as long as Logic doesn’t work in arguments with them and as long as they try to behave like we are dumb i will do the same but at least there is “some” and i dont think the devs are dumb but i think the person who did the research for this needs to get some backlash. If i f up at work i see consequences so at least they could communicate if they f up but they dont do that instead they behave like we are the dummies so… i dont know how to writte this but in germany we say Was du nicht willst was man dir tu das fuege auch keinen anderen zu basically if they dont want us to think they are dumb then they should not behave the way that we are dumb either
Amazing, still waiting for usable reload and horizontal drive though.
These are by far the most important
1 Like
if the explanation they give does not satisfy you, you can always try again. that is what I did with Ofekk213’s report when they denied the gun to be the L/45.
i went back and proved to them the in-game model was indeed the later model (if the early one ever had a different gun) and told them the argument is invalid.
find more sources get back at them and build the report in a way they can only admit you are right. that is the way they work
1 Like
In the case of the Stabilizer impossible because the only source there would be the museum states not Stabilizer as a word but directfire on the move. Why should they use the term “stabilizer” for the public masse on the infopanel from the sholef. the Term Stabilizer is a technical term and i doubt that we can get the Technical information about a prototype. The term Fire on the Move is always uses in military to describe the capability’s of a tank to hit targets while moving … ----> Stabilizer! there is no other posibility to archive that without. They arguing about semantics there because they now it has one but they dont want to have it because it would mean the vehicle would overperform at the br. So as long somebody cant explain me how a tank should hit something on the move without it i will not change my mind about them because on my knowledge a Stabilizer is the only technical solution to make direct fire on the move achievable
They could’ve made it’s BR higher, but they won’t, for a simple reason which is keeping it a rank IV vehicle. They don’t want to rise it to rank V, because it would be too pricey for a battle pass.
They would rather keep it in unhistorical state and only fix it like a year later when it’s stupidly expensive market exclusive barely anyone has (since no one cared enough to grind for it) so that less players get to get a rank V vehicle this cheap than actually do something they should’ve done from the beginning
4 Likes
If you can find an offical proof for that, then perhaps you’ll be able to circumvent past this issue. Show that the term ‘Fire on the Move’ is an idiom or somthing of that nature for the more technical term-stabilizer.
wich source is proof enough for use of words in germany we have the Duden i dont know how to proof them language and common sense. That is an Official source that fire on the move means ?! what could it be ???
I know man, I am with you on that.
Common sense is not actually very common, let alone professionalism.
Gaijin despise the idiom- ‘Do one’s job’ so bad.
2 Likes
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa XD i found something on theyre own website there they explain what a stabilizer is Gun stabilizer - War Thunder Wiki
I quote:
The gun STABILIZER is a system that improves the tank gun’s aim at the target and preserves (stabilizes) its aim even when the hull vibrates during movement, which ALLOWES it to perform effective AIMED FIRE DURING VEHICLE MOVEMENT or when temporarily stopped.
i made it in caps on purpose. they explain it itself lol im curius how they argue now
and this is wikipedia but i know they wont accept that even it states the same as gaijins wiki
A gun stabilizer is a device that facilitates aiming an artillery piece by compensating for the motion of the platform on which it is mounted. For naval applications see ship gun fire-control system. Moving land-based systems tend to require more specialized stabilization. Due to the need to fire while in motion, tanks in World War II made some use of stabilization, but it became commonplace in later decades during the Cold War.
2 Likes
@Smin1080p_WT sorry for the ping, but I just have to ask,
How is something stated as having the capability of “Direct firing on the move” not mean it has a stabilizer? If we’re defining firing on the move as just pulling the trigger while moving, then literally everything ingame has that ability… This is a primary source, and multiple others state it as having one. Just a bit confused, hoping you could explain it a bit better for us.
Edit, also suggest you read the message above this one please! Ty for your time Sir Smin, and hope you have a wonderful day!
3 Likes
LOL, that was fast, not only you found a proof of idiom, you found it at war thunder wiki! Talk about right under the nose!
The thing is, if they were honest you would have succeed. They are not
2 Likes
Hey
Fire on the move is a very broad term that can mean several things. Some SPGs physically cannot fire there guns whilst the vehicle is moving due to safety mechanisms. Others may have features that allow for sights to be stabilized, but not necessarily the gun.
Therefor the term “fire on the move” is not a direct indicator of a stabilizer being present. Sources will need to be shown that clearly indicate the gun is stabilized.
3 Likes
Sure but the Museum states Direct Fire on the Move so they can aim fire and hit that target so in this matter it seems you guys change that words mean whenever it fits youre needs
I mean yeah without stabi they can physicaly shot but maybe they hit a village 6km away upsi so why they should statte that? Fischy
Sorry but you guys want proof that phisicaly not exist only if a gaijin employe goes there and ask the museum itself. So with that Logic the Panther and Tiger tanks aswell as all the tanks without stabi can now say they can fire on the move, thats a weird excuse there. also you should change the war thunder wiki then because if its a wide term you should not use it to explain exclusive stabilizers imo
6 Likes
there we have it, just sad only semantics no facts
1 Like
This is the museum Public Information Sign. Its name is “Sholef Performance Highlights”.
The last * translate to: “Direct targeting capability for ranges of 4 km with pinpoint impact capability”.
“…pinpoint impact capability”.
6 Likes
surely no stabi but god himself is guiding the ammo XD idf magic
1 Like
If the information about the Sholef is specifying that it can fire on the move, but is still unstabilized, why would they want that mentioned? You’re implying that they’re essentially saying “Hey, look at this safety feature we DONT have”.
In the Sholef’s case, it wouldn’t make sense to say it has fire on the move unless it had a stabilizer.
3 Likes
true as an example the german PZH 2000 can technically fire on the move because it can also fire in direct mode in selfdefence but they only state the directfire capability because no stabi, fire on the move withou stabi would be absolutly mental
3 Likes
I just though about that but doesn’t a modern FCS require either a lrf or a radar range finder to compute the exacte distance of the target ? thus bcs gaijin actually added the FCS in the model of tank doesn’t that mean that it should have either a radar range finder or lrf?
i found that the sholef uses gps and inertial navigation and the second prototype seems to got lrf but not sure bout that