T110's Zen-like Inner Core.
Дата: 17.09.2015 00:33:24
EmpressNero, on Sep 16 2015 - 20:38, said: I know there is. How about you focus on the other part
of the post instead of the part that strokes your own ego?The_Chieftain: You really want to get snippy? Pity I work here and like my
job, otherwise I'd respond in kind. However, I didn't think there
was much to say to the quote other than maybe "your opinion is
noted" which I decided to attempt to do in a humorous manner.
Still, since you insist.
EmpressNero, on Sep 16 2015 - 13:46, said: If they can't make the model accurate due to "technical reasons",
then they should just remove the model and replace it with a
Wargaming fabrication. It's better to have a stupid,
worthless lie of a ship on the tech tree over a "real" ship that
has non-historical outfits. Maybe they can even name it after
you.The_Chieftain: "Dear players. We know you would like us to implement the
New York class ships, especially those of you in Texas and New
York, but since our software engineers haven't yet figured out how
to put an aircraft catapult onto a rotating turret, and having the
vessel without it greatly offends certain hard-core purists, we
have decided to replace it on the tree with a battleship of our
creation." You don't think that's just a little extreme?
Daigensui, on Sep 16 2015 - 20:47, said: On the other hand, there is no evidence that the French
prototype was powered by a Cummins. In fact, even Chars-Francais backtracked and removed
references to a Cummins engine (Cette variante voit aussi
l’adoption d’un nouveau moteur). Again, do we have any
evidence that the French were planning for the conversion? You
still haven't answered that. The_Chieftain: I don't follow your first argument. "Voit" is present
indicative. Reading that says that the vehicle actually had a new
engine, not 'would have.'. Not incompatible with the proposal that
it had a Cummins under that engine deck. I do not have
any such evidence. Neither do I have any evidence that there is
not. So that argument seems irrelevant.
Vollketten, on Sep 16 2015 - 20:43, said: The side bins issue it two fold, first even your photo shows
the line of the hull at the back is set back from the main casemate
of the vehicle when in game it's square, this means the rear is easier to
hit than it should be as it is too wide. Secondly with regards to
thickness I'd say they appear to be about the same thickness as
these stowage lockers. which in game are 30mm thick spaced
armour. 
Regarding the
side skirts I outlined in red where the spaced armour should be
modelled. Here they are in a variety of states and whilst thinner
than the lower side skirt plate are substantial enough not to have
rusted to nothing next to the sea in Scotland for decades although
I conceed the rear mud guards are certainly looking rough 
Really they either all are armour or
they are not. Either way the rear hull is too fat in the model.
The_Chieftain: The issue with the hull sides narrowing after the main
casemate has already been dealt with on the collision model I have
on the server. The main rear hull armor is now a few inches inboard
compared to the casemate. I can't help much with the IS-3. I've
already asked about it, and I'll revisit it next time it comes up.
I see your point with regards the upper side skirts. I've
passed it on. I've also asked to revisit the thickness of the
stowage bins. They do look thicker than simple sheet metal, but I'm
not sure if they're armor. (The rear one in your photo looks bent?)
Fenders are sheet metal. https://c1.staticfli...21a5cdeed_b.jpg
T110's Zen-like Inner Core.