![]() ![]() I still suffer the same physics challenges and seem identicle so I'm not sure what you're on about with engine torque since they seem the same to me. Kitsunedawn ( talk) 11:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Reply I still have to counter torque, I play RB with joystick with "full real controls" settings because mouse aim controls have problems on my computer due to the fact I play War Thunder with less than 10 frames per second at times and the other joystick modes aren't worth it since the twitchy bounce effect from sudden movements is still there on simplified and realistic settings (and auto-trim is bugged on those modes too). There are some factors figured into the Simulator side of things that are not considered in the Realistic. ZdrytchX ( talk) 17:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Reply I'm a Mod for the game, and while I can't go into major specifics behind the physics engine, I can say that the physics are similar between the Realistic and Simulator modes however they aren't identical. For now I have included a forum post as an example however I am sure it is to be removed, but I rather have no information regarding this than providing information that actually seems wrong with no evidence as opposed to speculations. The problem is that the development team is somewhat secretive and the ones that deal with the community do not actually know about the game engine itself. The majority of the community that plays Simulator Battles claims that the physics are identical to the ones in Realistic Battles and I myself play both modes and agree, however there is lacking creditable evidence that they are indeed identical, and more so that they are actually different (as stated before). Longbyte1 ( talk) 05:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Reply We lack info for versions 1.25 and 1.27. Third, he says "your" which means perhaps he doesn't really understand that Wikipedia is not a person, and his continued misunderstanding is then confirmed when (fourth) he believes that adding a "reception" section somehow turns Wikipedia into a review engine, whereas the reception section is intended to be a paragraph summary of key points made by game critics both launch and throughout the game's lifespan. Second, the fact that the remover states "the originator obviously has an axe to " discounts the remover's own neutrality since he is putting his opinion that the game is being reviewed too negatively before the actual facts and referenced material showing both sides. It accumulated to be one (with a bunch of unreferenced sources) but instead of pulling each one out from the root, everything was just deleted altogether, which is far harsher than keeping a stub. These additions have been added to the game as a personal opinion, the originator obviously has an axe to gring and frankly I'm surprised that your nuetrality stance allowed this to go through the wjole section needs to be deleted, let's stick to what the game is please guys, dont turn wiki into a review engine First of all, it was not originally intended to be an opinion. Just saying.- Casvdschee ( talk) 07:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Reply There were reviews, but they were totally removed on 29 September 2015 by someone whose only contribution was the removal of that section along with some other miscellaneous edits done on the article: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |