Jarms

British Bug Reports

On 20/01/2019 at 00:12, RoryWatt18 said:

 

Was there really no counter evidence put forward? I find that hard to believe, but if no-one else has done one already I'll make one, got at least 5 books stating it as 76 mm. I believe there was some Russian drawing of the turret front showing the inner plate as well. 

 

None at all. He posted the same primary source I'd used, but then just said "lol its 64mm" and they accepted him at his word. I know they did, because if they'd looked at the source they'd have seen he was wrong, since it was the same one my report used!

 

I'll see if I can dig out my report, but it's likely buried by now.

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 20/01/2019 at 01:12, RoryWatt18 said:

 

Was there really no counter evidence put forward? I find that hard to believe, but if no-one else has done one already I'll make one, got at least 5 books stating it as 76 mm. I believe there was some Russian drawing of the turret front showing the inner plate as well. 

 

On 21/01/2019 at 09:45, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

None at all. He posted the same primary source I'd used, but then just said "lol its 64mm" and they accepted him at his word. I know they did, because if they'd looked at the source they'd have seen he was wrong, since it was the same one my report used!

 

I'll see if I can dig out my report, but it's likely buried by now.

 

Spoiler

cromwell-armour-3.thumb.jpg.68458e1da348

 

Spoiler

cromwell-armour-1.thumb.jpg.3b7dc230c761

 

The only way I can think that someone misinterpret it as 64 - notice that the turret here on the button picture left is 51 +13 mm (64). But it is meant the side, the front is one the right side of the blueprint.

 

Edited by Fliegel
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fliegel said:

The only way I can think that someone misinterpret it as 64 - notice that the turret here on the button picture left is 51 +13 mm (64). But it is meant the side, the front is one the right side of the blueprint.

 

The issue is less that it says, and more that Gaijin will simply believe someone at their word if that person is Russian.

 

It takes a very special case to be presented with multiple primary sources, and have every single person past the initial tech mod who approved it all "mysteriously" misinterpret a very clear set of documents. It's unrelentingly obvious they just didn't read the report, but took the guy at face value when he said "no its this". Especially since he presented no evidence that even backed him up.

 

I'd submit it again, but I no longer have the link to my own report, or the documents. I departed WT for a few months not long ago due to tiredness with how blatantly biased they can be and how all the effort people put in got ignored (and I see it's still happening...) but if someone wants to put it in again...just make sure you bury them in evidence.

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

The issue is less that it says, and more that Gaijin will simply believe someone at their word if that person is Russian.

 

It takes a very special case to be presented with multiple primary sources, and have every single person past the initial tech mod who approved it all "mysteriously" misinterpret a very clear set of documents. It's unrelentingly obvious they just didn't read the report, but took the guy at face value when he said "no its this". Especially since he presented no evidence that even backed him up.

 

I'd submit it again, but I no longer have the link to my own report, or the documents. I departed WT for a few months not long ago due to tiredness with how blatantly biased they can be and how all the effort people put in got ignored (and I see it's still happening...) but if someone wants to put it in again...just make sure you bury them in evidence.

 

Here’s a few previous ones I could find:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this the one you’re talking about Fuzzie?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That'd be the one, cheers for digging it up. The bottom one for me. The top one went in and got turned back for the same reason too.

 

If you wanna try throwing it in a third time with even more evidence and explicitly calling attention to the previous two being incorrectly read, I wish the best of luck to finally get this fixed.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/03/2019 at 17:00, Fliegel said:

I've posted missing inner turret structure armour bug

 

 

You might want to explicitly state to them about how this has failed in the past due to shady reasons. This needs submitted in a much more specific route.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report in progress for the 3 Inch Gun Carrier's incorrect top speed:

 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some reports that finally have been implemented

 

Sherman VC Firefly incorrect max speed October/04/2018

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/427223-sherman-vc-firefly-incorrect-max-speed/&tab=comments#comment-7809557

(Well almost, it is now set at 21.7mph)

 

 

Sherman VC Firefly incorrect add-on armor weight October/03/2018

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/427252-sherman-vc-firefly-incorrect-add-on-armor-weight/&tab=comments#comment-7809837

 

 

Sherman VC Firefly incorrect mass October/03/2018

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/427239-sherman-vc-firefly-incorrect-mass/&tab=comments#comment-7809703

 

 

 

Annnd The Archer finally got back its engine bulkhead and the internal armour plate has been implemented too

 

Archer armour (2nd report) May/16/2018

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/407343-archer-armour-2nd-report/

 

 

The Comet got its turret ring upped to 120mm based on a russian bug report and some other stuff such as the driver port door got upped to 76.2mm

https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/246019-1791152-comet-zashchita-pogona-bashni/

 

They also corrected this

Spoiler

3tv9Cj1.jpg

 

 

The Charioteer now has its side armour similar to the Cromwell.

https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/226498-charioteer/

 

A new bug I just found, check the gun breech of any open tank (from whatever nation) and you'll see that it is now set at 1mm of structural steel...

Spoiler

1545489858_Archergunbreech.thumb.jpg.d9a

 

Edited by FuryMkI
  • Like 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news, thank you for the info!

Obviously all corrections are good news (positive or not), but I'm really surprised by the turret ring one.
I've never dare to hope for the turret ring of the Comet will be corrected as there seems to be no mention of it in it's blueprint. I only guessed it would be over 100mm based on drawings in the technical manual of the tank (and seeing wrecks in museum). I'm glad that he did found some proofs.

 

P.S. About the new bug; that would explain my problem with the breech penetrable bz MG34

 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valentine Mk 1 got its armor fixed:

Quote

Valentine Mk.1 - Armour values of the vehicle have been refined. Previously some parts of the vehicle had either overestimated or underestimated values in comparison with the current armour value data.

 

 

Finally that ridiculous drivers port 'artificial weakspot' has been correct, only took about 13 months. Though there's still the gaping 10mm turret ring..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mitchverr12345 said:

Swingfire mk2 missile added semi fixes the missing pen for the striker, problem is the missile isnt usable right now as it wasnt implemented properly :facepalm::lol2:

How so?

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CrossEyedN00b said:

How so?

 

When you unlock the mk2 missile, it isnt selectable in the loadout options in the modification tab, in battle or in the test drive tabs, theres an empty "area" in which I assume its supposed to pop up like with say, conventional gun round selection but all you get to pick is the mk1.

 

edit: Woo fixed now.

Edited by mitchverr12345
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got english reports on both the Starstreak range (forwarded) and the Vickers 7 ammo (not yet forwarded), so those should get addressed quickly.

 

On the topic of the stormer though, while Janes and Thales themselves state ~7km (the thales documents might indirectly refer to the Starstreak II but the Janes is from before that existed) the british army in several instances I've seen report the range as 5.5km. So I'm not entirely convinced that report will go anywhere as gaijin is clearly aware of both figures and chose the lesser one.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a major release since, and Stormer still has incorrect range, leaving only ADATS as a viable response to ongoing spam of Black Sharks.


@Smin1080p I summon you in attack position, oh mighty bugslayer. :attack:

Can you please advise on any ETA for Stormer rocket range fix?

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CrossEyedN00b said:

It's been a major release since, and Stormer still has incorrect range, leaving only ADATS as a viable response to ongoing spam of Black Sharks.


@Smin1080p I summon you in attack position, oh mighty bugslayer. :attack:

Can you please advise on any ETA for Stormer rocket range fix?

Or for a matter of fact the issues with:

The IRST having ground effect which is against the fundamental function of an IRST system

The IRST not being able to lock visually obtainable aircraft, fundamentally against how IRST functions

The missiles not being beam riding like they're supposed to be, they lag behind the Los of the laser which is not how a beam riding missile works

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ARedneckSquirel said:

Or for a matter of fact the issues with:

The IRST having ground effect which is against the fundamental function of an IRST system

The IRST not being able to lock visually obtainable aircraft, fundamentally against how IRST functions

The missiles not being beam riding like they're supposed to be, they lag behind the Los of the laser which is not how a beam riding missile works

So . . . What you're saying is . . .

(I'm sorry, I had to)

stormer.png

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mistress_Elena said:

So . . . What you're saying is . . .

(I'm sorry, I had to)

stormer.png

Precisely, it's probably the most incorrectly modeled vehicle in the game right now. 

 

I also forgot to mention that no matter how you calculate the penetration for its darts its still missing 100+ millimeters of penetration. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ARedneckSquirel said:

Precisely, it's probably the most incorrectly modeled vehicle in the game right now. 

 

I also forgot to mention that no matter how you calculate the penetration for its darts its still missing 100+ millimeters of penetration. 

Yeah, I have to agree there.

Personally, I love the thing. It's got a unique thing about it, but . . Everything is sub-par to what it should be, let alone what it's compared against.

 

I shouldn't have to travel to literally behind the enemy's spawn just to be in range to shoot a KA-50 that is shooting our spawn, when it says 7km range.

  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When will the following bug reports be fixed?

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/381445-id0062028-04oct2017-qf-75mm-mk-v-m61-rounds/ APHE for QF 75mm.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/402404-fwd-mar112018-cromwell-i-modelledarmed-with-wrong-6-pdr/ Wrong 6 pounder model on Cromwell I.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/390469-fwd-jan7132018-churchill-iii-armed-with-wrong-6-pdr/ Wrong 6 pounder model on Churchill III.

 

Were the following bug reports addressed and implemented in game before(?), especially considering the implementation of new penetration calculator.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/375907-id0060228id0060249-24aug2017-2-pounder-ap-and-apcbc-underperforming/ 2 Pounder ammunition stats adjustment.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/417484-fwd-2018-08-02-1791192-6-pdr-shot-mk-5-stat-corrections/ 6 Pounder ammunition stats adjustment.

Edited by ArthurWood
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.