2 of these are decent-great, 1 of those is mediocre and one I’m not sure would even be above 12.0.
Yeah PT-91M would be at 11.0
2 Likes
which apfsds round would it get? 3BM42 or polish?
tbh idk what the Malaysians operate, we apparentally had a round for export but there is not much of a description for this one.
3 Likes
3BM42 polished by the loader
1 Like
Suggestion post mentioned M04 APFSDS-T
1 Like
Yeah idk if the source I used can be trusted
1 Like
Dear Smin,
I am writing this message to enquire if this issue will be fixed soon, unless you want us Linux user to keep gas lighting our frenimies to useless pings and keep us in fear of zooming our maps…
1 Like
I don’t mind the pinging, but I sure would love to be able to bind the mouse wheel to some other controls
teams of devs aren’t extensible and that flexible
if you do some work on something, you don’t on something else, simple as
1 Like
It’s kinda surreal to see so many unique planes around the globe all made possible because of sub trees.
4 Likes
I was thinking about something similar, but with different subtabs for vehicles classes, like you still have main nation and subnation vehicles in the same tab, but now, for example, aviation tab would be divided into fighters/interceptors and bombers/attackers, army into tanks (light/medium/heavy) and SPG/SPAAGs, fleet would have bluewater and coastal as subtabs and submarines when they come, helicopters could be turned into subtab for aviation or even better if for army tab.
Imo it could work, rank requirements would remain the same and all vehicles from subtabs would be counted and they could research each other without fines. There would be enough of space for regular vehicles, premium/event vehicles wouldn’t create additional empty rows (which is the problem for those nations to which Gaijin throw a ton of premiums like, especially Big 3 currently).
As for identical vehicles in different nations, I think just a simple addition of discounts for each next to research (and its modifications if you have already spaded one) would already help a lot + priority to place them behind domestic vehicles/modifications in folders, when it’s possible.
2 Likes
30m was a proposition. I don’t care. It should be reduced again, maybe 40m - 50m. It’s all anyone does in Air Simulator, that’s why in Sim mode you usually see Denmark, Sinia and Tunisia most active because that’s all anybody does. That and Iron Dome.
Even in RB majority of players just Mulit-path or Iron Dome. Just reduce it a bit more, it’s all I’m sayin’. The gameplay it causes is brain rot.
Yeah there’s some amazing suggestions for systems like that and it’s a shame Gaijin didn’t implement anything like this.
1 Like
60m is fine and it should stay as it is. It can be lowered when Gaijin finally works on trimming the trees on all maps to a reasonable size.
I can’t talk about Iron Dome, as that is something that doesn’t affect me most of the time, but a multipath height reduction would matter for me.
The thing that causes brainrot is the terrible gameplay loop and the lack of care given to improve that loop.
You can switch to lower BRs, if Iron Dome bothers you that much, but you will find that the gameplay loop is just as shallow as it is with Iron Dome.
They aren’t. I’ve Multi-pathed pretty much every Fox 3 with no damage before. It’s not guaranteed to damage you.
Brother for the last time. Re-read my original comment, and my replies. I’m talking about Air Simulator. The gameplay it causes is total brain rot.
Even in RB, most players will exploit Multi-path or Iron Dome just to get a kill or survive. It causes horrible gameplay. And it’s worse in Air Simulator. It needs reduced. Maybe 40m - 50m.
What did you mean by
If you only care about ASB then?
Okay 🤷♂️
I mean, if its as simple as slightly changing the model and/or its textures, then that’d be performed by a different team than those working on newer vehicles I’d imagine. I think you oversimplify the development process.
2 Likes
Addition of MiG-31 and more importantly A-4K and the MB339CB would be sick
1 Like