I’m sorry for bringing this report up again, but, since we are in the more direct communication phase with the devs… is there a way to have them even acknowledge the existence of this issue?
After 5 long years and several reports, I just don’t know what else we can possibly do to have this fixed.
I wouldn’t insist so much if it weren’t because it’s been such a long time… it’s so long overdue!
It really is a quite simple issue to fix, which even YouTubers have already done just to showcase it; therefore it is beginning to appear as if it was an intentional manipulation of the vehicle’s performance for whatever reason. It is difficult to believe such an issue would go unnoticed or remain unsolved for so many years and after so many reports.
Smin, can we pls never launch a Dev on a Monday again?
As most of the Mods who forward the report are at work or busy with other stuff, it looks like barely any reports are getting forwarded compared to a normal Dev Server on a weekend
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
