@Torpid_Hunter
Seems to be functioning. So likely a statcard error on the pen part.
However no longer causing over-pressure for entire tank.
To keep it accurate? Aren’t you the guy who always whines about things not being accurate, regardless of the nation they come from, how is this any different?
It doesn’t matter if it’s the model, the armour, the mobility, etc, in case you haven’t grasped the idea yet… WE ARE AWARE THAT THE ARMOUR VALUES HAVEN’T CHANGED, what we care about is the vehicle being accurate, as such the lower skirt should be described as 110mm. Can’t stomach it? Your problem.
2 Likes
Hey,
Unfortunately, what you showed doesn’t mean the plate is 120mm thick or anything really, it just shows how much that plate would withstand if hitted and shows everything, not that plate only, which is the problem, it tells you its 120mm because there is the backplate, which adds another 50mm or so.
What shows how much thick the composite screen is, in fact. The thickness, and currently it looks to be wrong.
Actual dimentions of said plate+backplate.
Its missing thickness as you can see.
Hey! Not really. That’s the case of the armour viewer; but in the simple armor mode, it’s the physical thickness.
As of now, main plate is 120mm thick, and backplate is 50mm thick.
To drive the point home:
Both pieces are described as 50mm, well, one of them is clearly not like the other.
Alas;
Both of them are “50mm” in the armour viewer.
Because, right now, main plate is 120mm thick and backplate is 50mm thick.
All you are going to achieve with these reports is for Gaijin to make it 50 + 50, as that tech mod suggested it should be. All because of a meaningless number when the actual modelling is correct.
They are not.
Backplate: 50. Main plate: 122. “Armor dimensions at point: 122”, with no angling.
I’m not sure what’s stopping you from understanding our point, not gonna lie.
Like I already explained it, but you still keep arguing that “it’s right!”, “it’s not wrong”, “it’s akshually…!”. Are you looking for attention?
Case in point; the “Thickness” should be changed from 50mm to 110mm, that’s the point of the report. I even said described to make it easier to grasp.
Because you are going to make things worse over a meaningless technicality.
Volumetric pieces NEVER have the real thickness listed in the statcard. That value is meaningless. Otherwise, are you going to demand all volumetric armor pieces to be changed like this now?
Just a couple more example: don’t you see?
Okay, and? The skirts were already previously described as 100mm, why would changing the statcard information to 110mm make them worse? Entertain me.
Volumetric pieces NEVER have the real thickness listed in the statcard. That value is meaningless. Otherwise, are you going to demand all volumetric armor pieces to be changed like this now?
I’m going to demand for you to quietly leave and never come back /s
Ah my favourite, the everloving “ima put words in your mouth lad”.
Just another example: don’t you see
Nope, can you use AH-64Ds optic to zoom on it, please.
2 Likes
Thickness means nothing. “Armor dimensions” is what matters. For EVERY volumetric plate.
Okay, and? The skirts were already previously described as 100mm, why would changing the statcard information to 110mm make them worse? Entertain me.
Because there is a big risk that they will NOT change the statcard value, and that, instead, they will make both plates be 50mm thick instead. I have seen them do this enough to know. I am only trying to prevent a potential nerf.
Then report the stat card being wrong about claiming it’s 50mm thick.
Cause it’s clear it’s just a stat-card issue and not modeled incorrectly.
@WaretaGarasu
It only shows the thickness you are on, it doesn’t combine thicknesses.
The stat-card claims 50 when it should say 100 - 120 instead.
It’s modeled correctly, stated incorrectly. Thus a stat-card error rather than a model error.
So a bug report should be written similar to the following:
“Leopard 2A7V’s heavy composite screen is 122mm thick, but the stat card claims it’s a 50mm composite.
The solution is to switch 'Thickness 50mm” to “Thickness 120mm” on the statcard."
Oh, and proof it only shows the thickness you’re selecting:
1 Like
The Weight of the dart increased but somehow the penetration is exactly the same? wow nice job gaijin… not
So, what are you not understanding about the fact I’ve already stated that it’s about the STACARD THICKNESS.
Because there is a big risk that they will NOT change the statcard value, and that, instead, they will make both plates be 50mm thick instead. I have seen them do this enough to know.
Okay? And what would be the issue with that, it would just make me delete this game quicker… a big W for me, if I dare say.
Also I don’t get you here, it’s obvious to me already that they do plan on changing both of them to actually 50mm, if you had checked out the 2nd report, vladuxa stated that both plates will only have a combined thickness of 100mm, the inner skirt is indeed “50mm” at a flat angle, so next step is to change the outer skirt, lol.
Then report the stat card being wrong about claiming it’s 50mm thick.
That’s what all reports (whole 2 of them) have been about? Neither of them was about “umm hey guysss, the volumetric thickness is wrongg”, Razer.
As it should;
Every Leopard except the 2A7V have the sideskirts modeled wrong. They are two separate pieces, hence why they shouldn’t be combined but showed separately in x-ray view like in fact its currently happening on every Leopard except the 2A7V.
2A7V:
2A6 ( Applies to 122 & Co ):
The Leopard 2A7V separation of the plate is modeled correctly, but the thickness showed on the statcard is wrong, because they should be 50mm for the first plate and 110mm for the second piece.
This bug report is worded that the model is wrong rather than the statcard.
Same with this one:
This is why it’s important to use specific language.
Neither report is claiming the statcard is stating the Thickness stat is incorrect.
It’s portraying the armor itself is incorrect due to the way it’s worded.
1 Like
If that statcard is wrong, so are these;
And if these are, so is every plate modelled with volumetric armor.
It’s just how Gaijin kinda does it.
I cannot speak about how Gaijin does or does not things, im just showing how they should be modeled in the game correctly. If they bothered to fix that on the 2A7V they should do it properly on every other vehicle, and correct the thickness for individual plates.
Also, Leclerc thickness for the sideskirt is wrong, has been reported a few days ago, wouldn’t suggest you to use it as an example: Leclerc ( All Variant ) incorrect composite sideskirts thickness // Gaijin.net // Issues
That’s exactly my issue with the reports.
The second one specially specifically states it’s presumably “nerfed with a wrong thickness”. Yet I am the one in the wrong for trying to prevent those reports to generate confusion to the developer and moderation teams?
I am just trying to avoid confusion to prevent a potential nerf.
