- For PC
- For MAC
- For Linux
- OS: Windows 7 SP1/8/10 (64 bit)
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.2 GHz
- Memory: 4GB
- Video Card: DirectX 10.1 level video card: AMD Radeon 77XX / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660. The minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Windows 10/11 (64 bit)
- Processor: Intel Core i5 or Ryzen 5 3600 and better
- Memory: 16 GB and more
- Video Card: DirectX 11 level video card or higher and drivers: Nvidia GeForce 1060 and higher, Radeon RX 570 and higher
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i5, minimum 2.2GHz (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 6 GB
- Video Card: Intel Iris Pro 5200 (Mac), or analog from AMD/Nvidia for Mac. Minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i7 (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 8 GB
- Video Card: Radeon Vega II or higher with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Most modern 64bit Linux distributions
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.4 GHz
- Memory: 4 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 660 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months; the minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Ubuntu 20.04 64bit
- Processor: Intel Core i7
- Memory: 16 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 1060 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD (Radeon RX 570) with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
Dear players,
We have another round of questions and answers for you, with War Thunder producer Vyacheslav Bulannikov!
Aviation
Q. Do you have plans to include Germany’s F-4F model? We already have the F-4E that it was based on and F-4EJ. It would also be nice to see the F-4J and F-4J(UK) at some point perhaps in tabs with the F-4C and FGR.2 respectively.
It’s too early to say, but it is possible.
Q. Can you tell us what's the progress with the decision on J35D’s RB24J missiles? Right now it's really subpar compared to the F-4E/EJ and MiG-21s that not only have better performance, but better missiles too. RB24J is equivalent to the AIM-9J on F-4E.
We have already answered this question. Initially, the J35D was estimated as a rather capable jet fighter even without advanced guided missiles. If statistics shows us that they are required, such missiles could be added in future.
Q. Almost all NATO top jets (F-4s, T-2, G.91s, Lightning, Super Mystere etc) always receive multiple unique and interesting skins. However so far, MiG-19 and MiG-21 for both the USSR and Germany have only bare metal skins. There are numerous camouflages and more interesting liveries used by both the Soviet air force and East German air forces for these aircraft, can we expect to see them?
Unfortunately, almost all MiGs historically served unpainted. We are eagerly trying to find more spectacular variants.
Q. Are there any analogues of the “manual input of the sight range” in the plans for aviation? Not like the settings before the battle, but directly in the battle for the vehicles where it was possible.
If you are talking about the guns convergence, then no.
Q. Would you like to add to the multifunctional menu such as settings like: propeller pitch control, fuel mixture, blower (supercharger) and other functions of the full engine control?
In such a menu it isn’t very convenient to use functions that require gradual change, rather than switching between modes and because of that there the current composition of controls will be used .
Q. In the recent update you added a ballistic calculator. It works now on some helicopters and aircraft. Is it planned to add the bomb and rocket sight HUD for MiG-15bis (ISh)?
Yes, in one of the future updates we will add the mechanic of the ballistic calculator, which simulates the refinement of the standard sighting system with a differential circuit.
Q. Is it planned to add large aircraft carriers where “Phantom” and its analogues can land?
Yes, it is planned.
Ground Forces
Q. France is now the only main nation without a backup top MBT. Do you plan to introduce another Leclerc soon to resolve this?
Well, it is not that bad, you still have AMX-40 that may be used in BR 10.3, but a new Leclerc is planned as well. We do understand that some nations still lack top tier MBTs, and we will try to fill these gaps as soon as we can.
Q. Can you tell us if Japan and China's missile SPAAGs are close? They are the only 2 nations that remain without one.
New missile SPAAGs are delayed indeed, and we will work hard to add missile SPAAGS for these nations too, if the vehicles existed and can be properly implemented into the game.
Q. With the recent low rank lend-lease tank additions to France, will you consider the possibility of bolstering Italy's lower ranks with German equipment that they historically used such as Panzer III, IV and StuG?
Yes, we’re considering such variants, as well as filling gaps in other nations too.
Q. Are there any plans to rework ground vehicle transmission and to update the behavior of the wheelbase?
Yes, there are such plans.
Q. For ground SB you have implemented the mechanics of the “Request location of allies” which helps to identify captured vehicles in battle. Should we expect the return of this mechanic on a permanent basis?
We have conducted mass testing of the feature and received some feedback and results. We plan to return the mechanics with some improvements with it which you will learn about in game update news.
Q. Is it planned to implement premium vehicles with thermal imaging cameras in the Chinese, Soviet or Italian research trees?
Yes, we have such plans.
Helicopters
Q. Can you tell us the status of the Japanese Helicopter tree? Is it possible to create a preliminary branch with the existing AH-1S model and AH-64DJP (Same as the AH-64D model) that are already in game until more helicopters can be made?
We’re discussing this issue at the moment. We understand that the Japanese Self-Defence Forces utilized a very few types of the strike helicopters, and we consider the possibility that the Japanese helicopter tree will only have 2-3 vehicles.
Q. Will the AH-64 Apaches receive a full cockpit? Currently they have only a placeholder.
Most of the helicopters in the game have cockpit prototypes, and at the moment we are working on cockpits for some helicopters. Probably, some of them will appear in the upcoming major update. We plan to introduce more cockpits in future, in order to equip all or majority of helis with proper cockpits. As for the AH-64 series cockpits, they are planned as well, but we can’t say when exactly they are going to appear.
Naval Forces
Q. Do you have plans to improve the quality of Naval tracers? It's not very clear or easy to follow your own tracers and improve your aim with larger ships because the tracers are extremely hard to see, particularly when fighting at long range.
We consider current tracers to be of a decent quality. If you are suggesting making them more visible, it may ruin their appearance at regular distances - short and medium. Main calibre gun tracers are already a compromise between historical accuracy and gameplay. In most cases, such shells didn’t have tracers in reality, since they are not visible at large distances. Aim spotting is achieved with water splashes and instruments. In AB mode we additionally indicate the shell drop point, in RB we have salvo drop timers, which were actually used in war ships.
Q. Will you please consider improving the “Not enough crew to repair” mechanic? Although it's more of a historical feature, it makes gameplay complicated as you cannot repair your ship after a certain point.
By introducing this feature, we aimed to visually diversify ship destruction, forcing them to sink more often. Please consider that the crew state, when you can’t repair your ship anymore, meant the ship’s destruction previously. So we just made a ship’s death more vivid and interactive.
Q. Regarding Naval EC, can you tell us a little more about its progress? Do you plan to fully move Naval RB over to the EC format (like what was done with Simulator air battles) or just keep it as a separate event based mode?
We are unlikely to change RB to EC completely, since our statistics shows that EC affects RB random battles insignificantly. This means that these two modes don’t share the same audience. But we will try to run EC more often.
Q. Are there any chances of seeing ironclad warships of the second half of the XIX - beginning of the XXth centuries?
This is a rather vague concept that covers the period of 70-75 years. But if here it means pre-dreadnought battleships so such ships should be in our opinion in a separate game or game mode. Using them as a part of the current War Thunder game is extremely difficult.
Other
Q. Can you please tell us when we can expect new squadron vehicles to come? It's been over 6 months since the last one was introduced.
Yes, we plan to introduce new squadron vehicles. We can’t say when exactly though, but hopefully some to come before the summer.
Q. What about the rough sea? Storms? Do you plan to add any such weather effects?
Current implementation allows us to turn on storm weather but we are not using them because fighting under such conditions is problematic, especially for ships of small displacement which can also participate in battles even at high BR. Now we use the maximum possible excitement of 4.5 points in the weather settings.
The War Thunder Team
Comments (209)
These QA sessions are almost completely pointless. The major questions that the playerbase has are completely ignored and random garbage that a mod found once are used instead. The easy way out as per usual Gaijin, you guys should be ashamed.
We dont ignore the major questions at all. The problem is we answer them in a previous Q and A and then people often assume by the next one the answer has changed to we should answer it again. We want to try and include a variety of questions from across the community and not just on the same 1-2 topics over and over again. Whats an important question to one person is not the same to another all the time. We have answered those questions and will continue to do so, but we are not going to dedicate every Q and A topic to the same things over and over for the rest of time.
Smin1080p, It's almost as if there are underlying major issues with the game the Dev's refuse to deal with and expect the playerbase to live with or something. But no I'm sure that "answer" provided X months ago to issues affecting almost every part of the game are perfectly adequate. After all Gaijin says so.
As usual, none of the important naval issues were at all addressed, like BR decompression. I'm very sure I asked whether night battles will return to naval but that went unanswered. Also I find it laughable that big ships will never fight in extreme weather conditions because Gaijin shot themselves in the foot by allowing PT boats to face destroyers and cruisers. This is why naval is dying, they don't listen to the playerbase.
To their defence, they can't be answering the same questions over and over like BR decompression. I'm not sure why it matters that your question went unanswered given that yours was among hundreds. There certainly needs to be more openness and transparency with the Q&A with perhaps 1 or 2 questions being one of the top voted from the last Q&A or somewhere else.
"[O]ur statistics shows that EC affects RB random battles insignificantly ... [T]hese two modes don't share the same audience." I have two questions 1. Does this mean you don't plan on major changes to RB random battles? 2. WHAT AUDIENCE? Nobody plays naval, but these answers make it seem that you think Naval is just fine. Am I to read that as you are giving up on this obviously broken mode?
One last question: Can you please make the game fun again?
I heard it is almost fun. They've been doing their utmost best to prevent it.
Eh, it's addicting - Close enough!
Awesome question choices!! I have a question with similar interest and relevance to the the ones in this Q&A. When in queue for mixed battles, why does the plane chase the tank in a clockwise rotation? Could it go counter clockwise in an upcoming patch? Thanks!
/s right?
Is this New Englander humor? I am as well, and I feel I could've made this.
This game just doesn't look like a 8-year old matured game.
ouch
yet there is a bunch of skins for the migs http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/f/14/1
Lord, praise this man for showing the mods they have no excuse now
This should be upvoted more!
i never played the J35D, but in all games i seen it in, it completely gets destroyed
The answer they have given us here is pretty much showing us that the Devs don't play the game. Everyone who has a single game at ~Top-Tier Air battles knows that it's all about the missile. What did they expect the Draken to do? Turnfight at Mach 1?!
TheAntiAirGuy, They put a turnfighter into a speed+AAM meta and claimed it would be just fine. Almost as if you can't turnfight everything in jets like you can with a Spitfire at 3.3BR. I've played ~100 games in the Draken and it's a struggle. You can't compete against the newer jets on an even keel; while sea level top speed is higher, they all accelerate much faster & 24Bs are pretty useless. Try turnfighting and you get four AAMs shoved up your tailpipe. Did I mention it has a 24k repair, by the ...
I have some questions: How does 700 men die in 30 seconds from a fire on a heavy cruiser? How is that fun or even realistic in any way? Does the word "fun" exist in Russian dictionaries? Also when will the French jets be fixed? Currently all of them have completely broken flight models that the devs refuse to fix in the face of overwhelming evidence and it leads to the French jets being outclassed by nearly everything. They are terrible jets with crazy repair costs too for some reason.
The Cruiser Mogami spent most of the ngiht of the battle of the Surigao Straight on fire. 100 shell holes in the hull. in the morning the ship was abandoned after another fire from an air attack could not be put out. Amazingly much of the crew was okay despite the constant fires. The single engine room functioning was sealed off due to being too hot. yet it was float and escaped the battle. Fire is too powerful.
Welcome to a game. Its rare for even the most damaged ship to sink in under 20 minutes. The majority of losses take hours or in cases days and in fact there are a lot of damaged ships who are merely crippled and sunk by their allies to prevent their capture. When you try and allow a game where someone can spawn multiple ships and those players don't want to wait 12 hours to sink, you get our current system. Also for fun broken flight models in the other direction, check out op swedish bombers.
"Well it is not that bad, you still have AMX-40" which you nerfed badly a few times ago (huge pen nerf). "a new Leclerc is planned as well" if you cared about parity/balance the new Leclerc would have been added several patches ago, at least at the same time as m1a2. the way the French tree is treated is insanely bad. and it's not actually the worst treated tree in the game because Japan and China have it much worse. insane of adding the radpanzer you should have spent time on those trees.
Let's be honest here. There's a agenda going of focusing on the big three. Everything else is either ignored or nerfed. It was a nice miracle we even got the AMX32 or the Centauro MGS, smaller trees need much, much more attention for once.
maybe in top tier, but in mid tier the shit is broken as fuck since your beloved frenchies were unable to make decent tanks they need to use 1950s models at 3.3
Fix the balancing.
Agreed
They surely will do that now thanks to your comment. Good you pointed that out!
Submit a complaint