Why keep the FCS damage module in game in tanks that already get affected by it if tanks that already have them moduled dont get them because “not everyone has them”??
16 Likes
In my opinion it could keep on working however the game need to recognize whoever is the gunner’s or commander’s, BMD-4M for example, the Fire Control System modules is separated in two (visually) but the damage model is only one, causing moments where you could reply fire but you can’t because both commander and gunner can’t fire.
11 Likes
Thats actually interesting, but you would need 3 different modules , right ? Like the gunner controls, the commander controls and the “main” fcs.
Some modules in game should be divided like Turret Baskets should have the turret ring (disables the horizontal drive) and the turret basket (slows the horizontal aim). I dont know if its possible but if a autoloader is damaged the commander could load ammo if its not in the autoloader( like the t90m has in the back or the type 10 in the front)
1 Like
It’s possible to separate the modules and they work just like now, the autoloader as well. It’s possible to load manually however due to the size and space (which is not that much, specially in T-72s) will take longer to do so.
In my opinion the new modules were made just to please the people that thought only PUMA and 2S38 would recieve it, at the same time, these people don’t required and specified how it could be done now we have to cope with whatever Gaijin does.
3 Likes
Ye I agree with you.
In my opinion most of these new modules make the gameplay less enjoyable because you cant shot back, even if it takes time. Most of the times I get disabled and the other guy misses 3 shots while I just sit there waiting for a teammate to help, to finish repairing or getting killed
1 Like
because the selective addition of these modules and mechanics is an easy and cheap way for Gaijin to nerf specific tanks
5 Likes
Most MBTs have it at top end, and more will get it at time goes on.
pre-emptive complaining i see.
If your tanks FCS gets knocked out of course its gonna have problems.
If its meant to have one they will get around to it.
If its not meant to have one do what i did with scimitar, bug report it and it will be fixed
They should add them all at once or else it’s not equal treatment until then
1 Like
Some people in here have a hard time with reading comprehension.
FCS modules already exist on the Leopards and Abrams. Currently the vehicles in game that have it already, get disabled if these modules are destroyed.
Double standards.
1 Like
3 Likes
Interesting.
Stabilizer goes out when the FCS is taken out on the Leopards.
1 Like
Could be, maybe they forgot to turn it off and just removed it’s funtion on the UI, you should probably make a bug report about it as on the UI doesnt mention that the FCS doing anything.
1 Like
Current state of FCS is quite bad,it counted as one big module and bound too many things on it which high-related to the game experience like ability of aim and fire.
I think gaijin should separate it for commander and gunner,and then remove the disable for aiming and firing for manned turrets
Not anymore actually.
It used to be that way for quite a while after the initial DEV server that added them to the Leopard 2 and Abrams. They removed that function at some point since then (idk when and I honestly thought it was still a thing too until I actually checked the .blk files like 2 weeks ago - I know that it did disable stab on LIVE at some point and probably have some footage of it doing that buried somewhere)
However the same cannot be said for light vehicles/IFV’s
The FCS literally disables everything and it itself is destroyed by the power-system module, which makes it extremely frustrating, since even poorly placed shots will disable you anyway.
Imo it should solely disable; Stab, thermals, laser rangefinder, laser warning system, IRST, and maybe the smoke-dischargers…
The other parts should only be disabled if the vehicle has a crewless turret.
2 Likes
Thanks for the correction with explanation.
The real “double standards” here is Gaijin’s refusal to model spall liners on Chinese vehicles (basically every top tier Chinese tank has them IRL), and having spall liners enabled on other vehicles anyway. The funniest thing is that many people in this thread do not realize that FCS is already disabled for all top tier MBTs. It’s just pointless self-victimization while ignoring the facts of the situation. The truth is that Leopard, Abrams, have been consistently favored with things such armour modeling, modules, reload times, and rounds, yet the players of these tanks constantly complain that they are not favoured even more.
The implementation of modules such as horizontal drive is unequal when taken by itself, but when put in context, it is only a small nerf which does not change the status of Leopards and Abrams as the best top tier tanks, which has been true for more than 2 years.
They haven’t refused, no one’s supplied diagrams or photos of every position they are.
Saying “x has a spall liner” is like saying “USA has a rainforest”.
It doesn’t tell you much if you aren’t told where it is.
Spall liners are also a marginal change; it’s not going to change a T-series tank’s outcome of turret flying.
Completely false, diagrams and such have all been supplied in excess without any action taken. Not really much of an argument there.
1 Like
Im not even a US or Germany main, a lot of things that were already accepted are still not fixed in game for almost if not every MBT, and saying that the Abrams armour modelling is favored is a pretty good joke. You are being a hypocrite saying that the other nations are self-victimizing while you are doing the same thing, if you are mad about Chinese tanks not having spall liners make a bug report or another thread. The “double standards” here is that some tanks got the modules implemented and fully functional while now that “some tanks” got them but there are some tanks still missing them then they disable it. The Abrams, the Challengers, the Arietes, the ZTZ/VT4 all have their problems and most of them should already been fixed, I dont know why you are attacking other players because they dont agree with something just because you have a different problem. Have a good day
1 Like