My biggest issue by far was that ATAS just never tracked if the target was too close. I assume because it was lacking that initial G overload to get onto target. Which is why the 20-22G overload is so important in my opinion. What the ATAS could do before was fine at longer ranges (though any improvements certainly will help) but it was that initial peak burn that was the primary issue (I think). Especially when engaging an air target within 1-2, maybe 3km
So that could be a key part to test. Because if it still sucks within that close range, then the need for the full 20-22G overload is just reinforced.
Tell it to people openly Gaijin that
“We need to favor Russia because we know western technology are superior”
Be a god damn man and honest I’m sure all of us will shut up and never mention Russian bias BS ever again
To be fair the optical system of the Strela should be inferior, but the CCD imaging method of the Type 91 should be better than how they’re currently implemented. Of course it won’t function at night still, but that’s why they made the Type 91 Kai’s seekerhead IIR.
They already have, it’s called Gaijin Entertainment, a European games company that made a realistic game whose best tanks are German & Swedish currently, though USA was best for a time as well as Britain.
Soviets ironically have never been the best in War Thunder, great but never best.
Stingers and Mistrals should be as correct as possible.
That is a bit of a stretch. It might have moved HQ from Moscow to Budapest. But it is still owned by Russians, living in Russia and is still mostly staffed by those living in Russia. It’s a bit likely saying Apple is a European Company because they have a HQ in Ireland.
Notice how all of these have PID constants and that the Igla is only using a P controller (setting the I and D constants to 0), otherwise known as Bang-Bang.
Btw before you come at me, all of these files were last updated only three weeks ago (2.31.1.63 for Stinger, 2.32.0.26 for Mistral, and 2.32.0.23 for Igla).
The only issue there. Is that those NATO tanks, like the challenger 2, that just got spall liners have been in the game for 2 years and have been struggling without them. Massive improvement to their performance.
But they are only added when the soviets got their first spall liner equipped tank. The timing is just… Concerning
I mean good stats show that you know what you are doing and what you are talking about, so it does say something about how seriously we should take someone’s opinion.
Now I will give you that 5 games isn’t enough to say that. Although I already had a 1+ K/D in my PSO within 10 games, and rhat thing is pretty close in capabilities to the M1A2 SEP.
What he means is that the tanks that has spall liners IRL have been in the game for many years without any plan to add spall liners during that time. They only added spall liners to all those tanks when the first Russian tank that has them was added.
This looks (to an onlooker) like they ignored the lack of spall liners for NATO tanks until it was an issue for a Russian tank, and only then added them to the game for all tanks that had them. Even though it might not be the case (we don’t factually know), this makes it very much look like they care more for the functions on Russian tanks than others and only adding things to the game when a Russian tank need it.
It is not about the addition of spall liners on different timelines, its about tanks that had them IRL being in the game for years without them and only getting them when a Russian tank was added that also has them IRL. It just seems odd to not implement it at the stage two years ago (i’m not sure about the timeframe) when the first tank that had them IRL was added to the game.
When Gaijin excusers say an outrageous claim to make Gaijin seem reasonable to only be shown that Gaijin has already done said thing they thought would show Russian Bias: oop
