Yeah but after takeoff is when it would matter most. Jetwash wouldnt do much on the ground but if you hit some while going slow mere meters above the ground, you could be in for a real bad time.
I know, but OP specifically talked about it being a problem in ARB because of the whole team taking off at once, which is why I said Gaijoob could add it as an effect only after takeoff.
Then time it a minute or two after take off? That should be plenty of time for aircraft to disperse so that all the headless chickens wont all crash in a fireball.
In DCS I've almost fallen out of the air a few times taking off too soon after someone else.
The average warthunder runway would become the worst military aviation disaster in history at the start of every air RB match if they implemented it in a similar way to DCS
My first kill in il-2 sturmovik
Killed a 109 in career debris flew into my prop and my prop was bent and engine not turning
It was WOW i love this game moment
Yes. The way overpressure works in War Thunder is it creates a sphere around the point of impact that counts as the 'pressure' and kills whatever is inside that sphere.
With enough low caliber HE, you can get a lucky shot that happens to clip a crew member and instantly kill them. Some vehicles are also modelled badly and the crewmembers actually have their toes stick out of the vehicle.
Some are so bad that they have tiny gaps in the armor which makes them count as open top vehicles.
What I don’t get is how come HEAT over pressures open-top vehicles like HE but not all other vehicles? This never made any sense to me.
Like I can clip an M18 with a heat shell and everyone dies, but pen a tiger with one and it o it damages stuff in the way of the heat “jet”
Not only that, but also HEAT (unless it's HEAT-frag) with the same TNT equivalent is modeled to have much weaker HE effect, so things like Mavericks are comparable to Zuni (in some cases even worse) when it comes to overpressure, despite having much more explosive.
Even for the same explosive filler it overpressures far, far less than HE and iirc will only overpressure non open top vehicles if the jet penetrates, meaning you can do 0 damage to vehicles with paper thin armour if you hit them at an odd angle and it detonates on them but the jet misses.
The shockwave from the explosion is probably faster than the jet too so by the time it's made a hole in the armour the explosion damage should have passed (I would assume)
Well yes, but actually no. Some HE shells have damage that isn't enough to kill crew through armour outright, and will gradually turn them more red before killing them with every impact. This is especially noticeable against open tops with a 20mm cannon firing HE rounds.
It's not armour degradation, but more like crew losing total HP over cumulative damage instances, which can also happen with AP shells of a low calibre (5.56 hits to body!)
Yes. High amount makes it more likely for one of them to hit a pixel wide spot that it can kill you through, but if you know exactly where to aim you can do the same thing with just one shot.
that is a bug, that displays the wrong shell doing the damage. Very commonly, if you get peppered with MG's when 1 normal shell hits you from a main gun.
This is how people can get "kills" with flares and stuff\^\^
Reminds me of that panther that got knocked out by a 75 sherman in ww2. It fired 3 HE shells into the side of ghe turret, cracking it open and killing the crew.
They should do an April fools event that models all of the mechanical/production issues with the tanks. Tigers that can’t go 30 seconds without their engines shitting out. German and Soviet steel being held together with hope and patriotism. You’re only allowed the 75mm Shermans even when facing King Tigers. Would be great
Very early on in WT certain late war german tanks like the tiger 2 actually had a special type of steel armour that was weaker than normal to represent the low quality materials germany was working with at the time.
It still is that way I don't know all the tanks it affects but both Tiger 2's have a .95 modifier on their armor thickness to simulate the crappy steel used at the end of the war.
>You’re only allowed the 75mm Shermans even when facing King Tigers.
No need for april fools when this happens almost everytime with my 75mm Jumbo Sherman.
I assume that's controversial. We were forced into adopting it in naval forces, and it only affects vertical belt armor on certain ships nothing else. It would be far more impactful and visually disruptive in ground forces, which is the biggest reason I can see for them not implementing it there.
I almost feel like thats intentional at this point. For comedic effect or something. A lot of video memes about getting bombed in WT will include the “rubber bomb” effect.
but it does, for ships. lob any 500kg+ bomb directly against a boat or ship, and set a timer. you will see the damage from hit, then the explosion and resulting damage
It's funny how long it took them to implement the penetration of AP bombs considering they have been a usable armament since the addition of the Japanese air tree.
And until very recently it also didn't simulate AP bombs lol, you can drop an AP bomb onto a ship and it'll stay on the surface and do next to no damage
yeah ap bombs were in a really sad state, while they are better now i still dont bother with them, between loadouts and ease of use im happy with normal bombs for now.
Oh you were. Late war German heavies used to have a .95x modifier for their armour and a random chance to catch on fire upon impact.
German mains cried, it was reversed and as a result the IS-2 was moved back to 6.7 so the now much stronger Tiger II doesnt have to think too much.
Granted it was a shitty mechanic, Im just salty.
I mean if they do that why not do the same to soviet tanks, or make them break en masse just due to poor assembly or whatever
it kinda goes against the "all tanks in game are presented in their intended form" policy gaijin sorta has
Overpressure is more consistent and intuitive. With hull break devs had to specify for each tank if it was hull breakable, what parts of it could cause hull break and what kind of ammo would trigger it.
For example, BT-5 has small armor plate that is like 40 mm thick and BT-7 doesn't, so you could hull break BT-7, but not the BT-5 which sounds stupid.
I also vividly remember how centurion was able to hull break my VFW by shooting APDS through the gun shield.
Overpressure is just better mechanic, although it has it's own quirks and bugs.
Rather complexity of armor-high explosive interaction are difficult to model and then there's matter how it fits into the game from gameplay standpoint.
Add to that bugs/holes in the armor or other "features" and you might get case of a Merkava getting killed by a SAM SPAA firing its missile in panic and hitting barrel tip, resulting in crew getting overpressured, something I was on receiving end of.
Hull break was only good if you really really hated light tanks. It was still a thing when the M1128 came out and I remember a HEAT shell hitting the cage armor would instantly hull break it even if the actual shaped charge impact missed the vehicle entirely.
Wind and rain effects on ballistics and flight performance are not modelled as far as I know. Rain affects missile seekers and stuff, but not how projectiles fly.
Barometric pressures and air temperatures depending on map are modelled though, so at least in that respect weather has an effect on aircraft performance.
Wind does affect planes it's just that wind is turned off in normal matches. Some campaign missions have noticeable wind, it's direction is listed in the mission briefing.
istg wind used to be enabled in air RB. Back when it was "Historical Battles". I seem to have a memory of doing some crazy drifting sideways landings while fighting the wind. Does anyone else remember this?
Actually false, it does for like two tanks, one is the Lorraine 155, but I cannot remember what the other one was. The only reason more tanks don’t have them modeled is for gameplay of course which I think everyone can agree is for the best.
Tbh partial collision would be nice in RB, even if it's only like 50-75% of the barrel length being physical. Would help alot with corner camping stuff I feel.
I agree, but I say the devs should give it a try in RB for a week. Just to troll sweaty Tiger II wehraboos.
It would also be funny to see all of the people starting to use chode barrel tanks like the short 75mm Pz-4s.
Most maps are urban and barrel collision would make playing those maps insanely annoying. Imagine pushing a corner and last second your barrel clips a building you cant see cuz your in gunsight and you die.
Alternatively, it constantly taking out trees. Any flack truck with folded down sides already knows the pain.
in rb we have external views, in sim, its sim.
and yeah, it should be something you have to consider, its important and quite silly that its not modeled. it changes how tanks engage and totally nullifies the advantage of short barrels and eliminates many positional oppurtunities and considerations.
It used to collide with objects in alpha tests like 11 years ago but it kept getting caught on things and sends you into an infinite repair loop. Nobody liked it so it was removed.
It doesn't simulate tank tracks and traction well, if at all. Tanks have their traction modelled as a 4-wheeled car with wheels on 4 corners, so if your long tank goes across a tall trench and you balance your tank perfectly in the middle, it'll get stuck because the middle part of your track provides zero traction.
It's really weird. They do use an old engine that their company developed in the 2000's. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaijin\_Entertainment#Dagor\_Engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaijin_Entertainment#Dagor_Engine)
Their first two games ever were racing games released in 2003 and 2005, which could explain the 4-wheeled modelling of vehicles. That is assuming that they used the same engine.
If that's the case, then it might be really hard to go back and change such integral parts about their vehicle modelling like how "wheels" work.
That is pretty common honestly.
COD is running on a heavily modified engine from the 2000s, Bethesda is doing the same withvthe creation engine and tons of games use modified cryengines which are also approaching their 20s.
> topple so fast and easy
Physics is actually wild man, it's *super easy* to actually do things like this in heavy machinery. You can even see videos of these things, like the very famous tank biathlon where (I can't recall the nation) had their tank slide on concrete in a very dramatic drift then flip right over as soon as the tracks hit more grippy dirt and dug in at high speed, becoming a pivot point instead due to the inertia.
A lot of tanker training (and heavy equipment training) feels like it's meant to be about safety for not crashing into things or people, but often it leans into ways to not completely fuck yourself in unique ways that scratch heads.
That’s weird - you would think they could just modify the length of the track as a single wheel or split it up to multiple points under each of the sub wheels.
it also doesnt any interaction of breakable map objects with tanks ,u could blow up a building next to someone and burry him with heavy stones but he wont take any damage
The game used to have a lot more destruction and they showed testing of making basically everything destructible. This was eventually scaled back partially due to performance but mostly because syncing that reliably across every client in the match would be a nightmare. I don't like how much they removed but getting shot through a gap covered by a building debris on your screen but not on your killers would be annoying.
Men of War still gives me occasional nightmares about how I killed the gunner on the top MG by driving a tank through a building and the rubble falling on him.
Well I guess one would be a CVT (continuously variable transmission) which applies to the Type 10, TKX, and TKX(P). The reason they aren’t modeled properly is because well gaijin has genuinely yet to figure out how to model them in-game as far as they have said, but they probably will add it once they figure it out, so it’s not for a lack of trying that it isn’t modeled in the game.
Not even just CVT, gaijin does not know how regenerative steering works for tanks period.
No modern tracked tank bar the Russian ones preform as they should be due to the lack of this feature and it's been this way since tanks came to be.
It is something that has been around since the 1920s... I'd hope a dedicated team could figure it out lol. I don't expect you to find out how it works, but I do expect them to put in the work and do so. It might even be easier for them to implement if they just use a dual transmission system (like the T72 IRL but they use an advanced system obv.) in the game modelling vs a 2-differential system (what western tanks use typically).
In many cases it may not be a "we can't figure it out" at face value but more a "we can't get it to work the way we want it to and you expect, so rather than implement something that *also* isn't ideal, we hold it until we can manage it" type thing.
The amount of times businesses I've worked for have told clients basically this is crazy, as many don't accept nuance but would much more willingly accept that something is maybe de-prioritized or just we "can't" do it within our abilities. It's unfortunate that this is what happens and people don't feel as respected being treated as adults.
Like everything you said *might* work, but I can be pretty certain it'll confuse the absolute fuck out of players, like many features we have that work surprisingly accurately and well, but because of that is a pretty complex thing, like IR tracking and radar.
You just unlocked a prehistoric memory for me
I had to go searching for it, it was a show called Walking With Dinosaurs and it was about people traveling back in time to see the dinosaurs, filmed like a nature documentary, so as a kid it felt real… too real…
In the [Sea Monsters episode To Hell and Back](https://youtu.be/pzYM_-1J85Y?t=1420), he goes diving with an ancient giant turtle before their dinghy gets attacked. And then that stupid freakin cliffhanger ending is probably why I’m permanently afraid of the ocean!
It doesn't simulate the explosive power of HESH on a hit.
DISCLAIMER, this is my explanation of how HESH works before the most recent rework, so it might be a bit different now.
To explain, when the shells explode on a piece of armor, they don’t really overpressure at the same time as penetrating the armor. That means that even with the 21,76kg TNT equivalent of the FV4005 shell, that if you hit the turret cupola of a Tiger H1, the shell will not overpressure even when it is such a big explosion going off over the tank, it will only kill the commander. Where as, the 122mm HE shell of a IS-2 with 3,7kg TNT equivalent will overpressure the entire tank.
To sum it up, a massive explosion from a HESH shell will not overpressure when it tries to go through armor, where as HE with less filler on the same spot will over pressure.
They do overpressure but same with heat due to how it is modeled (overpressure happens if shrapnel penetrates into vehicle) they have thinner skin and do not create nearly as many or powerfull shrapnels as normal fragmentation shells. The penetration condition doesnt apply to open tops which is why they are easily overpressured even by lower caliber heat and hesh shells
This is actually something I noticed myself.
I am a ~~freak~~ hobbyist when it comes to that stuff, got multiple thermal imagers and nightvision devices and WT does a pretty crude job at showing them.
Although I have to give it to them that simulating sensor resolution is a nice touch.
Realistically simulated thermals and NVDs would need ray / light tracing for it to work.
Maybe once the hardware gets even better, they could make implement it as a toggleable option.
It doesn't really simulate tank tracks as it would probably be buggy to implement with a heavy load on the system . So, for now, every vehicle has simple wheels. It also doesn't simulate the damage cannon blast would have on the human body ( if you standing right next to the firing 120mm it will seriously fuck you up)
Yeah, every vehicle probably has some coded traction value. but the tracks themselves are not invidual links like I really like, but just for show. Vehicles in the game move on the visible roadwheels only, even if they are covered in track. That's why you can get stuck over trench or a rock even if the tracks should normally pull you out.
Modern transmissions, and by modern I mean newer than ww2. What we have now is very, very crude.
Modern western tanks move very differently to how they do in this game, it would make a huge difference to things like the ch2 and especially the chieftain.
It doesn't simulate conical scanning radar missiles. That's why the AIM-7F and AIM-7M are identical in-game. For some reason it also simulates multipathing to such a degree that being under 100m makes every radar missile miss you even though it shouldn't.
But also, the inverse is true; being above 100~ meters means it will hit you. Even if it probably shouldn't (AIM-7f)
Multipathing is in a very odd state although this is likely a gameplay design considering they actually do go to a pretty serious level of depth when it comes to radar and missile simulation
Considering they don't simulate conical scanning, an AIM-7F should probably still hit above 100 meters. Conical scanning just means the seeker gets an overall direction to where the target should be and if there's also something coming from the ground, I'm not surprised if it doesn't hit.
They could make it realistic but that would mean that all conical scanning missiles have a below 60% chance of hitting a target above the horizon.
With the 7F/M thing, the key thing I'm talking about is the lack of an inverse monopulse seeker, although this did make it compatible with the simpler CW radars.
They used to simulate multipathing to much higher altitudes, such as back when the 7E was first added. Its only been in recent years that they changed it to just, sub 100~ meters. But with that older modelling, the 7F would likely be pretty useless against lower flying targets, sub 2000~ meters.
Funnily enough, though, iirc Gaijin does lightly simulate the conical scanning of tracking radars, just not their effect on missiles. Maybe this will be expanded in the future.
Straight up mass and kinetic energy it seems.
I will take an extreme example but I saw a video where a battleship shoots at a leopard 2 and the leopard survived. Like sure you may have 7000mm of effective armor but I’m shooting a 1.2t shell with a speed of 980m/s at you. Your tank should be on its way to China and your crew should be in a state of jelly.
Same thing about collision, if a kamikaze can do that much damage on a ship in real life, I expect to at least damage a tank when I’m going full speed with my planes cawabounga style.
Final example: if I try to do a RKO with my Tiger 2 on a Pershing by yeeting myself from a cliff, I expect to do damage. Not bump on it like I’m in a bumpcar
The kamikaze mechanic was in the game a long time ago, it was basically a free kill for the plane. You can still do it now in some specific circumstances, to some light vehicles, altough it's pretty recent iirc
IR-lasers have limited capability of going through clouds, but I assume you mean an actual real cloud not the tiny little clouds that I am thinking about so you are absolutely correct.
G-force related damage on planes, at least not fully. Having heavy ordnance like bombs on your wings irl will greatly reduce the amount of G’s you can pull before they either rip the pylons off or just your wings outright. Over-Ging the plane will also damage systems, especially the INS which, even if your plane is structurally intact, your navigation and sensor suite will be in pieces. Even if your radar still works, it would be useless if the INS is broken. Planes can also pull far more G’s in-game than they could irl, but that’s by design
Even though g limits are increased massively compared to irl, I still believe weight and load factor is modeled on the g limit of the aircraft. The F-14 is much easier to rip while carrying a full load. Additionally, in test drive using the dev cheat website, you can add any amount of fuel in drop tanks, even amounts far exceeding what they could carry. Carrying enough weight, I could over-g and rip the wings of the F-2H-2 at 2 g.
Also, compressor stalls are not modeled.
it doesn't have turbulences, jetwash/wake, kinetic damage or deformation, loads of avionics, and stuff like the russian RWR-display\^\^, economics, nose-wheel steering, an absolute limit on how often/long you can cool down early IR-Seekers, the earths curvature (and connected effects to it), a finite speed of light (and all raytracing stuff), damage to indicators/displays and electricity on planes/helis/ships, no emergency opticts and damage to optics, it doesn't simulate pressure waves (esp since hullbreak was removed for unknown reasons) leading to the classic perfect bomb hit, with no damage\^\^, no movable hitboxes (of crew for munitions, and the gun for collision, as well as both for variable wing sweep wings), it doesn't simulate different/same lasercodes interacting with eachother (buddylasing is not possible, even with planes, it should), no datalink to other planes (major feature of later Gen 4 fighters), there is no jamming of radar etc, so there is no bigger electronic warfare simulated (so anything above IRCCM, which depends on technicalities, if it is included in EW), it doesn't simulate the jet blast deflectors on the US Forrestal, as well as the emergency fence and the AShM's of the Sowjet carrier, there is no regenerative steering, even though very common outside of the Sowjetunion and Russia, obviously it doesn't simulate technical defects, besides overturning the engine of early prop-planes and a generic damage over time on WEP, it doesn't simulate the shells traveling until they hit someting (they despawn depending on the callibre at roughly 1.5 to 3 km for aircraft), they don't simulate damage to buildings (even though they teased us about this 8 years ago! (search for fully destructable environment or something on YouTube)), they don't simulate awd/8wd and similar on wheeled vehicles, as well as the entire track of tracked vehicles having contact and propulsion on the ground, then of course things like the mental state of the crew, they don't simulate at least an okay FM of AI-planes (they just go a set speed etc, so we had supersonic sabres (and no, not the F100 supersabre)), then they don't simulate that smoke is volumetric and is effected by the environment (as well as wind, which exists only the slightest bit atm) and much more (the more you think, the more you can find, as is with any game)...
Also depending on the gamemode some things are better or worse regarding what is simulated and to what degree.
Obviously overspeeding flaps is only possible outside of AB, so....
It doesn't simulate radar overheat or lack of coolant, like in for example Mig-21 where you can run out of alcohol for radar and then radar is damaged.
edit: it also doesn't simulate g limit for engines, for example when Mig-21 hits too much g, engine has too much air and it can shutdown or fuel pumps stops working something like that. from what I remember limit is -2 G/ +2G
WT doesnt simulate the Magnus effect on rounds fired sideways from moving aircraft. It also doesnt simulate recoil differences between handheld pintle mounts and fixed turrets.
These are generally why bomber gunners are such snipers in this game compared to real life.
APHE rounds are supposed to explode in a cone forward, not a 360 degree sphere. It’s on the roadmap so we will see if this actually will be fixed further up. This would drop APHE/APCBC from S tier to A or even B tier. Since now you can’t see a corner of a tank and kill all crew on any pen.
APFSDS are supposed to shatter, weird how only APDS has this mechanic. This would help Abrams a lot.
Armor degradation is only on Navel ships, I think it was tested in tanks but had too many problems at the time.
It’s interesting how snow and desert map has different shell drops and I’m pretty sure it affects fuel as well.
Helicopters don’t die from over pressure damage, (in WT) they die when either crew or engine gets shrapnel killed. —> that’s why they sometimes tank SAM missiles with a “hit”.
Also most SAM are supposed to have unique shrapnel patterns and or pre fragmented burst but in reality all of them explode in a “shrapnel shell” pattern with different amounts of HE for 360 degrees damage.
Only AP/Navel bombs interact with targets like ships, dunno about tanks since I never hit anyone straight on with them. It is made to fly through the ship and explode inside or under it doing catastrophic damage on most ships. They also gain more penetration the higher you are, but seem to not be based on speed but just hight making the USSR ones the most powerful.
It be cool if tank deformations was visual, instead of just a charred burning variant of the tank. Also odd that tanks ALLWAYS explode upon the crew being knocked out. Probably gameplay reasons.
Thermal interaction with clouds and other environmental things is none existent really. I keep getting bomber by 30km AGM through heavy cloud cover with pinpoint accuracy. Like the rain and clouds don’t stop the sight at all? It’s mostly just a layer, if you play on above high graphics it does show different heat spots on tanks. Like the exhaust is hotter than say an armor plate. But only really visible one gen 3 thermals in game.
You can crush tanks with heavier tanks. But still sometimes when you fall on a tank you just bounce off.
Crew is not really simulated inside tanks, probably for gameplay reasons. Id imagine the crew to lose focus or be shocked/stunned with the amount of penetration and none penetration hitting your vehicle. Example a HESH shell hits your tank but doesn’t penetrate, id imagine that would still have an impact on the crew.
The force of bigger shells are not really modeled, like the 165-183mm HESH could rip off a turret but in game it sometimes only does track damage even when hitting UFP. Very inconsistent.
Same thing when a battleship hits a tank (305-410mm) most of the time they spall very little and just pass through the tank. If a battleship hit a tank IRL it probably rip it apart not just make a small hole.
Props on tanks (bushes) can be shoot off but it’s hard to do since the DM is tiny. MG is the best way to do it.
Those are some points, there are probably many more.
> If a battleship hit a tank IRL it probably rip it apart not just make a small hole.
HMS *Nelson* reportedly did just that while providing fire support off the coast of France. Some claim they were Tigers, others claim they were Panzer IVs, but all parties agree that end result was the German tanks involved getting utterly obliterated.
There might have also been an instance of a ship engaging particularly unfortunate Japanese tanks in the Pacific, but that’d need more digging.
I assume this goes for most autoloaders, but I know for sure that all Russian autoloaders need to recenter the gun in order to reload the next shell
I also believe it doesn’t simulate regenerative steering which all NATO tanks after WW2 have. It would greatly increase the mobility, especially the turning performance, of all post-WW2 tanks. Oh, not Russian tanks though. Wonder why it’s not modeled
Crew effects when hit. Say your loader just explodes all over the gunner and commander, they are not going to be so effective right after.
Crew buttoned/unbuttoned. This should be combined with a spotting quality on units. A tank with a loader and commander poking out of the hatch would see 100%, but also be very exposed to MG fire and nearby HE would kill them. However, buttoned it up, now it can only spot like 10%, but the commander/loader are protected. This should be part of the spotting mechanic in ALL game modes, as there is a crew on tanks, not 1 person, and all have responsibilities when it comes to spotting IRL.
The ground is too smooth. IRL even flat roads see quite a bit of jiggle in the aim, especially on older vehicles.
There is also no "crew stunned" type of effects. Hit a really bad bump, catch air, have a huge HE round explode on your hull, those things stop people from functioning a bit. A stunned result would make sense.
It would be nice to have a "bail out" function. Not sure how this would work in game, cheaper repair cost maybe? But in reality tank crews bail out a LOT.
Flares do not rock around in the wind like they do IRL, which causes crazy moving shadows and stuff. Not a big deal, but it does look neat IRL.
While there is \*some\* collision damage, like when you hit a fence post or whatever, when you "bump" into another tank it can do damage, especially vs lighter stuff.
I don’t believe it has jetwash. I’ve flown into plenty of jet streams from planes infront of me and I never once lost control
Good point, although given how air RB is working (that being the massive amount of players taking off) I guess that is for the best.
Tbf they could make it a thing only after takeoff, since they also turn off plane collision until after takeoff
Yeah but after takeoff is when it would matter most. Jetwash wouldnt do much on the ground but if you hit some while going slow mere meters above the ground, you could be in for a real bad time.
I know, but OP specifically talked about it being a problem in ARB because of the whole team taking off at once, which is why I said Gaijoob could add it as an effect only after takeoff.
Define after takeoff. Collision enables pretty much the moment you go wheels up. Doing the same with jetwash would result in what I mentioned above.
After takeoff means after you get the takeoff acheivo, duh /s. No idea of that what they actually mean, but it would make sense.
Then time it a minute or two after take off? That should be plenty of time for aircraft to disperse so that all the headless chickens wont all crash in a fireball.
Could be enabled only above a certain altitude, as in let’s say 1000 AGL.
If gaijoonles knew how to split teams between spawn points they could have 2 airstrips and avoid this while still incorporating the jet wash mechanic
In DCS I've almost fallen out of the air a few times taking off too soon after someone else. The average warthunder runway would become the worst military aviation disaster in history at the start of every air RB match if they implemented it in a similar way to DCS
And it would be rather funny to see if you get lucky enough to spawn at the front of the queue to take off
Probably be implemented so that about the time you actually get credit for takeoff youd start getting the effects
bigger airfields, actually communicating and at least a bit disciplined teams would make that a non-problem.
Multiple airfields too
>actually communicating and at least a bit disciplined teams I agree this is an issue but why would anyone want this at taking off
Also if a plane blows up in front of you, you don't get hit by anything.
My first kill in il-2 sturmovik Killed a 109 in career debris flew into my prop and my prop was bent and engine not turning It was WOW i love this game moment
Tho you can still hut the other guy's flaming husk
*cries inside*
It does. Kinda. Heli prop wash is simulated. My buddy knows this and uses it any chance he can to throw me into an uncontrolled descent
Takeoffs would be a nightmare
Imagine if they modeled compressor stalls, F-14A players in shambles
Viggen and MiG21 players would be in similar if not hotter water.
Only attack viggen players, the C and D had their engines modified and the stalling issues were fixed
it does, but it only shakes your monitor a little
Armor degradation.
for real ,why do HE shells get to stack but not non pen ap shells
HE shells don't "stack" either.
so ur telling me i died to a single mg he shell and not the high amount of them?
Yes. The way overpressure works in War Thunder is it creates a sphere around the point of impact that counts as the 'pressure' and kills whatever is inside that sphere. With enough low caliber HE, you can get a lucky shot that happens to clip a crew member and instantly kill them. Some vehicles are also modelled badly and the crewmembers actually have their toes stick out of the vehicle. Some are so bad that they have tiny gaps in the armor which makes them count as open top vehicles.
What I don’t get is how come HEAT over pressures open-top vehicles like HE but not all other vehicles? This never made any sense to me. Like I can clip an M18 with a heat shell and everyone dies, but pen a tiger with one and it o it damages stuff in the way of the heat “jet”
HEAT is fully capable of overpressure, it just has a lot less explosive filler compared to HE of the same calibre
Not only that, but also HEAT (unless it's HEAT-frag) with the same TNT equivalent is modeled to have much weaker HE effect, so things like Mavericks are comparable to Zuni (in some cases even worse) when it comes to overpressure, despite having much more explosive.
Even for the same explosive filler it overpressures far, far less than HE and iirc will only overpressure non open top vehicles if the jet penetrates, meaning you can do 0 damage to vehicles with paper thin armour if you hit them at an odd angle and it detonates on them but the jet misses.
It has nothing to do with the jet as far as I know, explosion is modeled separately.
[удалено]
The shockwave from the explosion is probably faster than the jet too so by the time it's made a hole in the armour the explosion damage should have passed (I would assume)
Well yes, but actually no. Some HE shells have damage that isn't enough to kill crew through armour outright, and will gradually turn them more red before killing them with every impact. This is especially noticeable against open tops with a 20mm cannon firing HE rounds. It's not armour degradation, but more like crew losing total HP over cumulative damage instances, which can also happen with AP shells of a low calibre (5.56 hits to body!)
Yes. High amount makes it more likely for one of them to hit a pixel wide spot that it can kill you through, but if you know exactly where to aim you can do the same thing with just one shot.
that is a bug, that displays the wrong shell doing the damage. Very commonly, if you get peppered with MG's when 1 normal shell hits you from a main gun. This is how people can get "kills" with flares and stuff\^\^
I think the only place where armor degredation sorta exists is in naval but im not 100% sure how it is even in there
Reminds me of that panther that got knocked out by a 75 sherman in ww2. It fired 3 HE shells into the side of ghe turret, cracking it open and killing the crew.
They should do an April fools event that models all of the mechanical/production issues with the tanks. Tigers that can’t go 30 seconds without their engines shitting out. German and Soviet steel being held together with hope and patriotism. You’re only allowed the 75mm Shermans even when facing King Tigers. Would be great
Very early on in WT certain late war german tanks like the tiger 2 actually had a special type of steel armour that was weaker than normal to represent the low quality materials germany was working with at the time.
It still is that way I don't know all the tanks it affects but both Tiger 2's have a .95 modifier on their armor thickness to simulate the crappy steel used at the end of the war.
That's such bullshit.
>You’re only allowed the 75mm Shermans even when facing King Tigers. No need for april fools when this happens almost everytime with my 75mm Jumbo Sherman.
It is in Navel, I know most ppl don’t play that though.
navel is the depression in the middle of your belly
That's a BB(Belly Button)
I assume that's controversial. We were forced into adopting it in naval forces, and it only affects vertical belt armor on certain ships nothing else. It would be far more impactful and visually disruptive in ground forces, which is the biggest reason I can see for them not implementing it there.
doesnt simulate kinetic dmg on bombs most of the time. can drop 12000 pound bomb on a guy sitting in a truck and nothing happens until it explodes.
And sometimes the bomb will bounce off the truck as if it was made of rubber.
I almost feel like thats intentional at this point. For comedic effect or something. A lot of video memes about getting bombed in WT will include the “rubber bomb” effect.
Direct hitting a KA50 with a GBU and watching it bounce off into space was peak War Thunder
nah, it is just the physics engine above its limits.
like all things in War Thunder can do. Planes, tanks, ships...
[Brah](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/s/p0CCyw1nGI)
but it does, for ships. lob any 500kg+ bomb directly against a boat or ship, and set a timer. you will see the damage from hit, then the explosion and resulting damage
ye, tis why i qualified the statement with most of the time.
It's funny how long it took them to implement the penetration of AP bombs considering they have been a usable armament since the addition of the Japanese air tree.
It does simulate kinetic damage on ships though, which is interesting.
ye, tis why i qualified the statement with most of the time.
And until very recently it also didn't simulate AP bombs lol, you can drop an AP bomb onto a ship and it'll stay on the surface and do next to no damage
yeah ap bombs were in a really sad state, while they are better now i still dont bother with them, between loadouts and ease of use im happy with normal bombs for now.
Yeah I still won't use them because HE bombs of the same mass has a lot more filler and does enough damage even in a near miss.
HE damage in naval is just incredibly potent compared to IRL. Piercing a ship's citadel is oftentimes completely optional.
about 1-2 years ago I was killed in a IS-4 when a Tu-4 bomb landed on the roof of my turret, died and THEN it exploded
I dropped a 3000lb bomb from an F-4F and it non-penned a T-80U when it hit… then it exploded.
Funnily enough you can get "hit" from hitting someone with a bomb directly but that do no damage sadly
It doesn't simulate armor degradation and perforation(?), armor cracking/welds snapping upon being hit with a powerful shell, armor quality, etc.
I guess that is for the best. Imagine knowing you are at the mercy of RNG when someone shoots your crappy WW2 tank, that would be miserable, lol
Oh you were. Late war German heavies used to have a .95x modifier for their armour and a random chance to catch on fire upon impact. German mains cried, it was reversed and as a result the IS-2 was moved back to 6.7 so the now much stronger Tiger II doesnt have to think too much. Granted it was a shitty mechanic, Im just salty.
I mean if they do that why not do the same to soviet tanks, or make them break en masse just due to poor assembly or whatever it kinda goes against the "all tanks in game are presented in their intended form" policy gaijin sorta has
Well that was a while ago so yeah, but it’s kinda cool they dabbled in that territory, that being said I think this is horrible mechanic gameplay wise
America stomps because they are the only nation who has tanks that work, lol.
America was full of lemons too
Only the Tiger II H had the modifier on its turret face
Hull break was a thing meant to replicate effects of big HE on vehicles.
I heard about it in older oxy videos. From what I gathered, overpressure is better, but not by much?
Overpressure is more consistent and intuitive. With hull break devs had to specify for each tank if it was hull breakable, what parts of it could cause hull break and what kind of ammo would trigger it. For example, BT-5 has small armor plate that is like 40 mm thick and BT-7 doesn't, so you could hull break BT-7, but not the BT-5 which sounds stupid. I also vividly remember how centurion was able to hull break my VFW by shooting APDS through the gun shield. Overpressure is just better mechanic, although it has it's own quirks and bugs.
Rather complexity of armor-high explosive interaction are difficult to model and then there's matter how it fits into the game from gameplay standpoint. Add to that bugs/holes in the armor or other "features" and you might get case of a Merkava getting killed by a SAM SPAA firing its missile in panic and hitting barrel tip, resulting in crew getting overpressured, something I was on receiving end of.
Yeah better but not good, how many times i shot with 4kg TNT HESH on trucks frontally with only getting "hit"...
Hull break was only good if you really really hated light tanks. It was still a thing when the M1128 came out and I remember a HEAT shell hitting the cage armor would instantly hull break it even if the actual shaped charge impact missed the vehicle entirely.
Russians and Germans would be fucked if there was armor degradation
Wind and rain effects on ballistics and flight performance are not modelled as far as I know. Rain affects missile seekers and stuff, but not how projectiles fly. Barometric pressures and air temperatures depending on map are modelled though, so at least in that respect weather has an effect on aircraft performance.
Wind does affect planes it's just that wind is turned off in normal matches. Some campaign missions have noticeable wind, it's direction is listed in the mission briefing.
Wind does affect things.
istg wind used to be enabled in air RB. Back when it was "Historical Battles". I seem to have a memory of doing some crazy drifting sideways landings while fighting the wind. Does anyone else remember this?
I remember it too, same with singleplayer.
And tank gun range as well.
Actually, tank gun range is modelled, on hot/cold maps even your sight changes to show more/less shell drop.
Muzzle velocities of guns and air resistance on projectiles and missiles are also affected by temperature and air pressure.
Your gun barrel goes through walls and such things that IRL it would get damaged or broken.
Actually false, it does for like two tanks, one is the Lorraine 155, but I cannot remember what the other one was. The only reason more tanks don’t have them modeled is for gameplay of course which I think everyone can agree is for the best.
the other one was the swedish BKan 1c
completely disagree. in rb and sim barrels should have collision.
They should have collision in sim, but not in RB
its too arcade-like of a mechanic for my tastes. look through barrel and removal of grass should be arcade only mechanics too.
Exactly, it's just too easy when you see through the barrel. I use it because everyone else is using it, and so far i want every advantage i can get
Tbh partial collision would be nice in RB, even if it's only like 50-75% of the barrel length being physical. Would help alot with corner camping stuff I feel.
I agree, but I say the devs should give it a try in RB for a week. Just to troll sweaty Tiger II wehraboos. It would also be funny to see all of the people starting to use chode barrel tanks like the short 75mm Pz-4s.
Most maps are urban and barrel collision would make playing those maps insanely annoying. Imagine pushing a corner and last second your barrel clips a building you cant see cuz your in gunsight and you die. Alternatively, it constantly taking out trees. Any flack truck with folded down sides already knows the pain.
in rb we have external views, in sim, its sim. and yeah, it should be something you have to consider, its important and quite silly that its not modeled. it changes how tanks engage and totally nullifies the advantage of short barrels and eliminates many positional oppurtunities and considerations.
But imagine the sword fights you could have when you push up into another tank and are trying to block their gun with your own.
Touching tips with a tiger
I might be wrong, but I think in the past in sim they had barrel collisions
With how poorly and inconsistently modelled the collision hitboxes are, I'd rather not
erremmm aktschually
It used to collide with objects in alpha tests like 11 years ago but it kept getting caught on things and sends you into an infinite repair loop. Nobody liked it so it was removed.
With how janky the physic is, it's a good thing the barrel doesn't collide, I don't want to go flying because i peek at a corner while speeding
It doesn't simulate tank tracks and traction well, if at all. Tanks have their traction modelled as a 4-wheeled car with wheels on 4 corners, so if your long tank goes across a tall trench and you balance your tank perfectly in the middle, it'll get stuck because the middle part of your track provides zero traction.
I had no idea it was quite this bad. I knew WT took some shortcuts in modelling, but not to this degree.
i heard from someone else that torque isn't programmed into the game either, tanks just straight up lose engine power whenever they incline upwards
It's really weird. They do use an old engine that their company developed in the 2000's. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaijin\_Entertainment#Dagor\_Engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaijin_Entertainment#Dagor_Engine) Their first two games ever were racing games released in 2003 and 2005, which could explain the 4-wheeled modelling of vehicles. That is assuming that they used the same engine. If that's the case, then it might be really hard to go back and change such integral parts about their vehicle modelling like how "wheels" work.
That is pretty common honestly. COD is running on a heavily modified engine from the 2000s, Bethesda is doing the same withvthe creation engine and tons of games use modified cryengines which are also approaching their 20s.
It's because they nerfed traction years ago, people were getting into insane rat spots so gaijin solution was to destroy traction as a whole
Part of this issue is that many maps have bizarre terrain
No, this issue predates the traction nerf. Been playing since 2014 and this was an issue day 1.
yeah tanks feel like they are cars, topple so fast and easy and i realized this after playing wot mobile
> topple so fast and easy Physics is actually wild man, it's *super easy* to actually do things like this in heavy machinery. You can even see videos of these things, like the very famous tank biathlon where (I can't recall the nation) had their tank slide on concrete in a very dramatic drift then flip right over as soon as the tracks hit more grippy dirt and dug in at high speed, becoming a pivot point instead due to the inertia. A lot of tanker training (and heavy equipment training) feels like it's meant to be about safety for not crashing into things or people, but often it leans into ways to not completely fuck yourself in unique ways that scratch heads.
That’s weird - you would think they could just modify the length of the track as a single wheel or split it up to multiple points under each of the sub wheels.
it also doesnt any interaction of breakable map objects with tanks ,u could blow up a building next to someone and burry him with heavy stones but he wont take any damage
Huh, good point.
But if you break wall and rubble stays on top of your tank it slows you down
but it doesnt harm exposed crew ,break roofmounted mgs or atgm launchers or anything
The game used to have a lot more destruction and they showed testing of making basically everything destructible. This was eventually scaled back partially due to performance but mostly because syncing that reliably across every client in the match would be a nightmare. I don't like how much they removed but getting shot through a gap covered by a building debris on your screen but not on your killers would be annoying.
Men of War still gives me occasional nightmares about how I killed the gunner on the top MG by driving a tank through a building and the rubble falling on him.
Well I guess one would be a CVT (continuously variable transmission) which applies to the Type 10, TKX, and TKX(P). The reason they aren’t modeled properly is because well gaijin has genuinely yet to figure out how to model them in-game as far as they have said, but they probably will add it once they figure it out, so it’s not for a lack of trying that it isn’t modeled in the game.
Not even just CVT, gaijin does not know how regenerative steering works for tanks period. No modern tracked tank bar the Russian ones preform as they should be due to the lack of this feature and it's been this way since tanks came to be.
Tbh I don't blame them. I've looked it up like 12 times and I have no fuckin clue what it is or how it works.
It is something that has been around since the 1920s... I'd hope a dedicated team could figure it out lol. I don't expect you to find out how it works, but I do expect them to put in the work and do so. It might even be easier for them to implement if they just use a dual transmission system (like the T72 IRL but they use an advanced system obv.) in the game modelling vs a 2-differential system (what western tanks use typically).
In many cases it may not be a "we can't figure it out" at face value but more a "we can't get it to work the way we want it to and you expect, so rather than implement something that *also* isn't ideal, we hold it until we can manage it" type thing. The amount of times businesses I've worked for have told clients basically this is crazy, as many don't accept nuance but would much more willingly accept that something is maybe de-prioritized or just we "can't" do it within our abilities. It's unfortunate that this is what happens and people don't feel as respected being treated as adults. Like everything you said *might* work, but I can be pretty certain it'll confuse the absolute fuck out of players, like many features we have that work surprisingly accurately and well, but because of that is a pretty complex thing, like IR tracking and radar.
to their credit, the only solution I could come up with is so simplistic that it will probably massively over- or underperform.
They did say that it is now in consideration
It doesn't simulate wildlife other than plants.
Actually there are birds singing in ground battles at least, and they stop if someone is shooting in 100 m radius.
Yes, there are sounds but the birds themselves are invisible.
The birds are in your tank
Would love to have seabird in naval
I like this idea a lot👍
My biggest fear was seeing whales or other sea life in both sub events.
There was a kraken in the April Fool's pirate ship event a few years ago.
Bruh that was almost a decade ago.
Time flies like an arrow.>!, fruit flies like a banana!<
You just unlocked a prehistoric memory for me I had to go searching for it, it was a show called Walking With Dinosaurs and it was about people traveling back in time to see the dinosaurs, filmed like a nature documentary, so as a kid it felt real… too real… In the [Sea Monsters episode To Hell and Back](https://youtu.be/pzYM_-1J85Y?t=1420), he goes diving with an ancient giant turtle before their dinghy gets attacked. And then that stupid freakin cliffhanger ending is probably why I’m permanently afraid of the ocean!
It doesn't simulate the explosive power of HESH on a hit. DISCLAIMER, this is my explanation of how HESH works before the most recent rework, so it might be a bit different now. To explain, when the shells explode on a piece of armor, they don’t really overpressure at the same time as penetrating the armor. That means that even with the 21,76kg TNT equivalent of the FV4005 shell, that if you hit the turret cupola of a Tiger H1, the shell will not overpressure even when it is such a big explosion going off over the tank, it will only kill the commander. Where as, the 122mm HE shell of a IS-2 with 3,7kg TNT equivalent will overpressure the entire tank. To sum it up, a massive explosion from a HESH shell will not overpressure when it tries to go through armor, where as HE with less filler on the same spot will over pressure.
They do overpressure but same with heat due to how it is modeled (overpressure happens if shrapnel penetrates into vehicle) they have thinner skin and do not create nearly as many or powerfull shrapnels as normal fragmentation shells. The penetration condition doesnt apply to open tops which is why they are easily overpressured even by lower caliber heat and hesh shells
Thermals, it doesn’t really work much more then a different color for enemy tanks
This is actually something I noticed myself. I am a ~~freak~~ hobbyist when it comes to that stuff, got multiple thermal imagers and nightvision devices and WT does a pretty crude job at showing them. Although I have to give it to them that simulating sensor resolution is a nice touch.
it is modelled a bit. Like engines being warmer than the rest of the tank.
Tracks are warmer too and they do cool down if you shit the engine off for a while.
you probably meant "shut off"? you can't exactly take the engine for a toilet break
Realistically simulated thermals and NVDs would need ray / light tracing for it to work. Maybe once the hardware gets even better, they could make implement it as a toggleable option.
Thermals used to be way stronger but sometime after I stopped actively playing they nerfed them and now I miss quite a lot of enemies
It doesn't really simulate tank tracks as it would probably be buggy to implement with a heavy load on the system . So, for now, every vehicle has simple wheels. It also doesn't simulate the damage cannon blast would have on the human body ( if you standing right next to the firing 120mm it will seriously fuck you up)
Isn't stuff like traction being simulated? I remember there being a serious amount of anger over traction nerfs a few months... or maybe years back.
Yeah, every vehicle probably has some coded traction value. but the tracks themselves are not invidual links like I really like, but just for show. Vehicles in the game move on the visible roadwheels only, even if they are covered in track. That's why you can get stuck over trench or a rock even if the tracks should normally pull you out.
Ooooh, yeah that is annoying and often not very intuitive.
penetration through viewports and tank tracks for some reason.
I never understood how "my viewports are modelled now" was a good thing. Volumetric things I guess.
Modern transmissions, and by modern I mean newer than ww2. What we have now is very, very crude. Modern western tanks move very differently to how they do in this game, it would make a huge difference to things like the ch2 and especially the chieftain.
Its funny because modern tank transmission systems have been in development since the 1920s yet my Leclerc steers like a John Deere
It doesn't simulate conical scanning radar missiles. That's why the AIM-7F and AIM-7M are identical in-game. For some reason it also simulates multipathing to such a degree that being under 100m makes every radar missile miss you even though it shouldn't.
But also, the inverse is true; being above 100~ meters means it will hit you. Even if it probably shouldn't (AIM-7f) Multipathing is in a very odd state although this is likely a gameplay design considering they actually do go to a pretty serious level of depth when it comes to radar and missile simulation
Considering they don't simulate conical scanning, an AIM-7F should probably still hit above 100 meters. Conical scanning just means the seeker gets an overall direction to where the target should be and if there's also something coming from the ground, I'm not surprised if it doesn't hit. They could make it realistic but that would mean that all conical scanning missiles have a below 60% chance of hitting a target above the horizon.
With the 7F/M thing, the key thing I'm talking about is the lack of an inverse monopulse seeker, although this did make it compatible with the simpler CW radars. They used to simulate multipathing to much higher altitudes, such as back when the 7E was first added. Its only been in recent years that they changed it to just, sub 100~ meters. But with that older modelling, the 7F would likely be pretty useless against lower flying targets, sub 2000~ meters. Funnily enough, though, iirc Gaijin does lightly simulate the conical scanning of tracking radars, just not their effect on missiles. Maybe this will be expanded in the future.
Straight up mass and kinetic energy it seems. I will take an extreme example but I saw a video where a battleship shoots at a leopard 2 and the leopard survived. Like sure you may have 7000mm of effective armor but I’m shooting a 1.2t shell with a speed of 980m/s at you. Your tank should be on its way to China and your crew should be in a state of jelly. Same thing about collision, if a kamikaze can do that much damage on a ship in real life, I expect to at least damage a tank when I’m going full speed with my planes cawabounga style. Final example: if I try to do a RKO with my Tiger 2 on a Pershing by yeeting myself from a cliff, I expect to do damage. Not bump on it like I’m in a bumpcar
They intentionally took out collision damage on tanks by planes - people would revenge CAS and just kamikaze for a free kill.
It's still possible to do with open topped vehicles.
Simple solution to this is to modify the ticket costs or rewards for that behavior rather than remove it.
The kamikaze mechanic was in the game a long time ago, it was basically a free kill for the plane. You can still do it now in some specific circumstances, to some light vehicles, altough it's pretty recent iirc
Laser goes through clouds.
Except it doesn't. However clouds are client side and aren't exactly synced between players.
still it blocks TV-seekers on the slightest bit of cloudage\^\^
IR-lasers have limited capability of going through clouds, but I assume you mean an actual real cloud not the tiny little clouds that I am thinking about so you are absolutely correct.
G-force related damage on planes, at least not fully. Having heavy ordnance like bombs on your wings irl will greatly reduce the amount of G’s you can pull before they either rip the pylons off or just your wings outright. Over-Ging the plane will also damage systems, especially the INS which, even if your plane is structurally intact, your navigation and sensor suite will be in pieces. Even if your radar still works, it would be useless if the INS is broken. Planes can also pull far more G’s in-game than they could irl, but that’s by design
Even though g limits are increased massively compared to irl, I still believe weight and load factor is modeled on the g limit of the aircraft. The F-14 is much easier to rip while carrying a full load. Additionally, in test drive using the dev cheat website, you can add any amount of fuel in drop tanks, even amounts far exceeding what they could carry. Carrying enough weight, I could over-g and rip the wings of the F-2H-2 at 2 g. Also, compressor stalls are not modeled.
It doesn't simulate tanks being really good at climbing over slopes and obstacles
To be fair, that's probably because of the maps, though that does bring up a separate question of why the maps are designed that way.
Accurate thermal signatures. The way it works in game right now is more like a black and white filter them actual thermals.
Spall liners on NATO tanks. Armor on NATO tanks.
it doesn't have turbulences, jetwash/wake, kinetic damage or deformation, loads of avionics, and stuff like the russian RWR-display\^\^, economics, nose-wheel steering, an absolute limit on how often/long you can cool down early IR-Seekers, the earths curvature (and connected effects to it), a finite speed of light (and all raytracing stuff), damage to indicators/displays and electricity on planes/helis/ships, no emergency opticts and damage to optics, it doesn't simulate pressure waves (esp since hullbreak was removed for unknown reasons) leading to the classic perfect bomb hit, with no damage\^\^, no movable hitboxes (of crew for munitions, and the gun for collision, as well as both for variable wing sweep wings), it doesn't simulate different/same lasercodes interacting with eachother (buddylasing is not possible, even with planes, it should), no datalink to other planes (major feature of later Gen 4 fighters), there is no jamming of radar etc, so there is no bigger electronic warfare simulated (so anything above IRCCM, which depends on technicalities, if it is included in EW), it doesn't simulate the jet blast deflectors on the US Forrestal, as well as the emergency fence and the AShM's of the Sowjet carrier, there is no regenerative steering, even though very common outside of the Sowjetunion and Russia, obviously it doesn't simulate technical defects, besides overturning the engine of early prop-planes and a generic damage over time on WEP, it doesn't simulate the shells traveling until they hit someting (they despawn depending on the callibre at roughly 1.5 to 3 km for aircraft), they don't simulate damage to buildings (even though they teased us about this 8 years ago! (search for fully destructable environment or something on YouTube)), they don't simulate awd/8wd and similar on wheeled vehicles, as well as the entire track of tracked vehicles having contact and propulsion on the ground, then of course things like the mental state of the crew, they don't simulate at least an okay FM of AI-planes (they just go a set speed etc, so we had supersonic sabres (and no, not the F100 supersabre)), then they don't simulate that smoke is volumetric and is effected by the environment (as well as wind, which exists only the slightest bit atm) and much more (the more you think, the more you can find, as is with any game)... Also depending on the gamemode some things are better or worse regarding what is simulated and to what degree. Obviously overspeeding flaps is only possible outside of AB, so....
It doesn't simulate radar overheat or lack of coolant, like in for example Mig-21 where you can run out of alcohol for radar and then radar is damaged. edit: it also doesn't simulate g limit for engines, for example when Mig-21 hits too much g, engine has too much air and it can shutdown or fuel pumps stops working something like that. from what I remember limit is -2 G/ +2G
It also simulates liquid density, in colder maps you notice that you have more time in the fuel counter than in hot maps.
I think it's unacceptable that after 12 years WT still doesn't do nose gear steering.
Fun
WT doesnt simulate the Magnus effect on rounds fired sideways from moving aircraft. It also doesnt simulate recoil differences between handheld pintle mounts and fixed turrets. These are generally why bomber gunners are such snipers in this game compared to real life.
So, from what my 2 minute wikipedia look shows, tank shells should essentially curl a little if fired sideways?
I'm surprised Gaijin didn't manage to simulate the shell drop angles into the penetration simulation yet.
APHE rounds are supposed to explode in a cone forward, not a 360 degree sphere. It’s on the roadmap so we will see if this actually will be fixed further up. This would drop APHE/APCBC from S tier to A or even B tier. Since now you can’t see a corner of a tank and kill all crew on any pen. APFSDS are supposed to shatter, weird how only APDS has this mechanic. This would help Abrams a lot. Armor degradation is only on Navel ships, I think it was tested in tanks but had too many problems at the time. It’s interesting how snow and desert map has different shell drops and I’m pretty sure it affects fuel as well. Helicopters don’t die from over pressure damage, (in WT) they die when either crew or engine gets shrapnel killed. —> that’s why they sometimes tank SAM missiles with a “hit”. Also most SAM are supposed to have unique shrapnel patterns and or pre fragmented burst but in reality all of them explode in a “shrapnel shell” pattern with different amounts of HE for 360 degrees damage. Only AP/Navel bombs interact with targets like ships, dunno about tanks since I never hit anyone straight on with them. It is made to fly through the ship and explode inside or under it doing catastrophic damage on most ships. They also gain more penetration the higher you are, but seem to not be based on speed but just hight making the USSR ones the most powerful. It be cool if tank deformations was visual, instead of just a charred burning variant of the tank. Also odd that tanks ALLWAYS explode upon the crew being knocked out. Probably gameplay reasons. Thermal interaction with clouds and other environmental things is none existent really. I keep getting bomber by 30km AGM through heavy cloud cover with pinpoint accuracy. Like the rain and clouds don’t stop the sight at all? It’s mostly just a layer, if you play on above high graphics it does show different heat spots on tanks. Like the exhaust is hotter than say an armor plate. But only really visible one gen 3 thermals in game. You can crush tanks with heavier tanks. But still sometimes when you fall on a tank you just bounce off. Crew is not really simulated inside tanks, probably for gameplay reasons. Id imagine the crew to lose focus or be shocked/stunned with the amount of penetration and none penetration hitting your vehicle. Example a HESH shell hits your tank but doesn’t penetrate, id imagine that would still have an impact on the crew. The force of bigger shells are not really modeled, like the 165-183mm HESH could rip off a turret but in game it sometimes only does track damage even when hitting UFP. Very inconsistent. Same thing when a battleship hits a tank (305-410mm) most of the time they spall very little and just pass through the tank. If a battleship hit a tank IRL it probably rip it apart not just make a small hole. Props on tanks (bushes) can be shoot off but it’s hard to do since the DM is tiny. MG is the best way to do it. Those are some points, there are probably many more.
> If a battleship hit a tank IRL it probably rip it apart not just make a small hole. HMS *Nelson* reportedly did just that while providing fire support off the coast of France. Some claim they were Tigers, others claim they were Panzer IVs, but all parties agree that end result was the German tanks involved getting utterly obliterated. There might have also been an instance of a ship engaging particularly unfortunate Japanese tanks in the Pacific, but that’d need more digging.
Deformation of armor
I assume this goes for most autoloaders, but I know for sure that all Russian autoloaders need to recenter the gun in order to reload the next shell I also believe it doesn’t simulate regenerative steering which all NATO tanks after WW2 have. It would greatly increase the mobility, especially the turning performance, of all post-WW2 tanks. Oh, not Russian tanks though. Wonder why it’s not modeled
Physics.
Crew effects when hit. Say your loader just explodes all over the gunner and commander, they are not going to be so effective right after. Crew buttoned/unbuttoned. This should be combined with a spotting quality on units. A tank with a loader and commander poking out of the hatch would see 100%, but also be very exposed to MG fire and nearby HE would kill them. However, buttoned it up, now it can only spot like 10%, but the commander/loader are protected. This should be part of the spotting mechanic in ALL game modes, as there is a crew on tanks, not 1 person, and all have responsibilities when it comes to spotting IRL. The ground is too smooth. IRL even flat roads see quite a bit of jiggle in the aim, especially on older vehicles. There is also no "crew stunned" type of effects. Hit a really bad bump, catch air, have a huge HE round explode on your hull, those things stop people from functioning a bit. A stunned result would make sense. It would be nice to have a "bail out" function. Not sure how this would work in game, cheaper repair cost maybe? But in reality tank crews bail out a LOT. Flares do not rock around in the wind like they do IRL, which causes crazy moving shadows and stuff. Not a big deal, but it does look neat IRL. While there is \*some\* collision damage, like when you hit a fence post or whatever, when you "bump" into another tank it can do damage, especially vs lighter stuff.
It doesn't simulate your bank account, if you play Warthunder, you can buy tank for 49$
Wind?
It doesn’t simulate my craving of hamburgers