Straight outta Supertest – new map “Kharkov”

Source: http://blogwotlirt.blogspot.ru/

Hello everyone,

yea, another leak. This is allegedly supposed to be the minimap of “Kharkov”, a map confirmed to actually come in 9.0.

kUF5EgWI4L4

Well… given the odd “blur” of the minimap (low resolution), I am not 100 percent convinced that this is legit, but it’s from the same source like the T23E3 and Grosstraktor leaks and yes, those were real. So… up to you to judge.

Edit: Confirmed to be legit.

8.1.2014

Just a little today

- you end up on one map too often? “Conspiracy!” (SS: Conspiracy my ass, ever since Christmas half of my battles are fucking Erlenberg, I hate that map already)
- it’s possible non-European (Brazilian, Argentinian) tanks that don’t fit any branch will appear in the game (Q: “How will you implement them?” A: “Electronically” (SS: as in, “bits and bytes”))
- it’s possible more autoloader branches will come (Q: “Which nations will they be for?” A: “For those that need it”)
- vehicle tier does not influence choice of the maps you are getting (SS: apart from the cases where maps are limited to low tiers only)

Posted in Q&A

Storm is asking about physics

Source: http://world-of-kwg.livejournal.com/270824.html

Hello everyone,

once again, Storm is asking the players about their opinion, this time about physics. From the discussion:

- Storm states that the tank “rocking” when going over rails is realistic – as a proof, he shows this video, where even the Turkish Altay MBT is rocking when going over obstacles
- apparently, the amount of rocking when crossing rails will not be reduced, it’s realistic (Storm adds that the tanks in game don’t have hydrodynamic stabilized suspension)
- Storm states that the way the suspension is modelled, it has five elastic points (that interact with the ground), that prevent it from behaving like a “ski” (SS: this is probably the reason why independent suspension will not change tank movement – the points, simulating the wheel movement, are already there)
- Storm states that with the introduction of ingame physics, special tests were held on maps and they have not shown any significant changes in tank mobility (2-3 percent change)
- apparently the current loss of speed when turning the tank is realistic
- the fact you don’t take damage from ramming other objects than tanks is intentional
- apparently, tanks getting stuck on the anti-tank “dragon teeth” strip on Siegfried Line is sort of mixture of a bug and feature (Storm said that, Veider adds it’s simply a feature, after all the strips were designed to block tanks)
- the fact that you cannot create a one-man training room is there to protect the server from being overloaded by too many “training rooms” (SS: creating one training room takes as many server resources as running a full battle)
- the way the braking works in the game (SS: whenever you release the “gas”, the tank immediately stops instead of rolling forward for a while on “neutral”) was specifically and intentionally made to make the gamplay easier
- the situation where you are crossing a dune (SS: this is very noticable in Sand River), you park your vehicle on the top of it and it swings for a while is not a feature, it’s a bug, there was some solution for this by Wargaming, but in the end it did not work

And what is YOUR opinion on WoT physics? Write, you can even link screenshots :)

Posted in Q&A

It’s a Fake – Part 3: Not really a fake…

Hello everyone,

when talking about fake tanks in WoT, there is one more category that has to be remembered: vehicles, that were not fakes and existed (at least in blueprints), but everyone thinks for some reason that they did actually not exist. There is an entire number of this vehicles and today, we are going to focus on them.

One of the most notorious cases of “no way that existed” is the KV-122. Specifically, the KV-1S with an enlarged turret (KV-85) and the 122mm D-25 gun. I mean – it’s way too overpowered, it has to be a fake! Sorry, that one actually really existed:

kv-1s-122

The D-2-5 gun in the game is – as far as I remember – a somewhat re-worked version of the D-25T with the same ballistic properties, only made to fit the IS (KV-85) turret by having a different breech I think. But yes, it existed. Want to hear something even more ridiculous? Some Soviet reports mention an attempt to put the BL-9 on KV chassis. That would be just amazing.

Continue reading

Ensign’s Q&A #19

It’s been a while since I’ve done one of these! Here’s a link to the previous edition.

Q: I found these on EnglishRussia, and there is a KV-2 turret on the IS chassis. Can you tell me more about this?

A: It is a movie prop, and one of dubious quality at that. If you look further, you can see “KV-1″ tanks that won’t fool even a casual observer. For instance, their guns are clearly immobile.

Q: Is there some pattern to gun calibers? Several nations seem to use the same ones, 20 mm, 37 mm, 75/76 mm, 105 mm, etc. 

A: A lot of gun calibers are in multiples of inches. 37 mm is about 1.5 inches, 76 mm (76.2 mm) is 3 inches, 152 (152.4 mm) is 6 inches. Doubling your shell’s diameter has an easy to calculate effect on its vital properties, such as weight. This lets an engineer get close to the desired performance, in theory. Of course, as he starts fine-tuning the performance, the diameter will change, so it won’t be exactly the multiple of an inch anymore. As modelling methods improved, the need to take old shells as reference ended, and modern shell designers don’t have to start with multiples of an old thing. Drastically different modern ammunition design doesn’t help either.

Continue reading