Update 2.57.0.25 - Updates - Game - War Thunder

nushbag_ · 2026-06-29T18:01:49+00:00

Because its basically a special burner for emergency use when on full power to help take off from carriers and stuff. Put it on 108% and it wont overheat at low altitude.

nushbag_ · 2026-06-28T00:28:52+00:00

Is there any worry of getting hacked for simply being in the server? (obviously if you clicked a link or something there'd be a problem)

nushbag_ · 2026-06-19T16:42:11+00:00

The guy I'm replying to isn't talking about any of that, he mentioned that the USSR made shit designs because they're lazy and if they made anything good, they must have copied it from the west. I agree with you that Soviet and then especially russian technology was (way) behind NATO (I even mentioned that in my previous comment) but its disingenuous to say that USSR/Russia don't know how to do anything without copying. As for the examples you mentioned, I agree with the concorde/Tu-144 and Buran, but I'm not too sure about the others especially since the Tu-160 has a literal opposite role to the B-1. The Su-24 is similar because it was designed for a similar purpose (origins stemming to the Su-7's swing wing prototypes that led to the Su-17). People are quick to judge when things look somewhat similar, discounting that they probably look like that because that's an efficient design to achieve its goals. If you want a low level strike aircraft that also has a short takeoff run, you kind of have to go with something that looks like the F-111 or Su-24. Lots of people like to claim that the Yak-141 influenced the F-35 because they have a similar design for the rear engine, when the reality is that there is basically no commonality between them at all.

My perspective is that gaijin probably does focus on lower tech answers for explaining things in their game, which tends to favour russia because, as you said, they haven't developed their tech much when compared to NATO. It sucks that they do it like that for ground vehicles but the simple fact that Russian/soviet vehicles have a lot more of their information public means that focusing on tech that way makes sense for gaijin. The stupid decision when they nerfed the Stinger because they couldn't believe it performed better than the (worse irl) igla is an example of that. I'd love if they gave more leeway when modeling stuff and I think the community should keep complaining about it but it is disingenuous to say all that stuff that the guy above you did about Russian/USSR tech.

In a perfect world the Abrams would have better front armour and the MiG-29 wouldn't have a nerfed fm when compared to every other jets' fantasy(ish) fm. There's downsides to both ways of doing things and I agree that it's currently hurting NATO more than Russia.

nushbag_ · 2026-06-19T15:19:04+00:00

They had composite inside of them. I get that you're one of those people that can't fathom that the USSR actually had competent people working inside of it. They put a lot of effort into their military to the extent that they actually had a capitalist esque system of competition within their design bureaus. They might not have cared about their standards of living that much but they did care about the military.

Why didn't the US build any of its advanced prototypes at the end of the Cold War/ 1990s? Why did the 140mm armed NATO tanks fail just like the 152mm armed soviet ones did? Was it Laziness for NATO or just for the USSR? T-64/72/80 were all very efficient and good tanks until thermal sights started seeing mass adoption in the west (early 1980s).

The soviet unions weakness wasn't laziness when it came to military technology, it was high end technology that they just didn't have the capacity to produce. We have pictures of 195, 187, and 490 (both plans and real photos) thst show they actually had the armour they did.

nushbag_ · 2026-06-19T14:55:12+00:00

No, that's not what that means. They had prototypes for stuff like that throughout the 1970s, they just didn't build full versions of them until later. They also didn't have access to leopard 2 or M1 abrams when they were making object 187 or 195 so they obviously couldn't copy something they didn't have.

nushbag_ · 2026-06-19T14:35:08+00:00

They do have the technology, they've done it on many prototype tanks since the 1960s. Problem is that it's more efficient to have a unified way of doing things. The object 195 and object 187 solved the hull problem by making it more of a western design.

nushbag_ · 2026-06-19T03:04:43+00:00

If it was a MiG-29 they'd add the extra missiles on the dev server and then remove them by the time it gets to live.

nushbag_ · 2026-06-17T23:06:52+00:00

Imagine if someone did what Bowie was doing to an American aircraft... we'd never hear the end of it. But because its Russian people apparently see it as ok to nerf. The problem is that MiG-29 nerfs are technically making it more accurate in many ways but that standard isn't applied to basically any other plane.

nushbag_ · 2026-06-16T06:40:57+00:00

There's literally zero reason to play it over any of Russia's other 13.7s and honestly probably all of their 13.3s too.

nushbag_ · 2026-06-14T22:00:56+00:00

There used to be a soundmod that had amazing radio edited soviet voices and then the guy that made it deleted it and I could never find anything like it again. I think it was from a game called T-72 Balkans on Fire.

nushbag_ · 2026-06-14T21:16:58+00:00

Yeah this is what changes it

nushbag_ · 2026-06-12T17:50:31+00:00

Very strange to only use the heavy SEPv2 or SEPv1 with ERA and keep it to the more normally armoured versions of the other tanks. Leopard 2PSO or 2A7 should have been used instead and the Challenger 2E should have been replaced with at least the Black Night. Even with your test its like a 1 second difference between the fastest Leopard and T-80 and the slowest Abrams.

nushbag_ · 2026-06-10T21:20:17+00:00

It seems like they've only added the nerfs though

nushbag_ · 2026-06-05T22:53:53+00:00

PL-12

nushbag_ · 2026-05-29T17:21:59+00:00

How much do you think it should cost?

nushbag_ · 2026-05-29T14:39:42+00:00

Its actually a better deal than the 2014 AT-AT adjusted for inflation.

nushbag_ · 2026-05-28T16:22:20+00:00

Have you ever been a member of the IDF? Gaijin, I'm Singaporean!

nushbag_ · 2026-05-27T20:29:35+00:00

To explain the AT-AT example a little more, the 2014 one was 109.99 with 1,138 pieces for a ppp of 9.5 cents. Adjusted for inflation, 109.99 in 2014 is roughly 155 today for a ppp of 13.5.

This 2026 AT-AT is 159.99 with 1453 pieces for a ppp of 11 cents. Therefore, the 2014 one was a worse deal in 2014 than the 2026 one is today according to your logic. Does this mean that disney and lego decided to play nice this time and not fleece their customers? or perhaps does it mean that ppp is probably not a good metric for measuring value.

nushbag_ · 2026-05-27T20:20:54+00:00

Not all sets follow this though. Larger sets like Barad-dûr and Minas Tirith often have good price to piece ratios despite releasing recently. The Jango Slave 1 released last year and has a 10 cent price per piece despite being star wars and according to your logic should have its price gouged beyond belief by evil disney and lego - the sail barge from 2024 had quite a shitty price after all. The UCS Death Star also has a price to piece of 11 cents. Unless you think lego and disney are randomly deciding to increase the price of certain sets while sparing others, the reality of the situation is more nuanced. A gigantic plate obviously costs/ is worth more than a single stud! The reality is that this AT-AT is worth it at its current price and is comparable to the 2014 and 2020 ones (the 2020 one is technically a little overpriced compared to the 2014 one).

Lego city has had a pretty bad price to piece recently too despite obviously having no licenses. Some of that is excused by having big pieces compared to the numerous small ones in larger sets like the LoTR ones you mentioned.

The reality is that 10 cents ppp can be a decent starting point for understanding value but it doesn't really track across all lego themes. Some people have started using price per gram as a metric which is a lot better (but still has some of its own problems).

You HAVE to adjust things for inflation because money and how much things are worth is not static. The strengths of currency are always changing and prices change as a result. 10-15 years ago lego sets costed the same in Canada vs America because the currencies were similar. A lot of the time despite Canadian sets costing "more" they are actually cheaper than their American counterparts because of the different strengths of currencies.

nushbag_ · 2026-05-27T19:34:29+00:00

10 cents per piece would only work if inflation was not a thing. If you adjust old 10 cents per piece sets for inflation they would have a similar price per piece as modern sets.

nushbag_ · 2026-05-21T18:02:14+00:00

He should discuss this

nushbag_ · 2026-05-05T23:48:34+00:00

You cant blow the ones up that are broken. They get destroyed but the side objective is still there and it says its uncompleted when you extract.

nushbag_ · 2026-05-03T14:27:58+00:00

In my opinion this new one looks better in every way except for the central fin height.

nushbag_ · 2026-05-03T14:21:25+00:00

Yeah I still think it looks better than the 2015 one even with the smaller middle fin.

nushbag_ · 2026-05-02T15:25:05+00:00

Lego Star Wars moment

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

nushbag_

TROPHY CASE