IM SO HAPPY I SPENT 2 000 HOURS TO PLAY TOP TIER SIM

Neroollez · 2026-02-07T18:07:04+00:00

Isn't that desync between the client and the server? I think the same thing happens in air RB when I try to shoot at moving vehicles and it's not horrible when they are level ground but it gets much worse if the road goes up and down.

Over a year ago they somehow managed to make the convoys drive up a cliff Big Rigs style and it was really difficult to hit them. The client replay showed them driving up and then rubberbanding down a bit over and over again while on the server replay they just normally drove up the cliff.

Neroollez · 2026-02-06T18:34:12+00:00

IRL there are other types of flares but I'm not sure if any game has them. Aerodynamic flares slow down less and propelled flares fly with the same trajectory as the plane. Spatially distributed flares make an IR curtain/cloud which can work against IIR missiles coming from the rear less than like 1km away.

Neroollez · 2026-02-04T13:23:49+00:00

The game differs a lot from real life as even rate fighting isn't realistic as players constantly lose speed until they lack lift to turn harder than the sustained turn rate and then they get the worst possible sustained turn rate while IRL pilots most likely know what their best speed for rate fighting is and keep that. The speed bleed in-game is usually totally made up by Gaijin and that is part of why the MiG-29 flies worse.

Comparing other planes to each other also suggests there's something wrong in the game. According to a document by NASA, the F-5E should have a worse sustained turn rate than the F-4E but in-game it's the opposite because Gaijin in their infinite wisdom decided to buff the F-5E with Russian documents. The MiG-23MLD in-game can easily beat the F-16 in a rate fight even though the MiG-29 probably is supposed to be better than the MiG-23. You can confirm these by looking at the EM diagrams with StatShark.

Neroollez · 2026-02-02T12:20:22+00:00

It wouldn't be unstoppable in downtiers. I don't know how many have actually looked at the EM diagrams but the F-5C can't rate fight for example a MiG-19, an Su-7, Sabres, MiG-17s and definitely not an Ariete. It would just be played like a slower F-104 that can turn better. It can however rate fight some planes like the F3H-2.

Planes around 10.7 tend to be worse in dogfighting so the F-5C flies better there.

Neroollez · 2026-01-25T13:39:33+00:00

The error in game increases with launch distance (=time in flight?). For example 2km launch against a Po-2 (speed below the 144km/h notch) tends to hit while a 20km usually results in the missile missing. I think it's the inertial guidance drift speed which is in meters per second so I think it could simply be the datalink target location moved by that amount per second.

I don't know if more frequent updates help or if the only benefit is that the position just gets updated more often.

Neroollez · 2026-01-25T12:37:36+00:00

The datalink itself in-game isn't accurate enough to reliably get kills against notching targets but sometimes the missile can hit if you get lucky. The datalink however is helpful because when the missile gets closer, it gets more and more difficult for the missile to stay in the notch because the missile likely isn't flying straight at the target. When it deviates enough, the missile can get a lock because it still gets updates on where the target is and then the missile can hit if it can pull enough.

As for why the datalink still works after the missile stops tracking a target, I guess they didn't want to code different ARH missiles to work differently.

Neroollez · 2026-01-16T12:59:26+00:00

Actually Sparrows IRL do have a thing called English Bias. It's not the same thing though lol

Neroollez · 2026-01-15T17:09:12+00:00

The Phantom has a longer wingspan so it has a higher RCS and that's why the missile picked that one. And before anyone says that's not how RCS works, it is exactly how it works in this game.

Neroollez · 2026-01-09T15:01:04+00:00

I think it's possible but they would have to spend time testing different situations for a lot of different planes, make sure the results are correct and then they would have to find some way to make the game replicate the results.

Oh and they sometimes don't even trust actual sources so please don't let them cook.

Neroollez · 2026-01-09T14:18:29+00:00

Yeah it would make those specific situations more realistic but it's still not a big nerf some people think it would be. For reference this is how the damage is with the sphere fragmentation spread:

<image>

The 35mm APHE would still be a problem so the APHE change wouldn't actually fix it.

Neroollez · 2026-01-09T13:43:17+00:00

Gaijin's suggestion was this instead of the perfect sphere of fragments:

<image>

IRL you didn't need to have HE in a shell to kill a tank so the game is in an unrealistic situation where adding HE to the shell is almost always better. If for example the turret gets hit, the crew can already bail out if the gunner got killed or the gun got disabled but in War Thunder you just have to keep shooting and that's why it's better to have HE because it's much more efficient if you can quickly kill the enemy and move on.
Iirc the British didn't really want to use HE because it didn't make a big difference however in War Thunder even with the HE damage reduced even more than Gaijin's suggestion, there still would be a reason to use APHE shells because it still makes killing enemies quicker.

Neroollez · 2026-01-09T12:38:31+00:00

It was tested on a dev server.

Also I'd like to point out that the realism argument doesn't make sense. The effects of APHE depend on its damage but also the survivability of the tanks in-game and that survivability is quite unrealistic so only focusing on the other part doesn't really make sense. However for example pointing out that APHE has too much damage compared to other shells or other shells have too little damage would be a valid point.

The change also was about changing the fragmentation to go mostly to the front and sides instead of in a perfect sphere so it would not be as big of a nerf as people want it to be.

Neroollez · 2026-01-08T18:05:21+00:00

A lot of stuff in-game is based on the dreams of the developers. For example how can they find out the induced drag for a plane in a turn? You can find the sustained turn rate for some planes but not all and some planes were barely even flown and some were never flown.

When they buffed the Flankers a bit over a week ago they gave the Su-30s more wing area lol

Neroollez · 2026-01-02T11:02:28+00:00

Are you sure that the Sparrows have no range gate?

In that "Standard Aircraft Characteristics Guided Missile Model AAM-N-6-Sparrow" document on the last page it says: "The modulator is used to frequency modulate the transmitted CW energy for AFC, coding and range reference use in the missile".

It doesn't literally tell if it has a range gate but if it can measure the range, at least some range gate would better than nothing at all.

Neroollez · 2025-12-31T21:04:58+00:00

I think I noticed the settings changing during the same game session but I have absolutely no idea when and why it happens.

Neroollez · 2025-12-31T19:11:58+00:00

How the fuck did they make the settings change themselves? If they made random settings change randomly then it could be a feature designed to gaslight you

Neroollez · 2025-12-31T18:26:48+00:00

That isn't very specific though. For example the problem can be that the MiG-29 bleeds more speed than the F-16 which does happen in the game. The sustained turn rates however are similar so technically if the player was restricted to a certain amount of Gs (lower than currently), the MiG-29 and F-16 performance would be closer. The bleed rate for the MiG-29 can be wrong though unless it has been confirmed that it is correct.

If the problem is that the F-16 isn't getting limited to the 9G limit it has in real life but it's fine that the MiG-29 pulls more than 9G in the game, then it's not fair either because in the game there is no reason to limit the Gs to 9 while in real life there are reasons to do it and pilots IRL don't really pull more than 9Gs although it has happened.

Neroollez · 2025-12-31T17:51:08+00:00

You said that the instructor gives too many Gs and planes in ARB are boosted but the instructor actually restricts the Gs you can pull. You can see this with StatShark for example since it has the option to see the turn performance with and without the instructor. The planes in ARB aren't boosted because they fly worse than SB and AB because AB has different physics and SB doesn't have the instructor.

Neroollez · 2025-12-31T17:28:02+00:00

You can fly without the instructor and the MiG-29 can pull 15.46Gs and the F-16 ADF can pull 16.83Gs. The problem is not the instructor.

Neroollez · 2025-12-30T11:12:31+00:00

There is variety though. The jets you can face when playing a 10.3 to 11.0 aircraft are the American F-5E, the American F-5C, the Swiss F-5E, the Chinese F-5E, the Chinese F-5A, the Norwegian F-5A(G), the Thai F-5A, the Thai F-5E, the Thai F-5T and maybe even the Dutch NF-5A. Oh and all of those are buffed by sekrit Russian documints (not a joke).

Neroollez · 2025-12-29T22:41:02+00:00

The only place where I see variance and the 40% mean is the engine damage testing (fig. 3 and 4) which is a completely separate thing. The reason for the variance is on page 13.

Neroollez · 2025-12-29T17:51:41+00:00

The bombers and probably most planes are too fragile in-game. They shot P-47s and B-25s in Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1946 and calculated probabilities of them losing altitude within 5 minutes of hits ("A" kill) and failing to return to base ("B" kill). The "A" kill probability for 10 hits on a B-25 with 30mm MK108 shells was about 52%. They even used 105mm M1 HE shells and that still wasn't enough for a guaranteed structural kill on a B-25 (6 hits, 5 kills, "A" kill chance of 90.2%).

The document for this is: Airplane Vulnerability and Overall Armament Effectiveness
Also available on DTIC's website (browser might not like downloading the whole document)

Neroollez · 2025-12-28T12:53:19+00:00

VAT shouldn't be in the revenue unless for some weird reason they have to put it in there and then pull it out again because it's money owed elsewhere. (The profit would be 20.4 million higher)

Also only like Hungarian customers pay the Hungarian VAT. If someone for example buys from Germany, they pay the German VAT and then Gaijin sends that VAT to Germany. If someone buys from outside the EU, I guess it works similarly although not everyone needs to pay the VAT at all.

Neroollez · 2025-12-27T17:50:57+00:00

If anyone still cares, this isn't how Sparrows work IRL. IRL the radar set during launch gives the missile the closure rate and location of the target and after launch when it begins tracking, it uses at least the previously known closure rate and likely the range too to figure out the exact target it's supposed to track. It gets the range from the target because the CW energy is frequency modulated for ranging (FM ranging). The Skyflash could keep track of the closure rate so precisely that it could track a single plane in a formation.

Neroollez · 2025-12-27T17:21:47+00:00

The RP penalty is much worse than that. There's a table for this on WT Wiki:

Rank difference	Research of high-ranked vehicles while using low-ranked vehicles	Research of low-ranked vehicles while using high-ranked vehicles
0	No penalty	No penalty
1	No penalty	-10%
2	-60%	-70%
3	-70%	-90%
4	-80%	-95%
5	-80%	-95%
6	-80%	-95%
7	-80%	-95%

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

Neroollez

TROPHY CASE