When I get in an aircraft that offers a legitimate selling point, such as the Mirage F1’s AoA meter or the Su-27/MiG-29’s TSD, sure. Quality is pretty much a must when the primary advantage of an aircraft is at play.
Can you show me one trailer where Gaijin advertised the quality of an altitude dial, though?
You do? The Sagittario was marketed with 2 things in its trailer… Agility and weaponry. Both are quite literally the best you can possibly have at 9.3.
You’re getting a Sagittario with 2 engines when you pay for the aircraft. That’s exactly what’s advertised.
“A very light and small single-seat aircraft able to activate its additional engine in WEP mode, thanks to which it easily climbs and accelerates to almost sonic speed even at minimum altitude. This fighter has no suspended armament, but thanks to a pair of fast-firing 30mm cannons, it is well suited for destroying enemy bombers and attack aircraft at low and medium altitudes.”
It’s literally marketed as a higher power Sagittario. Are you not getting that when you pay for the Ariete?
I fail to see the relevance of OSRS.
I’m not defending it? I don’t know how many times I have to spell it out… You have every capability to get it fixed. I am simply stating that I do not care enough to involve myself, but that you should simply shut your mouth and fix it.
It’s a non-integral part of the game. In the same way I don’t complain about the dashboard of my 750 in бумер, I don’t complain about the cockpit of an aircraft in an arcade styled air combat game.
Sorry, dropped this by accident… Let me just pick it up, you clearly don’t need it for yourself.
Are you saying these aircraft entirely lack functional instruments? It looks functional to me.
Is it uncoordinated? Last I remember the only issue that internal dials face are diagnostics indicators and mach number. From what I’ve seen your compass is perfectly functional.
This aircraft has 3 supercharger gears.
WTRTI is not needed.
Here’s the PBM-5 from prior.
What about this isn’t functional?
I’m done spoonfeeding you screenshots of items in a cockpit. Seeing as you’ve flown the PBM-5, I trust you to have a quarter of the brainpower needed to look in front of you. The indicator is right there, functioning as it has for the last 2 decades.
Can you show me an aircraft without a climb indicator, since it’s quite clear you lost your point and are now simply listing off cockpit indicators?
Those are renders Runa. Renders are usually far easier to create than in-game-modeled cockpits. If you tried to port over those rendered cockpits into the game. They would look extremely low quality.
I forgot what point you were trying to make, sorry. Mind reiterating?
Which they’ve delivered on areas that are gameplay dependent. I’ve said it twice now that the only gameplay dependent part of the sag / ariete is the gunsight… In which I can’t be bothered enough to fix it.
The graphics is part of the gameplay given that you’re staring at those graphics as part of an entire game mode
By your standards, the “virtual cockpit” bombers previously used is fine, we just need to black out the area below and behind you to reduce visibility.
In no way are graphics a part of gameplay. Unless you mean in a very literal sense, the fidelity of the half dozen fasteners inside of your cockpit will not grant you a higher KPM than 1.25 in any given aircraft.
Falcon 4.0 offers similar aircraft textures to war thunder, terrain equitable to MSFS, and a cockpit that, despite looking like a claymation setup, is functional… It’s better than WT.
That has nothing to do with graphics. Falcon 2.0 is still better than WT and it would pass as an Atari game.
I’d be happier with the virtual cockpit, everything shown on the (already functioning) dials can be shown through :8111 far better than it would on a WW2 era cockpit indicator.
Sure, kill the entire bottom half of my screen’s pixels. It doesn’t detract from gameplay when I can still see the objective I’m flying towards and my bomb sight.
From your tyrade earlier about your cockpit instruments giving you seemingly vital analytics… Classic Elite is far more informative and usable.
The biggest downside here is you’re playing a 2D game vs a 3D game, where even then the 3D game gives you less information about your ship.
Apart from that, welcome to korean war halo syndrome. The cockpits aren’t beautiful to begin with, no matter how much grey or blue paint and useless fasteners you splatter onto it.
So… A clearer cockpit?
There’s only 2 things you can possibly be focused on here…
1 - The gun solution.
The Ariete is badly designed and features an ahistorical gunsight.
2 - The “coolness” of the cockpit.
If you’re spending more time in an aircraft combat game looking at the bezel of your canopy or your gunsight switch / lighting dial… I’m pretty sure you’re in the wrong place.
I don’t know about you, but the cockpit fills at least 50% of my screen, if not more in some planes. Only time it doesn’t is when looking around, and even then the various frames are still visible. Sometimes it fills more of it when the angles or intent line up.
If you’re in a cockpit for up to 3 hours, you want it to look passable. The F4U is much more than passable.
I do agree that the cockpit looks unusually sloppy for a - from what I understand you guys as saying - relatively recent addition to the game. It looks like what I’d expect from one of the planes they released back when the game came out, and haven’t gotten around to updating yet.
I’m left wondering if this escaped the quality control in some way, if they had a bad experience with an external contractor, and felt they had to just go with what they had for now or something.
Have anyone made a nicely worded bug report, to see if we can get the Devs’ word as to whether or not this is how it’s supposed to be? The dials and everything related to those are “easy”, as it’s just high quality assets that they already have in the database. The bespoke assets look like they shouldn’t look that way, though.
Lack of available data or not, they chose to put the aircraft in the game, and if artistic license is needed… well they kinda already took that, by having the plane in the game as it is.
Love the game and what they do with it. This plane’s condition is just a bit puzzling.
At this point it doesn’t seem like they’d miss the artistic license, it’s like they lack a license to have more than 5 polygons.
It doesn’t even have to be historical or accurate in that sense, same deal with bomber cockpits, you can make a cockpit that isn’t equal to real life but still use high quality textures of this era.
I can’t find a single post from you on either the Issues page nor the Suggestions page for graphical improvements of cockpits. Mind sharing what topics are penidng?
