Warthunder gets best simulation award......

[LCADolby]

AcesHigh still trumps WarThunder.

[ink]

someone needs their bubble burst if they think WT flight modelling is even in the same realm of detail as hitechs and pyros. they are the best in the business.

lets be blunt about WT's flight models.

between 150 and 300mph in normal flight angle of attack ranged the flight model is great and feels much like flying.

every other aspect of the flight model is total garbage.

GARBAGE.

the high speed high angle of attack handling problems are resolved by having ailerons lock up in all planes any time any amount of G forces are exerted even in full realism mode.

compressibility is not modelled. high speed structural damage revolves around a wings stay on wings fall off switch.

stall modelling? giving planes an easy stall revolves around nerfing elevator authority to the point that there is not enough elevator to pull enough AoA to even stall.

and the ones with elevator have the same old 2 dimensional il2 1946 wing drop stall that is completely unaffected by coordinated flying

flap effectiveness and flap type? there are 3 modes... combat flaps more turn with some more drag at all speeds no structural limit. takeoff flaps less turn more drag. landing flaps even less turn and more drag for all airplanes regardless of flap type.

and lets not forget the biggest loss of confidence reason anyone playing WT has found regarding flight modelling...

War Thunder will deliberately break their own flight models and make them overperform in what appears to be a ploy to sell premium planes in what is known as FOTM rides. the current one is a spit9 with a spitXX flight model.

the bias in WT is not based on countries. its based on profit. and flight mdoel accuracy comes in a distant second to making a quick buck. ironically more money wil be lost in the long run due to brackets with the broken planes becoming unplayable for the oposing side and player loss of interest in supporting dart board research mentality WT follows.

it sure looks pretty though

[Ack-Ack]

Dude.....I'm talking about two completely different graphics engines.

My point is that the information sent to and from the server will be the same.

Why waste time and money making two seperate graphic engines when all one needs to do is code support for both DirectX9 and DirectX11?  This way people with older machines could still run the game under DirectX9, while those with higher end systems can take advantage of the advanced graphic features of DirectX11.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

"4brkfast - I could give you a long list of additional planes they have flat out wrong, greatly under-modeled(and their 'reasoning', excuses, behind it) or over-modeled or just don't perform like history and the pilots said they did. How can it be a simulator if it doesn't follow history?"

4brkfast was nothing more than a wannabe luftwhiner when he played here.  Would always blame the game and 'tricks' for being shot down and would cry how 'bias' and 'anti-Luftwaffe' HiTech is and that's why he was shot down flying a German plane, not because he actually wasn't very good.

ack-ack

[Arlo]

War Thunder. Luftwaffe friendly.

[pervert]

I'm not using any CAD software. What are you on about?

Well your trying to back up the argument that anecdotal evidence of pilots should be used in flight modelling, its up to you to convince me not the other way around, since you cannot even tell me a system were you could evaluate anecdotal evidence to determine its effect on the flight model. I think your talking out your rear, but I am open enough to listen to why you think you aren't.

[GScholz]

I believe you've misunderstood my previous post. Do you really think that the 109s, and P-38s to name two, in AH become unresponsive at high dive speeds because AH's flight model somehow analyses the aerodynamics of these planes and calculate that they should become unresponsive? Or do you think Hitech and Co. read the test reports and pilot's comments and programmed AH to replicate these conditions?

[GScholz]

You don't use software to evaluate anecdotal evidence. You listen to the pilots saying that plane Y became unresponsive at X mph indicated and you program the game to make the controls of plane Y unresponsive at X mph indicated.

[guncrasher]

I would love to know which anecdotal evidence will warthunder or wowp uses when they change flying characteristics of their airplanes just for the sake of balancing game play?



semp

[Triton28]

In the case of the 38's compression issues,  that was such a widespread and documented issue I doubt anyone could call that anecdotal.   I think I've even seen video of Kelly Johnson himself discussing it.

[pervert]

I believe you've misunderstood my previous post. Do you really think that the 109s, and P-38s to name two, in AH become unresponsive at high dive speeds because AH's flight model somehow analyses the aerodynamics of these planes and calculate that they should become unresponsive? Or do you think Hitech and Co. read the test reports and pilot's comments and programmed AH to replicate these conditions?

You are talking about compressibility?, well wind tunnels tests on the wings perhaps? By that reasoning you could say any other form of test is anecdotal, maybe its you who didn't understand what I am talking about, "my 190 out turned a spit", therefore the 190 must be modelled to out turn a spit. A test is very different to a pilot's recollections of combat.

4brkfast was nothing more than a wannabe luftwhiner when he played here.  Would always blame the game and 'tricks' for being shot down and would cry how 'bias' and 'anti-Luftwaffe' HiTech is and that's why he was shot down flying a German plane, not because he actually wasn't very good.

ack-ack

I never understood the luftwhining tbh, the German planeset is very competitive, the 190 A8 in particular always seems to be at the centre of a it got nerfed conspiracy. Having flown the K4 for years before the dora I can say at times it almost didn't feel fair against the majority of the allied rides its performance was so good.

[Ack-Ack]

I never understood the luftwhining tbh, the German planeset is very competitive, the 190 A8 in particular always seems to be at the centre of a it got nerfed conspiracy. Having flown the K4 for years before the dora I can say at times it almost didn't feel fair against the majority of the allied rides its performance was so good.

There is one constant denominator that all the Luftwhiners share.  They use excuses like developer bias or poor flight models for the reason they were shot down while ignoring the fact it was their skill (or lack of) that caused them to lose the fight.  Just do a search for any of 4brkfast's Luftwhiner whines in these forums, all of them blame the game or bias while ignoring the fact that 4brkfast was just plain out flown by a better player. 

ack-ack

[GScholz]

In the case of the 38's compression issues,  that was such a widespread and documented issue I doubt anyone could call that anecdotal.   I think I've even seen video of Kelly Johnson himself discussing it.

I doubt there was ever done a proper scientific test. Anything a test pilot reports that isn't actually recorded by instruments is anecdotal. Kelly Johnson discussing it is an excellent example of anecdotal evidence.

[pervert]

I doubt there was ever done a proper scientific test. Anything a test pilot reports that isn't actually recorded by instruments is anecdotal. Kelly Johnson discussing it is an excellent example of anecdotal evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning#High-speed_compressibility_problems

"After months of pushing NACA to provide Mach 0.75 wind tunnel speeds (and finally succeeding), the compressibility problem was revealed to be the center of lift moving back toward the tail when in high-speed airflow. The compressibility problem was solved by changing the geometry of the wing's underside when diving in order to keep lift within bounds of the top of the wing. In February 1943, quick-acting dive flaps were tried and proven by Lockheed test pilots. The dive flaps were installed outboard of the engine nacelles and in action they extended downward 35° in 1½ seconds. The flaps did not act as a speed brake; they affected the center of pressure distribution in a way that retained the wing's lift"

[GScholz]

Yes, but that still doesn't tell you anything about the stick forces... You know, the thing Hitech actually has to model in the game. What the pilot felt and how much effort it required is still only subjective anecdotal information described by the pilots.