(dave server)
why is the fox and scimitars turret rotation speed nerfed?
1 Like
Do you have evidence to state the previous turret traverse was correct and the new numbers are wrong?
2 Likes
It’s a new change. This is the report that triggered it:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/RuPCHKHo71e6
Feels very much like a “I think it’s wrong so change it” kinda report.
Perhaps we should make a vibes based challenger 2 ready rack report, might have more success than actual data and facts.
14 Likes
no more ratty behavior
xm800t eating good
1 Like
(live server)
Okay?
Do you have evidence a hand crank can rotate that fast?
Ah it’s one of those reports.
It’s honestly a bit silly.
I think such changes should be based on some actual test, instead of estimations.
Not saying that 60°/s is reasonable in any way but at least there should be some logic behind the changes that affects similar vehicles as well.
The problem with manual traverse is always that it’s more difficult on a slope.
Like the Pz. 38(t)s now get 25°/s turret traverse because the traverse mechanism can be unlocked to traverse the turret by just pushing it.
So now the tank has some undocumented traverse speed that is only possible on even ground.
The German armored cars have faster turret traverse (again 60°/s) than a lot of SPAA which have the gun mount rotate on its center axis instead of a turret ring.
I mean why do some things need a primary source just to fix something that is logical while others be like „meh, I feel like it should be different“ → Approved
Even though in this case it’s pretty clear that anything above 30°/s would be just completely unreasonable.
5 Likes
?, its a game dude, even if we go that path, why can the gunner on the xm800t can get 76 degree of turret rotation?
Maybe because it uses a powered traverse for it’s turret?
Machine > Human
6 Likes
because its not hand crank
a wizard told him it was on the manual
1 Like
Usually to get a change you are supposed to prove that the current is wrong, not that the current is right.
I aint fussed either way, but it does seem a bit weird, oh well.
It just adds on to the claims that you need 200 1st hand sources and the word of god himself to get a buff on certain vehicles, while to get a nerf you just have to have “general vibes”.
6 Likes
I love how a report based on:
Description:
Currently the Fox has a turret traverse of 60 degrees a second. This seems far too high as the Fox is limited to manual traverse only. Even on high gear and assuming 3 wheel turns per second that’s 20 degrees per wheel turn. That seems very unlikely. Even assuming an expert gunner acting under adrenaline with 4 wheel turns per second that’s still 15 degrees of rotation per wheel turn.Fix Required:
Reduce the Fox’s turret traverse to a more reasonable 24-30 degrees per second, depending on balance. 24 degrees per second is 8 degrees of rotation per wheel turn, assuming 3 rotations per second. 30 degrees is 10 degrees of rotation per wheel turn, assuming 3 rotations per second.
Is accepted…
Yet countless reports filled with well-educated estimates based on numerous primary and secondary sources to fix the armor of MBTs are rejected because “they can’t make any change without specific primary source-given values”.
Holy arbitrary standards.
19 Likes
Because the XM800T is electric drive and doesn’t have that hand crank?
lmfao that’s the worst bug report ever and it worked???
1 Like
triple standard
Yeah…
Well, it makes me more hopeful my Strikemaster report from a couple months back for miniguns might go through now, it had a picture and some random fluff from a historian about having minigunpods cleared (not named) XD
4 Likes
Hopefully they acknowledge the pushback and find a middle ground. I didn’t know the Fox/Scimitar had exclusively manual turret rotation. That seems archaic for post-war vehicles. However if that really is the case and the original rotation was too high this seems like an overcorrection and now its too slow. Put it somewhere in the middle.
1 Like
IIRC the main thing was that they were recon vehicles, using the gun as a defensive option in light combat against other light vehicles (you had iirc strikers and milan teams for fighting tanks as an organic part of the recon force, also the missile armed ferrets i think).
As part of that for cost saving and also the whole “fighting in an apocalyptic potentially nuclear war”, they went with having the system as simple and electronics free as they could so the crews could operate on a much tighter logistics requirement. Dont need to replace expensive turret electronic systems if they dont need those systems.
Given how well they sold abroad also, generally seems a lot of nations were happy with them as “good enough”.
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
3 Likes