devtrackers.gg
Or perhaps once again, we are not here to confirm/deny things all the time. Especially since its been not even a week since the last major update.
Or perhaps once again, we are not here to confirm/deny things all the time. Especially since its been not even a week since the last major update.
Italy has nothing supersonic except the 104 until much later generation aircraft. Indeed there are 104 variants to be explored, but don't expect us to jump a whole generation ahead just because Italy historically lacked aircraft and themselves hardly used much.
None of these things are coming anytime soon at all. So I have no idea why we are discussing these things again already.
That is what the developers have told me was used. Its not down to me to decide what's sufficient.
This has nothing to do with the moderators at all. Once again, this has come from the developers themselves. Not me, not the moderation team, but a decision made by the developers which I am simply passing on.
We are changing the rules because if the developers have told us that anything that does not contain a specific value for something is insufficient and is rejected by them, then its a waste of time for players to continue to be under the belif that its acceptable, spend their time researching something, then have a technical moderator spend their time forwarding something just to have it rejected by the developers for being insufficient.
At the end of the day, we dont want to waste anyone's time.
Any form of calculated outcome likely won't be accepted by the developers. As I have said many times now, they want a direct figure at least that would then enable further supporting material for something.
In this case, something from the manufacturers would likely be treated the same as it was with L/55 and DM53. So BAe/Royal Ordinance/RARDE yes. But again, two things to remember:
1) Its needs to be an exact figure listed. Not any kind of calculated answer based on other data.
2) Developers still have the final call on everything. Its not down to me or any Technical Moderator to decide what's "good enough" other than what we have been told by development. Thus far, we have simply been told a source with a direct MV value is required.
A value is given, in conjunction with the other sources that was provided were sufficient for DM53.
Once again, we are going around in circles here.
We have passed on the info we have from the developers. There is nothing more we can do unless a better source is provided for CR2.
Ultimately everything comes down to the developers discretion.
As I have said multiple times now. Any "determined" / calculated / estimated or whatever way you want to call it wont be accepted.
We need a source with a clearly defined MV. I dont know how clearer to put that.
Im sorry to hear about the failings of your car, but we are talking about tanks here and facts posted by the manufacturer are considered primary sources.
We corrected DM53s MV based on several sources but ultimately because a clear MV is given by Rheinmetall (the manufacture of the gun) themselves.
If you believe they are still not correct, please submit a bug report with your replays here. Its getting confusing now as just yesterday you said:
Internal tests showed this resolved the matter, so if this is something new again, then it needs to be reported please.
Developers ultimately have the final call on what is used to create things in game. Flight model developers are not tank weaponry developers. The two are entirely separate.
We are avoiding the point here. You can call it whatever you want. The point is, a source with a clear MV is needed to resolve this matter.
There is indeed no argument to be had here. We cannot change what the developers will accept. We are just here to pass the info on.
Regardless of whatever you want to call it, it does not change the fact the developers wont accept a calculated / estimated / concluded / guess MV. We need an exact source that quotes it, like the one above with L/55 and DM53 otherwise it will just get rejected by the developers.
See above.
There was nothing misunderstood. But the developers have closed the report based on the fact no clear muzzle velocity is stated in the report. I have shown an example above from Rheinmetall on the L/55 and DM53. Thats whats needed here.
Once again, we have not accepted a source displayed penetration as an issue for over a year now. It has to conform to the new method: https://warthunder.com/en/news/6010-development-improved-calculation-of-armour-penetration-in-the-game-en
There is nothing further we can do with this matter unless a source that provides the muzzle velocity is provided. Arguing the point that you disagree with it isn't going to do anything.
Thats exactly the point. The devs wont accept an estimation of muzzle velocity. It needs to be a source that defines it, such as Rheinmetall have done with DM53 on the L/55.
Unfortunately there has to be a standard followed and this is that. In the case of the Leopard 2A6, the muzzle velocity for DM53 is displayed publicly on Rheinmetalls website. The devs do not want to start bending the rules because it creates even more opportunities that people will then expect.
If a source cant be provided, then it wont be changed.
We dont calculate penetration that way and have not for over a year: https://warthunder.com/en/news/6010-development-improved-calculation-of-armour-penetration-in-the-game-en
This is correct. But we also have no need for an all aspect missile like R-60M even in a more balanced state right now as since the fixes, R-60 is working perfectly fine. Coupled with an excellent platform like the MiG-21Bis, balance is actually very close right now vs the F-4E family.
This has nothing to do with FMs.
We are talking specifically here about shell / penetration / performance and armour.
Again, we don't calculate penetration that way (as in a source specifically states penetration). I was talking about the Muzzle velocity matter which is what we are discussing here for CR2.
We have already discussed this with the developers and its not a matter open for debate. The developers ultimately have the final call on things.
I have provided you with an answer already. Only sources with a defined value will be accepted. So unless a source explicitly provides the value on what is trying to be changed, it wont be accepted.
It is not for me or the Tech Mods to decide what is an acceptable source. In the end, we must only adapt the system we have to suit what the developers accept as a valid source.
As I have explained, in the case of the Leopard 2A6 and DM53 for example a clear MV value was provided and this is what's acceptable. The developers wont lower that standard.
It was the case previously, but it no longer is the case now. Unless a source with a clear cut number for whatever is being reported is provided, we cannot accept it since it will just get rejected by the developers.