Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This. I would like to know as well why the aim is so inconsistent at the moment. I can't find the logic in the circle focus thing.
There other way is that let ai do it for u. When into fight switch to ur ai that engaging enemy with u and they already do better job than human set range already
The FCS in T-64B and T-80B are superior to anything fielded by the US up to this day.
Could you eleborate in which way?
I'm not an expert and frankly too lazy to find a proper source right now but you can search up "1A33 Fire Control System" and there should be some better explanations on it. But it has a much better lead calculation system than the M1 (which has not changed up until present day) does. I believe the targeting process is basically lasing the target and then keeping your reticule on instead of the jankier setup of the M1s FCS.
And if you wish to bring up current day Sosna-U has the ability to lock onto a thermal signature and follow it without any input at all from the gunner, something the M1 lacks as well.