i had reported on every single thing that they got wrong with the Xray in the Type 90 from the placement of fire controllers (the commander has both controllers and the gunner is instead missing one), the shape of the direct gun sight and ofc the shape of wet ammo storage. But i don’t think they are important enogh for them to fix.
But when you compare to the internal model of the Type 90 to Challengers, T-tanks, ZTZ or Leopard 2, both Type 90 and Type 10 are increddibly lacking of details and it makes me sad.
I just had a little hope that the shape of the ammunition box would be a little more special armor than the diagonal cut-out shape in the current game if it were right-angled like in the picture…
I remember reporting the fuel tank shape of the Type 90 like 5 years ago, so don’t get your hope up, but yeah the tank should be a bit thicker. Especially on the front part sticking out with the black square on it which sits below the composite armor.
Does anyone know why type90’s mobility has some issues? especially when it is turning, the speed will reduce much quicker than other MBTs like m1 or MBT2000, not as smooth as these MBTs, and sometime it will stock. I guess its transmission has some issue?
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.
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.
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…
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?
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.
