War Thunder or World of XXXXX?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

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

I havent spend that much in 2.5 years I was there. Not even when I was a senior technical moderator ...

 

 

 

You only live once..

You only live twice

https://youtu.be/hcIl_6amBvU 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I havent spend that much in 2.5 years I was there. Not even when I was a senior technical moderator ...

Oh I am sure I am doing something wrong.. But just havin too much fun to worry about it right at the moment..

 

Right now I am stuck waiting to get more 'research points' cant buy those.. Got to wait to get my M47 I guess

[AvengerSeawolf]

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'?

 

 I have played War thunder only from these 2 sims , done  planes and a couple of battles with tanks. 

 Compared to BoS as far as cockpit graphics goes   I find them  elementary, so also the flying even in their realistic mode, though one can get to spins and stalls

 Terrain graphics and atmosphere is quite immersive on the realistic maps and really give  and advvanced enviromen one can enjoy flying.. Fantasy maps that exist  in  arcade play are a nightmare.

Logged yesterday for a couple of realistic battles, they have changed some stuff there concerning spawning but overall after getting used to the BoS  WT to me seemed to be just BS.( except terrain)

 

 

 

 Will try also sometime that other World ox Warplanes just to see what's at, though seems to me the same style with WT.

 

 Perhaps you should check out some of these here.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=world+of+warplanes+vs+war+thunder

 

 

P.S. If you want to spend gold eagles in WT then just make your account premium, you'll be upgrading planes from the bonused you will be getting. rapidly. Much bonus for everything when you have premium

Edited April 12, 2015 by AvengerSeawolf

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

WoT is a game, not a sim

 

War Thunder is in between with a greater shift towards "game". Their realism aspects such as stall and manual engine management modeling are either off or seriously broken for most of the part.

 

There are certain aircraft very worthy though such as the Bf 109 Es. Their FMs are more what you expect from a sim.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Compared to BoS as far as cockpit graphics goes I find them  elementary,

Agreed 100%, BoS and DCS have better cockpits IMHO

 

so also the flying even in their realistic mode, though one can get to spins and stalls

Agreed 100%, BoS and DCS have better FM IMHO (no testing to support that opinion, just taking it for granted at this point)

 

Terrain graphics and atmosphere is quite immersive on the realistic maps and really give and advvanced enviroment one can enjoy flying..

I have not tried the flying online much yet, so, not sure about this one, but the tank maps do seem great and immerse.

 

Fantasy maps that exist  in  arcade play are a nightmare.

Logged yesterday for a couple of realistic battles, they have changed some stuff there concerning spawning but overall after getting used to the BoS  WT to me seemed to be just BS.( except terrain)

It really comes down to what is acceptable to the user. With that said, IMHO most of the self proclaimed flight model testers here wouldn't know an 2% accurate flight model if it grew legs and bit them in the 'A' due to their inherent biases.. So, statements like 'BS' hold no weight with me, I am of the 'show me' mind set. But, I also realize that no flight simulation ever was, is, or 'will be' perfect.. And the so called 'BS' flight modeling of War Thunder is still a thousand times better than the 'typical' PC flight models we had 15+ years ago.

 

Will try also sometime that other World ox Warplanes just to see what's at, though seems to me the same style with WT.

Im pretty satisfied with WT right now, but, yes should check out WoW too

 

P.S. If you want to spend gold eagles in WT then just make your account premium, you'll be upgrading planes from the bonused you will be getting. rapidly. Much bonus for everything when you have premium

I did, and man, as of today, I have spent ~$500 on gold eagles and about ~$50 on a P51 and P38 mod.. And I have only had the game for a couple of weeks! And I have not even unlocked all the US tanks yet, haven't even started on the German and Russian stuff.

[=LD=Hethwill]

Glad you like it *shrugs*, same goes with every game even non computer ones ( can't stand DnD for example, but love Cyberpunk to death...so yeah... computer games ). Some folk are hipsters just for the sake of it being vogue. Others simply feel comfortable with more interesting content.

 

WT is par with good old IL-2 regarding flight. No more no less. Yes, it is dated but somehow IL-2 still retains a charm that WT does not even reach close - different aims I guess.

 

The only thing that these new combat games, air, tanks, sea, have in common and that attract so many players is - fast resolution of combat with statistical results sheets. Being set in a "prototype" historical setting is simply marketing.

 

Alas BoS works the other way around. The Sim in the flight part is the marketing and in itself the game.

 

WT is a beer, open it, drink it. Ask for more.

BoS and other you-know-which sims are a good brandy, you open it and enjoy it thoroughly, a sip at a time. And yes, sometimes you spend weeks without pouring a cup and it doesn't go foul.

 

S!

Edited April 13, 2015 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

So... Your saying

 

War Thunder 'drinking' is like being at a party..

BoS 'drinking is like drinking alone..

 

Does that sum it up?

[ST_ami7b5]

LOL

[=LD=Hethwill]

If that is you interpretation...

 

Brandy is great in a poker game with buddies or around a pool table with the gang.

 

Nothing against beer though, but I drink mine mostly on live shows, rock n roll

 

But I admire your... interpretation.

 

BTW, the 109 E-3, Spit II and the P-40 are very credible FMs in WT; pony and jug were quite okay also.... or at least they were. No idea how they feel these days. But as all arena games, they come and go.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

If that is you interpretation...

 

No, just my weak attempt at a joke!

 

I guess what I was going for on that was.. For example

 

DCS claims to have, and seems to have a very accurate flight model..

 

Where as War Thunder seems to have a very good flight model, just not as good as DCS..

 

Fact of the mater is no one has provided anything to prove those two statments one way or another, but lets assume for the moment that they are true.

 

What good does the DCS flight model do ya, if there is no one, or very few people to play with?

 

Hence my 'drinking alone' reference..

 

And note, we have not even begun to talk about DCS's other limitations, maps, piss poor netcode, piss poor visual ID, etc..

 

Brandy is great in a poker game with buddies or around a pool table with the gang.

 

Nothing against beer though, but I drink mine mostly on live shows, rock n roll

 

But I admire your... interpretation.

 

What can I say, its a gift!

 

Actually, I have been a crown on ice guy for a long time now, but, was out of crown the other night and busted out my wifes vodka.. Poored that over some ice wiht a splash of OJ and man, that had a nice kick to it!

 

BTW, the 109 E-3, Spit II and the P-40 are very credible FMs in WT; pony and jug were quite okay also.... or at least they were. No idea how they feel these days. But as all arena games, they come and go.

 

Maybe?

 

At least War Thunder posts the performance data they are targeting, which is something 777/1C gives reasons (read makes excuses) not to do.. There are a few guys at War Thunder doing some 'testing' but like most of the testing done here, it is not done very well IMHO. Long story short, I have not seen any testing that I would consider proof as to how well or how poorly War Thunder is hitting the numbers.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Better don't mention FM testing in WT

[Jaws2002]

I don't worry much about the FM's. All I care about, in WT,  are the tanks. and I have a lot of fun with the tanks destroyers.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Jaws2002

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Better don't mention FM testing in WT

 

 

I don't worry much about the FM's. All I care about, in WT,  are the tanks. and I have a lot of fun with the tanks destroyers.

Doooood..

 

I got totally sucked into the tank battles this last weekend..

 

I even did that.. I forget what it is called, the simulated battles?

 

That was hella fun!

 

Oh, and I finally got to 'see' that view from the commanders hatch, never saw that in the standard realism play, I guess the server side controls that?

 

Didn't even get around to DL the new DCS update! 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

At least War Thunder posts the performance data they are targeting, which is something 777/1C gives reasons (read makes excuses) not to do.. There are a few guys at War Thunder doing some 'testing' but like most of the testing done here, it is not done very well IMHO. Long story short, I have not seen any testing that I would consider proof as to how well or how poorly War Thunder is hitting the numbers.

 

Because there are few players capable of doing tests on good enough quality and what is more they can understand the aerodynamics. Most of the WT forum members are teenagers or young people rather interested in fun than numbers. Can't blame them, not everyone is a sim player and not everyone looks for correct details.

 

And those who are capable of doing the tests are either testing game or were testing - they cant tell you anything due to NDA. But anyway, there is a nice thing Wt has which helps in testing flight models and anyone can use it - http://localhost:8111/

When in test flight you can open it in browser and it will show you all the numbers, such as aileron deflection (in %, its really neat if you want to measure the stiffening - as with increasing airspeed the percentage of the deflection of control surfaces gets smaller despite max deflection of stick), thrust, prop pitch, temperatures, etc.

 

This picture is actually from a bug when they uploaded a wrong fm for a wrong plane - basically FM for Ki-61 was given to Ki-43-III. As you can see a plane with radial engine somehow got water cooling 

 

This is a really neat tool and I thought you might be interested in it, unfortunately it lacks the weight of the aircraft. But that is actually the only secret parameter, never given by Gaijin in any open for all users tool. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

As nice as the data sheets look they offer more general information about the aircraft than the ingame FM. They also only cover some of the basic parameters you can gather out of manuals and not the far more important aerodynamical and physical data.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

This is a really neat tool and I thought you might be interested in it, unfortunately it lacks the weight of the aircraft.

Very Cool!

 

Thanks for the heads up!

 

I wish all flight sim makers did this!

 

But that is actually the only secret parameter, never given by Gaijin in any open for all users tool.

Huh.. Funny they would protect that value, in that it is one of the easier values to obtain, historically that is.

[ST_ami7b5]

They stil haven't done bombers cockpits in WT and I'm not sure if they ever will...

Edited April 14, 2015 by Ami

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

 

As nice as the data sheets look they offer more general information about the aircraft than the ingame FM.

Which is more than 777/1C provides

 

They also only cover some of the basic parameters you can gather out of manuals

Depending on which manual or test report you 'choose'..

 

After which the question is how well the FM matches the values the 'chooses'..

 

And you can call these values 'basic' (top speed, climb rate, etc) are the performance values the pilots pilot would be interested in and use in relative comparisons to the enemy planes performance values..

 

and not the far more important aerodynamical and physical data.

The physical data (drag, thrust, moment, etc) is not necessary to validate the FM performance values.. That is to say the users (us) don't need to know those values, only the FM code writers need to know those values.. If they implement them correctly, the performance values should be correct.. But there is always going to be some 'tweaking' to get them to match.. That is where the 'art' of coding takes over from the 'science' of coding.

 

They stil haven't done bombers cockpits in WT and I'm not sure if they ever will...

 

Really? That sucks! I don't have any bombers yet, but that is bad news.. I was looking forward to flying a B17 one of these days.. Now, not so much.

[ST_ami7b5]

 

Really? That sucks! I don't have any bombers yet, but that is bad news.. I was looking forward to flying a B17 one of these days.. Now, not so much.

 

 

Try a test flight in some bomber and you'll see...

Even Catalina which is Rank I in US doesn't have a cockpit view

Also some two engines like Beaufighter. On the other hand Me-410 has a nice cockpit...

But biger bombers - no way

Third person or wonder woman view is all you get.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Ami

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Huh.. Funny they would protect that value, in that it is one of the easier values to obtain, historically that is.

It's because there is some issue with weight. Cant give details but weight is main parameter which in theory is simple to get but in practice changes with ever second of flight (I mean the reduction of fuel, the usage of ammo in combat, etc). And there is a serious bug with it too ...

 

 

They stil haven't done bombers cockpits in WT and I'm not sure if they ever will...

There will be cockpits in fact. Last time I was in the team it was something like this upcoming patch, for aircraft like upcoming Ki-21 or existing bombers too. Bomber cockpits are really hard stuff to do if you have so many of them in the game. After such a long time and such a huge amount of content they simply cant update it as fast as they should. Quantity beats the quality.

[ST_ami7b5]

 

There will be cockpits in fact. Last time I was in the team it was something like this upcoming patch, for aircraft like upcoming Ki-21 or existing bombers too. Bomber cockpits are really hard stuff to do if you have so many of them in the game. After such a long time and such a huge amount of content they simply cant update it as fast as they should. Quantity beats the quality.

 

They promise them for years...

The only ones delivered so far were for  Pe-2 and  Pe-3 AFAIK.

But maybe they'll add them some time in future.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

It's because there is some issue with weight.

Really?

 

Something as simple as that, and their is an issue with it? Man, if they are struggling with that, makes you wonder about the rest of the 6DOF implementation.

 

Cant give details but weight is main parameter which in theory is simple to get but in practice changes with ever second of flight (I mean the reduction of fuel, the usage of ammo in combat, etc).

Understood, but, the dry and wet and loaded vs unloaded weights is something that is typically much easeir to get than the tops speed or rates of climb..

 

And it is generally understood that fuel is used during flight, so, the only thing that they would have to determine is the 'rate' of usage of the fuel.. Same is true of the ammo and ord.

 

But, no need to explain I dont want you to risk your NDA.. Just seems odd that those simple things are such big issues.

 

And there is a serious bug with it too ...

As noted above, does not bode much confidence that something as simple as that is giving them issues

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Something as simple as that, and their is an issue with it? Man, if they are struggling with that, makes you wonder about the rest of the 6DOF implementation.

Its not that they struggle, its sort of bug if I recall. Dont ask me about that. I cant answer because of NDA. 

 

 

 

Understood, but, the dry and wet and loaded vs unloaded weights is something that is typically much easeir to get than the tops speed or rates of climb..

If I recall most of the aircraft engines does not have a realistic fuel consumption based on engine manuals. But well, real issue is thermodynamics ... or absence of it  

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Its not that they struggle, its sort of bug if I recall. Dont ask me about that. I cant answer because of NDA.

Understood! I have had to sign many an NDA over the years, so, no worries!

 

If I recall most of the aircraft engines does not have a realistic fuel consumption based on engine manuals. But well, real issue is thermodynamics ... or absence of it

Understood, in the past, some games purposely up the fuel usage rate to take into account smaller than real life map sizes.. As for thermodynamics of the engines.. I can imagine how that kind of data would be hard to come by.. but.. I good WAG could be come up with IMHO.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Thats not the primary issue. The fact radiators dont work properly n WT (they induce drag but dont provide better cooling on many planes) is.

 

In addition to that specific non temperature related engine limitations like the Bf109's engine breakdown after Notleistung overusage can not be modeled in WT which is why they use artificial overheating in place of it.

 

This of course is technically wrong and leads to false thermodynamics.

 

Don't want to ruin anyones fun in WT but you seem to be interested enought to learn about such limitations of their simulation model of aircraft.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[361fundahl]

So the point so far is.... War Thunder had the best tank gameplay?

 

I really want to shoot down some planes from the ground too.... I think in BOS we should be able to man the guns at the airfield....

I want to see Beam.NG damage model with warships and water physics..... Would be a killer game!!!

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I wouldnt say "the best". It has quite appealing graphics and (arguably) realistic damage modeling but lacks too much realism, historical maps and mission objectives to resemble a battle.

 

Therefore - in my opinion - games like Arma beat WT in terms of immersion even though they're technically inferiour (drive and damage physics).

Edited April 15, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Thats not the primary issue. The fact radiators dont work properly n WT (they induce drag but dont provide better cooling on many planes) is.

Interesting, is that something the devs admitted to, or is it a user's theory based on user's limited testing?

 

In addition to that specific non temperature related engine limitations like the Bf109's engine breakdown after Notleistung overusage can not be modeled in WT which is why they use artificial overheating in place of it.

 

This of course is technically wrong and leads to false thermodynamics.

Well engine abuse/wear and tear/etc typicaly reults in engine overheating, so, I can see why they would feel comfortable in simulating it that way.

 

Don't want to ruin anyones fun in WT but you seem to be interested enought to learn about such limitations of their simulation model of aircraft.

No worries about ruining my fun!

 

In that I learned a long Long LONG time ago..

 

No sim!

ever was..

is..

or will be perfect.. 

 

Hence the use of the word simulation instead of reality!

 

So the point so far is.... War Thunder had the best tank gameplay?

I have not tried World of Tanks yet.. But based on the input to this thread, I am getting the impression that War Thunder does a 'better' job of simulating tanks.. Where 'better' being more realistic tank battles.. Granted at Stab pointed out the maps are not very historic, so, you would be hard pressed trying to set up a historic scenario recreation battle, but the damage model is pretty good IMHO, in that they took the time to simulate the main systems of the tanks (fuel tanks, drive train, engine, personal, gun) and shows the damage of each system when you take a hit.. I don't think world of tanks does that? At least I have not seen any pics of it. Here is War Thunder

 

 

here is a good video showing it

 

 

 

I really want to shoot down some planes from the ground too.... I think in BOS we should be able to man the guns at the airfield....

They got a few mobal AAA's in War Thunder that are very useful and needed to keep the planes from blowing up the tanks

Edited April 15, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Something I may have forgot to mention, or did not make clear.. Is you can fly planes in the tank missions!

 

note the video implys only in arcade mode, but, I have seen this in the, what they call, realistic modes too.. Hence the need for the moball AAA (half tracks, aaa tanks, etc)

[361fundahl]

Sweet! I tried the plane portion and much prefer BOS (when players are online).

 

The tank stuff is fun though! I should be able to friend and join battles with you no?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Interesting, is that something the devs admitted to, or is it a user's theory based on user's limited testing?

NDA...

Well engine abuse/wear and tear/etc typicaly reults in engine overheating, so, I can see why they would feel comfortable in simulating it that way.

As for the said example it is plainly wrong. Moreover this "feauture" has fatal influrence on lower power setting and cooling ratio. So it's an unsufficient compromise.

No worries about ruining my fun!

 

In that I learned a long Long LONG time ago..

 

No sim!

ever was..

is..

or will be perfect..

 

Hence the use of the word simulation instead of reality!

 

indeed. I have yet to discover a sim worthy to provide me the same feeling for flight and fun as my 60+ flight hours but while perfection can not be acchieved, it can still be an ambitious goal for development.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

NDA...

you too! LOL!

 

As for the said example it is plainly wrong. Moreover this "feauture" has fatal influrence on lower power setting and cooling ratio. So it's an unsufficient compromise.

For some, but, take any flight sim, and you can focus on one aspect and find unrealistic compromises.. Just the nature of the beast..

 

indeed. I have yet to discover a sim worthy to provide me the same feeling for flight and fun as my 60+ flight hours but while perfection can not be acchieved, it can still be an ambitious goal for development.

Agreed, goals are great, and in a perfect world they could devote unlimited amount of time resources and money to improve any and all apsects.. But here in the real world they have to 'pick' their fights when applying their limited time resources and money.. Short of a time machine some folks will never be happy, but, Ill bet if a time machine was aval, we would be hearing more complaints about the lack of a restart button after being killed in action!

Sweet! I tried the plane portion and much prefer BOS (when players are online).

 

The tank stuff is fun though! I should be able to friend and join battles with you no?

Sure.. Just that, I have not found a good way to 'hook up' with people yet, there is a friends button that I have not tried, only in that I don't know anyone else playing the game.. My handle is ACE_OF_ACES so if you see me, lob a few rounds over my bow to get my attentiion!

[361fundahl]

Lol will do! I think I am "fundahl" on there as well... You better have the foliage turned on! (I enjoy the ambush)

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

But anyway, there is a nice thing Wt has which helps in testing flight models and anyone can use it - http://localhost:8111/ When in test flight you can open it in browser and it will show you all the numbers, such as aileron deflection (in %, its really neat if you want to measure the stiffening - as with increasing airspeed the percentage of the deflection of control surfaces gets smaller despite max deflection of stick), thrust, prop pitch, temperatures, etc.

So, nothing to enable in-game, just log in with your web browser?

 

And that black box display in the pic above, is that displayed ingame as an overlay, or is that the web browser shown over the game display?

 

So, basically the game is outputting these values on port 8111?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

And that black box display in the pic above, is that displayed ingame as an overlay, or is that the web browser shown over the game display?

Its not a black box, its a magic from Paint program XD I took in game screenshot and than put on it a part of the prt sc made from localhost.

 

I used that picture to report a bug, when those guys uploaded a Ki-61 FM for poor Ki-43.  

 

And to use that localhost, you open the game -> click on test flight - > set 100 % fuel and reference aircraft -> click to start it -> pause the game -> alt+tab -> open localhost in browser and here you go.

You can pause game any time you wish and alt tab to check the values. 

 

 

 

you too! LOL!

Ah, you know, we know each other with 5tuka World is small !

 

Besides, Aceofaces, I saw you like to argue here and there. Wt forums is full of teenagers but some have grown enough to do the math even or learn some terms

 

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/232840-f8f-1-60/?p=4480975

 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Its not a black box, its a magic from Paint program XD I took in game screenshot and than put on it a part of the prt sc made from localhost.

Ah, ok, I figured it was some post processing.

 

And to use that localhost, you open the game -> click on test flight - > set 100 % fuel and reference aircraft -> click to start it -> pause the game -> alt+tab -> open localhost in browser and here you go.

Is the 100% fuel load a requirement? If so, that is too bad.. In that there is some testing that would require less than 100%

 

Besides, Aceofaces, I saw you like to argue here and there.

Sadly some do consider those who pay attention to the details as arguing.. Granted it is not that big of a deal in a game if someone gets the testing wrong, but in my line of work you can blow millions of dollars if you get the testing wrong, or worse yet, get someone killed.

 

Wt forums is full of teenagers but some have grown enough to do the math even or learn some terms

Oh I am sure there are, but, sadly they are typically out numbered such that the squieky wheel whiners get all the attention in that they typically tell people what they want to hear, which typically means ignoring the details.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Is the 100% fuel load a requirement? If so, that is too bad.. In that there is some testing that would require less than 100%

Yes, all flight models are built to 100 % internal fuel condition. Testing at lower levels is proper, but not for if you wish to report a bug or compare to some data or datasheets they have. 

 

 

 

Sadly some do consider those who pay attention to the details as arguing..

 

Oh, sorry, I did not mean to offend you. I'm not a native speaker and sometimes I just lack the proper words for proper situation. 

 

 

 

but in my line of work you can blow millions of dollars if you get the testing wrong, or worse yet, get someone killed.

You mean museum airplanes in flying condition ? I know couple of pilots who work on such stuff. Because they are limited in flights, to preserve the engine and the airframe they never push it to the limits. But in some manner they are similar to sim community, they also like to talk about performance and what is more what they could possibly do if they would be allowed to fly the airplane at full throttle and pull the G's.

 

Only shame I'm so far from US. I got invited to Planes of Fame museum, hope one day I will manage to get there.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Yes, all flight models are built to 100 % internal fuel condition.

I think you miss understood my quesiton.. Do you have to set the fuel load to 100% for the local8111 to work? Or can you set it to less than 100% and it still works.. Im not at home right now or I would just try it.

 

Testing at lower levels is proper, but not for if you wish to report a bug or compare to some data or datasheets they have.

They have..

 

But there are data sheets out there that would/cold require a different fuel load, for example, there is some real world P38J test data out there, but, the test was done prior to the addition of the extended 'internal' fuel tanks.. Where as the in-game IL-2 P-38J has the addition of the extended 'internal' fuel tanks, so, the only way to comp the in-game P-38J to the real world data is to set the fuel level to less than 100% (97% if I recall correctly)

 

Oh, sorry, I did not mean to offend you. I'm not a native speaker and sometimes I just lack the proper words for proper situation.

Ah, you lost me there.. In that I was not offended by anything you said in your last post.

 

You mean museum airplanes in flying condition ?

No, I mean modern military equipment (Friend and Foe) that we test here in New Mexico.

 

I know couple of pilots who work on such stuff. Because they are limited in flights, to preserve the engine and the airframe they never push it to the limits.

Agreed, it is silly to think you can get someone who owns a WWII plane to push it to it's limits, and add to that that very Very VERY few of them are configured as they were in WWII. I only know of less than a handful of P-51s that still have guns installed.

 

But in some manner they are similar to sim community, they also like to talk about performance and what is more what they could possibly do if they would be allowed to fly the airplane at full throttle and pull the G's.

And I could possibly rule the world if I could get monkies to fly out of my butt wearing red hats and carrying ray-guns!

 

Only shame I'm so far from US. I got invited to Planes of Fame museum, hope one day I will manage to get there.

I grew up about 10miles form the Planes of Fame museum

 

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Norco,+CA/Planes+of+Fame+Air+Museum,+Chino+Airport,+7000+Merrill+Ave+%2317,+Chino,+CA+91710/@33.9573313,-117.6675052,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x80dcc9df38da84f5:0xef75515963ab1497!2m2!1d-117.548661!2d33.9311257!1m5!1m1!1s0x80dccb630e03c507:0xee92a4d67ec51417!2m2!1d-117.639477!2d33.981588!3e0

 

Use to ride my bike there as a kid, and the planes use to fly over my house all the time, it was no big deal to see a P-38 fly over my house as a kid while I was out back feeding the horses. As a kid, I figured that was the way it was everywhere, it was not until I got older that I realized how lucky I am to see such planes flying.

Edited April 16, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I think you miss understood my quesiton.. Do you have to set the fuel load to 100% for the local8111 to work? Or can you set it to less than 100% and it still works.. Im not at home right now or I would just try it.

Ah, no, you can use any kind of setting and localhost will work

 

You are really lucky than, I rarely see the warbirds. Not many events in Poland to enjoy the stuff flying.  

I love PoF because they have only A6M5 with original Sakae engine  !

 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I love PoF because they have only A6M5 with original Sakae engine  !

That was true, for a very long time..

 

But, I think there are a couple more now that have the original Sakae engine? I know that most of htem have PnW, but, I do believe there is another one if not two that have the Sakae engines now.