it is a GAME so don't try to mix real life with a GAME.
Well, I think I disagree with that depending on which product you are talking about and your meaning.
I think there is a Game-Simulation Spectrum. It goes like:
(Pure Game)<--------WT------------------------------------AH---IL2-GB-------------------------------------DCS---------->(Pure Sim)
War Thunder falls at Game end. DCS tries for the Sim end. AH is pretty close to the middle, IL2 pretty close to that, but a tad shifted more to Sim, DCS swings for the Sim fences.
Those are for the most part design choices in my opinion. A product stakes a point out on the continuum to try and attract a certain segment of the market. I don't consider any of those choices wrong per se.
I judge a product by:
1. How successfully it achieves it's desired level of fidelity or gaminess.
2. How well that intended position on the spectrum matches my current desires as a consumer.
So how legitimate your above excuse is, depends on what product we are talking about. If are talking about WT, then I'd probably agree on all manner of non-accurate representation.
If were are talking DCS, I don't think that excuse is always acceptable. Stuff in between might be a coin flip.
DCS is attempting to be the most accurate sim they can of the physical airplane. They are essentially trying to create exact digital museum replica's.
So I believe there is always going to be less "Game" in DCS and less "Sim" in WT, by design. And all along the spectrum there is a curve of potential customers for products at that point on the spectrum. The curve of potential customers probably peaks near WT and tapers off a long right-hand tail. There are always going to be fewer potential players wanting the DCS level of fidelity than WT.
But then the next question is how well a product captures the potential customers at their point in the spectrum.
I think AH fails to capture all the potential customers at it's point in the spectrum. Because IMHO, in order of importance, graphics, subscription model, lack of viable SP capability.
I don't fault AH for not being DCS because it didn't shoot for that part of the spectrum. It may not line up with my personal taste of current selected point on the spectrum. It may not fall in the part of the spectrum I personally am looking for at the moment. But I think AH hits the level of fidelity it was trying for. And I accept certain differences were commonized and simplified because those features didn't directly contribute to it's goals.
So if we are talking about not accurately representing the way differential braking worked in the Spit IX,
if we are talking about WT, I'd laugh and say your line,
if we are talking about AH I shrug and say that is not a deal breaker. I think AH is more interested in the FM and systems that directly affected ACM in the air. Anything that falls out of that can be compromised on.
If we are talking about DCS, I would fault them. If they are creating museum grade, exact digital replica's of the actual historical aircraft those little things need to be represented. That's what the $70 per plane is supposed to be buying you.
Just my opinion though.
