War Thunder.... After some time.

[GloDark7]

View full screen 1080p:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htxjvRJxycw&hd=1

[Bearcat]

Nice shots Glo.. Hows the skinning in WT? I always like the ballistics in WoP .. they seemed more realistic to me.. more like actual guncam footage..

[Lexicon]

Well, I think that Glodark's video says it all...(nice aim by the way !)

Any one can now see what WT is capable of...And it is still in....Beta...
In terms of immertion, playability and fun factor within a good enough realistic FM and DM environment, WT has the crown...for now...

Salute !

[GloDark7]

Thanks Bearcat, Lexicon,

No skinning in the traditional sense. Just this decal placement arrangement they have which results in some bizarre oddities online. It may get opened up to traditional skinning later on, who knows?

Glo

[Bearcat]

Graphically it is nice.. WoP was great too in that respect.. I still use it to take screen shots and for quick skirmishes every now and then.. I think Gaijin got some things right.. very right..and if RoF can look at what's out there and use it .. I think it will be great.. I just hope it's online functionality is better implemented..

[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.

[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.