Sure, but he is one of the closest to the devs what we have here :P
Still very poor, it should at least be improved to the level of fm3000.
Can we get something done about the off center seeker on the Type 81(c)? It’s barley even on the screen if you zoom in:
there is a bunch of open reports on it:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/tiWW5PRlnGo2
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0RiVoQvCtdBY
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/5s9FXIKuxi4s
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Bkb2FBcGKnuH
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/YoRwgo2Uo3sD
There is only 1 report that has been looked at and closed for the reason that “is is done specifically to prevent rockets from hitting the ground.”
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/6ZK349oy9jU2
This would make sense if it was off center to the gimbal limit like the Type 93:
this causes the launcher to be elevated above the aim point to loft the missile on launch, with the Type 81(c) however the seeker is still centered within the gimbal which means that to acquire a target you have to aim lower which just results in the same launcher elevation as if the seeker was centered in both the gimbal and on the crosshair, but harder to aim because the seeker doesn’t go where you thing it should, it also often results in lose of lock as you have to manually lift the launcher above the target once the seeker is on it to avoid hitting the ground, on fainter heat signatures this can cause the seeker to jump of the target, especially if they are near the sun:
As you can see the explanation that “is is done specifically to prevent rockets from hitting the ground.” simply doesn’t bear out in reality and to do that the seeker should be set up like on the Type 93.
Could we please have a review of the decision to ignore this bug and at the very least have the seeker centered on the crosshair so it’s on screen when zoomed, or preferably fixed to be like the Type 93 to actually loft the missile like the bug report manager claims it should be doing?
Adding the turret basket to the Type 10 and especially the Leclerc (which is mid as hell) while the BMPTs still haven’t gotten theirs (not to mention the fact that they should’ve been there in the first place) while it’s literally breaking the game is just… Infuriating and frankly despicable. No other words.
4 Likes
any news on the proposed falcon radar?
hallo from abrams and leop
Did the same hull armor changes get applied to the T-26E? They share the same hull, as mentioned in the report, but it’s not clarified here if it was applied to it as well.
at least they have armour and can lose 2 crew with out being completely destroyed. The Type 10 has a 3 man crew and a 40mm LFP that wont stop a 25mm APDS at 2km range, hell the weasel can pen it at 300m.
I Don’t see an IRST blister on that airframe, so it’s not what has been implemented. I’d be enough to get a suggestion marked as “not a bug” if it was to go though the reporting portal.
Remember;
F/A - 18 e didn’t get his equipment gbu-53 b guided bombs
“F/A-18E != F/A-18F”
What are the chances 120D will get its seeker fixed?
what leclerc also gonnna suffer from:
Can you tell what we should expect for Centauro 2 prototype weapon system? Currently its autoloader doesn’t function and only 6 shells are considered first-order.
imo, IF they make t-80 autoloader spalls, the turret ring would be somewhat easy to break
Well see that would be nerfing Russia, which is against SOP.
I would be far less annoyed by it if they fixed any of the bugs with Japanese stuff, the Type 90 and 10 still have major issues with their mobility and protection, the Type 81(c) still has its seeker mostly off screen when zoomed, Yamato is still made out of high explosive paper, the F-2A is missing features, the AAM-3 and 4 both under preform significantly compared to what they can do IRL (AAM-3 at least needs to be that way for balance for the time being, but the AAM-4 could get it’s proper drag and seeker logic without being OP especially as you can only carry a maximum of 4 of them).
But do they fix any off it? No, but they find the time to nerf them more.
2 Likes
The new armor descriptions in the statcard are actually useless. Can they just be reverted back to what they were? “Bullet proof” and “projectile proof” is so arbitrarily placed and doesn’t tell anything about the vehicle, then there’s other anomalies like the M16 having “steel armor” but the Flakpanzer 1 having “no armor” despite the latter being a literal tank chassis.
1 Like
They did mention in the dev stream that the two artillery vehicles were rushed in with literal overnight work to get them previewable. Presumably they’ll be getting adjusted soon, especially considering both the AS-90 and GBT 155 are functionally almost identical aside from the badly busted rate of fire on the latter, while both sit at the same BR.
Honestly, they could have at least tried a little harder with this addition. The Japanese Me 210 is a disappointment, especially considering that no pre-1946 Japanese Tech Tree aircraft have been added in almost 5 years!
Additionally, the plane has an incorrect name. It should be called the Me 210 A-1 or A-2 W.Nr.2102350, not the V-22. Yes, this plane was a version of the Me 210 V-22, but before being purchased by the Japanese, it was modified by the Germans to the A-1 version, which they called the A-2. So it should be called the Me 210 A-1 W.Nr.2102350 or Me 210 A-2 W.Nr.2102350.
Bug Report: Community Bug Reporting System
In addition, the Me 210 (probably all of them) has a low maximum speed. In-game, it reaches 530 km/h, but it should reach 563 km/h. I’ll file a bug report today.
anything but reworking the mid maps we already have name ONE PERSON who likes surroundings of voloklomask bruh NO ONE
or red desert or attica or Fire arc or the super stretched poland and pradesh your reworking maps that are fine go update the ones we dont like