That is only the Abrams (should be all of them)
I agree we need a lot more very long range maps only problem is rendering
I’ll do more digging from everything I’ve heard and seen the reload if the round is next in the cycle on at least Russian autoloaders (idk if the Chinese use the same one) was like 4 or 5 seconds.
Only one NATO tank has a 5 second reload. And thats the abrams.
the same reason why fatigue for human loader is not modeled
i guess uk japan does not count
Refer to here
Leclerc tanks would like a word with you.
Leclerc is 6 seconds no?
No, it was buffed to 5 s in the last patch.
Only 3 years too late 🤡
Not the nerf you think it is. Only carousel autoloaders would be affected (and pretty massively at that). Bustle autoloaders have all their components compartmentalised within the actual autoloader:
In the case of the Leclerc, the gun has to depress to -1.8° whereby the autoloader door will open and insert a round in the breech.
Similar case with the Type 90 and Type 10:
So the only way a autoloader could be damaged is if it takes a direct hit to the bustle which means the ammo would cook off - so you’d be sitting on a cap for a minute waiting for your ammo to replenish. So it’d be pretty redundant to model bustle autoloaders.
As for carousel autoloaders, well it’s not as if they have really have a reload advantage in the first place.
There is no functional reason why autoloaders should have models.
If you hit the autoloader you hit the ammo and thus blew up the tank.
You cannot just hit an autoloader, it will always go through ammo.
Soviet autoloaders are correct at 7.1 seconds.
That’s just not true. BVM, T90M, T72B3, T90A all of these tanks are known to have problems with their ammo not blowing up.
lmao, look at Abrams, are you looking for realism here?
a 100% safe pressure relief valve, even if the partition is penetrated, can function normally?
how about we first determine the fire of the pressure relief valve as death?
Instead of pretending nothing happened after burning for a while
All tanks experienced that bug for a number of people, the bug was fixed half a year+ ago.
So stop peddling that lie.
I don’t remember carrying more than 30-40 rounds in my tank, let alone the hundreds to thousands needed for even the most minor of failure.
Still happens occasionally with 2-stage ammo
Yea? That’s kinda the point dude. A trained loader (especially if they’ve been through months & months of repetitive ammunition handling) is very unlikely to make a mistake given the limited load that tanks usually carry.
But since his demand was to also model human errors (as such treating them like it’s their first day on the job) it should only be fair to include machine errors & make them happen at the same rate as human ones.
It’s called being impartial.
Besides that, with autoloader types like those found on T-series, failures will occur more often than in Western style bustle loaders, there’s a lot more moving parts ;)
And that is not something that will add benefit to gameplay.
And machine errors are far less likely than human errors. Incident rates of WP autoloaders take upwards of 4000 cycles, while
The entire point of the autoloaders in the “T-series” (whatever the hell that is) is reliability. They explicitly sacrifice reload speed and accessibility for safety and low failure rate.
Vehicles like the M1128 would see repeated failures in under 100 cycles, while others like the Leclerc and similar howitzer-based loaders can go on for 1000-2000 cycles before failure.
I never argued whether it would benefit gameplay or not, so do me a favour and try not changing the goalpost.
Vehicles like the M1128 would see repeated failures in under 100 cycles, while others like the Leclerc and similar howitzer-based loaders can go on for 1000-2000 cycles before failure.
The entire point of the autoloaders in the “T-series” (whatever the hell that is) is reliability. They explicitly sacrifice reload speed and accessibility for safety and low failure rate.
Source(s), thanks.
I’m not changing the goalpost, you seemingly quoted me then went on to write something that was entirely beside the point.
I didn’t know I needed sources to disprove unfounded opinion.