[Development] We answer your questions! (5 - Page) ) - News

News

We answer your questions!

Attention! Outdated news format. Content may not display correctly.

3 March 2017 Development

Hi, soldiers!
Welcome to the Developer Q&A section, in which we’re going to publish our most exciting development plans and explanations about how the game mechanics work. Simply and concisely.

Read more in the Feedback and Developer Answers Compilation sections on our official forum.

Aircraft

Will the fire mechanics be reworked for jet-powered aircraft? After all, they caught fire at lower altitudes. For example, jets can burn below 5000 m, whereas they didn’t above 5000 m.

Of course, kerosene is difficult to set fire to, particularly at a height, but an engine fire is still fully possible for jet aircraft. Both the engine and the fuel tanks can catch fire on jet aircraft.

Will there be a way to choose which bombs to release? It’s awkward right now, with the smallest being dropped first.Usually, in RB it’s more helpful to first release a large-caliber bomb on the main target (bridge), then drop bombs on secondary targets (tanks).

The logic of bomb release in the game, when several mount points are present, works like this: first from the outer pylons, then from the central pylons. Often, it’s actually the larger-caliber bombs that are dropped first. There aren’t so many mounting options for different-caliber bombs in the game or opportunities to provide for a choice of bomb selection – so we have no plans for it in the near future.

Can we expect an aircraft DM 2.0 with more detailed destruction? For example, the horizontal and vertical fin planes tearing off, the wing tearing off where it attaches to the engine and the Tsviling map breaking in half? When aircraft take damage now, the given root zone just goes black without the wing coming off. Same with the fins.

We’re constantly working to improve the damage model both for tanks and aircraft. We may in the future make visual damage for the two fuselage structures. In the near future, to solve the problem of the central section, we’re going to somewhat improve the Damage Model for such aircraft, so that the destruction of this wing section also counts as a shootdown.

Are there plans to introduce the experimental Boeing XF8B-1 aircraft?

They aren’t in our near-future plans.

Will there ever be a revision of suspended armament on airplanes? When Lassar first took up his position, he promised to check the missile/bomb mounts on many aircraft and add the missing options. As of now, one of the most flagrant examples of missing weaponry is the F-82E, which had the ability to carry 25(!) HVARs. Now it has the ability to carry only 10.

Yes, we periodically update and expand the options to mount weaponry on various types of aircraft. Right now, for example, we’re working on expanding the available suspended armament for Japanese aircraft, to make them more fun in mixed battles. Specifically with regard to jet-powered shells. We also plan to add the Soviet 82 mm and 132 mm armor-piercing RBS-82/132 shells, which will allow the early-series ILs to take on armored vehicles.

Ground vehicles

Do you plan to introduce limitations on the controllability of ATGMs at ranges of 300-400 m from the carrier? The strange thing is that a missile that was only just fired can immediately change its trajectory. For RB and SB, it would be fully possible to do this. And ATGM-users would have their own niche in battles.

ATGM carriers already have their own niche in battles, with their own unique gameplay. Also, at a distance of 300 meters, it’s safe to say that most of them already have limited missile control. Because of the narrow field of view of the sight, and thanks to the missile’s flight speed, correcting its flight in under 1 second is extremely difficult. This means that unless you aimed right at the enemy’s silhouette, you probably won’t have the ability to turn the missile in time at that distance. I.e. at that distance, there’s no difference in whether the missile is guided or not.

Now that the Tiger Ausf E tank has received its fully deserved battle rating, can we hope for the release of a APCR round for such vehicles as the Tiger H1, the Panther D and the Panzer IV/70 (Vomag)? Historically these vehicles used this shell, and it’s also worth remembering that there’s already a vehicle with the PaK.42 gun at BR 5.0 (identical to the Panther and the Vomag SPG) that uses this exact shell – the Panzer IV/70 (Alkett).

It isn’t off the table.

Is there an SPG planned for the USSR with the ZU-23-2 gun? For example, based on the BTR-152, BTR 50, MTLB, BTR-D or BMP-1? Or other gun platforms.

No, we don’t currently have such a vehicle in our plans.

Misc

Hello. Could you please tell me whether sounds will be added for shells that fly past ground vehicles? Also, a ricochet only makes a hit noise, you can’t hear the whistle of the shell. I’ve been waiting for this change for a long time. It’s a small thing, but would be nice.

The game has noises for shells that fly past – both on airplanes and in tanks.

Hello! Do you plan to implement wave-based sound? I.e. if the M103 fires, and there’s a player tank 662 m from it, will this player hear the sound of the shot only after 2 seconds? (The speed of sound is 331 m/s)

No, we don’t plan to implement a terminal velocity of sound effect propagation. In a game in which the player constantly sees explosions and shots at a distance, for which a difference in the speed of sound effect propagation would be noticeable, this would cause a feeling of discomfort due to the difference between visual and auditory output and wouldn’t provide adequate feedback.

The War Thunder Team

Comments (108)

Commenting is no longer available for this news

Rules

Popular

NHYoutuber

3 March 2017

I would like to ask question When is the Churchill Mk 1 coming to War Thunder?

RussianRainbow

3 March 2017

"The game has noises for shells that fly past – both on airplanes and in tanks." But like, where? I never hear these in game ;_;

DestroyDaDa

3 March 2017

We didn't ask for more armor-piercing rockets on the il-2, we asked to give the F-82 a fair rocket payload, and you gave no kind of answer to the actual question!!!

WarrWolf

3 March 2017

I beg you, answer me if you can PLEASE rework the boosts in the game? Make them slightly less rewarding but based on time instead of games... Finally getting your 300% booster and joining a game to have the worst match in history (of course!) and/or just die really quickly due to WHATEVER feels like the equivalent of getting a heart attack. This happens countless times and to many players... we're sick of losing our sanity. Please fix...

proMLGpro

3 March 2017

is the sherman firefly going to get its APDS round?,currently there are vehicles further up the tree with the same gun that do have apds.

Kanay

3 March 2017

" Right now, for example, we’re working on expanding the available suspended armament for Japanese aircraft, to make them more fun in mixed battles. Specifically with regard to jet-powered shells" It ain't often you manage to put a large smile on my face as a guy who mostly use Japan vehicles in game, but here you did, curious and impatient to see more about this.

Happalula

3 March 2017

1. will the rewards for Ground Forces be adjusted? Air-Rewards are far superior.... 2. "we believe that kamikaze like tactics should not be encouraged" - does that mean GF AB plane-crashes WILL finally get punished with repair-cost? that would be awesome and a good step towards balancing! (as stated in The Shooting Range #27)

mrsteel

3 March 2017

Nice! Could we expect the dolly for the 163 ever? not the most important thing but i'm curious if we'll ever get to take off in the komet

Show more All answers (1)

Pacifica

Assistant

3 March 2017

As you can imagine, it would require Devolvement of new mechanics just for the 163... Devs have never developed things falling off aircraft on purpose before ^^ So you are very welcome to make a suggestion with all the technicalities and specs of the dolly, how why it would fall off the machine on take off.... so if you or someone else has all the data/manuals for such a thing, make a detailed suggestion for it

Pacifica

Assistant

3 March 2017

Pacifica, "things falling off aircraft on purpose before" apart from bombs, rockets ect, but not quite the same thing, but maybe could be developed along the lines of how the bombs work

joker853

3 March 2017

Ever think about adding an AB or RB mode exclusive to Joystick users? I understand the demand for keyboard and mouse users, however, it is ridiculously more easy for them to kill the joystick/throttle/rudder (hotas) users. While Simulation mode if fun, takes a bit of time to get to the thick of it. AB/RB with only hotas would be a blast. Thank you

Kommandant_37

3 March 2017

I feel that terminal velocity of sound effect could maybe be an option if it were to be put in. This way people who don't play well with it can turn it off and people who don't mind it can use it and have amazing sound effects. Just a thought.

Comments (108)

Submit a complaint