War Thunder FM

[==LD==Lemsko]

when you make a flight model (and i havnt made any flight models, except FMs for cars in a arcade game) and you claim you calculate the wing shape, wing foils (even at 3 different places on the wing) etc the logical way to build up such model would be:

 

get the static aerodynamics right. you ignore engine propeller etc. when the aircraft frame is correct then you proceed to engine, gear ratios propeller efficiancy etc.

 

there is no structure in making flight models, there is no standard modellers can use a base line to build something comparable.

 

people moved center of gravity between eyes of pilot position to archive something (Bf109K4 in the past per example) instead of looking where their numbers were wrong.

or airfoil parameters get changed to make sure it meets the official numbers.

result: comedy gold

 

when i construct a rc plane, 1st thing i do is checking the static parameters of my geometry, when i got that correct and i know glide ratio, clean stall speed, max angle of attack and where will the stall happen 1st, etc, only then i can add engine and propeller to meet the performance date i want to have.

 

i could use a ikea furniture and it would "fly" if i put enough powerful engine into it. would that means the ikea furniture is suddenly a believable representation of a p51 only because it meets speed, time to climb to alt etc?

 

when you play a game, do you expect that every vehicle behaves COMPLETELY different only because a different person setup the flight model?

 

it doesnt matter if the simulated model was done in a primitive way, (warbirds only knew symetrical airfoils per example), but at least you should notice major differences in basic behavior on various planes in same game. you need consistence within a game to make it believable.

same as in graphic creation, youusually have a very strict guideline which your creation has to meet. you cant produce a cartoony aircraft and put it into company with realistic looking world and other aircrafts. it destroys the immersion and experience of your players.

 

its all about making an artificial world believable.

 

 

what you see in warthunder is the result of:

 

1: no proper training of flight modellers

2: no co operation between flight modellers as a group  (in the beginning they (at least the international team) shared their gained knowledge to overcome limitations and how to solve these problems. (flight models in closed beta even with missing physics parameters like air resistance on control surfaces were pretty comparable to older flightsims- but again only depending which team was working on the flight model)

3: no standard basic set by developers

4: no testing of aircraft behavior, only numbers of 3 categories have to match to pass testing

5: no information of testers what was changed and what the should test.

6: childish menthality of modellers who take critics as personal attacks.

.......

 

there was a reason i left the alpha testing group on my own will, and the reason was the total unprofessional way testing was handled.

 

P.S.: part of creating something is a process where you develop a personal relationship to your object of creation. if it wouldnt be for critics i received i wouldnt have been able to produce high quality stuff, simply because i am biased towards my own creation (parents-children syndrome).

as the father/creator i lack the objectivity and i depend on information from other people who can look at the object in a neutral objective way.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Lemsko

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

True word Lemsko. The diffeence between a mathematician and a pilot is that the former only looks at values of the airplane. Speed, climb, lift, drag,.... The pilot on the other hand looks at the plane as a whole, not onyl eprformance but also handling wise. He uses his (ideally) own practical expiriences to test and judge certain behaviours of the aircraft that might turn out being bugged/off.

 

There's no qwuestion both are required to ultimately judge a FM - you can't go with just one of them. That also means that math alone is - as lemsko pointed out - not sufisticated enought to bring planes "to life" in the sense of simulation.

 

That said you don't need to be an matthematician or professional engineer to test FMs and report issues probably. You only need to know which issues you can report with enought evidence. Most people in WT only care for speed, climb and max alt. That's why their main goal is to meet those parameters.

[ST_ami7b5]

See Forum Rule #18

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/3-forum-rules-v102/

Is this really your business?

Don't see a moderator tag at your avatar.

[SharpeXB]

Is this really your business?

Don't see a moderator tag at your avatar.

Just being helpful...

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

War Thunder has generally 3 parameters measured by testers in flight model testing - TAS at given altitudes, Time to Altitude and Stall speeds.

parameters is probably not the best term here, in that it makes it sound like it is one variable input or output to from a 6DOF flight model.

 

Its like the FM is at first glance looking correct, speed is ok, time to altitude (given by the developer) is ok, stall speeds are also ok ...

Given by the developer.. which is more than 1C/777 does for RoF, BoS, and I think it is safe to say BoM.. Which is sad, in that these performance values have very little to do with the inputs to a 6DOF FM, they are the results (outputs) of an FM.

 

and yet everything else just screams "I'm a bug"

Which typically has more to do with the users bias than a true bug.. Granted as noted before, anyone can find the obvious glaring bug, but it is the precised 'feel' vs the 'expectation' of the user (tester) that can cause one to scream and another not to scream..

 

a totally overdone stiffening of F4U which cant pull out of dives, a stiffening of J2M3 elevator, absurd spins, those are just examples.

Yup, examples of the sort of things that without data is left to the users perception vs expectation.. And sadly in light of the fact there may be no hard data on 'it' means the developer may have to 'wag' it.. Which means some users will be happy and some users will not be happy depending on weather the developer's 'wag' matches their expectation or not.. Put another way, has very little to do with realism in that it can NOT be proved one way or another.

 

So if you are only thinking of flight performance, and you will test and stay on the three mentioned above ... mostly you will be satisfied.

Bingo!

 

At which point my statement, i.e.

 

No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders

 

Should start to make more sense to all reading it

 

But that does not mean its correct flight model.

Does not mean it is incorrect either.

 

3 parameters is not much.

This is why I was splinting hairs on the user of the word parameter above..

 

3 performance values is a better way of saying it IMHO..

 

And in WWII the acceptance testing of most planes consisted of only 3 or 4 performance values, i.e.

• Rate of Climb (ROC)
• Time to Climb (TTC)
• Top Speed per Altitude (TSPA)
• Stall Speed (SS)

So, you may 'feel' these parameters are not much.. but they are the parameters (performance values) they found important enough to test for, where as most if not all other tests would be of the flying 'qualities' of a plane, that are typically not design criteria that had to be met.. Thus no testing was done to verify them, at best they would make note of them.

 

For example, some planes would give the pilot an indication that the plane was near stall by causing the flight stick to vibrate,or the plane itself vibrate, where other should simply stall without any warning. Another example being how the Fw190 would flip over onto it's back in a high speed stall (acc stall), a flying quality that some considered a negative, but, some pilots later made use of to quickly evade someone on their six (when given lemons make lemonade)

 

But those types of flying qualities were not something they found important enough to test for let alone measure, they simply made note of them and move on, which is why you would be hard pressed to find any 'data' on them to use as a test for the simulation.

 

And since there is no hard data to compare to, it falls into a category of perception.. As in one person will read the note that the plane would vibrate near the stall and expect his teeth to chatter and another person will read that the plane would vibrate near the stall and expect to feel a slight buzz in the seat of his pants..

 

It is at these points that no one is right and no one is wrong, and thus the develpers have to WAG it knowing that some will find it realistic and others will.. How did you say? Scream it's a bug!

 

I for one care not to argue about the WAGS and focus on what they found to be important back in WWII.. the performance values.

 

See Forum Rule #18

No need seen it prior to posting

Edited May 20, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Link in my first post was broken.

 

[==LD==Lemsko]

No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders

 

have you seen the video?

if answer is yes, please explain to me how you could still make that posting.

if answer is no, please watch the video and rethink your posting.

 

btw, the Zero is working as intended (this was the resoning for regretting the bug report over a year earlier)

there would be no problem if all planes behave like that, then you simply have to accept its made for an arcade game.

since there is a huge discrepance in general aircraft behavior it is only a sign that clueless monkeys are at work. (what to expect if dont get any training)

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

have you seen the video?

The one Hiromachi posted? If so, yes

 

if answer is yes, please explain to me how you could still make that posting.

Simple, see my explanation of the video I gave to Hiromachi

[==LD==Lemsko]

sorry but the explanation contradicts reality.

 

the engine is able to produce flight models of equal quality, unfortunally there isnt anyone who is able to use that.

 

and as long as you dont use properly trained monkeys the output is [Edited] and beyond any quality of even extreme old flightsims back from the 90ies early 21th century.

 

even warbirds with only symetrical airfoils and way less parameters and no physics engine  (parameters were just read from a text file depending on altitude) produced more believable representations of aircrafts.

 

just for your information, i worked 4 years for warbirds, dawn of aces and also 2 years for airbus pilot and atc controller taining simulations.

i also construct radio controlled planes, i havnt seen any aircraft in real life being able to do such stunts and i am sure if i invest more time to grab more models and test them i will find even more ridiculus examples.

i was part of alpha team and later closed beta team there and i can assure you that all people with good background knowledge how to produce believable representations of aircrafts are long gone.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Bearcat
Language

[361fundahl]

This calls for a tank battle....

[SharpeXB]

 No need seen it prior to posting

And yet you continue doing exactly what they've asked people not to do on the forum, starting some sort of baseless flame war about the flight models.

 

So please follow the procedure they've asked for if you want to be helpful.

Is there something specific you believe is not correct about the flight modeling in BoS? State specifically what it is and provide the relevant data. If you're convincing it can be taken under consideration. It happens all the time here and with RoF.

 

But going off on a baseless rant serves no purpose.

[SharpeXB]

 At which point my statement, i.e.No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders

Should start to make more sense to all reading it

The comparison to War Thunder isn't relavant because War Thunder is not some gold standard by which all flight models need to be measured against. Reality is the standard. If you want to discuss the fidelity of any of these flight models than do so in comparison to real data, not how one game compares to another. That's meaningless.

[Rolling_Thunder]

Damn you're defensive. The dude wasn't saying war thunders fms were better, on the contrary he was saying none of them are perfect and you cannot claim one is better than the other if all of them are not 100%.

This is a free subject. There are many games being discussed in this part of the forum. The OP likes WT. You don't and many others obviously don't. If some poster argues the OPs point of view he is well within his rights on the forum to argue his point. I see no flame war. I see you trying to curry favour with the devs and moderators.

And yet you continue doing exactly what they've asked people not to do on the forum, starting some sort of baseless flame war about the flight models.

So please follow the procedure they've asked for if you want to be helpful.

Is there something specific you believe is not correct about the flight modeling in BoS? State specifically what it is and provide the relevant data. If you're convincing it can be taken under consideration. It happens all the time here and with RoF.

But going off on a baseless rant serves no purpose.

[Bearcat]

Damn you're defensive. The dude wasn't saying war thunders fms were better, on the contrary he was saying none of them are perfect and you cannot claim one is better than the other if all of them are not 100%.

This is a free subject. There are many games being discussed in this part of the forum. The OP likes WT. You don't and many others obviously don't. If some poster argues the OPs point of view he is well within his rights on the forum to argue his point. I see no flame war. I see you trying to curry favour with the devs and moderators.

 

That is not true though.. You can claim that one is better than the other even if none of them are perfect. Listen to what you are saying..  There has never been and will most likely never be a sim with perfect FMs...  but from my line of reasoning the one with the better physics engine will have the better overall FM... You can take a bunch of numbers and code them in based on charts and such.. but the sim with the better physics engine using the same data is going to have the overall better and more realistic FM.. and from what I remember and what I have seen there is no comparison  between BoS and WT as far as the physics engine goes.. the closest thing to it is DCS... and it is not as robust as the BoS engine as far as physics goes.

 

 

Having said all that we need to ratchet some of this back a bit.

 

Everyone.

[Rolling_Thunder]

That is not true though.. You can claim that one is better than the other even if none of them are perfect. Listen to what you are saying.. There has never been and will most likely never be a sim with perfect FMs... but from my line of reasoning the one with the better physics engine will have the better overall FM... You can take a bunch of numbers and code them in based on charts and such.. but the sim with the better physics engine using the same data is going to have the overall better and more realistic FM.. and from what I remember and what I have seen there is no comparison between BoS and WT as far as the physics engine goes.. the closest thing to it is DCS... and it is not as robust as the BoS engine as far as physics goes.

 

 

Having said all that we need to ratchet some of this back a bit.

 

Everyone.

That all depends on where the data comes from, the 'bunch of numbers based on charts and such'. Are the two games using the same data? Edited May 21, 2015 by Rolling_Blunder

[==LD==Lemsko]

real data is not important if the aircraft doesnt even follow basic aerodynamic laws.

 

also keep in mind that specially calibrated instruments for such test flights only came after ww2.

in usa i think the standard for test flight instuments was developed around 1947.

some stuff can be adjusted/calculated by mathematical formulas, but especially very high speed are had a big margin of error at that time.

 

so basically everything within 1-2% of official numbers would still be acceptable and also realistic.

 

also mass production tolerances were quite higher than we know from today.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

sorry but the explanation contradicts reality.

Well we will have to agree to disagree than..

 

But, to sum it up, finding a bug in one of the planes in a flight simulation does not prove the 6DOF FM (what some incorrectly refer to as the physics engine) of said flight sim is less accurate than the 6DOF FM of another.. To do that (prove that) that you would have to pick the same plane in both flight sims, do the historical performance test and show how one matches the real world data better than antoher.

 

Hope that helps!

 

And yet you continue doing exactly what they've asked people not to do on the forum

That is your opinion and your welcome to it, just know that I disagree with your opinion Edited May 21, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[==LD==Lemsko]

topic missed,

these aircrafts dont act like aircrafts in powerless flight.

 

as i said performance numbers dont matter if basic aerodynamics are wrong.

 

and btw its not a bug its a feature.

already various people tried to bug report such behavior and it is working as intended.

 

feel free to prove me wrong and try to open a bug on the a6m stall behavior and then come back.

[nirvi]

Well we will have to agree to disagree than..

 

But, to sum it up, finding a bug in one of the planes in a flight simulation does not prove the 6DOF FM (what some incorrectly refer to as the physics engine) of said flight sim is less accurate than the 6DOF FM of another.. To do that (prove that) that you would have to pick the same plane in both flight sims, do the historical performance test and show how one matches the real world data better than antoher.

Maybe start with a takeoff run test for the P-51D, should be one of the easiest tests.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2383474&postcount=1

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Maybe start with a takeoff run test for the P-51D, should be one of the easiest tests.

One could do that test with War Thunder, in that War Thunder provides a method to log data during flight.. But until BoS provides a way to log data during flight, as 1C did in IL-2 with DeviceLink, or as 1C did in CoD with C# such a test would be very Very Very hard to log the flight data.. Sort of videoing the entire flight and manually writing down the data in a post process fashion.. And until than no one can say with any certainty how well the planes are matching the real world data. Just too many potential sim pilot errors can be made during testing that can corrupt the results.

 

This statement is based on the hundreds of test logs I have reviewed over the past 10+ from several different flight sim. I found that most of the errors were in the way the user performed the in-game test, and not an actual error in the FM. For example, not taking into account the difference in the in-game atmosphere and the real world data, which is typically corrected/converted to standard atmosphere, but not always! Another example, in WWII some countries the beginning of a rate of climb test started from a dead stop on the runway, where as others the beginning of a rate of climb test started with the plane air born at a low altitude. Not a big impact on the rate of climb data, but it does affect the time to climb results. Little difference like that can have a big effect on the results.

 

So, until we have a way to log the in-game data, any and all in-game testing should be taken with a grain of salt. As a bare minimum a video should be recorded during the test so others can review the methods used during testing.

 

On a related note, Combat Pilot Accounts..

 

Combat Pilot Accounts are great sources of information for the planes flying qualities, like the stick felt like it was in cement, the sounds it makes when you do this, the vibrations you feel when you do that..

 

But..

 

Combat Pilot Accounts are worthless sources of information for the planes performance!

 

Reason being combat pilot accounts are typically one sided stories that says more about the pilot vs pilot skill than plane v.s. plane performance.. That and the combat pilot accounts typically do not contain enough information to recreate the scenario in-game to see if you can obtain the same results, let alone the other planes state.. Than there is the human factor, with regards to pilot accounts years after the fact, the simply truth is memories change and are lost or become inaccurate over a period of time. And like the old fisherman telling us about the 'big one' that got away, they tend to embellish the facts over time, that is to say the fish gets bigger each time the story is told. That is just human nature found in us all... For example, take Brian Williams recent snafu!

 

For example, for every German pilot combat account of his Bf109 being able to out turn a Spitfire, their is a British pilot combat account of his Spitfire being able to out turn a Bf109..

 

Yet to this day people still think some sort of statistical average can be gleamed from pilot accounts.. But that is a pipe dream IMHO, for so many reasons, but probably the most important reason being, you never get a chance to read the after action report from the pilots that were killed in action!

 

Last, but not least, remember that no flight simulation ever was, is, or will be perfect! Hence the title 'simulation of flight' as opposed to just 'flight'.

[SharpeXB]

One could do that test with War Thunder, in that War Thunder provides a method to log data during flight..

Then until you can provide a test like this one from DCS for War Thunder, you can just quit posting.

You said "No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders"

Well now some one has. The DCS P-51D in this test is accurate to the real aircraft. Until you can show the same thing for War Thunder you have nothing else to say. Case closed.

Edited May 21, 2015 by SharpeXB

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

you can just quit posting.

 

Sharp

 

You seem to be under the false impression that this is your forum and that you have some sort say and or control over what and when I post..

 

As far as I know that is not the case

 

Therefore I will continue to post on the subject without your prior permission and or consent..

 

Now clearly you are upset with what I am saying, such that you feel the need to lash out..

 

In light of that, may I suggest you remove yourself from the conversation if you find that you can not control your emotions?

 

Keeping in mind that no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read my post.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

PS my statement, i.e.

 

No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders

 

Still stands in that the DCS test is only half of what is needed.. Someone would have to do the equivalent War Thunder test..

 

That and provide enough info on the test such that it could be repeated by others, i.e. meet the scientific method of repeatability..

 

Which is my point from the get go

 

Hope that helps!

Edited May 21, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[SharpeXB]

Sharp, you seem to be under the false impression that this is your forum and that you have some sort say and or control over what and when I post..

 

As far as I know that is not the case

 

Therefore I will continue to post on the subject without your prior permission and or consent..

 

Now clearly you are upset with what I am saying, such that you feel the need to lash out, may I suggest you remove yourself from the conversation if you find that you can not control your emotions.. Thanks in advance!

Are you still posting?

You're supposed to come back here and report an actual flight test from War Thunder compared with real aircraft data. Otherwise you're just wasting our time...

[SharpeXB]

Still stands in that the DCS test is only half of what is needed.. Someone would have to do the equivalent War Thunder test..

 

"Someone" means you. You started the thread. So go to it.

 

Actually DCS doesn't have to prove anything compared to War Thunder. The yardstick here is the real aircraft. Not another game. So unless WT can meet or exceed what DCS did, I think they were off on one test by only about 20' so there's not much range for WT to improve on. But give it your best shot.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Are you still posting?

Clearly

 

You're supposed to come back here and report an actual flight test from War Thunder compared with real aircraft data.

Says who?

 

Otherwise you're just wasting our time...

That is your opinion and your welcome to it, just know that I dont agree with it. And the fact that you think I have to go do the other half of the test (ie the War Thunder half) only proves what I have been stating from the start, i.e.

 

No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders

 

Hope that helps!

 

"Someone" means you. You started the thread. So go to it.

Sharpe, you seem to under the false impression that you have some sort of control over me.. Know that you don't

 

The fact that you think I have to go do the other half of the test (ie the War Thunder half) only proves what I have been stating from the start, i.e.

 

No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders

 

Hope that helps!

[SharpeXB]

Clearly

 

Says who?

 

That is your opinion and your welcome to it, just know that I dont agree with it. And the fact that you think I have to go do the other half of the test (ie the War Thunder half) only proves what I have been stating from the start, i.e.

 

No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders

 

Hope that helps!

 

So what you're saying is nobody has tested War Thunder. That's not valid since DCS equals the real performance there's no requirement to be better than real.

 

Lack of evidence on your part doesn't make your case.

 

Your bluff has been called and you lose. But feel free to keep yammering on here.

[ST_ami7b5]

Nice documents. I played War Thunder for about 4 minutes before I couldn't take the gamey flight model anymore. It has nice graphics though.

 

Sry, but if you played WT for 4 minutes then you have not much to say here.

This is ACE's thread and there is just too much of you for my taste...

 

I value much more opinions of people involved like Stuka, Hiromachi and Lemsko

Edited May 21, 2015 by Ami7b5

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

So what you're saying is nobody has tested War Thunder.

Correct..

 

To say one flight sim does a better job than another flight sim, you would have to do the same test of the same plane in both sims and than compare the results to the agreed upon real world data. Which ever one comes closer to the real world data is the flight sim that does a better job and hence could be said to be better than the other sim, with regards to that 'one thing' tested

 

That's not valid since DCS equals the real performance there's no requirement to be better than real.

Disagree

 

Lack of evidence on your part doesn't make your case.

Actually it is my case/point

 

The point you keep missing here is

 

No one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modeling is better than War Thunders

 

Your bluff has been called and you lose. But feel free to keep yammering on here.

Your upset, I realize that, so please forgive me if I have offended you buy pointing out no one has provided anything that shows your your favorite flight sim is better than any other flight sim

[SharpeXB]

Sry, but if you played WT for 4 minutes then you have not much to say here.

This is ACE's thread and there is just too much of you for my taste...

 

I value much more opinions of people involved like Stuka, Hiromachi and Lemsko

It took that much time of flying a plane in it to figure it wasn't equal in that regard to other sims. It's not a bad game, just not to my taste. If WT has broader appeal than the more serious sims that's fine. It helps recruit new players. But I'd give up the FM arguments. Especially trying to compare it to DCS Edited May 21, 2015 by SharpeXB

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

 

Sry, but if you played WT for 4 minutes then you have not much to say here.

That is a good point that I missed, thanks for pointing that out! S!

[SharpeXB]

That is a good point that I missed, thanks for pointing that out! S!

How many hours have you put into DCS?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

All this discussion is pointless. It had no point in proving which flight model is superior or which is inferior. It's just to keep arguing with no gain. 

Aceofaces did not prove anything, he keeps arguing and saying that he disagree. Well now we know that he disagree with almost everyone. But how does that help in the initial point ? It doesnt, so I simply see no point in continuing this. 

There are better things to do, like posting a skin propositions, than arguing with someone who just wants to argue. 

[SharpeXB]

Actually it is my case/point

 

Oh... NOW I get what your point is

 

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!

You spent $550 on this game and now you're trying to rationalize your expenditures over here on the BoS forum.

Now it makes sense...

Edited May 21, 2015 by SharpeXB

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

How many hours have you put into DCS?

Geee.. that is hard to say, I have been buying and flying ED stuff for a long time now.. Starting with the first LockOn some 10 or so years ago? That and if I remember correctly ED was also part of the old SSI Su27 stuff so if you count that, it would be more hours that I care to think of.. On that note, I bought and flown every thing ED makes for DCS world, except for the 109 and MiG15.. I decided I would wait for the new EDGE graphics before spending any more money.

 

Oh... NOW I get what your point is

Better late than never

 

You spent $550 on this game and now you're trying to rationalize your expenditures over here on the BoS forum. Now it makes sense...

Actually I have spent over $1K on War Thunder.. Some of the best gaming money I have spent in a long time.. Last time I spent that much on a game was back in the early 90s when I had a bill for playing Air Warrior on month that was over $1K, at that time it was not hard to do in light of they charged $12/hr to play Air Warrior. As for me trying to rationalize, you could not be more wrong if you tried! But I can understand what wit you being so upset about me pointing out that no one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modelling is better than War Thunders. Talk about rationalizing!

 

All this discussion is pointless.

Hardly

 

It had no point in proving which flight model is superior or which is inferior.

Correct!

 

I never said I would provide it, I simply pointed out that no one has PROVIDED anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modelling is better than War Thunders

 

It's just to keep arguing with no gain.

I am not arguing with anyone, granted some are upset with me for pointing out that no one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modelling is better than War Thunders, but someone being upset about that should not be equated with arguing. As for no gain, actully the gain here is that I think I have make my point clear, that being that no one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modelling is better than War Thunders.

 

Aceofaces did not prove anything, he keeps arguing and saying that he disagree.

Based on that reply, it is clear to me that you are confused in thinking that I said I was going to prove the War Thunder FM was better than the BoS FM.. Know that I never did, I simply pointed out that no one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modelling is better than War Thunders.

 

Well now we know that he disagree with almost everyone.

True

 

I disagree with anyone who claims that someone has provided something thus far that would show and prove that the DCS or BoS flight modelling is better than War Thunders. Because the simple truth is that no one has.. Keeping in mind that my focus is on the 6DOF FM wrt performance values and that finding one bug with a ZERO in War Thunder does NOT prove the 6DOF FM is providing far worse performance values than another flight sim.

 

But how does that help in the initial point ? It doesnt,

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that..

 

Because the inital point was to show that War Thunder provides that 1C/77 does when it comes to thier FM. Hence the link in my first post. Which lead to the discussion that of which FM was better, as in some said who cares if War Thunder tells us more about how they do it if their FM is not as good as BoS. At which point I simply pointed out that no one has provided anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modelling is better than War Thunders. A TRUTH that clearly has upset alot of people, but still the truth.

 

so I simply see no point in continuing this.

Promise?

 

There are better things to do, like posting a skin propositions, than arguing with someone who just wants to argue.

Well one thing your forgetting bright eyes, it takes two to argue, so, take a look in the mirror and take note of half the problem here wrt to arguing..

 

On that note, you and yours are the ones that feel the need to argue.. If I have said it once I have said it a dozens times, we will have to agree to disagree.. But you and yours can not accept someone else having a point of view that differs from yours.. So now, ask yourself, who are the ones arguing here?

 

PS feel free to PM your apology to me if your not up to the task of doing it in public.

[SharpeXB]

Actually I have spent over $1K on War Thunder.. Some of the best gaming money I have spent in a long time..

Hey if you feel you've got your money's worth that's all that matters. But wow. I didn't realize it was possible to spend that much on War Thunder! I've spent hundreds on these sims too but I'm not over on the WT forum trying to defend the DCS flight models.

[SharpeXB]

no one has PROVIDED anything thus far that would show let alone prove that the DCS or BoS flight modelling is better than War Thunders

You haven't provided anything to show WT is better than DCS. The burden is on you.

 

And this isn't a competition between all these games. Many people who are enthusiasts own all of them. They don't so much compete with each other. They've all got their strengths and weaknesses. But claming the "game" type sim like WT has the same fidelity in FM as a product like DCS is a bit ridiculous. And trying to argue this stuff without any data is bogus. And lack of such data does not prove anything. The preponderance of evidence is on the side of DCS.

[Bearcat]

This thread is done............