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
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.*
You posted a claim, whats wrong about asking for a source. I just want to read into it some more :D
So you were just grasping at straws, aight thanks for self-admitting that.
What logic are you going by?
You’re just comparing apples to oranges now instead of simply giving evidence for your claimed repeated failure rates, at this point it’s no longer even worth my time attempting to address this point since it’s clear you’re never going to back it up with anything.
The ramming arm is quite literally a coiled chain, while the carousel is a basic hydraulic motor.
I totallyyy forgor that coiled chains can move by themselves, gosh how could I’ve made such an elementary mistake. What about the fact the projectile has to be actively lifted up & held in place, since the loading operation takes more time thus adding straing to the moving parts, or that there’s something powering that so that it can move? Oh right, we can just discount that.
:D
Considering the vote to add more modules was supported by a majority of voters, I don’t see why autoloaders wouldn’t be one of those included in that list of additional modules.
3 Likes
No, I was cherry picking statements that I had wanted to respond to.
Aren’t you just full of buzzwords…
And you aren’t by simply going “iz cirkle so iz scary”
1 Like
'kay, thanks for the W, i’ll take gladly take it :p
Well all we can hope for is this to be implemented with the more modules update. A nerf to russian vehicles. Absolutely unbelievable and about time. Their armor is overperforming anyways…
What?
1 Like
Man’s didn’t get it lol.
Cheeri’os.
As every nation is slowly moving towards using autoloader/or already is using it it would be interesting to see how Gaijin could model yet another module to eat spall
1 Like
It’s pretty hard to when the person you’re talking to is incoherent.
1 Like
I think you’re just too salty atm to get it tbh, which is to be expected considering what a huge L you took.
Stay safe my dude o7
Again, what?
1 Like
The issue is not the belt system; it is sustained by an arm, of course; otherwise, it would go flying around and get stuck. The issue is when the system has too many moving parts, causing hits from the tank crashing, moving around, or even being hit by a round that cause the vibration to misplace parts. This is more common in autoloaders with more parts, such as Russian autoloaders, whereas simpler autoloaders have fewer moving parts, which causes this system to be less prone to failure
