Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta
Keskusteluiden säännöt ja ohjeistukset
Ilmoita tämä viesti
What environment are you using it in?
It's meant for deep snow and deep mud. It's not meant for mountain trails, rock crawling/rock fields, general-purpose driving, or the likes of that; if you want to do the latter, you're better of with a CK1500.
It's also not meant for fast and careless driving. Those huge wheels and height come at the expense of a high center of gravity.
Was trying almost on all maps, and diffirent terrains. If I wanna go with deep mud, I'd still stick to Tatarin.
Burlak is good only, because it can pull light and heavy trailers - nothing else.
Still, I like it, but they should be fixing that problem with flipping it back on its wheels
And on top of that i can have the autonomous scout ( battery ) electric winch, so if you flip it with trees or a pole in range it isn't that bad.
All that said i think the real thing is likely much more stable. Axle's, differentials gearboxes and such can be really heavy and bring down the center of gravity although the vehicle is high. But it does have huge wheels so that center is certainly not near the ground.
not just light and heavy trailers it can also hold up to 600 repair parts and have a mountable crane
The Loadstar and the F-750 can both carry cranes as well, and have a lower center of gravity. Both of these give their best performance when you're not in deep mud or snow, the latter being the scenarios where the Burlak shines. The Loadstar will pull light trailers and the F-750 will pull heavy ones (the 750 can also carry 1 unit of cargo while outfitted with a crane, like the Burlak). The Zikz 566A from Quebec is almost the same size as the Burlak, can also have a crane and a 1-unit cargo rack, has significantly more engine power than the Burlak, and can pull heavy trailers.
They don't carry as many repair points, but I also can't see the appeal of carrying that many repair points even for hard mode, unless you're doing a vehicle repair contract (for which you could always take a repair addon/trailer in a specialized repair vehicle) or unless you're doing a demolition derby. How often do you get to use repair parts if you're not doing something stupid nor speeding on rock-strewn surfaces, anyway?
That's assuming the wheel is soft and you have some movement in suspension. Like on the YAR 87 which can roll over rocks like they're almost not even there(within reason) Burlak has stiff wheels and almost no suspension, so the whole truck just follows the terrain.
I would say Burlak is your best option for light trailers, but with JAT DLC it's probably beaten at it by the YAR 87(there's literally one mission in the entire game which has you load a scout trailer)
The YAR has lower torque and lower mass than the Burlak, so it depends on whether or not that trailer is a cargo trailer, and how heavy your cargo is.
If it's something like a scout fuel trailer, the YAR can get it to its destination faster. If it's something like an offroad cargo trailer with steel beams on it, the Burlak will give you increased control over that trailer and will have an easier time pulling it due to the higher torque rating.
I've not tested that with the Burlak specifically, but I've done it with the F-750. If you set it up with a standard pickup bed instead of the one with the overhead cargo rails, and with no roof rack, it is able to withstand a greater magnitude of lateral tilt because you reduce the top weight.
In the case of the Burlak, the bed removes a chunk of the vehicle that would otherwise add top weight (as long as the cargo bed remains empty). Makes sense.
I am tired of saber making vehicles with unrealistically high centers of gravity and leaving their physics engine to languish. I cant help but LOL at people who praise this game's physics engine when its the only one in a MODERN game that gets praise for its physics but i can consistently get a 30T 8x8 armored vehicle stuck frozen in place balanced on a 30 degree point standing up rather than flip all the way upside down.
Power transferring axles, transfer and differential gear boxes and such are heavy and closer to the ground. under the vehicle. These pull vehicles and the center of gravity down and thus set them upright on their wheels until you cross a certain critical angle threshold banking the vehicle too much. Real large tires also have dampening properties that prevent them from bouncing all too much, if suspension is not present on the vehicle.
I feel the Burlak bounces too much, and has too little weight under the vehicle. So it bounces and flips over like a skippy ball. Of course the real Burlak cannot drive like that, it would be a suicidal machine.
I do dislike it too, despite earlier comments it is ok when driven with care. I did all Austria's scout trailer missions with the Earth Roamers. Despite their ridiculous RV build the pickup frames under neath are quite capable. The game really should offer a choice to remove the RV part. I think the same way about the rally truck.