We need to change the requirements for modern MBT armor bug reports

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
21

Of course! I am not and would never blame any of this on you- quite the opposite, YOU, Smin, are, along other staff members, someone who always does their best to communicate and being down here on the line to deal with all of these matters. <3

My point is- when a bug report is rejected, ideally the rejection would include the reasoning by default, as it’s the case already sometimes; “Hello, we don’t believe (X) report’s information is applicable because of (Y) reason/s, thank you for your time”, etc. Without the need for us to harass CMs or Mods on their PMs, hahah.

In the new platform it is that, indeed, many times responses are shared- however, not always. Sometimes things remain as “acknowledged”, “forwarded as suggestion” or straight up “not a bug”, etc, with no clear reply on the matter for months or years.

For example: Community Bug Reporting System

May I ask then, which amount/kind of non-standard equipment would make the tank weigh 80 tons? Specially considering it’s the figure the IDF always provides- it should be equipment present on the tank every time or at least rather often.

In this case, the videos are backed up by secondary sources; the issue is just that the developers consider that the 80 ton figure provided everywhere isn’t about the tank itself, but, presumably, about the tank with a series of seemingly non-standard equipment. All of their reasoning is even more uncertain and convulted than just accepting the secondary sources that back up the videos.

And that is the issue; sometimes, not even the baseline minimum is considered… and, sometimes, we should question whether even this baseline minimum is still too high when it comes to vehicles of this nature (fully classified).

This would be one of the most recent ones!

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hn6WHPVB7r3K

It was made and acknowledged 7 months ago, but there’s been three Major updates ever since (and countless patches) and nothing has changed yet; not to mention this issue had been reported multiple times in the past over the years ever since 2018. This report is just the most recent and comprehensive one.

4 Likes
22

I think you missed the part at the bottom where it was submitted as a suggestion and not a bug fix.

1 Like
23

Yeah, that’s a big issue too.

This is not a subjective matter subject to “suggestions for a potential change”; it is a BUG, a historical error, a modelling issue, and therefore needs to be addressed as such, and corrected as quickly as possible.

Yet, the solution to many of these reported bugs are often regarded to and “passed as suggestions”, which insinuates that there is no objective issue but rather a subjective potential change at hand, and therefore a non-important matter at their discretion.

I could get that for complex composite matters; but this is just a physical, clearly visual steel thickness matter.

No… if Tiger I had 40mm of front armor, a bug report stating that it should be 102mm is “not a suggestion”; it’s an objective mistake that needs objective fixing.

God, I am bitter this morning, I apologise xD. It’s just frustrating to see so many issues unfixed for so long on a game I am so invested into, when I just want it to be the best version possible of itself.

Speaking of frustration out of unfixed issues, while we are at it: may I ask about the status of this report? Can we expect a fix anytime soon?

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/3XfVI2muujmj

I think it’s a quite basic issue yet breaking for the vehicle, it was acknowledged but still hasn’t been fixed.

1 Like
24

This is now the case for all reports on the community report site. Naturally it didn’t and won’t apply to the old forum which is no longer active.

Every report that is closed, fixed or rejected receives the developers response directly.

If they have the acknowledged tag, it means the Devs have not come to a conclusion or found sufficient evidence to yet support a change or outcome. It may well be they are conducting their own investigations, and this naturally takes time.

If something is “not a bug” that’s because it’s either A) as intended by the developers or B) doesn’t meet the requirements to be accepted. In both instances, it should be explained why that is.

I’m afraid I can’t provide up to date commentary on a report concluded over two years ago. It’s better a new one is submitted with new materials if there are some to better clarify the information.

The latest report does not meet the minimum baseline (it just has two videos), hence why it was rejected.

Once again, this minimum criteria is set by the developers as the absolute minimum requirement that can actually be practical to maintain without opening the floodgates to a flow of low quality reports aiming to change everything based on video statements.

25

Reports of this kind are treated as suggestions.

Once again this falls under reports concerning the protection of modern vehicles: [Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder

This outlines that all reports of this nature are handled as suggestions.

Regarding the time, as was the case with Challenger and others these are not simple reports and require detailed review, study and confirmation to even begin work.

It must then be practically placed and fit into our modelling schedule with whatever relevant teams.

2 Likes
26

Either way and just in case, I just want to clarify once more, as obvious as it is- none of these “quarrels” are against you! Even if you are one of the direct channels of the developers, and even if sometimes (like today) I may come off as bitter, it will never, ever be anything against you, far from it! You taking the time and patience to reply to these kinds of concerns is precisely what makes staff members like you the GOAT, and that will always be deeply respected! o7

I was feeling bad because I am taking so much of your time with this, specially given the bitterness of my tone right now, so I just felt the need to clarify, hahah, since this bitterness and insistence could result unpleasant and come off as a nuisance.

Anyway, back to the topic;

I edited my earlier comment on that, but probably too late; but I was saying that, while I understand these criteria for complex composite matters, this is not the case.

In this case, it’s about the physical thickness of a solid steel piece. It doesn0t involve subjective perceptions or interpretation of complex sources; it’s just a plate that, ingame, is too thin compared to what the photographs show. That’s why I don’t think it’s a matter that should be treated as a concern regarding the protection of a modern vehicle; this thickness issue on the Abrams may as well have been a T-34 one.

Anyway, I have stolen too much of your time already! So before I stop bothering you for now, may I ask only about the status of these reports?

This one is a quite basic and simple one, since it’s a technical one and not even a historical one; yet it’s been unfixed for months. Community Bug Reporting System

A more complex one: Community Bug Reporting System

This is a suggestion rather than a bug, but I think it’s HIGHLY relevant: M1A2 SEPv2's TUSK 2 kit should be an optional modification. Do you agree? [POLL]

( Community Bug Reporting System / Community Bug Reporting System )

And, at last, the turret ring one. I know you said it was treated as a “suggestion”, but- leaving aside how agreeable or not that is, do you have any info on its current status?

29

The first report is a 3D model issue, which usually take the longest to get fixed. The second was submitted as suggestion.

30

I know these have been “submitted as suggestion”; but I just wonder if the developers have actually taken a look, acknowledged and seen that these things need to be changed, or if they are like “nah”, which is how it feels.

2 Likes
31

This is only a suggestion that you might be able to bring up with the development teams and studiers in progress.

If they wouldn’t mind including some short notes regarding these suggestions and their reviews to at least show where the relevant teams are with their progress? It would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again

2 Likes
32

It seems that bug reports are mostly based on whether or not it can be used to make money or change the balance in another nations favor. Bug reports are getting put on the back burner for years (Bagels two-feed cannon for example, Puma’s AHEAD) and then suddenly fixed sometime half a decade later.

The MIG-23 was overperforming hard, even without a bug report one could see that the older third gen, often simply regarded as a piece of shit by it’s own pilots, was outdogfighting Mig-29s and that that might be a bit from the real life performance of the aircraft.

However, there was an aircraft for 70$ that was based on a MIG-23 and was one of the best selling premium planes. Fix delayed.

Same for stingers and mistrals. Imagine the hate from all the people that bought the A10 and SU-25 getting clapped by lifelike manpads. No more dodging with a simply aileron roll. You’d have to work for that.

1 Like
33

Actually there are lots of trustworhthy public available information sources,but developers tend to deny them.The real question is developers are not military experts,even those experts are not familiar with every military vehicles,not to mention developers.I would say why not to just let technical moderators decide whether to accept a issue report or not,rather than leave them for developers.

2 Likes
34

Give them time, it has only been between a month to a week since they were accepted as suggestions (I don’t personally understand how they qualify as suggestions, instead of fixes or how they decide which queue they end up in, though).

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yUohrEMuQLna

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LbD7XSmoaAJc

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CrgLh51VkpQZ

Since they are after all correcting performance, and extending existing mechanics.

35

@Gunjob Hey can you stop by explain why these reports were forwarded as suggestions.

36

Reports that rely source materials are generally treated as suggestions, bugs are normally saved for things that aren’t working as intended, example being say you changed missiles on a plane but they won’t fire (that’s a bug). Where as “missile should perform differently and here is why” that’s a suggestion.

2 Likes
37

So, for example; if the devs had modelled Tiger I’s front armor as being 50mm thick instead of the real 102mm thickness, a bug report would be considered to be a “suggestion”, instead of an actual modelling mistake that needs fixing?

I am asking with an example regarding a retular steel plate’s thickness because many bug reports regarding these when it comes to modern MBTs are being treated as “suggestions”, even though the reported issues are, for example, the Abrams turret ring being modelled as being 50mm thick even though it’s visually closer to 300 on every photograph, etc.

38

If you needed source materials to make the case yes that would be a suggestion. If it was previously correct and changed without a report or any reason then it would likely be a bug.

1 Like
39

That’s a shame… I don’t know if it’s just a matter of wording, but it feels like the developers don’t take “suggestions” as seriously as “bugs”.

As if “bugs” as such were technical matters that objectively required addressing, while anything labelled as a “suggestion” were subjective matters with outcomes decided by the devs’ personal standpoints instead of real evidence (because they could consider it unreliable, insufficient or whatever.)

40

Largely there is always going to be a bit of subjective element to it. But it matches the difference in Incident and Service Request we see in the IT world.

I’ve had suggestions fixed the same day I’ve submitted them and bugs that lasted months, so I don’t think there is too much in the type of report dictating the urgency.

2 Likes
41

Thank you for your replies!

I always try to remain optimistic when it comes to issue addressing, but it’s sometimes frustrating and discouraging to see some of them remain unaddressed and unsolved for months, years or even indefinitely.

42

The maneuverability was higher when they were originally implemented in 1.91

This was changed with Update 1.97 when things were erroneously corrected.

“Igla”, “Stinger” and “Mistral” missiles - corrected flight performance and seeker parameters: engine thrust has been increased, lateral acceleration has been decreased.

So in this case should it be a bug or not?; since the issue is effectively, that it was erroneously impacted by “G-Averaging” As per the MANPADS article, and probably slightly low in the first place.

And if you trust what was said in

Apparently there can be issues due to there being siloed teams for bugs and features (?Sugestions?), but I wouldn’t read into it too much. though that may cause issues for the implementation of the Photo-contrast mode for the POST seeker, since its basically the same underlying issue.

1 Like