They won’t fix it; they’ve already stopped fixing damage module models.
Even in the Type 90, the gunner is visibly missing his fire controller, and instead, the commander has all the fire controllers, even incorrectly placed. They consider it not a bug.
Also this gunner aiming scope looks weird and is located so far from the gunner.
That’s the backup sight for the gun, the gunner’s primary day/night sight is the roof sight. It has very little use in combat and are mostly used to double check if the gun is clear of obstructions. You can see it’s sandwiched between the gunner’s terminal and the gun breach, and slightly recessed in this drawing here from the old forum
I know what it is and that is not the primarily aiming sight, the point is they modeled the aiming scope wrong and it placed too far from the gunner in comparison to what the actual sight inside the type 90 looks like.
I’m still just hoping this thing can get a lower magnification zoom, gunner sights with an FOV of 8 is abysmal, you’re just stuck playing in third person to see anything at all.
Does anyone here have a picture of the autoloader? Specifically from the inside, from the videos I have seen the current WT implementation is wrong but another angle would be very nice.
There are the only ones I have on hand right now
I think it looks wrong because the cannon is too far from the autoloader.
Try bugreport and mostly you get a mod which label it as not a bug
That’s what I was working on! Got accepted already, found a couple new angles too.
5:00 - https://youtu.be/umCTvbjGulI?si=FpFcYfsIE_NNk0Ap
2:47 - https://youtu.be/aQ7dSM5458w?si=OiTYob7WDDEihl0j
3:27 - https://youtu.be/ZnrZHpylFXs?si=YKS3BXlauee5cyic
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jDUvqrUDM5iA
Impossible,now we wait minimum 4years.
Some pictures of the Type-90 showing its hydropneumatic suspension inclined all the way forward.
Clearly still lacking on the current version in the game…
Gotta find the specifications for how much depression the HPS adds. Not sure if multiple photos will be enough for GJ as proof.
i dont know if counting the amount of track links would be considered accurate with how their reporting system works but you could give that a shot
Hi, I have a question about the Type 90’s composite turret cheeks and mantlet. I don’t really know anything about the Type 90, but the visual model and the location of the welds (or whatever way it is attached) does not seem to correspond with the composite armour in X-Ray (assuming the 3D model is correct and those lines indicate where the armour is IRL).
To me it looks like the gun mantlet should be wider and deeper, the left cheek (on the image) should be much longer, and the right cheek (on the image) should be shifted slightly downwards.
So, is the armour correct in WT?
I’m sorry, but I only have answers to this question in Russian. You can search for the same ones on the old com forum
Are we sure this numercal model is actually of the Type 90? To me, it looks more like one of the earliest concepts of the Type 10.
The model shown shares several features with the early Type 10 concept. Although six wheels and the smoke grenades on the middle of the turret sides are also found on the Type 90, they appear in this concept as well. Additionally, the rear section of the sponson appears rather flat in both the concept and the model, which differs from the Type 90.
The timeline also supports this view: this model was developed during the Study on Vulnerability Against Firepower (対火力脆弱性に関する研究) from 1996 to 2005 (Heisei 8–17), and development planning for the Type 10 began in 1996. It seems plausible that the model was part of conceptual studies for a new tank.
Has the model ever been explicitly described as representing the Type 90 in any official source? Without such a statement, the possibility that this is a Type 10-related concept model shouldn’t be dismissed.
I reviveing this thread. Why are the turret cheeks like that?
No clue. If I remember correctly, the visual layout IRL does not actually reflect where the armour is.
got any proof? that link is expired.
No, sadly
