Another Fan Made War Thunder Video

[Pudfark]

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.

[rga]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

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 . I believe I don't even need to comment on aircraft's details, do I?

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by rga

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

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...

[Freycinet]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

And the terrain in War Thunder is just better in all aspects...

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".

[Ataros]

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.

[Richie]

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

[Trumper]

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.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Trumper

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.

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

[Feathered_IV]

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.