrapolate from to that to completely different airframe.

You are way off man.

No sh*t, such planes are operated by multiple people, so if it should be controllable by single player, such simplification to reduce workload are needed. And is a WT standard for any 2+ crew vehicle, does not matter if it is tank, plane, ship or helicopter.

Anyhow I don’t see how your wishlist add dozens of cockpits, gunner stations, bomsights fits into small fixes/changes.
Small simple fix would be removing pilot view zoom, something very unrealistic and very easy to remove.

1 Like

Dude all values are written out. How is that not data?

You would have to extrapolate anyway… There isn’t a test for every single aircraft available. It’s just those two with leiable information regarding ww2 planes.
It’s the best we got, and the only actually usable source.

But you never have to do the workload of all the crew at the same time. You never really got to do the full workload of a single crew member at all.

The pilot?yes but it is just the job of the pilot and no manual engine controls.
The gunner? no it is simplified and you have an autopilot during that so in gunnerciew it isn’t even the workload of a single person.
The bombardier? Nope autopilot, you don’t gun during that time and even the bombsight is fully automated, this is the smallest workload of the three.

So no you never do the workload than more than one person… Never. You can switch workloads but you never have to do them simultanously at all…
That’s a myth.

That’s the one thing that isn’t unrealistic.
Your eyes can focus a screen cannot.
The zoom isn’t excessive, you can make details out with your eyes further away than the unzoomed screen allows.

1 Like

A simple change for the bombsight would be for the player to input IAS and altitude. Then, instead of using real-time IAS/TAS, altitude plus whatever else the game uses to compute the CCIP, the game could use desired IAS and altitude (from which TAS can be computed) plus the real-time ‘everything else’ data. It would still be an unrealistic representation of a WW2 bombsight, but the biggest 2 factors under the player’s control would at least require some actual player input and effort. If the bombsight took, say 15-30 secs, to stabilise after IAS/alt input, then the player would at least have to make an effort to maintain speed/alt and couldn’t just cut n paste the data from the HUD seconds before bombing.

1 Like

Screen is focused 100% of the time, eye can’t make object bigger when you look at it.

Sure… your link.


I had to dust off my Scribd acc to get to real thing.

And If my eyes are not decieveng me 8x 20mm hits gives 50% chance to score A kill a B-25.
Yet you dismiss Luftwaffe investigation and their conclusion of 20x 20mm to down B-17.

Yea because every fighter will wait, till you drop a bombs ,so you can convenetly leave the gunners, and tend to bomb sight.

1 Like

Gaijin probably has complete code for the IL-2 which had decently modeled Norden and Pe-2 bombsight.

However if you want to make pilots busy, remove plane positions form maps.

Dude screens are limited to their Resolution. Eyes can make out details much further away.
This is compensated for by zoom. Unlike your eyes focussing, zoom reduces field of vision.
So it isn’t even an advantage.

Dude there is a formula how this is calculated and all values… Why even use graphs? Are you a child that needs pictures?
The formula needed is on page 45… It’s not even complicated.

In that case the gunners are automated aren’t they? And you still don’t do both in game at the same time it is Impossible to be in two different views at once… So the workload argument still isn’t valid.

I really wish Gaijin would pay attention and update cockpits. So many cockpits are inaccurate, and even have extra artifacts sticking out of the plane while in cockpit view.

C’mon Gaijin. Atleast show us that you care about the game… What are the devs even doing?..

Care to explain why then not all the vehicles in WT does not have this “resolution compensation”? It is roughly 2x zoom.

That is not really a point, if the final value is from graph or else, is it?

They are automated, but it is useless since they don’t shoot anything past 210 meters.

1 Like

It’s called bad game design.

I told you why zoom is reasonable, not why tanks don’t have the same zoom as aircraft. Why do you deflect the argument to something i never argued for?

Could you stick to the actual argument instead of trying to make it look like i said that the zoom for all vehicles is ok? That would be great.

Tanks the way they are right niw are bad they should be deleted and overhauled.

No it isn’t. The graph shows the p_k for n shots, there obviously isn’t a final value.

It doesn’t show the median number of shots for a kill, the entire study doesn’t directly give it, since it doesn’t take that Viewpoint. But the formulas and methods to get it are all there.

That you can easily calculate for yourself, everything you need is given to you. It’s easy to do.

Hell for the test you would only need the one hit kill chance which is written in tables on pages 32 and 41.

Again the text is very clear and not that hard to understand, you can figure this out just by reading instead of just looking at the Pictures.

How is that relevant in an argument about the workload?
Stop jumping from argument to argument, my text didn’t adress the AI gunner range it adressed the claim that a player has to do the workload of the entire crew, which is BS and that’s what it was supposed to show. Now you act like i adressed something different which is dishonest. Stick the the argument.

And since you are now switching the argument to the gunner range, am i right to assume that you have no argument left on why “oh inhave to play the entire crew” isn’t a BS argument? Since that is what this was about.

1 Like

Fair enough, I was just curios if it is so realistic(it is not), why all vehicles does not have it.

More and more I have an impression that you have actually no clue what thoes numbers are and what they actually represents. Just just constatntly repeat its there, is easy to calulate, but you are short of any exact values.

In deed I have to do a workload af a whole crew.
AI pilot won’t takeoff, fly in formation, make evasive maneuvers or land. I do that.
AI bombardier does not drop a bombs, I do that.
AI gunners won’t shoot targets past certain very short range, or warn about contacts. I do that.

You simply can’t switch to bombardier tend just to the Norden for a whole sortie and let the AI do the rest.

So if you want to have some real defensive capability you have to maneuver the AC and control the gunners at the same time. So doing workload of at least two people.
Thats why the simplifacationa are in place to make it manageable.

1 Like

I am a mathematician, i can calculate for you. But as i said it is very easy.

I told you where the numbers are you can read them. All i would do is write them down here, i don’t see what this would accomplish. It’s just putting them into the formula.

But we can do this exercise together if you need this much handholding.

Just say it and we will do it.

Sure. But while doing that you aren’t in the bombardier or gunner position.

No but you don’t set up the gunsight, that is done for you. That isn’t a full workload if the bombardier. This already has a lot of handholding. And in the meantime you are not necessarily piloting or gunning. So not even a single workload.

Same issue as with the bombardier.

My point still stands, you don’t have to do the simultanously. So it never exceeds the workload of a single person at a time.

You do know what “simultanously” means? Because that was the issue with the workload claim.

No because manual bombsight controls don’t exist. You should be able to do that though.

No even if you choose to do so. And it is a choice therefore not relevant as i said you “don’t have to do the workload of more than one person”, so it doesn’t even consider my argument.

But even if you choose to you do not do the gunners full job, as the voew and aiming recticle is stabilized and you do not manually have to correct for the planes movement. So even then it is les than 2 and it is by choice not by force. My argument was about what you have to do, not what you choose to do… Thise are different things.

The one thing I want to have fixed is that planes respawning in sim EC sometimes (if they’ve been shot down) have the black burned out decal on them. Please fix that.

2 Likes

When there is so much potential to sim and gaijin just ignores it, actually abandons the whole game mode and just focuses on making more copy paste premiums. If there will be a rival game that will emerge with planes tanks helis ships all at the same time, this company will go bankrupt so soon.

1 Like

Incorrect. I hunt bombers all the time in props matches. Easy SL with the right plane. Many others do it as well. Bombers get an easy 3rd person view crutch and all guns that aren’t out of gimble limit fire at once. Not the one gun from that one particular person that is manning that said one gun.

Bombers didn’t have a go pro camera above their aircraft did they? No 😂

Have you ever taken direct fire before… From your responses I don’t think you have. Even in in-direct fire. You DO NOT stand still. You take cover. Why? Because death. Get down and assess the situation as fast as possible. Distance, direction, type of weapon possibly. As a bomber gunner when they took DIRECT fire they weren’t immediately grabbing the gun. They were huddling, assuming a position to minimize getting hit.

Have you ever seen clips of a lone bomber take direct fire from a fighter. Even from the rear tail-sitting position. Apparently not.

Bombers get a HUGE crutch in War Thunder. And especially in simulator mode. But most 'zomber" players arent ready for that conversation.

1 Like

Well since You claimed that bombers in WT are struddier then results in that test, I would expect you ran those numbers already.But since you did not provide any sort of results or calculation I think you are just making things up.

You are obviusly unable to grasp a concept of the controll of the multi crew. Somehow you are convinced that switching between two stations is actually like working one full time.
So it is pointless to continue but feel free to show those calculations.

Yes, everybody knows that and ?

Bombers had like 10 pairs of eyes looking in multiple directions, more coverage then a single camera.

Unbelieveable, this is not infantry. Bomber gunner would open fire way sooner then a fighter got to effective firing range, if possible force the fighter to braak off the attact.
Btw does you fighter pilot takes cover when on recieving end ?

Sure I saw all say gunner already dead or wounded, or plane abandoned flying on AP.
But you should watch some aerial gunnery instruction videos from a time.

1 Like

Dude you are mixing things up, you wanted the results of the research paper in a graph.

I told you that the paper gives everything but you have to calculate yourself. it isn’t hard.

So let us check the median number of rounds needed for a kill on a P-47 and a B-25. I will only do it for the 20mmHeI M97, since you only need to swap the p_k (one hit kill probability) to that of another round. We assume the plane is fully loaded with fuel.

The formula is given in page 42 where it explicitly says that the formula does not take compounding damage into account. I will write down the formula in the limited capacity as it is possible in this forum

It give a probability for a kill as follows.

P_n = 1 - Product of (1-p_k) n times.

It’s an old way to write

P_n= 1- (1-p_k)^n

Where p_k is the one hit kill probability of the selected round.

We can proof this formula is correct since

p_k is 5.3% according to the table on page 41.

For 10 shots it gives us

1-(1-.053)^10 = 1-(.947)^10 = 1-.58 = .42

That checks out since it corresponds with the table on page 49. Which should be obvious due to the formula given at page 42, but since i cannot trust you to validate anything or even do simple math i am going to do it myself.

So as another validation. We do the same thing for the 30mm mk 108 HEI.

1-(1-.161)^10 = 1-(.839)^10 = 1-.173=.827

And that checks out as well.

So since we now know that the old connotations have been translated correctly. Lets do the actual work.

So since number of shots needed to kill a plane is obvioulsy not a symmetric distribution. We need the median to get the “average” number of shots to kill the bomber.

Pennstate university has a great explanation why we need to do this: 2.2.4.1 - Skewness & Central Tendency | STAT 200

Yes you have to figure this out yourself. But i cannot teach you a semester of basic math on an online forum. So just read it.

The median is easy since it is the value n for which:
1-(1-p_k)^n=.5

For the 20mm hei on the B-25 we get:

1-(1-.053)^n=.5

Solved for n we get n=12.7

So on a fully fuelled b-25 the “average” number of shots you need for a kill is 12.7.

And thats without cumulative damage!!!
So in reality it was actually lower.

But i hope this answers your Post

Now how would you test this in war thunder.

Well, one way would be to shoot b-25s with a single round of M97. Again each time shoot a new b-25. Then count how many b-25s you have attacked until the first one died from a single round. Not that down.
Repeat this until you have a fairly decent sample size. And then take the median of the noted down numbers. Of course you have to reset the counter each time a b-25 dies.

That would be the dumb way to do it.

The smart way is to just use the single hit death chance, since we do not look at cumulative damage,it doesn’t make any difference anyway.

So just shoot a b-25 once and then replace the b-25 and shoot a single shot in to the new b-25.

Do it about 200 times, as this is a good sample size (there is a way to calculate the needed sample size but at max you never need more than around 220 so 2000 will be fine).

So do it 200 times and it should be around 11 one hits. From 500yards rear above of course, since that is what the researchers did.

I did test it a few years ago we stopped at 50 tests as we didn’t get a single one hit kill from 500yrds rear above.

Of course that is anecdotal evidence. We do not have laboratory enviroments in WT where we can actually make double blinded tests.

No it wasn’t from the graphs, o just expected you to be able to read a research paper and do basic math on your own. Don’t worry i will never expect that from you again.

But now that i have shown you how it is done, i hope you can do the rest for the other rounds yourself.

there are now many years of thousands of players with hundreds of thousands of hours of bomber and interceptor experience in simulator. so it would be possible to rework bombers accurately and well based on all this experience. so that fighter and bomber pilots are satisfied. provided the developers use their heads!

what else is there to discuss?

these endless discussions that Graf von Zahl forces on others don’t help the community, don’t help newcomers and don’t help the game.

1 Like

4 pairs of eyes, 5 pairs, 6 pairs, 10 pairs. That still isn’t a 3rd person go pro camera view. Gunners should only get 1st person view in simulator mode. But all guns should be able to fire as long as it’s within the gimble limit and players would be able to switch gunner position to get different views. But they shouldn’t get a 3rd person view. Players that Ju 288 spam or P61 spam and use 3rd person gunner view to dogfight are exploiting the mechanics. Plain and simple.

Doesn’t matter if it’s infrantry or not. Gunfire is still gunfire. You would flinch and assume position to minimize getting hit. As infrantry, a gunner or yes. A PILOT

😂

1 Like

Wishlist

•More Cockpits makeovers for SB

•Add a Weather option

•New cockpit effects rain and frost at altitude oil splatters
damage to glass and instruments

•Console only RB/SB option this will encourage more players on
console side to play the game and try SB - A lot of console SB/RB players
stopped playing because of cheats.

•New maps Pacific carrier only map.

•FLAK

•Custom nations but has to be balanced

Fixes

•Balance map objectives

•Balance Bomber Gunners

•Balance and add realistic physics to certain props what have incredible
arcade physics.

•On series S/X in SB there’s issue with Spitfire’s when your engaged in a
fight plane will suddenly just refuse to enter a turn or will straighten out
during a turn with slightest ping spike kills your ability to fight back
results instant death or a slow death by a massive loss of energy.

•Jap carrier is bugged. Last week I dropped 4 tallboys all direct hits and
results no damage and Lancaster got deleted between 6000m - 8000m
by AA 3 out of 4 attempts