War Thunder or World of XXXXX?

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Well.. I feel dirty

 

Know that I signed up for WarThunder.. Like 2 years ago? But, to be honest I didn't play it much.. The whole forcing me to fly crap planes so I can earn points to fly better planes just turned me off..

 

Also, I have to be honest, at times I was confusing/intermixing/interchanging War Thunder and World of XXXX..

 

Than I saw sop's post about World of Warships.. and I remember how much fun I had with Microproses TF 1942

 

http://store.steampowered.com/app/329680/

 

So, I thought what the heck, what with all the post about BoS compared to War Thunder and World of Warplanes I figured I would take another look..

 

Well, right from the start, I Fup, as noted above I was interested in looking at the World of Warships, but, I logged into WarThunder.. DOH!

 

I installed it, saw the planes things that I saw before, was not all that interested in flying some crap plane..

 

Than I got side tracked again, saw the tanks.. Always loved tank stuff, just has not been a good 'simulator' of them for some time.. I tried a few of the Russian tanks sims (T34?) over the past few years, even bought ARAM spin off WWII thing, but they all just kind of sucked..

 

So, clicked on that, and played it online..

 

WOW.. That was fun, granted, it was NOT realistic, it was a Quake arena, but, man it was fun!

 

Add addicting!

 

I spent close to ~$200 this weekend buying 'gold eagles' so I could upgraded and buy packages.. And all I did was play tank battles! I have not tried the planes yet, kind of set up the basic joystick, but man my force feeedback was WACKED.. So, Ill probably play with it a bit more in the next few days/weeks.. but, right now just having too much fun playing with the tanks.

 

With all that said..

 

Has anyone played WarThunder 'AND' World of XXXX (Tanks, Planes, Ships) and if so..

 

Which one is.. and I hate to even say it, more 'REALISTIC'?

 

Because I have seen the World of Tank comericals on TV, and thought YUCK!

 

But after having as much fun with WarThunder Quake tanks.. I figured I would keep and open mind..

 

So now that I am over the Quake aspect, and before I spend any more $

 

I was just wondering if I should contine with WarThunder, or swith to War of XXXX (Tanks, planes, ships)

 

World of XXXX

http://worldofwarplanes.com/

http://worldoftanks.com/

http://worldofwarships.com/

 

WarThunder

http://warthunder.com/

Edited April 6, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I have heard from a few friends still doing WT that WT's "tank sim" aspect is more "simmy." The last time I touched WT I tried the tank battles and remembered being rather confused about switching gears in to reverse...

 

WT/WOWP are air-quake mousejoy games and I don't think either is more "simmy." They both captivate the audiences they are designed for and seem to be on fairly equal terms.

 

The apple is in the eye of its beholder, I guess.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

WT/WOWP are air-quake mousejoy games and I don't think either is more "simmy."

Thanks for the feedback!

 

That is what I figured, but was hoping to see if anyone else has been down this road.. Just hate to get into one only to find out the other was less Quakie

 

I guess Ill DL the World of _____ and try it out.. what the heck its free, but dang it takes forever and a day to DL on my isp

[Guest deleted@13284]

War Thunder Ground Forces Simulator Battles is the best for 'realistic' tank action. You are limited to a first person tank commander view (stood in his hatch).You can also take the driver seat.Binoculars come in very handy too. There are no map markers and you get no aim markers.You will have a mix of allied tanks on your side though (American/Russian). You need to have the necessary vehicle(s) in your garage to play the Sim Battles although the events do change frequently to include a different vehicle set.

 

World of Warplanes? Don't bother. World of Tanks? More arcade than WT in my opinion but still fun. World of Warships? Can't wait...didn't get into the closed beta

 

I was also a fan of TF1942 but WoW will be nothing like it unfortunately.

Edited April 6, 2015 by [D12]Lister_of_Smeg

[Chuck_Owl]

War Thunder Ground Forces damage model for tanks is more advanced than the one for World of Tanks.

 

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/90185-developers-diaries-ground-forces-damage-model-part-2/ 

 

You can one-shot a tank if you know exactly where to aim. If your aim is terrible, well you're gonna have to use a lot of shells. The damage model in WoT is based on hit points. The damage model in WT is a mix of both, but component-based damage model is a bit more advanced.

 

For instance, there was a situation where I wasn't familiar with different ammo types. I just took some composite-something-something (APCR?) that had the highest penetration value of all shell types. I exchanged a couple of shells with a Tiger. I penetrated it 8 or 9 times before I realized something was wrong. My shell was able to penetrate, but at the cost of shrapnel damage. So each time my shell penetrated the armor the damage to the crew members was rather minimal unless the shell landed right on the crew members themselves. I even hit the fuel tanks but I could not ignite them because the explosive charge in my shell was too weak. 

 

Switch to another match after, I take armor-piercing explosive shells. They have lower penetration values, but if they get through they create much more damage. I exchanged a couple of shell with a T-34, but this time the shells kept bouncing. I was not hitting the armor at a good angle. My only solution was to get much closer. I took the tank by surprise and shot him through the engine and fuel tank with a AP round and the shrapnel just created a huge explosion that sent a turret flying away.

 

I like the damage model in War Thunder. It's not "ultra realistic", but it sure beats the DM in WoT. 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

War Thunder Ground Forces Simulator Battles is the best for 'realistic' tank action.

Ah, cool, so looks like I made a good mistake!

 

 

You are limited to a first person tank commander view (stood in his hatch).

You mean that typical just outside and behind the tank view, where you can look around a bit.. Right?

 

 

You can also take the driver seat.

Really? Have not tried that yet, have to look into that, no pun intended

 

 

Binoculars come in very handy too.

They have that? Or are you talking about the gun sight?

 

 

There are no map markers and you get no aim markers.

I tried both the arcade and realistic modes.. they are not that different really, other than the arcade does give you a little more sighting cheats, outline of tank your aming at and shows you the drop of the round, makes shooting too easy imho

 

 

You will have a mix of allied tanks on your side though (American/Russian).

From what I can tell, there is allied and axis, where the axis seems to be all german only.. Oh when in the arcade maps, the sides can have a mix, which means there is always IDs red and blue so you can tell who is who.. On that note, kind if neat seeing allot of the what if tanks in there.. Some real beast!

 

 

You need to have the necessary vehicle(s) in your garage to play the Sim Battles although the events do change frequently to include a different vehicle set.

Have not tried that yet, still trying to figue it all out, im still new to this reward/unlock system that all new games seem to incorporate.. Figured I better understand that before I go into some online sim battle an piss everyone off with noob questions!

 

So in summary, the World of XXXX is more gamie in your opinion and WarThunder is a bit mroe realistic, right?

 

World of Warplanes? Don't bother. World of Tanks? More arcade than WT in my opinion but still fun. World of Warships? Can't wait...didn't get into the closed beta

 

I was also a fan of TF1942 but WoW will be nothing like it unfortunately.

Yeah, too bad, loved TF1942

 

War Thunder Ground Forces damage model for tanks is more advanced than the one for World of Tanks.

I suspected they did some research on that, because the kill shows replay shows some pretty detailed interiors showing the engine, fuel, ammo, personal, transmission, etc

[Guest deleted@13284]

Commander view is as seen from the commander hatch,as if his head was sticking out of it,not an outside view of the tank like in arcade. You can hold 'c' to look around from that position.

 

You have to bind keys to driver and binocular views in the key settings,they are not allocated by default. And yes it is a binocular view (seperate from the gun sights).

 

In Sim battles you need to ID before you shoot!  It makes for much better gameplay because you can set-up ambushes etc as you don't appear on the map. That's not to say that arcade isn't fun of course.

 

It would be better if you only had one nations tanks on your side for SB's,so no mix of Shermans/T-34's etc but you can't have it all.

Edited April 6, 2015 by [D12]Lister_of_Smeg

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

cool.. Only, right now, I noticed that both the online arcade and realistic servers put my view to the outside just behind the tank, that 3rd person sort of view that is so popular in most games

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

War Thunder tanks seems to be pretty realistic, although there are some bugs and some consider the damage models of the tanks as very inconsistent. 

 

War Thunder air division is more or less an arena with 16 vs 16 (or in practice less than 10 vs 10) players with certain tasks to fulfill in theory but overall it is a team deathmatch. The airplanes are far more simplified  and do not require that much attention. But biggest issue from my side are borked flight models (with the exception for P-51Ds, Mustang MK Ia, Spitfires from model Vb to Griffon 22) and extremely inconsistent damage models. The thermodynamics is also absent so the temperatures you indicated depend only on the throttle position. 

 

I was a Senior technical moderator there for 1.5 year and really ... dont recommend that for any sim player in case of airplanes. Tanks can be neat though

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I was a Senior technical moderator there for 1.5 year and really ... dont recommend that for any sim player in case of airplanes. Tanks can be neat though

That is good to know.. So, I think Ill hold off on buying the P51 pack.. And just stick to tank simming for now..

 

Oh, I did notice that the tank battles did allow user flown airplanes on some maps.. Which was pretty cool, once I died I switched to spetate and watched some pilots do their thing.. It all looked pretty gamie, but, the good news is there is allot mobile AAA to choose from, so, probably get to that some time soon.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, if you would fly P-51D I can tell you its pretty good flight model and you can have fun with it. But apart from Spitfires and Mustangs I cant really recommend any other FM so it can be good or bad but its out of my knowledge, mostly you can expect decent to bad. 

 

Wt is not bad on short term, on longer the never ending grind and absence of immersion was what killed it for me.

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

 

Chief

[Jaws2002]

Hahaha.

I'm right there with you. I was invited for the WT beta, a long time ago, then when it was released, I bought two planes, some eagles, played for three days and forgot about it.

Then about a month ago, when doing some cleanup on the drive where I had WT (far away from my SSDs dedicated to flying games), I took another look at WT, but this time I tried the tanks. I have to agree. It's fun. The damage models is pretty ok, but I think they give too much credit to explosive rounds.

However, it's fun and while I can't stand flight sims with crappy damage and flight model, the tank part of WT is pretty cool.

 I even got their Tiger package, but I'm playing more with older tanks. Playing with the tiger, puts me in higher class and due to the extremely powerful, late war/post war, Russian tanks and much more experienced players, I get crushed all the time.

  So it's early war for me. I had a lot of fun with the t-38.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Jaws2002

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

This is a highly controversal topic, though I think we can all agree WT still beats Wargaming products in terms of realism on nearly every single level.

 

Still it's clearly noticeably they created a game appealing to the same croud of people, which means it's dumbed down in many aspects. Sim battles is by far the only way to go unless you want to mess with mouseplayers.

I fired it up after long brake (only to fly with some fellow squad mates, who still enjoy and fly WT regularily) and I have to admint there were some but minor improvements to certain FMs. The whole aircraft part is still a big pain and mission design is not always well though either. "Fighting the plane" has a totally different meaning in WT than in BoS.

 

As for the tanks, well, they probably do some better but are still dumbed down with indirect aiming and 3rd person (commander's hatch view) shooting. Sim players sometimes have to play on tiny and tactically miserable arcade maps and vegetation can be turned off nearly completely via graphic settings to give you the ultimate advantage over other players.

 

The damage models are compley but certanly random. Cannons are sometimes piss poor inaccurate. Shooting at long ranges is true pain since you never know if your shot missed randomly or due to offset aiming.

 

Still they seem to do fine judging by the numbers of tank players. It may be ok for the most part but it could certainly be better and more realistic making it a true online tank sim. If you treat it like a little more realistic tank game you might get over it easier.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Guest deleted@13284]

The WoT damage model is pretty poor with its health bars. Gaijin took a jab at them with their April Fools event with the 'unrealistic battles'  and the inflatable Sherman tanks with healthbars that fired potatos and carrots.

 

At least Gaijin appear to listen to the players.They recently added arcade maps to the realistic battles that caused an uproar in the community.They soon relented and put it back the way it was.

 

It's good to have devs that actually listen to what the players want...

[Brano]

If you are into dead games kept alive by small community,get yourself Steel Fury with Steel Panzer Mod and you are good to go for hours of real tank warfare.Offline.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It's good to have devs that actually listen to what the players want...

Tell that to the sim croud betrayed for years and now slowly but surely sorted out by Gaijin themself...

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

though I think we can all agree WT still beats Wargaming products in terms of realism on nearly every single level.

Based on this thread that seems to be the case..

 

Still it's clearly noticeably they created a game appealing to the same croud of people, which means it's dumbed down in many aspects.

Agreed, it is what it is, and as far as I can tell, they don't try to fool anyone into thinking it is a hard core flight/tank/ship simulator so no one should be surprised going in.

 

Sim battles is by far the only way to go unless you want to mess with mouseplayers.

I saw that option, but have not tried it yet, I didn't want to be one of 'those guys' who just installed the game and than showed up in some sim battle asking all sorts of stupid question.. Like how to I start the motor? But I defiantly want to give it a go soon, because the Quake battles are fun, but, they get old pretty quick. Not sure how long they can hold my interest.

 

I fired it up after long brake (only to fly with some fellow squad mates, who still enjoy and fly WT regularily) and I have to admint there were some but minor improvements to certain FMs. The whole aircraft part is still a big pain and mission design is not always well though either. "Fighting the plane" has a totally different meaning in WT than in BoS.

They seem to be putting some effort into it.. For example, they are doing what 777/1C says they won't do, provide the performance data, i.e.

 

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/312-aircraft-data-sheets/

 

As for the tanks, well, they probably do some better but are still dumbed down with indirect aiming and 3rd person (commander's hatch view) shooting.

I still can't find that option.. I did find the drivers view, but, I cant seem to find the view from the commanders hatch, all I get is that external just behind and slightly above the tank view.

 

On that note, can someone post a screen shot of the GUI option to set for that view? I cant seem to find it, oh, and if you could post a pic of the view from the commanders hatch that would be cool too.

 

Sim players sometimes have to play on tiny and tactically miserable arcade maps and vegetation can be turned off nearly completely via graphic settings to give you the ultimate advantage over other players.

You can do that?

 

No wonder I was getting powned by guys I could not even see!

 

There is one map I like the Kursk map, that is a nice big map! Sadly it does not come up in the rotation very often 

 

The damage models are compley but certanly random.

Well, one could argue that they would almost have to be some what random.

 

Cannons are sometimes piss poor inaccurate. Shooting at long ranges is true pain since you never know if your shot missed randomly or due to offset aiming.

I have not noticed that problem yet..

 

Still they seem to do fine judging by the numbers of tank players. It may be ok for the most part but it could certainly be better and more realistic making it a true online tank sim.

Yup, the sadly the dumbed down market is the biggest market out there.. Which says more about society as a whole than gamers IMHO.. Let just keep our fingers crossed that they make enough money off the unwashed masses that they take pitty on us hard core types and include some realistic options!

 

If you treat it like a little more realistic tank game you might get over it easier.

So true about most if not all games.. game the game and what can you expect?

 

PS I dropped another hung last night on 25000 more gold eagles, for a total of ~$300

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Commanders hatch viwe = external ("behind the tank" view) at max. zoom level. If you play SB that view is retsricted to max. zoom so the camera is fixed above the comander's hatch. Not a real view per se.

 

Being a long term plane and tank beta tester I know how tanks could have looked like if they didn't invite World of Tanks players to influrence their development. That's why I'm very critical towards tanks in WT.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

They seem to be putting some effort into it.. For example, they are doing what 777/1C says they won't do, provide the performance data, i.e. http://forum.warthun...ft-data-sheets/

Their datasheets are more or less a way to say - "Look, here are the data we base on. If you dont agree do the math yourself". Its a time to altitude, speed at altitude, some basic data and possibly stall speeds.

 

The problem is that often FM's do not correspond with what is actual FM, most of the time speed, stall and time to altitude are correct but that does not mean plane is correct. Often there are lacks of horsepower which means the drag is not correct too, etc. etc.

There are few good datasheets for few good flight models like this :

 https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/162149-datasheet-supermarine-spitfire-mk-ix-f/

 

I cant give you any details as that could be considered by snail guys as NDA breech, just a tip - that they provide basic data about their flight models does not guarantee a better results than for example here or in DCS.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Commanders hatch viwe = external ("behind the tank" view) at max. zoom level. If you play SB that view is retsricted to max. zoom so the camera is fixed above the comander's hatch. Not a real view per se.

Ah, ok, now I 'see' what you mean! Pun intended!

 

Being a long term plane and tank beta tester I know how tanks could have looked like if they didn't invite World of Tanks players to influrence their development. That's why I'm very critical towards tanks in WT.

Yeah, I got to admit, War Thunder seems to have all the making of a realistic sim, and they really would not have to add any features to do it, simply limit some of the features they already have, like the view thing you just described.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Their datasheets are more or less a way to say - "Look, here are the data we base on.

At least they give you what they based it on.. Which is more than 777/1C is willing to provide for RoF, BoS and now BoM.

 

If you dont agree do the math yourself".

Do the math or do the test.. But at least you know what the goal/target values are! Where as in RoF, BoS, BoM, when you do a test, you never know if the value you obtained is correct, because you don't know what 777/1Cs target value is. Put another way, lets say you found a data sheet that says the real world Plane X could do 300mph @ 15Kft.. Now you fly the simulted Plane X in the game and find it does 320mph @ 15kft.. Is that a bug? Or, is it simply a case that 777/1C uses a 'DIFFERENT' data sheet as thier goal/target.

 

Its a time to altitude, speed at altitude, some basic data and possibly stall speeds.

Which is the same 'basic' stuff that they tested for back in WWII

 

The problem is that often FM's do not correspond with what is actual FM, most of the time speed, stall and time to altitude are correct but that does not mean plane is correct.

Does not mean they are NOT correct either

 

Often there are lacks of horsepower which means the drag is not correct too, etc. etc.

Correct, there can be combinations of errors.. But there are other ways to flush out stuff like incorrect drag numbers.

 

There are few good datasheets for few good flight models like this :

 

I cant give you any details as that could be considered by snail guys as NDA breech, just a tip - that they provide basic data about their flight models does not guarantee a better results than for example here or in DCS.

Agreed 100%

 

My only point is at least they provide the target values.. Which is something 777/1C is not willing to do with regards to RoF, BoS, and I suspect it will be the same case for BoM.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

With all respect mate, I was there almost 2 years and have a great knowledge of the methods of their work along with quality of the flight models, many of which I have reported myself. 

Yes, they do provide data but even with the absence of data here I have a greater confidence into developer than I have for War Thunder. 

 

I see your reasoning, if that will help you, I'd also like to see on what our guys base their flight models but if they choose not to reveal than so be it. I dont see Yoyo in DCS showing all his cards nor did I see Oleg in old Il 2. 

 

Anyway, I dont want to break anything. I suggest you to try the game yourself and make your own opinion And have fun as its most important thing

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

With all respect mate, I was there almost 2 years and have a great knowledge of the methods of their work along with quality of the flight models, many of which I have reported myself. 

Yes, they do provide data but even with the absence of data here I have a greater confidence into developer than I have for War Thunder. I see your reasoning, if that will help you, I'd also like to see on what our guys base their flight models but if they choose not to reveal than so be it.

I think your confusing me pointing out 777/1C not provide the data with me saying War Thunder's flight models are more accurate than 777/1C.. Know that I am not, I am simply pointing out that some sim makers have no problem providing the values their FM are targeting and other sim makers do have a problem with providing the value their FM are targeting..

 

Why the difference?

 

Not sure really, One could speculate all day about the reason why some do and some don't.. For example, one could speculate that the FM makers that are confidant about their FM would have no problem providing the target values/data, where as the FM makers that are NOT that confidant about their FM could would make up a reason not to provide the target values/data.. That is just one example of speculation.. But, while on the subject, The reason provided thus far by 777/1C, is 'sources' makes no sense to me.. In that we are not asking for the original document or documents they used in deciding what values the FM should output.. They can keep all those sources a secrete, I don't care. I just think it is reasonable for users to expect the outputs to be provided.. I mean the air forces original expected the values to be provided by the airplane manufactures for several reasons, the most notably so the pilots knew what their planes could and could not do RELATIVE to the enemy's performance values.. So, why should the sim pilot have the same data?

 

I dont see Yoyo in DCS showing all his cards nor did I see Oleg in old Il 2.

As for DCS, not sure, I have not looked for it, as for Oleg, he did work with.. I forget his name, but the guy who made the original IL2Compare program. So, directly Oleg did not provide the data, but he did work with a 3rd party to get the data out to the users.

 

Anyway, I dont want to break anything. I suggest you to try the game yourself and make your own opinion And have fun as its most important thing

I see War Thunder as a Quakie shoot em up fun game.. I hope DCS and/or BoS develop into something like IL2 with more maps and planes to choose from, because right now, no mater how good the flight models may be in DCS or BoS, it really does not mater with regards to 'realsim' because the plane sets are so limited that one would be hard pressed to create a 'historic' mission to play, thus, your for all intents ans purposes force to fly Quakie types of missions anyways.

 

All I can say is thank god for the IL2 Daidalos Team keeping IL2 alive, otherwise there would be nothing but Quakie WWII stuff to play.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

I dont see Yoyo in DCS showing all his cards

 

-snip-

 

 

Clearly you haven't asked him... That or you aren't really looking around their forums...  

Edited April 7, 2015 by 4./JG26_Adler

[=LD=Hethwill]

If you are into dead games kept alive by small community,get yourself Steel Fury with Steel Panzer Mod and you are good to go for hours of real tank warfare.Offline.

 

This.

 

Albeit being SP only it is the best out there if you do not enjoy the more modern 80's models of Steel Armour.

 

Top notch tank sims.

 

For multiplayer... why not Arma3 with the Iron Front content ? pretty convincing and with a solid community and barebone server you can put up a 200 man server

 

Definitely more interesting than "climb the ladder" arena games, at least in the "weekend warrior" tactical sense as opposed to the counter-strike scheme of WoT and WT ofc.

[johncage]

neither and never

 

sp go to sims=graviteam's steel series. steel armor, steel fury, etc.

 

mp? not even once.

Edited April 8, 2015 by johncage

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Clearly you haven't asked him... That or you aren't really looking around their forums...  

No, you are confusing an answering to the question or issue (the control surfaces stiffening on 109 module, absence of higher octane gasoline for Mustang module, etc.) with a general description presenting basic data for the certain module (like those datasheets).  Yoyo sometimes shows some stuff, more often he asks for some data but nothing like overall presentation of a data I've ever seen for any of his projects. 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Albeit being SP only it is the best out there if you do not enjoy the more modern 80's models of Steel Armour.

That's right.. I remember now, that T34 tanks sim was not multi player! That is what killed it for me. Other than that it was about the most realistic tank sim I had seen in years..

 

For multiplayer... why not Arma3 with the Iron Front content ? pretty convincing and with a solid community and barebone server you can put up a 200 man server

I do play ARMA III a fare amount, and I have always told people ARMA is the most realistic FPS out there.. But the vehicles and planes are not.. As for pretty convincing.. Enh.. In just the short time I have been playing War Thunder I find the tank aspect much more convincing than the ARMA tanks.. As for Iron Front.. I was really sad to see it didn't take off like I hoped! Even sadder when the adon got canceled. I really had high hopes for that WWII version of ARAM.

 

Definitely more interesting than "climb the ladder" arena games, at least in the "weekend warrior" tactical sense as opposed to the counter-strike scheme of WoT and WT ofc.

Problem with ARMA.. Since the beginning (operation flash point) is most of the servers are crap.. not to mention some serious hacks.. That and sadly ARMA seems to attract alot of kid-os who only purpose for loggin in is to be a jack wagon. It is too bad too, because when you do find a good server, it is some of the best simming out there, but, sadly finding one is far and few between. Edited April 8, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

No, you are confusing an answering to the question or issue (the control surfaces stiffening on 109 module, absence of higher octane gasoline for Mustang module, etc.) with a general description presenting basic data for the certain module (like those datasheets). Yoyo sometimes shows some stuff, more often he asks for some data but nothing like overall presentation of a data I've ever seen for any of his projects.

No, I'm not confusing anything.

 

Thanks though!

[Jaws2002]

I had a good mission the other day in WT with one of the panzerIV's. Don't know what version. I think is the last one in level 2. I just got some new hot ammo for it. It was one of those maps where you have a pretty big hill in front of your spawn point. So I started climbing that hill. Everyone else was already in position and fighting long before o got on the top. But when I did I had a field day. The Russians were bringing in a bunch of t34s. about1.2-1.5km away. That's a hard tank to kill from the front, at that range. However, because I was on elevated position and they were coming down a shallow hill, this completely negated their sloped armor advantage, as my shells would hit them at almost ninety degrees, going through the front and front top armor, right into the ammo box.

Man did I have a field day. In a normal horizontal fight is hard to hit that low ammo box, but from my elevated position I got five of them with the first shot. Best tank sortie ever. They even started whining about my "hacking kill on their sloped armor tanks". I should do that more often. It was fun.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Jaws2002

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forums/189/1/Gaijin_Flight_Series

 

Come here for some nice Ground Forces photos and After Action Reports.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forums/189/1/Gaijin_Flight_Series

 

Come here for some nice Ground Forces photos and After Action Reports.

Thanks! Some cool pics on that site.. The eye candy is 2nd to none!

They even started whining about my "hacking kill on their sloped armor tanks". I should do that more often. It was fun.

LOL! Never fails does it!

[=LD=Hethwill]

Iron Front coding has been released for the team porting it after GameSpy was brought down. Foremost the owners of the base IF would get the 1944 normandy expansion free of charge.

 

I agree it is hard to find a decent server, so I suggest you begin from the other end - find a good arma community first, there are quite a lot of good ones with their own weekend events - and as I said, a solid community can put a server with hundreds of slots. Quite massive if you think about nowadays standards.

 

And regarding planes and vehicles... hmmm... they do not fall short of WT tbh and the cherry on top is that with mercenary settings you actually have no silly third person chained UAV... but i digress.

 

All in all the Sim life is tied to communities and events more than the everyday flying circus. Obviously a ever running war, such as a WW2OL type is a different breed of game al together. In the end you must decide what you want.

 

For a sim like BoS I am all about SP during the work days and give me the organized events in the weekend, proper designed missions and squads going through them tasks properly and not flying about doing whatever.

 

 

Edited April 9, 2015 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I agree it is hard to find a decent server, so I suggest you begin from the other end - find a good arma community first, there are quite a lot of good ones with their own weekend events - and as I said, a solid community can put a server with hundreds of slots. Quite massive if you think about nowadays standards.

That is true, and you make a good point..

 

Problem for me is, I live 80 miles from work, one way, so after working 9 hours a day and driving 3 hours a day (1 1/2 each way) I don't have much time let alone energy to put into any community, simulated or real! Heck I spend the 1st 30min home playing with my 3 dogs (German Shepard and two mutts) before I even kiss my girl friend, and after that I basically sit down and eat dinner, than make small talk with the girl friend.. If after all that if I have any time to sneak away to the PC, it will be for a quick mission type of thing.. Real Life, who knew!

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Well, dropped another Hung last night, for a total of ~$300 gold eagles and also bought the P51 and P38 addon pack..

 

Getting the JS settings set is a real pain.. I finally got a good setting for the FFB so the stick is not jerking around, but, the throttle seems to have a hella lot o lag/delay in it.. Makes it very hard to set the throttle.. Also still have not figured out how to remove that silly look everywhere gun sight thing.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

You've spend $400 on this in a week?

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I know right!

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Freakin addict.....

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

You only live once.. Unless your simmin!