Yes they are noticably larger what are you talking about. And even if we dont compare it to other countries ammo racks just compare it to Krohnstad then. 305mm vs 406 mm both are 300 shells for a miniscule size increase. Everyone with half a brain and a notion of geometry notices that its bs
1 Like
No it isn’t. Kronshtadt’s shell room DM correspond to it’s VM. Soyuz’s shell room DM is much bigger than it’s VM.
It shows another person who doesn’t know correctly and saying.
It seems your brain is actually half one. Overall today I’m saying Soyuz’s shell room and magazine DM doesn’t follow its VM and showing evidence, then you saying only looking at it’s VM.
Dude i know. Its just not in the slightest accurate plain and simply due to the size increase of every round compared to Kronshtadts
2 Likes
OMG, really? You are using the visual model as evidence that the visual model is showing false information? when i say evidence i mean actual game files involving the damage models or video evidence showing that.
That highlighting feature might have nothing to do with the damage model and even if it does, why not just fix the visual model then? It’s not a difficult matter, if you’ve ever edited custom vehicles in the game’s engine you’d know that copying the kronsh magazine model and resizing it takes 1 minute, maybe 2 or 3 minutes if you want to make sure it’s the exact correct size.
Seriously, how unimportant does something have to be to justify skipping 3 minutes of work?
If you still believe they intentionally left it this way you’re either corroborating on their bad faith, or extremely naive, given that their track record isn’t straight.
4 Likes
As I said, developers don’t think it’s worth it, sadly.
Shell size on VM doesn’t matte on DM. What important is size of shell room or magazine on blueprint itself. Existence of shelf or machines inside shell room/magzine is ignored, which also was an answer of developers on legacy forum about British destroyes, especially HMS Cadiz.
And you want to tell me that the Damage model of Soyuzs ammo racks is at least 77% larger than Krohnstadts since thats the size increase if we calculate from 2 similarly shaped cylinders with the same lenght?
Which would be great to see
2 Likes
Like i said, like i said, “3 min of work to solve a problem isn’t worth it, so take our word that it’s actually fixed” is an extremely shady argument, especially given gaijin’s record, it’s like taking oil companies saying “we don’t think dealing with climate change is worth it” seriously, that argument just evades the point entirely and makes it seem like it’s a technical limitation instead of a choice, and therefore, is an extreme show of bad faith on their part.
I’d have no problem actually believing them if it wasn’t the same company that made an entire update almost solely guided towards announcing their new overpowered top tier premium in the shark attack update. Or the company that intentionally added aiming drives to all top tier nato MBT’s damage models and then when it came to add those to soviet and chinese vehicles they were non functional and didn’t impact the vehicle’s armament at all. Or the company that made blowout panels on nato MBTs useless despite video evidence and articles proving their effectiveness existing for over 30 years at this point. Or even if when responding to the reported issues on the soyuz’s magazine size, they actually showed evidence instead of responding vaguely inciting that the reporter was in the wrong.
Honestly, it’s like taking a burglar’s word that they won’t invade your home if you unlock the door.
7 Likes
Those reports were denied as there were no problem with Soyuz’s magazine ingame. Magazine is also much bigger in DM(which follows blueprint) than VM(which follows nothing), so on ingame side except player’s intuition(which developes never care in this game for more than decades), nothing is wrong.
Again, using the highlithing feature as a damage model, to which you don’t have confirmation that it is, and likely is part of the visual model instead as it makes more sense from a programming perspective, i’m getting tired of asking evidence and receiving responses based on opinions and unverified guesses, so from now on i’ll just ignore you on this specific matter until you bring something new to the discussion. My point regarding this magazine compartment still stands, gaijin’s posture regarding the soyuz is very shady and resembles a parent trying to protect it’s child.
Sadly, a very simple way this could be properly tested doesn’t work anymore, since naval shells that have enough pen to get through the armor and reach the magazines all have explosives, the shell ends up exploding before reaching the magazine and we can’t be sure about the model size, if we were still able to select tank ammunition on the protection analysis tab we could do it with apfsds and see if the model would be damaged even if the visual model wasn’t actually hit.
2 Likes
So you don’t wasn’t to test it yourself? That AP shells explode on invisible hitbox of ammo not even trying to peace it, right where @굴러온 showed you, and pierce trough 2/3 of the ship if fly couple centimeters above.
Pierce trough:
Exploding on hitbox(not on visual model).
Maybe you should get at least one of the tops before theorycraft what are they .
Damaging with the shell explosion doesn’t prove that the hitbox is larger since the explosion could be in fact reaching the visual model, (naval shells don’t show spall in the protection analysis so we can’t be sure if the visual model isn’t being hit) that’s why i mentioned we’d need shells without explosive filler, because then we could measure if the shell damaged the magazine without going through the visual model, which would prove that the magazines are larger than the visual model.
Shells with explosive filler would generate the same result as in your pictures even on ships that supposedly have their magazines accurately modeled.
1 Like
Do you don’t read that part where modules hitboxes not VM of modules for all modules all of the ships?
Module died on hitbox touch, shell exploded out of the ship.
Yes but if you look there’s a difference between the two examples, in the destroyer’s case, the shell goes through the ship and damages the module with it’s kinetic force, which proves that the visual model is incorrect, in the soyuz’s case, the shell explodes before reaching the magazine and therefore we can’t be sure if the explosion reaches the visual model or not, if it doesn’t, then the damage model is larger too, but we can’t be sure based on that alone.
1 Like
There is no difference, except thickness of the module that causing shell to explode. You could see that using weaker shells. Again, you not even trying to test it by yourself.
How is it not different dude? In the destroyer example the shell goes through the ship, through the module and doesn’t explode, in the soyuz example the shell detonates before hitting the magazine because of it’s fuse timer. I am testing it
In here i shot from the side just above the magazine, where you say the damage model reaches, and angle the camera to see how deep the shell goes.
As you can see, the shell (that is a red circle as it just detonated) explodes without going deep enough into the ship, therefore we can’t know for sure if it hit the visual model or not, that way we can’t confirm anything. That’s why i said we would need a round without filler, as the soyuz’s armor is too thick and slows the shell too much for it to go far enough to reach the magazine.
Going through the backplate on turret 3 we can have a shell reach the magazine, and we can see that the shell only makes contact with the visual model, and therefore, the damage model on the aft magazine is the same size as the visual model.
As you can see in this example, the shell hasn’t detonated yet, as it is still visible in the picture, but damages the magazine with it’s kinetic energy.
2 Likes
Again you did not read? Take the weaker shell and it will explode on corvette module invisible hitbox.
You’re getting this all wrong, the shell exploding is the problem that makes it unverifiable, to be able to verify the model size we’d need the shell to not detonate, as i’ve shown in the example with the aft magazine. Also, there’s no need to try to insult me, if you have no arguments left, then just don’t say anything instead of attacking me like a child.
1 Like
So if shell didn’t explode it didn’t suites you, and if shell do explode also didn’t suits you. You have a problem in you sequence of conclusions. All of evidences were presented to you, and you choose to ignore them.
No, you’re getting it wrong.
Take your picture on the destroyer for example, the shell path doesn’t go through the visual model of the module and damages it anyway, before it explodes. That means that the shell went through the damage model of the module, but not the visual module, proving that the damage model is larger.
However, in the soyuz case, as presented in my picture shooting the area where you argue the damage model exists beyond the visual model, the shell explodes before reaching the magazine, and as a result only damages the magazine with the explosion. Based on that we have two possible scenarios, as follows:
Scenario 1: The explosion damage reached the visual model, and therefore would mean that the damage model could be larger, but could also be the same size as visual model.
Scenario 2: The explosion damage did not reach the visual model, but since the module got damaged, this must mean that the damage model is larger than the visual model.
Since we can’t know for sure which scenario is true, we can’t confirm wether the damage model is larger or not.
In the pictures where i placed the shell towards the aft magazines, however, the shell goes through a thinner plate and is able to reach the magazines before exploding, with that, we can see in the last picture that the shell damaged the magazine with it’s kinetic energy before exploding, just like in your destroyer example, proving that the aft magazine’s damage model is in fact the same size as the visual model. Hope you get it now.
1 Like