Rejected reports are rejected for a reason, they didn’t get the right source, or they want to change the something with implemented as a gamified allowance. In either of these cases, the report will be rejected.
This thread also mentions the resolution of thermal sight as an issue, but that’s not incorrect: thermal sight in games is only distinguished by generations 1, 2, and 3, so the current implementation is correct.
it would be nice to know that reason during the rejection - but we’re talking about this concrete topic - do you agree the sources provided, minus the thermal resolution, warrant for the given changes and vow to make sure they reach the vehicle development team? or are they gonna get closed as “not a bug” as many, many others?
Since you ask for the community.gaijin platform to be used, i think it’s fair to ask you for commitment so the topic doesn’t just get buried and ignored.
Hi there,
speaking of reports, I made one about the track textures not being alligned with the damage model over a year ago.
Are there any chances of fixing that?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/QFsekshxir3S
It’s barely a 9.7 now.
PSO has the exposed neck…
bug report, isnt supposed to have it right?
The PSO also didn’t receive its historical ability to replace the dozer with more add-on hull armour. I don’t think this would be broken at all, as it would make it only slightly better than the Strv 122s. There’s really no reason to not give Germany a Leo 2 with actual hull armour after 3 years of waiting.
The current PSO shown has the dozer and extra armor, as well as the upgraded 1650hp engine, I have no complaints about that one atm. Its a later variant PSO afaik.
The PSO could mount the same hull armour as the Strv 122, in place of the dozer. It uses the 2A6EX Demo 2 hull, which can only be seen with the hull armour. On the PSO demonstrator, the dozer attaches to the mounting points of the big piece of add-on hull armour, therefore it could only take one or the other. The extra armour on the upper ufp remained in both configurations.
Wait, yeah, disregard, I miss-saw the tank I guess, when I first looked at it it looked like this:
Instead of like this (which is how it actually is ingame):
Made a report for the exposed turret ring:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4AQJt4YA6BoH
but they both were the standard leoaprd 2 pso and the above not the leoaprd 2 pso vt version was it?
yes, the PSO-VT has the L/55 among other things
Also looks like the UFP add-on armour doesn’t work. It doesn’t deflect APFSDS:
PSO vs DM53:
2A5 vs DM53:
…
PSO is based on the hull of the 2A6EX Demo II, which had the addon armor.
You can easily see its the same hull by the Europowerpack
Made a report about the UFP armour:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ncMYvsutoHWu
PSO as many vehicles on Leo2 chassis is also suffering from the issue with tracks not being alligned with their damage model so I made a report. I posted it also in the devserver thread about it. I would greatly appreciate if any of you guys hit that ‘I have the same issue button!’ ^^ as I’m trying to make Gaijin fix this issue for over a year now. :(
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/2qtVvvxJlcpP
Does anyone happen to have information on the Kampfpanzer 3 program and, more specifically, armour developed during the program?
Hold on, doesn’t this show that the Leopard 2K shouldn’t have a laser rangefinder? Only 2AV T20 had the EMES 13A1 with a LRF, and only 2AV T19 and T21 had the EMES 15, but the 2K T11 had the simple EMES 12 with no LRF? Or is the chart wrong?
The EMES 12 included both an optical rangefinder and a laser rangefinder. The german military was not convinced at the time that a laser rangefinder alone, would have been reliable enough. They insisted that an optical rangefinder has to be available to confirm the results of the laser rangefinder.
