I really hope they not learning anything from war thunder... :P

The AI can see thru the clouds in BOB WOV, unless they changed it in the last couple of years. There was a rumour a few years ago that the AI couldn't see thru clouds but it was untrue. B6 admitted "he" didn't play COD, not "they don't play their own game".

I hope WarThunder does give the new IL-2 series some competition, hopefully its alot better than WOP with its small maps and partial airstarts that were only good for mindless furbals. I bought the nineteen dollar version of WarThunder, but all the offline missions are locked at least in the version I have, so I haven't had much interest in flying it yet, to make any kind of evaluation.

They cannot see through the clouds. It has been changed for quite a while.

:grin: :grin: :grin:
You seriously expect any competition from an arcade MMO game, that can be played with mouse and keyboard? Are you kidding me?

Exactly :lol:

Not sure if it's true but I hear that you can't belly land in warthunder as you just blow up and from the videos the damage model makes vanilla 1946 look good!!

Lol, :) Still don't know, why this warthunder is still mentioned. It is not comparable, you do not have the viewing distances, the lod, the behaviour of invironment. So it is not relevant to learn anything from warthunder, except perhaps some effects, when they run better. But how to evaluate, if the game runs in atotally different kind of genre with totally different goal? I bet, that due to its lack of details in every aspect, I will be able to run it at 60fps easily. It is a console game. Please do not compare complicated games with easy programmed games, which could be made with some web designers doing a different profession just for fun.

Sorry, but this is total fail to ever compare it. It is like comparing world of tanks with tiger vs t34. And its like asking, why tiger vs t34 needs more resources, although wot has better graphics (by the way: wot is fun sometimes, but the new reworked engine is a big szep back, although all the casual gamers do not see it technically).

Please leave warthunder, console il2 games and world of warplanes out of this sim forum, as they are a totally other world.

I saw video with external view, external crosshairs, and the Spit shot down both wing of He 111 with one burst... :shock: "detailed and complex damage system."... suuuure ;)

Come on guys, please don't turn this in to a discussion thread.

...

Would it be possible to hand out information on how to handle each aircraft the proper way?
after 1,5 years, there is still too much confusion about the different types of planes, and how they perform the best way,and how to get the most out of them.
For example every month there is another thread about the prop pitch management of the 109, and even among the experienced 109pilots there doesnt seem to be a consensus on whats the best way...
for example: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34328
there is historical information around in the net and in books, but we dont know whats implemented in game, what works best, and how it is intended to work...


Luthier:"Our goal has always been that the actual aircraft flight manuals should be used with Cliffs of Dover. If that’s not the case, the only people that know the guts well enough to write a flight manual are our aircraft programmers – and in that very case their efforts are better spent bringing the performance in line with the actual flight manuals.
In other words, there’s never a situation where writing a flight manual for Cliffs of Dover is a good idea."

with all due respect, trying to flight according to the flight manuals of the 109 youll have no chance at all online against other 109s...i just tried it today.
your FMs are way off the flight manual, and according to other people, thats not only the case with the 109 but for all the RAF planes as well.

trying to get the most out of a 109 according to the flight manual in regards of prop pitch settings and rpm, will in fact make you very slow in your game and not at all competetive...