Why do new vehicles have such low resolution textures?

So…
???

It’s a cockpit from an afterthought 2.0 bomber that was added in an update encapsulating a physics overhaul in a graphics engine.

Again, why would you be looking at it in the first place?

The only issue I’m seeing here is the anachronistic HUD?


Apart from that, welcome to korean war halo syndrome. The cockpits aren’t beautiful to begin with, no matter how much grey or blue paint and useless fasteners you splatter onto it.

So… A clearer cockpit?

There’s only 2 things you can possibly be focused on here…

1 - The gun solution.
The Ariete is badly designed and features an ahistorical gunsight.

2 - The “coolness” of the cockpit.
If you’re spending more time in an aircraft combat game looking at the bezel of your canopy or your gunsight switch / lighting dial… I’m pretty sure you’re in the wrong place.

Oh boy, refer to:

image

As for looking.

I don’t know about you, but the cockpit fills at least 50% of my screen, if not more in some planes. Only time it doesn’t is when looking around, and even then the various frames are still visible. Sometimes it fills more of it when the angles or intent line up.

If you’re in a cockpit for up to 3 hours, you want it to look passable. The F4U is much more than passable.

I do agree that the cockpit looks unusually sloppy for a - from what I understand you guys as saying - relatively recent addition to the game. It looks like what I’d expect from one of the planes they released back when the game came out, and haven’t gotten around to updating yet.

I’m left wondering if this escaped the quality control in some way, if they had a bad experience with an external contractor, and felt they had to just go with what they had for now or something.

Have anyone made a nicely worded bug report, to see if we can get the Devs’ word as to whether or not this is how it’s supposed to be? The dials and everything related to those are “easy”, as it’s just high quality assets that they already have in the database. The bespoke assets look like they shouldn’t look that way, though.

Lack of available data or not, they chose to put the aircraft in the game, and if artistic license is needed… well they kinda already took that, by having the plane in the game as it is.

Love the game and what they do with it. This plane’s condition is just a bit puzzling.

2 Likes

At this point it doesn’t seem like they’d miss the artistic license, it’s like they lack a license to have more than 5 polygons.

It doesn’t even have to be historical or accurate in that sense, same deal with bomber cockpits, you can make a cockpit that isn’t equal to real life but still use high quality textures of this era.

I can’t find a single post from you on either the Issues page nor the Suggestions page for graphical improvements of cockpits. Mind sharing what topics are penidng?

Oh boy, don’t say that around here! You don’t want to look like you’re dEfEnDiNg anything!

One is a suggestion to let us test flight/view plane cockpits even if we cannot research them to make picking TT for sim easier.

The rest pertain to economy, missions/AI in sim.

As for issues.

My experience with issues: go out of my way to make a video of a subsonic cl-13 a.i “bomber” achieving 1000 km/h speeds while cosplaying/LARPing as a dolphin and not losing any speed.

Get issue closed and told to make a suggestion, despite it being pretty game-breaking as they’re impossible to catch with BR 7.0-8.0 jets that redline at 850/950 km/h.

2 Likes

So… Irrelevant and does nothing to further your view.

Exactly as I thought, still does nothing to further your view.

You get no merit by showing your posts for test drive suggestions or in-game economy… The topic is cockpit textures and fidelity.
As I’ve been saying, both you and miragen are here to do nothing more than complain. This makes it pretty clear.

Womp womp?

Oh, oh boy, if you wanna go retro do I have something for you.

Electronic Arts Su-25 Stormovik (Dated 1996)

image

image

2 Likes

Gets told reporting issues with significant imparted effort achieves nothing despite breaking an entire bracket, showcasing the value of making reports.

Goes “Womp womp”

When you make a suggestion they’ll tell you to report it, and when you report it they’ll tell you to make a suggestion, or they’ll just tell you it’s not a bug and close it.

1 Like

Yup

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BCFdF5ngLqtR

This guy did some intense data collection, created graphs clearly showcasing in-game trends contradicting stat cards. Shares all that data in a public data sheet with expectations and differences.

image

“There is nothing surprising in rewards capping out at 92% for 1050 score and 2000 score alike.”

1 Like

I know, I had already grown up with Falcon 2.0 and spent a large majority of time on my laptop on 3.0.

I couldn’t care less about your report of AI issues, as said before. It’s insane to me that you read THIS

and act surprised when I dismiss your obvious sidestep.

Is the reporting manager not wrong? HeliBoy’s relying on the fact that he has full efficiency for the entire 15 minute period and it conflating his full-match efficiency to each reward period.

There’s nothing surprising about an unstable battle activity across a reward period.

Do you have an idea what useful actions is.

… Also decided to do your (likely useless and ignored) issue report, which requires screenshots.

Behold.

Mig-15bis Ish

Spoiler


Ariete

Spoiler



Both are premiums of the same BR bracket (8.7 vs 9.0)
Mig-15bis: 8.5k GE
Ariete: 8.7K GE

Has a properly modeled SPO-15 RWR 😏

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Arasw8mUaTQ9

Watch as it gets rejected and told to “Make a suggestion.”

Then the suggestion gets stuck in pending hell for months.

1 Like

Hungarian Froints. ->3 months of wages. The Average wage for Hungary is only around 650->675 USD.
It’s not a lot. When you consider the currency they use is worth nothing. Which is why they keep failing tor replace it.