Its explained in the report here: Community Bug Reporting System
And has been answered on previous CV 90 reports. SAAB UTAS is not the same as the optical tracking feature that other vehicles have in game. Most modern MBTs have a similar basic target tracking sight too, but we do not have this functionality in game.
That isn’t tracking though.
Not correct, the video tracking module is for the UTAAS sight as it has been proven to be inserted into the LVKV9040 TD (and C?).
It can very much be argued that the video tracking is present on the MK.IV though since that is a technical demonstrator and not an in service vehicle. So it’s a different case for the MK.IV.
Doesnt matter, gaijin has shown they have no interest in letting any other swedish IFV’s have AA capabilities
@Smin1080p_WT can we get an idea as to why the name MK.IV was chosen? Realistically this should have a different name as MK.IV refers more so to the chassis and it would be better to have been named differently. Additionally why was it chosen as a rank 8 or at 10.7 when it fails to be even slightly similar to its counterparts. Vilkas, 10.7 spikes, remote control turret. Same 30mm, rank VII, anti air tracking. Vs the same vehicle but without anti air functions or remote control turrets. Additionally the vehicle seems like a last minute addition as the devs couldn’t implement even the most basic functions of it. So again what makes this vehicles warranted at its BR and Rank if its not even close to its contemporaries.
To me this vehicle seems more so a blatant last minute addition. The vehicle armor clearly is very reminiscent of the CV9035NL so why give us a copy paste when the Devs could’ve bothered reading any of the info from BAE’s own sight.
Its because they know cv90’s are the best ifv’s and are scared that they will simply just be better? so yes simply put neglecting the true power/capabilities of the cv90 to benefit their agenda… thats what it feels like atleast
also i dont understand how they dont take this as valid proof of the air track
it simply dose not make any sense
Where’s the proof of that? I’ve only ever seen the VTM posted for the the Trackfire system which in that case mentions the optional VTM for the Trackfire remote gun station and it’s ability to be integrated into the SAAB’s UTAAS TVM… Why would you need two VTM’s when it can just be integrated into the existing UTAAS video tracking system…? Makes absolutely no sense.
Hilarious really, the only thing stopping me buying the new CV9035DK is the lack of airburst munitions and optical tracking, fine by me, it’s only gaijin loosing out, I’d have it ina heartbeat otherwise.
it even has the muzzle for it its ridiculous honestly
Nothing like a munition programmer without any munitions to program… Why model it at all…
I never said it needed two?
The slide in the pdf i previously showed has UTAAS as the title and then gives the info that the VTM can be integrated into the UTAAS. The UTAAS is ALSO used for the remote weapon station. so the video module can also be integrated into that if the main vehicle does not have a UTAAS sight.
Middle row “FCS reused for RWS”:
Swedish defence forces main website:
(Luftvärnskanonvagn 90 - Försvarsmakten)
Swedish defence forces material administration:
(https://www.aef.se/Flygvapnet/Tidskrifter/FMV_Aktuellt/FMV2003_04.pdf)
So this single Tech demo from 2003 where a video tracking module was tested is apparently enough evidence that in 2024 all other CV90s don’t have that function… I’m sorry but if this was evidence for a bug report it would’ve been denied.
Then why not start working on such a system to be implemented, this is, as we all know, a crucial core function for the UTAAS and its AA capability.
Not at all what i said… I said that the VTM is for the UTAAS and not only the Trackfire system as there is proof for it being in the LVKV9040 TD (that doesn’t have the remote weapon station). Although i should clarify that the VTM can be integrated into both of them separately, i think (but don’t know) the RWS can use the tracking from the UTAAS without needing the module itself, it would make very much sense if it did.
It’s a tech demonstrator, most things that can be said it have tested are usually forwarded as suggestions.
In service in what though? It’s not automatically the CV90 UTAAS. The Trackfire system for example is in use on several boats.
Well considering it’s say full integration with SAAB’s VTM under the UTAAS sight section there’s only one conclusion to get from that imo. You wouldn’t need two VTM’s when it’s already in service with the UTAAS.
Not really, full integration with the module doesn’t automatically mean the module can be run in parallel by two separate FCS’s at the same time. It’s very likely though, but not automatically true by those statements alone.
But that wasn’t the point of any of my comments, all my comments are ment to prove that the module can be installed into the UTAAS sight without the Trackfire system being present.
Trackfire has its own FCS and is used on vehicles that do not have the UTAAS but can still have the VTM installed into the RWS.
There’s more evidence it has the AA ability through the FCS than not imo. I honestly don’t know why it’s not already implemented on the more modern CV90s in game. Any other vehicle with this much evidence would have already had it implemented.
Absolutely 100% , that does not mean video tracking though.
Because the sort of tracking the CV90 uses is not programmed as a feature in the game yet. There are A LOT of modern MBT’s that uses a similar system but that isn’t in the game yet either. As soon as that sort of system is implemented as a feature i’m very sure the CV90 serries of vehicles will get it as well.
Nope, as it is not a function in game yet so none of them do, and video tracking has not been proven for the CV90’s other than the LVKV9040.
I have previously explained the type of tracking it uses and how it functions here:
