Jump to content


Verified Tanker [SEA]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Unavailebow

  1. If they take APDS sliding effect into account, T-54s are going to be monsters
  2. If FTR is correct the hull has 40 ? At 78 deg only has ±192mm effective thickness without normalisation. And I think HEAT auto bounce at 85 deg ? That's not good. Similar fashion to Chieftain's UFP in the game, rely on auto bounce angle which is nice to KE but still be buttered by HEAT
  3. I didn't remember they've said anything about 103 as TD... What I realise is 3x overmatch problems.
  4. I think one of the comments made by Daigensui back in 2013 still making perfect sense... Hard accuracy and soft balancing, at some point there are numbers from the archive and then it is terrain resistances, bloom, etc. Therefore even the stats are historical, they can give it hovering technology, bloomless laser and so on. The thing that made me question is the blackhole spaced side armour, I am not sure whether they were intended to add a plate there I thought it was only some storage boxes. USSR tanks are user-friendly as usual, the real pain is their technological development at the time wasn't actually that bad. Before APFSDS was introduced sloped armour are way more effective than what we see in-game. Then it is the research, Fuck Russia. It's almost like it's the only nation that has done any tank research ever. Because hey the game is Russian and Yuri Pasholok, he does able to get into archives quite a lot. I don't think things are going to be that easy in other countries and, Cutland never finishes his holidays
  5. Not maybe with T-22 style armour profile, but nearly the same. Exposed chassis, triangular shaped hull. The thing also traverse 21.42 deg on medium terrain... puke
  6. That is definitely not working. We are not going to start with internet latency anyway. Aiming with keyboard keys is nasty, if the tank only neutral steer at 12 deg/s that... might be still possible to the majority of human. Just try holding your mouse2 aiming at something with your hull. And shall we move on to keyboard latency and ...
  7. If it does use T95E6 hull, model showing the E6 hull side is probably better than the Chieftain... Some parts are not 3x by 120mm. UFP though, should have very slightly better protection against SPG because 95 and 102 is more than 85... small part of 76 but way worse protection to AP The final drive housing has the most armour...
  8. They've said IF they implement Strv 103, they will need to implement new aiming system for fixed tank as well. Currently Strv 103 is the only tank requires such system...
  9. I hit the service button on the German Bulldog and the UI went broken too.
  10. Shamelessly copying links from RSR's comment section https://plus.google.com/102210794881359026388/posts/5rAeiArobDg?pid=6255391384250913170&oid=102210794881359026388 Gun handling buff, terrain resistance buffed acceleration but nerf traverse speed on medium terrain. was around 34.2 deg/s, now 32.1 deg/s Still. Test server stats
  11. There are few tanks that have similar percentage loss on terrain on medium terrain. 1.5 / 2.1 on HTC which is 28.6% loss. 0.5 / 0.7 on Mutz which is also 28.6% loss. Cheating at statistics :3
  12. I am not exactly sure about the Chieftain even it has yes insane stats and oh boy is a Chieftain. The UFP, there is a range where AP / APCR will not pen, but 330 HEAT will. HEAT starts to be auto-bounced at 85 deg. LoS 85mm at 72deg is only 275, at 75deg will have 328. Side armour. 51mm above tracks. 38mm behind tracks. 114mm cheek armour between tracks and turret ring. This is the part I am not sure how it works. A low profile hull decrease pre-angle efficient on level ground. To keep the hull safe it requires hulldown / gun depressed I will pray at ridge lines that my 85mm UFP won't be touched by SPG.
  13. Does Tank Inspector got these ? Look at the depression angle, if the graphs is correct, ~5 to the front. Visual model got no breech, collision model does. First tank in the game with adjustable armour thickness
  14. Is the 4202 currently in the VCC (Vehicle Conservation Centre)? The model however, it looks like WG taken the old Tier X FV4202 model and redesign it to the current HD model. Does it related to *somebody* from WG EU screwed up the relationship with Bovvy I have no idea.
  15. Oh yes that one is a mistake. However 0.1 difference is huge when the Hterrain is a small number which should be correct. 0.479 / 0.575 = 0.83, 1.000 / 1.100 = 0.91, 0.400 / 0.500 = 0.8 The lower base number (Hterrain) it has, the more sensitive to the difference, is it ?
  16. Interesting, a formula with weight taken into account in that way. Pretty much the same concept, appreciate the effort however the spreadsheet hardly make a fair comparison with setups varies...
  17. Still appreciate anybody taken part into digging those nasty hidden puzzles
  18. For example something like 0.575 / 0.671. Yes I am talking that ridiculous T-22sr. 0.1 is quite a lot because those values are treated as a relative number. 54 on hard, 46.3 on medium. T-62A : 0.479 / 0.575 Less than 0.1 but in terms of 0.479, 0.1 is already made up ~20% 56 on hard, 46.6 on medium Most of them has 0.1 to 0.2 or even more, it is very difficult to say 0.1 makes small a difference, 1.000 / 1.100, in such case 0.1 is very tiny, but not when 0.100 / 0.200. Is about the ratio and the base number (traverse) that started with. And of course when P/Ws taken into account, these numbers become more interesting to muck around with. Just too much variables
  19. I remember the first physics test they mentioned something about a much more complicated terrain resistance system. I do not think it is coming in the motion physics test though ... again guessing
  20. Indeed. Consider most vehicles have Medium Terrain resistance very close to Hard Terrain resistance. But it does affect traverse. IS-3 as an example. And let's not forget apart from city maps, most map has medium terrain surfaces. Medium terrain like an open-field or anything not seen as a path on the map. Soft like swamps and fords. Paths are usually quite dangerous to stick with... Medium terrain resistance is still quite important, unless, Himmelsdolf. ----- Pure guessing below I don't think slopes are working with terrain resistances because it turns at the same rate unless the armour model hit the ground, or the slope is uneven , U-shape like so. Resistance value are based on terrain types currently. Soft, Medium, Hard are fixed. Actual speed however I have no clue but it sounds like very similar to the actual traverse which based on a lot of relative numbers.
  21. I have seen something about Pivot, cannot remember from where, is about ~10% difference between able to pivot or not. Again cannot clarify. The fact that engine power influence traverse, yes is 4+ year-old thing. I am talking about terrain resistances with P/W ratio, not P/W ratio itself. Maybe I have made it bit confusing to understand ?
  22. Thanks mate, If the formula is correct, the larger the difference between terrain resistances creates a larger range of actual traverses. IS-3 for example has a ~10deg/s difference. Also telling me why T34 never love swamp... I am on mobile and have found difficulties to edit with quotes so apologise for consecutive posts. Balderik, the QSF post author should be credited for such formula, that he posted that more than 2 years ago on QSF forum. I have first seen that link from a QB regular live stream and ever since then I keep that post in mind but seems nobody has realised it... Balderik himself found his post was removed for some reason and requested it to be back on and it did. Link at the top.
  23. Just curiosity. I have seen some posts on this matter Terrain resistance value have not take into account. But for the equation found on QSF years ago. http://quickybaby.com/forums/18/1718 TSeff = TS * (P/m) / (Pstock/Mstock) * Rhard / Rterrain Actual traverse = Current Track Traverse * (Current Power/weight) / (Stock Power/weight) * (Hard Terrain Resistance) / (Expected Terrain Resistance) I have further searched on google and have found not much mentioned the above equation. Most of them simply ignore Terrain resistance Does anybody have a test on the above equation to prove it correct or not ? ----- Random calculations ----
  24. It is painful with such a large engine deck on the Conqueror with 51mm side armour. It makes a hard time to hulldown as well as getting the engine covered. It is slow but still able to accelerate and decelerate quickly enough. The problem is the traverse speed... But sometimes the turret and the UFP works for not taking full HE dmg from arty shells. The Chieftain though...
  • Create New...