In general, as BVV explained in the Q and A today, its mostly down to finding the most reliable armour scheme as well as some more fine details that are clearly defined by sources. But as he also said, its likely to come at some stage.
We have never stated vehicles are released as soon as the model is finished outside of when they are planned to come. This has never been a policy.
Textures are often one of the last things to be completed on visual models (as you rightly pointed out with the Type 16) however its never been the case that a finished model = instant deployment. Assets have sat in the CDK for many years and sometimes never used at all.
That you saw nothing ))
No but on a serious note, please refer to the answer the devs provided a short time ago:
Type 10 is basically the end of the line for Japan. On top of this, much is still very much unknown about it. We are also not in a position currently where the Type 90s themselves are no longer competitive.
Whilst we fully understand people are excited for this machine as it is indeed a very cool MBT, its still too soon to be talking about it right now.
If you can shoot me the links, I can see where they are (if they have progressed).
As we said previously, we have a few more domestic vehicles under work for Japan on various ranks. They key issue being for many is pictorial references but also more detailed specifications on armour, internals and other key factors.
We have been following closely along this topic. Beyond that its too early to say anything else at this stage.
This report refers to the current armour basically asking it to be reverted. According to the developers the previous armour scheme was based off of unverified source material that was used in error. Right now they are based on the most accurate figures that can be detained from verified source material. The scheme was then re-corrected to the values that could be properly verified. Thus it was reverted back to the values that could be verified.
No actual source material was presented in this report. It was just asking for a reversion. New verified source material would be needed
There was no change. The values were returned to their previous state (which we already shared some of our material for) and on the most verifiable sources. Afterwards, someone created a bug report with sources that later turned out to be unverifiable to in the rework to volumetric, the developers reverted the values to figures that could at least be properly verified.
The recent interview that was released to which you are referring seemed to provide the same previous response that was a lack of information from an earlier stage of development. This is a little outdated. We have been following this topic and others and generally are not in any major direct need of anything specific. However any additional or extra sources of information will also not go to waste. The more info we have of course, the better.
Lack of information was not the only factor or reason as to why its not in game. We also explained this in the Q and A at the time.
You can place it in the update feedback here:
And / or also make a suggestion topic
Devs are currently mostly on New Year / Russian holidays which take place in January now.
As far as I can currently see at least, there are no open bug reports on the Type 10s mobility. (Unless im missing one, in which case, please link me and I can trace it through that)
Yes, this was reported 4 weeks ago.
At this time, one is not planned. Both the previous versions of this took a considerable amount of effort to create and developer time, for very little benefit or positive feedback as a result.
devtrackers.gg