9.10.2013

Posted on by

Ready for tomorrow? I know I am, took a day off, so the news from the test should be… quick :)

Also note that wotreplays.org site is back online, if you want, check it out.

- the development of WoWp clouds is tied to the smokescreens in WoT, when it is optimized, WG will develop smokescreens based on it
- apparently, smoke (SS: from burning wrecks mentioned) will work like the bushes in WoWp and it will work that way in WoT too
- 122mm D-83 gun (Object 167, Object 430U IIRC) won’t be implemented now, it’s too OP, but the developers keep it in mind
- regarding autoloading Soviet tanks, SerB states that in 1943, autoloaders for both the KV and T-34 were developed, but they won’t be implemented for now


- Object 277 wont be implemented
- unfortunately, once the battle result (detailed) is gone (for example during restart), there is no way to get it back
- according to SerB, putting 2 T1 Cunningham tanks with noob stats into your 7/42 team won’t help you cheat the skill MM, so it allows you to fight easier opponents (SS: WG aren’t such idiots not to consider such a blatant way of cheating)
- one of the major features of switchable hulls will be the fact each hull will have a different maximum speed (Serb wants this specifically)
- it’s possible the researchable hull for T-28 will be either T-28E (with additional armor screens) or T-29
- interesting answer: a player asked SerB, how he thinks would the tanks of the 50′s look, if there was no WW2 to stimulate the development. SerB answered that it’s just pure guessing, but the thinks Soviet Union would have T-34M and KV-5, Germans would have Panzer IV’s and something like Tiger with electrodiesel (“I believe in Porsche”), Americans would have no tanks whatsoever, the British would have something like Cromwell and Churchill with 6pdrs and France would have some unspecified good medium tank and something like ARL-44
- SerB (when asked whether he would like to have burning bushes) states that he’d like everything that burns to burn, but there would be a problem with client performance
- WG is exploring the possibility to make holes into terrain (like from arty shells for example), but it’s very, VERY difficult, no guarantees
- SerB states that the 0.9.0 graphic improvement will stress the graphic card mostly (post processing), regarding HD graphics – tests will show
- upcoming ingame messages (“whispering”) will not be available in battles

126 thoughts on “9.10.2013”

  2. I’ll be ready for tomorrow :D test my grandparents fibre broadband lol – soon have it downloaded ;)

    • WoWp also have bushes, it’s just that don’t hide your planes behind them. (Smoke) Clouds on the other hand does reduce visiability a lot, not only for detecting enemy planes, it can also be quite dangerous to fly around blind.

    • The autoloader was for the ‘awesome’ 76mm gun. You know, with 86 av pen in-game.
      ERMAHGERD SHO OHP

    • Eh, I don’t think it was a ‘wot’ autoloader, a magazine, but a mechanism that simply replaces the human loader, like in the T-64. Less crew but a bigger ammorack hitbox. And possibly a fixed reload rate.

  8. - WG is exploring the possibility to make holes into terrain

    I hope they will do it. Is a little bit more “Realistic”. Would be cool, when the “Dust” of the exploding holes could fall on the Tanks.

        • Use T92 premium shell to create a huge hole in front of a running B.C.25t, maybe it’ll ram itself to death.

          And the burning bushes idea – I, as an arty player, like that personally (it would be much more realistic). But I think no one would like Hell of Fire version of Malinovka.

  9. Toaster player here. The whole HD graphics thing will be possible to turn off, right?
    Right? ._.

  10. - the development of WoWp clouds is tied to the smokescreens in WoT, when it is optimized, WG will develop smokescreens based on it

    OH GOD PLEASE NO!
    I had to turn off all the clouds as they just totally screw up with my FPS. It seems WG really wants to lower my FPS to sub-10 numbers.)

      • They have been optimizing GFX in WOT for a long time now, and every patch drops my FPS… sorry, but i dont believe they will be able to do so properly.

          • Considering my “toaster” runs WOT at 100fps on most maps, yet only 10-15fps on murovanka in sniper mode, im pretty sure the problem is not connected with my rig.

            With WOWp its similiar – most maps are constant 80fps, then “hello there cloud” and i land at 10fps range

            • EDIT:
              thats ofc full details/highest settings on improved

              But actually moving sliders around dont change the top part of the performance (it still sits around 100fps), only moves shitty murovanka up a lil (think i have around 30fps in sniper mode atm, but run on low-med settings)

            • Exactly my friend, exactly. I have the same concerns, as there are maps, or parts of maps that well, do not run as well as they should giving the machine capabilities. Siginificant drops. I’m blaming WG programers, as if the computer can handle current titles ok, it should have no problems with WOT. And it doesn’t have, except of few “places”. That’s why the War Thunder (at least for me) is so superior. Far better optimization, no “suprises”.

  12. “and France would have some unspecified good medium tank and something like ARL-44″
    I think France would have slow, heavily-armored tanks such as B1

    • Yeh i think the same. Just look at G1 project – i guess that would be the “end” of the line for them. ARL-44 (at least its frontal armour and its thickness) looked as it did specifically because of vechicles developed during war.

      • You forget about cavalry tanks, that would have to keep up with motorized infantry.
        So the French could get some quite good medium tanks along the way.

        • …and meanwhile the Infantry had started experimenting with tracked APCs to accompany its assault tanks, namely the VBCP 38L and 39L modifications of the Lorraine munitions carrier.

    • Their prewar plans for the next generation of dedicated breakthrough tanks were actually a… BIT… more ambitious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCM_F1 The B1 was actually more or less earmarked for retirement after the improved “ter” version but there were some “super B1″ designs at least proposed to succeed it (eg. the Char B 40 with two-man turret, HV 47mm gun and a 105mm hull gun).
      The G1 was actually a little weird and didn’t as such fit into the prevailing French tank doctrine – theory is apparently that it was probably intented for the projected drive into Germany after the latter had been checked and worn out in positional warfare and their lines broken by the dedicated breakthrough tanks. Still, the project requirements read kind of like it might well have been picked up by the Cavalry for the mobile “cavalry tank” role too.

    • France would have some silly light tanks suited for colonial warfare. Without thr war in Europe, and the love and peace situation there, they would have problems in the colonies earlier, especially when the communists would have no better things to do to inspire movements there, so earlier wars in Vietnam, Algiers, involvment in Africa etc., thus development of tanks that mostly do not have to fight against other armour, or if they do – something very, very old.

      But that’s a speculative history, as i.e. with peace in Europe, China could become a very interesting place where I can easily see many alliances fighting each other. Especially in the age of the Atom, where a direct conflict is almost impossible.

      • Colonial “police duties” could be easily – and far more economically – handled by assorted old junk and armoured cars, though, seeing as how the revolting natives wouldn’t be boasting too much heavy metal of their own or even decent antitank weaponry. Inasmuch AFVs were even relevant to fighting the Indochinese and North African insurgencies. OTOH without the acute weakening of the colonial empires by the war truly serious armed risings oughta taken a fair bit longer to appear in the first place…

        Also do note that WW2 was the direct impetus behind the fantastically expensive Manhattan Project; without such an unusual pressures nuclear developement oughta been rather slower and concentrated on civilian and “pure research” applications far longer.

        The thing with China was that at least during the warlord period there was an international ban on weapons exports to the place which were also observed and enforced to a degree (which is one reason the “Broomhandle” Mauser and variations thereof was so popular there; those didn’t apply to it and the thing made a decent light carbine). Powers concerned by Japanese adventurism of course supported the Chinese historically already – see the Soviet “Operation Zet” for a prewar example – under varying degrees of “plausible deniability” and German advisors were assisting the KMT at least until the mid-Thirties for their own reasons… Given American isolationism and tensions in Europe preoccupying the colonial powers those would appear rather unlikely to get directly involved, all the more so as the risk of setting off a major Far Eastern war with Japan would be only too real, but indirect support for Chiang would certainly sound plausible enough especially if the Japanese started making real gains.

  13. Hmm, what’s the problem with Object 277? I thought it would make a nice 3rd Tier X for the USSR tree….any clues?

      • Personally I think the object 277 would be a better tier X for the USSR …

        300mm? No. Only 290mm for turret (front) and 140mm for the body (front).

        Thank you WG to refuse interesting ideas.

  14. (SS: WG aren’t such idiots not to consider such a blatant way of cheating)

    WG are idiots face it,
    the only good thing they’ve done is create the game!

  15. Couldn’t they like, instead of modifying the ground mesh for craters, spawn a crater model on top of the ground. Sure it wouldn’t be a hole in the ground, but a hole on top.. of the ground…? I think Company of Heroes did something similar.

    • “Sure it wouldn’t be a hole in the ground, but a hole on top.. of the ground…?”
      Not sure if its good idea to break space-time continuum.

      • Actually, that’s one of the options for FTL space travel. Anyway – even if “ze puny earthlings” could generate enouth energy, we don’t know how to use it in order to open the wormhole. Yet.

        • Also likely wouldn’t be a good idea to do that inside a habitable biosphere. Nevermind now the only one available within reasonable distance.

          • I recommend a book called ARK. It goes into that stuff on a pretty realistic scientific basis.

            • Highly unlikely I’ll ever get around to it, but just a note – author name would be useful. *Especially* if the title is an Undead Horse Trope like that…

  16. Wait, did SerB just answer a question regarding hypothetical tanks WITHOUT TROLLING?!?!

    • He gives stupid answers to stupid questions, the problem is that most questions are stupid.

      • No, problem is he answers they way he is in mood atm. He will answer even some dumb question if he’s in a good mood, but will also answer with trolling that same question if he’s not in a good mood.

  17. How will WG avoid complete noobs driving the 2 T1′s every 7/42 has affecting its MM Rating?

    • Easy, weight the rating of players by the tier they play. Thus a T1 player will have 1/8th of the impact on the MM that a tier 8 player has.

    • It could be done many ways, but a simple method could be that an individual’s skill is prorated by his tank’s contribution to the point total i.e. A t1 would only contribute 1/42nd of his skill where a t8 would contribute 8/42nds of his skill

  18. Those holes in the ground would be epical, image blowing the ground away from a light with arty. Or slowing flat pieces of ground by arty bombing.

    And the smoke from wrecks acting as bushes, nice ^^ I am afraid those wont come to soon dough.

    • It’s ironic that your ally is sometimes more useful to you after they die (if the smoke provides camo factor like the bushes do)

    • Yeah, and you would need an i7, or top GTX in SLI to calculate that, knowing the “prowness” of the WG coders…

  19. “Ready for tomorrow? I know I am, took a day off, so the news from the test should be… quick :)”

    ‘He sits in the dark, quivering, waiting for that moment.’ ;P
    (Also hat tip for whoever gets the esoteric reference.)

  20. Pingback: 09.10.2013 | WoTRomania

  21. I agree that SerB\s answer to the question about tank development without World War II is interesting. I agree it’s very plausible that the Soviet Union would produce the T-34M as it was the outbreak of WWII that caused its development to end.

  22. Burning bushes sounds Moses like. I wish WG would developed the ability to have Willie Pete rounds to use for spotting. It saves on pinging and so that you team mates can view the close position where the enemy is located.Plus blinding the enemy temporarily would be good too.

      • Smoking out german crews out of their tanks? Next we shall have flame thrower tabks throwing napalm and cooking enemy crews alive muahahaha

  23. - one of the major features of switchable hulls will be the fact each hull will have a different maximum speed (Serb wants this specifically)

    I was reading “Panzer IV: Ausf. G, H, J 1942-45″ by Jentz/Doyle, and it mentioned the Panzer IV Ausf. H’s additional armor weighed the vehicle to the point that it’s top speed was down to 38 kph. I was wondering if this would be a factor to consider, looks like it will be

  24. - one of the major features of switchable hulls will be the fact each hull will have a different maximum speed (Serb wants this specifically)

    So they dropped the idea that the hulls were linked to the suspension?

    • I don’t think so. If they would work like the bushes in WoT, that means, that some of the work is ready. Also, there is no much difference between a bush, and a cloud in such assumption – WOT is also a 3D environemnt. Yes, tanks move slower, and yes, they move on the ground, but ground is just a static point in the 3D environemnt – just like a plane flying in astraight line (in a point). So, the thing is, that in one hand, you’ll get more position calculation to make, but also the effort could be compensated with less ground details to create. It’s just a matter of optimization (of the outdated engine…), not creating something that’s not already there.

  27. - unfortunately, once the battle result (detailed) is gone (for example during restart), there is no way to get it back

    Well there sort of is, upload the replay to wotreplays.com , it gets the battleresult screen. Might be worth to check it out.

  29. Is it just me, or are SerB’s responses FINALLY getting a little less trolly and a little more informative.

    Even a few posts back I saw him say “Don’t like tank x? Try going hull down. If that doesn’t work, don’t drive tank x” That’s a huge improvement over just “Don’t drive tank x.”

    • Could be he’s just in a good mood. Might be the worst crunch period of the next patch being over and hence less stress, general crankiness and brutal stimulant abuse all around the office.

  30. ‘- SerB states that the 0.9.0 graphic improvement will stress the graphic card mostly (post processing), regarding HD graphics – tests will show’

    Pretty please would be that they separate these new things from post processing which makes the whole game blurry and look bad instead of sharp look without it. :(

  31. I wouldn’t expect much knowledge of the American military system/military history to come from a Belorussian, but the idea that America wouldn’t have any tanks by the 50′s is ludicrous by any standards of alternative history. Americans were behind the pack when it came to implementing armored vehicles into their forces, to be sure; but that doesn’t mean they had zero investment in it. Nor would it be even remotely likely that the Germans and Russians would roll out “super tanks” like Tigers and KV-5s before the Americans had anything. And let’s not forget how much Walter T. Christie lent to early Soviet/Eastern European tank design. The venerable T-34 wouldn’t have existed without it.

    That kind of alternate history is too nebulous and far-fetched to have any truly accurate prediction, even by the most well-versed of historians, but it should be obvious to anyone with even a passing casual interest in military history to know that America would’ve had a tank force regardless of whether World War II happened or not. To predict otherwise just seems so horribly dull and insular.

    • He almost certainly meant it as “worth mentioning”, which would be something of a fair cop given what a sorry lot the prewar US AFVs were. There’s also the detail the ground forces were about as small as they could realistically be (historicans often quip that when the *Belgians* mobilised their army they boasted more troops than the US) and lived on a pretty shoestring budget; not unreasonably given the geostrategic position interwar US military spending went mainly into the ships and planes.

        • Feel free to point out where anyone said something like *that*. However given what their designs tended to be *before* events in Europe inspired some hasty revisions – M2 Medium and whatever multi-turreted monstrosity the T1/M6 Heavy was originally conceptualised as – *before* events in Europe inspired some hasty revisions, well, confidence isn’t high.
          Their “fundamental research” on diverse subsystems was good; it was putting those together into a decent tank that seems to have been a bit difficult before empirical evidence from across the Pond gave some pointers.

  32. Here’s a translation of the Russian T-29 entry in Wiki:

    T-29 – Pilot Soviet middle of wheel- track tank 1930s , created on the basis of the T -28. Fabricated several prototypes , the results of tests are planned to take the tank to the Red Army . However, for a number of reasons for its mass production and has not been deployed .
    content

    1 History
    2 Description of the construction
    2.1 Case
    2.2 Tower
    2.3 Armament
    2.4 Engine and transmission
    2.5 Chassis
    2.6 Surveillance and Communications
    2.7 Electrical Equipment
    3 Operation and operational use
    4 Evaluation of the machine
    5 Notes
    6 References
    7 Links

    History of creation

    One of the characteristics of Soviet ( and not only) tank development of the 1930s was a lot of work on the design and creation of wheel- track tanks. The use of wheel- track mover greatly complicated the powertrain and chassis tanks, but gave a clear advantage in speed . In addition, in such a way solved the problem of low resource caterpillars, which did not allow the tanks of those years to make long marches . Finally, it was assumed that in the event of damage to the track mover crew will simply discard the broken caterpillar, let losing patency of the tank, but retaining its mobility .

    The program of the troops of the Red Army Tank-Automotive wheel- tracked tanks occupied a significant place . It was assumed in addition available in the presence of light tanks BT series is also designed with a medium tank wheel and crawler gear .

    Development of the average wheel-track tank in the Soviet Union began in 1933 with the preparation of the technical department office Tank-Automotive ECU GPU series of preliminary designs of tanks, representing a further development of the BT -2 and is largely based on the recently developed the T -28. The main one , which bore the symbol of the PT- 1 had a drive to the three pairs of rollers (driving on the tracks ), and had the ability to swim. It was also fully developed five “overland ” versions of the tank, from which the greatest interest in the military caused the 4th and 5th projects under the title IT 3 (” Fighter Tank , a third “). The car had a mass of 17-20 tons (depending on the hotel ) , defended bulletproof armor and armed with 76.2 mm gun and 7.62- mm and 12.7 . M- 17B engine capacity of 500 hp was to accelerate the car to 60 km / h on tracks and 80 km / h – on wheels. A crew of 4 people . In 1934 , after the completion of these two projects , the Leningrad Kirov Plant , which at that time was unfolding issue of T -28 tanks were built by experienced T-29 and T -4 -29 -5 . The project was developed under the guidance of NV Zeitz , directly involved in the design of the tank took NA Astrov . Tanks differed among themselves reservation ( 15-20 or 20-33 mm, respectively ) , weight ( 16 or 23.5 m) and a number of other parameters. By linking arms and tanks were identical and consistent with the T -28.

    In 1934-1935 the T-29 tanks were a lot of trials , including comparative with the T -28. According to their results , it was concluded that the T- 29 , although it is more complicated to manufacture, but is of great interest because of the high speed and good maneuverability .

    According to the results of tests in 1936 at the Kirov plant produced a reference sample T-29 . It was planned in 1937 to deploy its mass production , it has since been reduced release program T-28 , but because of the large number of T-29 deficiencies in its existing form of war is not satisfied . According to the decision of T-bills at the USSR’s number 14ss on 25 May 1937 , the plant was to redraft the tank and develop a new model , with thickened bronelistami of hardened armor, mounted at an angle.

    This machine , designated as T-29 -C , was developed under the leadership of V. Zeitz in record time and on July 4 presented to the T-bills . The project was very different from the standard T-29 . Was lengthened chassis, which received 5 pairs of rollers ( three of them and two of the leading managed ) instead of 4 in the reference T-29 . Vehicle weight of 30 tonnes defended the 30- mm armor and was armed with 76.2 -mm cannon A- 10 , five machine-guns and two machine guns DC . Armament housed in three towers. A crew of six people.

    T-29 -C was approved by the military, and by July 1, 1938 it was planned to produce a prototype, but the fall of 1937, all the work in this direction were suddenly collapsed , and the Kirov plant continued to produce T-28 tanks in the same volume . The reasons for this are not clear , but according to some sources , the decision was related to the arrest of NV Zeitz as a ” pest ” in September 1937 . [1]
    Description of construction

    The following is the standard unit of the T- 29.
    housing
    The projections of the reference of the T -29 with a gun PS- 3

    T-29 was a three-turret tank, similar in layout to the T -28. However, in comparison with the latter body has undergone a number of changes , in particular, has become somewhat wider ( 350 mm) and higher ( 200 mm), which was due to locating parts within the hulls . In addition , a number of elements of the case has undergone minor configuration changes. Housing welded from rolled armor plates with a thickness of 10 to 30 mm.
    tower

    The main tower of circular rotation was similar in design to the tower artillery tank T -26 -4 with an increase of 100 mm ring diameter . In front of the tower in a mask was placed on the trunnion tank gun CT -28 ( there were attempts to place another unfinished gun PS- 3). To the right of it and in the back of the tower were independent ball set with machine-guns . On the cover of the tower hatch was provided anti-aircraft turret for another TD . For getting on and off the main tower of the crew had two rotary sunroof and one ( rectangular ) – in the aft broneliste .

    Small tower on the design of the tower repeated the T -28 and armed with a machine gun ball mount DT each. Sector rotation is 165 °.
    armament

    As the main weapons used by the universal tank gun PS- 3 , installed in the main tower ( covered options armament of the tank cannon CT -28 model 1927/32 year). Subsequently, instead of guns PS- 3 was installed tank gun L-10 .

    Auxiliary armament consisted of four consisted of a 7.62- mm machine-guns , located in globular plants ( in the front and rear of the main tower and machine gun turrets ) . Another machine gun DT could reside on turret hatch on the main tower .

    Ammunition consisted of 67 unitary fired the gun and 6615 rounds of machine guns (105 stores in 63 rounds in each ) .
    Engine and transmission

    As the power plant used V- shaped aircraft petrol engine M- 17T or M- 17F water cooling power of 500 hp With two double carburetors “Zenith” CD- 1. Engine start-up is done with the help of the electric starter “Bosch” power 6 hp ( 4.4 kw) and compressed air. The system uses two ignition magnetos ” scintilla “. To facilitate starting the engine starter used magnetos “Bosch” . Fuel capacity of 600 liters , which provided a reserve of the highway on wheels – 300 km, on tracks – 200 km.

    Transmission was similar to the transmission of the T -28 and consisted of a main dry friction clutch , five-speed gearboxes ( five forward gears , one – back ) , on-board multi-disc dry clutch transmission and two-tier board with band brakes. As a mechanism for rotating motion on wheels used a simple differential.
    chassis
    A reference sample of the T -29 , rearmed gun L-10 , on tracks . 1938 .

    Chassis for a board composed of four rubber-tyred rollers of large diameter. When driving on wheels three pair of rear rollers were the leading , front – driven . When driving on tracks track driven by a drive rear- wheel drive . Located in front of sloth with screw tensioning system . There were also three support rollers . In the chassis suspension system employed individual Christie with coil springs .

    Melkozvenchatye caterpillar lantern meshing width of 500 mm tank to provide high throughput .

    Interestingly, the speed of the cars on the tracked and wheeled were possibly close. This convergence speed ( timing) was made especially for the possible combined use of thrusters (in this case, you can move , using one side tracked , and on the other – wheel propulsion ) .
    Surveillance and Communications

    Like the T-28 , the means of observation of the T- 29 is a simple observation slits (one on the sides of the main tower , on the sides of the outer machine gun towers and cover the driver’s hatch ) , closed the inside of the removable triplex glass blocks, provides protection from bullets , shrapnel and spray lead at firing armor-piercing bullets. Tank commander also possessed a panoramic periscope observation devices PTC protected bronekolpakom .

    The tank T-29 radio station established 71-TK -1 and internal intercom SPU- 7 -R .
    electrics

    An electric tank made ​​by a single-circuit . System voltage was 12 V. The sources of electricity by means of four rechargeable batteries 6STA 6STA -6 or 9 – 12V with a capacity of 144 Ah and 96 Ah , respectively , as well as the dynamo generator ” scintilla ” power of 1000 W , voltage of 12 V.
    Maintenance and operational use

    Reliable information on the operational use of the three samples made ​​T-29 is not.

    T-29 -4 was transferred to the landfill in Kubinka , where he remained until the beginning of World War II. In autumn 1941 he was transferred to the 22 th Armored Brigade . What happened to him then – unknown.

    T-29 -5 was demolished in 1938.

    Benchmark T-29 in the same year was re gun L-10 . After the outbreak of the Russo-Finnish War, the tank was repaired and February 13, 1940 ” departed in order ABTV 13th Army.” However, on the military use of the tank is not known , as well as about his fate .

    At least one of the T -29 was evacuated to Chelyabinsk, and as of 1942 was on the territory of the pilot plant number 100 . According to the documents , in late 1943, this car was put into melted together with the T -100 , SW -7, and a number of other prototypes armored vehicles . [2]
    Evaluation of the machine
    The T -29 -4 on wheels . Summer 1935.

    Undoubtedly, the T-29 was the original machine that was used a number of interesting technical solutions. Drive on three axes has greatly increased the dynamic characteristics of the machine , and powerful weapons along with armor protects against bullets and shell fragments , made ​​T-29 tank is very promising .

    But at the same time the tank had a lot of shortcomings , such as wheel-track mover greatly complicate its design , which led to difficulties in production and operation . In addition, the tank had all the disadvantages towered schemes, such as the inability to increase the reservation and the complexity of the production casing.

    However, taking into account the weight of the tank , the caliber artillery armament and speed of movement on tracks , can not be denied created in 1936, the T – 29, one of the important steps in the search for a new type of medium tank , which eventually ended in the creation of the legendary T -34 .

  33. - WG is exploring the possibility to make holes into terrain (like from arty shells for example), but it’s very, VERY difficult, no guarantees

    *Meanwhile, back in 1999*

    Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun already has terrain changes from firing artillery or superweapons.

    Difficult, pfft, for Belorussians maybe. Just define location, depth, diameter of crater, with pre-specified curvature function in the in-game renderer (and server side location calculations) already, and voila the crater appears!

    • Meanwhile, in modern day 2013 we realize that the isometric perspective of C&C Tiberian Sun(Holy cow I loved that game to bits and beyond, RIP Westwood) is completely different than current day outdated but nevertheless 3D environment we look at when driving our nifty tanks in WoT.

      Your argument should be shoved in the face of Blizzard rather than WG. :)

    • @Guardian54: Such simplicity only works when you have barren surfaces without decoration (houses, bushes etc.). In addition, this would create new work for the hitbox and collisionbox related calculations. Displaying a crater (ie a change in the ground polygons) is not the real issue here, actually handling it is.

      Anyway, as pointed out above, you reveal to know nothing at all about this matter since you bring up C&C TS as an example, which handles both the display and handling of terrain entirely different from WoT.

  34. - WG is exploring the possibility to make holes into terrain (like from arty shells for example), but it’s very, VERY difficult, no guarantees

    Is this referring to shell craters?

  35. Oh man no smoke please. It would be so lame seeing the entire battlefield full with smoke. The bushes are more than enough to hide behind. And besides it could be an FPS drop fest as well.