0.9.0 Details

Source: Russian portal



In patch 9.0, following features will come:

- historical battles mode (Kursk, Balaton operation, Ardennes)
- graphic changes: new shaders, allowing for more realistic graphic sufaces (wood, metal etc.)
- following models will be available in HD: T-34/85, IS, T-54, Panther, Tiger I, Maus, Sherman, Hellcat, M103, Churchill I, Centurion 7/1, Tortoise
- turrets flying off during ammo rack explosion
- active independent suspension (each wheel reacting on surface)
- new graphic settings window
- fixed following maps for better gameplay balance: Serene Coast, Pearl River, Malinovka, Severogorsk
- improved soundtrack quality



125 thoughts on “0.9.0 Details

    • One side having buildings while the other doesnt?
      The same side with the buildings has a lot less trouble going down the hill too.

    • To be honest, it might be just me, but I feel that the north side has a lot less difficulty in climbing up the hill because it’s not as steep as the one on the south side. Couple that with tanks that have good gun depression getting up there first, the other team has no option but to camp the forest. At least that’s my opinion.

    • the first thing then need is fucking multicore assist … im playin BF4 on ultra with 130 fps on mantle …
      in WoT i have 30-40 (with all my 4gb mods) thats just lame … and bad programmed

      • My laptop (1366*768, HD5870, i5-430) cannot stand WoT on low settings (except for textures and models, set on medium) without heavy stuttering and fps drops on most maps, while it can run WarThunder (on “movie” with AA and VS). And BF3 also runs at 60fps on highest. I know that feel bro.

  1. I own two of the tanks in this HD patch yay!

    But one question… why isn’t the IS-4 going to be in HD this patch? Its been the most posted tank about HD models and they’re not releasing it with the first batch?

    • they said i has some bugs and wont release it until they fix it and BTW, i dont think anyone likes it without an MG

      • Am I the only one that finds it troubling the IS4 is only shown with the D25 gun not the M62?

    • I wonder how will my new setup perform (i5 4670, GTX660OC, 8Gigs of RAM and a 120Gb SSD)

        • Well in terms of WOT, you never know what will happen. Fuck I run i5 at 4.8 ghz, 16gb, ssd, 7970 clocked and I get fucking 80-120 fps on custom setting most on low and medium. If I would run all high I would dip down to fucking 50 some times and that is idiotic since I have 120hz screen and I want at least 100 fps even if that mean I have to decrease settings :/.

          That is why I think havoc is bullshit because the game isnt even optimised to be run smoothly on computers that are good enough to tun bf3 and bf4 multiplayer on high with 60-100 fps.

          • -”That is why I think havoc is bullshit”

            Havok will run on its own CPU core, so technically you shouldn’t get worse FPS with that GPU…

          • I LAUGH at people who whine about 50 fps. At 16 fps, the game is perfectly playable. I get 20-33 fps BTW. Pfft, 50 HAH.

            All fps does is make the game feel smoother. I’ve played it on another computer that got 50. Stop looking at that fps number whiny, your game plays fine. 50 is More than PLENTY.

            Edit: waiiit…. You’re not the same guy who thought that tker was punished too harshly are you?
            I think I saw you complaining about other things too…. Pattern detected.

        • Yes..we understand that you are a very nice noob! plus go and get a pentium 4 processor for max performance..!!!!!!

  2. If I could make a suggestions on future articles, I would suggest writting some articles on upcomming historical battles (not only these 3, but those that are possible to come to WoT in future etc.) in a matter like historical background story, used equipment and how it could be reflected in WoT. It is just a mere suggestion, I can imagine how time consuming that can be. It has been years since I last read some books on these battles, but would be nice to refresh memory

      • Only if I had time :/ maybe if you are interested in Lisbon treaty, then I can post quite a book, but right now I do not have much time for anything else. I wanted to make an article on Czechoslovak fortifications since I have a couple of nice books that focus specifically on that subject, but there have not been any time for that, heck, lately I do not have time for anything, I barely have time for sleep and to eat :/ even right now I am just taking short brake. As I said, it was just mere suggestion if there will be ever wonder what subject could be covered in future.

  3. Shut up and take my money ;)

    The things in the video just look awesome, lets hope it was ingame graphic and lets hope it wont hurt fps to much (as hovoc should use another core)

  4. So, no destructable fences/buildings now or did I miss something?
    Will havoc be implemented in several patches?

  5. finaly, we have rifled tank gun, not a black hole anymore

    btw, “We are now experiment with modifying the view range based on the wearther conditions on the map” , hell yeah, i like that !

    • no need, it will run like shit on the most high end machines anyway.
      single core cpu support.. its like in 1996

      • That is true, majority of people with dedicated gaming computers get really bad performance in this game. If I should be honest they should optimise the game so it can use all cores first, and hence boost performance of all players using multicore cpus, and then start implementing HD graphics and havoc shit. I really hop you can turn all these fancy things off, because believe it or not the lower fps you get the more annoying it gets. I had a hard time finding the right settings to get sub 100 fps and I would hate to get lower fps just because of some bullshit havoc.

        In this case, the graphics are the least WG should be focusing on…the least!

        • If both cores are on 50% then you’r CPU is strong enough to run the game. Obviously if game required more CPU, you would get 100% on both cores. I still fail to see your problem …

          • Strong enough yes, but just because of that does it mean you will get better fps? No. The game is badly optimised no matter how you look upon it. The game is from stone ages performing silimar on a old pos pc as a new one.

          • Indeed. But, game engine optimisation doesn’t have anything to do with multicore support. Once you have good optimisation game will run flowless on 2cores. With bad optimisation it will still suck even on 12cores.
            Which means the problems is not with multicore support, which the guys above whine about, but with game optimisation.
            So lets for once stop this multicore nonsense and focuse our whineing elsewhere.

  6. Well, Balaton, Ardennes, Kursk. My prediction (no american heavy tank):

    Germany: PzIV, Panther, Panther/M10, Tiger, Tiger II, Marder II, Hetzer, Marder 38T, StuG III, JagdPz IV, Nashorn, Jagdpanther, Ferdinand, Wespe, Grille, Hummel

    USSR: T-60, T-70, T-34, T-34/85, T-43, KV-1, KV-2, IS, SU-76, SU-85, SU-100, SU-152, ISU-152

    USA: M5 Stuart, M3 Lee, M4 Sherman, M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo, M10 Wolverine, M36 Jackson, M18 Hellcat, M7 Priest

    • T-43? And no KV-1S?

      You suck at predictions, sorry.

      T-60, T-70, T-34, T-34-85, KV-1/KV-2, KV-1S, IS-1, Su-76, Su-85, Su-152. And that’s all.

      Su-100 was manufactured after kursk.

        • T-43 was not a fail prototype fool, it was not put into the production simply because the improvements it brought was not much the army did not see the need for a new medium tank that was just a little better than the T-34
          However they ended up using the heavier turret of the T-43 on the T-34 which gave birth to the T-34-85

          And no the T-44 was not a prototype it was actually mass produced.

          A whopping 1,900 T-44 were mass produced after WW2 and used up until 1970s.

      • The production of IS-1 is started in 1943 October and the production of T-34/85 started in the early 1944.

      • LOL, you are funny, lusty_***_***

        KV-1S is variant of KV-1/KV-85. IMHO will be solved with IS or something like that. SU-100 will be used near Balaton, also ISU.

        • >>KV-1S is variant of KV-1/KV-85.

          and that’s why you decided to forget him?

          it is not a “variant” per se, its a whole different tank, just based on kv-1.
          different hull – less armored sides, slightly shorter, new gearbox, new turret, etc.

      • Well Balaton was right at the end of the war so you’ll be seeing your SU100s I’m sure (were used en masse in Balaton), along with ISU152 or ingame modified ones to be ISU122, same with IS having IS2 variants. As for the Germans the first post missed the Jagdtiger, Pz3, Pz2 and/or Luchs.

        Of course the low tiers wouldn’t be much fun even in Kursk, having BT7s against Pz2s while Elefants and ISs duke it out would be a little harrowing

        • What about lead lease Churchill lll, Valentine ll and M3 Stuart?
          I think they would be available for Kursk at least.

          • Not sure if the Val 2 (with 45mm) ever saw action, let alone in Kursk. Churchill 3 definitely did, unsure of much use of the Stuart LL. Personally I’d like to see the premiums given a shot at getting in, especially in future battles, but some of the more interesting ones might need a nation swap (Marder 1, leFH18, H38 and S35 come to mind)

  7. Good luck with HD graphic using 1 core . 90% of new GPUs need stronk CPU . Not idiotic 3,0ghz just 4,0+

    • > 90% of new GPUs need stronk CPU
      Surely you can point me to a source that confirms this.
      Because last I checked this is completely wrong.

      • I’m too lazy to find the article but check geforce.com for example.

        high-end GPUs need fast enough CPUs. Otherwise CPU is bottlenecking the GPU.
        That means, CPU is not fast enough – its busy doing all the stuff and has not enough resources to send enough instructions to GPU. That means, GPU is mostly waiting for CPU to get new instructions. Thus the GPU usage is not 99%… Let’s say you pair Intel Pentium III with GTX 780.
        The GPU is extremely fast, but the CPU is slow.. CPU is telling the GPU what shoud the GPU copute and render. But it’s giving it the instructions so slow, that GPU has it already rendered and is waiting for more isntructions…

        In the end.. you got 100% CPU usage, 40% GPU usage and 20fps.

        • The flaw in your argument is that unless your GPU memory is REALLY low you only need to load all models once into the GPU memory, and all that happens before the WoT match even begins.
          So yes, a slow CPU will increase load times, but it will on no way decrease the FPS during gameplay because there is no additional transactions going on between low-quality and high-quality textures.

          • textures ? :D :D
            thats the least demanding thing.

            How about post processing, polygon calculations, etc. …
            google “CPU bottlenecking” and see for yourself.

            I’ve tested on 1st gen i5 2.5ghz cpu with HD7990.
            CPU usage 100%, GPU usage 60% 25-30 fps
            Changed the CPU to 2nd gen i7 xtreme at 3.9GHZ
            CPU usage 100% GPU usage 90% 55-60 fps

      • Because last I checked this is completely wrong.

        Show me what u ve seen .

        Want source ? forum.worldoftanks.eu . Guys with top graphics and stock i5 3,0ghz (instead of 4,0ghz) .

        Better CPU = better min FPS …

        Thx bugii.

        • Programming 3D applications myself.
          Unless you’re constantly loading and unloading models and textures into the GPU memory the CPU is barely involved. And WoT loads everything before the match starts.

          EDIT: Maybe we’re discussing different things here. Yes, a stronger CPU can correlate with FPS (depending on a lot of factors), but at least my point was that there is no difference in CPU usage whether you have loaded low- or high-quality textures as the amount of data transferred between CPU and GPU is the same after load time.

        • I have my i5 at 4.8ghz, I doubt it will be any differance if I would run it at stock speed. Besides you are not allowed to run clocked cpus in wot because that causes the game to lag and freeze as well as ghost shells, etc. Ask ectard he knows…..lol.

          • Clocked cpu causing ghost shells? now this is the funniest joke and a pile of bullshit i ever heard. I’ve been running this game on clocked cpu’s from the beginning(jumped the wagon 2 months before official release) and when the rumour started about that i checked personally and i had NO LESS ghost shells, crashes, etc even at stock clock.
            Face it, it’s just the miracle of WG coding we’re experiencing….

  8. THAT is one pretty tank!

    I cant wait for it to be released.

    I wanna see the texture files and how pain will it be to modify

  9. “Improved sountrack quality” will the engines finally have some diversity of sound and some real grunt to them?

  10. Frank, as ever, thank-you for the information and updates.

    It is looking like there will be no new vehicles/lines in this patch, is this correct or might there be a surprise?

    I am asking as I am pondering what my next tier 10 will be and am sitting on a lot of free XP………

    For now, my thoughts are STB-1, E50M, Leo 1 (I would feel a bit dirty if I got the WT Waffle-Iron as it is just wrong!)

    Thanks again.

  11. “- graphic changes: new shaders, allowing for more realistic graphic sufaces (wood, metal etc.)”
    I hope the multicore support was implied because what will be the point of all the fancy shit if the fucking game will bottleneck the CPU?

  12. Maybe we fix first the constantly lagging Serverconnections first, do we? Before we have animated Gimmick but huge Lag-Spikes since the last Patch again?

  13. IS-4 with D-25T, fuck yeah historical setup. I just laugh my ass off when people drive the same setup in random.

    • “new graphic settings window”
      - I really hope you can turn that bullshit HD thing havoc off, because some of us concentrate more on higher fps than on eyecandy.

        • Yes but you can not have all maxed out and still run 100-120 fps, I can bet you that. In my world, better graphics does not equal better performance. Why do you think people are ruinning 120-140hz screens and two gpus yet play online games on mediums? Fps my friend, its all about the flow. Sure eye candy is fun, but the mote shit on your screen the more annoying it gets.

          • That is a fair point, I cannot have 100-120fps on WoT at max, but I can on other, more graphically demanding games (but that’s a whole different story).

            If you are asking would I prefer a game that runs brilliantly but I have to take a little hit on the candy? Then yes, I would of course choose the flow over the candy; however there is no reason, from a hardware point of view that I cannot have both.

            If I have to sacrifice the candy for flow, that is the developer’s poor work.

            So, I want both, have hardware that can handle both, but may have to settle for the former.

      • 1, they said it will use a new core
        2, impossible, it’s destructible terrain. You can’t turn off breaking things.
        3, huh? I play on lowest graphics all the time. I saw you whining above and I’m ashamed to admit I got a little mad. But weren’t you talking about how poor the graphics were?
        Okay scrap that, I guess it’s okay to want graphics and fps.
        4, as long as it runs above 50, you’re OK.
        5, my max fps is 40. Please don’t think under 100 is poor, because it’s not.

        • Kauris, I wasn’t moaning, apologies if that is what I sounded like.

          In general, I think that WoT looks pretty good, a lot better than it did 2 years ago when I started playing. Believe me, I remember when you had to stick the designated roads and could not zoom around the hills as you do now.

          Yes, over 50 is good, but many people are frustrated that it cannot have settings to run at a much higher frame-rate for rigs that can handle it. The single core thing is pretty frustrating (my PC has 12 so one core can easily run it as it is on maximum settings).

          As I said, not moaning, just wish I could up-scale thae game as you can with many new titles.

  14. - historical battles mode (Kursk, Balaton operation, Ardennes)

    Does this mean we will get 3 maps in the next update, + Stalingrad? Btw I heard Prokhorovka got a rework and a new variant with another atmosphere, coming in the next patch (Patch 9.0 I guess?) Historical battles will be in random battles? :)

  15. Looks good. I might be screwed though, Ive been playing on a first gen Microsoft surface pro for the past two years… I doubt it will be able to handle this. Can’t wait for the historical battles though :D

  16. How about the general rebalance they wanted to do? Waffle is still grossly OP and every t10 battle is full of them and 183.
    Also Pearl River is probably the worst map in the game currently because of it’s two flank head on fighting design where both flanks are as far apart as possible. No room to maneuver and lots of cap victories because of one flank failing…

  17. I hope the log that certain Soviet tanks carry gets it’s texture changed from steel to wood. :P.