Object 430 and 430 Prototype Models Screwed Up

Posted on by

Hello everyone,

remember when I reported that in 9.0, Panzer 38t model is screwed up? To remind you – in 9.0, Panzer 38t model got fucked up thus:

38t

You can clearly see the 0 armor holes in the collision model and to top it off, it has no bottom. Luckily, this was fixed in 9.0 (they screwed it up anyway I think, one part is 2mm thinner than it’s supposed to be but at least it’s not 0). By the way, you know what really made me giggle?

From the European patch notes:

- Fixed minor mistakes in the Valentine II and Pz. Kpfw 38 (t) models

Minor? A third of the fucking armor was missing! *sigh*

Anyway, at the end of the post, I asked this: “are we supposed now to manually check every armor model in the game to doublecheck, whether some idiot didn’t screw it up? Isn’t that the job of WG employees? And what else got screwed up?”

Well, guess what, of COURSE other shit got screwed up as well. Check this out.

This is the Object 430 in 9.0 – sorry about the black background and the mess, the screenies were made in a discontinued WoT Viewer (still one of the best things around for making such comparisons – I am really sorry it got scrapped).

This is how the Object 430 looks in 9.0 (in 9.1, the visual model was not really changed, just the tracks got a bit narrower – not important).

Object 430_11-29-4

And this is its armor model in 9.0

Object 430_11-29-34

Comparing the pictures, you can clearly see that the collision model doesn’t correspond to the graphic model, the turret is quite lower. What that means is, if you in the game aim at the top of the turret, you are in fact aiming above the collision model, because they don’t correspond to one another. Brilliant. Made a gif to highlight the collision model difference.

output_qIqaSj

In 9.1, the collision model for the Object 430 got fixed (the taller with holes in the tracks is new):

output_J8Q4u2

Oh yea and the tier 9 Object 430 Variant II was screwed up as well. Between 9.0 and 9.1, the graphic model did not change at all, but the collision model in 9.0 is too high, so it was lowered. Here is the change.

output_nJIz9F

And so I am asking again what else is screwed?

26 thoughts on “Object 430 and 430 Prototype Models Screwed Up”

  5. So that is the reason why people could pen the part above the gun so easily on the obj 430.
    I could face hug people to death with the obj 430 II easily and with the obj 430 the turret so easy to pen.

    • haha, did the same with the 430 II but it doesn’t work with the 430 anymore :(

    • WoT tank viewer is not dead, it’s updated to support 9.0 awhile ago already (all those pics are made by using WoTTV), and yeas, its lot better than competing version imho. And no, there will be no new featurebloat to come to that viewer, because it was designed to help modellers/skinners, Rextimmy already thought to drop whole collisin model and armor penetration stuff from viewer.

      • Yes just found out and edited my previous post. I also thought it was discontinued. Glad it’s back. But why think of dropping the collision model and armor penetration?

        • “Nothing is set in concrete but just a few ideas that have been bouncing around in my head. I have been toying with the idea of completely removing the collision and armor testing stuff though as there is another particular app that does this and most seem to prefer it anyway. My app was originally created for tank skinning and i would like to return it back to that plus some mesh importing/exporting.” quote from Rextimmy himself.

  12. I noticed this a few weeks ago, and made mention of it on the forums.. I am referring to the obj, 430.. what made me pay attention, and notice something just wasn’t quite right, was when you fired the thing.. it was as if the shell was coming from about a foot above the tank.. it was weird to say the least, and then 2 of 3 shots, would dive bomb into the ground, almost like a curveball…. so something wasn’t corresponding with one another.. not sure if this is due to their screw up… but when you compared the 3 Russian mediums, this was by far, the worst.. so much so, I sold the thing, and declared it as an official pos. I could never understand how all 3 had the same gun, but this one acted totally different, and sucked.. picture shooting the derp gun on the M4… that what this felt like, without the derp.

  13. Tell me, is it that hard just to implement extra “armor thickness” texture to visual model and get rid of separate collision model?

    Or, is it about server stress?

    • It would stress servers lot more, if you notice those collision (armor) models are lot more lowpoly than visuals, which significantly reduce required needed calculations for solving collisions.

  14. I noticed yesterday that the VK 30.02 (D) also has two holes in it’s armour. Those “boxes” that it has at the rear of the hull are 30mm “spaced” armour with nothing behind them.

    Was it always like that, or is that a bug as well?

    • Likely always been like that, those are somekind of radiator or so in(or out)let so logically (well at least normal peoples locig, not WGs) there need to be somekind of hole for air to pass.

  15. In 9.0 with Tank Inspector I noticed something weird in Obj.430 model (both visual and collision). Gun is cutting through hull when straighten and in maximum depression. Maybe that’s why they have moved tower up, but forget to fix collision model too.

  17. It’s like they let in some 5 y old kids to play on their PCs where they develop the game and let them press the buttons and click the mouse and some fuck up like this happens. No other fucking explanation. Tank can’t change itself for sure.

  19. The 430 now definitely has more depression point straight a head now . i noticed this before this post was made

  20. Well, that explains why I kept bouncing off the fucking cupola of an Object 430 II in a facehug. That wanker managed to decimate me from near full-HP, while he stood there as a oneshotkill…