War Thunder.... After some time.

[Lexicon]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

I may be the odd man out here, and it may be because i have spent a bit of time flying IRL and have over-high expectations, but none of the new genre of games really looks that impressive to me graphically. Beeter than IL2 yeah, but so what. FSX from altitude with addon scenery can look reasonably realistic but none of the new combat flightsims do it for me.

Personally "immersion" comes from other factors in a sim and has little to do with graphics. I recall flight sims from the early 90's that where far more "immersive" than most of the current crop.

Hello Galway,

What other factors are you reffering to? What is missing in WT (in FRB) or CLOD, in your opinion, compared to those early 90' sims ?
You know, both WT and BOS are in development, so any constructive comments are welcome .

Salute !

[Stublerone]

Sometimes I feel like some of you guys really do not really understand, what clod intended to do with all the stuff, that is for sure some kind of buggy and pops in.

It is a straming engine, which intention is to give you maximum possible viewing ranges and details. All streaming engines are running bad in terms of hacing pop ups. The reason, why wt is looking better in that terms is that you roughly have 5km clear viewing range and it has nothin to simulate. Nearly all fround objects in clod had the intention to be single objects, which also costs a lot of performance.

Next point: Wt has no detailed DM as it cannot have it for now. It is an il2 engined game with even lesser detail than old il2 in terms of computing and simulating anything. It is just a easy version of il2 with eye candy.

Viewing distance is horrible, fm is not ther, even in historical matches. The ripped out essential flight simming characteristics to do an arcade game. Anybody, who is comparing it to clod and its totally other approach, really has no clue, what it was all about. Level of details, single placed and moving objects, which are programmable and not randomly just create immersion, but also additionally try to make sense do not seem to weigh here.

I not say, that any of both games were anywhere near a fine game, but clod had the potential built in. WT do not have options to be a sim and to create a sim comunity with its limited and cut out features.

Than better play hsfx mod on il2, because with wt, we will never come back together in a way, we did it in il2. And that is fact.

Sure you can play it, but I really hate to hear people here talking about the game and compare it with each others. In this case I often think to myself: Is the world really getting dumber than the world was sime years ago? Complete Nonsens.

But I do not say, that noone should play one of these games play, whatever is fun.

[Lexicon]

Originally Posted by Stublerone

Sometimes I feel like some of you guys really do not really understand, what clod intended to do with all the stuff, that is for sure some kind of buggy and pops in.

It is a straming engine, which intention is to give you maximum possible viewing ranges and details. All streaming engines are running bad in terms of hacing pop ups. The reason, why wt is looking better in that terms is that you roughly have 5km clear viewing range and it has nothin to simulate. Nearly all fround objects in clod had the intention to be single objects, which also costs a lot of performance.

Next point: Wt has no detailed DM as it cannot have it for now. It is an il2 engined game with even lesser detail than old il2 in terms of computing and simulating anything. It is just a easy version of il2 with eye candy.

Viewing distance is horrible, fm is not ther, even in historical matches. The ripped out essential flight simming characteristics to do an arcade game. Anybody, who is comparing it to clod and its totally other approach, really has no clue, what it was all about. Level of details, single placed and moving objects, which are programmable and not randomly just create immersion, but also additionally try to make sense do not seem to weigh here.

I not say, that any of both games were anywhere near a fine game, but clod had the potential built in. WT do not have options to be a sim and to create a sim comunity with its limited and cut out features.

Than better play hsfx mod on il2, because with wt, we will never come back together in a way, we did it in il2. And that is fact.

Sure you can play it, but I really hate to hear people here talking about the game and compare it with each others. In this case I often think to myself: Is the world really getting dumber than the world was sime years ago? Complete Nonsens.

But I do not say, that noone should play one of these games play, whatever is fun.

Hello Stublerone,

"We" understand this though: CLOD, after 8 years of development and $8 million in investments, is a total business failure, and half the game it should have been. And so imcomplete it becomes boring to play after few months...
So everything as "had the potential" and "intended to do" , and " had the intention to be" is totally irrelevant since CLOD could not make it happened...

WT may have only(?) 5 km of viewing distance but does many important things CLOD should do to be called "immersive" and realistic :

Good looking 3D clouds, overcast, weather system, planes in a distance , realistic blackouts , pilot in cockpit, in cockpit plexi reflexions, sun f/x , collision with trees, realistic terrain at low altitude, and having 20 fighters against 50 bombers in formation over cities at good FPS with a decent PC.
If CLOD fell short to do all this because of some "calculations" to have perfect FM and DM, well, the trade-off is not worth it apparently.
As far as if WT could have, eventually, good FM and DM , whos to say ?
In the end, if WT still updates its game at the actual rate, WT will have everything better than CLOD...So how close to CLOD's FM and DM WT has to be to get the "sim" approbation ?

Salute !

[naz]

Clod boring to play after a few months??

Can't agree with you there old boy....each to their own I guess but you are definitely speaking for yourself there.

[Lexicon]

Originally Posted by naz

Clod boring to play after a few months??

Can't agree with you there old boy....each to their own I guess but you are definitely speaking for yourself there.

Are'nt we all speaking for ourselves here ?

And you call me old boy !!! You know what Naz ?!!!!
You're right about that one !

I have to admit that I am more of a "visual" and "immersion" guy than an expert in FM/DM and technical specs of each airplane. But there is no concensus about those issues in CLOD either...

SAlute !

[Roblex]

What impresses me is that this was using am ATI HD 4850 which has only 1GB and is over 4 years old!

[Stublerone]

Originally Posted by Roblex

What impresses me is that this was using am ATI HD 4850 which has only 1GB and is over 4 years old!

That is totally easy: You take your old experience with the il2 engine, create new interiors, new layers and totally limit the workload on physics and other calculations or replace it with easier to calculate rudimentary calculations and you have enough headroom for eyecandy and so on. Additionally screw down visibility from other ganes down from 35km to 5km or less and guess what: You have a game running on every system! They already built a ps2 game out of il2 and a console also only can do limited workloads.

I am just wondering, why it do not look like bf3, because with all these limitations, it should easily work! So for me they are now beginning to make money with a polished ps2game in the jacket of the new free to play mmo's. And additionally they could use the old mechanics to let you build missions and play "full real". This was also what they bought with the rights to built a ps2 il2. Poorly they slow everything out, which is important as sim and made it arcade. Sure they do, because the group of people playing arcade is much more big and they can make a lot of money! And they do by far better than world of warplanes from wargaming.

But nevertheless there is no need to discuss this game as substitute for a flight sim player. Simple as that! And immersion through visible effects are not, what a sim stands for. And immersion in sims is created by your own and the others, who are flying in clan flight evenings (organized and not just an online server gang bang. I mean real meetings with companies, where 3vs3clans with fighter and bomber specialists are flying against each others. With real organized swarm tacticts, your wingman and all the skills needed to perform such flights! That is, what il2 was all about for most players.

No online gang bang, no offline flyers, etc. Just the organized clans playing high end and building the living part of the comunity.

[Ataros]

I think WT is a fun game if you do not expect highest detail, hardcore simulation or Oleg's perfectionism.

Do you play on a Russian server or there is a separate EU or US server? The RU server has a 3rd game mode with more realistic settings(e.g. limited friendly icons only) than Arcade and Historic Battles.

[Stublerone]

Wt is already boring after weeks for many and it simply will never have the possibility to create content near the possibilities of il2 and clod. And il2 is an old sim, still capable of more features than wt would ever have. Random battles are boring and do not suite to a flight sim.

With "intention" I mean the intention, why it complicatedly built. Sure it had bucks and performqnce problems, bit I see the technical aspects behind it. You can screw down the whole graphics to 800x6000 and it still is technically better than wt. I do not want to argue, but you are seeing skins, textures and anti aliasing, but not the number of polygons, the calculations etc behind it. With all that limited in wt, the game should look like gran turismo or R.A.C.E. and not like it is now. It looks okay but they are far beyond the possibilities.

Btw: I could play clod sufficiently directly after the first small patch a few days after release. I just had to take away some eye candies, which are not that much relevant. I mean: Why set number of houses on max, if it looks okay enough on low settings and it has no influence on your flying.

The only thing about clod is, that they haven't looked into the old comunity and give their feedback enough value. The game is built like wt: you cannot establish a core gaming comunity with that limited access to a good mission builder and some other stuff. And the second topic on clod was, that they wanted too much and did not have the proper skills to make such a complicated thing ready to run. I also never understood, why the fm's were so weird.

But that is all. Technically our next pc will be able to run clod in its first released state easily. The engine requires too much from a system "pc" which nobody cares of in the direction of game requirements. We simply need better comunications between the parts of a pc and we are already lost years of innovation in this case, because the consoles stopped it. If you see recent analyses, it could be the best solution for the new console generation to go closer to pc configuration again, as 4k resolution on a crappy ps4 with a amd a10 chip inside is nonsens. They will lose shares soon, if you hear the technical analysts.

Bit that is a bit off topic

[Lexicon]

Originally Posted by Stublerone

Wt is already boring after weeks for many and it simply will never have the possibility to create content near the possibilities of il2 and clod. And il2 is an old sim, still capable of more features than wt would ever have. Random battles are boring and do not suite to a flight sim.

With "intention" I mean the intention, why it complicatedly built. Sure it had bucks and performqnce problems, bit I see the technical aspects behind it. You can screw down the whole graphics to 800x6000 and it still is technically better than wt. I do not want to argue, but you are seeing skins, textures and anti aliasing, but not the number of polygons, the calculations etc behind it. With all that limited in wt, the game should look like gran turismo or R.A.C.E. and not like it is now. It looks okay but they are far beyond the possibilities.

Btw: I could play clod sufficiently directly after the first small patch a few days after release. I just had to take away some eye candies, which are not that much relevant. I mean: Why set number of houses on max, if it looks okay enough on low settings and it has no influence on your flying.

The only thing about clod is, that they haven't looked into the old comunity and give their feedback enough value. The game is built like wt: you cannot establish a core gaming comunity with that limited access to a good mission builder and some other stuff. And the second topic on clod was, that they wanted too much and did not have the proper skills to make such a complicated thing ready to run. I also never understood, why the fm's were so weird.

But that is all. Technically our next pc will be able to run clod in its first released state easily. The engine requires too much from a system "pc" which nobody cares of in the direction of game requirements. We simply need better comunications between the parts of a pc and we are already lost years of innovation in this case, because the consoles stopped it. If you see recent analyses, it could be the best solution for the new console generation to go closer to pc configuration again, as 4k resolution on a crappy ps4 with a amd a10 chip inside is nonsens. They will lose shares soon, if you hear the technical analysts.

Bit that is a bit off topic

Hi Stublerone,

Be sure I am not here to argue, but to understand something.

What features are you reffering to when you state:

" And il2 is an old sim, still capable of more features than wt would ever have. "

I've been playing IL2 since 2001. I've been following the forums since then.
FM and DM features have always been an issue among hardcore simmers and no concensus has ever been reached. Same for CLOD.

But ,the main complaints from hardcore simmers regarding CLOD, even during its development were related to...graphics!!! How the damn thing looked !

1-Terrain...Remember all the discussions about: the color, the tone, the good green, the bad green...Bad lighting...Good lighting..?
2-Clouds...That is a pitty..But remember all those discussions and complaints about the shape ,the color and shading ? Overcast anyone ?
3-Tracers...about 25 threads of complaints about those too.
4-Buildings...Same thing...Bad color, bad size...
5-Trees...well, there were discussions about the size and green tones of the leaves...And the shimmering shadows ?
6-And all the complaints about the everchanging hue and contrast with the whole thing...including the cockpits...
7- And the "dots" plane in a distance...
8- And the blackout f/x that looks like scratches on the screen...?
There are so many complaints about the graphic aspects of CLOD in this comunity that I can't beleive it is not a priority for the simmers.

When 777 opened its forum for the IL2 BOS, about 90% of the questions were about ? The graphics !!! Will it look good ? CLOD crowd don't like the ROF graphics ! They want eye candy !

WT decided to go the other way around. Top graphics with high FPS on average machines and high playability. Now people complain about FM, DM and other "game" features that CLOD may have done right.
WT is based on IL2 engine. That means there is the possibility to make WT as good as IL2 ...If they wish to. BUt WT "works" very well, in its BETA state.
CLOD never succeeded in that matter, and was a catastrophic failure at release. Maybe Gaijin did learn from 1C ?

Salute !