- For PC
- For MAC
- For Linux
- OS: Windows 7 SP1/8/10 (64 bit)
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.2 GHz
- Memory: 4GB
- Video Card: DirectX 10.1 level video card: AMD Radeon 77XX / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660. The minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Windows 10/11 (64 bit)
- Processor: Intel Core i5 or Ryzen 5 3600 and better
- Memory: 16 GB and more
- Video Card: DirectX 11 level video card or higher and drivers: Nvidia GeForce 1060 and higher, Radeon RX 570 and higher
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i5, minimum 2.2GHz (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 6 GB
- Video Card: Intel Iris Pro 5200 (Mac), or analog from AMD/Nvidia for Mac. Minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i7 (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 8 GB
- Video Card: Radeon Vega II or higher with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Most modern 64bit Linux distributions
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.4 GHz
- Memory: 4 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 660 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months; the minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Ubuntu 20.04 64bit
- Processor: Intel Core i7
- Memory: 16 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 1060 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD (Radeon RX 570) with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
Dear Players
Today, we wanted to share some more insight and answers on the recent penetration mechanic changes to explain our plans, goals and some more on your specific questions.
When planning the move to a new method of penetration calculation we set ourselves following goals:
- To make the penetration calculation system open and understandable, in which the method is known and the data for the calculations are known clearly to all. In the old calculation system each shell received its penetration data manually from a variety of sources, ranging from authoritative monographs to documents on firing tests. At the same time, in many of these sources the penetration data was also calculated according to different methods and different standards of states, different targets and with different hardness of armour and shells used. Therefore, uniformity and standardization were out of the question and accordingly it was not the best option in terms of openness and ease of understanding.
- To get rid of the discrepancies that arise from the use of many different sources. When considering data from sources, inconsistencies arise due to different standards and criteria. The problem immediately arises in the reference source - which document is the correct document? However, the sources in question are documentary and credible. The situation is - all are equal, but some of them are more equal. Again, as you can see, this was not the best option.
- Focus the attention when setting up armour-piercing on their input parameters - mass, speed and speed drop tables. If you have a shooting table for the shell, you can more accurately model its behavior and, first of all, its penetration. We will not stop working with documented sources. We collect information scattered over hundreds of conflicting sources and concentrate it on firing tables and ammunition ballistics settings.
- To streamline the armour-piercing system in the game. Manual entry of penetration data, from sources, in some cases created situations where the data in the shell cards were from documents in which the penetration data were based on very different criteria. Which is not the norm. With the increase in the number of vehicles in the game, and therefore the number of ammunition, the sources of information regarding the penetration values are beginning to exceed reasonable limits, and some documents are not publicly available and could no longer be open and easy to understand.
We definitely have not stopped working with documented sources. The specified method of calculation is to work with documents first of all, and more purposefully and effectively, allowing us to specify not only the penetration data, but also ballistics of shells, thus allowing us to standardize all this information in game.
Now, lets move on to the Q & A:
Q.Will primary source material if it contradicts the calculated performance, still be taken into any consideration for the newly calculated APFSDS rounds? For example, Swedish tests show vertical performance of DM33 and it is substantially higher than calculated values.
A. In the calculation we used the density of tungsten cores equal to 17500 kg/m^3 (indicated in the published table sheet with changes). This corresponds to the 2nd class of tungsten alloy from the specification. The choice of this density value has been made due to the fact that the exact density values at the moment are unknown for us. In this case if reliable and unambiguous (based on documents, shooting reports, etc.) information about the density of cores is provided, we are ready to clarify it for the appropriate ammunition. Until such data is available we are fully satisfied with the current data scores for the ammunition.
Q. If there are armour values on tanks that are based on what rounds can and cannot penetrate them (both by design specification and performance in combat), will we see armour changes where appropriate?.
A. No, such changes would contradict the goals we set when developing this method. There are no plans to introduce an additional indicator of the quality of the armour, except for what is already in the game.
Q. Will the Demarre equation that is being used be fixed? A fair amount of apcbc rounds would be over performing (much higher than historic data) if we used the current calculation from the wiki.
A. By choosing the method we knew that there would be some discrepancies, both in the smaller and in the larger direction. And after the evaluation of possible negatives and positives we decided that the general level of changes in values is comfortable for us by not exceeding the level of conditionality that had already been before. It makes many more improvements and last but not least it reveals the method of penetration calculation for everyone and makes it clear. Therefore, there are no plans to make any corrections to the calculation aimed at "fitting" the data to various sources.
Q. The Slope modifier equations from World War 2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, were designed to work with the vertical penetration values from the book. Changing these values while also changing the vertical penetration of many projectiles, many lower, and some higher, will cause issues. How is this going to be handled?
A. We do not want and will not allow situations that violate the integrity of the selected calculation method. Using the calculated values of slopes together with the old method of choosing armour-piercing will be just such a situation.
Q. The DeMarre formula relies on an empirically derived constant. This constant differs based on armour-projectile combination. How do you plan to determine this constant given the vast array of armour and projectile types in the game?
A. Earlier in the game as previously indicated the penetration values were given for armour of low hardness. The constant for the calculation has been chosen so as to also correspond to this armour. This value is 1900 and corresponds to the homogeneous armour of low hardness.
Q. Does standardizing penetration performance of ammunition also allow for standardizing secondary fragmentation for ammunition? Right now all rounds that utilize the 'long_rod' shatter preset create less fragmentation than rounds with less weight, thickness and velocity. This is also noticable on APDS, where an APDS round with a comparable penetrator diameter to an AP round creates much less fragments.
A. The applied calculation method of armour-piercing data acquisition is not connected with secondary fragments configuration. This problem is known and will be corrected.
Q. Will ricochet angles for long rod penetrators receive a change? Pre change they are a fixed angle across many different shells with different velocities and tip designs, the target material is also not taken into account when in reality this has a big effect and can change the ricochet angle by a great deal.
A. Revision of ricochet values for APFSDS shells was not planned in the near future. If and when the reliable information will be provided to improve and refine the ricochet parameters (if necessary) for these shells, it will be considered in the usual order.
The War Thunder Team
Comments (121)
This isn't a Q&A, it is just you telling us that your formula is perfect, and that you will be disregarding empirical sources that disagree with your magic formula.
The system is a compromise on some levels as we said in the 4th answer, but strongly deviating from the base formula may compromise the entire system. Our old problem with sources was always to pick the "correct" ones over the "incorrect", an highly subjective decision from the player's perspective. Now, the system is not written in stone, since the game was in open beta we had major overhaul of almost every mechanic of the game, and we will surely improve this one in the future.
Ouiche, So compromise between the sources and average out or pick out the sources with thee most documented data behind their testing methodology! What this is is the magical Gaijinzilla fairy (The Gaijinzilla, but tiny, with fairy wings) coming around saying "POOF! You're all now standardized and any sort of shell caps or shell shapes of any sort are irrelevant :)"
New pen update was the worse change i ever have seen in this game. The patch nerfed too many Japanese tier 1, before the changes i always go back playing my ke-ni or ka-mi for fun but now their guns are terrible! The Type 1 37 supposed to be the upgrade ammunition over Type 94 37 but they performance almost the same! Makes no sense. I wanted to see more Japanese light tanks but changed my mind now because of how this game nerfed early Japanese early tier guns and they were never good either.
"This corresponds to the 2nd class of tungsten alloy from the specification." "Until such data is available we are fully satisfied with the current data scores for the ammunition." "Swedish tests show vertical performance of DM33 and it is substantially higher than calculated values." You do not have to be Einstein to see that it's probably a better quality of tungsten alloy.
you don't have to be Einstein, but you definitely shouldn't work for Gaijin, otherwise you will be blind to this simple matter of common sense
are there any plans on actually balancing the game or are you gonna throw more stuff at it ? honestly i play this game since late 2013 / early 2014 with now around 3.2k hours playtime and its just a pain to play it. you could balance thing a bit out with changing the map rotation, so that high tier vehicles get bigger maps and low tier smaller. cuz having Top Tier tanks like Leo, T-80, Type90 or Freebrams that get easly to 70kmh drive in maps like Middle east is just stupid make WT great again
This so-called Q&A is laughable. The way you pretend that you do this for players to have clarity about the calculation method is just ridiculous. This is about making life easy for the devs - not the players. Stop pretending it is not. You could really just make a tl;dr and write "we don't care about reality contradicting us, we don't care about people pointing out how and why our formula is wrong. This is how it will be, basta". Don't you guys EVER dare to claim historical accuracy again.
Well, i'm generally fine with most of this, fair enough, but... i still find at least upsetting how some AP rounds made to penetrate more than their APCBC previous models have now lost all their prupose. (M69 and M72, i'm looking at you.) What's the point of using a solid round, which sacrifices the explosive filler for penetrating more, if it's going to penetrate less than the explosive filled shell? Kinda random, but welp.
Having a solid shot brings its own advantages. It is for example nearly impossible to destroy a tank with one hit from the back if you fire an explosive round, you always either empty the turret or destroy the engine. A solid shot will go through the entire tank and (if the caliber is high enough) has a good chance of destroying the whole tank. You may also reach modules/ammo that you wouldn´t hit with an explosive shell (good example is the ammo in the Tiger II turret back).
FaafVonFasslich, noob
I honestly think you should revert this update, it has made the game even less balanced (even if you implement the proposed BR changes) and less historically accurate which is one of the main reasons people like this game so much It also does not make any sense that a solid AP round has less penetration than a hollow APCBC with explosive filler
"A. In the calculation we used the density of tungsten cores equal to 17500 kg/m^3 (indicated in the published table sheet with changes). This corresponds to the 2nd class of tungsten alloy from the specification. The choice of this density value has been made due to the fact that the exact density values at the moment are unknown for us." so you made them worse, then what they were in reality, what a shocker once again! as if gaijins honesty, wasn't questionable enough before, all of this.
hey, they would've made them better if it was a Russian shell!
and this is the density of normal tungsten 19.3 g/cm3 aka its 19300kg/m^3 around 2000 kg/m^3 higher than what it is currently even if it is a tungsten allow i refuse to believe they would allow such a reduced density
Discrepancies of over 20% +-? "This is fine." That much for taking feedback into account-basically the entire Q&A is a "we don´t care about your feedback and will continue to stick with our broken formula".
So why nerfing all long rods secondary pen the exact same day as the penetration changes go live? The day before the values changed JM33 had decent spalling in tanks but now its near non existent. APDS and APFSDS post pen damage is known to be unrealistically low for years now and still "This problem is known and will be corrected".. I wouldnt even believe you guys even if i saw the change with my own eyes.
JM33 never had decent spalling, aside on test server.
same, even the german DM 13 and DM23 almost never spalls inside a tank anymore, and often i could give a comerade the flying turret syndrome quite easily, but now i played 15 games with the new mechanic in my Leo 2A4 and i cna't really seem to kill anything, the Sabot just goes straight through now not doing anything. even went straight through ammo on the ruskis and nothing happened. stoped playing Jerry high tier after that.
Submit a complaint