[Development] We answer your questions! (2 - 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 Outdated news format.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

Firebirds: Improved Mud On Ground Vehicles & Naval Effect Improvements

Comments (108)

Commenting is no longer available for this news

Rules

Popular

Uebermacht

3 March 2017

Keep this up good work

Danz_Von_Luck

3 March 2017

Any chance of non tropical hurricane IIs and spitfire 5s, it really really bugs me.

Fujitivo

3 March 2017

what about implementation of shell shattering and the real usage of apc shells?

seroboar

3 March 2017

who asks these questions

Electrolite_xyz

3 March 2017

Gaijin you said ''we’re working on expanding the available suspended armament for Japanese aircraft'' PLEASE don't forget to update the bombload of the G8N1, a bug report was made YEARS ago and you still didn't add the full historial payload for this plane

tizianenel

3 March 2017

they're not in a hurry to fix the tail turret of G5N either, or make the P1Y1 able to divebomb.

Kanay

3 March 2017

tizianenel, Indeed there is a lot wrong, i really hope they take the time to fix all those issues for the next patch, will be real a shame if things like the p1y1 isn't able to dive after 2 major patches released ... It's time to pay attention to Japan, when it's a thing like T62 gift tank it receives missing shells in a quick patch then gets his armor modified a couple of patches later... meanwhile Japan have bugs running for months or years still waiting ...

The_Everchosen

3 March 2017

Dev's Could you please remove respawns from Sim Battle mode please

EnkoACE

3 March 2017

I got one question! Do you guys plan to add French tank tree?

*maxmillian

3 March 2017

*maxmillian, Only kidding. I know what the French did at Dunkerque and 100 other places

*dog_patch_303rd

3 March 2017

"we’re working on expanding the available suspended armament for Japanese aircraft...Specifically with regard to jet-powered shells" That sounds rather interesting! I know the IJN & IJA experimented with Air-to-Air and Air-to-ground rocket projectiles, they would be a very welcome addition imo, I don't think there are any Japanese aircraft with RP capability currently in game are there?

Anglerfish_Team_

3 March 2017

Are there plans to give independant stats for every shell/shot in the game? Right now all ammunition of the same basic category performs identically on differing degrees of slope. However, this is historically incorrect especially for HE and HEAT/FS since these rely on a fuse setting off. It was shown in yugoslavian tests that american 90mm M431 HEAT failed to penetrate the glacis of a T-54 due to the badly shaped fuse not activating if the T-54 was angled 20° or more to the side.

Elite_Striker98

3 March 2017

Will we ever see the use of the smokegrenade-launchers on certain tanks?

Comments (108)

Submit a complaint