A lot sooner than that actually.
As we said, it was done based on Dev server feedback.
Remove it after all the requests to add it in the first place and leave Challenger 2F with L26 only?
Seems very logical.
This was done based on feedback, yours included I might add. If you think it's wrong and have evidence to back it up, submit it via a report properly rather than just firing off a rant at me.
Maybe that's because we don't sit in here checking each and every single post in this 268 page topic due to to previous history of this topic garnering hostility and rants even when things do move forward in any way based on exactly what was asked for, as proven yet again today.
Every time anything is done, it's just met with more negativity and then you wonder why we don't respond in here in an official capacity often.
As I said above, if you have evidence, please report it. This topic is not a big report.
Indeed there are some outstanding matters, but that's no reason to then not report something else if your going to claim it's incorrect. There is no other way it's going to get fixed otherwise.
We have 1700+ vehicles in game which is often what people forget. There are outstanding reports on lots of them, not just CR2
I'm well aware that information surrounding this shell is hard to obtain. But that's exactly why it has the value it has, because the information that can be obtained thus far has shown these values. If someone wants to claim that's incorrect, we welcome a report with what they are using to claim it's incorrect and we will forward it on.
Almost all tank shells go by the lowest case when it involves "estimates" it's nothing to do with just the British.
Except here we are with the shell you asked for that was forwarded from your feedback.
Your welcome to challenge values and the way the shell is represented but please at least keep this a mature discussion. So far it's just proving more and more that even when feedback is listened too, even when something is done it's still just totally worthless. All that does it show just how meaningless these types of additions really are when the feedback is just rants.
We had a response on the developers regarding this source.
The developers require a source in which the initial speed is indicated for as was the case with the Leopard 2A6 and DM53 as this was displayed on the Rheinmetall Website. Thus its possible to get accurate information.
Any conclusions from the above source are only subjective. A source with the specified initial velocity is required. Indirectly cited sources are not considered sufficient by the developers.
This is because if they consider this instance and act only on a rough calculation, It will create a precedent for subsequent similar cases.
Path Length is not equal to a direct penetration figure. We also dont calculate shells in this way: https://warthunder.com/en/news/6010-development-improved-calculation-of-armour-penetration-in-the-game-en
The bottom line here is the developers wont accept an estimation of the MV. We have had this in so many cases before the subject being reported was only done with estimates included and thus they were rejected based on that.
We will be changing the guidelines for historical reports to now reflect that only sources with a clear cut value of whatever is trying to be reported will be accepted. Since anything less will simply be rejected by the developers. So forwarding on guestimates and estimations is really irrelevant.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't have a personal position on this, because its not my job to. My job is to relay information from the developers to you about why something has or has not been done. At the same time, indeed I do also relay back feedback and responses to things, but as I have explained multiple times now, it is not for me or any of the technical moderators to decide what is right or wrong. The developers ultimately have the final say on everything and it is down to them to decide what is acceptable. What happens past, present and future is and will always be entirely down to them.
This is exactly why we are changing the rules on the forum side of things so people do not waste their time submitting something only for it to be later rejected by a developer as it does not contain what is required.
Unfortunately its not just as easy as sending a person with a sound recorder and just telling them to go record a CR2.
For one, they are not exactly the most easily accessible tanks. Indeed they are often present at tankfest and some other public events, but thats not exactly idea conditions for sound recording, nor is there any guarantee the crew are able to even perform all of the necessary actions and movements that are required to capture all the sounds for the game. Sound recording takes a whole team of people, often a full day or more, requirements for full access to the vehicle (often sound is recorded inside and out) and full co-operation with the crew and owners of the machine. Not only this, but Challenger is one tank out of hundreds that could have unique sounds too.
You can see examples of what it actually takes here:
Nothing was ignored. The report submitted was using a 2018 dev blog as the sole reference for what it was trying to report which is invalid under the 2019 changes.
If you want to report it under the new system, it needs to be done correctly and not just a fire and forget link to a 2 year old dev blog, which by the way, came from the devs themselves. So they are more than aware of the sources within it.
There are reports older than 3 months. This is not the only bug in the game.
There are lots of matters you could attach the "Lots of people in the community are getting increasingly impatient about this."? that it would be endless for every issue. We have raised it and thats all we can do.