I can’t find any reports that are accepted for the CV90 MK.IV ?
Yeah that’s the point ahaha, they don’t ever get accepted. Even if they have solid evidence, I opened a thread myself a few years ago 2 patches after aircraft tracking got universally implemented, asking where UTAAS was, and the response was “the guidance UTAAS uses cannot be properly implemented into the game” although the Bradely uses a similar system, but still has aircraft tracking…they don’t WANT to implement it…
1 Like
But you just said:
So now i’m confused.
You’re also talking way to universally about the CV90’s. Every specific model needs to have the functions proven for it as its a super modular system so just because one of them has it doesn’t mean the rest do.
The bradley has proven IRST tracking so no, it doesn’t use a similar system.
By pushed to the devs, I meant, Multiple posts have been created regarding UTAAS and AHEAD, and by CV90’s I mean those in game, i.e all in game CV90’s have the actual UTAAS module, modelled on the top of their turrets.
Oh, pushed to devs usually means accepted and sent to devs. Devs don’t see the report unless accepted by Techmods (i think?).
UTAAS is also modular, not all UTAAS are the same or have the same functions, so my previous statement still stands, all CV90’s need all the functions proven per model.
Edit:
Additional info found (https://ndia.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/2012/armaments/Wednesday14132odell.pdf)
So the Video tracking module is a separate thing from the UTAAS and that is the part we need evidence for being integrated into every specific CV 90 that has it IRL.
Images
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/XgUBuQ1l65kD
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Jm9QEHC2VfIO
These are the only CV90 MK.IV reports that are open that haven’t been closed, no other reports have been passed. So we are missing spall liners and UTAAS
added some extra info i had to the two reports.
i doubt we’ll be able to find info on UTASS, but since its a Tech demonstrator it can very much be argued for implementation just because it has been tested and proven. I would love to have sources for 30mm proxy rounds if someone has it. because honestly, give the MK.IV IRST and proxy and i’ll be happy as is.
The bushmaster has a 30mm airburst round that work similarly to the AHEAD system where there FCS programs the round before firing and it detonates at a set distance/time. Cv9030FIN air burst option not available - DEV - Actioned Bug Reports - War Thunder - Official Forum
Community Bug Reporting System
That info should be saved somewhere if you can, i think the old forum is about to be deleted (i think i saw something about that somewhere, not sure though)
There’s 2 reports for the same thing linked there, so one way or another they have the info.
@JUICYTITAN1011 i said BAE b isnt a reliable source as a joke but if youve spent even 10 sec looking at the multiple closed reports for the weight on the CV90 MK.IV, the mods almost always close them as BAE’s site isnt considered reliable unless its a actual Manual of said vehicle which is a joke that BAE themselves isn’t reliable according to the snail
Id say later, for me its fairly late but im available most of the time during the night when the West is awake. We should gather all the current bug reports and thungs that have to change and possibly pass them to a few of the mods to see if we can have them pushed to the devs. I personally believe we should expect this dev server to last very shortly so getting the MK.IV 30mm fixed before the DEV closes is the most important thing.
2 Likes
Well the new report is marked as having been added to the old one which is on the old forum that might soon disappear, so it might be hard to then use that info for a different vehicle. but perhaps not, i don’t know.
1 Like
It’s mostly that websites generally aren’t accepted, (but sometimes exceptions are made). The general praxis is that it needs to be published works, so like pdf’s for pamphlets and things like that.
So it means we are screwed then. I honestly cant think of any pdfs for the weight on the MK.IV that arent just mini versions of the website
i’ll have a quick look now, i think i might have something, but if i don’t; i should be able to find something if i put in a bit of effort (which might be tomorrow).
Edit, will add as i find more:
(https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/uploadFile/20210702194047/1434609110180.pdf) page 1
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27022404.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Af1b7dedbb91073ed47530d04b838da27&ab_segments=&initiator=&acceptTC=1) page 19 (3 in pdf)
(http://www.army-guide.com/eng/AGM.php?issue=160) page 5.
“MK.IV 1073hp engine” p.18: (https://armadainternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Armoured-Jun-Jul-18.pdf)
This one sows that even the MK.III has programmable ammo and also talks about Stanag being >5:
(https://www.militarypedia.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CV90_12-page0.pdf)
I think that’s all i have, now time for dinner, then sleep lol.
ps. general tip when searching for sources; google the term you are searching for (and change it around and try different things if you aren’t getting what you are looking for) but add the “filetype:pdf” at the end, the results will only show pdf files with the search term in them. very powerful :)
3 Likes
I will try and make a bug report for the IRST function for the Mk.IV which is easier since there are live videos of its function also, but i am working until friday night so i should be able to make one for Saturday, will try tomorrow otherwise. Was there a newer bug report for KETF/ABM for the Mk.IV or do we need to make one?
1 Like
could you plz make one for the KETF/ABM ?
Ok, we should throw all available sources in here so we can make it easier for whoever creates it, i will take a look at it during the weekend otherwise.