Tanks accelerate & top speed realistically.
Turret play is realistic.
Mouse aim isn’t direct control, it’s a suggestion for the gunner on where to put the gun, and the gunner aims.
It’s why War Thunder is both more realistic than Arma in tank controls while being easier to operate.
This is BS. The indirectness makes it unrealistic. How do you make a suggeestion tonanother person with this accuracy using words? How? Are you mental?
Turret play realistic? Sure with turrets phasing through buildings. Definately realistic /s
Since nobody.mentioned acceleration i do not know why you bring it up. Since it wasn’t an example of what isn’t Realistic about tanks.
And the funny thing is, that the wrong armor on the abrams still remains realistic, but inaccurate
Direct hit to the turret roof of a Leopard with Paveway GBU, destroyed the roof machine gun and an optic. He was completely fine.
I demand this hypocritical and pretentious rEaLiSm BS to be zipped and allow current/removed fake vehicles again. Realism certainly can’t be a concern against 'em.
Still more realistic than World of Tonks
^
I
I
His words in Gaijin’s ears.
no is not realistic, specialy in offroad conditions
You been living under a rock or something? This game hasn’t been focused on realism since a little after tanks were added to this game. Ah yes remember when Italian timetraveling gokarts fought pz4s and shermans in WW2? Or when Tiger 2s faced Ratels and Elands/AMLs? How about that one Russian light tank that was just trialed in the 2010s facing off with tanks from the 1970s/80s without modern updates? This game is not realistic. It has realism features but it is not truly realistic. It’s an arcade game with simulator features more than anything.
Time traveling? Sir, this game is based in the current year of 2023.
All battles happen in 2023 soon to be 2024, this has never been a historical battles game.
None of what you claim is unrealistic.
It does to a point.
No. Tanks don’t feel like they have any weight to them. Wheeled vehicle simulation is atrocious, and don’t forget about torque being practically nonexistent.
War thunders controls and mechanical simulations are very simple at the moment, and they are not realistic. Calling it realistic is like calling forza the best driving simulator you can get.
All you talked about was historical accuracy not realism.
While i agree that WT lost a lot of realism wuen tanks were introduced, unhistoric matchups are not the reason (as those only affect accuracy not realism, these two are commonly confused for eachother).
no…
longer?
I played this game since tigerII was top tier 6.7 br, I can tell you that this game was never anything close to realistic and will never be. 10 years ago it was a good game since the gameplay was slow and there were no monkey tanks like now that can rush spawn kill you in less than 2 minutes. Even the arcade mode was good back then since you actually needed to aim at week spots to do anything, unlike now. Most of the vehicles in this game have unrealistic acceleration, turn speed and turret traverse speed.
Thats the whiny player base for you ,demanding everything be equal and “Balanced”
I guess if you want to be super strict, no game will ever be realistic.
All of you here are arguing if grey colour is closer to black or white. Like if there cant be mix of arcade and realism in videogame. Have you ever played games that mark themselves as realistic, other than WT?
Why so?
It’s not hard for a game to be realistic.
It’s easier then being historicaly accurate.
For example you could have the tank turret be operated by a joystick. That would be realistic for all tanks even the ones that were handcranked in real life. But it wouldn’t be historically accurate.
All it needs is for the things to be shown in game to be physically possible in real life. Possible, they don’t need to have been achieved yet.
It’s actually fairly easy: keep the physics in order and don’t use any methods that need information that only exists because it is a computer program. Bam realism.
Air SB is realistic. Automatic engine controls do exist in real life (even the bf109 back in the day had this). The controls (both joystick and mouse joy… To be clear mouse joy =/= mouse aim) are capable of controlling an irl plane.
It’s nit a high bar to achieve. GF could easily be realistic:
-introduce first person view from view ports.
-disable mouse aim and force mouse joy instead.
-disable repairs
while WASD isn’t used to drive a tank, it is technically possible to have a tank be driven by 4 buttons. So that is fine. Grossly inaccurate but realistic.
The priblem is that mouse aim needs reference points that are relative to your screen, but this screen only exists because it is a game running on your pc with the information that this is a game, so this cannot be done irl.
I guess what you consider realistic is what i would consider a sim. For me, a sim is a game that is realistic to the point that it cuts out the average gamer. Basically games that require you to have some form of controls that are not mouse/keyboard or console controller.
A game like IL-2 strymovik or DCS would come to mind for a sim game.
Games that are between that and some very arcady like WoT would be realistic. A game that provides a lot of realisitc mechanics but doesnt require a joystick or a very high learning curve to play and enjoy.
Well that may be due to the fact that realism is sort of the only requirement for a simulator.
There is sort of a difference. Realism is a property of media and art. While a simulation is a tool that emulates a system. Simulators/Simulations don’t have to be games, they don’t have to be computer programs, they don’t even have to be physical as there are simulations that are simple mathematical formulas.
So realism is a property of a representation and a simulation is an object itself.
Of course to emulate a system that emulation needs to be realistic. But they are very different things, you can never call a painting a simulation but you can call it realistic.
Realistic comes from realism which is an art/media category that the representation is physically correct… Nothing more nothing less. It doesn’t have to be accurate or historical in any way. One of the most famous examples of realism is a painting of jesus in front of a medieval french castle. Since every tree building and person in the picture are painted physically correct it is realistic, while it is utter nonsense at the same time.
Realism and simulators are clearly defined.
A Simulation is a system that emulates another system faithfully, to a degree that you can train someone on that system or make experiments with that emulation which results hold true for the object that is being emulated (think of digital crash tests).
Realism is an art category where every media falls under where the portrayed objects are physically correct… But again they can be completely inaccurate. So something like a car that is controlled by a joystick is realistic as long as the mechanism hiw thus Control works is physically viable.
All you need to do is apply these Definitions. Does WT GF RB fall under the art/media category Realism? No since mouse aim isn’t physically possible in the real world at least nit the way it works in WT.
Does WT RB GF emulate a tank to a degree you could train a tank crew? No.
The thing is a simulator is even stricter tjan expecting realism. Since our joystick car example would be realistic but not a simulation of a car, since it won’t help anyone to learn how to drive.
Since simulators are always emulation if system you always have to say what they are a simulation of.
DCS isn’t a driving sim but a flight sim. The system emulated is flight.
Just saying dcs is a sim is meaningless, because without a system that is emulated simulations do not exist.
The correct response to “X is a simulation” is always “a simulation of what?”
There are no general simulations, there are only simulations of X. With X being any imaginable system.
Otherwise everything and nothing is a simulation. Since there is a timer im RB GF that works, it is a simulation of a timer… Of course that is useless as a game but it makes it a sim of some sort.
That’s why the concept of a simulation without saying what is simulated meaningless and stupid.
I think many people are getting immersive and realistic confused.
I also think when some people suggest realism other people misinterpret that for a complete replication which generally, they don’t. It is either a genuine mistake or kneejerk sarcasm which prevails on this forum unfortunately.
The OP is vague but l here is my take for what it’s worth (very little lol)
Before my time but let’s presume the game was at one point in its history ,WW2 only and two sides. Russia and Germany and say below 4BR or maybe even 3.
At that point in time, you have realism in many ways and equality for the most part. Two sides in a real war using real vehicles of the time that actually did face each other in reality and mostly designed their vehicles in relation to the enemy in question also mostly across the board have balance both in terms of Air and Land.
Around 2 to 3 BR you have all WW2 vehicles and despite uptier struggles you have a similar canon or meta or whatever you want to call it.
Its all WW2 so still you have realism.
So you have realistic and sensible, logical War Thunder and hopefully all on WW2 era maps as well. Great, a dream for many. Maps back then before the great balance wars of 2023 may have favoured one side more than the other but that is life and that is realism.
Many players are saying that was the pinnacle of War Thunder in terms of realism (I wasn’t there but it sounds good). If you think about it, it’s not so much realism as immersion.
There are no infantry present for a start, no static guns or bazooka firing infantry or anti-tank rifles. No breakdowns or mines, no shortage of fuel, you cant catch your tank barrel on a telephone pole etc etc , it is actually a million miles away from literal realism, yet people are happy with the "Realism " the game is showing at this point in its history.
I think this move back to the system WT allegedly had in the early days is what those asking for realism mean not a sim scenario, those were mostly for single vehicles and incredibly detailed even years ago.
Look at the game now.
Multiple nations on one map. An unrelated map at that. Nations that have never even fought a war with vehicles that have never seen service. You have as much as forty years between vehicles when every month of development during WW2 was crucial. This is called an arms race.
Most so called modern weapons or even cold war vehicles have never faced each other either but so many armchair Generals talk on this forum like they did and a straight shootout between them is a foregone conclusion when it’s mostly a fantasy scenario.
So you can see what WT was and what it is now. Only way to gain the realism and immersion to return to the good old days, assuming they were.
Only custom matches will give you that. Maybe more should be made of those.
I dont think when forum members call for realism they mean sim,they are just looking for a gameplay that does not make an adult feel like they are playing in a child’s game with children.
The War Thunder game with mixed up era vehicles on a total unrelated map is like an odd dream or kids playing with WW2 solders in a Wild West fort with no concept of history.
I fail to see why so many players leap to the defence of the way WT is today, why they get so defensive and facetious when everybody should be campaigning for the very same thing and demanding Gaijin deliver it.
I don’t see why early and late era tanks on fitting maps with two sides or even sensible sides is that much of a big ask. If it is a big ask and undoable then Gaijin should come out and tell us so. Stop the speculation and repeated forum posts.
Maybe Gaijin should conduct more survey’s and polls to actually understand what the player base do want but it is the player base themselves that seem the most confused about what they want. Realism is being taken out by a helicopter hiding behind a hill that you will never see and can never fire back at or the M1 vs the T62 or old T72, like Iraq. Nobody wants that.
In na see what you mean.
But the entire “they used the ww2 Equipment on both sides” is nit realism. Not even realism in many ways.
It’s simply not what the term means.
The term for that is (historical) accuracy.
And as long as people do not understand what realism is, they will always whine for no reason.
Gaijin only advertises realism not accuracy.
And what people are doing is calling accuracy realism and then demand for it. But their demand is for accuracy not realism… Something gaijin never promised.
This is the problem with these threads.