Anyone bother bug reporting the wrong thermal generation on russian vehicles?

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
1

I was just thinking recently about how gaijin has previously used defined thermal imager resolution as a method of nerfing western thermals and noticed some pretty obvious discrepencies with gaijins modelling of Russian MBT thermals.

A good example of this are the 3rd generation thermals of the Leopard 2PL (KLW-1/KLW-1E/KLW-1P), all of which are 3rd generation, but have a 620x512 resolution irl, which led to gaijin nerfing them down to 2nd generation in WT.
image
image

Or, more egregiously, the Litening II pod, which has 1st generation thermals ingame, but is a 3rd generation thermal camera, also with a 612x520 resolution. (though this might be a bug as its thermal resolution is slightly higher in test drive)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/iQsGdeMUC87x

Despite this, the russian the Russian T-80BVM, whgich uses Sosna-U sight with either the Thales Catherine-FC or russian made PNM-T thermal imager gets gen 3 thermals, despite Catherine-FC being a 754x576 resolution thermal imager:
image
link

and PNM-T being a 640x512 thermal imager:
image
link

Other russian vehicles with Gen 3 thermal imagers are;

  • 2S6M (better thermals than the Pantsir S1 lol)
Spoiler

image

  • 2S25M and 2S38
Spoiler

image

While some Russian vehicles get gen 2+ thermals:

  • Ka-52 and Mi-28NM
Spoiler

image

This is despite the fact that, atleast as far as I know, the russians have never produced thermal imagers that match the gen 2 or gen 2+ classification used in WT, and should at most be rounded up to gen 2:
image

As far as I can tell, the most advanced thermal imager that Russia has gotten their hands on for production was the Catherine-XP thermal imager:
image

Which is considered a 3rd gen thermal imager, but like the KLW-1 fro the 2PL, does not meet the WT classification for even 2nd gen:

Spoiler

image
link
image
link

I might be wrong in my info, and if so, please do provide info to support your claim, but I cant see any reason why ANY russian vehicle in-game should have thermal imagers above 2nd gen thermals, and I haven’t noticed any bug reports on the subject either. Even the 2S6M, which is OLDER than the Pantsir S1, haas better thermals than it, which is quite frankly laughable.

It seems to me, at least with the info I could find, that the Russians have no reason to have such good thermals in-game, and that there is once again some unequal treatment regarding in-game in their favor.

11 Likes
2

Watch somone using this in the bug report, only to get hit by “primary source missing”

7 Likes
3

My latest bug report got closed as a duplicate, and linked to a russian report, from a year back… (Not on this subject, on another)

1 Like
4

Unlucky, huh?

1 Like
5
  1. 2PL’s thermal is using the wrong generation, I’ve looked it up and even though the 3rd generation thermal has a lower Pixel (Image) resolution than the 2nd generation thermal, it has a better angular resolution, so provides better images.

Meaning this is wrong and I plan to make a bug report about it.

  1. For the F-16C, if you research the NVD parts, you can use the 2nd gen thermal, it’s a bug.

  2. For the same reasons as above, thermal of Russian vehicles will not be implemented in the 1st gen, even if they have low resolutions.

  3. It doesn’t matter that the Ka-52 and Mi-28 use Gen 3 thermal, all helicopters currently use Gen 3 thermal.

2 Likes
6

They should atleast be dropped to 2nd gen, which is much closer to the actual resolution they have.

7

How much will this theoretical action take if I may ask?

Cus last time people reported the wrong generation of Leopard 2PL’s KLW-1 Asteria, this is what you responded with:
image

This is not an attack towards you by any means, but I would be lying if I said my expectations are high considering you’ve also stated Leopard 2s gun-handling speeds should be nerfed to levels way below those that are available to the crew.

4 Likes
8

I was wrong at the time, I looked for additional material.

It is also proven in the manual that the maximum speed that the gunner can operate is 30/s horizontal and 9/s vertical.

9

Which manual? Because JENOPTIK’s product brochure is not a manual…

I’ve asked people actually serving on those vehicles (former gunner of a Leopard 2A5 of the Polish Army), and they confirmed that the turret rotation is indeed done in less than 10 seconds, taking into account acceleration and de-acceleration (which the game does not model, hence 9s for a full rotation).

I’ve also DM’d you about this and have given you video examples of a Leopard 2A6 & a Leopard 2A7V both completing a full turret rotation in sub 10 seconds (and I don’t think I need to remind you that 2A7Vs turret is much heavier than 2A5s & 2A6s), granted, you ignored my message.

@_David_Bowie may I have an answer?

2 Likes
10

Since the 3rd Gen of thermal was developed to advance angular resolution rather than image resolution, you’ll need to provide evidence that it’s actually the 2nd Gen.

11

@_David_Bowie theres no documentation as far as I know that proves the russian thermals have the same higher angular resolution, so I take it that i would be correct in bug reporting all russian thermals to be reduced to 2nd generation then?

I have definite proof regarding the BVM at the very least not being 3rd gen. But there is no documentation out there that I know of of Russia ever fielding anything more than 2nd generation with Catherine-Xp

12

BVM is 2nd Gen

13

In the game? Absolutely not.

image

6 Likes
14

That seems like a rather aggressive cop out. The 2PL’s thermals have been gimped for almost 3 years now under your own ruling on the bug report, and now that we pull documentation proving that Russian thermals should also have a drop in resolution, suddenly the 2PL’s thermals will be “fixed”?

As @FurinaBestArchon points out, it most definitly is not.

15

Video is not used as evidence, the VINCORION brochure and Swedish manual mention a maximum operating speed of 30/s and 9/s

16

No, I found that in a document I recently found for reporting Merkava.

17

Yes, my mistake

18

Can you show me where it states it’s the maximum operating speed?

image
image1215×1068 177 KB

And why aren’t videos accepted all of the sudden? Because they disagree with your interpretation?

I’ve already explained to you in DM’s that we have power steering and aiming for MBTs in real life - both of which are always used on all vehicles, and have given you examples of where they’re used.

1 Like
19

Report did not use video as evidence, which has always been the same.

  • Max rikthastighet ≥ 157,5 ¯/2 (157,5 mill = 8.9°/s)
  • Max rikthastighet ≥ 525 ¯/s (525 mill = 29.5°/s)

WT use only the maximum value the gunner can use.

This is the Max aiming speed, which is 30°/s, 9°/s.

1 Like
20

This just means;

Max directional speed ≥ 157.5 ¯/2 (157.5 mill = 8.9°/s)
Max directional speed ≥ 525 ¯/s (525 mill = 29.5°/s)

Nothing to do with the rotation speeds available to the crew - which by timing several videos where the rotation is shown to be much higher than what’s stated, again; power steering.

Besides Type 10’s reload speed was buffed using videos as a basis.

WT use only the maximum value the gunner can use.

Since when? T-80BVM uses stab speeds, so do M1 Abrams. The only MBT which doesn’t that I can think of is the Type 10.

This is the Max aiming speed, which is 30°/s, 9°/s.

So instead of implementing the acceleration and de-acceleration of the turret drives or aim mode and power steer mode, you’d rather focus on artificially limiting the capability of the Leopard 2?

Then again people simulate both of those themselves already, because nobody uses the “full speed” when aiming, only to perform corrections or quickly switch from target to target, just as power steering is used in real life on MBTs.

Lmao.

2 Likes