Auto loaders, why aren’t they modeled?

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.

2 Likes

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.

2 Likes

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

2 Likes

All tanks experienced that bug for a number of people, the bug was fixed half a year+ ago.
So stop peddling that lie.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

Maybe cause you failed to quote my entire post, thus you were addressing only a part of it and taking it out of context. I re-added that context.

I didn’t know I needed sources to disprove unfounded opinion.

Lets see, normally logic would dictate that the more moving parts there are, the higher probability of failure occuring, so following that train of thought;

  • carousel type autoloader ramming arm & caousel itself → more moving parts than bustle loaders of tanks like Leclerc or Type 10

But hey, it’s just my opinion that a more complex structure has a “seemingly” higher chance of failure.

Funnier part is that I never gave any numbers as to whether that chance is much higher or much lower for either type, you did, and you pulled them straight out of your bottom - that, I asked for evidence of.

Carousel being hit wouldnt stop it from being moved as the mechanism allowing it to rotate is literally where the memory unit for the rounds is, at the center of the carousel and slightly above it.
To break that you would either have to go explicitly for that, by point you get you most likely just killed the crew already, same with ramming arm, but in that case you most likely killed breach or the crew altogether.
The mechanism that rotates the carousel close to memory unit:


The bigger part in right being memory unit for the carousel to remember positions of various shells, mechanism itself being in the left.
And thats in center of carousel.
GyoLjlAZk4w

Autoloaders should be modeled, as it’s a step towards more appropriately modeling the vehicles.

1 Like

I had no reason to quote your entire post, as that wasn’t what I responded to. I took your post portion by portion and gave my pennies.

What logic are you going by? A childish level of equivalency that bigger / more intricate = worse?
Can you explain to me how an RTA84, a 2000 tonne 2-stroke inline engine, can perform duty under load for what would be the equivalent of 460k miles in any normal automobile?
Hell, my I6 4-stroke seemingly can’t make it 1/8 that range, let alone the thousands of hours of runtime, without destroying 2 blocks and 5 heads.
It weighs what… 9000 times less? It has almost half the moving parts, and yknow… inline with 2 reinforcing girdles.

The ramming arm is quite literally a coiled chain, while the carousel is a basic hydraulic motor. It cannot get more reliable than this, especially when compared to some electric autoloaders or much more complex hydraulic loaders like the Leclerc.

I’m glad we’re on the same page about that.

1 Like

I expect them to be one of the many “filler” models that may be implemented soon

1 Like

Source?

So there’s also no functional reason to not model autoloaders? Got it.

Spoiler

IMG_6488

1 Like

TL;DR Adding fatigue and autoloader models wouldn’t impact the game enough to add them; especially when no other games have them either.

@armornabot555 There is no reason to model them.*