Bad argument considering only current difference with T-72B2 is Relikt which they dump onto T-90M’s and side armour of tanks.
Just matter of time
Could you please comment on this @Smin1080p_WT ? Seeing as the Jaguar is probably the most anticipated French tank.
As I have already explained, the report cannot be forwarded. It’s not a bug or historical issue but a suggestion for a new feature not present in game.
As such, it should be created as a form suggestion proposal.
1 Like
And what of the Jaguar. As I explained, most of its capabilities come from mechanics which are not in game and which 99% of nations will never have an analogue for in the foreseeable future. Based on what you have said, is it safe to assume that a hypothetical addition of the Jaguar would be entirely doomed because of this?
2 Likes
We have not announced any such vehicle currently. So there is no comment to make on a feature it may or may not have in game.
It’s just a hypothetical question I’m asking since any possible addition of this vehicle would seem destined to fail given the devs’ current party line. As you have said before, the Vextra 105 was given because it was a highly requested vehicle - the Jaguar must then be expected too (soon, hopefully).
Ok so the majority of Russian tanks had thermal imagers (SOSNA-U) by the time of a certain invasion.
Russia dont and havent used the T-64 in any form at all. The T-80B have all been upgraded to T-80BV models. If you can find an image of a T-80B in that part of the world in Russian service I will be impressed.
In the beginning of the conflict Russia was only operating it’s newest tanks as the attrition bit we saw
T-72B and other older tanks being put into service. One thing we also saw is the mass modernisation of tanks with Thermal sights! This was happening in 2022.
To say Russia only had a handful is false
My last comment on this before going back to the Leclerc topic :
I think the argument that Russian tanks don’t have thermals is very biased. At the beginning of 2022, most Russian tanks in service did feature thermals (and that’s about when Thales statement was made, maybe even before, hence why it was very probable). But as attrition made its work, they have gone back to using old reserve tanks, that were never upgraded.
The matter of the fact is that, at least before 2022, Russian MBTs usually had better optics than, let’s say, most M1s in service at this time
This is partially incorrect. In 2005 Raytheon rolled out the Block 1 B upgrade for the 2nd Gen thermals. Considering this also when the SEPV2 was being introduced it has been considered as part of the SEPV2 upgrade package.
The Block 1 B upgrade “Block 1 second generation FLIRs will improve Block 0 performance and put
more capability in the hands of war fighters. The new system generates a
clearer image with more scene contrast, less jitter and higher resolution.”
As for specifics in the upgrade I have no idea there’s no a lot of information on it.
Now for an infinitely more interesting bug report: Leclerc (All Variants) Stabiliser Underperforming
With all stabilisers there is a margin of error, the gun is never perfectly pointing where it needs to be whilst travelling on the move, especially cross-country. In game, however, the margin of error is up to 3x too high. The difference is quite severe:
When travelling at 70km/h and shooting a target at 4,000m there is currently a theoretical variance of 126cm in both axes. When travelling at this speed, the Leclerc should only have a variance of 40cm in both axes. This excludes the accuracy of the ammunition itself which would further increase the variance.
Unfortunately, this is less of an issue when every map you’re given is a city map :P
Here is a graph of the current stabilisation error (in degrees) over speed (km/h). The graph shouldn’t go above the red line:
13 Likes
Hey @Smin1080p_WT ,
I’ve been told that there is some sort of issue with this stabiliser report? Could you please elaborate on this? This is quite literally a mechanic already present in War Thunder.
Reports based purely on the basis of datamined information cannot be accepted. Your report is entirely from a datamine.
Also stabilization accuracy is not modelled in game to the degree you are suggesting. It is simply decided by stablizer type: Gun stabilizer - War Thunder Wiki.
In all fairness, this type of report, while having an impact on gameplay experience, is basically impossible to make within War thunder’s current tools available (checking reliably for a 4km long on-the-move shot’s dispersion) without looking at the core of the issue (aka dateline it). If devs were a little more open about it, we could get much more work done faster.
In my opinion, this could very well become a new-ish (because the code already exist, it’s just put to default values) mechanic, to have 2 plane stabilisation tweaked for vehicles for which we have accurate data. Over performing and under performing tanks could get changed accordingly. As far as I am aware, the current in game value is somewhat similar to the Challenger 2, and I doubt early stabilised tanks achieve this level of accuracy. Having their stabilisation tuned down could (slightly) help the major compression issue seen at around 8.0-10.0
10 Likes
And how else would you propose checking for the issue? It’s not like the devs have put a big sign saying “check stabilisation error here” in x-ray, have they? If anything, Oshida and I should be getting medals for unravelling the magical Gaijiggle spaghetti code!!
But it is modelled in game. The values are quite literally already in the game. They just completely screw over the Leclerc as they are. The dispersion is 3x too high for the stabiliser alone:
The blue area is currently. The red area is what it should be.
1 Like
The issue is datamining requires changing the readability of the files, which itself is editing the files.
Then there’s the potential of a person changing the files further.
Not saying that dismissing the reports that include [alleged accurate] datamined content is correct or incorrect.
Nor am I saying that anyone present did what was described.
All I am stating is a legitimate concern that the team could have.
All reports must be on issues tested or shown in the game itself. Datamined information is not accepted for any reports.
If it can’t be shown or tested in game, it’s not a reportable issue.
It’s because the devs haven’t provided the correct tools to carry out testing.
If I’m testing the dispersion of the Leclerc when firing against a target at 4,000m whilst myself in motion at 70 km/h, can you not see that 99% of any inaccuracy would be accounted for by user error? Any actual testing of the stabiliser would be entirely obscured by user error. It’s impossible to carry out fair testing due to the absence of a constant variable - in this case it would be a pre-defined ballistic solution. Therefore, it was necessary to look into the game files. I’m sure the devs can carry out their own testing with (I’d imagine) the more tools available to them.
I’m citing the numbers that specifically define the degree of stabilisation error for the Leclerc. I would fully expect the devs to go check their own files and verify that the report has basis.
2 Likes
Since you appear to be dodging my concerns @Smin1080p_WT , can I say that I would like to see an official response from a dev. There seem to be two immediate problems here:
- With all respect, you have made an arbitrary decision that fails to consider the situation
- The Leclerc is deeply affected here. It’s dispersion is over three times greater than it should be when firing on the move. This is not something which can be simply ignored. Instead, this is an issue which can be easily rectified as the mechanic is already present in game and all that is needed for some values to be adjusted. Here is an example of a solution based on what is currently modelled:
y1 is what it should be. y2 being what is currently applied to the Leclerc
2 Likes
Nothing has been dodged. I have answered you directly on the matter twice now. I understand you disagree, but that does not mean you have not received a response.
The datamined information policy regarding reports containing it is set out by the developers themselves. All reports based on it cannot be accepted. This does not apply just in this situation, but any report that contains solely datamined information.
I have not made any arbitrary decision. This is the reporting policy that has always been in place (reports based solely on datamined information are not accepted).
3 Likes