I’m talking about the first report about IRIS being 7 months old. This one being 2 months old, and still not being fixed, when it’s literally one line of code.
From my knowledge internally gaijin just does not believe or bother trying to read the report.
Being acknowledged and forwarded simply means that a moderator (here the Wareta MVP) was the one to forward the report (which makes sense since he is the one to have made the first report 7 months ago), but not that the devs actually bother doing anything about it.
Meanwhile Russian thermals have been constantly buffed with no reasons being told to us, for the most obscur reasons. Most Russian thermals in game are 1 generation above what they should be IRL compared to other vehicles because devs tried all they can to get them as best as they could using some obscure reasoning
Leclercs can’t even get their HE shells which were in service. And the Leclerc has a really cool HE shell which would have a 0% chance of ricochet at 88.5° which would mean you could probably kill Abrams by shooting the UFP with HE. Perhaps not the most effective method, but still…
DM43(A1)s velocity was first reported in July of 2021, do you think it’s been fixed? :p
As a rule of thumb;
If it’s Western - > give or take ~4 years even for the easiest of fixes (but expect Gaijin to go back on that decision down the line just because they can).
I’m specifically mentioning the IRIS, because the way it was sourced and explained is basically the same as Russian thermals, but with about 4-5x as much sources. choccers, as Russia uses a lot of French based thermal imagers
(And yet have better optics than France in game)
No it’s been forwarded as a suggestion so we close them on the CBR but they stay open internally.
Suggestion → acknowledged tag added + closed, fixed tag added when suggestion is implemented.
Bug → acknowledged tag added + open, closed and fixed tag added after fix is confirmed in production.
That’s the point; I had pulled 4+ primary sources to get Gaijin to fix DM43(A1)'s velocity (second attempt btw, my first was in July of 2021), and I got told that the developers think 1740 m/s is only achievable with the L/55 (based on ???), but the same goddamn round is capable of flying at 1790 m/s from an L/52 of the Leclerc.
Hillarity ensued in the comments where I had to pull up actual data on the propellant used by both DM43 & DM53 in order to convince Bowie to forward it, because apparently a Bundeswehr website, Rheinmetalls website, and GDLS’ website weren’t enough (former, the designer of the projectile, and the latter a producer of it under license):
T-90M was nerfed yesterday… and gen 1 can’t be one generation above gen 1…
On top of that, T-90M, T-80BVM, Leopard 2PL, and so forth were given gen 3 based on new discoveries about thermal generations which are all sound. All had gen 2 prior to the discoveries that Gaijin made.
It’s not obscure, it’s thermal imagers and their nuances.
I can’t give links on educational material about thermal imagers at this time, so all I can say is they’re out there for reading/listening.
And after finding them they’ll say the same thing one of the staff members said: “Gen 3 isn’t inherently a resolution upgrade. But also encompasses detection range improvements, and general clarity of picture.”
War Thunder represents that as a resolution difference cause that seems to be how Gaijin knows how they can represent gen 3 currently.
This isn’t true. More than anything else, 3rd generation systems are just low-cost, smaller package thermal imagers. The whole reason countries transitioned to 3rd gen systems in the first place was because it made it possible to put thermal binoculars into service on a large-scale.
For the longest time, high performance 2nd generation systems out-performed high-performance 3rd gen systems. You can read all about it here: Community Bug Reporting System [it’s not as if pretty much the whole report is citing primary sources :) ]
I believe this is quoting (or at least paraphrasing) the esteemed David Bowie. Yeah, he has zero understanding lol (he likes to think he does)
I am aware of the resolution differences between IRL and in-game representations at the time.
It’s possible I’m forgetting a few technologies from AMX-30B2 to Type 10, certainly.
Of course witnessing the clarity of thermal imaging in-person and trying to represent that image in video game form in an accurate manner is really difficult. [I only got to see Stryker’s thermal imager IRL personally.]
I don’t know how Gaijin, or any dev for that matter, can represent thermals without using higher resolutions with these fairly limited visual features; cause even DCS does it this way.
And yes, it’s a paraphrase cause I can’t remember exact wording, just the specific details of the statement that matter; usually how my memory goes for things.
Resolution is sort of important but also not - it more comes down to the quality of the picture than anything else. In testing done by the Russians (don’t ask me how they got their hands on it lol) of the French Eurocopter thermal imager it was specifically noted:
“The quality of the visual picture obtained with the IRIS-AWS thermal viewer (768 x 576 [pixels]) is so high that individual details of the infrastructure and the landscape (for example, openwork structures of high-voltage towers to the left of the vehicle being observed) are recognized in clear weather at distances of 15–20 km”
I’ve seen the technical documents for the Stryker thermal imager (both research papers and the manual) and it achieves a worse performance than found on the SXXI by a fair margin.
And that’s exactly why France thermals need to be buffed. Aside from being « gen « , gen »2 » or whatever, their detection and identification ranges are usually far above everyone else for the « same generation », with the IRIS having better DRI ranges in 1998 than even the German thermals in 2013
That’s not entirely accurate. The research paper is from 2013 not the actual thermal imagers discussed. In any case it’s only the ‘megapixel’ 3rd generation TI that achieves better (although in some cases still comparable) performance. The former case does include the ATTICA M (or called something a rather) from the 2010s (?). But Thales described it best: 3rd generation technology for high-performance FLIRs is nothing more than a “fashion effect”. There’s a reason SAGEM decided to make the leapfrog to the 4th generation technology in the early 2000s and they’ve achieved outstanding success in this area.
@Smin1080p_WT
Hey. I am making use of the fact that traction about unresolved bug reports for the Leclerc is picking up again.
Do you have any information about if the Leclerc will have it’s own forum post with response from the devs about the dozen of acknowledged bug reports that have been sitting in limbos (since the introduction of the Leclerc S1 for some)?
I think the size of this thread and the number of bug reports made for the Leclercs completely warrant this, as one was made for the Challenger with similar interest at the time.
I think it would be nice for once to have at least a hint that the devs do care, even just a little, about France top tier ground.
At least I hope you can convey this feeling, that I and many, many others, have about the sad situation the Leclerc has been in for the past couple of years
something something “Bug reports are still under review. They don’t believe the primary sources are accurate. They are now searching for contradictory info to reject the bug report instead of accept it’s true.”
