made my day
2 Likes
2 Likes
12 Likes
Always end up back with the Hog at some point because it’s more relaxing to fly with that nice straight wing. PAC makes gun and CCIP work a breeze, and it’s beautiful to operate with the TM WH.
Agreed with the speed though, so back to the Hornet I end up.
4 Likes
I’ve been flying quite a bit on the Storm of War Server in the last week and I have to say that the Fw 190A8 is a lot of fun. She might be underpowered between all the late war fighters like Spitfire MkIX’s, Mustangs, Thunderbirds, Dora 9s and Kurfürsts but she can take a lot of punishment and will bring you home even if you lost all engine oil and the engine sounds like a washing maschine with hiccups that has its drum filled with rocks xD
5 Likes
The Harrier is an interesting tweener for this. Faster, carries less but with a FARP makes for short trips. It does seem less relaxing than the Hog for sure.
I loved the new A10C II features (especially those laser rockets (APWS?) and the HMD in VR) so keep meaning to return to it.
2 Likes
I absolutely love the Scorpion HMCS. It’s an incredibly powerful system and the HOTAS implementation is a dream. Even though I mostly fly tomcats these days (helps that I have a RIO!) I still love to fly the Hog. It’s such a powerful groundpounder.
3 Likes
Secretly dreaming of War Thunder damage model
2 Likes
I believe they are starting to ramp up the Combined Arms area, including new damage models for ground units.
The carrier deck crew, these tanks, trucks and even the new infantry troops we’ve seen, get graphically so detailed well beyond what would be necessary for a flight sim only. We can see every little seam, thread or string on their clothes. Not only that but their terrain technology with all the little details shows amazing results as well.
Hence I believe they are now starting to realize and make use of that potential for a revamped or expanded Combined Arms, ground or infantry unit experience. Especially since we are getting more helicopter modules too.
This decade we can probably walk around the jungle with our pistol in the hand, after ejection, while waiting for the rescue team. Or on the carrier deck towards our aircraft, from the briefing room.
Also, by the way, in my opinion, the Leopard 2 models from DCS look better than those from War Thunder.
You can choose skins/liveries from various nations. Each skin comes in all the 4 seasons as well, so you can have mud, snow covered and clean skins.
5 Likes
This I generally really agree with.
The average model in WT is “pretty good”.
The difference is that WT has (at least among surface vehicles) a coherent detail level.
Some planes are really simply modeled…
The peaks in modeling will always go to DCS.
But in DCS if the new models are if a much higher quality than WT - there’s a lot of models that are really poor, lowering the average.
Not complaining, since ED is going through great efforts to remodel them. 
Where I think WT will always have the upper hand (and rightfully so) is the armor/penetration modeling.
I’m not ever going to complain about that as the realism in damage modeling is probably WT biggest selling point.
In DCS an abstracted level of damage is good enough to cover 80% of the situation we’ll ever encounter and as of now it’s OK-ish, even though the proximity blast damage is still somewhat off…
There’s some work to do and it looks like ED is absolutely up to it.
Besides WT has refined its armor/damage model over the last… Uh… 10 years or so?
Nobody can realistically expect ED to either catch up or even commit to that; and personally it’d be a waste of resources even trying to.
2 Likes
Depends. If ED were to branch out into a serious competitor of Steel Beasts, it would have to have at least on par damage modelling. Also a metric crapton of AI and sensors work. So not very likely, but a high fidelity T-72M could be quite a thing imo.
I wish ED would put some work into proximity fuzing and blast frag modelling. Its such an important thing in air combat.
Re: that part
If, and it’s a big one, ED decided to go DCS GROUND Vehicle yes, absolutely!
But they would need to hire a bunch or people and build a different R&D branch.
Could they? YES!
Should they? Eh, this is the real question.
I’m not sure there’s so much margin for money to be made to justify a try and focus energies in a ground branch.
Re:fuzing and effects - oh hell yeah. But IIRC it’s coming.
1 Like
They’d also have to improve ground physics, as well.
It’d be a lot of work, but for a full fidelity Abrams? I’d support it. Especially if we got a full fidelity Sheridan. Love me some Sheridan.
3 Likes
Good lord man, why?
4 Likes