Who gives a sh*t about 90s PC standards.
Simulators are clearly defined.
And as long as you are forgetting to state what WT is a simulation of, your entire statement is uselss.
It’s really not a hard concept to grasp
You see you were training in pew pews while I was in real conflict so no, I don’t trust you on that at all.
1 Like
I dont think there is anything for us to say so please don’t bother talking to me .I will put you on ignore as from now.
Nothing you say makes any sense in English. You are always off on a different unrelated tangent to everyone else.
Of course there would. There wouldn’t be plane simulators, sure. But there would be flight simulators.
Since then only the principles of flight need to be accurate.
Again the word simulator alone is always meaningless you muppet. It’s always a simulation of something and you always have to state of what.
Otherwise every game is a simulation, not nothing. Because every game simulates the passage of time, so they accurately simulate time.
But as you can see this makes the word pointless.
Because people use words wrong and then you have to tell them why so their words make sense.
The word simulator is defined it needs a qualifier on what is simulated for it to make any sense.
You know war more than I.
I know pew pews and how they behave since I focus on that instead of getting shot at.
Thank you for your service BTW, regardless of what country you served in.
The one used by everyone who creates Simulations?
I simulate stuff all the time it is my job. But nothing of what i do has to do with gaming. Using it correctly is not much to ask.
What are you even on about in relation to the OP? Always jabbering about simulators.
The OP is nothing to do with simulators.
I am using the word correctly.
Simulation is more inclusive than you think.
Sure it can be pretty much any emulation. But againyounneed to say what it is that is emulated.
That’s why usually it’s said what is simulated.
Simulated crahs test.
Simulated economy.
Simulated Evolution.
But just saying simulation alone, leaves the question “what is simulated?”
It doesn’t work as a blanket term.
This is why I think separating WW2 and later eras would be a good idea. It allows Gaijin to focus more on the individual problem’s each era faces instead of lumping us all together and it would also mean we have easier discussions as well.
We have an ugly seam where WW2 and later vehicles meet as well as top tier and WW2 sharing maps which is just bizarre.
4 Likes
So you want me to specify the simulated systems within the programs that I and the industry considers simulators?
Purely a question of clarification.
The principles.
You are talking about the gaming industry? Then ignore them Simulation isn’t a gaming term they just misuse it…
Simulations are muuuuch older than even computers and programs.
Gamers aslo use the word realism wrong, that is a common mistake of laymen as well. This is why you have so many threads complaining the game not being realistic because of unhistoric matchups. Even though historical accuracy and realism are completely independent of eachother.
Same deal with the word simulator. So if people say it is a sim or not because of xyz, they should at least know what they are talking about. If they don’t give the emulated system they obviously don’t. And a plane sim and a flight sim are indeed different things.
No, I’m using the word realism correctly.
Historical accuracy isn’t realism, and realism isn’t historical accuracy.
1 Like
It was just an example
Do you see no issue with putting a 1980s AFV against a tank from WW2?
1 Like
As long as they’re balanced it’s fine.
We’re playing war games, not historical reenactments.
1 Like
Then that is where we are all at odds.
I could not disagree any more with your statement anymore than I do.
1 Like
You don’t want Chieftain Mk3s facing T-72Bs. Just saying…
Or Sea Harrier FRS1 vs F-16…
Thats you just saying not me