I find it rather unfortunate that bug reports are not using video as a source. Videos give us around 50% of the information that we know about the modern tanks, they can give us Rotation speed of the hull, turret, elevation speed, fire rate, acceleration ect. That is a big bunch of data that is ignored. And i know not every video would be valid, but at least some would.
1 Like
It was always known 3rd generation thermals were better than 2nd generation thermals irl.
The SPECIFIC reason things like the 2PL’s KLW-1 and the Litening II were nerfed was because “the stated resolution is closer to X generation” finding some reason to suddenly fix the KLW-1 now that its beeing brought up about russian tanks is just about as blatant as one can be about mismodelling in favour of Russia.
Its been literal YEARS that gaijin only models thermal resolution based on the closest resolution for thermal imager and NOW its being changed?
The turret speed in the video shows the stabilizer speed, which is meaningless. Also, the reload speed of the Type 10 hasn’t actually changed, just said it someday would be buffed when it need buff.
As I’ve said before, BVM and B3 are correct horizontally but incorrect vertically, which has become a bug report. M1 Abrams uses the Gunner’s maximum aiming speed, not the stabilizer speed.
Fitting it to the current standard is what I need to do.
Video alone is not acceptable for reporting, you need to add something to prove it
It’s meaningless because it proves the crew/gunner can use the stabiliser speed levels?
Cool, I can take it as you ignoring the facts in front of you.
Also, the reload speed of the Type 10 hasn’t actually changed, just said it someday would be buffed when it need buff.
Type 10 started out with a 5s reload, now it has a 4s reload - hello?
Fitting it to the current standard is what I need to do.
No, that’s just artificially nerfing a vehicle. Nothing more, nothing less.
As I’ve said before, BVM and B3 are correct horizontally but incorrect vertically, which has become a bug report. M1 Abrams uses the Gunner’s maximum aiming speed, not the stabilizer speed.
You are free to prove this.
Well, i know that, but it is a shame.
Hypotetical situation:
I make a bug report on the Sep V4. In game it takes it 13s to rotate the turret. I provide 4 videos, and in all of them it takes the tank 7s to rotate. I do not have a primary source, as it is classified, only the videos. That makes the bug report not valid.
For clarification, do not take this as a personal offence, in my opinion bug reports rules are not up to date with what we as normal citizens can gather. Videos and photos are the things most of us can use. I think they should be usable as a “primary source” to the modern things if give enough information and can be prove to be real, not edited in any way. But that wont happen.
The manual lists the maximum aiming speed. We only use this value. The video you showed is meaningless without some source to prove it.
No, Type 10 was started with a 4 second reload.
I can’t help it.
1 Like
Don’t get me wrong, only a single video source is acceptable for reports that need to measure turret traverse speed, reload speed, etc. For example, if a specification is mentioned in a company promotional video, this can be used.
1 Like
Where was this stated?
Can you prove that M1 and T-series are using “gunner speeds”?
The manual states both aiming speed and power steering speeds, the video proves that the gunner can IN FACT make use of power steering, and not just the responsive aiming speeds - hence how is the video meaningless again?
I can’t help it.
Well yes, you can… by explaining to the devs the fact that power steering and aiming speeds are both useable to the crew, as shown in the videos.
No, Type 10 was started with a 4 second reload.
Yes, my bad. I remembered it incorrectly.
I understand that. Well, in a promotional video. But there are many “amateur” recordings, for example i could go to the tank show and record lets say Leclerc go from 0 to max speed and it took lets say 20.4s but in game it takes 24.8s(yes i know all the different things that gather into that, but for the sake of this i will ignore them) . I have no other source, just that. It will make it hard to pass this, and at best it will be a suggestion not a bug to fix. I know talking to you will get me no where, but i hope in the future bug reports will be more “open” to the “amateur” sources.
We have the manufacturer stating the 40°/s (9s for 360°) speed, and we have video evidence. So what is there left to question?
360° @25 FPS in 212 Frames (8.48 seconds)
The video shows a Leopard 2A4 modernized by Poland (F6 overhaul) demonstating the newly installed vincorion electrical turret drive system. The turret is a bit lighter than 2A5/6, so its a bit faster than the reference from the spec sheet.
And note that the stats card of the vehicles in War Thunder says maximum turret traverse, and not maximum gunner aiming speed, so I must ask again, where was it stated that the game uses only the gunner aiming speed?
So far we’ve got multiple videos proving that the turret rotation CAN BE and HAS BEEN performed at speeds far exceeding the “gunner aiming speed”. Therefore I stand by my earlier statements, lowering their gun-handling speeds would be nothing more than an artificial nerf. They should be left as they are.
Btw, something to take note of: that 2A4 still has to accelerate and de-accelerate its turret, as WT doesn’t simulate those aspects, it could even be given a turret rotation speed of 45 degrees per second!
4 Likes
While on Leopard 2PL, I made two bug reports. One about thermals generation, and second one on ammunition, as DM43 was and will be never used by these tanks. Below are the links to them
Leopard 2PL (KLW 1 Asteria TIS) wrong thermal imager generation // Gaijin.net // Issues
Leopard 2PL wrong ammunition type // Gaijin.net // Issues
2 Likes
For M1
- Elevation maximum slew rate (control handles): 400 mils per sec
- Elevation maximum slew rate (stabilization commands): 750 mils per sec
- Traverse maximum slew rate (control handles and stabilization commands): 750 mils per sec
For T-72B3 and T-80BVM
Minimum speed, °/s: 0.02 (Elevation & Traverse)
Speed range: 1:2000 (Elevation & Traverse)
0.02*2000=40
Problem is that the vertical speed is not accurate. It is currently implemented based on the 2Э58 drive, but in real, the T-72B3 and T-80BVM only use the 2Э58 drive for horizontal drive, and the vertical drive retains the existing elements.
No, there is a difference between the max speed of a stabilizer and the max speed a gunner can use. In Warthunder, dev have always used only the maximum speed that the gunner can use.
And where in the video does it show the gunner manipulating the handle (palm switch) to drive the turret at 40°/s? video that simply shows the turret rotating does not prove anything.
What I need is proof that the gunner can rotate the turret at 40°/s by using the controller.
You are simply claiming that power steering exists. The problem is how the gunner activates the power steering. This is important.
Same as above
It’s the same as with Leopard 2s, it doesn’t state that the traverse speed is allowed for the crew.
No, there is a difference between the max speed of a stabilizer and the max speed a gunner can use. In Warthunder, dev have always used only the maximum speed that the gunner can use.
Refer to the F6 modernisation of the Leopard 2A4 posted above. Clearly that gunner CAN USE that max speed - and again, where has it been stated max gunner speed is used?
And where in the video does it show the gunner manipulating the handle (palm switch) to drive the turret at 40°/s? video that simply shows the turret rotating does not prove anything.
How else will the turret be turned?
That’s also a strawman to be perfectly honest, the manual for Strv 122 shows that it’s possible, Jenoptik brochure shows that it’s possible, and now you’ve been shown not one, not two, BUT SEVERAL videos where it’s done - yet you’re still arguing that it’s impossible…
What I need is proof that the gunner can rotate the turret at 40°/s by using the controller.
Again, show me what else could be used.
The commander is out of the hatch in both the 2A4 and 2A7V videos, the only person inside that could be turning it is the gunner using his handles - or maybe your suggestion is that the loader or driver are somehow making the turret turn?
You are simply claiming that power steering exists. The problem is how the gunner activates the power steering. This is important.
Probably the same way they slow down their turrets - by moving the handles slower. Incredible, isn’t it?
Don’t get me wrong, the reason I check so thoroughly is because I have to change a lot of internal reports. I need solid proof of this.
It doesn’t work that way, it’s most likely working some other way than the control handle.
From personal experience, I can say that one of the main minuses of 2PL over 2A4 that crews was saying is that the (in high turn/power mode) steering isn’t that precise and that the break takes time. Is crew statement enough? I might have it on video
Is there a way to enable that mode? i need to know this
During combat operation? Yes, it is normally enabled. It is hard to see it on video, as during peace time it is most of the time not used due to increased wear on the electrodynamic brake and turret drives. Will look for videos from combat use and post it in here
No, I want to know how to enable this mode, and it’s not about speed.