Smin1080p

Our volunteer moderators are not incompetent, and in fact dedicate a huge amount of time and effort into answering and responding both to posts and questions regarding reports. The issue is the sources you in fact provide sometimes are not "primary sources" and are sometimes not even valid sources at all. Most are Wikipedia or 3rd party website based.

This has also been explained to you several times over private messages.

I would strongly recommend you also re-read the forum rules:

Spesifically:

Such matters should be raised via PM if you have issues. It has nothing at all to do with this topic and will not be discussed here.

Multiple nations have this feature. Not just Russia.

If you wish to provide further proof and evidence (so far you have not submitted evidence, just "Russian bias"), then please do so here: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder

The report was sent, reviewed and then an answer given. If enough evidence does not yet exist, then its open to further information and sources that could still lead to a change if they are located.

But i'm afraid I and anyone else cant do anything with the "Russian Bias" claims and constant off topic here. Its been answered and discussed enough now.

I have already answered this. All of the sources have been analysed. This does not state the modern optical tracking and is not the same system found on the vehicles that have the feature in game.

This has been answered and concluded already some time ago. If you wish to submit new information in a new report, please do. But a discussion here isn't going to change anything.

Most of those 100 pages is people going entirely on off topic tangents and discussions that should have been elsewhere on the forum in more appropriate threads. Its not our duty to provide content to keep this thread alive and afloat. We have a whole forum outside of this topic that can be used and utilized for 90% of the things that fill these 100 pages. If there is nothing to discus or content to talk about in the meantime, simply use other topics.

Blogs will come when they are ready to do so and when our schedule comes to life. We are not responsible for any self created hype or disappointment people have generated themselves without anything from us to cause that.

The only thing not really working is people not using the correct threads

I will reiterate what I said above:

I have an idea yes. But you will have to stay tuned and find out

We haven't even started with blogs yet. So not the warmest right now )

Its not the same or as advanced as found on the later vehicles. The SAAB UTAS has independent stabilization of the sight and automatic calculation of lead depending on the range to the target and speed of tracking target. Most modern MBTs have this rudimental sight stabilization same system, but we don't have that in game yet. Its not as accurate or as effective as optical tracking sensors.

The system on the PUMA, 2S38 and others is more advanced and uses more modern systems, providing direct optical tracking computing. The two systems are not the same and there have been no sources provided so far that states the SAAB UTAS sight has an optical tracking feature.

We are still searching for more information, but thus far everything is pointing towards the fact the CV 90s did not have the feature.

You are watching The Shooting Range – a weekly show for all tankers, airmen and Captains in War Thunder.

In this episode:

Pages of History: Long Odds over the Atlantic


Triathlon: Rank 6 Light Tanks


... And Metal Beasts: The Prime HE Flinger in War Thunder

They are different systems. The optical tracking on the vehicles that have it have a more advanced system that provides more accurate tracking. The other system is merely a pre-set stabilized lead that can actually be found on most MBT systems. But we don't have such a system in game yet, but it is far more basic than optical tracking.

Feel free to submit a report with the relevant information if you think they are missing.

Not with the exact same system (optical tracking) at least with the devs current info.

The system on the CV 90s describes the independent stabilization of the sight and automatic calculation of lead depending on the range to the target and speed of tracking target. The 2S38, PUMA, M3A3 Bradley, BMP-2M, and BMD-4 all have a system that uses optical tracking.

1) Because its not something that has any reason to be discussed here.

2) Because after investigation, the Saab UTAAS sight system does not have the same lock and track capabilities as the systems on PUMA, 2S38 and the other vehicles that received the functionality. The Lvkv 9040C received the functionality for balance purposes, but is now being re-considered as these tanks did not have this capability as the Saab UTAAS sight does not. So the only thing to potentially be fixed, is the removal from the 9040C. There's no plans for any of the other CV90 family members to receive it right now, given that pending removal decision.

Hello

This month will mark our first operational year using the community bug reporting site since we moved from the forum. The new site makes it more accessible for everyone to make a report, with less restrictions and limitations than the forum had. The flipside of this is, where we used to have around 2-300 reports pending at any one time, we now have 5000+ in the English section. Many of which are spam and take a considerable amount of time to remove and filter through.

We aim to forward all valid reports as soon as possible and prioritise those that gameplay bugs and issues. We are working through several improvements to the site and its functionality aimed at sorting issues and being able to process issues more efficiently. As well as recruiting more Moderators.

Unfortunately due to the volume of traffic on the site, we do not currently expect to get response times back down...

Nope, I came to answer those that were somewhat expecting blogs
today
(yesterday now)

as if it was a certainty or somehow wrong for them not to start this week just past. As I said, there is another major at the end of the year in the same general position as it always is.

The point was some people follow the dates and trends a little too hard, and when the deviation one year moves a week or two to the left or right of blogs, they ask "why are the blogs late" or "why is the update delayed". Its happened multiple times this year alone, when in fact there were no delays or "late" patches.

Nobody said people shouldn't refer to those sheets for a general idea maybe, but some simply looked to "trends" a little too much

Or you can for the meantime just to play and enjoy the game, in the knowledge that there will naturally be one final major this year, the dev blogs for which will come when they are ready to.

Some very cool things await, but expecting blogs / rumours all the time is a bit overkill. Most people who have been around over the years know that.

Whether it does or doesn't wasn't really the point. More that regardless of the actual facts and our planning, sometimes people get a little bit too stuck in patterns, trends and what the schedule was 2,3, 5 or 8 years ago. Because something happened for a couple of years or had a general trend, doesn't mean those dates or timeframes are always set and cannot move.

Its certainly been implied by some (hence my original response) that blogs were "expected" today. When in actuality, they were not going to be. gszabi does a great job at keeping great references on historical dates for WT, but its what people do with them sometimes that leads to the issues.

I've seen too many RR threads at this stage, without fail it always happens. Just as Stavroforos mentioned.

Of course. Ye olde spreadsheet said it was so )))

We never said or hinted that blogs would start this week or were even that close this week. So I'm not sure why expectations were so high for them starting today.