Sim community wishlist - small fixes/changes

[Warpig]

@LookDami

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.

What cheats are you talking about? I don’t find many problems playing Sim, as far as cheating goes.

[LookDami]

Sorry not taking any chances naming cheats or providing evidence. I don’t want to be banned for promoting malware or dangerous software! Been a lot of talk in console community about it for years many stopped playing. Recent ban wave’s should be enough evidence

[Warpig]

As a player of SimEC, I don’t find myself dying to cheats. I see botters, but I don’t see hacks (atleast that I’m aware of).

When I die, I know it was most likely my fault. 🤷‍♂️

[Botoo1]

@GunC4m

The US still has the best radar, on mountainous maps it is easy to hide and attack taking advantage of those virtues

Yeah, if losing lock 9/10 times while using the sparrows is considered the best, then yeah, its the best radar. :P

[Steelbeast]

Jesus, don’t behave like a moron, you could have save that the lecture. I have no love for statistics but you obviously miss the point.

@DerGrafVonZahl

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

I did not want the results of the research paper, I was all the time disputing you claim that the bombers in game are more sturdy then irl, and despite all you calculations you failed to prove so.

@DerGrafVonZahl

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.

Well I’m an engineer, and I dare to say we are a bit more practical. Engineer instead of replicating such questionable experiment would dive in to the data mined data files, found out HP values for the airframe parts & damage of the shells. Then you can have some interesting calculations.

But frankly I’m still laughing, imagining you shooting 50x B-25 with single shell :D

[DerGrafVonZahl]

You idiot my entire argument was why using a stupid quote as a reference with no data.

If you say the DMs are off prove it, but don’t use something stupid as a quote as the control. If you are an engineer you should be that dumb.

[Steelbeast]

It Isn’t but those pairs of eyes provides better coverage then single camera.
Don’t get me wrong I would love to have gunner stations and realistic view form bombers, but unless someone takes CDK and start building at least generic gunner stations, we won’t have any form Gaijin.

What I’m saying a whole time is that properly implemented gunners & stations (let say at least IL-2 1946 level) might make bombers even bit more dangerous than they are now.

@Ninjato70x7

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

It matters, infantry can hear it and as they say if you can her a shot, the bullet wasn’t for you. So you can duct and and take cover.
But in the air you mostly don’t hear the shots, just projectiles hitting the airframe. So its not like you would suppress the gunners just by shooting at a bomber.

[Lieutenant_Camel]

inhale exhale, inhale exhale

[Lieutenant_Camel]

Discussing with people like him is a waste of time. You could have played a game in the same amount of time and had a bit of fun.

[DerGrafVonZahl]

Stop being a little gorl, you are just salty, because you spew so much nonsense and then cry about being corrected.

I source my claims and provide evidence, if claims are made prove them otherwise shut up

You are the one crying everywhere that WT cannot be a sim because of the grind, which is blatantly untrue

Or that unhistoric matchups make WT not a sim,which also is untrue.

And of you get corrected you either wait a bit or go into another thread to spew the same lies. You never correct yourself, you can never admit you are wrong… And it is funny that it has gotten personal now.

But let us unpack this, for you.

There is no empiric research on aircraft durability that takes cumulative damage into account. And as long as noone can produce this evidence, it is safe to assume it doesn’t exist.

So if you just play the game it is impossible to assess the Dm of the aircraft since WT does(!) take cumulative damage into account.

so there is no data you could compare your WT experience to. You would just compare WT to what your feelings on how sturdy something should be… which is utterly useless…

so all assessment of the DMs that are a result of just playing can be disregarded, since the the reality is unknown, so there is nothing to compare it to.

Not a hard concept to grasp.

[Lieutenant_Camel]

you want to terrorize the people here in endless discussions.
unfortunately this is a phenomenon that exists in forums and social media.

I don’t think you have any interest in a good sim mode.
the sim people don’t want to argue endlessly about anything. people want improvements for a good mode. so give people space to make their suggestions

[Lieutenant_Camel]

@DerGrafVonZahl

Or that unhistoric matchups make WT not a sim,which also is untrue.

…I have precise ideas and good wishes about what a pc game should look like that I play with my friends in my free time! there’s no discussion about this. I don’t discuss this with people like you anymore!
I like to listen to other suggestions here. also inspiration that I can’t think of myself. as long as it’s not some anime arcade nonsense. there are many quiet people with good ideas who don’t write much here.

so now this people get the space here:

[DerGrafVonZahl]

@Lieutenant_Camel

you want to terrorize the people here in endless discussions.
unfortunately this is a phenomenon that exists in forums and social media.

Terrorize? With what? How?

Because i can show them that they are wrong?

@Lieutenant_Camel

I don’t think you have any interest in a good sim mode.

I very much do. I advocate for better bomber gunners. Actual realistic tanks and so on.

But when i advocate for a better sim, i do the work of reading what defines a sim. So if you want to chance something that is irrelevant to the definition it by definition does not make it a better sim.

I am just literal. And i don’t want people to use the word sim as an excuse for demanding stuff that isn’t relevant to the definition.
If you want something at least be honest why you want it. Not use the word simulator as an excuse if it has nothing to do with being a sim.

It’s just dishonest and i hate that.

@Lieutenant_Camel

I have precise ideas and good wishes about what a pc game should look like that I play with my friends in my free time!

Sure, the thing is, i don’t have anything against that.
What i hate is you acting like your wishes make the game more of a flight sim, which your ideas don’t. You use the word simulator as it gives your claims more weight in a simulator mode. Even though your ideas have nothing to do with the game being a sim or not. It is irrelevant to the definition.
And that what is so annoying and dishonest about you.

[Lieutenant_Camel]

there is nothing to discuss.

[Daffan]

If you get teamkilled, it does not count as a death nor sl penalty.

Swapping planes gives you back your SL spawn cost or take away SL spawn cost entirely and make it only after you die in x plane.

3-5km markers. The only reason they are 750m is because when SB came out gun fight start at 750m. That, or just like tank sim they add a button that send a friend/foe request to targetted plane and they either auto reply or have to press button, essentially simulating a radio request over friendly comms. (too appease these realism tryhards)

AA is way too overpowered making convoys/AA bases a joke for many attackers / plane types in general.

1-22 auto assigned targets for CCRP show up on the map when selected. To simulate the air control telling you what on earth is pre-programmed into your computer 1-22

[Steelbeast]

Yep, he sounds like incarnation of RazerVon/AlvisVisla.

[Kernow1346]

@Daffan

1-22 auto assigned targets for CCRP show up on the map when selected. To simulate the air control telling you what on earth is pre-programmed into your computer 1-22

99 people out of 100 would have done it that way in the first place, but we have Gaijin.

[LookDami]

Enlisted another Gaijin title has just introduced multiple position 1st person gunnery on bombers and attackers it works really well and is much more balanced and fair didn’t fully release how overpowered current version is in SB. So 1st person gunnery could be
coming to Warthunder.

[_Mayday_Mayday_]

this game is so buggy! They always start new things and never finish them!

[FeetPics]

I’ll throw my had into the ring for small fixes.

1. Add ranging carrot or whatever it’s called. Tilting radar up and down should give you indication of what altitudes your radar is scanning.

2. Add more of the radar modes. Radars in-game are missing things like dual target track and range while scan mode.

3. Allow gun sights to be adjusted in prop planes. IRL a lot of planes had sights that could be used to range targets and adjust the distance. Even adding the functionality to adjust just the targeting range would add a little bit of immersion / utility.

4. Fix gauges in the cockpit view. Often times they display the completely wrong information for no reason whatsoever. Having working gauges could be groundwork for removing IAS+TAS HUD feature in corner of screen…but in all honesty people would just use WTRTI/localhost to add that info back.

5. Remove the ability to open the canopy. The only reason that people fly around with broken cockpit is to increase situational awareness through ability to better here planes that are around them or as a work around for bad canopy design.

6. Reduce visual obstruction caused by vertical bar / mirrors that are at the top of some canopies. Planes like MiG-23 have a vertical bar that reinforces the canopy but also completely obstructs player vision. This ends up being a much larger issue in-game because the developers didn’t take into account human binocular vision; i.e if you hold your hand up in front of your space and keep both eyes open you will still be able to see most objects in the difference due to brains ability to combine left and right eye pictures to look past the obstruction. The way this would be modeled in game would probably just take the option of making the vertical bar semi-translucent to mimic action of pilot having focal point past it.