I’m new to the whole bug reporting scene, so sorry if this is a stupid question, but do they usually send another update about the status of the report after the info has been send to the devs?
Like a “the devs have looked at the information and the armor will be corrected” or something along those lines?
SA didn’t get AIDATS, but of course it did get improved armor including hull.
Back in '99. Well before first NRC we can find appeared. Which makes me wonder, why didn’t we see any licenses for the DU armor variants we know for a fact served in Desert Storm?
hard to tell. Maybe they’re not available or they don’t exist.
T-90M spalliners thread with the YouTube video as a primary source got rejected by TrickZZter with a main reason : " 9 years only video cannot be a source to a T-90M model 2020".
Nah, that’s actually a big issue with Warthunder bug reporting system. Once it gets acknowledged by mods, the reports are basically in a blackbox, and you don’t know when the report will be implemented, if ever at all. And it is especially true for minor nations too. Usually, the only infos we will ever get now is first, at some point the bug will be worked on by devs and corrected, or second, devs consider that this is actually not a bug, and the report will be updated as such by the mods
I guess I’ll try to DM Smin later in the week to see if he can give a status update on the report or something, but first I’ll wait a few days because I assume the devs have enough reports to go through.
Well, for now, the report of the Leclerc using the same source that was given for the M1 still is not acknowledged, so that will have to wait for me. I don’t play US, only France, and it just happened that our source talked about both tanks. Our hope if that if it gets implemented for the M1, it should follow for the Leclerc at the very least
Would you like IED jammers to be removed or moved to the mine protection modification? They obstruct the view, enemies see you prematurely from behind the hill.
Should be a part of mine protection modification
Another thing wrong on all M1s this time
(All M1) Wrong UFP/Shatter plate thickness // Gaijin.net // Issues
I think the visible spall liner was an accident. I think it was to be factored in then hidden like the bvm. Easy to prove: test m829a2 round all around m1a2 sep v1 or 2 and look at spalling. Every round takes out 2-3 crew and turret ir gun. Then test 829a2 on bvm…barely any spall and rarely disables crew and gun. My winrate in bvm is in 60% range…winrate in m1’s is in mid 40%…winrate is sepv1 is a pathetic 26%!!!
Ah ok. Completely stuck in your own ignorance.
This community comes up with some wild conspiracy theories.
Nice work on the report, but I can’t help but think that we’ll be seeing a big fat no from the devs as response. But there’s hope at least.
On another note, on the SEPv1 in particular, the TUSK package still limits the .50 cal elevation angles due to a modelling error as I have reported: Community Bug Reporting System
Probably too old of a report now to be looked at however. At least SEPv2 uses CROWS so it doesn’t have this issue.
I doubt they will accept this one, they made several measurements with ultrasonic gauges back when they added the first M1 variant which included the UFP they estimated at 38mm.
Do you have the docs? I will make the report
Now that we’re finally getting SEP fixes, we should bring light to the M1128’s turn radius issue that was shot down months ago. https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/d5gYnP8Ghgyw