War Thunder

[LCADolby]

I have this footage from the day I spent playing around on it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVzRPNTpeGg

It's all ingame FRB footage. Nothing special.

[Brooke]

Lots of it looks beautiful, but without icons, I can't see any of the planes unless the background is blue sky.  Maybe it's better in the real game as opposed to Youtube video, but it is easy to keep track of an airplane in a close-in fight in real life, regardless of background, which is why I'm in favor of icons.  I hated how WWII Online did icons, for example, years ago.  In WWIIOL's quest to make the situation more realistic, it actually made it horribly less realistic.

In the first few minutes of the video, did you have tracers turned off?  I didn't see any tracers or flashes of hits despite lots of firing, it looking like you were on target enough, and the enemies sometimes not maneuvering all that hard.

Is there any thought on how well they model planes vs. flight-test data?

[Plazus]

Brooke,

Majority of the planes' flight models are a work in progress. The Russian planes seem to have the most UFO-like flight modeling compared to the rest.

[-aper-]

Majority of the planes' flight models are a work in progress. The Russian planes seem to have the most UFO-like flight modeling compared to the rest.

Do not spread the rumors from people playing in UFO (Acrade) mode

Or is it based on your personal experience in FRB ? Which russian plane do you call UFO ?

Try to start in FRB with MiG-3, LaGG-3 and Pe-3 then do the same with Hurricane1, Spit1 and Beaufighter and you will get the valuable experience. And do not listen to what other people say. Judge it yourself.

[LCADolby]

C2 experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEk5uuIBok4

 

[-aper-]

C2 experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEk5uuIBok4

 

I like this Nice skin for c.202. I've not seen it before.

P.S. Was Spit critically damaged already? If not his pilot could do better ...

[LCADolby]

I caught the Spit off guard, he pulled quite a lot of high G moves, but couldn't sake me.

[Saxman]

Wow, this is just sad...

http://cheezburger.com/7870113792

Note: This was NOT an Aces High "You Have Collided" vs. "Someone Has Collided With You" front end issue. That Zero DID take damage from the collision.

Judging from the comments, it sounds like this is an ACTUAL STRATEGY employed by Zero pilots because of how the aircraft's wings were modeled.

[GScholz]

Looks like an exploit.

[LCADolby]

Hurrah! for Kamikaze!

[Latrobe]

I hear Russian planes in WT can fly into trees and take no damage.

 

[FLOOB]

Lots of it looks beautiful, but without icons, I can't see any of the planes unless the background is blue sky.  Maybe it's better in the real game as opposed to Youtube video, but it is easy to keep track of an airplane in a close-in fight in real life, regardless of background, which is why I'm in favor of icons.  I hated how WWII Online did icons, for example, years ago.  In WWIIOL's quest to make the situation more realistic, it actually made it horribly less realistic.

In the first few minutes of the video, did you have tracers turned off?  I didn't see any tracers or flashes of hits despite lots of firing, it looking like you were on target enough, and the enemies sometimes not maneuvering all that hard.

Is there any thought on how well they model planes vs. flight-test data?

Yeah like I said they've concentrated on modeling the enviorment and have totally neglected modeling human vision. Which results in the feeling of flying in IL2 style soup.This is a mistake that almost every flight sim makes, a bad idea in a dogfighting game. One example, when I first tried WB and later AH I was kind of put off by the wider angle view, later I came to realize the wisdom in the decision to make the views that way. Because it is more true to real life visual ergonomics.

You'll notice in that video that besides everybody hugging ack, everyone is on the deck trimming the tree tops because they're taking advantage of the unfortunate vision model of the game. Now people are going to respond to that with, well the object of every war thunder game session is to destroy ground targets. To which I'd respond, who cares, my mission in any dogfight video game is to shoot down planes. And who's idea was it to have Leeroy Jenkins voice acting? "A little more effort and victory will be ours"

The bottom line is it's a game designed to be played by mouse in external view with the object being to earn levels and power ups, and ultimately buy them, thus giving the edge to players that are willing to spend the most. The "full real battles" (I guess they thought calling it full realism would be stretching it) was added as an after thought which is why things like fuel gauges aren't functional. It's also something that less than 1% of the players participate in and the only time of day you'll be able to play on a "full real" server is US prime time, as any other time of day there will not be enough players looking for a full real battle to populate the server and meet the requisite launch limit of a dozen or so people.

And to people who are going to say, "well it's still beta", then why are they charging money for anything?
FULL REAL YO!

[LCADolby]

Floob, the 109 fuel gauges work fine. And all the other planes I've flown in the FRB.

[FLOOB]

Why haven't you flown the hurricane?

[XxDaSTaRxx]

War Thunder is simply a game where realism doesn't exist... other than graphics. Example. The B-17 in War Thunder will push 400-480 before you run into problems. The thing is RIDICULOUSLY tough, and did I mention about how easy bombing is?
Pete okay back there? I know the 17 is supposed to be one MEAN and TOUGH girl, but it has it's breaking points. War Thunder stretches it a bit.