Also to make sure that it is actually intended behavior, because there is no way to know if it was or not or is just incomplete (you know how things on the Dev server are not final), a work in progress or otherwise erroneous or unintended changes that were not corrected before the update is pushed to the live server (not that they aren’t necessarily always unaware of issues).
8 Likes
I agree this change is completely nonsensical, the turret basket SHOULD be modeled but it should only act as an additional layer of protection against spall and be a separate module from the turret ring and hydraulic pump.
9 Likes
The only random made up nonsense is turret baskets being modelled as a part of the turret rotation mechanism.
According to you, NOTHING is a bug as long as it is intended; even if it is led by malice, mismanagement, misunderstandings or even just ignorance.
Let me remind you what this game is advertised as;
Therefore, any violation of this is a violation of the game’s advertised premise, and therefore, a bug.
Bugs are not just technical glitches, but also, historical inaccuracies and mismodelling taking the VERY OWN GAME DESIGN PREMISE as a standard.
If the devs said that they wanted Tiger I to have a 380mm gun, it WOULD be a bug, because Tiger I never had a 380mm gun in real life and it would go against the realistic modelling premise of War Thunder. Otherwise, this would be a fantasy game with fictional vehicles and not one that is suppossed to have historically accurate vehicle modelling.
Being unaware of something does not just imply that being unaware of an issue itself; but also being unaware of how much of an issue it is and why.
17 Likes
Literally why this dev server section of the forums exists, yes.
Lines like this are never helpful, especially when they’re untrue (or rather, this is one of those “a certain point of view” cases). The entire point is that the definition of what constitutes a poor shot is being changed/corrected, because previously not-poor shots weren’t being properly rewarded due to that part of the vehicle incorrectly being empty space.
Yes, this is very true, so it’s good to report things. But if the official response is “that’s intended”, then the correct reply from the community is “oh, okay, so it’s not a bug, I’ll make a forum topic dosagreing with it instead”, not throw a tantrum and/or waste the devs’ time.
Yes, where we were LITERALLY instructed to make bug reports instead:
We made Forum topics, where we were instructed to do bug reports.
We made bug reports, where we were instructed to make Forum posts.
So this is another Forum post, yes. Because baskets can NOT make it to the live server like this, and we must do whatever we can with the available channels to make sure this reaches the developers.
Baskets are just aluminum sheets. They should work as spall protection only- their whole point is crew comfort and protection.
Instead, they are implementing them as an additional weakness.
7 Likes
What i meant was a specific and official dedicated topic for collecting & collating feedback, like exists for the reworked maps, for example.
There is a conspicuous lack of one for the Revised modules by the way.
Does this count as a good shot in your opinion?
See first response, they aren’t planning on taking feedback so it needs to be made known, somewhere and anyway, it’s the volunteer technical moderators that deal with the first step of lodging a report. so it doesn’t actually impact the Devs, at all. They get to sit in their bubble uneffected.
And said moderators obviously have some latitude in terms of their selection criteria as to what they action considering some reports can sit on the portal untouched for significant periods of time.
5 Likes
Those are suggestions, not bug reports
Spoiler
This Clearly states that the posts(or poles) from which the basket is rang on the turret have Hydralic lines and i doubt the turret would work fine if it can’t pump hydralic oil/oil leak
Gaijin also instructed to use valid and good sources that usually comes in a report in the form of
and not links or images from random sites on the internet that claim this and that about tanks,
Final point is, while some kind of developer bias exist, hell 90105 sight took like what 2 years to get fixed, cv90 family sight is still not fixed after more than 4 years, stinger overload etc.
This is clearly not a case
The use of Historic sources by definition makes them Suggestions
Consider;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BBkIfOuBKyLD
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eiJ7Wg5ff5uq
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/e8jQtW5SGaCr
It’s literally the on the low pressure side of the loop, and is used to allow for pressure to be stored.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9pd3QSYFMjsV
Much of the excerpts bandied about come from what is considered primary sources for reporting processes.
8 Likes
The hydraulic lines already are modelled, even now.
And not the WHOLE basket is hydraulic lines. There’s no reason for the whole turret to be disabled because an Aluminum sheet at the side was hit by spall.
6 Likes
That is the objectively correct definition, yes.
So long as being angry is allocated to the correct “being angry” channels, sure.
It would be a real problem if actual bugs made it to the live server because devs’ time was wasted dealing with invalid reports.
Except things can be intended over misinformation, in which case they are still bugs.
If the developers believed that T-90M has the same armor as T-62, it WOULD be a bug- even if they made it intentionally based on wrong information. A bug subject to reports to correct that mistake.
9 Likes
Distinction without a difference. People in the official report pipeline are having their time wasted, thus taking time away from actual reports; the details of their paycheque are irrelevant.
Vehicle inaccuracies are called bugs here
9 Likes
Are you demanding spalling stops existing unless you shoot a very specific spot like its a weakspot on a sonic the hedgehog boss battle?
I should probably add that i have actually had a bug report be fixed on the dev server. however its so small and insignificant to overall gameplay that it means nothing in the total scheme of the game
Not particularly, just pointing out that these changes have a significant impact on the area to which causes M-kills, considering that shot is far away from the Center of mass; it takes out both the gun’s Traverse and the Driver simultaneously leaving no recourse for the M1 even though the shot is evidently poorly aimed (Shot’s chord is not aimed at any particular internal module, weak armor or near the target’s centroid).
3 Likes
Precisely.
The issue here is that an additional weakness is being unrealistically created, putting the vehicle in an unfair technical disadvantage.
You do get that there is a massive backlog of “accepted” reports and that due to the way things are set up that the lack of a submitted report (on the public portal) in no way prevents bugs (even that to which the report would detail accurately) from being fixed, considering internal (non-public) reports and a Q/A unit exist.
I disagree with the validity of the turret drive change alongside you as it looks like its being done explicitly to nerf anything that isn’t soviet (yes the T64 family of tanks have a modelled autoloader but that thing is really trolly with taking damage)
If a shot is in an unconventional spot but still has a potential to knock out a module its not a bad shot that shouldn’t be rewarded for its lack of convention. The standard spot to shoot abrams frontally kills the driver and turret ring on live server already so its not changing a fundamental of the gameplay, one cripple shot and then a kill blow.
Part 2:
And do you know how many bug reports there are
Lemme list a few of them:
Abrams hydraulic pump location(current hydraulic pump location ingame are actually reservoir pump), wrong ufp thickness, turret ring has no volumetric and wrong protection value, engine is still loud. Other logical issue are Abrams composite(chobbham) generation being the same despite every tank version from M1->SEP V2 having different composite armor generation and janky model as well as damage model
Ariete: The entire tank is wrong, model are close but armor are absolutely atrocious. No frontal composite, KE and CE protection value are absolutely bottom of the barrel(worst NATO tank rating doesnt mean that it has no armor), Ariete WAR kit despite weight 5.5 tons only provide 20mm KE protection-bug report of it still hasnt been fix
Challengers: See this thread Challenger 2 MBT - Technical data and Discussion (Part 2)
Merkavas: Merkavas composite armor is WEAKER than external rubber, wrong protection value both ke and ce, alot of missing feature, APS still suck after ALMOST REACHING FIVE YEARS NOW
There are still a bunch of Leclerc bug report:Armor, missing feature, wrong acceleration, etc… Leopard 2A5+ outer composite armor being poorly model and composite protection value being wrong despite being quite the same as STRV-122s outer composite. Chinese tank like ZTZ-99A, VT4A1, etc… Has missing armor, wrong model, etc…
7 Likes