Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'gameplay'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Official News and Information
    • Project News (Read Only)
    • Updates Information (Read Only)
    • Developers Blog (Read Only)
    • Reference Library (Read Only)
  • Academy
    • Welcome New Recruits - Check in Here
    • The Academy
  • Game Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • Game Mode Discussion
    • Machinery of War Discussion
    • Historical Discussion
  • Knights of the Sea - Closed Section for Beta Testers
  • Technical
    • Community Technical Support
    • Moderated Bug Reports
    • Moderated Suggestions
  • Mobile Applications
    • War Conflict
  • Community Related
    • War Thunder Live Community
    • War Thunder Wikipedia
    • Squadrons
    • eSport Section
    • Fan Zone
  • War Thunder Player Council Hall
    • WTPC Discussion
    • Player Council Information Area
    • WTPC Election Station
  • National Communities
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Česko-slovenská komunita
    • Społeczność polskojęzyczna
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Konuşan Topluluk
    • Comunidade Lingua Portuguesa
    • Communauté francophone
    • Other Languages

Calendars

  • Community Calendar



Found 26 results

  1. Nie jestem do końca pewny, czy taki temat mogę założyć (najwyżej mod usunie), ale jakie kawałki polecacie do latania lub przy których gra wam się najlepiej?   Ja od siebie dodam: http://youtu.be/wgPFS9h4dzI
  2. In RB I have seen many times it is possible to fly with aircraft (Jak 9) after wings been teared off. You can even use rudder and shoot the enemy! As on the image bellow, you can see I have killed the Italian aircraft! It auto-uses rudder to control the aircraft instead of ailerons. It is clear that the front of the airplane is harder so it should drop down after the wings been teared off.
  3. Try to make the air maps more detailed: more objects on small area. More types of trees. More versatile. Add conifers trees: - pines - spruces France cca 1944: Add "ball" shape trees (possibly blooming in May): (1944 England) Add alleys: - young small trees along roads - bushes along roads - adult "bull" shape trees alone roads - adult high and slim poplars alone roads Add - craters - streams, river channels and small rivers + trees (or bushes) alone it - hills with soft and gentle curves 1944 France: France 1944 Bocage:
  4. This is a suggestion for arcade ground forces. Right now if you are in a tank, and the enemy starts spamming aircraft what are your options? - Try and evade them and hope you don't get destroyed - Blow up your tank and jump into a SPAA losing a spawn Instead if you could go back to "the garage" (the spawn point) and pick up another available tank in your roster (a SPAA in our example) you could do something without losing a spawn. Of course once you take a vehicle out that gets "locked" so that you can't use more than three in a match. Example: you have in your lineup a tiger, a panther, an ostwind and a jagdpanther. You take out the tiger and get blown up. You have two spawns left You take out your panther. The enemy starts spawning aircraft, so you drive back to the spawn point and pick up the ostwind. Your ostwind gets blown up. You have one spawn left. You can only use that spawn for the panther since it was already taken out, and any damage sustained by the panther will still be there. This has been thought mainly to counter the aircraft and make SPAAs more appealing, since aircraft can be spawned on the spot while SPAAs can't, and it's not fun sitting there waiting for an aircraft to come by if you spawn in one, but it could also lead to interesting tactics and would allow people to adapt better to changing scenarios during the battle.
  5. Tanks/Vehicles

    Hey guys,   First off, I would like to say thanks Gaijin for fleshing out tanks as much as you have!   In my opinion, there are no tank combat sims or games on the market that touch what you guys have done, and I've played a lot of them, so big hats off for really making a grand splash in an area that's virtually unexplored in the gaming world.   Now with that said, I was wondering if you guys had played around with the idea of being able to bail out of tanks, much like planes?   How many times have you been pretty much knocked out in a tank...gun breach is shot out, engine needs repair..turret has ceased to function due to damage...death is pretty much inevitable..and here comes that tank at high speed to park their gun barrel at point blank range to take the final kill shot(s)? You're basically just sitting there waiting to die.   Now don't get me wrong I have nothing against getting shredded by other players at all, but when the battle dilutes itself to this situation, the pacing/atmosphere turns rather "arcady"...wouldn't it be cool to have the option to bail your crew out of the tank much like crews in real life would have attempted!?   To start the bailout sequence you would initiate like you do with planes. And once initiated, the crew animation where the surviving members of the tank (that aren't dead/ greyed out) would come climbing out of the hatches! And just to clarify- you wouldn't have control over the crew members, as it's just a bail out animation. They would jump out of the tank and just go prone on the ground next to the wreck until you respawn. :yes: Your resulting death would still be credited point-wise to the necessary parties involved (like plane bailouts) but at least you don't have to sit there like a lemon and have the games atmosphere take a dip. I just think it would help flesh the game out more...add a little more depth!    If anyone is familiar with the Combat Mission strategy game series, this suggestion is a nod in their direction. When tanks get knocked out surviving crew members bail out of the wrecks automatically.   Anyways, thanks for the read and hopefully their are some like-minds on this one! :salute:   And yes there are issues/suggestions that take priority over this one, but just throwing this out there. With the additons of dirt, and the added driver and bino views it seems like the Devs are slowly moving in that direction!     -Thanks!      
  6. Suggestion for planes and tanks :3   We have been told in the past (I believe there are still posts of Senio around in recent threads) that the devs would love to reduce the BR spread further but sadly cant do that because the overall population of players isnt big enough to allow this without significant wait time increases.   Thus i want to suggest a scaling method that upscales the BR spread based on the time a user has waited in queue allready.   That means, the sprad would start out at 0.7 (the smallest number that doesnt screw the BR steps). If a user was X minutes in queue now, for example 3 minutes, the system would adjust the allowed spread upwards, to 1.0, allwoing for a wider number of matches and enemies. If a game still isnt found in the next ~3 minutes, the spread gets set to the max spread of 1.3 up or down, so that the queue time doesnt become unbearable.   It would be possible to allow the users themselves to set the steps at which the BR spread would increase, but especially new players might not understand it, so i think set time stamps of wait time brackets by the devs would be the better option.   The advantage would obviously be more balanced matches overall, especially on the peak times, while still allowing for reasonable wait times when few players are online. This could also be bound to player numbers, meaning if only 20k people are online, the spread allready starts at 1.0, and goes to the max of 1.3 after 3 minutes allready.   Discuss? :3
  7. The Problems: - The Matchmaker tends to drag planes and tanks into certain distinct battle ratings due to popularity of certain tanks as opposed to others. A few things are capable of handling such uptiers but most are not. - The BR of a plane/tank does not take into account whether that plane/tank is spaded or not - often times a vehicle only deserves the BR it has when its reached certain critical modifications (Engine Injection/New Jet Engine on Planes, Unlocking Certain Ammo Types on Tanks which vastly improve their ability to fight enemies) The solutions: For the matchmaking itself, I've proposed many solutions on the RB GF forum where uptiering is most evident and problematic, but its also noteworthy for high tier aircraft matches as well, specifically jets. The following is the simplest and easiest to implement solution for the problem. - There would no longer be a fixed BR spread for the whole game. The reason is that some numbers work for some tiers and others do not work for later tiers. In general early tiers are markedly more balanced than later ones. - Instead, each plane and tank is assigned a BR range. What this means is that if a plane/tank is your highest BR vehicle, then you could be placed in matches anywhere within that range. If a plane/tank is very robust and flexible it could have a 1.0BR spread (things like the M18 Hellcat). If its not flexible (most heavy tanks and heavy tank destroyers fall here) it would have a narrow BR spread, sometimes even a single number. - The BR adjustment for a tank or plane for unlocking certain ammo types, gun accuracy upgrades, and engine power would be anywhere from 0.0 to 0.7, dependent on the tank/plane. Basically to wrap this up: - it fixes the problem of constant uptiers in many sections of all tech trees for tanks - it breaks up the clubber brackets in tanks somewhat as a result of point 1, those brackets being 2.3, 3.3, 5.3-5.7, 6.7-7.0, 7.3, and 7.7-8.3. Currently anything in between those levels gets forcibly shoved up. - it breaks up the clubber brackets in planes as well, which although less apparent, still exist. Those brackets are 2.0, 2.3, 3.7, 4.0, 5.0, 5.7, 6.3, 7.0, and 9.0. - it makes the BR of a plane/tank vary sensibly with how spaded it is, sometimes a stock plane is actually worse in performance than the fully spaded one preceding it, and sometimes without ammo unlocks a tank literally CAN'T do its intended job. - it mostly solves the problem of WWII stuff vs Postwar HEATFS/APDS problem. - players get happier overall with a fix of some kind for a major problem coming to the game, leading to increased player retention. Happier players are more willing to spend money to show their support. I know I would definitely show my support. - Finally, fixing this mess will prevent it from becoming a problem when boats go into open beta and beyond. Because with the player base stagnating at best and slowly shrinking at worst, if this is not fixed by the time boats come out it'll leave a bitter aftertaste in everyone's mouths, no matter what boats turn out to be.
  8. Currently there is effect of houses been destructed by bomb. We miss effect of building been destroyed when airplane hits them. This animation (8MB gif) shows what we have right now: The object was not destroyed even that I hit them with huge airplane. You can see only the fire on the building, but even the fire is very small (in this particular case). I suggest these improvements: When aircraft hits the building it could destroy it depending on it's size (high priority), weight, speed (small priority) or bombs on board (smaller priority) and material of the building (high priority). Small aircraft When small aircraft like fury would hit to wooden building it would destroy it, it would collapse and burn. If it would hit concrete building it would just make fire just like it does on the image above, but it would continue. The crash of the airplane, should ignite fire of the building. What we see above is fire of the airplane, not fire of the building. So what is expected here is that the building would be covered with flames and smoke going upwards. Since there is not a wind in AB, so the flames would miss ability to spread/expand in horizontal axis. So it should look similar to this: 1. The fire should be better placed on the walls of the house and after a time it could completely absorbed by the fire. 2. The building texture should be replaced by burned building texture (black shadowed textures). 3. After a time the flames would disappear, and the burned building would stay on place. One more example: Huge airplane If big airplane like bomber would hit concrete building it would collapse and no fire would be ignited. On the next animation it is exactly how it should look, but this is just short version: To see the hole story click on the animation part 1 and the to see the part 2 (fire). End note: I would recommend to mark buildings which contain explosive, so some millitary objects could extraordinary blasts or fireworks - player's would love it! Trees could be ignited by airplanes too. Edit: Seems like it is not possible to add more images, so check my blog here so see the rest of animations: http://war-thunder-gaming.blogspot.cz/2017/06/house-burning-and-demolition.html
  9. gameplay

    I would like to start a suggestion for Air Start "Air Spawn" for the F6F/F6FN models. They are great planes would benefit greatly from an air spawn on maps like the Ruhr and any Non-Carrier based maps. Its biggest problem in playing the planes is the climb rate and the fact F-82/P47/P38(Non J/L series) all get airstart. The P38 J/L do not but they have a climb rate when spaded of almost 4000ft per min, while the P-47 is "roughly" 2500-3000ft per min depending on what model you use. The F6F spaded is around 2300ft per min climb. While it takes forever to reach any type of operational height (15,000ft +) by that time 109/190 or Yak/La have already reached their height and are able to dive down on them easily. I don't think it should get an air start in carrier based maps at all. Just maps like the land based maps. *Cards for the planes as you can see the F6F/F6FN models lack severely in climb rate which would justify an airstart F4U Models *MODERATORS* If this is not done correctly my apologies, please comment and let me know how to fix it correctly.
  10. Suggestion: Make players select a plane into their crew lineup before joining a AB Ground Forces match, and if they use the plane, it counts as one of the three vehicles that they are allowed to use in a match. If a fourth vehicle is needed to be allowed to make room for it than so be it. It would finally give me a really good reason to use the SPAA. This would also work well to have the reload timers for bombs and guns doubled to reduce the amount of bombing. Background: The planes are currently automatically chosen for you in arcade in an attempt to prevent GF players from having to play AF matches enough to unlock them and be able to use\experience them. This system works on points gained due to killing or capturing objectives to 'Unlock' the plane. It has very many good points for it's use, for example: If someone only wants to play in GF they don't have to play AF to be able to get into an FW 190 and shoot down a bomber. Details: I'd like to see players use planes that they own to use in AB GF matches. This allows the modules to be used and earned as part of the 'grind'. It would also cost you SL for the repair and count as one of your allowed vehicles in a match (currently 3). With this change the reload timer for bombs should be doubled to slow the pace of bombing down since it is a tank match. These factors should have a positive effect on the 'Kamikaze' attacks everyone is upset about. While it won't stop it all, think about this: If you reload like arcade and stay in the plane until you die (shot down or wrecked) then wouldn't you stay alive rather than ram someone? That will also allow the public to see what I've tested so many times...It's not the plane hitting you that kills you. It's the bombs\rockets he dropped. He just could not pull out of the dive afterwards and your game shows you everything at once. **All open topped vehicles do not apply to the previous statements. Damage is possible without death.** Also, the lack of a good airplane may just motivate someone to go fly to get a better one. More gameplay and experience in a plane would help a lot of players be able to pull out of that bombing dive wouldn't it?. Call it a reward for playing all those planes if you like but having played the planes should earn a player the right to use them when it counts. I think that this will be very important when the ships have real players in them. It also helps the game get players into playing more (to unlock planes) so it should be good for business. Edit: Sorry, I forgot to add the link where this is discussed in the forums: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/336165-would-you-like-to-see-a-change-in-gf-airplanes/&
  11. Gameplay

    Outline: The creation of player-customized test ranges in controlled settings The ability for players to test drive any vehicle, even if locked Currently, to test drive a vehicle, it needs to have the vehicle prior to it unlocked The ability for players to modify the test vehicle fully and without restrictions The ability for players to toggle specific modifications on and off The ability for players to use any ammunition type/payload An added button next to the Armor and X-Ray buttons that displays the plane/tank gunners' cones of fire.(Projects a yellow/white cone in front of the turret) The display of tank statistics of player and AI tanks (Such as a test-only information display when aiming via gunner view that displays a tank's armor, turret traverse, speed, etc) The ability for players to create specific scenarios in the test range The ability to manipulate the test range's environment to a certain degree Damage/repair a player's specific components at current training, untrained, fully trained and instant speeds Reloads and ammunition refills at current training, untrained, fully trained and instant speeds Spawn specific target tanks/planes (In a German tank, targets are restricted to Russian tanks, for example. What if I want to target American/German ones?)​Includes a simple filter for vehicles within BR range of the current vehicle. This would allow one to prepare for enemy vehicles at the same BR bracket. A choice of maps (This includes a test-only map that is completely flat, like the interior of a workshop) A spawn choice. Selecting specific parts of the map to spawn in. For planes, whether or not to spawn already in the air at a specific speed and altitude A variety of aerial targets for planes already midair A variety of ground targets that may be spawned/respawned. This includes tanks, ships, bunkers, field emplacements, bases and airfields A choice to turn on enemy AI Includes toggles for ammunition used, maximum ammunition, reload time, status of modules, whether to move or be stationary and which part of the plane/tank they aim for Alternatively, allow players to swap places with the AI tank for more precision If possible, non-AF ground targets when in a plane. This would allow one to see the effectiveness of actual Attacker plane weapons in a live fight. IL-2 planes, for example, can destroy light and medium tanks with their 20, 23 and 37mm cannons in AF. On the contrary, that is extremely difficult to do when flying an IL-2 variant in GF.     Could be more, best discussed. Of course, this is only for test driving.   Ultimately, this test allows players to literally try out any scenario. This would dispel any false assumptions made in the forums by literally giving players a controlled environment to try out any rumors. This includes the effectiveness of certain weapons as well as the effectiveness of x tank/plane's armor.   This would also expand the test range's usefulness and give players an opportunity to collect data (Such as the number of rockets/bombs x targets takes for y update) without sacrificing performance in a live match. This data also includes bug reports that would require extremely specific situations to replicate.
  12. Sorry I am sanding it so late, but I have forgotten to pass it here, but I have made screenshots. This is the hill where the vehicles were going over it. AFAIK I was playing Italian 1.2-1.7 BR Arcade/Airplanes Battle. They were my enemies in E6 quadrant. Going from South to North. I could upload replay (If I would have rights to upload 13MB zip archive). This is from 06/12th/2017, old version which I cannot replay. The red arrow shows the direction where i have seen them going. I shot it so the vehicle is not on the screenshot. I think the fire there it is the destroyed vehicle.
  13. gameplay

    The Problem Currently, heavy bombers have one goal: to destroy the 3 bomb targets, then destroy the enemy's airfield (Obviously, some aircraft do not fit this role, like the cannon-equipped ones). Of course, tanks and ships exist, but are very hard to hit from high altitude, and an almost direct hit is needed to kill them. This is where my suggestion comes into play: having more bombing zones with different characteristics and reworking how the "airfield attack" is achieved. The Solution To make bombing more interesting and involve more strategy, a risk/reward system would be put into place. Instead of having only 3 bombing zones of the exact same strength and size, there would be at least 5 per map with this suggestion. The key point is that they would be different sizes, be differently defended, and contribute less or more to the airfield "damage." Instead of having to destroy all of the bases to be able to damage the airfield (and end the game), a new system would be put into place: The airfield would carry two values, "defense points" and "damage points." Damage Points are already implemented, as in the red circle above the airfield telling how many more bombs it can take (in other words, its HP). Defense Points would stem from the average health of all the bomb targets. Destroying a target is not necessary; damaging several severely enough will unlock the airfield for destruction. When a target is damaged, the defense points will go down, until it runs out. Then, the airfield will be unlocked and the bomb zones removed from the battle. Some targets would lower the Defense Points more than others, which is where the risk/reward system will come in. Smaller bomb zones (that are harder to hit) with more anti-aircraft guns would lower the Defense Points more than large bases with few defenses. This is where some strategy comes into play: to win faster, your aircraft might get damaged. It also allows for the attackers and fighters to fill a role: to destroy the anti-aircraft guns surrounding the zones that will reduce the Defense Points the most. An enemy base being destroyed would decrease the enemy's Victory Points, as it does currently. Other notes: - The old bomb targets would be kept, but would contribute less, as they are large and undefended. - New models for the targets could be created, like submarine pens, supply depots, railroad junctions, etc. - A new reload mechanic could be implemented, like flying to the edge of the map, being taken out of the battle for a while, then coming back in with a full bomb load, but with the same damage (It would only apply for RB and SB, and could simulate a new bomber coming in from a friendly airfield). This is a little off-topic, but would avoid having to lose altitude, land, and and then struggle to stay alive at low altitude. End Note Bombers are somewhat unimportant to the battle currently. Victory is often achieved faster by destroying enemy fighters or hitting the AI ground targets, not by bombing the airfield. This would hope to rectify some of the issues and make bomber defense and protection a more important goal. This implementation would not be historically inaccurate: a factory does not have to be completely destroyed to become useless; a submarine pen might not be completely leveled to become nonoperational.
  14. For every tanker, the unlock of a new vehicle comes with a major ''problem'' ; the lack of spare parts and fpe. Without these the player is put to a disadvantage against his opponents cause any damage to the gun breech/barell, transmission and engine means that the tank is combat ineffective, unless it manages to reach a capture point if available. Also if the fuel tanks are hit, a fire may start and the player is doomed to a slow virtual death which cannot avoid. While many suggestions have been made about this issue, i think that this one fits better in the game and wont create any problems at all. So here we go. So i have research the M36 Jackson TD and im currently researching T95. I take a look at T95 modifications. So heres my suggestion. What if you could pre-research 2 modules of the tank you are currently researching by using the previous tank. Of course in order to do that you should have the previous tank with all its upgrades researched. In this case, if i had the M36 fully spaded, i could use the modifications RP earned from battles to actually pre research a module of the next tank in the line, here the T95. For example, i could pre-research the ''parts'' and ''T13'' modifications and actually compete in my first game with the new tank given the fact that i have the ability to repair my tank. An option like this would be really helpful and player-friendly cause it can remove the stock-syndrome of many tanks in the game(M47, M48 etc) and the players would have more fun playing the game. Also by having a premium account, someone would be able to pre-research 4 modules, another + of having a premium account. This can be applied to aircraft as well. So what do you guys think?
  15. It would be helpful if pilots could modify future loadouts while still flying. The changes would be applied when the aircraft rearms. This would allow pilots to select different bomb loads or change ammo type without having to bail from their aircraft. This would allow flying boats to change loadouts on maps without carriers. It would also allow the final pilot on a team (ex. 1 vs 4) to change ammo types without losing points (or the game) when they bail to make changes. The final pilot shouldn't be penalized because they need to change ammo from Armor Piercing to Universal or they need a lighter fuel load. This could even replace the 'bail out to make changes' mechanic. Changes would have to be selected before rearming. If the pilot wants a different loadout, they would make the changes and wait for the rearm timer instead of bailing out. While making changes, the pilot is still sitting on the runway. This change in the 'modify loadout' mechanic would prevent players from bailing out on the runway to avoid being killed. I have been in matches where the final enemy was sitting on the runway just waiting for the other team to start a strafing run. As soon as we got close, the player would bail. This went on for 4 or 5 runs with the enemy bailing while the enemy AA tore through our planes. Just something for your consideration. I have included a screenshot of what it might look like. .
  16. Hi there, I'd like to make a simple suggestion that I think will provide a huge quality of life improvement for the game, and that's the ability to change the colour of the lead indicator(s). It makes sense to be able to colour both, and it should hopefully provide additional visibility on certain maps, as right now there are some situations where it is hard to see the lead indicator in a cloud, on a snow map, or some other element in the map like a town while turn fighting down low. The indicator can blend into the background quite easily and you will miss that critical split second firing solution. The solution that I have been using is not ideal, I tend to use ULQ (Ultra low quality) settings, so that I can see the lead indicator much more clearly regardless of the map or the map elements. However, sometimes I'd love to be able to use high settings and enjoy the great graphics that War Thunder has to offer, but I don't want to feel at a disadvantage doing so. This change would provide a huge quality of life improvement for not just me, but other players too. This is a common problem that I often hear others in my squadron talking about and the solution is simple. Allow us to change the colour of the lead indicators. Here is a links to some pictures showing a concept of what I am talking about:
  17. In the evening or night maps where airfields are present, it would be interesting if the runway would have landing lights. It would be more realistic because when the aircrafts are going back from mission they would hardly see the runway in a dark. Currently the runway and it's paths are too bright, which is not realistic. I know it helps to the pilot to locate the runway. But you would get better effect if you would use burning fires to mark the runway. Far more, the fires could be ignited when the aircraft would be on final approach! Here I give you an example from my last mission where the airfield is located in a valley. It is unlikely that in the valley which is surrounded by mountains or by hills the airfield could be visible. The rest of light would be reflected from the hills and mountains (especially in winter maps). The higher the terrain is, the more light it can reflect. By other words, the higher altitude of the mash, the lighter the texture could be. But is should also be depended how far or close the elevated terrain is located. The second images is completely dark texture. The third image is dark texture in low altitude and lighter in higher altitude. Of sure, it would be harder to find ground targets, but we can locate enemy targets when they start fire. Added one more image with the better balanced light. One more try with the better light conditions.
  18. Hello there.   So recently I've been playing a lot more light tanks than before (I simply had to spade the T92 for...reasons). The tanks themselves are not a problem, however on certain maps they can be at somewhat of a disadvantage. There are ways around it obviously, in fact there is little in game that is more satisfying than coming out on top of a 3v1 close-quarters situation on a map like Advance to the Rhine in a tank that has next to no armor. However, I feel there could be some overall improvement for the gameplay of light tanks.   Historically, light tanks like the M3/M5 Stuart, M41 Walker Bulldog, T-80/70, and Panzer II H's, etc. were used as recon tanks. Tanks that would use their speed to get to an area, and supply intel to a base or the other friendly forces. They also of course, used their speed and range for flanking shots on enemy targets. Only half of this experience is currently in game.   A few patches back (1.55, iirc) RB battles got a new mechanic that lit up enemies on the map whenever they were hit. The community had a slight uproar about it but eventually got used to it. What I suggest is a slight adjustment of this same mechanic.   My idea, is converting this feature into something light tanks exclusively can use, in a slightly different way than what is present. Basically, if a light tank has a visual on an enemy tank, they can press a certain key on their keyboard to "light them up". This will display the normal arrow and icon on the map as it currently does. If this enemy dies to another friendly in say, 20 seconds, the light tank gets a special assist that is worth 80% of what the person who killed him earned.   I would suggest this ability being an unlockable upgrade, called "Better Radios" or something like that, and is only available if the tank's commander and/or radio operator is alive. It should also, in my opinion, have a 20-30 second recharge rate (perhaps upgradeable through crew points?), so we don't have people spamming locations on the map in a desperate attempt to get points.   Let me know what you think in the comments guys.   I know I will have at least one person here shout at me "Great, you are just trying to turn this into the other game". No surprise with that, so allow me to refute that for anyone thinking about it. In the other game, you can get awarded "spotting damage". This is by sitting in a flanking position and staring at your enemies as your teammates do damage to them. While yes, this is a similar concept, and attempts to achieve the same goal of light tanks gameplay, it is quite different. In the other game, doing this properly can result in the enemy quite literally not being able to see you (you actually disappear if done right) unless one of their friendlies gets close enough to detect you. This is quite different from WT, seeing as it is far easier to do than what I have suggested, and uses arcade-like features that have no chance of getting into WT.      
  19. Muy buenas gente, este post esta dedicado completamente para el posteo de mis vídeos tutorial, también tengo otras listas donde hago gameplay y rompo lo que es la seriedad para hacerlo mas divertido.   Desde ya espero poderlo ayudar, este es mi canal de youtube y mi facebook.    Me tomo el trabajo de leer cualquier duda y de ayudar a cada uno con su respectiva incógnita   http://www.youtube.com/user/theBecharita   https://www.facebook.com/Thebecharita   https://twitter.com/NicolasBechara2   Mi patreon por si desean apoyarme para mejorar mi equipo de video.   https://www.patreon.com/TheBecharita?ty=h   y bueno aquí les dejo las listas de reproducción de mis vídeos:   Tutoriales Para el Recien Iniciado:   http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ0I6eeiSumz-UOfppxQrZHEHsAJGmEcG   C.L.A.S.E.S. Warthunder (Tutoriales puramente de aviones) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ0I6eeiSumzgHP6_2B_Hw0cBmEzM9xvb   B.A.S.E.S. Warthunder(Tutoriales puramente de tanques) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ0I6eeiSumxk4-AIKOauO2WxfvIZ-3wC   Históricos Warthunder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GIbHmJ1M8E&list=PLZ0I6eeiSumy5XzuZ8pOBY2vf5MvEfig7   Warthunder Videos Random: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ0I6eeiSumy12hOPDUJ-L0H88y_98tVf   Versus De Warhunder: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ0I6eeiSumw7aRl9Sd_YU52wLGAW0KyR   Puntos débiles de tanques https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ0I6eeiSumwvQcol2QCNrDGEZw7RJGRe   Vídeos Informativos (del canal) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ0I6eeiSumwI1OcwSzZ1A0YJmu5bPS9C   Guías Especificas de aviones y tanques https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ0I6eeiSumyMv8nrHXqetxqaizSxSgIm   Que opinas vos Becha? (Preguntas a mi sobre el juego) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ0I6eeiSumwcQ50GglHN6eX6l25W-rGA   Este post lo dejare cerrado a comentarios, cualquier duda por MP(mensaje privado) o en mi pagina de facebook, desde ya muchas gracias.
  20. Aircraft/Loadouts

      1. Messerschmitt Me 264             In 1937, the Messerschmitt development department started work on Projekt 1062 (which later became the Me 261), a long range aircraft used for record distance attempts and eventually reconnaissance duties. Simultaneously, another long range aircraft was in the development stage, Projekt 1061, which was to be powered by four individual engines, and have a range of 20000 km (12428 miles). Due to more important projects in development at the time (mainly the Bf 109 and 110), Projekt 1061 was only sporadically worked on until late in 1940.  The German Naval Warfare Department wrote to Reichsmarschall Göring on August 10, 1940 that long range aircraft with a range of at least 6000 km (3728 miles) would be needed to reach the planned German Colonial Reich in central Africa. Also, about this time the RLM issued a requirement for long range aircraft with a range of at least 12000 km (7457 miles), to reach from French bases to the United States, in anticipation of the coming war with the U.S. Therefore, the work on Projekt 1061 was stepped up, with Willy Messerschmitt on December 20, 1940 informing designers Wolfgang Degel, Paul Konrad and Waldemar Voigt of the requirements for this long range aircraft. The initial requirements were for a 20000 km (12428 miles) range, capability for military and civilian roles, at least a 5000 kg (11023 lbs) bomb load to be carried in an internal bomb bay, smaller bombs to be carried externally on under-wing pylons and to have a very clean airframe. In early 1941, Messerschmitt  received an order to build six prototype Projekt 1061aircraft, which were given the designation of  Me 264. If the aircraft proved capable, a further 24 aircraft were to be built for "harassing attacks against  the United States".  At the same time, Messerschmitt continued to work on a six engined version of the Me 264, Projekt 1075. Since the Messerschmitt design offices were running at full capacity, part of the design work was delegated to the Fokker Works in Amsterdam.            On January 22, 1941, the General Staff of the Luftwaffe demanded a long range aircraft for the submarine war. The Focke-Wulf Fw 200, Heinkel He 177, Blohm & Voss BV 222 and Messerschmitt Me 261/264 were to all be compared to find the best aircraft for this purpose. Because of its overoptimistic performance and weights data, the RLM chose the Me 264 as the best choice.  Several schemes were proposed by the Messerschmitt design bureau to extend the range of the Me 264, including towing one Me 264 by another to altitude, in flight refueling by a second Me 264, adding two more engines bringing the total to six and using take-off rocket pods for overload takeoff conditions. With these recommendations, it was felt that a range of 18100 km (11247 miles)  and a bomb load of 5000 kg (11023 lbs) could be achieved, and a range of 26400 km (16405 miles) without any bombload. Armament for both versions would have consisted of remote controlled turrets with either MG 131 or MG 151. In early 1942, GFM Milch canceled or reduced numerous development projects, including reducing the number of Me 264 prototypes from six to three, due to the worsening war situation. On February 28, 1942, the Me 264 development was to be temporarily turned over to the Dornier works, but they too were operating above their capacity. The Wesser Aircraft Works in southern Germany were also considered, but nothing came of this idea either. A commission headed by Lt. Col. Petersen arrived at the Messerschmitt-Augsburg complex on April 24, 1942 (at the orders of Milch) to check the actual performances of the Me 264, where it was found that the performances were about 90% of what Messerschmitt had been stating. Strangely enough, the very same day Willy Messerschmitt was cleverly presenting the RLM with the idea of using the Me 264 in "Atlantic Missions", and harassing attacks on the American east coast. Shortly afterwards, on May 7, 1942, another detailed report was yet again submitted stating that the Me 264 with a takeoff weight of 45000 kg (99207 lbs) and powered by four Jumo 211J engines could attain a range of 13000 km (8078 miles), and with four BMW 801 engines a range of 14000 km (8700 miles) could be reached. To add to the confusion again, on May 16, 1942 a meeting was held concerning all long range aircraft. It was decided that any flights over 13500 km (8389 miles) would need in flight refueling, and General Jeschonnek had already turned down this option in February 1942 (even though initial in flight refueling tests with a Fw 58 and a Ju 90 had been successful). This ended (at this time) all discussions of harassing attacks against American targets, also reconnaissance missions over the Trans-Siberian railroad and even Equatorial Africa.             By mid-July of 1942, three Me 264 prototypes were being constructed. It was hoped that the Me 264 V1 could be ready for flight testing by October 10, 1942, but again this was optimistic due to delayed and sometimes missing component deliveries. By the end of August 1942 it was obvious that the October maiden flight could not be attained because of the excessive delay in the main landing gear delivery from VDM and the promised Junkers engines were also late. A general skepticism was creeping in concerning the numerous delays in getting the first Me 264 in the air, and again the consensus from the RLM and General Staff of the Luftwaffe was leaning towards the Junkers Ju 290 and the six engined Ju 390.             Meanwhile, the construction of the first prototype V1 was progressing very slowly at Augsburg. At last, on December 23, 1942, the Me 264 V1 was ready for its first test flight (please see the table below for all test flight dates and results), which lasted 22 minutes. The landing gear was left down due to safety concerns. The test flights were later made at Lechfeld, because it had a sufficiently long concrete runway to accommodate the large Me 264, but could test only the first prototype due to the fact that the airfield facilities only had one hanger large enough to house the Me 264 V1.            The Me 264 V1 had a very "clean", all metal fuselage with a circular cross section throughout. Just behind the extensively glazed nose and cockpit was a galley, crew rest area and walkway to the rear of the plane above the lower, enclosed bomb bay. The wings were shoulder mounted, slightly swept back and tapered. They contained a single main spar and one auxiliary spar, with the wing loads being transferred through the main spar and two auxiliary bulkheads into the fuselage. The entire fuel supply was stored in the large wings. All control surfaces were conventional, including split flaps on the inner wing. The tailplane, with its twin fins and rudders, was electrically adjustable during flight. A tricycle landing gear system was designed, which was unusual for such a large aircraft at this time. A single nose wheel was used, although testing had been done for a twin nose wheel configuration using a converted Bf 109 (work number 5603). The test showed a loss of maneuverability, but no shimmying. Because of the ever increasing weight demands, the main landing gear was also to be strengthened, and even a droppable auxiliary main gear was considered. The exterior of the Me 264 V1 was puttied and sanded all over, to give the smoothest possible finish. The engines used on the first prototype were the 12 cylinder, liquid cooled Junkers Jumo 211J-1 . These were the same engines used on the Junkers Ju 88A-4 models, and to save time even the Ju 88 nacelles and radiators were utilized.  The Me 264 V2 was to have extended wing tips and 1000 kg (2200 lbs) of armor added around the more vital parts of the aircraft. It was reportedly being readied for preflight ground tests when it, too, was destroyed in an air raid.            During the flight testing in 1943, the fate of the Me 264 still hung in the balance. Admiral Dönitz and the Supreme Naval War Staff favored the Focke-Wulf Ta 400. However, since this aircraft wasn't supposed to be ready before 1946, it was decided that the Ju 290, He 177 and the Ju 390 should be produced in the interim to provide maritime reconnaissance. A teletype message reached Messerschmitt in May 1943, stating that the Me 264 should be abandoned. This caused some astonishment, because just a week earlier the RLM had insisted upon the completion of the Me 264 prototypes. In June 1943, Messerschmitt contacted Hitler to inform him on how well the Me 264 development was progressing, hoping that Hitler would intervene in his behalf. On July 8, 1943, at a meeting in the Supreme Headquarters, Hitler promised his support for the continued production of the Me 264 to Messerschmitt, but only for maritime uses. At the same time he dropped his decision to bomb the east coast of the U.S., because "the few aircraft that could get through would only provoke the populace to resistance". Only one day later, GFM Milch agreed to continue the construction of the three Me 264 prototypes for the purpose of studies only. Göring, Milch, Friebel and Messerschmitt met on October 14, 1943 to discuss further development possibilities. According to Messerschmitt, the components for the first five prototypes were completed, but he lacked the necessary space and facilities in which to construct them. To get the space for the Me 410 production, all the Me 264 final assembly building jigs were moved from the Augsburg plant and stored at Gersthofen. Later that day, GFM Milch wanted to stop the Me 264 completely, in order to concentrate on the Me 262 jet fighter, to which Göering agreed. One day later, the production orders for the Focke-Wulf Ta 400 was canceled, mainly because the Focke-Wulf resources were needed for the Fw 190D-9 and Ta 152 production.            On June 29, 1944, the Trial Establishments Headquarters definitely stated that the Me 264, as well as the Ju 390, would be unsuitable for operational deployment since its fitting with the entire military equipment and payload would excessively increase the takeoff weight and the wing load. Then on July 18, 1944 the only Me 264 prototype was destroyed in an air raid along with the assembled components of the following two prototype and 80% of the production facilities. Although numerous attempts were made to save the Me 264 program, Admiral Dönitz got Hitler to agree on September 23, 1944 that all work on the Me 264 project should be stopped. Less than a month later, on October 18, 1944 an unmistakable directive was received. The "Reichsmarschall Technical Order Nr. 2" stated: "The production of the Me 264 is herewith canceled". This confirmed the end of the eight year development program that led to only one test aircraft that was far from being operationally ready.            Even before the first prototype had flown, further developments of the Me 264 were being proposed.  Beginning with the V4 model, it was planned to use four high performance BMW 801 E engines with turbochargers and GM-1 boost system. Another idea was a provision as a long range transporter, which would carry 12 to 17 paratroopers and be armed with one FLH 151Z remote controlled turret. It was considered that two additional drop tanks could extend the Me 264's range to 13600 km (8451 miles) and a top speed of 580 km (361 mph) at an altitude of 6300 meters (20700 feet), with an estimated flight time of 41 hours. Another version was to add two Jumo 004 jet engines outboard of the four radial BMW engines, and was submitted to the Luftwaffe for evaluation. It was even considered to include a towed Me 328 pulsejet powered fighter for protection.            A variety of engines were considered for the Me 264, including a four Jumo 004C jet engined version, a two or four BMW 028 turboprop engined version and a twin BMW 018 turbojet powered version. Another project was to have used Ritz heat exchangers to greatly increase range. Perhaps the most unusual powerplant idea was for a steam turbine that was to develop over 6000 horsepower and drive a 5.334 meter (17' 6") diameter airscrew. Fuel would have been in a mixture of powdered coal and petroleum. the main advantages to this engine would be constant power at all altitudes and simple maintenance.            An armed long distance reconnaissance version (Me 264A) would have been equipped with three Rb 50/30 cameras, and armed with one MG 130/2, one DHL 151Z, one MG 151 and perhaps two MG 131 for the lateral positions. According to a study dated April 27, 1942, the long distance aircraft should be able to fly reconnaissance missions as far as Baku, Grosnyj, Magnitogorsk, Swerdlowsk, Tiffis or Tshejabinsk in the USSR, and flights to Dakar, Bathurst, Lagos, Aden and southern Iran were also reachable. Not only were New Jersey and New York in the U.S. within range, but also targets in Ohio, Pennsylvania and even Indiana; in addition, there were plans to station some Me 264s on Japanese bases on islands northeast of the Philippines, to fly reconnaissance missions as far as Australia, India and much of the Pacific area. The updated version of the Me 264 was to use the Jumo 222 engines with the GM-1 boost system, which was under development at the time.            The long range bomber version (Me 264B) was supposed to be fitted with four BMW 801E radial engines and an additional two Jumo 004C jet engines. The armament was similar to the above reconnaissance model, except the single MG 151 would be replaced with one MG 131.  Its total weight would be 48100 kg (106041 lbs), or 49900 kg (110010 lbs) with the two Jumo 004C jet engines. The range would have been, with a 3000 kg (6614 lbs) bomb load, 11600 km (7208 miles) without the Jumo jet engines and 8500 km (5282 miles) with the jets. With the jet engines installed, the aircraft should have been able to reach a top speed of 655 km/h (407 mph) at 6700 meters (21981 feet). A top ceiling of 14500 meters (47572 feet) could be reached due to the pressurized cockpit. A naval version would be equipped with four Jumo 222E/F high altitude engines, plus the two Jumo 004C turbojets. the maximum offensive load was calculated to be 6000 kg (13228 lbs). It was also recommended at this point that the fully glazed cockpit should be replaced with a stepped cockpit, also, the defensive armament was being continually revised until all the turrets were remotely controlled, and revolved through 360 degrees. A new turret was even developed, armed with two MG 213 revolver cannon, then under development.            There was also a high altitude bomber version being designed, which would have been equipped with four BMW 801 E/F radial engines with superchargers. The cockpit was planned to be pressurized from the beginning.  Since the rest of the plane would not be pressurized, remote controlled defensive armament would have to be installed. According to factory documents of July 9, 1943, this version was based on a 39000 kg (85979 lbs) takeoff weight, which included a 3000 kg (6614 lbs) bomb load, and was to utilize the jettisonable additional landing gear. The minimum penetration distance would have been 3500 km (2175 miles) at an altitude of 12000 meters (39370 feet), at a cruising speed of 640 km/h (398 mph). It would have required a climbing time of 70 minutes to reach this altitude. Again, the Jumo 222 E/F would have been the most efficient engines for high altitude operations, and it was planned to re-equip this aircraft when these engines became available.            5100 kg (11243 lbs) drop tanks were designed in September 1944, and were ready to be manufactured when the cancellation order arrived. Even after the cancellation order was received, work continued by many Messerschmitt engineers and designers in December 1944 on a courier version of the Me 264, with a range of 12000 km (7457 miles) and a load of 4000 kg (8818 lbs). At this point in time, the work done was merely a way to protect the Messerschmitt employees from being conscripted into the army.    Messerschmitt Me 264 V1 Flight Tests Date Test Pilot Airfield Results December 23, 1942 Karl Baur Augsburg After extensive taxiing trials, the Me 264 made its maiden flight. The duration of this first flight was 22 minutes, and for safety reasons the landing gear was left down. On landing, the airframe was damaged in the area of the flap mounts when the aircraft rolled over the end of the runway due to the failure of the brake system. January 20, 1943 Karl Baur Augsburg The second test flight was made. Karl Baur complained that the forces on the controls were too high, about the poor placement of the instruments and of exhaust fumes penetrating into the cockpit. January 22, 1943 Karl Baur Augsburg The Me 264 was transferred to Lechfeld. January -    February, 1943 Karl Baur Lechfeld On the fifth test flight, the underside of the fuselage was damaged when it accidentally contacted the ground. Also, the hydraulic system of the landing gear failed, making it impossible to retract the gear. February, 1943 Karl Baur Lechfeld Baur reported some problems with the inner flaps and a defective nose wheel. Despite some changes to the control surfaces, the forces against them were still too high and the changes had displaced the center of gravity. The nose wheel problems were fixed, and now the retraction functioned properly. Also, some minor defects were found in the electrical cables of the intercom system. February, 1943 Gerhard Caroli Lechfeld Caroli also found that the forces against the control surfaces were still too high, especially at high speed. Small defects were still present in the radio system and landing gear. February, 1943 Karl Baur Lechfeld During two flights by Baur, a speed of 600 km/h (373 mph) was reached. The faulty trimming and controls revealed that an eventual change in the entire control system would be inevitably needed. Flights with two or three engines were found to be satisfactory, but in flights with the automatic controls it was found that the servos were too low powered to control such a heavy aircraft. March 2, 1943 Karl Baur Lechfeld Stability tests were continued. March 4, 1943 Karl Baur Lechfeld A test of the polare system was cut short when after 15 minutes of flying time, the third engine began to smoke and had to be cut out. At this time, 11 test flights had been made totaling 12 hours flight time. March 23, 1943 Karl Baur Lechfeld After the faulty engine was changed, the critical altitude tests were made. Several other test flights were made this day, mainly to check the longitudinal stability. Also, the first measures to improve the rudder effect was made. March 23, 1943 Karl Baur Lechfeld During landing, the left oleo leg broke, which was probably not fully locked down, causing some damage. March 23 -     May 21, 1943   Lechfeld During repairs, a new steering column, a reinforced wing skin, a modified nosewheel drive and a complete radio were added. Also, a new emergency tail  skid was  added, a changed tailplane and four new Jumo 211J engines were installed. May 22 -    June 5, 1943 Karl Baur Lechfeld Continued high forces against the ailerons and rudder surfaces were found. Six flights were made totaling 12 hour 16 minutes. June 2, 1943 Flight Capt. Wendel Lechfeld Serious problems arose when the nosewheel jammed during retraction. June 10, 1943 FBM Böttcher Lechfeld Reported that the cockpit excessively heated up in the summer sun. August 11, 1943   Lechfeld The Me 264 V1 was taken out of service, and re-equipped with BMW 801 twin row radial engines. March 18, 1944   Lechfeld The Me 264 V1 was slightly damaged in an air raid, and was quickly repaired. April 14, 1944   Lechfeld During the first test roll with the new engines, the brake shoes tore off. April 16, 1944   Lechfeld The Me 264 V1 was transferred to Memmingen. April, 1944   Memmingen During the 38th test flight, the emergency skid was torn out after a rough landing. When the rudders were fitted with balances, the excessive vibrations almost ceased. late April, 1944 FBM Scheibe Lechfeld Scheibe, from the Rechlin Trial Establishment, complained about the canopy reflections during his test flight. He also indicated that the excessive airframe vibrations were the number one problem to fix.  late April, 1944 Colonel Barsewich Memmingen Barsewich, from the Chief Reconnaissance Department, judged the Me 264 V1 too slow for combat missions, even though the aircraft was about 10% faster than with the Jumo 211J engines. early May, 1944 Lt. Colonel Knemeyer Memmingen After an uneventful flight, Knemeyer was completely enthusiastic about the Me 264, in his opinion all problems could be overcome in the further testing and refinement of the aircraft. April 17 -   May 17, 1944 Karl Baur Memmingen Flight testing was performed for tailplane flutter and the emergency tail skid. The rear of the plane was found to be too heavy. April 26 -   May 3, 1944 Captain Nebel Memmingen Three test flights were made by Capt. Nebel of the Rechlin Test Establishment to finally redress the tail vibrations. To avoid building an entire new tail, balance weights were added to get the vibration problems under control. Since the problem was not solved, a larger tail plane seemed inevitable. June 5, 1944 Karl Baur Memmingen More stability tests were made, with a small improvement. However, the flights were complicated by the continuous problems with the Patin system. June 6, 1944 Karl Baur Memmingen Extreme rudder fluttering was found in the 380 - 450 km/h (236 - 280 mph) range. Also criticized were the too soft automatic controls, which had to be adjusted again.  June 26, 1944 Karl Patin Memmingen A climb flight with combat performances was prematurely cut short when the fuel pressure of both inner engines fell to zero. After checking the fuel pumps, several defects were found. Also, the failure of the Patin, radio and electrical systems caused intensive repairs. July 18, 1944   Memmingen The Me 264 (RE+EN, work number 264000001) was damaged during an air raid. The extent of the damages was too severe for the damage to be repaired.      Test pilot Karl Baur (1913-1963), who flew every Messerschmitt development aircraft. Messerschmitt Me 264 V3 (V1) Dimensions   Span   Length Height Wing Area   Fuselage Diameter 43 m   141' 1"   ---------   (38.9 m)   (127' 7") 20.115 m   66' 4.3 m   14' 1" 127.7 m²   1374.56 ft² 2.2 m   7' 3"   Messerschmitt Me 264 V3 Weights Empty   Equipped Crew (6) Fuel Oil Nitrous   Oxide Normal   Loaded Max. Auxiliary   Fuel & Tanks Max.   Overload Jettisonable   Takeoff Equipment 23360 kg   51500 lbs 540 kg   1191 lbs 19700 kg   43438 lbs 1260 kg   2778 lbs 680 kg   1500 lbs 45540 kg   100416 lbs 10500 kg   23152 lbs 56040 kg   123568 lbs 4300 kg   9481 lbs   Messerschmitt Me 264 V3 Performances Cruising   Speed Max.   Speed Service   Ceiling Max.   Range Max.   Endurance Climb Rate   (overload) Landing   Speed Takeoff Run   (Normal Load w/ RATO) 350 km/h   218 mph 545 km/h   339 mph 8000 m   26240' 15000 km   9315 miles 45 hours 120 m/min.   393 ft/min. 160 km/h   99 mph 1500 m   4920'   Messerschmitt Me 264 Models Manufacturer Scale Material Notes Airmodel  #AM-022 1/72 Vacuform All vacuform kit. Contains parts for the V1-V3 versions.   Vacuform parts include: wheels, drop tanks, engines (both   Jumo 211 and BMW 801), rudimentary cockpit parts and   :a wing spar.       Windtunnel models of the planned production Me 264   Messerschmitt Me 264 Nosewheel  ​ The nose wnosewheel retracted to the rear and rotated 90    heel with and without its fairing. The  degrees to lie flat beneath the cockpit.                             The size 935 x 345 nosewheel was not equipped with brakes.                                                                                   The port main landing gear leg and wheel of the Me 264 V1.          Auxiliary main wheels for over load takeoffs             The Messerschmitt Me 264 V1 cockpit....                             Target New York!  Original document of 1943 showing the differing range of degrees of destruction on Manhattan after an attack by German long ranged bombers....     2. (1 goes with #2's requirements)   3. TAG your post with relevant tag (add a tag, from drop down list) and mark checkbox "Use first tag as prefix".  
  21. With the 1.69 , A-26B-50 got reclassified as an attacker, with he green icon and such. But on Assault. Air Arcade, although classified as an attacker, can not participate. This might be due to forgotten class change regarding the events tab. Best Regards ShortFused
  22. I thought since gunners are able to target and shoot at enemy aircraft automatically. Why can't they target and shoot ground targets when flying low. When i play as bomber i always have to switch to gunner view and manually target AAAs on ground. I think it is not impossible suggestion. Gunners being able to shoot ground targets on their own really adds to realism and also helps bombers too.
  23. Will world war mode get a voice communication for players? for exemple: Project Reality (Battlefield 2™ modification ) has a VOIP (Voice over IP) program called Mumble™, that all squads can use it, like a radio chat, to comunicate with your own squadmates, others squad leaders and the commander of the operation. The commander itself can talk with one or all squad leaders in the same time. (sorry for bad english) (Illustrative picture)
  24. Gameplay

    Currently in War Thunder all sounds are heard instantly as whatever causes them happens in the game regardless of distance. When something happens 2km away, you instantly hear the sound of it happening as if it happened right next to you, just with a lower volume. Be it exploding bombs, someone getting hit by a tank shell or whatever. This means that the speed of sound is not implemented in a realistic manner and it ruins the immersion if you pay any attention to the sounds.   Currently in the game, the speed of sound is exactly the same as the speed of light. The speed of sound is approximately 343,2 m/s and it should not be confused with the speed of light which is 299 792 458 m/s.   Example audio files of firing the 105mm K.18 cannon with Pzgr.rot (822 m/s) at a target from 0.51km distance.   Math bits (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong): Distance: 510m Speed of projectile: 822 m/s Speed of sound: 343,2m/s   Time for shell to travel the distance: 510 m / 822 m/s = ~0,62s Time for sound of hit to travel back to shooter: 510m / 343,2 m/s = ~1,49s Total time after shot taken for the hit to take place and the sound to travel back at the shooter: ~2,11 seconds   As you can hopefully hear from the attached audio clips, the sound is currently instant when the target is hit and destroyed. In reality there should be a delay because sound travels really slowly.   EDIT: Video of the suggestion: https://youtu.be/_P17ts5ePZ4
  25. I'm not sure if this is properly modeled or not and I'm also not sure where I could post this but I wanted to get some attention from Gaijin maybe. Browsing the guns on the forums I noticed that the Japanese HE frag has a very very high fuse sensitive of 0.8mm and a delay of 1.1m. This is very high and all other HE shells I looked had much lower fuse sensitivity of like 0.1mm or 0.2mm. This could explain why the tracer shells (even tho they have less HE filler is considered to be much more effective at taking enemy planes. The tracer shells has proper 0.1mm of fuse. In the last patches we saw a revision for the Mk.103, Mk.108 and the Russian 37mm if I'm not mistaken. I wonder where I would like some help on how I can get attention of the developers and maybe ask for a revision on the Japanese 30mm guns as well both Type 5 and the HO one. Finding data on this gun is very very very hard but I'm pretty sure that such a high fuse sensitivity doesn't make sense on a HE shell.