T110's Zen-like Inner Core.
Дата: 16.09.2015 03:44:29
Life_In_Black, on Sep 09 2015 - 19:49, said: Which I understand. There's always the chance of Wargaming
not caring, especially when even The_Chieftain is going to defend a
dodgy source on their behalf. But what do I have if I give up hope,
or give up trying? Especially when you commented on something after
I found what I needed to actually facilitate that change? Nobody
told shapeshifter not to keep buying archive documents or posting
about how historical the M6 series could be, and look what he
managed to accomplish with the M6A2E1. Sure, an engine on a single
premium tank isn't much, but it is something, especially to the
person who's not only trying to make the change, but is also trying
to get a full tech tree into the game where the change (or lack
thereof) could have consequences. Nevermind the fact the tank
itself shouldn't even be a French premium, but an Israeli one. So
look at your posts from my point of view here, and you'll see why
I'm getting worked up over them.The_Chieftain: LiB, I'm sorry I have not been convinced by faulty logic.
Early examples of both M50 and M51 came with the Continental
engine. The ones shown in the Israeli book may have been based
on French stock and just not yet upgraded. Maybe the French in
their prototype hadn't quite figured out the best way to configure
the engine compartment correctly, and making an -acceptable-
Cummins-powered configuration took a while, meaning that the
Israelis started taking delivery of what they knew worked reliably
now, with the plan of getting the reconfigured engine deck in later
with the Cummins. There is plenty of precedent for this sort of
process. There were multiple Israeli configurations of the engine
deck and rear hull for the Cummins as well as they were trying
to get it to work well. I admit that Chars-Francais is not an
ideal source, but it does seem to be the best one we have right
now. Basically for you to be proven right, you have to either find
the original French documentation for the prototype vehicle, or
prove that there is no way that in any configuration the Cummins
engine could be placed into the standard M4A1 engine compartment
and get the tank to move. Anything else falls under
'circumstantial.' In response to your questions, I
speak reasonably fluent French, and so have been bouncing around
the EU forum to see what the French folk have been saying. Though
the engine was mentioned once or twice, there seems to have been no
particular outcry from them that Chars-Francais is incorrect. (They
did note the E8 question, though as I mentioned in our PMs, that
could well have been the program name given the note in the text
about planned production). If you want me to say that someone,
whose sources I do not know, is wrong, it is up to me to prove that
it is wrong. I have no such proof; at worst, concern. I've
asked Minsk to see if they can look into it more, but I am not
going to 'insist' on anything I do not know is true.
LoooSeR78V, on Sep 11 2015 - 11:58, said: OPERATOR! 
The_Chieftain: That's not the guy who took out Usain Bolt, is it?
https://nbcolympicta...40698203337.png
EmpressNero, on Sep 11 2015 - 15:18, said: Wargaming claims to have the same book I do about Japanese
cruisers. However, the model in-game pretty much proves that
if they actually do have the book, they didn't bother checking it
before they modeled the Furutaka in-game. Just because they
have access to the information doesn't mean they're smart enough to
use it.The_Chieftain: Remind me. Sometimes there are technical reasons why we've
had to detour from reality. Airplane catapults are a case in point.
Vollketten, on Sep 11 2015 - 16:18, said: The front of the drivers plate is bascailly a vertical step
in the game model but its really a slope as they are all cast in
one piece. The mantlet is missing the 'chin' under it and may
(depending on model) be missing a small part above the coaxial
machine gun The track guards which IRL are rather thick and heavy
made from substantial metal are neither used as armour in game nor
modelled to their correct thickness. There's a whole chunk of
vehicle missing from the rear in the collision model. WG rules also
force us to ignore the armoured bins at the front tooThe_Chieftain: Mmm... The PR folks have a habit of sending out images
before the tanks are ready. On Tue 8th Sept, I was in front of a
Matilda II talking with Minsk about the armored bins and the side
skirts. (It was something they had asked me about prior, but I
didn't have a chance to get to it before we were filming the next
set of ITCHs) Speaking of, any obvious errors in M4A1, StuG III,
Tortoise or T-34/85? Sorry I've been a bit quiet recently,
had a heck of a few busy weeks.
T110's Zen-like Inner Core.