They are literally defined by that.
Guys Simulation isn’t a gameing genre. It is a principle that happens to work for games. But it has nothing to do with gaming.
Also often games are called simulators even though they aren’t. That doesn’t invalidate the Definition of what a simulator is.
Real life is clukny thats why people train to do stuff and train for years.
COD has never been more realistic than Squad not now not even latest version of it. As I have said your definition of pysich is quite different than rest of the world.
Now you are just trolling.
Every army aspect needs training. You need to know what to say, when to say it and how to say it. To learn that you need to train.
DCS World is free and made up just to make DCS more popular so people buy the real deal.
DCS and DCS World are not exactly the same. They operate in the same world but vehicle controls are also arcady. Gun control is more sim and way ahead of WT has.
How is comparing driving game which has a single driver the same as tank wich has multi crew by definition even relevant? If vehicle has more than one crew member in reality in simulation should also have that. Otherwise its not a simulation but representation.
But this isn’t true either.
Only the emulated system has to be realistic for a Simulation. Everything else is irrelevant.
This is why the wied simulation in itself is meaningless. You always(!!!) have ti say what system is emulated.
If you emulate flight it is a flight sim.
If it’s a car it’s a driving simulator. And so on.
So no not all things need to be done.
But if you have a tank combat Simulation, you need everything a tank needs for combat. Driving and gunnery. Those need to be correct. Damage and ballistics as well.
The damage also is still wrong in WT. As HE shells loose.all momentum at the moment of detonation.
You misunderstood what I meant or I maybe was too vague. I get what you mean.
I meant that simulation would need to simulate all actions you would need to to in real life in a specific game clunky or not. I didn’t mean simulate everything. Certain type of simulation would focus only on that part. If I want to play submarine simulator I wouldn’t care if country economy is not simulated.
System not game. Simulators represent systems.
I do not understand why you focus so much on games. A simulation is completely independent of whether your program is a game or not.
Most simulators are not games. Other than that i am fine with your post.
Only that it is abit too extreme, a simulator technically only needs to emulate the basic principles. So a flught sim is still a flight sim if it gets a specific plane wrong as long as there could exist a plane with the characteristics shown.
War thunder does not simulate ground physics very well at all. Nothing has any weight to it, armoured cars are terrible to drive, and are incredibly floaty. Torque does not exist in any meaningful capacity, and the collision physics are terrible.
A simulator of what?
Again as said before the word itself is meaningless.
I think of War Thunder as a collectors game, we ‘work’ to collect spicy vehicles that makes the dopamine center go BRRRT, now when the vehicle I just spaded, isn’t working as intented such as the AHEAD shell on the puma, then I’m very dissapointed, because why isn’t it working, why isn’t it being fixed, what is the reason for letting it be a issue, etc.
I play SIM from time to time, and I get so annoyed when I’m looking at a cockpit placeholder, with no intent to make it, even with pictures from the original cockpit.
Yeah I agree, I think the way they’re running the company now, compared to 5-10 years ago is determined by investers, not because they want to be known as a game company that doesn’t listen to their playerbase, we are the only reason they’re still here after all.
Yeah, helicopters with modern weaponry is a whole other topic, that needs atleast 10 TB of netcode. :P
There definetly is. An arcade control would be like automatically shifting manual transmissions like what we have in war thunder. A simulator control for a manual transmissions would include a clutch, synchros, and the potential to damage the engine/transmission.
Not entirely true. Using a proper manual in a racing simulator is much more clunky than using anything automatic.
Gaijin relies on ignorance to survive now and that is why the old WW2 enthusiast are no longer welcome. We know too much and War Thunder seems to be going all out to drive the likes of us away so it can pull the wool over the eyes of the stupid.
Narrow maps and quicker battles.
Because we are talking about game and from game context. Nothing more.
Of sourse simulators are not games but carefuly crafted systems for specific reasons.
And yes most are not games at all.
I’d argue that it is a subgenere. You having racing games like Forza or NFS, and you have racing simulators like Assetto Corsa or iRacing.
Most people who say they like realistic gaming are horrified by real simulators. Very few played games with full sim on. Its about balance for many. That is the issue with this game ,its getting too stupid.
Then stop using simulation as one.
If WT isn’t a simulator, nothing is.
Especially not older titles using dated physics or systems.
Cause by your argument here you’re also claiming Steel Beasts isn’t a simulator even though it is. Just a dated one that simulates switches and fire control systems rather than movement physics.
A simulator of tanks, ships, and aircraft.
Fun-fact, even DCS lacked radar-cross sections years ago. Didn’t invalidate the fact it was still a simulator.
@AlanHR
Dude, I’ve had training in pew pews, and no real life is not clunky at all.
Squad is slower and has way more recoil than real life, I know this cause I have real life experience.
Don’t trust me? Ask soldiers and competitive people that have played those games.
@Ion_Protogen
War Thunder isn’t Gran Turismo or Forza Motorsport, but its direct competition are games that simulate ground physics worse.
as a driver of a tank.*
We’re not drivers.
Using manual transmission in racing sims is identical to real life since at least GT5.
Also Assetto Corsa’s simulations are identical to Gran Turismo 5’s. You can’t claim one isn’t a simulator when they’re of the same standard.
Also iRacing prefers to fund their anti-cheat solution than to improve their physics more to modern standards which is a fair system, they’re still a simulator despite not simulating physics as well as GT7 or Forza Motorsport 2023.
It really isn’t. The Definition of simulator does never state the emulating system needs to be a game. There are sims that aren’t games at all. Like digital crashtests of car companies.
So no if it were a subgenre than all simulators would need to be games. Which they are not.
Of that they are not simulations. Since then all planes would need to be accurate. WT and DCS are air combat simulators. There is a difference
Despite the player performing multiple functions, they are still the driver of the tank.
As far as I know, you can’t overrev the engine in GT5, or do any damage to the transmission.
Assetto Corsa is a more accurate simulator than GT5.
WT is not even a simulator by 90s PC standards .Those old Microsoft Amiga games came with big chunky manuals and keyboard overlays and were often based on one vehicle.
Very little about this game that is sim its all shoot and scoot and GRB is getting more arcade every update.
Many of those who owed B17 never even succeeded in getting it off the ground.
Yeah, moving most WW2 vehicles into tier 2 instead of 3, really shows it.
I can’t take my P-40 out for a spin in simulator anymore, I can’t defendt not making any progress in battlepass, events etc. Its sad.
Then there are no simulators ever.
Commercial flight sims didn’t simulate and likely still doesn’t simulate ground physics cause they don’t need to. They need to simulate that specific aircraft in the air, and its landing characteristics, and nothing else.
You’re using too strict of a definition at this point.