Maybe we can discuss this directly in the forum? And not discussed in this topic. It’s just that in this topic, most people don’t know about the hitbox model error.
1 Like
then we need a new thread, concerning this but new. There was a thread about this problem, but closed and merged into this, because it’s still “model errors”
1 Like
If the previous thread got taken down and then the discussion came over to this one i would keep on posting here. Scattering similar issues about the same tank in different posts won’t be ideal since it is, as far as i can understand from the context, a hitbox issue.
2 Likes
Regarding the underperforming UFP armor, should another thread be created, or still use this one?
Welp, have to say. The weaker the vehicle, the more cautious the player will be when playing with it, and then camping, resulting in higher efficiency, Gaijin won’t buff those vehicles anymore, until no one wants to play with those garbage, such as ZTZ99A, VT4, WZ1001, Leclerc, Ariete. They even have higher winrate than Russian, Germany and U.S., Everyone knows why except Gaijin :(
And spall liners when?
Personally, since we’re still talking about an issue of the same vehicle, i would still use this thread to keep all of the “model/internal modelling” issues together.
1 Like
congrats on being a forum moderator!
3 Likes
If Gaijin is willing to give 6.7 second reload as indicated by the Thai manual for 99A, WZ1001, and VT-4A1 I would not be so dissatisfied. They would be much more playable despite the existing issues. But that doesn’t mean to give up on fixing inaccuracies with Chinese top tier. All I can say is that with future additions bug reports need to be issued earlier without any hesitation, preferably right after the dev server drops so that they do not get ignored later. I suggest the community to gather sources starting now and compile them. I hope to not see the day when ZTQ-15 drops and we are left with 7.1 second reload in live server.
3 Likes
The community did a decent job with J-10A, it is one of the more accurate additions in regards to China (although there are still some inaccuracies) but it is mostly true to life. The most egregious error is the inability to fire PL-5 and it should use PL-8B, although they did somewhat justify it in a later statement. Other than that it is issues with the HUD/cockpit view.
3 Likes
It’s no longer a matter of loading time.
Gaijin is intentionally ignoring all issues related to 99A.
ignore turret hit box issues.
Intentional reduction hull armor KE.
and completely disregard the suggestions for BR adjustment.
4 Likes
Wasn’t the Thai manual just for the VT-4?
1 Like
So you mean the manual only applies to VT-4? If you believe that there is a significant difference in the loading time of VT-4 compared to other MBT in China, please provide evidence.
You have not provided any sources about the loading time. We cannot accept a report based on guesswork.
2 Likes
Uhm… The thing works the other way around. I’m asking the question: “How do you know that the loading between the VT-4 and the ZTZ99A/WZ1001 are pretty much the same?”
If the manual doesn’t state specific names of the components and gives us 100% confirmation that the loading systems are the same then we can’t possibly use the VT-4 manual as a way to change the ZTZ99A/WZ1001 reload speed.
1 Like
@子夏忆雨 @MightyBaozi okey you two please stop trolling.
we all know they are just same T-72 loader, and you can even get similar data in T-72. it’s just gaijin want or not
I don’t think that the ZTZ99A, VT-4A1, and WZ1001 uses the T-72 autoloader, maybe a variant but it’ll be heavily upgraded
3 Likes
At least they have same load time sequence, I saw a video comparing their time sequence, this part, thry are same.
the other part, like if it’s modified to hold longer APFSDS, nobody knows
If you mean the video that goes around about the reload, again, that is not reliable since it is cut. And unless you have proof of the autoloaders being the same as the T-72… Then I’m not trolling and you should stop.
1 Like
I know the rule, this is like every body knows but there are not published materials so no way to issue.
Okay, I can just replace a few nouns in your reply statement to ask how your development team determined the relationship between VT-4A1 and ZTZ-99A regarding loading time, but this may be interpreted as “trolling” by others. So, what I want to say is:
I believe you are aware of this fact: the loading times of the T-72/90 series, ZTZ series, and VT-4A1 are tied together, and the confirmation of these MBT loading times is determined by the inertia of the game development team’s thinking. If we all pursue the so-called “can confirm 100% confirmation that these MBTs’ loading systems are the same”, this is definitely not something we can achieve.
So, there’s no need for you to defend the unchanged loading time by questioning the reliability of the data source. Just admit that this is just data that has been overlooked by the development team.
I believe that the loading time of ZTZ-99A has not significantly improved compared to T-90M (at least there is no evidence), but the 7.1s loading has severely limited their combat effectiveness. Other MBTs can shorten the loading time, so T-90 and ZTZ can do the same. As gamers, we cannot directly report these issues to the development team, so I sincerely hope that you can contribute to improving this unfair situation.
In addition, you have always hoped that players can be optimistic on the forum. My answer is: "Players all hope to be optimistic, but we need positive changes in the game, not passive waiting and being ignored.
5 Likes