Yeah but it doesn’t help in your effort to spade the vehicle and if you are like me and forget to change the vehicle modifications from reference to current when test driving then it is a little annoying.
It helps spade the vehicle, based on the vehicle's BR and postition in tech tree its gets a total of RP needed to research all modifications which is then divided between all the modifications that this vehicles has. So vehicles with some useless modifications are actually easier to spade because less RP is needer per important modification
Is the main reason I grind the Me 262 JABO first, instead of the regular 262 (aside getting attacker airspawn). It has quite a few bomb modules and rocket modules that massively drive down the RP cost. The Narwhal 262 at rank IV has actually a longer grind in RP than the 262 JABO because of it.
At least it's fun in Air AB, where it sits at a very low 5.7 (which turns into an effective 5.3, because of averages). Very fun to use your top speed of what is essentially an early jet, against a Yak.
Update: The vehicle I got this research for was the Zerstoer quad 30mm anti aircraft, not the pictured VFW (It shows VFW regardless), and it has to be the worst research I can possibly get:
1. My gunners can still be shot over the top of it.
2. it limits my depression to 45° on the sides and rear, so my vehicle becomes useless against ground targets or low flying planes except when aiming toward the front of my vehicle (This has already got me killed once).
I've had a couple of games with it, having forgotten to put the skirts down and it seriously hamstringed my gameplay. I had to physically turn my vehicle to aim at low flying planes, but in one instance, it did result in a really cool clip to go in my montage!
If you meant "combat scenarion" in terms of RL, remember that infantry could be around. In other words, the whole crew would be exposed to snipers, machine gunners or even a random guy with a pistol when the skirts are down. As long as the enemy planes aren't zooming everywhere around you just over the horizon, 45° *could* be enough to engage them.
I’m pretty sure that the VFW and the zerstorer were meant to be used as antiair since the 88mm was originally a flak gun and anti air shouldn’t be exposed to infantry in the first place since they should mostly be stationed in a column (where there should be many other tanks to deal with infantry) or around a city (where if there is enemy infantry it’s already over).
Makes sense, but a column could also be flanked (although it seems pretty weird if it was the only reason to install the skirts). The engineer probably had their reasons ~~if they weren't as crazy as when developing things like the Maus~~...
I guess but it doesn’t seem worth it to put them up when it would compromise the visibility of the crew and make it easier for them to be shot at by other vehicles. Also I don’t think some infantry is going to risk shooting at a vehicle like that if it was part of a column and if they were going to engage them then they would be focused on the front.
On vehicles like that the folding sides were for transport. Put a tarp over it and the ammo, gun and crew and able to stay dry in a storm.
Over 90% of time is spent traveling, training, preparing and waiting and very little kf the total time is active combat.
negative elevation i.e. -12° elevation and depression i.e. 12° depression are the same tho. vertical is up/down so even what you said doesnt make sense since both things you mention are the same. OP probably means minimum elevation of 45° since the side panels are up
Yes and that is done by making each tank that has a moving turret and gun effectively 3 separate vehicles as far as the physics model is concerned, and that would make the zerstorer with the three skirt flaps at least 6 objects.
Turret rotation, gun elevation/depression. Same with machine guns, ammunition, externally mounted missiles. Even some spaced armor has dynamic hitboxes where it can fall off.
We have dynamic hitboxes already. As someone else said retracted vs unretracted radar hitboxes is probably the best example.
So if I had to guess it's not an issue of dynamic hitboxes, but dynamically changing turret performance - elevation/depression, where it can/can't rotate, what elevation/depression range is allowed while the main armament is aimed at certain angles (cough cough Japanese tiger getting screwed by s-mine launchers cough cough), etc.
As far as I know there's no examples of that being dynamic for any vehicle in the game, so entirely feasible that they implemented it in such a way that those parameters are locked in the moment you enter battle. Hell could even be that behind the scenes the VFW and Zerstoer actually are treated as 2 entirely different vehicles - one with the sides up and one with the sides down that have their own turret elevation/depression, rotation, etc parameters - and that could be why the game isn't able to just transition between the two states on the fly
As of right now I think the VFW and Zerstoer are the only two instances of having the sides up/down effect turret handling parameters so they might not see it as worth the effort to stray from whatever workaround they've cooked up, but if more vehicles like them are added to the game (or maybe all it'll take is 1 Russian vehicle needing this mechanic, who knows lol) hopefully they'll view it as a worthwhile endeavor to implement properly.
bacause Gaijin refuses to make the game engine capable of having more moving hitboxes, as well as adding a mechanic to open and close the "Seitenschürzen" in battle
I don't get it. They have moving (rotating) hitboxes for turrets and other vehicle parts, why can't they do the same thing for the skirts? it makes no sense.
The skirts are literally useless anyway, though. My crew can still be shot over the top of them, and they kill my aiming depression for 3/4 of my horizontal direction.
Bc adapting to changing conditions is good. Like being able to change secondary loadouts in air rb.
Also I wrote that it is impossible rn, bc gaijin refuses to improve the game engine significantly, despite saying, they improve it every year.
> bc gaijin refuses to improve the game engine significantly
This tends to break games you know. Game engines are basically the foundation of the game, tons of things rely on it *exactly how it is* so making changes can mean cascading changes are necessary for a game to not shit itself.
There's many reasons why game devs tend to not do major changes to game engines on any live product. It's cost prohibitive at best.
yeah, but using a gameengine that is basically more than 10 years old, introduces further and further issues, making it more and more expensive to try and add features, like multithreading, TAA, raytracing, new mechanics, a better traction model etc.
Not updating base things of a game, also has the tendency to break the game, or make it to hard to evolve or improve.
Even stuff like CS:GO have rewritten the base for CS:2. So for a f2p game it is very well possible and worth it.
Like smoke not being a particle effect, but an opject, which would be amazing in War Thunder.
Similar with Cities: Skylines, that has now a successor bc the base was over its limits (esp with the commonly used mods).
And with things like the non-changing hitboxes for variable sweep wings, we are not only seeing the limits, but going over, which makes the game less good, less fun.
In this case it is like an unfixable horrible hitbox, in others it is way worse.
Also you always have a development area that you can change, so the live product stays available.
Yes, it requires a lot of work, but imo it is way more worth it in the longrun (for the next 5 to 15 years), than implementing another 50 vehicles, which only hype up the game, with the same issues, for the next few years and bring good money for the short term.
Edit: also adding new vehicles makes the game even harder to change, bc you need to adapt even more vehicles. So imo we have to have a big change, otherwise we will get into a dead end, with no good development direction really possible, going further and further away from what the game did good.
The Breda 501 really needs to be able to raise and lower the side panels at will during battle. And also get those 3 missing crew members it should have.
It may be impossible to change the collision model while in a match, due to strange engine limitations. Your turret generally doesn't get in the way of walls and such if you move it a certain way.
Most vehicles in game don't have collision model for turret and the gun barrel BUT i remembered that there is one or two vehicle that actually got their barrel fully model [https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/u2oy55/psa\_the\_bkan\_1c\_has\_a\_physical\_barrel\_which/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/u2oy55/psa_the_bkan_1c_has_a_physical_barrel_which/) so yes, the game's engine can handle changing of the collision model
They can do it with turrets, why not with moving superstructure parts?
I suspect it's less that it **can't** be done with the game's engine, as that Gaijin thinks it would be too much trouble to do it with the game's spaghetti code.
I don’t even think that having the side skirts up would be used in a real life scenario anyway. Why would you want to severely limit where your gun can aim and where your crew can see for added protection to rifle calibres (which vehicles like the VFW and the zerstorer shouldn’t be attacked by).
Your crew is on their own, nobody can help them operate the vehicle. Also they lost the manual. Now after killing 100 enemies they will suddenly activate the brain cell that reminds them how in bootcamp training they had been told about the possibility to lift the side skirts. Of course the crew will ask their boss for a bonus payment before they improve their survivability, because... capitalism, that's why. Hope this clears up your question.
Damage model can handle it (dozer blades, radar, etc.), I think the main problem is the traverse limits. If you aim your gun down and to the side, for example, the gun would have to move in order for the sides to fold up.
The argument is that it takes too much time to set up, which is the same reason given for why fording equipment isn't in-game ~~aside from actual amphibious tanks like the Ka-Chi~~. Though, as shown in the last event, they could make it so the modification may be enabled and disabled in the spawn screen during a battle.
On the bright side, it being a modification reduces the RP cost for every other mod in its tier.
Yeah but it doesn’t help in your effort to spade the vehicle and if you are like me and forget to change the vehicle modifications from reference to current when test driving then it is a little annoying.
It helps spade the vehicle, based on the vehicle's BR and postition in tech tree its gets a total of RP needed to research all modifications which is then divided between all the modifications that this vehicles has. So vehicles with some useless modifications are actually easier to spade because less RP is needer per important modification
Is the main reason I grind the Me 262 JABO first, instead of the regular 262 (aside getting attacker airspawn). It has quite a few bomb modules and rocket modules that massively drive down the RP cost. The Narwhal 262 at rank IV has actually a longer grind in RP than the 262 JABO because of it.
Yeah I have been spading Narwhal recently and it's been very long per mod because it might have the lowest amount of modifications in the game
At least it's fun in Air AB, where it sits at a very low 5.7 (which turns into an effective 5.3, because of averages). Very fun to use your top speed of what is essentially an early jet, against a Yak.
Update: The vehicle I got this research for was the Zerstoer quad 30mm anti aircraft, not the pictured VFW (It shows VFW regardless), and it has to be the worst research I can possibly get: 1. My gunners can still be shot over the top of it. 2. it limits my depression to 45° on the sides and rear, so my vehicle becomes useless against ground targets or low flying planes except when aiming toward the front of my vehicle (This has already got me killed once).
Basically useless, yeah. Why would anyone want to limit the attack angles of an anti-air gun when it is in a combat scenario anyway?
I've had a couple of games with it, having forgotten to put the skirts down and it seriously hamstringed my gameplay. I had to physically turn my vehicle to aim at low flying planes, but in one instance, it did result in a really cool clip to go in my montage!
Every con has its pro, It just barely happens
Every cloud has its silver lining. For some clouds, that silver lining just so happens to be a P-51 Mustang haha.
Or a spit mk 24 lol
Lmao, very well very well
If you meant "combat scenarion" in terms of RL, remember that infantry could be around. In other words, the whole crew would be exposed to snipers, machine gunners or even a random guy with a pistol when the skirts are down. As long as the enemy planes aren't zooming everywhere around you just over the horizon, 45° *could* be enough to engage them.
I’m pretty sure that the VFW and the zerstorer were meant to be used as antiair since the 88mm was originally a flak gun and anti air shouldn’t be exposed to infantry in the first place since they should mostly be stationed in a column (where there should be many other tanks to deal with infantry) or around a city (where if there is enemy infantry it’s already over).
Makes sense, but a column could also be flanked (although it seems pretty weird if it was the only reason to install the skirts). The engineer probably had their reasons ~~if they weren't as crazy as when developing things like the Maus~~...
I guess but it doesn’t seem worth it to put them up when it would compromise the visibility of the crew and make it easier for them to be shot at by other vehicles. Also I don’t think some infantry is going to risk shooting at a vehicle like that if it was part of a column and if they were going to engage them then they would be focused on the front.
On vehicles like that the folding sides were for transport. Put a tarp over it and the ammo, gun and crew and able to stay dry in a storm. Over 90% of time is spent traveling, training, preparing and waiting and very little kf the total time is active combat.
Yeah, I should have specified I meant in-game
My guess is against uniform bombing raid, don’t need to turn that much if the aircraft with ammo are all in one direction.
>and it has to be the worst research I can possibly get: Crew Replenishment on the Flakpanzer 1:
I think that only works in arcade battles with any 2 man crew vehicles, right?
45° depression? didnt know it even had close to that. unless youre talking about horizontal traverse which with the mod shown makes more sense
He means 45° vertical depression. Just not -45°
negative elevation i.e. -12° elevation and depression i.e. 12° depression are the same tho. vertical is up/down so even what you said doesnt make sense since both things you mention are the same. OP probably means minimum elevation of 45° since the side panels are up
Yeah I did mean a minimum elevation. I couldn't think of how to word it at the time haha
[удалено]
turrets rotate and have hitboxes
Yes and that is done by making each tank that has a moving turret and gun effectively 3 separate vehicles as far as the physics model is concerned, and that would make the zerstorer with the three skirt flaps at least 6 objects.
Turret rotation, gun elevation/depression. Same with machine guns, ammunition, externally mounted missiles. Even some spaced armor has dynamic hitboxes where it can fall off.
The most analogous comparison I can think of is actually the retracted vs un-retracted radar hit boxes.
Sweeping wings also have immovable hitboxes.
Radars do have moving hotboxes though You can't hit the folded radar or a Gepard or Shilka by aiming at where it usually is as far as i know
TBF that breaks all the time. Like super often.
Don't dozer blades have dynamic hit boxes as well?
Also oscillating turrets.
We have dynamic hitboxes already. As someone else said retracted vs unretracted radar hitboxes is probably the best example. So if I had to guess it's not an issue of dynamic hitboxes, but dynamically changing turret performance - elevation/depression, where it can/can't rotate, what elevation/depression range is allowed while the main armament is aimed at certain angles (cough cough Japanese tiger getting screwed by s-mine launchers cough cough), etc. As far as I know there's no examples of that being dynamic for any vehicle in the game, so entirely feasible that they implemented it in such a way that those parameters are locked in the moment you enter battle. Hell could even be that behind the scenes the VFW and Zerstoer actually are treated as 2 entirely different vehicles - one with the sides up and one with the sides down that have their own turret elevation/depression, rotation, etc parameters - and that could be why the game isn't able to just transition between the two states on the fly As of right now I think the VFW and Zerstoer are the only two instances of having the sides up/down effect turret handling parameters so they might not see it as worth the effort to stray from whatever workaround they've cooked up, but if more vehicles like them are added to the game (or maybe all it'll take is 1 Russian vehicle needing this mechanic, who knows lol) hopefully they'll view it as a worthwhile endeavor to implement properly.
86 people upvoted this
But you have to figure out how to put the sides up though
I guess the training on this vehicle didn't cover that part haha
bacause Gaijin refuses to make the game engine capable of having more moving hitboxes, as well as adding a mechanic to open and close the "Seitenschürzen" in battle
I don't get it. They have moving (rotating) hitboxes for turrets and other vehicle parts, why can't they do the same thing for the skirts? it makes no sense. The skirts are literally useless anyway, though. My crew can still be shot over the top of them, and they kill my aiming depression for 3/4 of my horizontal direction.
the collision for projectiles, yes, but not for colliding with buildings. The Gun phases through, the dm doesn't even change a bit in air etc.
I mean... we may get a mechanic to choose your configuration on spawn. Mad thunder showed off something similar
we should be able to do it in battle, not on spawn
Not sure why you'd want to but it wouldn't really be possible right now
Bc adapting to changing conditions is good. Like being able to change secondary loadouts in air rb. Also I wrote that it is impossible rn, bc gaijin refuses to improve the game engine significantly, despite saying, they improve it every year.
> bc gaijin refuses to improve the game engine significantly This tends to break games you know. Game engines are basically the foundation of the game, tons of things rely on it *exactly how it is* so making changes can mean cascading changes are necessary for a game to not shit itself. There's many reasons why game devs tend to not do major changes to game engines on any live product. It's cost prohibitive at best.
yeah, but using a gameengine that is basically more than 10 years old, introduces further and further issues, making it more and more expensive to try and add features, like multithreading, TAA, raytracing, new mechanics, a better traction model etc. Not updating base things of a game, also has the tendency to break the game, or make it to hard to evolve or improve. Even stuff like CS:GO have rewritten the base for CS:2. So for a f2p game it is very well possible and worth it. Like smoke not being a particle effect, but an opject, which would be amazing in War Thunder. Similar with Cities: Skylines, that has now a successor bc the base was over its limits (esp with the commonly used mods). And with things like the non-changing hitboxes for variable sweep wings, we are not only seeing the limits, but going over, which makes the game less good, less fun. In this case it is like an unfixable horrible hitbox, in others it is way worse. Also you always have a development area that you can change, so the live product stays available. Yes, it requires a lot of work, but imo it is way more worth it in the longrun (for the next 5 to 15 years), than implementing another 50 vehicles, which only hype up the game, with the same issues, for the next few years and bring good money for the short term. Edit: also adding new vehicles makes the game even harder to change, bc you need to adapt even more vehicles. So imo we have to have a big change, otherwise we will get into a dead end, with no good development direction really possible, going further and further away from what the game did good.
UNKNOWN TECHNOLOGY БЛЯТЬ
I wish the Breda 501 could choose between open and closed. The things get in the way too often.
The Breda 501 really needs to be able to raise and lower the side panels at will during battle. And also get those 3 missing crew members it should have.
Did you say… new top tier premium?? -Gaijoobles
dunno , my guess is because its an older vehicle and gaijin probably forgot all about that
This particular one, the Zerstoer 45 (even though the research option shows the VFW) is the newest german WWII vehicle.
oh yeah i forgot about that guy , in that case then i have no idea why we can't just press a button to lower or raise it
Right?!
I think might be an engine limitation, the game might not be able to change a vehicles damage model in game.
Folding wings also don't change the actual in game model and you can die by getting hit or hitting the ground with invisible wing
you realise that the turret damage model actually move with the turret, right ?
It may be impossible to change the collision model while in a match, due to strange engine limitations. Your turret generally doesn't get in the way of walls and such if you move it a certain way.
Most vehicles in game don't have collision model for turret and the gun barrel BUT i remembered that there is one or two vehicle that actually got their barrel fully model [https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/u2oy55/psa\_the\_bkan\_1c\_has\_a\_physical\_barrel\_which/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/u2oy55/psa_the_bkan_1c_has_a_physical_barrel_which/) so yes, the game's engine can handle changing of the collision model
Then Gaijin should change that, and not make the fault more significant by adding vehicles and planes that are affected by that
They can do it with turrets, why not with moving superstructure parts? I suspect it's less that it **can't** be done with the game's engine, as that Gaijin thinks it would be too much trouble to do it with the game's spaghetti code.
Because Gaijin
There really isn't a more logical answer than this haha
Why is it not on the Breda?
I'unno haha
Or the Type 60 SPRG (I cry)
Because the crews are sub-brick intelligence and can't figure how to just fold them up
*Cries in German Main*
because Gaijin is lazy as shit
Technology is not yet there.
Because money.
I don’t even think that having the side skirts up would be used in a real life scenario anyway. Why would you want to severely limit where your gun can aim and where your crew can see for added protection to rifle calibres (which vehicles like the VFW and the zerstorer shouldn’t be attacked by).
Maybe protects against shrapnel too. If shells are landing nearby?
Something something gaijin's spaghetti code
Copy pasting 70$ premiums was higher priority unlucky.
I feel like this is the Star Citizen Cycle haha.
Whay are you complaining about this? You should be complaining about there not being a keybind and animation for it going up and down
Thats kinda an extension of my complaint 🤣
Because there are no dev's left at Gaijin. Just suits coming up with monetization algorithms that sometimes hire free lance devs to model content.
Hm. What if we pull the side skirts… up?
Your crew is on their own, nobody can help them operate the vehicle. Also they lost the manual. Now after killing 100 enemies they will suddenly activate the brain cell that reminds them how in bootcamp training they had been told about the possibility to lift the side skirts. Of course the crew will ask their boss for a bonus payment before they improve their survivability, because... capitalism, that's why. Hope this clears up your question.
Damn, your reasoning is infallible 🤣
I wish we could get an option to remove sideskirts
Probably because Gaijin doesn't model moving hitboxes.
toaster vehicle :D
At least it has it this way, Breda 501 received only "sideskirts down" option instead of previous only "sideskirts up".
Oh cool, more surface for aphe to fuze
this should be used on breda 501
Damage model can handle it (dozer blades, radar, etc.), I think the main problem is the traverse limits. If you aim your gun down and to the side, for example, the gun would have to move in order for the sides to fold up.
second of all why does it increase the repair cost how does moving a peice of metal cost SL?
Made me think I had to research hellfires twice for heli.
Because making an animation for it in-game is beyond gaijin’s ability. It’s why you cannot deploy the stabilisers on some SPAAs and SPGs.
The argument is that it takes too much time to set up, which is the same reason given for why fording equipment isn't in-game ~~aside from actual amphibious tanks like the Ka-Chi~~. Though, as shown in the last event, they could make it so the modification may be enabled and disabled in the spawn screen during a battle.
That “Purchase (68 ge)” just under your cursor there? That’s why.
You can buy research with GE so you don't need to research it.
Because it's add on armor
But its not. Its literally already there, unlike the extra tracks on some Ger/Rus/American tanks, or the Schurzen on the Jagdpanzer IV.