As the old adage goes; Gaijin can’t code.
3 Likes
still better than most modern devs, I guess.
Yes and no. Depends on what Dev company we’re talking about in comparison.
Compared to other AAA developers, Gaijin isn’t that terrible. Just frustrating.
I really wouldn’t consider Gaijin a AAA developer. Maybe an AA, at best.
Semantics, though. The important part is that Gaijin continues to drop the ball halfway when it comes to game health and quality, functional content for the playerbase.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
You know what? You’re absolutely right.
But the squirrel is Latvian, not Italian.
Well… Was thinking with all the Spaghetti code…
1 Like
It’s a disrespect to real spaghetti, imho.
Trust me, I know.
1 Like
I won’t refute that they drop the ball a lot, but compared to EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and such, we’re still pretty well off lol.
1 Like
Compared to those companies, fair point.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
I see nothing wrong with the spall on the 292. I totally didn’t murder that poor 2A4 that got the jump on me.
Long story with T-80s and T-90s surviving direct ammo/carrousel hits with minor damage. My hands are sweaty when I see T-80BVM driving with it’s side open but it is what it is. Abrams in the other hands spall like there is spall generator inside or it got hit by 50mm core dart minimum. My last game T-80 survived 3 direct LFP shots with first only killed the driver, second damaged his autoloader and third was kill shot with ammo detonation xd
That’s why integrated spalliners are not gonna work even if they implement it, it would just generate even more spall
Is this a single event or these are four different moments? Anyways I think this is a misunderstanding:
The target had half of the autoloader with ammunition warheads, before cutting the autoloader you hit the fuel tank which most of the time is a ‘natural spall liner’ for every vehicle.
This event unfortunately, this fuel tank behaviour, realistically or purposely made is very frustrating. I’m honestly surprised that the target wasn’t destroyed by fuel tank explosion, such rather fun occurrence with late Soviet machines.
Honestly the spall liners on leopards no longer work anyway. The turret baskets create more spall then what the spall liner stops.
Once again autoloaders are the best spall liners.
1 Like
The problem isnt the fuel tank eating shrapnell… that is as you pointed out. What the fuel tanks are there for. The problem is that the autoloaders do not generate enough (sometimes any) spall. While on other machines even 10mm armor plates or turret baskets generate a shotgun like spread of spall that does allmost APHE levels of damage.
Regarding this issue I believe that they work just like most turret baskets, instead of the whole visual model being used as damage model, only two small segments are.
Absolutely definitely. Just look how easily i blew up it’s ammunition. /s
I’m sorry but no. Autoloaders definitely do not work like turret baskets… they do not create nowhere enough spall to be even comparable to turret baskets.
Edit: Also as my previous screenshot proves. Even hitting the small railing creates a crapload of spall. I refuse to believe the visual model is anywhere close to the actual damage model. Because if it was so. That small pipe wouldnt create 71kg of fragments.
1 Like