I posted this post at least six months ago regarding the position issue of the autoloader:
Simply put, among vehicles using the T-72 style autoloader, except for the T-72s themselves, the autoloader positions of all other vehicles are wrong, including all Chinese tanks and the T-90 series. and gaijin just ignore it.
I’ve read all these posts, thank you for summarizing. The review decisions in the issue section are always rather amusing - submissions often get rejected for insufficient information, but when relevant materials are provided, they get rejected for containing confidential information. That’s why I think generating more discussion and amplifying the visibility could help draw attention to these issues and eventually get them fixed. I want to try a different approach by submitting suggestions based on the mismatch between in-game models and damage modules. We can use the fact that unpacking models reveals inconsistencies between damage modules and visual models, or even use the autoloader model inside destroyed turret-less tank hulls as evidence for the issue.
这些帖子我都看了，谢谢帮忙总结，issue区域的审核判断总是令人啼笑皆非，提交issue总是以信息不足而否决，提交相关资料又以信息机密而否决，所以我也觉得引发更多讨论，将声量扩大些能有助于让这些问题引起注意，从而得到修复，我想试一下别的方法，看看能不能根据游戏内模型与毁伤模块对不上来提交相关建议，解包模型能看到毁伤模块和模型不匹配，也可以拿击毁后无炮塔车体里的装弹机模型来作为issue资料
thanks
Regarding the issue of mismatch between in-game models and damage modules. I have also mentioned a report about the T-64B:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/SLGv5eMfS6z7
This issue was first raised on an old forum, and I remember the response I received at that time was:“can’t confirm which one is correct, so nothing can be changed”
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/snsOZQLLyl9a
I have raised this issue again, but it still lack attention.
Making gaijin realize and fix their bugs is really a difficult task, at least much harder than asking them to launch a $70 package :D
I agree. Looks like I should focus on gathering more visibility for this issue first. Only when more people are aware of it is there a greater chance of it being addressed.
我赞同，属实难崩，看来我还是先去拉更大的声量吧，让更多人注意到才有更多可能
支持，vt4这些又不是没有没有可参考资料
支持，需要一个完整的内衬而不是现在这种
盖紧觉得你牢中的地界比较暖和，所以装甲啦内衬啦全都是比基尼
内衬已经砍废很久了，给中系普及内衬并不能有效提升中系车对mbt的生存性。开发组可以放心给中系普及，中英两难兄难弟还是稳坐下水道
抬高装弹机对生存性还是有不小提升的，搭配内衬效果会更好
支持，他们要证据我们就拿出来了证据，现在gaijin需要做出回答为什么给个这么可笑的内衬
不仅仅是vt4系列的内衬有严重错误，99a系列的那个内衬也是时至今日依然通过了却不发，vt4发了也是个招笑车体内衬，该挡的地方一点也没挡住，你要说什么老99和96系列不发我还能理解，强度在同分房里已经很高再发个内衬还不提权重的话确实过于bias，但是99a系列和vt4系列要么不发要么抠抠索索的发我是真不理解，这俩已经是中国顶级主战了，而且胜率并不突出，我实在看不出来为啥不给这四辆车好好做内衬，以及为什么把测试服里明明做对了的vt4装弹机重新砍了
支持
支持一波，vt4应该算是资料最齐全的老中坦克了，不知道为啥还能做错这么多地方，还一直不改
支持
没有正确的内衬，就没有金币哦。盖紧盖不紧就没办法。
说到这个就气，牢中的驾驶员舱盖又大又薄也就算了，被打一下就直接糕巢喷一堆破片出来😅不如伟大的🪿🔩坦克舱盖，等效又高还没有碰撞体积
