Sliding itself is expected, tanks dont have endless grip especially laterally(sideways):
https://youtube.com/shorts/8baDgsCXSks?si=Sm6O2X5tizi20bQz
If you throw a tank round a tight corner at 60km/h its probably going to skid (it weighs 60+ tonnes) and probably throw a track too.
Would the tank drifting sideways not wreck the tracks? Genuine question.
Nevermind you answered it.
Yeah, but that’s why it’s so important for us to encourage IMPROVING the current iteration, and NOT ditch it.
What I fear is that people try out the current iteration, dislike it, and, instead of realising that it needs polishing, straight up jump into calling for its cancellation altogether instead.
A small nitpick that isn’t exclusive to regenerative steering, but this exact line is said every dev server for every update, only for the update to release with nothing really changed to the mechanic in question in the majority of the updates.
We also have only tested it on a handful of vehicles, something like challenger 2 would benefit HUGELY from regen.
This isn’t the same; the developers have stated that this would be a complex process in real time and we are barely on the first step of it, while people usually make those claims about very much finished values on the final days of dev servers.
The functionality of this would however certainly be necessary to compensate for the unrealistically high turning radius of vehicles at higher speeds in the current iteration.
Example; HSWL-354 (MILTECH - Vol11 No 04-1987, Special Marketing Section: RENK)
timestamped
Realism aside, for those that severely dislike the new system, having the old one available is a good way of getting the new system implemented in the first place (if it eventually reaches a state where its’ addition can be seen as a sole improvement to the game)
Thank you for the video, it is priceless!
In this video, you can see that, funnily enough, Type 10’s steering may be the most accurate as of now, at least for lower speeds.
I am sure that, if all regenerative steering were like the video you linked, and like Type 10’s current iteration, nobody would have an issue with it.
Like @Fireball_2020 said above, the turning radius should be proportional to speed (not to mention that speed shouldn’t accelerate just by turning without accelerating). With the fixes Fireball suggests, I’m sure the implementation would be FAR better and rarely ever oppossed to.
Not necessarily, a huge issue is that you cannot slow down whilst turning, which inevitably leads you to having large radius turns. And that itself is a bug.
A + D steering should lead to a gentle loss of speed. You may need to brake abit before turning using S.
Yeah, the idea of taking damage from sharp turns makes sense.
Both the Eastern and Western factions were motivated to introduce systems that enabled efficient wide turns specifically to avoid the damage caused by sharp turning.
However, in the current version of WT, the only way to effectively switch between pivot turns and wide turns is by using an analog stick. Given that most players currently use a keyboard to execute pivot turns, implementing damage for sharp turns might prove difficult.
We have stuff like crew members repairing a whole tank in 40 seconds after watching half of their fellow tank crew being killed and we have perfectly functional 0% failure rate equipment in this game. The main question is implementing this type of damage even necessary, and the follow up question is what is next?
Even if it’s done right it is still suboptimal due to the map design in this game. I hope they please everyone by allowing you to switch like you can switch maneuver modes mid match in planes.
I appreciate you mentioning that since no one else has
Its my biggest concern since im on console and only have access to a controller
Looking at this mechanic, it feels like the developers only tested it in the test drive. Sure, driving across an open field might be fun, but playing with this mechanic in actual combat will be downright impossible
Just make regenerative steering a keybind lol
But you saw me comfortably driving Type 10 across the streets!
While I admit that it was difficult to drive the Leopard on the city and I hope it’s improved, Type 10 felt just nice.
Agreed, not all tanks are Built equal and tanks will need adjusted specifically for themselves.
I’m just amazed it’s finally here. After who knows how long, like 5 or 6 years of it being “passed to developers”?
Still annoying they haven’t given it to every vehicle with this system at once.
Why do people who usually demand realism keep whining for a return to an unrealistic system?
The way forward is to improve regenerative steering and implement it properly, not regress to an outdated system simply because people are used to it.
Likewise, the directional fragmentation changes for APHE that never made it into the game should also be revisited and implemented.
Although it is not being added in this instance, Eastern-bloc vehicles also feature an efficient steering system.
Eastern-bloc vehicles execute “wide turns” by using a gear-based transmission system to reduce the speed of the left and right tracks. Since there is no brake slippage involved in this process, the system enters a regenerative state, making it highly efficient.
However, because the outer track does not accelerate during the turn, these vehicles lack the ability to maintain linear speed in the same way Western tanks do.
This mechanism is known as a “planetary gear steering system” and began to be widely adopted starting with the IS-1 tank.
MBTs like the T-72 incorporate multi-stage reduction gears, allowing for multiple wide-turn radii.
An important point to note here is that the T-72 also has limitations regarding its turning radius. To perform a pivot turn, the main gear selector must be in first gear; pivot turns cannot be executed while driving in higher gears.
In other words, the behavior is similar to that of the Leopard 2 on the dev server, and there is a high probability that Eastern-bloc vehicles will eventually be equipped with the “turning radius limiter” currently under discussion.
