Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 20/01/19 in all areas

  1. 64 points
    So instead of keeping the values given by documents which kept the penetration values useable and historical you just deleted some tank from the game? And you wonder why people are angry at how gaijin has been rushing out updates. Some examples of the utter folly of this change. L23A1: where do I even start? The lanz odermatt formula was part of what was used to fix this shell in the first place and now you've recalculated with the incorrect striking velocity and density after all the information we threw at you to fix it? Lets not forget that L23 is unchanged so it now has more flat pen despite being exactly the same except for being less dense. Outstanding "standardisation" there. Tiger II 105: 175mm pen for the stock shell at 7.0? My god this is going to be suffering. DM23: Use of a formula for unsegmented monobloc penetrators on a segmented monobloc penetrator. Astounding work... This chsnge represents everything the community has been getting angry about in the past year or so. These formulae are incredibly general and are no substitute foe historical documents as they rarely provide truly accurate values. Yet instead of resorting to these formulae as a backup when no documents on something can be found you used it as your new gospel. It simply looks like you've dropped more historical accuracy for speed of new content being produced and that's a very "other game" thing to do. (Oh and these guns certainly aren't historically accurate anymore so you may want to take that out your advertising...)
  2. 48 points
    The Ha-Go was the most produced and iconic Japanese tank of WW2. Why remove it when you can use actual historical documentation for its ammunition or update its gun to the Type 98 with Type 1 ammunition? You are removing the face of the Japanese armored forces.
  3. 42 points
    First we need to check how the specific vehicles perform on battlefield after this changes.
  4. 30 points
    You guys should adjust BRs and ammo cost fast... Some tanks are unplayable now and some ammo is just overpriced right now.
  5. 29 points
    If devs fixed bugs as fast as mods delete posts, we would have decent game by the end of the week. These changes are just pure nonsense.
  6. 28 points
    Ah yes, the glorious Motherland was capable of producing a tank-ish sized gun firing APCBC (APHE) with penetration figures comparable to APFSDS/APDS during WWII. Completely realistic))) /s This whole system should really be reserved for shells with little to no data on them, because this game went from semi-realistic-ish to completely unrealistic.
  7. 27 points
    yea unified pen system would be good but with ur calculator thats not going to work as u generalize every shell even if they are different like flat russian APCB to sharp US APCB etc. there are many more examples and with that what the calculator dosnt work to summarize i am 100% against the new system
  8. 26 points
    people are getting angry and become whiny because Gaijin was told beforehand that this formula is not appropriate in the way they wanted to add it. Killakiwi has written reports, dedicated an entire thread to this but Gaijin didn't care, didn't listen and just followed their own agenda as usual and added something to the game that of course created chaos, confusion and laughter. They are like a small child where you have to say everything ten times till they might listen. Or they don't listen at all, proceeding with their nonsense untill they fall flat on their face when they see it on their own that it isn't working at all after it went live.
  9. 26 points
    Amazing how after all this, the glorious Soviet sloped performance remains.
  10. 26 points
    Since my previous summarization was deleted: People have been posting increasingly detailed bug reports for months which conclusively showed Gaijins in-game values were incorrect, sometimes by substantial amounts. Combined with Gaijins insistence that the game is "as close to reality as possible", it put them in an awkward position. Either correct the values (and heavily nerf a certain nation), or ignore them and make it obvious that they are playing favorites. Gaijin found a way around that. Simply shift from real world test results to calculations (in which a certain nation is used as the baseline) and you can keep the fantasy values assigned to them. As I previously said, reality was an increasingly painful thorn in Gaijins side, so they chose to remove it from the game. There's nothing we can constructively do with Gaijins calculator. If Gaijin wants to maintain their claim to accuracy they need to undo the change. If they want to abandon that claim, that's fine with me too. The community poured countless hours of effort into detailing the correct performance of projectiles across all eras and nations, and Gaijin threw that out the window. Making such a drastic, unwanted, and un-called for change is only going to receive negative feedback. Try to filter that out and you might as well as the community to stay silent entirely.
  11. 24 points
    The Tiger II H armed with the 105mm L/68 cannon is modeled after sketches from German engineers to mount a bigger gun on the Tiger II H, namely the 105mm high velocity L/68 anti-tank gun which was tested during the war but never entered service. https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=230469 The vehicle never existed and there were no plans to mount this gun in the Tiger II H before the war ended for the following reasons: Logistical concerns as the 105 Tiger II was the only vehicle to use this new type of ammo Concerns regarding the effectiveness of the gun. Since it required two piece ammo the RoF would be lower and therefore the combat effectiveness wouldn't improve by that much. The 105 Tiger II H in-game combines a number of features which were suggested to improve the performance of the Tiger II H: Use of the Maybach HL234 to increase the hp/t ratio Use of a stereoscopic rangefinder to increase hit probaility at long range Of course these changes were never implemented before the war ended. However with the arrival of the IS-3 in mid 1945, which was desigend to be immune to frontal penetration by the long 88mm gun, the German Army would need a tank equiped with a more powerfull gun that has a chance to defeat this new Soviet heavy tank and newly developed medium tanks such as the T-44 which could also resist frontal penetration by the existing 88mm gun. At this point, upgrading the existing Tiger II H with a more powerfull gun seems the most logical step. The 105mm Tiger II H in-game combines the upgraded gun as well as the stereoscopic rangefinder and improved engine which the Tiger II H was meant to receive at some point. However there are some problems with how the vehicle is implemented in-game regarding the crew and ammo layout as well as the ammunition used as well. Ammunition layout: The 10.5cm KwK L/68 was supposed to use two piece ammo since handling of such long round and heavy rounds would be impractical which is correctly modeled. The problem comes with the storage of the ammunition. In-game all of the shells are stored in the turret behind the gun while the propellant charges are stored in the hull. This is very impracticable as British RoF tests have shown that retriving ammunition from the hull takes an awefull lot of time (~18sec). (If someone finds the report, let me know. It has been posted on the forum before) Ammo in the hull is therefore primarely used for storage while the ammo in the turret was meant to be easily accessable for fast reload. There exists a sketch of the ammo layout in the 105 Tiger II which shows a much more realistic scenario. The long propellant charges are stored in the back of the turret, much like the 88mm rounds, while the shells are stored in the back around the turret ring. This allows the loader to have access to both the shells and the propellant charges inside the turret for a total of 10 shells and charges readily avaialble besides him. In the sketch we can see that theres are a number of charges stored at front of the turret, which seems like a pretty bad place to store them in an case the side of the turret gets penetrated... oh well So using common sense, I suggest not putting charges at the front of the turret. Second loader: The 105 Tiger H has a second loader modeled inside the turret. However this is very unrealistic since the second loader has no access to the gun breech. Therefore his only job, with the current ammo layout, is to retrive propellant charges from the hull and give them to the first loader. The problems are obvious: Retriving ammo from the hull takes a lot of time. The long propellant charges make it extremely difficult to handle inside the cramped interior which got even smaller with the addition of the second loader. If the shells are stored inside the turret, a second loader is simply unnecessary. Therefore it's far more realistic to remove the second loader after the ammunition layout has been adjusted. Rate of fire: Currently the Tiger II H can reload it's 88mm rounds at 7.5sec. On the other hand the 105mm gun has a reload of 15.4sec. Since both the shell (16.9kg) and propellant charges (14-15kg) have less weight than a single 88mm round (20-21kg), the quickest reload time should be below 15sec for loading the gun in two steps. The T29 reloads its 105mm gun in 12.5sec with two loaders but doesn't have the long charges stored behing the gun, which makes it more difficult to load. The IS-6 reloads its 122mm gun in around 15.5sec despite having heavier shells (25kg) and charges (~14kg) with only one loader. A reload time of 12.5sec for the 10 ready rounds besides the loader for the 10.5cm KwK L/68 seems appropriate. Ammunition: Currently the tank has access to the following AP shells: APHE (stock) APCBC APCR The following problems exist: No German anti-tank gun above 50mm fired uncapped ammunition since the penetration was greatly reduced due shattering on impact. The 10.5cm APHE round was only used in low velocity guns such as the StuH 42. The use of this round for the 105mm KwK L/68 is therefore completely unrealistic. The muzzle velocity of 900m/s is also completely made up and has no basis. If anything the lighter APHE round would have an increased muzzle velocity (1100m/s instead of 900m/s). The round should be removed from the vehicle. Germany did not develop APCR rounds above 88mm. By 1945 no tungsten would have been available to produce such rounds anyway. The round should be removed from the vehicle. The 10cm PzGr. Rot was an old design with a lot of explosive inside. It was only fired by field cannons and 10.5cm anti-aircraft guns below 900m/s. Higher velocities would cause a performance decrease due to shattering. The current in-game performances is equal to the current velocity of 1005m/s, if the shell stayed intact. This round should be the stock ammo because the APHE shell should not be fired from this gun. The tank is missing it's primary AP shell, the 10.5cm PzGr. 39 APCBC shell, newly designed for a high velocity 10.5cm anti-tank gun. This round could penetrate the same amount of armor as the 12.8cm PzGr. 43 of the Jagdtiger, namely 270mm at 0m. This round enables the tank to penetrate the front armor of the T-44 with ease and even that of the IS-3. I've previously created a topic about the missing shell which contains some information and sources about the performance. In short the round weighs 16.9kg and would have an explosive mass simliar to the 88mm Pzgr. 39., though details are not known. So to sum it up, I suggest the following changes to make the vehicle more realistic. (Historical accurate probably isn't the right term for a vehicle that did not exists) Change the ammunition layout as suggested by the turret sketch for more realistic ammunition access. Remove the second loader which would not be able to help with reloading the gun inside the turret. Decrease the time it takes to reload the gun for the 10 (ready) rounds besides the loader to around 12.5sec to match other tanks and the performance of the Tiger II H with the long 88mm. Remove the APHE round that would not be fired from a high velocity gun. Remove the APCR round, since such round never existed. Make the 10.5cm PzGr. Rot the stock round. Add the missing 10.5cm PzGr. 39 APCBC shell which was intended to be used for this gun. These changes would not only make the tank more realistic but also more competetive against late war and post war tanks.
  12. 23 points
    I know, that it's not popular opinion, but I will throw that thought in the air here. SPAA "can't touch this" is the song for them Abrams and it's other version, are 1shottable huge boxes, that doesn't have any huge advantage over other countries top tier vechiles. Light tank M551, is slow, weak and does not have anything to make itself as reliable asset. Bradley , it's a slotholder, nothing more There are no TDs, that could fit in this list Only thing USA shines with, is its CAS, but even that is not OP, due enemy side, very effective spaa. And i'm not starting flamewar. It is the current picture, that i see, playing USA tanks. Not talking about 4 very well practiced teams, but solo, random match people.
  13. 22 points
    I do honestly understand why they had to simplify things. But as @KillaKiwi said numerous times and explicitly stated in his other topic on this, the formula used here is just plain wrong. It’s only justifiable use would be on the more obscure tanks that it is hard to find data for. Likewise the L-O formula for APFSDS because those tanks are still in use and data is highly classified for the most part. DeMarre can be used. But it needs some serious adjustments, ASAP. Likewise; we need more frequent review of BRs and alterations to said BRs to greatly lessen the “lag time” between big changes like this, the solid shot buff, addition of stabilizers, and BR shifts. Based on @KillaKiwi‘s more accurate calculations, logic shown here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18nvGzRSXFTok9knnXGbRTwWzDo_bdDAFa_H5Riyw6gI/edit?usp=sharing And he’s using DeMarre: s = (E / (A * D^1.5))^(1/1.4) E = Kinetic Energy (0.5 * m * v²) A = Armor resistant factor (a constant that depends on the armor hardness and other factors such as nose sharpness) D = The diamter of the shell in decimeters (dm) (122mm = 1.22dm) s = The amount of penetrated armor (in milimeters) As Kiwi has explained, the discrepancies between Gaijin’s approach and his own are three: 1) the “Armor Resistance Factor (A)” for the two formulas, Kiwi’s and Gaijin’s, differ significantly and are not just a single number for “APCBC” or “not APCBC”. 2) there is essentially no correlation between explosive mass and armor penetration, except for when the shell in question is badly made enough that its firing velocity and impact velocity causes it to shatter due to reduced structural integrity. Using AaG’s results, which are based on Russian WWII shells that were badly made, negatively affects everyone when this was only a problem with Russian WWII ammo and German 12.8cm APHEDS. 3. There is no correlation between original shell mass and the resulting penetration of APCR projectiles. The reason is that the shell is still a single piece, a tungsten carbide core surrounded by a steel body, the body squishes flat against the armor while the tungsten carbide core pierces through. Energy is lost from the body squishing against the armor. Modifying DeMarre with the appropriate “A” values will work just fine for APCR and APDS. What Gaijin HAS gotten right with this change: - the slope modifier of APCBC is as far as I can tell, correct, for all rounds of that type. The assumption that all rounds of the type were identical had to be made with the sheer number of different rounds the game has. So, please fix the DeMarre Formula you guys are all using. Here is the only fix you need for the bulk of the mess, again from Kiwi: “Comparing these values with actual penetration data, I found that the following values give realistic results against 240 BHN armor: A = 1960 for APCR shells which generally are sharper than regular AP rounds. Note: this also works for first-generation APDS (everything but the L7s/M68s and Chieftains as far as I’m aware) A = 2400 for sharp nosed AP shells A = 2800 for APC and APCBC shells A = 3150 for early US APCBC rounds which feature a rather rounded nose which is not particular sharp Flat-nosed shells such as Russian APBC (and every other APBC, for convienience’s sake) would feature an A value higher than 3150, because blunt shells struggle to pierce armor and must smash through it instead.” Formulas can definitely work for ingame purposes. Please just use the correct ones.
  14. 22 points
    . Well we wouldn't want to challenge moderation at all would we. I'm not PMing anyone. I've nothing to hide and discussion should be open and for everyone concerned to join in and give their opinion good or bad. I've no idea why the game or this site are run in such an unfriendly and unhelpful manner. In the end we all want the same thing for the game to do well but that seems very difficult to achieve together. I'm not trying to come across as argumentative or cause problems. I, like many others don't like the new changes. We'd like to know why they happened, why we can't compare the changes to the original stats and why we have to do the testing, is this so much to ask?
  15. 22 points
    Disclaimer: I love the game. I want it to success and bring new players every month. This might look as pure hate/flamewar thread, but please - these are only my personal concerns about game I play every single day. Probably pausing the game for next month, beacuse Gaijn Entertainment just pushed major penetration overhaul without ANY BR adjustments. USA Heavies are even better than before. French SA47 100mm carriers got giant penetration buff without any thought put into rebalancing them. Also, GOOD LUCK playing KingTiger105, stock shell has wonderfull 175mm of penetration - I can't wait for all these forum experts defending T32E1 at 7.0 now. Maus and Jagdtiger were already borderline useless and rare sight on battlefield and oh boy, their stock shell is now worse than long 88mm PzGr39/43. Yet again, another major update like ATGM one, Stabiliser one, smoke grenades one that is pushed out without ANY rebalancements with it. Pen recalculation in majority of cases nerfed vehicles that are struggling already, and buffed many clubbing ones. Maus 44.33% Jagdtiger 44.5% KT105 48.3% All 3 nerfed. T-29 54.28% T-34 51.86% Lorraine40t 64.42% AMX M4 61.55% All 4 buffed Russian 57mm and 85mm both can lolpen Jumbo Sherman from the front beacuse of magic slope modifiers. Dear Gaijin Entertainment - these updated DOES NOT help the game in any means. These kind of updates are slap in the face of players that care for overall competitiveness and fariness of War Thunder battles. Literally every single person with common sense know what will happen now. Vehicles that were struggling before will be completely abandoned. Vehicles that were very good (or even clubtier) will be spammed more than ever. Questions are: How will this affect matchmaking time? How will this affect the experience of average Joe playing the game? One that is not playing flavour-of-the-patch tanks? How will this change adress clear unbalancies at certain tiers in game? Do you think that patches that add major mechanics/overhauls to the game should be implemented live without any BR changes? Also, last special note about 10.0 BR battles - In my opinion noone can predict what happens now, every single APFSDS got changed - one small patch without a minute public test server just bulldozered whole endgame meta. How is this ok? How much feedback do we need to give? Does every good change in the game require community uproar as big as FPE/Parts one? Winrate data I mentioned before is whole month of fresh data. If you introduce a patch that nerfs many sub50%WR vehicles and buffs many over50%WR behicles, how hard is it to predict even bigger unbalance?
  16. 22 points
    What we want is a list which shows us all the shells, their previous penetration and their new one, preferably also the difference. Just like you do with BR and repair cost changes. Expecting the consumers to check every single shell individually themselves in not a good move, especially since we can't actually do that because there is no way to look at what the penetration used to be before the change since they are no longr visible.
  17. 22 points
    Long story short: Due to changes provided with latest calculation system, guns used in removed vehicles were too obsolete to provide any real firepower (old, pre-WW2 guns). In the future we will implement new low level vehicle.
  18. 20 points
    I feel deceived Gaijin. It is what you put in the "About the Game": Over 1,000 highly detailed aircraft, helicopters, tanks, warships and other combat vehicles crafted carefully from historical documents and surviving sources. There are many historical documents that can be add to the game and make it more variety. But what you have done is against what you say.
  19. 20 points
    Gaijin, why are Russian APDSFS and other shells almost unchanged or not change at all? And how does the 120mm DM 23 have less pen than the DM 13? Again this is a huge nerf for western APDSFS. I really don't see any logic in nerfing shells into ground that have official documents regarding performance. L7 DM 23 APDSFS is now almost useless and does 0 damage to an IS 3. Wtf?
  20. 19 points
    Enduring Confrontation BR brackets are not evenly distributed, causes poor play balance. Originally the EC brackets are modeled after the 5 current Ranks, however the brackets use a units BR instead of rank. With BR based EC brackets many Rank 4 aircraft can be used in EC3, and many Rank 3 can only go in EC4 (although any lower BR can go in any higher EC). There is no reason to lock EC brackets to Ranks. Current spread is: EC1: 1.0~2.0 (4 levels, aircraft typically from 1934 to 1940) EC2: 2.3~3.3 (4 levels, aircraft typically from 1939 to 1941) EC3: 3.7~4.7 (4 levels, aircraft typically from 1941 to 1943) EC4: 5.0~6.3 (5 levels, aircraft typically from 1943 to 1945) EC5: 6.7~10.0 (11 levels, aircraft typically from 1944 to 1956. Overlap with early jets forced into EC5) EC1 and EC5 have more historic years of aircraft than 2, 3, and 4. This is unbalanced and is unduly difficult for players to succeed. EC1 is from slow, lightly armed biplanes and early monoplanes to heavily armed and durable monoplanes. Years of production are mid 1930’s to 1940 where drastic improvements in aircraft and armament occur. Players in Reserve units can face opponents they cannot compete against. EC5 crams all the jet aircraft (and Tu-4, B-29, G8N) into a situation even worse than EC1. Here players in the earliest underpowered jets facing Super Sonic, heat seeking missile armed fighters. Even have unarmed bombers (B-57A, Canberra, Ar234B), easy target for all upper rank jets, even AI. AI is particularly difficult because they can find you no matter how to try to reach target. Tu-4 is 7.3, B-29 is 7.0, costing SP to spawn, being much slower than all jets will be easily intercepted. Easy target to heat seeking missile, easy target to seasoned players who know best way to attack. What makes current EC5 bracket most difficult is players will not have spaded (all mods unlocked) high BR propeller aircraft, and stock jets. Player will be at very bottom of performance ability, thus be at extreme detriment. Also some jets that are BR 6.3 but pushed into BR 6.7 to be in EC5 can now return to more realistic BR value. Proposed Enduring Confrontation brackets: EC1: 1.0-1.7 (3L) New player friendly range, could use smaller maps too (includes BR less than 1.0) EC2: 2.0-3.0 (4L) 20mm cannon in all nations, dynamics change, aircraft are early war EC3: 3.3-4.3 (4L) broad selection, the most well known aircraft, weapon selection greatly expanded. EC4: 4.7-6.0 (5L) Aircraft selection reduced (especially for It and Fr), but extra BR level compensates, rich combinations. EC5: 6.3-7.7 (5L) Early jets introduced, but the “super props” can challenge them, especially with climbing and with alt advantage. Jets can have high SL and SP spawn cost for balance. EC6: 8.0-10.0 (7L) The best performing jets start at 8.0 and have enough performance to counter the Super Sonic jets. Another person offered this opinion: EC1: 1.0-1.7 (3 BRs) Yes, the reserve planes and early props need their own playground. He100 probably needs a bump, I already use it in EC2. EC2: 2.0-3.0 (4 BRs) I already use 2.0s here and my 3.3s function very well in EC3 already. Sweet pot for Hawks and Cats and LaGGs and Migs and yak7s and 109Es etc... EC3: 3.3-4.3 (4 BRs) As stated 3.3s like the yak1b, 190a, Lightning’s and Corsairs already do well here and capping at 4.3 makes tier more competitive. EC4: 4.7-6.0 (5 Brs) Who doesn't fly 4.7s here already, (well mustang lovers might need the d-5 to drop to 4.7)? Creates space for EC5 to be transition with super props v early jets. EC5: 6.3-7.7 (5 BRs) Jet age transition. Solves some of the EC4 seal clubber issues. Historically closer. Capping at 7.7 gives props a chance. EC6: 8.0+ (currently 7 BRS?) All Jets all the time (and super bombers). Currently we don't have a play area where all countries can immediately spawn jets. Some players have concern the about start of EC4, wishing the bracket will start at BR 5.0. This is due to no SP cost, no re-spawn delay timer if lost a unit. An alternate proposal, shifting EC3 / EC4 cut EC1: 1.0-1.7 (3L) New player friendly range, on smaller maps (includes BR less than 1.0) EC2: 2.0-3.0 (4L) 20mm cannon in all nations, dynamics change, aircraft are early war EC3: 3.3-4.7 (5L) EC4: 5.0-6.0 (4L) BR at 5 so certain units do not have SP and Timer costs. EC5: 6.3-7.7 (5L) Super props and low to mid jets, however jets should have high SL and SP EC6: 8.0-10.0 (7L) IMHO the best jets start at 8. Even if either proposal is not ideal, the changes in brackets will being renewed attention and revive the lethargic Sim mode.
  21. 19 points
    really? are you sure? i highly doubt that.... doesnt look tested to me... but then again, what do i know... JUST LOOK AT THIS!!!!!
  22. 19 points
    No, no and no again. 165 mm vs 171 mm - that can be reasonable error (real vs calculator T33) 171 mm vs 207 mm, or 171 vs 218 - it is not, that is large difference. In the case of this shell (M318) it is a matter of penetrating or not penetrating KT turret, for instance. 125 mm vs 134 mm - not very good, but I can live with that (M103 AP 60 degree value) 103 mm vs 134 mm - sorry, that is not acceptable error, that would (and will) make M103 round just toothless again. Again, because it was performing like this before, and Gaijin fixed that. 85+mm vs 55 mm - really? That is marginal error to You? (T33 at 55 degrees) This round should penetrate Panther from 1000 yards, but will not be able to pen T-34/85 from point blank. These are not marginal errors. I know You love to defend and holding Your ground, but please be reasonable and just see the numbers. Their idea is very good, but implementation of it - terrible at best. This can be easily fixed, with use of correct slope modifiers and other factors, but as for now - there is more incorrect things than correct ones.
  23. 19 points
    Dear all, After reading the update news about the ballistics improvements, I just want to make clear my opinion about them and hearing the opinion of other community members. -The new system is not accurate, nor based on reality. -The new penetration values are not accurate, and are not based on reality. -Applying one or two formulas to the whole game is gamebreaking. I used the system to recalculate al the different shells ingame and its often not even close to PRIMARY SOURCES like the GOOD, real life tested WWII Ballistics. Why Gaijin, why do you introduce bad changes and make this game less realistic? The primary sources like WWII ballistics were one of the reasons I play this game (more or less historical data and sources). My friends do not like this 'improvement' at all, they are seriously doubting if they continue to play War Thunder. - You have to change ALL THE BATTLERATINGS; - The Japanese have now real low pen values, and are not historical at all; - The German pen data is with the new formulas, not based on reality; - The American pen date is with the new formulas, not based on reality; - The battle rating system is destroyed. There are now tanks with less then 20mm (max); - US top ammo is nerfed (why? its now given less then in reality); - You are making the game less realistic; - You are leaning to the simple methods of that other tank game: to make all the things easier to understand, not based on primary documents or good sources; - You can lose players with this change. You are seriously damaging your game with this new 'improvement'. Its a warning from a very dedicated player with many friends who play War Thunder. I want to hear other players and their arguments.
  24. 18 points
    this shows very well what mess this update is and why it is so wrong.
  25. 18 points
    AMEN. This new system makes no sense, it does not bring any accuracy...if anything it takes away the few accurate datas that the devs managed to get right. Personally,I'm re-installing Battlefield 3 and will play that until Gaijin sorts out the monster they've just pulled out of the cage. I won't uninstall the game,but i wont be playing it until 1.87 at the earliest.