It’s not a nerf nor a buff, it’s to make the vehicle accurate which I’m all for, there’s nothing wrong with it.
The issue is the devs sees bug reports as ways to balance vehicles/weapons which is just nonsensical. reports that result in a buff or a nerf shouldn’t matter. It’s a bug, not a suggestion.
I do agree that these bug reports do more harm than good because of how the devs foolishly view them.
Which manufacture data does it actually contradict? The bug reports I see feature a video, the top speed given in the document is very close to what is implemented in game, it just doesn’t retain the energy as well as is currently implemented
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/J40c3CYQCPnT
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Y7Ui80EjOWq5
Optic:
The SIMNET report give a narrower field of view but that could easily be a US Army requirement
Radar:
Elevation: Limits should then be applicable to the M3 chassis, Mine was in regard to the turret not the sight.
But my question was with regards to the missile performance which it was claimed manufacture data was available.
We do not have variable rpm yet, that is why we have 60.
All radars are not limited by height as of now.
Sure let’s say we want the Max range scan function then the RPM should be reduced to 38-40 RPM. I know the height is not modeled yet, but the elevation is.
That will be inconsistent with every single other radar. Other radars have max rpm and max range no matter what.
Elevation is incorrect, and reported by me already.
You took a vector of the rear end of the beam, the 50 degrees would be a much more accurate representation of the actual coverage, also the X axis on your graph is compressed compared to the Y axis which amplifies the error of using that vector method.
I also included that
Not my fault thats how it is in the internal documetns, nothing i could do with it.
Well great now we have two seperate sourcess saying elevation should be increased and that it should be atleast 50 degrees.
I am just pointing out the limitation of your method and how the 50 degree elevation is closer to what the internal documents describe as “primary area of interest”.
Interesting given Martin Marietta was not the producer of the MIM-146, Oerlikon was the only actual producer until MM got consumed by Lockmart and Lockmart actually made a agreement to domestically produce the ADATS in the US, MM was a broker, nothing more.
This is why functionally every document you can find about the US ADATS, technical spec wise, are stamped with Lockmart and/or Oerlikon’s seals and not MM’s.
Burn time, kinematic range, elevation with cannon, optics, radar and so on, Devil already hit a number of them.
And as expected within these reports,
“this is a document on a simulator, the authors of which have no relation to the manufacturer of the ADATS.”
Color me not surprised, Lockmart missiles and Oerlikon are the only accepted producers manufacturer documents for the ADATS / MIM-146.
So you are telling me that the US Army ordered a simulator but made sure the weapon system central to it performed more than 25% below it’s actual performance, why would they do that?
If you read the source I supplied you would know what MM provided.
Instead of empty statements why don’t you just provide the source for the real flight regime?
Its not me you have to convince in this situation, sim data just wont work for bug reports, such has been tried for other vehicles in the past to no avail.
And as stated, there are documents used in the past for both the warhead weight change and the current FM used by gaijin to do so, I believe there are attached to some previous devblogs when those changes were made, I do not have them now but they are in the news posts and I believe the Russian bug reporting forums.
I had no hope of convincing you, I wanted you to convince me that the missile had so much better performance than the data the US Army used to build a simulator of it.
Because it is not “sim data”, its real data used for a sim. So, it was not created in a sim, it’s real unclassified data of the missile performance used to build a sim, a sim that was used by the FAADS program to build their training assets:
Defending incorrect state of vehicles is hypocritical double standards.
There’s a reason I support people that push for correct vehicles irrelevant of the correction.
