1: No, not really, while primary sources are preferred, sufficient numbers of agreeing secondary sources do work as well. For example, if you had 1 or 2 publicly available books or documents that talked about that aspect of the vehicle and gave agreeing values to go with the magazine/journal article, that would work.
2: The problem with trying to estimate such from a video is that there’s no reference measurement clearly visible on the ground, which then means you’re dealing with camera angle and parallax, as well as any changes caused by lens distortion.
It’s potentially sufficient to work out the math required to determine the radius of the turn.
I can confidently say that it appears the front 4 wheels can angle at most about 40°. But I don’t have the Wheelbase length to get an appropriate guesstimate. Language barrier will likely keep it that way.
Are you kidding?Isn’t the length of the vehicle itself a reference?Does the length of the vehicle change during turning?I also have a full picture of the circle in the review I provided.
I feel like the whole thing has strayed from the facts themselves.Evidence from both sources proves that the huge turning diameter of the current model is wrong.And Gaijin’s employees refused to admit it with a very ridiculous logic.
And when I’m here to show you how he did , you’re just using wordplay and formality to justify his arbitrary behavior.And the mistake of the turning diameter has been overlooked.
The third document，Source:Vehicle & Power Technology，ISSN 1009-4687，Previous name：Acta Ordnance - Tanks, Armored Vehicles and Engines. An authoritative and core journal.2004.1
At present, the 8x8 wheeled armored vehicle developed in China uses the front two-axle steering mode.The minimum turning radius is 10 meters.
This is consistent with the 20 meters diameter of the turn mentioned in other sources.
Would this image be better for estimating it? The camera is at an elevated level allowing a better view of the turning circle. We already know the width of the vehicle so it should be possible to get a ‘sufficient’ estimate from it.
We understand this, but we have entered into vehicles that the data is hard to get and Gaijin themselves are taking guesses on the performance of it. Which isn’t an issue, I imagine it must be very frustrating for them to get any data on these. BUT the issue is when we provide evidence that their guesses are incorrect, we get blocked because it doesn’t meet the standards for historic bug reports. See how this is an issue? This issue is going to continue getting worse as more modern equipment is added and I think it’s time to discuss changes for historic bug reports standard of proof, that would be more productive then denying something for not meeting the guidelines but also showing strong evidence a vehicle is not performing correctly in game.
We are all civilized people. Won’t insult people for no reason. By providing evidence that something is wrong, the player is helping Gaijin improve the game. It is not our responsibility to find out what caused the error and whether the model is wrong. It is arrogant and stupid to deny objective evidence on this ground, and the logic is also untenable.It is not an insult to point this out.
Now, there is a video that is the most visual proof of a major error in the turning diameter. Two secondary sources prove it.What else is needed?
Please don’t learn what TrickZZter says the model doesn’t allow.I think all logical people agree that I don’t need to prove it.
If they focus on the issue itself, rather than the defense, my evidence should be sufficient. Otherwise, they will ask you to prove that the rut belongs to ZLT11.
