Jump to content

Raven434th

Members
  • Content Count

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Raven434th

  1. Fine then lets get started shall we? (we can talk about yer paranoid delusions later) Lets talk about your net code and flying tanks and lying AAR's,maybe we can best having to take 7 pages of common sense to convince you to change things?(probably not) but lets try.You wanna make cryptic posts like that then expect to get it right back.
  2. This undermines everything we've been discussing in the other threads because they are based on the AAR reports....
  3. This second set of screenshots that you posted would WOULD NOT HAVE PROMPTED ME TO QUESTION THE DAMAGE MODEL. BUT I DO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF YOUR AAR'S (esim,not you assassin)
  4. I'm going by the screenshot...it looks like it hit him squarely in the forehead (after hitting the scope thingy)...if the screenshot is lying so be it. What got hit here??
  5. agreed...but when we see a turret pop in sb its purpose is to emulate a ammo storage hit which is a known flaw of the T-72 chassis...and other T tanks I believe.
  6. I never said an armata turret would pop...I said it for the reason the T-72 pops when getting hit in the ammo storage.
  7. well turrets pop are in sb because turrets pop off in real life due to ammo cook off...thats why you put it there
  8. But the A4 round is specifically designed to defeat ERA...that's the whole point of it.
  9. I really don't think the Russians anticipated the Americians comming up with a solution to counter the Armata so soon. IMO this allows Abrams to use the same tactics as they would against T-80\90, meaning they can engage it frontally if they choose to...at the same ranges. But that's my speculation...not fact.
  10. If a sabot did get into that area,I would expect the ammo to cook off like a t-72
  11. One guy tells us there's nothing wrong(volcano),one guy says the aar's are wrong and are inaccurate due to net code(roguesnake),and another guy (ssnake) say they're looking into the damage model issue to improve it and will give us the new A4 round to compensate. WTF?
  12. This was posted by RougeSnake In another thread: "By now you guys should know that you need to post as detailed information as you can, as well as an aar if you think you found a bug. It is pretty well known (I thought), that in multiplayer sessions the hit rays in aar's are often not super accurate, because the information is being sent back and forth over a network . And yet you give no indication if this image is from a single, or multiplayer scenario...from the host, or a client. This stuff is pretty important.. And I get it, not everyone has time as a software tester, but Assassin "OH COME ON!!!" you should understand how this works by now. Besides inaccurate network related aar events, there is also the issue of what is, and isn't stored in the aar. Not every exact position, of everything is stored. In this case I'm not sure if the position of the gun crew, in relation the the weapon is stored "exactly". These guys move around, as you rotated these weapons. And of course, there is a reason why not everything is stored(we would if we could), to keep AAR's from being a thousand terabytes." What are we even supposed to do with this in context to our reports???
  13. OH COME ON!!! If you have a sabot loaded...of course your gonna shoot!!! That's a direct shot to the head!!! And YOUR damage model disregards it.That guy is dead dead dead.
  14. When good hits are non-consequential,and the opposite occurs when using ammo that is lower in penetration abilities says there is a PROBLEM and we presented it to you in a number of ways. Also giving us the proper ammo that the tanks your modeling use against a particular threat, is just common sense.What more can we tell ya. And whats so unimpressive about the a4 round???
  15. well its telling me that its 1 hour later than normal meeting time...4 instead of 3 pm my time
  16. This is why I questioned their damage model...that would IMO have been a damaging shot,and I see ALOT of these when engaging the armata.Now to be clear...THAT reported a "no damage" shot correct?
  17. ummm...so were meeting an hour later than normal if in NA...I think?Or no your compensating for the change....Im confused now
  18. It must be said that most but not all of our observations and comments on this issue are in a multiplayer environment,Under combat conditions with multiple types of assets on the maps...just sayin.Netcode I think has to be accounted for.Don't know if that's really a factor or not.The flying tank we saw last night kinda got us thinking.
  19. Ok fine BUT....what do you intend to do for the leopards.Leave them as is?Would they be upgunned to 140mm,is there an a4 equivalent?
  20. My reply was mostly in context to the a4 round and wheather it could be\will implemented...not the damage model as it is now regarding heat or sabot, so in THAT regards can't do anything till you give us an M829A4 to play with. As for the other issues...that's what beta testers are for. I think enough screens and aar's show you there's a problem somewhere. We reported our concerns, its up to you and the team to resolve it. no offence.
  21. Well we've shown you the problem...it's up to you to solve it....or not.
  22. Take it anyway you like... doesn't change what we're seeing.
  23. A best guess would probably be on par with the data of the armata itself...it all balances out.
×
×
  • Create New...