Another Fan Made War Thunder Video
 

Released today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ypABVvKGTA

looks good to me,dont understand where the"fan boy" bit comes from?

Cheese

look, anti-aliasing!

good video that, game looks decent actually

This game have a very nice graphics engine. Good visuals and we can launch an escort mission with more than 50 aircraft, lots of AAA and great perfomance!

Maybe someday CloD can do the same. And please, don't talk about "simulation": i'm talking about graphics...

War Thunder have a much better graphics engine.

Looks neat.
What does it cost?
What does it cost to play online?

I went to their site....It doesn't indicate "released"?
Says a lot about "beta"....which, after CloD makes me a little "gun shy"...

Beats the hell out of CLOD visually.

Actually I bet to differ. CloD has superior water and lighting system. The new game might have better colours, and definitiely more trees :evil::evil::evil:. I believe I don't even need to comment on aircraft's details, do I?

I detest the green background colours but the lighting and details are very good.
Alot of the planes seem to instantly blow up,but it does look quite good,always wary of fan made videos though.

Define "better"...

Better regards graphics in sims/games are related to the balance between performance and quality. CloD have more quality in aircraft's details and water and lighting, but the performance have a giant hit. And the terrain in War Thunder is just better in all aspects...

War Thunder have very good visuals, detailed aircraft, and good effects. All that with GREAT perfomance.

The "trade" between quality and performance in CloD isn't so good... ;)

Agreed, if they bothered with a decent damage model this would be the game for me but it just looks too arcady...

Very well edited clip. Timely too, being Battle of Britain month so to speak.
The clip does tend to highlight some of the things that WT fails on. Namely the jet black all or nothing smoke effects, and the foggy canopies and plastic prop animations. The effects team don't appear to have the same artistic flair as the landscape people do.

I would also add from a "GRAPHICS ONLY" perspective...Glo made this video...it's just brilliant! (Check out the clouds too!!!!!)

http://youtu.be/XXh1ggW4AHo

That is absolutely stunning!

Very good apart from the animation of the propeller disk - far too dark and visible. Very off putting.

RedToo.

The props look like they are like a 8 or 10 bladers


WOP can pull of some nice graphics . . .


IIRC ROF's goodness started of pretty rocky . . .



Some good stuff on the recent posts . . . this place is always funny because of the mis reading of things. The devs throw the answer down, and then its skipped over, like that co-op thang.


As for the devs not knowing what features / improvements or what not due to their lack of playing their own game or the competitor's game . . .


They have what we've given them, they have the history of IL-2 to draw from, and they have all the promised features to implement. That's a lot of work already.

And who knows? Once they have a better working game for the sequel, that they will have the time to R & D and play other sims or flight games to find features that are useful.



Yes its hard to trust what the Luthier is saying. Yeah he's broken it with alot of undeliverables. But the devs did stick to improving the game, and getting it working.

We have that to work off of. The devs have a proven track record of fixing stuff as resources allow.

Hopefully the sequel's engine will be in a far better condition that CloD's and instead of leading from behind and doing damage control and putting out fires, they will be able to lead from ahead and have time to develop and add features. So we'll have more features to enjoy in the sequel. And if its not as optimized as it should, at least we'll know they'll stick to it and make it better.



---------


Q Do you consider that you've achieved about as much as you can, performance wise, with the game engine at the moment and that people's systems now have to be improved to improve performance?


A
Yes, we’re pretty of the same opinion. We’re not doing further optimization at this time, we’re improving features instead. Specifically landscape geometry and clouds for starters, but all that is for the sequels.



my note: the context behind it I wonder if the 'no further optimization' is answered in terms of the Clod development only (since only one patch left for it) and only features to the engine (and more features given to the sequels) will be put in the final patch? Because one can't have too much optimization. Optimization is always good.

OR

that the sequel's engine is relatively bug free / optimized and they are just adding features to it. Heck maybe they might be having two engines, one detail rich for the sim BOM and a dumbed down one for hte MMO.

That could explain why they can't work on CloD because they have a sequel and a mmo . . .But I'm just speculating . .



------------


Q. Do you still have some of the original engine coders?


A
Yes. We even still have the core of the original 2001 Il-2 team working on the products.


This is nice

-----


Q
I know you stated the next CloD patch will be the last, so that means any fixes, advances and such into the game engine that come from the sequel will not be translated at some time or another back into CloD? Will Clod be completely abandoned in whatever state the final patch leaves it with no hope small updates, etc?


A
Why would you think that? We've never done that before, and I've always stated that our plans remain the same. There were many issues in the original IL-2 in 2001. After a few updates to the original, Forgotten Battles was released and there were no more updates to the original Il-2. That doesn't mean it was abandoned however! You can still play all of the original Il-2 content with 1946, all carried over and updated with the rest of the engine.


------

I like this; that they will improve the engine and carry over to previous games in the series. So Clod development maybe be stopped now, but later fixed and updated with added fixes / improvements future iterations of games will bring.

Can you imagine how good it would be in Clod if we could say to Luthier that the only problem we have with the graphics is a dark propeller, lol!

The thing is with the WoP game engine is that it looks visually stunning! All it would need from 1C is a co-op, Fmb, qmb and the detailed cockpits as well as the updated fm and dm. Ok that's too simple a comparison but the lighting, skin detail ( skinners have access to Uv, light, shadow and bump maps), clouds and land textures are just brilliant!

Comparing the immersion generated by the graphics engine, WoP wins hands down. Comparing them as Sims, CloD is a head and shoulders the grand daddy!

I do wonder what the future holds graphically for BoM if it uses the current engine. To my eye there is too much carry over from the original Il2 legacy, including popping up of buildings and textures, clouds not having a dense opaque level and popping up, trees flickering, in fact so many issues I wonder why they will persist with it?

Anyway, time will tell :)

Cheers, MP

That video is excellent ,the shine on the metallic P51 and the reflectionsd off the canopy look stunning.
The real engine sound even down to that P51 whistle [i believe from the gun ports]
Compare with this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOm4nOTHMlc

That's because he took the engine sounds from a video and applied it to the video! Read the description.

The only way Warthunder will draw most of the IL-2 community is larger maps, fairly realistic FM's, DM's, AI, AI Commands, FMB etc. If it uses the map sizes of WOP it will fail, and it will be interesting to see if they can keep the terrain looking as good, and trees with a damage model if and when they release much larger maps. I hope they succeed and we have two decent WW2 aircombat sims.

That video is an excellent example why the P51 pips the post on the Spit for best WW2 fighter - same engine, same thin wing but the P51 has it's wing set further back, giving a more balanced aircraft. Well thats my theory anyway! :grin:

.

2 more:

1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9BeEvSyJOk


2) http://vimeo.com/51219208

YUK!!

terrible dynamics, diving stuka sounded like a vacuum cleaner, graphics 2006 .. need i say more ?

.

I say great. Don't put it in the same basket as COD or Il2, but it's a good way for those 15 year olds to get into flight simming. As a first step.

Firstly I loved WoP, it's so much fun to fly around and shoot stuff down in. I spent many hours on it.

The biggest problem I have with WT is the ground scale and vertical scale. The maps aren't 1:1. This is fine until you fly CloD, then you really notice it.

Am I right in thinking that if the ground scale is not 1:1 then there has to be a fudge in the speed calculations in order to compensate for the smaller scale?

Because, for me, WoP never really captured the sense of speed properly when down low. Is it because of the maps scaling?

really its amazing this is a niche market with so many games avalaible still

it always caught my attention that now there must be tens of thousands playing counterstrike and around 50 in every PILOTING game on the market

maybe its because the extra hardware these games need or we are odd?

Winny, I don't know about scaling in WT, however in WOP I did a test, perhaps you remember? There's no horizontal scaling, all real life speed/times/distances work out. However the devs have attributed the speed perception to large size trees and lack of ground detail. I think this has become better in the Beta. In WOP there was some horizontal scaling though, most visibly in Dover. This, according to devs to enhance 3D perception. Can't compare to CLOD as I don't have it...

MAC

I remember the test, but there's definiately an issue with the maps. The only real way to work it out would be to park a Spitfire (or any other plane) next to something we know the real size of and measure them against each other. It just struck me that the hills and cliffs around dover seem much bigger in CloD than WoP/WT, Dover castle too. So if the maps aren't to scale then the speed must be adjusted to match the maps.

Open beta was just announced on the RU site. Probably coming to international one today or tomorrow http://warthunder.com/

Please register and tell them that customers want a simulator but not another CrimpsonSky arcade :) Competition is good, maybe MG will be able to hire some of their devs later as they are constantly looking for people as Ilya said :)

RU OBT trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=-eN28hO_D8I

so can anybody tell me if its worth it to install that game? Is it at least as good as Il21946?

I don't like it. Just looks like a WWII Fighters type thing where you spawn and go at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpHgV4gwp5g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBIOrXAd4qc

I don't think that's the same game...

Isn't that World of Warplanes? This thread is about War Thunder, the Gaijin game.

Read the heading.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXfjHGpp5ZQ

Ok looks like they are different but why are they putting "War Thunder World Of War Planes" in the video titles?

http://forum.gaijinent.com/index.php...arplanes-poll/

World of Planes and World of Warplanes are 2 different games by different companies.

WT:WOP plans to include "historical battles" mode and "full realism" mode (cockpit only and no external views). World of Warplanes (1st video) is much more arcadish.

Right you are Ataros. Didn't notice that the first time....Confusing.


And I still think this looks better. Only thing is we don't have that map :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tugifv2YIw8

Both look arcadish! plenty of kiddie stuff out there, i'll stick to quality thank you..

.

This is much nicer without all of the icons. I just wonder what the game quality is like.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hItyY...eature=related

War thunder is basically Birds of prey with world of tanks type front-end... world of warplanes is just world of tanks except instead of needing to find a hill in order to gain altitude u just gotta move your mouse the direction you wanna go.

War thunder is better, more like flying, better graphics, more fun gameplay, and because it seems to really just be birds of prey, its pretty polished....

world of warplanes just seems poorly made in comparison, its clunky, doesn't even give you the feeling you're in an airplane... still feel like your in a tank...

neither are sims, but the lesser of two evils is war thunder.

The only advantage it has over CloD is that it has a flyable FW-190 :grin:

Could be fun though when they switch the simulator mode on (full real settings). They say they need more players for this to make waiting for sim-battle shorter.

yea, if you like IL2FB, CLoD, RoF, or the DCS games, you probably won't like either WoWP or WT.

It's like Il-2 in its heyday, with better graphics. CEM enthusiasts will need to look elsewhere however.

CEM mode is available. Not sure if it works properly since FMs are not fine-tuned yet.

Thanks.

Should be really easy to find out for yourself rather soon. Open Beta for WT should open internationally soon, it's opened in Russia yesterday, so everyone can try it for free.

MAC

Amazing video, thanks.

MAC

Seems a case of calling post-processing "good graphics." I don't care for the look, and I AM a graphics junkie. I take to simulation about as well as a brick takes to water. In my IL2 days, I used to joke that you always knew when the battle started: I was already a spectator.

War thunder has very poor in Damage model.
 

War thunder may look good but When playing, I found that it has very poor Damage Model. Damage model is not the area which can be enhanced easily. I don't want to play it.
I believe both CLOD and War thunder will be enhaced later but I guess I'll stand at CLOD side.

The prop animation is worse than Clodo's. Didn't think that was possible.

RedToo.

Well these graphics look pretty nice but if you look here and in other shots it seems that they have made a weird error on the 109 canopy the angle going up on the side looks too steep. Too straight up and down if you will and too wide at the top.

Does that include the size of the terrain? (I don't know how big it is)

- If it is nowhere near the real size of Southern England + the Channel + NW France then I cannot agree that it is better "in all aspects".

Most of terrain is out of view anyway because fog of war is covering horizon to save FPS. It was easy to make similar 'optimization' in CloD btw but Oleg probably could not except such a trade-off because he was making a simulator, not an MMO game. MMO game must run well on very weak PCs. A sim must simulate realistic visibility distance.

The flight models are probably no hell so if that's the case I might buy it but I'll never fly it online. I remember taking back CFS3 back to the Eletronics Boutique one hour after I bought it. Compared to IL-2 2001 it was complete junk in every way. What made me buy it was the trailer for it. How could they use this for a game that looks totally different?
Try flying that on a PC from 2003. By that time I had tons of jam in my computer to make IL-2 run like silk but CFS3 chugged along like tared mud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6VvcM7MQp4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ-qz...feature=relmfu

IL-2 2001 :)

http://s158.beta.photobucket.com/use...ml?sort=3&o=38