That’s datamined thermal resolution for all tanks that do have it, so it’s as official as it gets.
The site itself is player-made, but the numbers there come from the game’s code.
Then it seems like whoever was modeling these completely ignored game’s own classification. Though i disagree with such classification. Oh wait, does the resolution show the resolution thermal sight is gonna be in game or its requirements to be certain gen in game? Thank you for the site.
It shows what the resolution is in the game, and then it breaks them down by “generation”:
-
2PL
-
BVM:
Here’s Gaijin’s tech mod confirming that by the “game’s standards”, Asteria is “2nd generation”:
2 Likes
lol. And T-80BVM is still third gen after all that time. Gotta love it.
I’d love to be able to report it, but, chances are it will go nowhere. Yedidya from Justin’s channel did so in the past (using 10+ sources), and he was told it’s not a bug.
Gaijin’s double standards at their finest :)
3 Likes
One more time…
Spoiler
The output resolution of the signal is not a sign of matrix generation…to do this, microscanning is used or / or together with cameras-MWIR/LWIR/SWIR…
1.The second generation includes single-spectral MFPs of the viewing type with a number of elements up to 106 (megapixel). The third generation of MFPU is characterized by advanced functionality that implements multispectral optical radiation reception, operation at elevated temperatures and other applications. The third generation also includes MPUs of megapixel formats with a reduced element pitch…
2. Three types of thermal imaging channels are installed on the T-80BVM…Catherine FC with the LWIR 288×4 line (2nd generation)/TPK-K(3rd generation)/1PN96MT(3rd+ generation)…
3. The most promising are Uncooled Bolometers…
Bolometers are a promising type of detectors for creating uncooled and relatively inexpensive MFPs. The cost of MFPs based on uncooled bolometers under the condition of industrial production is two orders of magnitude less than the cost of matrices based on HgCdTe, InSb. Typical NETD values for bolometric matrices range from 50-100 mK. It should be noted that the thermal time constant for all microbolometers is quite large and is ~10 ms.
The main trends in the development of MB are as follows:
• transition to full format (1,280 x 1,024) and super-large format matrices (2,048 x 1,536);
• increased functionality: two- and multispectral MB;
• increasing the level of technologies of uncooled MB matrices (on-chip casing, etc.);
• search for new principles for detecting IR radiation and new photosensitive materials (graphene, other 2D structures)…
5…1.2.The Supplier is allowed to manufacture and ship products according to the CD letters “O”, in
accordance with paragraphs 2 and 10 of Decision No. 3/6/63-2018 “On the procedure for the introduction of thermal imaging
cameras of domestic production in the sighting complexes of products T-72-BZM,
T-80BVM …” approved by Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Yu.I. Borisov
08.05.2018
Catherine FC with the LWIR 288×4 line will replace TPK-K with MWIR FEM18M-03 640×512.
MFTV (Thermal Imaging Video Signal generation module) is used in TPK-K
FEM18M-03 manufactured by NPO ORION.
TPK-K (thermal imaging channel) is produced by the Krasnogorsk plant named after S. A. Zverev …
I want to remind you that earlier in the sights of Essa, Sosna-U and Sodema for T-90A, T-72b3 tanks and
The BMP-3M used a French matrix for the Catherine thermal imaging channel
FC, which was produced under license. Now it is planned to use
domestic TPK-K with higher characteristics. The introduction of this product
will allow Russian tanks (and also quite possibly infantry fighting vehicles with
armored personnel carriers) to get rid of foreign dependence and technological
lag.
Okay, now show where it says BVM’s thermal output is that of a 3rd generation camera per Gaijin’s rules.
You talked a lot without saying anything.
Oh, now I see where 3rd gen for T80BVM and 1PN96MT appears from, can i see the source? NVM, found it myself.
TPK-K is gen 3, the information he provides probably was auto translated by Google, in original it’s stated that army started switchting Catherine FC for TPK-K by decision of Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia. That was done in 2018, two years after tank modification was introduced.
1 Like
I’m asking where’s the evidence of it being 3rd generation taking Gaijin’s standards into the account.
I am aware that it’s a 3rd generation sight in real life, just like Asteria and many others, but we have to conform to a single standard in WT, so we go off output resolution. I’ve yet to see a single proof that TPK-K has the output that Gaijin deems neccessary for a camera to be classified as “3rd generation”.
Sure thing, some vehicles are more prone to this issue since their ammo is easier to hit, but this doesn’t change the fact it’s a widespread bug affecting plethora of vehicles, regardless of the nation.
Depends at what you are shooting and with what you are shooting. For example, best thing to aim for, while using HEAT/APDS against side-on Tiger IIs is the ammo itself in the back of the turret. You have no HE filler so you’re entirely relying on that ammo to go black and explode, but sometimes that doesn’t happen and you get screwed.
This is frustrating, I don’t care what I’m shooting at, it could very well be BVM, VIDAR or a Tiger, my emotions would still be exactly the same.
Who knows the true reasoning behind that.
Maybe they are waiting to implement that with addition of more modern tanks that would be way higher than 11.7, or they just cba to model it, it’s Gaijin after all.
Bottom line is, I’m all for removing bugs, especially those that are present in every tier of the game and affects who knows how many tanks and nations.
Only three nations use this kind of propellant:
- Germany (DM53A1, DM63, DM63A1, DM73, DM11, and in the future DM83)
- US (M829A4)
- Israel (M338, possibly M322 as well)
We already have 2 rounds in the game that shouldn’t be capable of exploding when hit (DM11 & M338), and we’re very likely to get a lot more down the road. The fact they couldn’t even be arsed to accept the suggestion for it is obnoxious if you ask me.
This is frustrating, I don’t care what I’m shooting at
I’m of the same opinion, but as I am mostly a top tier ground player, BVMs for me are the most notorious rulebreakers, hence why I haven’t mentioned lower tier vehicles pulling off those kind of stunts.
True, it kinda sucks those two rounds haven’t got correct modeling. I guess implementing this for just two rounds in the game was too much work for them, since I’m sure Gaijin have their priorities. I hope this changes with the addition of more modern tanks/ammo, it’s quite an interesting feature to have in the game.
I’ve also played fair bit of top tier, but at least from my experience, T-80Us are much more common to have this bug happening for them. I’ve also had German 2A4’s turret ammo disappear without any cookoff, same with one of the Abrams’ (iirc IPM1, it was quite a bit ago).
Lower tiers are kinda saved (for the most part) from frustrations regarding this bug, since APHE is very prevalent, which luckily masks ammo shenanigans.
1 Like
Reason why Challenger 2 turret hasn’t gone sky high is it has unintentionally designed blow off panels in the form of the Commander’s 1+ ton roof structure (which have gone into orbit in both cases of Challenger 2s getting destroyed in combat).
I’d argue anyway the difference is rather semantic whether the turret gets launced 20m or 2 m.
That’s 69 degrees looking up at the tank.
T-72’s barrel is looking downward by 1 degree,
On top of that, it doesn’t account for trajectory of the round.
I am not saying M111 can or cannot penetrate T-72A, all I am saying is that the test is poor.
The main point of the post was that CR2 has a wet bin for charges, that instead of causing rapid explosions, causes charges to slowly cook off at first, and then after some time explosions happens, and even then it is weaker than what you would expect, due to some charges cooking off without exploding.
1 Like
∆ What he said.
Worth noting the crew all survived - which would not have been the case if the tank went boom instantly.
Metal can be replaced easily, trained men cannot.
3 Likes
First of all wet ammo stowage doesn’t work except to slow down the lightest of fragments
Secondly, CR2 has no wet ammo stowage. Just 25mm thick armored bin walls
Crew survived because the vehicle was abandoned then later destroyed by an ATGM which made the vehicle explod
It’s 68 degrees on the armor plate
Trajectory of the round???
Really? We are talking about a 1400m+ m/s APFSDS round not a 600m/s howitzer
Even if you change to a 1 degree fall of shot so the impact angle is 67 degrees, it’s still nowhere near close to pentrating at 2000m, it can barely achieve it at 500m