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
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.
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.
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:
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).
As I said, you fail to consider the situation at hand. It’s impossible to take any meaningful measurements to specifically test the degree of stabilisation error. Please answer this: If I’m shooting a target a 4,000m whilst travelling at 70 km/h, what’s the more likely case for me missing the shot? Is it:
a. the stabiliser is underperforming or
b. user error
The tools do not exist to carry out any sort of fair and accurate testing. As I said, I would like to see an official response from the devs on this very big issue, as I see that this is sadly going nowhere.
Please provide evidence.
Oryx lists 100 T-64 variants as lost in action, obviously they would have more in service than the number they’ve lost thus far.
Obviously false, as can be seen by literally any early period videos, photographs, lists, etc.
Some of the absolute earliest videos of the invasion showed old T-80U’s in large convoys.
I repeat: Provide evidence.
I also never said they only had ‘‘a handful’’.
Here’s an overview of the types of vehicles used by Russia by around 2022, based on the data presented by Oryx.
The number of vehicles in this chart which use French thermal sights does not even come close to making up the majority.
Knowing Gaijin if it was for RU/USA or Germany they probably would accept to work on that but for one minor nation i can see them not working on that and give us vehicle that are far away from what they are IRL (as they already do for Leclecs, Vextra…)
Oryx is not a good source, trust me… T62/T64 are not in active Russian service, they are kinda like the volunteers, so they were not used until slightly later such as early summer 2023 offense. Oryx uses all sources without evaluating some very strange western ones that state Russia has lost 3000 tanks and stuff, My estimation is that earlier tanks are actually in training maybe by late 2022 but not in active offense, anyhow in 2022 they still want it to be a quick one.
Orryx is proven not to be reliable. They are not impartial.
No the only T-64 operated by Russia were ones captured from Ukraine. And sudsequently destroyed in combat by Russia/Ukraine.
The Russian invasion force that crossed in 2022.
T-72B3 was the main tank all have thermals.
T-80U and T-80BVM all have thermals.
T-90A has thermals (these are all derived from the Thales system they procured.)
Your words were the majority. The majority of Russian tanks used in the early months all had thermals including the IFVs, APCs and scout vehicles.
You then ignored the point that Russia is actively upgrading tanks to have that capability.
Your data point also backs up that Russia have used more tanks with thermals.
Anyway reply back if you want, this wont help to improve the Leclerc
‘‘Trust me bro’’
Given that you’ve got no evidence that supports your position, I’ll refer to the line: ‘‘That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence’’.
Anyways, I’m derailing this topic so I’ll leave it here.
@Jεcka you wouldn’t happen to have any information on the stabilisation error of the Leopard 2’s gun drives would you? Currently, the Leclerc’s stabilisers aren’t stable enough and this increases dispersion by over 3 times when firing on the move. All stabilisers have been modelled with a degree of error of ~0.3mRad. I suspect the Leopard 2’s would be around 0.1mRad similar to the Leclerc’s.
After a ‘fruitful’ discussion with our dear community manager, the devs are going to do absolutely nothing about this for the Leclerc. But… German main whining has always been infinitely more formidable than French whining :P
Real bro I just got out of a 1v5 with them about Swiss mirages.
“There is a non-zero chance someone spoke german within the same zipcode as the vehicle once, therefore it needs to go to the german tree.”
Joke aside, germany being one of the most popular and profitable tree, it’s no wonder they’ll have a higher probability of landing shaky claims…
Yeah I explained to them that they can have everything else, F-5s, F-18s, the whole 9 yards but they were really adamant about the Mirage IIIS which germany had no role in creating and the TT has zero need for.
Idk what it is with them and owning the whole world but it’s annoying.
Nah thats what Britain is in forums and what was once.
Sadly Swiss Mirage will probably end up in German tree but hey we can always get Mirage3NG in our Tech tree, its basically Mirage3S but better in every way.
