Clearly we don’t know what were talking about, thats why they close the weight reports without actually listening to us.
2 Likes
The reports for the UTAS being denied as nothing to do with it coming from BAE. We simply do not have this type of sight in game, as its the same type featured on most modern MBTs (basic target track). This is also not exclusive to the CV 90 Mk IV. But all CVs with the UTAS.
Would it not make more sense to add this so that they can share in the anti air systems other IFV’s have at the same BR’s?
The operating weight is listed in multiple BAE sources as 38,000. 37 is used in game for the combat weight.
It would not be the same sight as the others have (optical) as it does not work the same. Its a much more basic target track. Which we do not have in game currently.
Then can we expect future CV90’s to be added in the same poor state as the recent versions? So far the track record with the devs and the CV90’s is quite poor. Again id be fine with the vehicle if it made sense. The vehicle is at the same BR as other better IFV’s while missing nearly all its functions. To me this vehicle screams copy paste the 9035NL armor and give it spikes and call it a day. If gaijin can argue so much that the weight can be 38t it makes no sense to me why the armor was left in such a poor state. Unless the devs don’t believe its that strong.
Even the turret armor screams rushed job. The armor only acts that theres no overlaping plates and thst the exterior is empty
3 Likes
Well obviously the devs think the armor was a clear marketing lie.
2 Likes
Once again, there are currently 2 open reports remaining for this vehicle. Being overly negative about a situation for simply the sake of is sadly not going to get more responses. Practically every post you have tagged me with has taken this approach.
1 Like
Well why are reports on the CV9035’s still unchanged after months. Of them being accepted. I think its fair to have a negative response given the track record.
I am sorry about my tone but this problem has been left unfixed for months and nothing has been changed about it.
This topic was on the CV 90 Mk IV.
There are currently 4 issues raised over the last 3-4 months, during which the primary focus of the devs was the last 3 major updates of the year and the many new vehicles and features this brought to the game. Some of the reports on the CV 9035 require more detailed study and others are suggestions, such as ammo types.
Oops, wrong one bro.
Again then you see why there is frustration when these bug reports are just left with nothing being done about them. If we actually knew the devs planned on fixing the bugs it would be nice. The MK.IV has been riddled with bugs and none have been fixed unlike the EFT rafale, M44 ect. Again most of my complaints come from if it doesn’t get changed before it leaves the dev server they take a year or more to get fixed. I would be ecstatic if the MK.IV could be correctly added and break this streak of broken CV90’s.
3 Likes
Perhaps these bugs have not yet been reported, as I mentioned, there are currently only 2 reported open forwarded issues for this vehicle.
We cant report the weight since gaijin has their own belief already determined. Additionally work on a spall liner is something that was talked about but unsure currently as to whether the MK.IV has one.
The current reports are huge parts of the vehicle. Without a remote control turret and paper thin armor you are inferior to all other IFV’s. If the armor wasn’t broken then it wouldn’t be such a bad vehicle. Then the ABM is another huge part of the vehicle to be fixed. These two reports are not small they are huge and greatly affect how you play the vehicle.
Again major parts of the vehicle are broken and hamper its performance because gaijin didn’t bother to add them. But somehow they can argue the weight is 37t and call it a day.
Again explain the weight, guess the 20mm armor is made of tungsten.
34t weight of the CV9035NL addon armor thats found on the MK.IV same engine.
37t weight MK.IV, smaller gun (supposed to have stanag level 6 armor) is made of paper with tungsten weights same engine as the MK.III
2 Likes
Would it be possible to get those sources? I have personally not seen “operating weight” listed in anything i have found.
Hägglunds website for example list it as 37t gross (not operating):
(CV90)
And the Czech CV90 website (run by BAE) list it as maximum 38t:
(Specifikace | CV90)
The Dutch military lists their own CV9035’s as being 31.7t unloaded (which also has a 35mm canon and not a 30mm which would make it weigh slightly more):
(CV90-infanteriegevechtsvoertuig | Materieel | Defensie.nl)
2 Likes
I dont have all sources to hand that the devs used, but for example in some of the reports submmited themselves: Community Bug Reporting System
So its unfortunately a case that BAE themselves provide various figures ranging from 35-38T.
Also has roofPRO armor so it has more weight on the turret. Than the 30mm, or perhaps similar weight since 2 spikes
Is that not the model with additional weight for additional systems like APS and such? Again how is that a valid source for the model without the add on features
Its one example from one of the reports submitted from a report on the CV 90 Mk IV. BAEs figures range from 35-38 across multiple sources.
New reports with clear figures that define the operating weight spesifically are welcome.
If weight is such a problem why not just add the APS and call it a day. Especially since its been a requested feature since this turret can use it. Those bug reports were closed because the devs didn’t want it on this model since it doesn’t fit what they want.