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.
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.
I pressed W on asphalt after hitting record and didn’t stop the recording until after the test speed.
I doubt Bossman & I are wrong when we both did identical tests, just with different crews.
He didn’t test Strv 104, which meant his experiment wasn’t finished; Boss needed to remove the final variable: The game’s ground physics itself.
The level of the crew is relevant for adding data from multiple in-game tanks.
Level 1 is the easiest to have parity because it’s 1: Cheap. And 2: Absolute.
As Bossman and I proved, ground physics are likely overperforming.
And no, that source doesn’t prove the vehicles themselves are wrong, it only gives a reference.
But yeah, reporting just T-80U or Strv 104 will result in “Not a bug.” 100%, cause there’s no source proving that they specifically are wrong compared to all other tanks in WT.
Edit: I can create a spreadsheet of 0 - 40kph for every MBT in the game if ya’ll want.
It’ll be level 1 cause I do not have the IRL or in-game money to do any other method.
But it does have to be all the same level crew or it’s a messy variable.
Thats strange, because Bossman came to the conclusion the T80U is overperforming.
Thats not his job neither yours. If x vehicle is overperforming it can be whatever for physics or other factors, they need to sort it out or fix it, this has nothing to do with the validity of the report.
No, level 0 crew means the tank is not at its full capabilities, if you want to compare game valeus with IRL values you should have an expert crew atleast, if you can’t afford it don’t do such testings because they could result inaccurate.
The reference that Sweden Trialed a T80U, and came up with x mobility, if in game the mobility is different, whatever it is physics or the vehicle itself, it should get fixed.
No, thanks.
I’m ending up with the same results as @Bossman919 and @WaretaGarasu :
0-30 km/h = 3,6 seconds
0-40 km/h = 6,15 seconds
0-50 km/h = 9,25 seconds
It’s okay, we get that you don’t want the T-80U to be nerfed, but at least have the honesty to admit it.
Your post seems to be more of a vent than seeking a solution.
Bug finding requires far more investigation than testing just one tank.
Either we put in effort to find out what’s actually causing tanks to over-perform, or we accept they’ll over-perform.
Cause that doc is going to get thrown out without us identifying, at least somewhat accurately, where the bug is coming from.
If it’s the general physics system, that needs changed.
If it’s specific vehicles we need to figure that out by comparing as many as possible, then prove that needs to be changed.
If it’s something else we need to prove it.
@totolescargo
Glad you came up with the same results as us and agree with us.
Not sure what the point of your last sentence is as that addresses nothing anyone said.
No.
You know the meaning of bug reporting? Generally, Developers needs to find out what’s causing this issue, and fixing it.
Personally, i’d say its the fact that engine and physics in this game are implemented very poorly, however im not a Developer neither do you, this is their job and im sure they will eventually sort it out what is the problem.
T-80U is overperforming by 100% while other vehicles are only performing by 15 to 35%.
The Leclercs in particular are underperforming since they’re supposed to reach 50 km/h in 4 seconds.
So yes, the T-80U is comparatively massively overperforming, even with the ground physics taken into account and should be nerfed in consequence. Glad we can agree on that.
Yet another proof or Russian bias …
You forgot to add Strv 104 as overperforming by around 100% as well.
Centurions aren’t Russian…
And T-80U is in the Swedish tech tree as well…
And no one knows about the rest of the tanks since we haven’t done tests.
My original post was literally me confirming for myself that Bossman’s results are correct, and me finding out Strv 104 is performing in a manner that the document says it shouldn’t by taking significantly faster.
Which begs the question what else is over-performing, and of the stuff under-performing what is causing that…
Before this thread gets out of hand, I think we can both agree on two things:
Traction is a constant variable that effects all vehicles (more-or-less) equally. So let’s say, acceleration performs about 10% better accordingly - a rather arbitrary number but I also can’t imagine that it would be anything more significant.
Now, my original statement was:
I believe this to be the source of the problem and a fair conclusion.
Now, we can agree to disagree and I would rather not discuss it any further. We can only await a developer response.
Also, I didn’t make a bug report for the STRV 104 for the simple reason I don’t own it.
I was busy with other things when you responded to me, so yeah it took me half a day to test for myself and see two things.
It’s clear my initial response to you with the results of my test were taken in the worst possible light rather than what it was: Confirming your statements about T-80U being faster, and adding Strv 104 to a potential list.
That post is purely for indicating there’s more going on.
That’s all. No disagreement, just more information.
To add to that, the French have a doctrinal procedure called “offensive reconnaisance”, depending on whats available, this order can either go to a tank platoon, consisting of Leclercs and VBL Scouts or the lighter wheeled cannon platoons (AMX-10RC or Jaguar with VBLs).
So based on doctrine, this request is accurate.
Hi @Gunjob , sorry for bothering. May you take a look at this bug report? Thanks!
Leclerc (All) Front Fuel Tank Should be an ‘Exterior Fuel Tank’ // Gaijin.net // Issues
Not a bug report for the Leclerc, but since the VBCI is the only other feasible vehicle at top-tier I figured I’d leave it here since it will be a substantial buff:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/WJEuhWedrbuw
Maybe since its a premium the devs might actually get around to making a fix sooner /s
Anyway… @Gunjob , could you please take a look at this?
Done and done.
Update: So I decided to check every MBT I have access to on asphalt.
All but Ariete, Challenger 2, Type 10, and Type 90 got to 50KPH in about 11 seconds +/- 1 margin of error on non-crewed test drives.
I tested my expert-crewed tanks that got to 50kph in about 11 seconds without being crewed and they got to 50kph in ~9.4 seconds.
So I suspect that everything tested gets to 50kph in about 9 seconds on expert crew.
The ~11 [9 expert] second tanks: Leclerc SXXI, T-80U, T-90M, M1A2 SEP2, M1A2, M1IP, Leopard 2A5 & PSO.
This is purely raw data and I personally have no conclusion based on this information.
This clearly show that there is clear simplification on the physics engine of the game, which still correlates with the talk about the Leclerc. However, I’ll add that from experience, the acceleration curve of the Leclerc S21 and AZUR compared to -as an exemple- the strv122A makes it slower at the beginning until about 40kph where it will start out accelerating it
Thank you for you effort. Highly apprechiated o7
Now… you see, this makes sense. Every game has to translate the physics into some code that may be very, very simplified for its use. Because it enables you to have 100 vehicles present in the same battle, all using a simple code that makes the game performance insanely good (something WT benefits from massively). At the same time, it is funny, that a game like WT actually models atmospheric resistance with temperature for shells, but doesn’t have torque or turbo dynamics modeled. I guess for the original idea of GF with nothing but non-turbo engines, it obviously didn’t matter.
But now that we reached present time, the addition may in fact be quite useful to include (a quick sidestep on this matter: Some planes actually feature superchargers, so there could be a man or woman with expertise on this in the team). Torque seems even more of a thing to take interest in. The difficulty with all of this is naturally, that they need solid data on every torque curve of every tank which… with over 600 vehicles in GF alone… means that is a huuuge task.
Just replying to get this post accessible from now. Still not a single new report as been implemented. The average time since they were acknowledge is about 3 months. There’s at least 15 bug reports acknowledged as of now