Default belt maybe, but why 3mm?
No, I used air target for both 12.7mm and 37mm.
I think it’s just not working as intended.
Thank you!
Also can you adjust sensitivity for drag and drop? I often accidentally pull a vehicle out of its slot, when I just want to select it by clicking on it.
After 4 battles it still says (3/3) and I didn’t get any RP bonus from them.
Same I think this is just visual for now. Hopefully it comes to game
Hi! This is display bug, we are aware of it.
The increase is in general a nice one :)
But this doesn’t make any sense…
If I more than DOUBLE the payload weight (and have to deal with WAY more impact on flight performance) I only gain 6% extra damage per bomb?
And when I increase payload weight by +400% that would gain me 14% extra damage?
I would love to get a more in depth explanation as to the thought process behind this
The only thing that might save this is this following change:
But there are no numbers listed so it’s impossible to make a judgement.
Other than that there are many great changes in here! :D
Edit, i just noticed the answer above.
@OrsonES
Was the addition of the research bonus icons a mistake?
Because there has not yet been any new information about it as stated in the Devblog about it and there also seems to be a lot of missing information/elements to the new mechanic.
Looks like it’s just displaying the first number/character of the ammo size. 12.7 showing as 1 and 37mm showing as 3.
My hypothesis is based upon your one test case that is :)
Sounds right, my F-4C says 2mm instead of 20mm and my A-10A Late shows 3mm instead of 30mm. (and all other matches i have looked at with other calibers line up with your theory)
Could the mirage 4000 get its proper number of chaff countermeasures?
A bug report was made and replied to saying they would be added when the seperation happened
Regarding bug fixes…
Will the developers please fix SMS Baden’s missing-floating mantlet bug already?
It’s been like this ever since the ship was implemented.
I can’t imagine it would be particularly hard to fix this, but it’s been broken and “acknowledged” for 6 months now and it’s just too frustrating to have that whole turret destroyed and even lead to ammo detonation by shrapnel just because it’s bugged.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/3XfVI2muujmj
And that’s not to mention M735 being ravaged with a wrong bug report and then having the correct report to fix it ignored for nearly a year now, but that’s a different matter.
Here is what i dont understand with the incendiary bombs.
The C250 has an explosive mass of 50kg
The C500 has an explosive mass of 157kg
Two C250 at BR 6 will destroy a base so 100kg of explosive mass
One C500 at BR 6 will only do 75% damage with 157kg of explosive mass.
Please let us transfer console accounts to steam. Thanks!
I think missile launch sounds and smoke trails are bugged out
In sim at least
Yeah I don’t think it’s been explained very well…
Paraphrasing, it’s: “You can use 3 little bombs to destroy a base, or, for bigger bombs, you’ll need to use at least 3 to destroy the base…” … ~confused~ huh?
VR Turret rotation bug is still not fixed!!!
And yet you have yet to fix the fact that BOL are so weak they barely work and need to be restored to IRL levels.
Any chance of more aircraft actually getting them? The Buccaneers should have them
Thank you! Having the upgraded crew info more accessible is so nice.
bigger tnt bombs are always more inefficient than smaller tnt bombs in terms of damage porcentage, it also happens with normal bombs, thats how things work in this game
Example: Ju288(I assume you tested this with this plane since you said BR 6) needing only 22 of the 50kg normal bombs(25kg tnt, 550kg in total) but needs two of the 1800kg normal bombs(1000kg tnt, 2000kg tnt in total) because a single 1800kg bomb only does around 75-80% base damage
normal bombs also do a bit of small fire damage(also rockets do this too), idk if this small amount of fire damage can stack and is the responsible of this behaviour or not.