The T-series already received their ‘Updated internal modules’ a couple of months back.
If they were to get a basket model, it would’ve happened back then and not any time soon.
Probably because there hasn’t been a response from the Devs, that the CMs and at least on it’s face appears to be a completely valid report.
And that if something was said, and not followed up on it makes things worse so things need to happen in concert.
Also the Dev’s seem to be incredibly insular on certain topics (the language barrier(s) don’t help), and hard to actually bring things to their attention, even if they literally openly requested additional data for consideration.
And in this case literally didn’t even try googling patents to see if they turned anything up (see below referenced reports to see that it did, and I found said sources in less than 30 seconds after deciding to see what was there).
It’s also not obvious if there is a team that is dedicated to actually implementing suggestions (read, reports with a historical component) separate to that of the regular bug fixing team. and it isn’t left for the occasional if they feel like like it or complete their work tasks early and so have time to spare.
Additionally it seems that there is no triaging (severity) system in place for them either so, many “significant” issues (e.g. Stinger G loading limit, POST seeker lock on range and the addition of the Optical contrast mechanic)
seem to get passed over, for less “impactful” fairly minor changes for example;
I’m not saying these smaller changes are not a good thing to see but the effort and impact could certainly be magnified if more significant (or older) reports were addressed preferentially, as to prevent them from collecting dust and things tending to be a crapshoot as to when, or if thing are going to be actioned.
2 Likes
All mbts got their internal modules updated if you hadn’t noticed that and abrams and leos could have gotten their basket added then and yet didnt so that makes your point pointless.
You’re mistaken.
Only the M1 and Leopard 2 series of vehicles are having their internal models updated this update.
This entire process of updating internal modules started not too long ago with a dev blog detailing how it’d be done to the 2S38 and Puma IFV’s.
The T-72/80/etc. soon followed in this process, yet they weren’t given turret baskets that are counted as being part of the traverse mechanism.
Now the Leo 2 and M1 series are given the same treatment, and suddenly the baskets have become part of the traverse module.
I don’t see why anyone would be incentivized to report these issues which only lead to unjustified nerfs (I.E. poor modelling of the turret baskets as being traverse mechanisms) to these vehicles.
All whilst at the same time you’re ignoring valid bug reports which, if acted upon, would benefit the realism and in-game performance of these vehicles.
A large amount of bug reports concerned the manner in which internal components were modelled, now that Gaijin has taken the time to fully re-do these internal components we expected them to take these relevant bug reports into account.
Clearly we have set our expectations too high.
1 Like
So this wasnt for all mbts?. If so I apologise about that mistake.
So this means all mbts got their ‘updated internal modules’ but now they are advancing with ‘updating’ them, starting with abrams and leos and after that other mbts.
So that doesnt mean T-tank series wont be getting their baskets.
We’re talking about the gradual implementation of the follows changes: ‘‘internal module placements have been supplemented and refined.’’
This previously was done on vehicles such as the Puma, Pantsir, 2S38, T-90M, etc, and is now being done on the M1 series and Leopard 2 series.
The T-series have already gotten them.
I’m not saying they never will, I’m saying that they recently already received their update and I don’t expect them to get another for a long, long while, at least until other top-tier MBT’s receive their updates.
Here I clipped it just for you, as from what I can see you have either bad eyesight or bad reading comprehension.
1 Like
Leopard & Abrams got power electrics and hydraulics at the same time. Now they are adding more things without adding more to others. The 2A6 FIN & NL are likely what they wanted to do to all leopards but havent for unkown reasons. Hell the FCS in FIN & NL are based on the 2A7V interior.
Also they literally had driver controls for T80s but removed them before the patch hit live servers. The T80UE1 had them on the dev server before they were removed on live.
We’re talking about the incorrectly modelling of the turret basket as being a traverse mechanism.
We’re not taking issue with the fact that the M1 and Leo 2 are receiving internal module updates, we are taking issue with it being done so poorly.
Nobody has said that it’s reasonable to expect Gaijin to implement this across every vehicle in the game at once.
*Cough
1 Like
You do know that in all my comments in this section I’m talking about internal module updates right?
I wonder what are they doing behind the scene tbh
with the abrams it shouldnt even stay the same as it is currently on live, because for some reason gaijin modeled non pressurized sections of the hydraulics as critical, so your turret drives are immediately broken by most shots to the hull
7 Likes
and now its even worse
1 Like
true
Oh yeah of course
The thing I’m wondering is why are a lot of bug reports accepted, especially that one with the hydraulic pump in the wrong place not being taken care of and instead introducing this unrealistic change??? Like do they to really ruin the American win rate, especially now when it’s improving
2 Likes
Oh so apparently it’s a game convention and bug reports won’t help at all
1 Like
I’m confused, since the progress of the development team is not enough to add more “real” parts and structures to all tanks at the same time, why not delay their addition until the progress can be added to the tanks of most countries at the same time before joining the game? It’s hard not to think that this is treated differently now.
Doesn’t the development team know that adding this kind of thing in batches is to some extent creating a new god? When the car whose structure is refined is damaged for various reasons, some parts lose their combat ability, and the vehicle that has not been refined can still continue to fire and fight back after the same damage. This is really unfair and reasonable in competitive games.
1 Like
So what would you have them do? If the turret basket gets broken that means the crew can not turn with the turret, so would you rather the camera get locked into place and you have to try blindly fire at the target? There is no situation where they add that module and it doesn’t affect the turret turning. Unless they take out the turret basket module but that point it wouldn’t be very realistic since it’s missing one of the key components to those tanks.
Not to sound like a douche but this is what happens when ppl vote for stuff and dont realise the consequences of that vote.
Dont get me wrong detailed modules is nice but its main premise was to balance “LT/IFVs” with voids of space, and because of spall liners being introduced gaijin now needed a method of nerfing spall liners without tanks being survivable post pen and here is your answer to that problem.
Slap detailed modules in tanks to mitigate the insane nature of spall liners so now any little spall that makes it way through will disable some portion of the tank.
I dont understand why the Abrams is getting this though when its literally the easiest tank to disable in 1 shot. Gaijin wont change there tune on this now so I guess like it or leave (not that I agree with this change)