Here it is:
- World of Tanks will not be reworked for another engine;
- The reason for the statement above is that even if it was theoretically possible (theoretically, it is according to Storm), players with very poor computers would suffer;
- HD IS-4 model was fixed, now it is accurate;
- It is possible (but not sure) that German Somua S35 premium tank might be removed from the sales with or after 0.9.7 (RG: Get it if you can, its a fun one);
- All the tank changes in patch are written in patchnotes, including the changes in hidden parameters (such as terrain resistance) - those changes however are always written in percentual difference ("increased by 2 percent" for example) not absolute values.
World of Tanks will not be reworked for another engine
ReplyDeleteno havok?
The problem with havok and any other graphic update are the under performing computers that are being used in Russia.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWhen AW hit beta test stage, WG will have to calculate if those slow Russian computers (and players whit less money then a year ago to spend) are worth the risk that European players (who spend a lot of money on the game compere to Russian ones) will turn to new game whit proper modern engine. I played AW CA focus test and I can honestly say it looks better on lowest settings then WOT on max. And its a good game too.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteHavok is NOT ANOTHER ENGINE !!!!
DeleteIt is for PHYSICS ONLY!
Id Tech 4 is an engine. But it has Havok.
Source is an engine. But it has Havok. Get it?
Also, Most of Eastern Europe has at least good-great internet connection. And people in console gaming land ought not talk badly about Russian PCs :P
Havok isn't an engine for a game itself.
Deleteokok, got it :D
DeleteWhy is it that people still ask the same stupid question when time after time the answer is not only NO but it has morphed into F**K YOU, NO!!! DOUBLE F**K YOU.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSome people are asking the same question time after time and every single time the answer has been NO and NEVER.
DeleteAmong those questions/requests:
- Get rid of arty
- Change the game engine to something else
The answer has always been the same and now WG staff instead of replying in a professional manner now use troll replies.
Well when you ask stupid questions you get stupid answers makes sense to me what kind of a question/request is get rid of arty.
DeleteWhen will they get rid of arty? :/ xdddddd
Delete"players with very poor computers would suffer;"
ReplyDeleteWhat, so instead they make all players suffer?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI don't see why they can't make it like almost any other game out there. Make it as good as possible, so the people with the money to buy a decent computer (and also spend money on WoT) can enjoy a great looking game, but have setting options that allow you to adjust the graphics if you have an older computer. Take War Thunder, for example. Sure the game has its issues (a lot of them, I'm no WT fanboy), but it sure looks amazing if you have the processing power for full settings AND if you don't, just turn the settings way down and you can still play the game just fine. Not sure what the issue here is. I hate to say it, but it almost sounds like laziness on WG's part.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRogue, WG already does have the game set up to cover a wide range of settings. And IMO, it's already a great looking game.
DeleteKlint, the vast majority of players of WoT are on the RU servers and I imagine that quite a few of them play on those very poor computers. It may even be the the majority of WoT players in general play on poor computers. WG is only trying to serve the widest customer base possible.
DeleteAnd you saying that you're "suffering" because WG doesn't upgrade to a better engine is pitiful. First world problem, anyone?
I agree with Crucis there are greedy people that seem to always want more, well i live in a Australia and i do not have the money to get a better computer i play on low settings with like 40 to 60 frames, i could turn it up but i do not see the point i play the game for fun not to look at pretty things.
Deleteshane has a good idea, I play on burn victim graphics settings even though i have the specs for max settings, but id rather play with 120 fps than 40-50
Delete"HD IS-4 model was fixed, not it is accurate"
ReplyDeleteshould that be now it is accurate?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFFS WG please move the game to another engine!
ReplyDeleteWhy? Why?!?! I get 30 FPS on ultra even though I can run 60 FPS on ultra in BF4... No multi-core support. Very poor optimization!
DeleteMeh, 30 fps is enough, my friend runs it on 60/70 with ease
DeleteMeh, 30 fps is enough, my friend runs it on 60/70 with ease
Delete30 fps is enough for plebs and peasants. Sorry.
DeleteWoT does not need a new engine. It needs a LOT of optimization and re-writes.
Good idea: Keep Shitworld in the RU server and give us a better engine on the EU and NA servers.
DeleteMeh, 30 fps is enough, my friend runs it on 60/70 with ease...
DeleteThat cracked me up. So if your friend can run it at 60/70 fps, people running at 30 should stop bytching??
@adinias Twice the development, twice the bugs? No, thanks.
Delete@The Forklifter It's possible you'd get the same even with better engine. And with extra bugs. After two years of development.
30 fps is not enough. The only fps that is enough is what is reasonable looking at your hardware, in game settings and resolution. WOT is still very cpu limited and makes the cpu bottleneck pretty much any average to high end GPU these days.
DeleteThis game engine made sense in year 2005 or so, but not now days where more and more cpus have multiple cores and threads. Also this is a issue in the whole gaming industry, majority of games are single threaded and almost all mmos and mmorpg are single threaded. WG just use bigworld because they "can", because they know true multicore games are very rare. Why change when others dont change? WG just follow the trends in the industry and this is show in the updated with HD models, physics and other new features (AW pve anyone?).
Also how about havoc? It clearly shows its limitations with bigworld and in the end we will get a very limited and scaled down version of it hardly worth to enable.
Wow you just got to love those frame whores i remember way back when getting more then 20 was good, these days with all this tech people are just greedy as all hell i have played plenty of games with 20-25 frames and i never had a problem.
DeleteBut you get these little kids that get great computers for xmas or something and they grow up on nothing 60+ frames, and think anything less is unworthy if you could come up with some actual facts scientific reasons why 30 is not enough, other then your own ego i would love to hear them.
30 fps is actualy just enough in wot.
DeleteEverything lower then 60 is slow a shit. When image moves doesn't mean it is playable.Why? If you get 30FPS avarage lets see what will happen when you get into CW fight 15 meds vs 15 meds. Good luck aiming boy.
DeleteIf I get 20-30 on beautiful game I'll make an exception... But getting 20-30 frames on a 2008 graphics is different. And no I'm not a kid who got a computer on christmas... I played on 10-20 frames on my lap top but when I figured why 60 fps is sought after I never wanted to go back...
DeleteI have play games on both 20 and 60 frames and my "skill" for whatever its worth is unchanged between them, if you think your "skill" is better when you have more frames you are just kidding yourself.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete- The reason for the statement above is that even if it was theoretically possible (theoretically, it is according to Storm), players with very poor computers would suffer;
ReplyDeletesure... cause other engines don´t run well on bad PCs...
oh wait - they do... in fact most do run better in both directions.
Now i will rephrase this message for you, since i think there is a translation mistake:
- The reason for the statement above is that even if it was theoretically possible (theoretically, it is according to Storm), its to f*****g expensive... and we got enough problems already.
^^
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteMaking a new graphic engine is a LOT of work.
DeleteBut indeed WoT does not run so great on old computers, my laptop runs unreal engine games a LOT better than WoT.
Currently the graphics are not too bad, getting better quality for maps and buildings would be nice, they look quite old compared to the hd tanks.
Its no use adding more and more stuff with higher polygons and better textures if fps gets decreased more and more, even if you have the best system avalable. It doesnt make any sense to only get 70 fps on all high having a modern gaming system.
DeleteIn fact it doesnt make any sense to have all eye candy if you fps gets too low, that is just annoying for the eyes. Specialy in the times where 144hz screen are getting more and more popular for gamers that want fluid movements.
Unreal is everywhere or at least was...
DeleteSlowly loses a base.
Still so common its optimized like tires on a car :)
Played renegade X ... Works fine with tanks...duh
- The reason for the statement above is that even if it was theoretically possible (theoretically, it is according to Storm), players with very poor computers would suffer;
ReplyDeletesure... cause other engines don´t run well on bad PCs...
oh wait - they do... in fact most do run better in both directions.
Now i will rephrase this message for you, since i think there is a translation mistake:
- The reason for the statement above is that even if it was theoretically possible (theoretically, it is according to Storm), its to f*****g expensive... and we got enough problems already.
^^
quote: "players with very poor computers would suffer"
ReplyDeleteI'm puzzled ... players with good PCs already suffer; so, where exactly does it leaves players with poor PCs
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteMark, you are blind, go and get your eyes checked. Not only does the game look pretty mediocre it also runs badly across all computers, that is not how you do performance in games.
DeleteEveryone is suffering, it's just that everyone is suffering equally. Then again there is no point trying to explain this to a Wargaming fanboy like yourself. How much are they paying you by the way?
@zMe: Their engine just doen't scale very well with hardware. It runs decently on very old computers/calculators. But on the other hand not as good as one might think on modern PCs. In a nutshell: Engine is ok on sucky computers and sucky on "ok computers". Puzzle solved? ;)
DeleteWhy do German and French S35 have different turrets and hull armor values?
ReplyDeleteDoes German one isn't historically correct and do it will be changed one day?
An English Major died after reading this post.
DeleteGerman is accurate, top French is an experimental cancelled by German invasion. (Don't crucify me if I'm wrong).
DeleteDarkonar, what?
DeleteThe German one is historically correct. The French one has as top turret a larger one that was never used because the war started before it was produced.
DeleteSo in-game hull armor of French S35 is unhistorical (from prototype) aswell?
DeleteThe idea that players with very poor computers would suffer from a new game engine is pure bullshit. If the game would be truely multicore coded and use 2-4 cores at the same time most if not all players would benefit. The problem is that those players having old dual and quad cores still are limited because game only use one core mainly. And old processors also have slower per core performance (IPC), its just recently with the sandy bridge the IPC got increased as much making these quads e.g. i5 2500k outperform even highly clocked dual cores even in single threaded applications.
ReplyDeleteIts all economical decisions for WG, its not viable to upgrade the game engine when the majority of players think 15-25 fps is "good". But this is a bit sad for us EU and NA players who pretty much pay for all others to play free, get limited by a POS game engine that is still single threaded in 2015.
The irony is that the more fancy graphics and features and stuff that is added the more cpu demanding the game gets and the more the cpu will bottleneck the gpu. No matter how one look upon this a true multicore game engine would be the best even for the future.
Also players with very "poor computers", how much can they afford to pay for the game anyways and how much are they "needed"? I mean I think EU players has the highest paying customers per capita and what benefit do we get from RU or SEA players anyways, we dont play with them or for them.
I understand the argument that freeloaders are needed in the game to populate the servers so paying customers can have something to shoot at. But we are in EU, we DONT get anything from the majority of the freeloading russian and asian players.
Also if you cant afford to upgrade your PC how can you afford spending gold on prem tanks and prem account, I find that hard to believe?
This whole economy is awfully similar to the welfare system in sweden and UK. No offense but I sense that EU and NA are only used as "tax" payers so majority of people can play for free in russia and in asian countries. And as economy gets weaker in EU and NA, in game prices increase because well you know we westerners are the rich imperialists right?
I feel a sense of racism and anti wester behavior since we EU players often get the least benefit from offers despite we contribute the most per capita to the game economy.
If players with "poor" computers suffer then why even planing on making all maps HD and add havoc that will run on additional cores (which these poor computers dont have anyways)?
Its no point adding features that nobody can enjoy because they are badly implemented and optimized.
Gotta love how people think switching from one engine to another is an easy task that could be done in two months tops and would have no negative impact on anything.
ReplyDeleteIt would take time and money and so does all new implementations of software. What is the solution to keep on using an obsolete POS engine, the work must start some where. Rome wasnt built in one day..
ReplyDeleteUsing your analogy with Rome, there's a difference between building a city from scratch, and razing the city to the ground to build it anew while expecting to retain all the comfort.
DeleteThat's a poor analogy. Wot would exist and still be played while they build the new version on a proper engine. It would need to in order to fund it. So the analogy would be that rather than razing the city, you build a new one next to it and once it's got the infrastructure people need they'd be allowed to move in to the new improved city.
DeleteWhich would still require shitloads of time and resources that can be used elsewhere and would create many new problems.
DeleteI agree there are better engines that could be used instead of Bigworld, however they were not viable options when development started and now it's not a viable option to remake the game using one of these engines.
There is no good solution to this, really.
The problem for Wargaming is that they now own the company behind their graphical engine (BigWorld) otherwise they could long term progress towards a modern graphical engine. Second problem is that bigworld engine was never intended for fps games of any kind but more like games such as world of warcraft or allods online as in very simple graphical mmo's.
ReplyDeleteThey are doing what they can but even something like the new game world of warships suffers from any kind of dynamic weather effects or even realistic looking water or kinetic effects at all. That said as long as they own bigworld engine I doubt they will ever move to a modern graphical engine such as unreal, cry engine, idtech or anything similiar.
It is a real shame because they have proven with world of tanks that they can make a really enjoyable game but their games will always look like they were made in the 80s.
the minipatch also fucked up every client with sound mods apparently. i only use Gnomefather's sound mods and it would not stop CTD every time i launch. i can't exactly restore it as i dont have the new files from the minipatch, so it will CTD anyway
ReplyDeleteIt's 'cos they only use potatoes for computers in Russia.
ReplyDeleteIt's 'cos they only use potatoes for computers in Russia.
ReplyDeletePft.. "players with very poor computers would suffer", it's a big fucking lie!
ReplyDeletePeople with bad hardware pays a lot of money or what?
1) Yes, they are. So why the heck they dont buy a new hardware at least mediocore, oh wait, BugWorld can not in to optimization so one need high-end hardware and after that you PROBALY can play at Ultra++ without low FPS (and everything)...
2) No they are not. Since when WG cares about their customers?
It is a broken circle. Liers, god i am tired of hearing this crap. Speak truth or nothing, curse you WG.