Not like it has been good enough to you on the multiple other messages on this thread the last couple of days. Every time a source has been provided, you have m oved goalposts by asking “improved performance, cOmPaReD tO wHaT”, or “it says it’s more stable and softer, not that it drives better”, etc.
And now you are flagging me lmao
I don’t know what Challenger 2 has done to you guys, but this is kinda sad.
i swear, if this thread gets locked when it is just about to hit part 2 i will be sad.
…so what are you even fighting about?
If it has a smoother ride, why should that not be simulated ingame?
Brb, ima bribe Stona.
I don’t flag anyone unless they are throwing hate speech around, stop making false accusations.
I said “you guys”, didn’t imply it was specifically you
But it was certainly multiple users flagging me indeed to have my comments hidden via flags
Prolly because whoever had made the original claim, stated that HydroGas is superior in every single aspect? That’s what Godvana has been disputing here to my knowledge (i.e the blanket “X is better than Y because I said so”.)
Hydrogas has disadvantages in fields that are not modelled ingame, such as mechanical complexity, higher cost, or reliability.
Gameplay wise it would indeed be just better, and this discussion is about implementing or simulating hydrogas ingame.
So, again, I don’t understand what’s the fight about then.
i.e the blanket “X is better than Y because chatgpt said so”.
Driving an AFV equipped with torsion bar suspension is a lot like driving a 4x4 cross-country, you observe the terrain in front of you and navigate obstacles, adjusting acceleration and inputting steering demands to compensate for difficult terrain.
Driving an AFV equipped with hydrogas is like driving a boat; you slap the pedal all the way down and it just flows over all but the most horrendous terrain as if it isn’t there, at a consistent speed.
My personal experience as a driver is Challenger 2, FV432/Bulldog, Spartan, Sultan, Scimitar, and some American equipment.
Edit; please note, this is anecdotal evidence and not a source.
It’s better compared to what? You’re just giving me another example of the “it’s better because I say so!”. Better compared to what other tank’s suspension?
How did you come to judge it to be better when the performance of torsion + dampener suspensions can vary so much, that 2A7Vs suspension for example, is a completely different beast compared to M1s.
BMP 1 obviously
Casually ignoring the previous multiple days of people providing descriptions, statements and sources of every kind and all of it being denied and rejected
GPT here was not used as “ultimate proof”, just as an additional layer to sum up all of the previous statements in a simple and fast way to make a sort of TLDR. Anyone with good faith would have got the point.
Of course, claiming that “GPT was used as suppossed ultimate proof” is better to “destroy” the point made, so whatever.
Compared to the common contemporaries, obviously. What else could the statements be referring to? Christie suspension? Of course not. It’s a matter of simple context!
Not all torsion bar is equal. There are also tanks that don’t use either hydrogas or torsion bar, like the Merkava which uses helical springs.
I just can’t understand why some players would put so much time and energy into trying to deny a minor nation’s subpar MBTs getting some sort of gameplay improvement. Like, just why?
Of course, and Merkava’s helical spring suspension also has some advantages in the off-road department which I believe should also be modelled or simulated ingame. If I recall correctly, Merkava’s suspension was specifically designed for smoother rides on rocky terrains typical from the Golan Heights.
For context, this is the same guy trying to get the LWS removed from the challenger 3 TD.
And what are those common contemporaries?
Have you even read what I had said? Because I thought I made it veryyy clear by pointing out the performance of torsion suspensions can vary from one model to another.
If you also had gone back and re-read the convo we had the day or two before, you would notice that I mentioned the fact Challengers suffer from a lower wheel travel limit of just 450mm - meaning they can’t negate the variation in terrain height without letting a “shock” hit the chassis, as say, a 2A7V with a 526mm wheel travel length.
There’s also the matter of how most torsion based suspension (a lot of the time) lack the necessary amount of dampeners to perform as well as Hydropneumatic suspensions do… wanna know why? Oh gee, it can’t be that Hydrogas systems are an “All-in-One” solution, the dampeners are a part of the it from the start, so you get a vehicle with 12 of them and you’re comparing it to a vehicle with say, 4 of them, that’s where the difference comes from…
Ironically speaking, Merkava outright beats Chally’s suspension because its wheel travel is upward of 600mm, so it doesn’t have to rely on advanced dampeners like Leopard 2s or the Challengers simply cause it has a far larger shock tolerance.
Of course, you can always go the American route and not care about crew comfort or off-road performance, and use only 3 hydraulic shock absorbers…
I think I’ve made it clear now, haven’t I?
I mean, it should not have it. Well, if we take is as 2019 LEP. Finally what version is now i have no idea.