So you trying to hound mods on me with false accusations, instead of answering on stated questions?
Simple concepts of theorycrafting on cherrypicked data from unfull sources with false conclusions.
Naval costs dont include just making the mode, maintaining it and keeping it bug free by work of people that need to be paid.
Most stuff, including but not limited to military equipment is often protected by copyright, industrial design laws, and trademark. You need to get license to use them, for example in media like videogames, unless the protections have expired.
WT Mobile has, for whatever reason, a devblog out for type 45 destroyer, guided-missile destroyer which were built between 2003 and 2012.
If they wanted to put that ship into game, they need to get a license for it.
Specifics might wary but just because Gaijin has license to use type 45 destroyer in WT Mobile does not neccesarily mean that they can also use it in Warthunder, as they are clearly two disctinct products handled by two distinct teams.
We talked about “making the mode”, he stated that devs spending third of their time on the naval.
Which is simply not true, even if we just count number of vehicles in different modes. Or number of maps. Or changes in changelogs. Or any other things related to naval comparing to other modes, it’s never gonna be “one-third”.
ps. If Statshak counted the “newbie” battles we could see how many new players come to mode but he stated that it’s irrelevant for his theories shenanigans.
So naval EC is irrelevant, newbie battles irrelevant, nothing relevant what didn’t suit his theories.
I am a bit late to this but are you talking about the ship models in WTMobile being reused into regular WT? I’ve heard that being said a lot of times , especially during the early days of WTMobile when the WW2 battleship models were first found, but it’s not actually the case.
If you compare the models of the battleships added in update Leviathans to those in WTMobile, you’ll see that they are in fact different. And the difference is more than can be attributed to higher texture resolutions and higher poly models.
Take a look at the “USS Iowa” of both games.
The superstructure, and in particular the aft mast, is noticeably different. WTMobile’s “USS Iowa” seems to be closer to USS Wisconsin in a post war configuration, possibly sometime during the Korean War, as she is missing the rangefinders on turret no.1. Regular WT’s Iowa is a bit of a mess of different fits, the bridge shouldn’t be enclosed in 1944.
The only model that may have been shared would be Soyuz, if only because spotting differences is difficult as the ship’s deck and superstructure are so barebones.
Really, as far as the (later parts of the) naval modes are concerned, these two games are different and only share the name War Thunder.
1 Like
Sure sure, thats why WTM have all the tank and planes models from desktop game. It’s not that hard make low poly model from high poly, besides that you need done it for distanced display.
ps. You never late for naval treads.
No I mean the other way around. That is, the idea that models unique to WTMobile will be ported to PC.
The unique ships of WTMobile aren’t just lower poly models that were meant to also be added to PC; they’re completely different models.
For the Iowa above, even if you made a lower poly version of PC’s model, you’re not suddenly going to change her configuration/year fit and get a different superstructure.