Comments on: Storm on Multi-Core Support

By: flashmozzg

flashmozzg — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 15:07:35 +0000

Do you realize that guys who make tanks, guys who make maps, guys who change interface, guys who make physics, guys who work on graphics and guys who work at overhauling engine for multi-core support are different people and they can do that sort of simultaneously?

By: flashmozzg

flashmozzg — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 15:03:52 +0000

I’ll unleash the power of my 18 core 36 threaded CPU’s :P

By: nublex

nublex — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:39:19 +0000

Are you kidding? Even your stupid phone is multi-core now; future computers will be multi-core; Hell they can even squeeze longer life on WoT Xbox.

Think about it, 20~30% performance increase also means the game can look nicer on cheaper computer, the very thing that they wanted to keep a large player base.

It really comes down to the fact that they will need programer to work on the engine, or pay for multicore Big World that they make so much butt hurt about.

By: Cartoonman1

Cartoonman1 — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:18:32 +0000

Whoever jumped on the “20-30%??? FUCKING DO IT!” bandwagon is outright retarded and is the reason why WG does not like talking about this. People don’t understand how the game is coded and what time elements lead to better performance.

Fixing the graphical processing will probably yield a lot more than 20-30% efficiency and would require only a fraction of the time it would take to implement multicore. If they do implement multicore, they’ll most likely end up breaking every single part of the game and it would take around 3-6 months of testing just to get it back to it’s original state, and what you’ll see is more problems, not improvements. Multicore support in AAA titles like battlefield 4, etc. have had problems related to syncing and SMP processing, so they aren’t perfect either. Multicore is NOT the answer to fix performance. Just because you can’t use all 8 cores of your 2000 dollar processor doesn’t mean WoT isn’t ‘utilizing all your resources’.

By: Hemanathan

Hemanathan — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:32:38 +0000

“If players want better performance, they need to upgrade there hardware”

lol pls gtx 560m i7 2670 runs everything at max

guess what doesn’t?

yea its wot ONLY

By: BoMbY

BoMbY — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:37:54 +0000

They could get 20-30% out of it, by fixing the other, easier, shit first.

By: Sergio Montserrat Sánchez

Sergio Montserrat Sánchez — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:18:53 +0000

Well, I don’t know you, but a 20-30% upgrade sounds like a worthy investment to me.

By: Sergio Montserrat Sánchez

Sergio Montserrat Sánchez — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:17:45 +0000

Come on….. Did you check the engine analysis that was posted here? WG could easily fix many of the zips-within-zips and frequent reading of data from the disks and constant packings and unpackings that the engine performs…. If the game stopped relying on disk dives less and more on RAM, we’d see a much larger improvement.

By: Sergio Montserrat Sánchez

Sergio Montserrat Sánchez — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:14:33 +0000

Well, Wargaming has actually split development of engine and content.
Updates 8.x saw a lot of new content, including new nations, new tanks, new maps.
Updates 9.x were announced to deal mostly with upgrades in mechanics, graphics, sounds, and other engine improvements.
So, it’s not us that want Wargaming to choose between upgrading their engine or launching new tanks and branches and nations. No, we want BOTH. It’s WG that is taking that decision.

By: Sergio Montserrat Sánchez

Sergio Montserrat Sánchez — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:09:34 +0000

Adding multicore support for 20-30 percent beter perfomance?
TOTALLY WORTH IT!

Having to rebuild the old engine from the ground up to enable it?
TOTALLY WORTH IT!

WoT is one of the companies that get more revenue per player. I don’t see what’s stopping them. Their competence is years ahead in graphics, performance and compatibility. Stoppied due to a lack of will means commiting corporate suicide.