Bayard if only. Gaijin don’t make top BR premium vehicle
Yeah but I hope it goes in the tech tree at like 10.7 or something because France doesn’t have anything at that rank (with the light tanks and jaguar hopefully coming to the game it could make a nice lineup)
If they add a top tier rank 8 premium tank to France, it will make the win rate fall out of the sky so I think it’s a good idea. Only then they might buff the Leclerc.
Ares being a S1T1 you still have Bayard, Carnot, Duroc, Estienne and Foch with very minor exterior cosmetic changes (mostly being a reshuffle of the front side skirts).
Take into account the preseries (S1T1 = preseries run, the S1 we have ig is supposed to be a S1T5/S1RT5) did not have the full armour package Gaijin could make up armour values to magically fit 10.7 (at this tier the armour is already magically guessed anyway)
Really they could C&P and have 1 10.7 TT + 1 10.7 prem with the same model. Just bullshit foreign ammo in the premium as part of an export proposal.
Also waiting for them to do the same with AMX 40 (P1/2/3/4 had diff engines, could and should be exploited from more prem and 10.0 choices, maybe with better ammo)
And a similar split for the Vextra 105 (split it into the normal french ride with 105F2 and the Saudi trial model with 105G2 and an extra licence plate)
1 Like
Hi,
We don’t have the full book. Would you be able to upload the relevant pages about this?
These are diagrams put together by one of the authors of this book, Thierry Guillemain. I suspect these are the “protection increases” that are discussed in the book:
Thanks for your help
7 Likes
On another note, we’ve been able to do some testing with the Leclerc’s mobility.
It doesn’t look like we will be able to get our accurate top speed nor accurate acceleration with the current physics engine. It’s just too basic:
This is all that the engine code amounts to
To break down the relevant parts:
1. The gear ratios are correctly modelled
2. “driveGearRadius” (drive sprocket radius) should be 0.4 (40cm) not 0.35. Increasing this to 0.4 would increase the top speed to 82km/h. Technically, the Leclerc is able to go ~100km/h but its governor limits it 90km/h (see 3.1.)
3. “mainGearRatio”, “neutralGearRatio”, and “sideGearRatio” are all values that seem to be made-up and are retroactively applied to set certain conditions:
3.1. “mainGearRatio” is used to set a hard limit on the top speed. Increasing this value results in going through the gears more quickly but lowers the top speed. In the case of the Leclerc, we could lower this value to get our top speed of 90km/h but our acceleration would become worse.
3.2. “neutralGearRatio” is used to set the time it takes to neutral steer
3.3. at this point, we are unsure what “sideGearRatio” does but it didn’t show any effect on acceleration
4. 1500hp is achieved at a max RPM of 2500. However, according to the testimony of Leclerc crew members, it is able to reach 1500hp at 1200rpm. Similarly, according to Martin Klotz who was the Head of MBT and AFV Programmes at the time, the Leclerc takes 2.8 seconds to reach 1500hp.
Spoiler
If we were to change the max RPM to 1200 to try and mimic the short time it takes to reach 1500hp, then it would limit the top speed to ~32km/h.
Moral of the story? With how engines are currently modelled, there is no way to take into account the Hyperbar system. This results in disproportionate performance compared to IRL, as we can with the T-80U whose acceleration is overperfoming by about a factor of 2:
Spoiler
Meanwhile, the Leclerc accelerates just as fast as convential diesel engines.
The best solution? Gaijoobles implement a more realistic physics engine; however, this is not seen on the 2024 roadmap…
11 Likes
Maybe there are things you are missing as well. We, players, are not developer after all. They probably know how their game works better than us.
Just waiting till they fix AHEAD
1 Like
Man, I don’t know… There’s only so many inputs you can make into those few lines of codes. The only way to get accurate acceleration is to increase the hp which is ‘too unrealistic’ for the devs. But T-80U going twice as fast as it should be is ‘just fine’…
IDK about T-80 going twice as fast as it should.
There are improvements to be had to the entire torque system in War Thunder.
These are the results I got from test drive on the paved road with an Expert Crew:
These are the official results from Swedish testing:
So it’s massively overperfoming.
5 Likes
No. There are no evidence of that.
Anyway, Devs like to use the Swedish Testings like its the holy bible, so its time for them to use those testing when it comes to other vehicles as well.
4 Likes
You see comrade western documents cant be used to buff or nerf russian vehicles therefore we decided to only nerf western vehicles by using russian documents.
3 Likes
@WaretaGarasu and @Panther2995
Alright, I did my tests now.
I’ve decided to test both involved.
T-80U in-game: 3.6, 6, and 11 seconds.
Strv 104 in-game: 7, and 16 seconds.
[Both level 1 crew [not crewed]]
Both are over-performing on asphalt according to that trial.
Strv 104 images: Forgive that 1000kbps 720p quality.
This indicates that T-80U is likely fine, but ground traction and/or friction, and general acceleration may be causing over-performing acceleration if that document is accurate.
This confirms Bossman’s results, as well as adds Strv 104 at minimum to the potential pool of vehicles over-performing.
Look at the different variables in play between your test and Bossman919’s test; the conclusion you should have come to was “T-80U is overperforming with expert crew by a massive amount.”
Swede tests are supposed to be pushing the optimal mechanical limits, not averaged performance with a shoddy crew who doesn’t understand the difference between a clutch pedal and a brake lever. With expert crew the tank should accelerate like swede tests describe. With fresh noob crew it should be worse; as expert+ace crew will be maintaining the max mechanical performance possible.
If T-80U was over-performing then Strv 104 wouldn’t over-perform by a nearly identical amount.
Leclerc (All Variants) Missing Scouting Mechanic
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/QCAWXHTQX4JG
You read it right. IRL, Leclercs actually had the scouting mechanic which exists in-game.
Hopefully it gets passed because it opens the door to a new mechanic which could be a little broken…
You see, Leclerc XLRs and EBRC Jaguars are equipped with PASEO sights fitted with 4th Gen thermals which can automatically detect enemies up to 5000m. Combine that with the FINDERS system (see the bug report) which automatically processes and relays onboard info to friendlies (such as target detection) - well, you have an automatic scouting ability up to 5000m within the (rather large) FoV of the sight.
But since it’s a uniquely French mechanic, it might not get implemented…
16 Likes
Either you are a bit confused (to stay nice), or you are just desperately trying to defend some strange position. Either way, you are completely off topic, and even then, you are still missing the point (which is quite the feat).
To understand that, let’s go back to the beginning.
What does Bossman says here? The hyperbar engine can’t be modelled due to the poor physic engine. This physic engine also happens to favour the t80 by a factor of 2. What would you have need to understand here ? That the physic engine is poorly modelled and favour some tanks and disfavour others.
What do you actually get off of it ?
You compare the t80u over performing with another tank performing by the same amount, and conclude that
So, I guess that for you, if one tank largely over performs more than the others (some of them actually underperforming by a large margin), but at least one other tank does as well, then its fine lol
1 Like
No, ground friction is very much on-topic as if it is too little then Leclerc underperforming means that Leclerc is underperforming even more.
As Strv 104 and T-80U are equally over-performing to each other.
And no, I compare T-80U to allegedly real T-80U, and Strv 104 to allegedly real Strv 104; you should know that after reading the post.
I posted that there’s an issue.
The fact you post that issue = fine… what?
Dude, read posts before typing, and proof-read your own posts before posting.
Looks like you did those test terribly wrongly.
This is pointless, vehicles reach their full capabilities reflected to IRL valeus with ACED, clear example is the turret rotation speed, do you think on Modern MBT’s such thing should apply, or do you think ground crew tell the mechanism to hurry up?
Ok, so both are overpeforming.
How you came to this conclusion? You are comparing a T80U with another vehicle overperforming by the same amout, and came to th conclusion that the T80U is fine. If one vehicle is overperforming, it should get correct, period. You’re free to make a bug report for the STRV104, i’ll happily send you the whole source.
Except that the Swedish T80U is very real, it got tested, and probably if during Sweden Trials the Leopard 2 IMP didn’t won, Sweden would have got the T80U instead of the 2A4.
Spoiler
T80U during Terrain Trials in Sweden
So yes, as you can see, its very real.
If you think the STRV104 is overperforming, feel free to report that.