Ok, im going to sleep now, but when i wake up and do my things.
Who should i email in the 2019 Challenger matter?
- BAE
- Rheinmetall
0
voters
BAe is the main people overseeing the project plus if you message rheinmetall you will go to their German office and they wouldn’t know anything about it as its only their UK office working on the program
1 Like
Both, and RBSL
2 Likes
RBSL has a UK office in Bristol.
1 Like
i hate the bug report system. you have to jump through 8 separate hoops just to try and disprove whatever magic number/magic source gaijin themselves have that they also never show you.
its no use, you wont find anything public and you cannot move an ass that doesn’t want to move.
2 Likes
Защищённость ОБТ - Google Drive So unless there is some unknown changes happening this data sheet for the challengers is incredibly false
I’ve added all the bug reports I could find. At some point i’ll redesign that and seperate out each tank version a bit like what i’ve done with the CR3 at the bottom
2 Likes
Is there a bug report anywhere for the crew position issues?
I’ve not seen any
1 Like
This will be my first time messaging on the forums, but I lurked in many threads for a while lol. Would like to start by saying I appreciate the effort you guys put into trying to make things as accurate as possible despite how hard it is to actually bug report things.
That said, them nerfing the side composite on the TES really bothered me so I went and did some digging of my own. I don’t have any hard sources but I did look long and hard for some clear pictures of the side addon armour to tell exactly what is going on as best I can.
I think this image is one of the better ones I have found. (I believe this is the megatron in the OES configuration, though by all means correct me if I’m wrong)
From what I can see there is a backplate/mounting plate (presumably that ~40mm plate as seen in the nerf report), with then a much thicker plate mounted on top of that, very clearly under the ERA which is mounted on top of that.
Now to me that seems like an very thick independent plate to be merely acting as a “dust cover”, and in the very least should be modeled as an additional hollow steel box sitting over the mounting plate.
I haven’t bothered doing any pixel counting to extract dimension as I don’t know if alone that would be useful; plus I don’t have any software to do that on my PC at the moment.
Here is a similarly zoomed copy of the image above in case you want to see it without my doodles:
And the original image I cropped these out of:
Plus image source URL if anyone want to go looking there as well:
Hope this can help us to better understand what is going on with the side armour kits, and communicate it to the devs in a way that’s understandable!
8 Likes
the difference between l27 and dm53 is almost non existent you aim for weak spots on every tank and every tank has weak spots that can be penned by l23. if you can show me where dm53 makes a difference over l27 (not just numbers) i’ll eat my hat
1 Like
I think it will make a difference only at a great distance in some situations, but overall the benefits will be marginal
So BAE it is
The reason i made the poll is because i will contact only one. If you want those sights so badly just contact them themselfs ;)
1 Like
Thanks, i will try to work around with it
Also how does gaijin look at sources based on models? They are made to imitate irl to the best of their abilities, and see how it looks on the TES model
Spoiler
If this will work, im making all the reports during morning toilet
1 Like
I published the issue - Incorrect Chobham armor stats for Challenger 1 and M1A1 Abrams // Gaijin.net // Issues
let’s see where it will go
If i were you i would not expect anything great, but it is worth trying.
Yeah I know, the Chobham armor stats are classified just like the Dorchester so I think it’s worth trying this way
1 Like
Also fun fact, you can “i have the same issue” your own report.
3 Likes