Nevermind. Posted an agreement but now realize the message is staying, the doubled name was the bug
It fit with how everything else showed up in the kill feed.
how do you mean?
nothing else in the kill feed shows up twice.
I dont recall bases ever showing up in the kill feed before this bug.
While the report was for it showing the player’s name twice, the server update says that the kill feed for it was fully removed.
Unless they are just wording it weirdly.
I assume they are wording it weirdly, i remember the bases showing up in kill feed before but now that you questioned it i became unsure x)
Mate. They presented the bugfix in this devblog differently than in the actual bug report. In the bug report it says base destruction shows double nick names.
Necronomica knows because he read the bugreport itself before commenting and now he is trying to make us both look stupid.
Yeah. I should have read the actual bug report before commenting. To my defense, the person writing this dev blog should have read it as well before posting it.
1 Like
@Stona_WT
Can we get an update on these enormous modelling mistakes that haven’t been addressed in months?
Relative to the Abrams tanks, a prominent nation’s Top Tier MBT family:
1- Wrong fuel tank bulkhead thickness and geometry:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xK4GPBS59dUL
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Y2HnjTv8kNAG
2- Wrong turret ring geometry and thickness:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hn6WHPVB7r3K
3- TUSK not being removable from SEPv2:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/m0ITNd22gRXO
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/D1Wg94Hrg2Vg
4- Missing spall liners:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BcMSgWYhwd5k
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lJ6fi9cta3Qh
SMS Baden:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/3XfVI2muujmj
Baden’s mantlet bug has been here ever since the ship was introduced to the game, I can’t understand how it hasn’t been fixed yet despite having been “acknowledged” twice.
Then there’s the M735 matter. It was artificially nerfed on what the devs immediately acknowledged as a wrong bug report with mistaken information. Yet they still needed it and did not apply the fox that has been warranted for several months.
A technical moderator made a correct bug report shortly after M735 was needed due to the wrong one… yet no fix in sight.
Also the numerous missing spall liners on tanks like the Challenger 2/3s (lower front plate), the Leclercs or pretty much every Rank VIII Chinese MBT. Or the present day Merkava Mk.4 having worse armor than IPM1/Leopard 2A4/T-72A, etc.
This is the kind of bugs many of us check every changelog in hopes of finding fixed. They have an enormous impact on the game and it’s incredibly disappointing to see them not addressed or corrected for months, and months, and months.
6 Likes
Just did a match. No bases kills in kill feed now.
oh, that would suck if that is intended.
1 Like
Just to be clear, i wasn’t trying to make anyone look stupid, i just assumed you had read it and knew.
there might have been a use case for it that i didn’t know about.
which also why i included the information of double name in my original post.
Can the J-11A actually be fixed instead of it being a C&P of the SU-27/SM?
- Wrong pylon texture copied from the SU-27SM - Community Bug Reporting System
- Wrong windshield colour copied from the SU-27SM - Community Bug Reporting System
- Wrong language used in the cockpit - Community Bug Reporting System
The J-11As cockpit was also meant to be a placeholder in the developer server and we are yet to get a unique cockpit for the vehicle, all that money must’ve went to the “significant” vehicles of the patch.
2 Likes
@Stona_WT @Gunjob when is the mirage 2000 flare count going to be fixed the bot kept duplicating bug reports made for the mirage 2000 about the total amount of flare and chaff since it only has 112 flares and chaff when its supposed to have 112 chaffs and 94 flares which amounts to 206 countermeasures
the bug report has been acknowledged but not fixed and its been sitting there open for 8 months
Would be nice to get a feedback on that
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/E3j3wqTLlMid
La non-furtivité des balles furtives n’est toujours pas résolue ?!
tracers on stealth bullets is still not solved !
No update yet, apologies.
This was actually a nice feature ngl. I assumed it just needed a little polish
1 Like
The ATGM’s on the STRF 9040 Bill are still broken. Is that going to be fixed anytime soon?
Even with the slightest of incline they either fly straight into the ground or head to the sky and never come back down.
Probably not
Overall, I love these fixes, but I was really surprised to see the base destruction activity displayed in the log was apparently an error. Honestly, base destruction not showing up in the log has been a minor gripe of mine for a very long time, and I was happy to see it was finally added. After all, it’s only logical it should be displayed as it is an action towards winning battles (like destroying AI vehicles).
If anything, it needed to be expanded upon to show all damage dealt to bases by each player, with which types of ordnance, and not just for the player who dealt the final blow.
Please bring this feature back, Gaijin.
A month since the major and its DEV, the SAPI shell remains with its comically low “fuse” sensitivity at 0,5mm, despite the report being submitted.
And that’s not to count the reports made ever since 2.19 came out where the SAPI got a step closer to it’s proper implementation as a kinetic round. (This is a recreation of my initial reports from the old forum. Its topic of incorrect sensitivity was also added to the point of false filler mass which was fixed in 2.37)
How much longer will it take to change a single parameter from 0,5 to 1,5 in order to just simulate SAPI breaking up upon contact with hard enough modules/armour? Another 2 years?
Because right now the shell is useless in one of its primary goals – that is reaching and damaging (kinetically) wing spars, fuel tanks, engines and so on.
In the game the shell is a petard any further than 30cm away from the point of impact, since it detonates off of aircraft skin.
A TL;DR for the sources + logic
It’s an approx. 130g round flying with the muzzle velocity of 840-880 m/s and an AP nose piece instead of the fuse which is designed to only ignite the composition upon the shell hitting a solid piece of armour or a module sturdy enough (thus causing enough energy and breaking the shell walls, releasing the composition).
Where in the world did you see such a shell break after penetrating 0,5-0,8mm of duralumin at a 90° angle?
1 Like
It’s just hypocritical at this point to roll out minor patches for each and every top-tier jet’s nitpick while ignoring a problem that affects 25-50% of belts for the majority of rank 2-5 British aircraft and their versions in other nations’ trees (minus the bombers with their rifle-caliber turrets besides a couple at rank 4)
1 Like