When will it end ?
Atp all we can do is wait for that like 15 page doc bug report to be finished and posted, or the dev post for next week on the abrams where they inevitability deny it over something thats already been debunked (or just ignore the v3s glaring issue and talk about their changes on the m1a1?)
7 Likes
I haven’t really been paying all that much attention to this topic, could u explain a little more about the “15 page doc bug report”??
1 Like
Either when AI takes over, Nephelem return and say they’ve come to save us, or a limited nuclear exchange that forces humanity into a one world state. All of these end up in the same place so doesn’t really matter.
SpanishAvenger and Hike-Dk are asking people to find some sources and are making a doc report to send into bug report for gaijin to read over and maybe accept sep 3 hull improvements
1 Like
Here it is.
4 Likes
I’ve been following the discussion here, and I’d like to pitch in with a suggestion regarding the SEPv3’s hull armor.
The argument that the official sources are “too vague” doesn’t really hold up when you look at how the tank is currently implemented on the Dev Server. It creates a massive logical inconsistency: The devs successfully used the DOT&E and procurement documents to estimate and upgrade the turret armor. But those exact same sources say “turret and hull armor upgrades” in the very same sentence. Accepting the source for the turret but dismissing the hull part feels like a clear double standard.
Furthermore, if we look at the FY2022 Procurement Budget, it explicitly lists “hull armor upgrades”, “mine blast improvements”, and “belly armor” as completely separate items. Since the hull sides and rear are just solid RHA steel and didn’t change in thickness, the only place on the hull that features a composite cavity capable of a ballistic upgrade is the Lower Front Plate (LFP).
According to Gaijin’s own 2021 Post-War Combat Vehicle Protection Policy, they acknowledge that exact millimeter values for modern MBTs are classified. The policy states that in these cases, protection models should be estimated based on open-source data, physical layout, and weight parameters (and the SEPv3 did gain about 2.4 tons).
Instead of rejecting this outright because we don’t have the classified mm numbers, this should be treated as a valid suggestion. The devs should apply the same estimation methodology they used for the turret (and for tanks like the Leopard 2A7V or T-90M) to the LFP array, so it actually reflects the documented Next Evolution Armor upgrade. Leaving the hull identical to the older SEPv1 just doesn’t make sense given the data we have.
18 Likes
This is already outdated. We just finished the final tweaks, it’s not even close to the same document anymore
4 Likes
Just a thought for everyone tracking the SEPv3’s performance on the Dev Server: we might want to take a closer look at the thermal generation as well.
Right now, the tank is implemented with Gen 2 thermals for both the Gunner’s Primary Sight (GPS) and the Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV). But if we look at the actual history of the vehicle, this seems to be a massive oversight.
One of the absolute core pillars of the entire SEPv3 (ECP1a) upgrade program was replacing the old 1990s-era 2nd Gen FLIR units with the new 3rd Generation FLIR (3Gen FLIR) system developed by Raytheon/DRS. According to unclassified public records, like the U.S. Army Weapon Systems Handbooks and DOT&E reports, this upgrade explicitly applied to both the gunner and the commander, giving them dual-band HD resolution.
If anyone here is already working on bug reports or has the tracker open, this feels like something that definitely needs to be documented and submitted to the devs before the patch goes live. Leaving one of the main technological upgrades of the SEPv3 at Gen 2 parameters completely underrepresents what the tank actually is.
1 Like
on top of this the sep 3 is being given all of the tech systems that where planned for the sep 4 such as built in lws unlike the mounted on version we see on the sep 2 gen 3 thermals as you mention and a multitude of other things such as potentially auto tracking but I havent looked into all the planned tech for the sep 4
2 Likes
he works for them… guess what he will ignore it… while we have multiple sources for some abrams to get things straight but no cigar with that one
1 Like
I dont know why gaijin has such a bad stance on the Abrams…, if they just gave it its hull armor more people would buy their premium to grind for it right?.., and if its to ragebait people into playing Russia it didnt work on me as i quit 2 years ago when i unlocked the SEPv2 and was dissapointed, only coming back to check up on the SEPv3 they are adding, if that dev blog comes out next week with bs im out…
6 Likes
Same bro I have spent so much time and money on this game and all they do is slap its American base in the face. I will not play this game anymore if they don’t get the sep3 right
2 Likes
Not only the American base, basically every nation part from the Chinese and Russian.
2 Likes
I already made a bug report on it but it got taken down immediately, and i did have valid sources :(
The only thing i want gaijin to give the new abrams is ROSY + LWS, Trophy aps to sep v3 and gen 3 thermals.
There also giving the sep v3 the gripen E treatment, so stupid
Army recognition comparison between 2a8 and sep v3 cleary shows, gen 3 thermals, aps etc
6 Likes
@Smin1080p_WT (sorry for pinging you, didn’t know who else to ping)
Do you mind giving some elaboration on this bug reporting managers answer?
Like what does he mean by “Not a bug report”
How is this not a bug report?
Something is wrong with a vehicle that will be added next update → makes report on it → = “not bug report”
Most vague answer ever
11 Likes
Because they like to selectively choose when and where ro label things bugs.
Its pure bias.
8 Likes
Hello All,
We’re satisifed with our report and will be posting it shortly.
Please spread the news, get people involved and provide more insight if needed.
Additonally, we will link the bug report
Here is the team members that were involved ahead of time: @TheRealSteve , @crispy100001-psn , @HondaCivici , @HandlerOne and myself
We have included sources provided by participants of this forum
27 Likes
Because the APS system for the Abrams is separate from the vehicle, and often operates without it IRL. In game this means it gets added as a separate vehicle with APS, so we will get a SEP v3 Abrams with APS in a future update, just the same as they first released a SEP v2 without APS and we are getting one with APS this update.
2 Likes
You probably know more than me about bug reports but make sure u dont reach the max text limit or whatever its called when making the bug report, i did and i did not have a backup of it so yeah :(
Well thats just plainly stupid tbh, why cant they just make it a modification like i stated…
1 Like