I mean yeah, i never put a thought to it and never really gave it attention, my last post was purely out of memorie.
Gaijin, thanks for the Chi-Ri fixes in the dev server.
Please also add the Type 1 37 mm APHE to the secondary gun (it’s the same gun as found on the Ka-Mi), and fix the the model too! The turret is waaay too far back.
Chi-Ri - 3D Model wrong // Gaijin.net // Issues
Chi-Ri II ~ Missing Type 1 APHE for secondary gun // Gaijin.net // Issues
9 Likes
Well, I guess its the time to ask for it
Make kh 38 possible to be shot down by missiles other than pantsir, its seriously annoying how they can just sit casually and do nothing but you are stuck weaving in and out of cover unable to save your allies
2 Likes
E-sports ready…
That comes down to the weight and drag coefficient that gaijin gives the rounds, because this bug is even more complicated than it looks. For some reason, while the velocity is determined by the first round in the belt, all the other characteristics of the rounds are still applied correctly and depend on the individual round.
Looking at the datamines the HVAP has a much lower drag coefficient than the AP-I (0.28727 compared to 0.45781), so it probably compensates for the lower weight. To really see if there’s a difference you’d need to go to long range shooting.
To put it simply, I don’t think this is a good implementation. I think over realism will become an issue.
However the plan to test these detailed components with specifically the Abrams. I really can’t recommend this. Simply put, this will lower and negatively affect top tier US win rates worse than they already are.
If you do insist on implementing this overly realistic and most likely painful feature, test it on far more than two chassis. Postpone this test till you can provide detailed components for all nations main MBT platforms. That way a more thorough test can be put into action.
7 Likes
I just realized that the Ho 229’s ground targets belt starts with HVAP.
So it’s going to be firing APHE and API at 960 m/s…
APHE-T (without cap because that’s how it is right now, but with cap is becomes 76 mm)
AP-I
Edit: Correction because I incorrectly put the MV of the 20 mm HVAP, not 30 mm.
1 Like
Odd. At ~800m they hit basically the same target.
I thought the drag coefficent soley determines the velocity. Does weight change the velocity loss?
It should, since F = m a means the same force on two objects where the only difference is mass will lead to different accelerations, with the lighter object having more acceleration.
In this case, higher drag coefficient with the same velocity and diameter leads to more force, but the AP-I round has more mass which seems to lead to roughly the same deceleration as the HVAP.
In other words, the heavier mass and higher drag roughly balance each other.
To some degree. But historically the HVAP was only better to 600m.
Or so they say.
And in game it’s worse at the muzzle.
Besides, the drag coefficient is basically chosen by Gaijin. The only way to change it is to make a bug report showing that the current velocity loss is incorrect and what the correct velocity loss is.
Unfortunately there’s a slight tiny hurdle to overcome in order to do that which is that it is kinda impossible to know what the in game velocity of APCR rounds is over distance because Gaijin hasn’t fixed the old wiki APCR calculator. And now they likely never will since they have migrated to the new wiki, which doesn’t offer a penetration calculator.
1 Like
Well I’m still on the fence about exactly how realistic this is. I would be fine with modeling the hydraulics and controls.(correctly) but i still have my doubts about an basket taking damage stoping turret traversal. I know a guy in a leopard on here said it would but also someone who was in an abrams on here said it wouldn’t. On top of that in that last war I remember the report of the one abrams being pennetrated in the side and i haven’t seen anything about the turret being rendered inoperable.
2 Likes
Something like a Kh-38 should be easier to lock onto than a maverick, if you have IR missiles
I agree with you fully, and the a200c should be seperate. But if gaijin wont add its full ordanance load (which honestly wouldnt be overpowered, it would be a lot inferior to the fgr4) then why add a whole new plane to the grind? Additionally, despite the a200c having better and more ordanance, it is still the same br as the 1995 (which itself deserves to be a like 11.0 or 10.7 because in my opinion the AMX is better for cas and at that br). Anyways, such is life with gaijin
MK 103 sounds like remaster of 2017 gun sounds
1 Like
Gen 1 Harriers are still lacking in STR even after the Dev buff.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0pjyC4bjkc9h
1 Like
LRF for the Clovis 👀👀
As reported:)
Fixed
3 Likes
might have to cop if it gets the dart, Love the Turms 3
Please increase the duty cycle of missile symbols displayed on RWR on planes with the new MAWS+RWR sensor fusion. When the symbol blinks it’s visible for a very short time and then invisible for a much longer time making it very difficult to see and track. It should be the opposite or alternate between bright/faint instead of disappearing completely.
No need for the Dart, but pls gib Stabi+ TVD xD
1 Like