Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'error'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Programs Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 16 results

  1. This is a repost from the consolidated armor model error collection over here: I am posting it here in hopes of it garnering a bit more attention than it otherwise would, as WG tends to ignore this sort of thing unless it is being talked about. As near as we have been able to ascertain (myself and @SireneRacker), this is not widely known or disseminated information, and multiple secondary source publications have repeatedly cited and re-cited the incorrect values, which is what has been represented ingame on both vessels. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau: There are so many issues with these models, that it honestly defies description. In the interest of simplifying them, I have only taken into account issues which are directly relevant ingame (ignoring details such as armored rangefinders, etc…). Keep in mind that these are merely what I have identified as “critical” errors. The errors in the armor model for these two ships have been entirely compiled from a scan of the original armor scheme documentation, which to my knowledge is entirely accurate and trustworthy. All values have been lifted directly from this layout, which will be made available below for your own inspection. All listed values are applicable to both vessels of the class (to the extent of my knowledge). Section 1: Belt Armor Thickness and Arrangement. The main belt between frames 32 and 166 should be 320 mm. Ingame it is modeled as 350 mm. The medium belt between frames 10 and 208 should be 35 mm. Ingame it is modeled as 45 mm. The medium belt should extend from frames 10 to 207. Ingame it ends at frames 32 and 166. Section 2: Deck Armor Thickness and Arrangement. The entirety of the primary deck armor (main armor deck) has been modeled in a grossly inaccurate manner, the details of which will be shown in full. -The aforementioned missing extensions of the medium belt should connect with a 50 mm forward extension of the forecastle deck armor, which covers the entirety of the deck from frames 10 to 207. Ingame this deck also ends at frames 32 and 166. -The machinery deck is split into two distinct areas: the inboard section, and the outboard section. These two areas are separated by a vertical 40 mm bulkhead which extends from the main armor deck, to the underside of the forecastle deck between frames 50 and 172. The inboard armor deck over the machinery is 80 mm thick, extending from frame 55 to 180. At frames 55 and 150, this deck covers the magazines, increasing in thickness to 95 mm until frames 12 and 170 respectively. Ingame, the machinery deck is modeled as one piece with a thickness of 80 mm, the magazine deck 95 mm. The outboard armor deck over both the machinery and magazines is 105 mm thick, between frame 32 and 166. This is not to be confused with the sloped armor deck, which is also 105 mm thick and “knuckles” downwards to meet the bottom edge of the main belt armor. The extended main armor deck in front turrets “Anton” and “Caesar” between frames 162-166 and 32-40 respectively, are also 105 mm thick. The magazine sloped decks between frames 32-55 and 150-66 are 105 mm. Ingame, these are modeled as 110 mm. Sources: Scharnhorst class official drawings: "RM 20,1913 Allgemeine Typfragen fur Schlachtschiffe, Panzerschiffe und Kreuzer 10,02,1939 11,12,1939 Scharnhorst Gneisenau Gewichte abgerundete und zwischen beiden Schiffen" and "GKDS. 100: Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschoßwahl Heft g Schlachtschiffe Gn Sch"
  2. zproxy

    Reporta los Errores

    Hola Colegas Comparto información para Si encuentra algún error en la versión actual de World of Warships, infórmelo. Es importante que informemos de los errores y problemas de los datos apropiados sobre el problema encontrado para poder abordarlos y enviarlos a los desarrolladores. Los informes de error incompletos no pueden ser procesados por los desarrolladores. Es urgente mandame mensaje por discord: Zproxy#9896 Aquí están las categorías y datos que necesitan: Caída del juego - Game Chrash: Problemas relacionados con el bloqueo donde el cliente se cierra / se bloquea. Archivo WGCheck Archivo de volcado de caída Capturas de pantalla Pasos de reproducción Problemas de juego / mecánica de juego - Gameplay / Game mechanic issues Errores relacionados con la animación, controles, mecánica de juego, etc. Archivo WGCheck Capturas de pantalla Pasos de reproducción Problemas de actualización / lanzador Errores relacionados con la actualización o instalación del juego. DxDiag WoWSLauncher.log (en el directorio principal de WoWS) Explicación de la cuestión Problemas gráficos: Errores de textura y otros temas relacionados con gráficos. Archivo WGCheck Capturas de pantalla Artefactos / Bichos en el Mapa: Problemas con el mapa. Capturas de pantalla del error. Archivo WGCheck Explicación de la cuestión. Traducción : Errores de ortografía y otros problemas relacionados con el Idioma. Capturas de pantalla del error. Explicación de la cuestión / sugerencia de corrección. Retraso y conexión: Problemas con ping alto, retraso y donde el juego no se ejecuta sin problemas. Capturas de pantalla Archivo WGCheck Archivo PingPlotter En el archivo WGCheck: El programa WGCheck creará automáticamente un archivo DXDiag que le permite verificar su hardware y realizar un análisis de su cliente del juego, verificando la integridad, la presencia de modificaciones y cualquier error. También incluirá automáticamente los archivos de registro más importantes. Cómo crear un informe PingPlotter: https://na.wargaming.net/support/kb/articles/50 Utilice como dirección para rastrear: login.worldofwarships.na Dónde encontrar el archivo volcado Crash. El volcado de bloqueo es un archivo de depuración que registra las acciones del programa y ayuda a un desarrollador a encontrar una razón para un bloqueo. Es un archivo con el final. World of Warships crea tales archivos en caso de un accidente. Esos archivos se almacenan en la carpeta CRASHES dentro de la carpeta de instalación de World of Warships. Para que su cliente cree archivos de volcado de caída, debe reemplazar el archivo engine_config.xml en la carpeta / res con este. Tenga en cuenta que esto puede causar problemas con su cliente, solo se recomienda si experimenta bloqueos graves. El archivo de resultados puede ser muy grande; si lo envía a soporte, utilice un servicio de alojamiento de archivos para cargarlo y agregar un enlace al ticket. Capturas de pantalla: Por favor crea capturas de pantalla en formato JPG o PNG. Importante para los pasos de reproducción: Por favor provea la siguiente información: 1. Estado inicial - configuración de su cliente, etc. 2. Todas las acciones anteriores al error. 3. Descripción del estado de error: qué sucede exactamente cuando se presenta el problema. 4. [Opcionales] posibles motivos: si cree que un problema puede deberse a algo en particular, háganos saber su conjetura. Puede ayudar Espero les sea de ayuda. Saludos
  3. descargue el juego en el 2015 desde la pagina de internet y ahora que esta en steam no puedo entrar con mi antigua cuenta steam me abre una cuenta nueva y ya intente lo de modificar el archivo dll y no funciono
  4. It doesn't open past the launcher. Pressing play on the launcher simply results in that little window appearing. Please help, I just wanna try out the new CVs.
  5. Hey guys, Been running WOWS on my newest MAC, the newest update installed fine, but on launching the game it encounters an error and shuts down. Seems to be with the interface of the launching software and the game itself.any help?? would like to avoid uninstall and complete reinstall (and not sure if that would help).
  6. WG has committed several errors when modeling the B-65 Type “Super A” class cruiser Azuma. These are not massive faults, yet are worthy of mention and correction ingame. As Azuma is specifically referenced to be of the B-65 type, I view these inaccuracies as fair game for correction, as they do not match the available material and final design for said ships. For reference purposes, all values and images are scanned from my copy of Linton Wells II and Eric LaCroix’s excellent “Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War”. This is by far and away the premier English resource for all things regarding the design, production, and combat history of Japanese cruisers produced between the world wars. To my knowledge, there is no finer or comprehensive source available on the subject. All other values are pulled from the ingame armor model viewer, as well as several from GM3D, due to its ease in highlighting specific small sections of armor. The Belt. As it appears ingame. The belt on the Super A class cruisers is specifically stated by Wells & LaCroix to have been designed to be 190-millimeters thick, sloped at 20 degrees from vertical, and made of VH steel. This plate tapers to 150-mm at its lower edge, where it then switches to a 150-mm thick MNC plate, which then proceeds to taper to 90-mm at its lower edge. There are several problems here with WG’s armor model in relation to the belt. Rather than starting above the waterline at the designed 190-mm, instead we have again run into the issue which plagued earlier ships with tapering belts in the game, chief among them being the Iowa’s and Alabama. Rather than model smaller descending bands, WG has simply “averaged” out the thickness of the upper plated taper. This has resulted in the entirety of the top VH section becoming a flat 178-mm, which then transforms into 144-mm at the waterline, and then to 96-mm below that point. There is a rather simple fix for this problem, and that is to utilize the more detailed “banding” which was used to simulate the taper on other ships with a similar armor scheme. Rather than having three sections of averaged thickness which result in a loss of armor protection, it would be better to include four to five of them in order to more accurately represent the taper, and retain the maximum belt thickness in the areas which had it (these being roughly where the current 178-mm section is located, the taper to 150-mm being much more gradual below the waterline). The belt, actual thickness and design specification. The upper section itself, the part extending above the waterline, should be an almost uniform 190-mm. This matches the desired immunity zone to the 31-cm shell, that being 20-30,000 meters. Although one could argue the true utility of 12-mm of armor at a tier where some guns are breaking 750-mm of penetration, I counter with the same rhetoric: if the difference is so trivial, then why not do it right? The Auxiliary Rudder Machinery Belt. This is another section where it seems that a random number was chosen. The design itself calls for this to be the same 175-mm of MNC as is present on the primary rudder’s armor box. To the extent of the material available to me, there is no reason why this section of armor should be modeled as 148-mm instead of 175-mm. The auxiliary rudder belt. The Conning Tower. Another seemingly arbitrary change in thickness, this time an increase. The B-65 design called for 180-mm of VH armor on the front and sides of this area. Ingame, it has gained an extra 35-mm, now being 215-mm thick. This is in spite of the fact that the conning towers roof has remained the correct 125-mm. The conning tower. “B” Barbette and “X” Barbette. Both of these sections of armor, the cylindrical barbettes for “B” and “X”, have been modelled too thickly. The armor layout calls that the raised section for “B” to be 210-mm of VH armor. Ingame, this has somehow become 260-mm. The lower section is correctly modeled as having thinned somewhat, however it is also too thick, being 210-mm instead of the designed 190-mm. A similar story has occurred around “X” barbette. Although calling for 190-mm of VH armor, ingame this has been increased to 210-mm. The barbettes. That’s the extent of what I could find in terms of noteworthy errors in the armor model. There has been some question as the the legitimacy of the internal placement of the armor belt, where such a design had never before been used by the Japanese. However, the armor layout diagram available in LaCroix seems to indicate that this part is accurate. Another question arises about the absence of torpedo tubes on Azuma. This does not seem to have been an error on WG’s behalf, as it indeed appears that B-65 lost it’s torpedo armament relatively early on, if they existed at all. The confusion over this fact seems to stem from the stigma that all Japanese cruisers were to be armed with the Type 93 in some form or the other, but this appears to have not been the case with B-65, or the unique command-cruiser Oyodo. Anyways, thank you for reading. Hopefully this issues can be corrected at some point, as for the most part they are merely a question of accurately modeling the thicknesses, rather than having a large influence ingame. The addition or subtraction of 12-50-mm may not seem like much, but I do believe that it is worthwhile, for accuracy's sake. This thread has been posted here in GD, as the rules for the Bug Reporting section explicitly forbid the posting of such topics. All values and charts have, again, been pulled from Linton Wells II and Eric LaCroix’s “Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War”, and are accurate to the extent of my knowledge. Discrepancies in Type 96 25-mm numbers from those listed are most likely entirely as a result of “logical wartime progression”, as viewed by WG. Anyways, that's all. Special thanks to @Shikikaze for helping me find some of these to begin with, and inspiring me to shell out the $175 for LaCroix in the first place. @iKami , @Femennenly If either of you could potentially weigh in on if these corrections could possibly be considered, or perhaps forward them to those who might be interested, I would be very appreciative.
  7. A comprehensive suggestion for rebalancing my Donut, and fixing her armor model errors. WARNING: THIS IS LONG AND TEXT/IMAGE HEAVY Buckle in boys, this is going to be a long one. So the tier VI premium light battleship (or battlecruiser) Dunkerque has recently garnered a bit of attention in regards to the presumptive reload buff she is receiving according to recent Dev Blog updates. The Buff is as described below: Now, as a long time player of Dunkerque (Donut, Dunkek, etc...) I have to say that the fact that she is finally receiving some attention is most appreciated. To my knowledge, Dunkerque has never seen any direct buffs or nerfs throughout her two and a half year tenure in this game. Naturally, much has changed in the way of meta since August of 2016, which was when she was originally introduced. Overmatch has become prevalent with the introduction of several new premiums and battleship lines. IFHE has become extremely prevalent ( if not necessary ) among destroyers and light cruisers. Newer ships are faster, or more accurate, have more guns, better HP, overmatch, armor, etc… Even the fabled CV rework is about to hit live, combined with news of a change to the flooding mechanics ( flooding being split into two sectors which deal less HP than one current flooding. 30% forward speed decrease, 60% reverse speed decrease ). Simply put, the game has changed a lot just in general. Throughout all of this, Dunkerque has remained largely the same, and it is my opinion that she is among the ships which have suffered the most from powercreep. I consider this to be quite unfortunate. I was for a time, one of the staunchest defenders of Dunkerque at her release, and for quite some time after her. Her speed used to be quite unique, as well as her bow-mounted main battery of extremely high velocity and penetration 330 mm /52 Mle 1932 rifles in two quadruple turrets. This layout resulted in occasional good groupings, and the speed of her shells made it relatively to hit enemy cruisers and battleships from near the maximum edge of her 18.2 km range ( 21.8 with a spotting plane ). Her flexibility and relatively quick reload allowed her to exert influence across a greater than usual area of the map, especially when compared to slower vessels like New Mexico. This helped make up for her relative lack of strength in other areas, and there are many areas in which Dunkerque was deficient, even back in 2016. We’ll get into those in a second. To add a bit of credence to my love for this ship ( and reinforce the fact that I’m not a random baBBie complaining because “Beeg ship no crush small ship!” ), here are my current standings in her. Not the best on the server, but I’ve certainly managed to do quite well. Being top 5 in Dunkerque is something I’m a little proud of. Unfortunately, I have stopped playing her in the past few months. To put it quite simply: she’s simply not fun in her current state, nor up to task for dealing with the current meta. Now, I said earlier that I would go into the various strengths and weaknesses of Dunkerque. Hopefully what I identify here will help my case for some of the buffs I will be proposing later. Pros: -Speed. Despite the amount of time that has passed, Dunkerque is still among the fastest of the battleships at her tier. At 29.5 knots without speedflags, she is tied with Normandie, and 1.5 knots faster than the Prinz Eitel Friedrich. Her advantage over the other premium and non premium battleships ranges from between 3 to 8.5 knots. This speed is valuable at a tier where most others are operating in the 23-25 knot range ( some as low as 21 ), no question about that. -Penetration and Velocity. Dunkerque's relative low caliber of 330 mm is deceiving. Her performance against vertical plate is among the best at her tier, being matched by New Mexico's 14”/50 and surpassed completely only with the introduction of West Virginia and her 16” AP Mark 5 shell. As we can see from the sweep, penetration and velocity are among the factors which do not trouble Dunkerque. She can penetrate the belt of most same tier battleships out to nearly her maximum range. The velocity still lets you snipe cruisers with ease, but in this aspect she suffers from Roma Syndrome: you will see a lot of overpenetrations. -Rate of Fire. Dunkerque has a 28 ( proposed 26 ) second reload. It’s not fantastic, but it’s better than most of the ships in tier VI. Some ships like New Mexico and Arizona truly suffer from some terribly ungodly long reloads, so I'm counting my blessings where I can find them. And… I’m going to be honest here, the list of objective strengths ends there. Her concealment is bad, although not worst in tier ( thanks Fuso ). Her maneuverability is bad, but not worst in tier. Her AA and secondaries are bad, but again, not worst in tier. What is objectively the worst in tier however, is her armor. Here we go into the- Cons: -Armor/Protection. Immediately, Dunkerque falls flat on her face. She is simply coated in 25 mm plating all over her hull. She has no distributed armor scheme, meaning that she is the most vulnerable of all ships at her tier to overmatch and IFHE. Dunkerque fundamentally lacks the ability to act as a good tank, or really a tank at all. Should she come upon the likes of a Queen Elizabeth, Warspite, Bayern, Mutsu, or West Virginia ( to say nothing of tier VII/VIII ), she is largely defenseless. Hits by those guns along her hull will always result in penetrations or overpenetrations for guaranteed damage. The same is true when being struck by 4-6” IFHE equipped light cruisers, or 7-8” armed heavy cruisers. Dunkerque's problems with protection don’t end here though. In addition to the poor extremity/hull plating, her belt and bulkheads are quite simply put, the worst in tier. Her belt is 225 mm with a 40 mm sloped deck and a 40-50 mm flat citadel bulkhead. This is incapable of protecting her citadel from battleship caliber shells at most ranges, and makes her particularly vulnerable at closer ranges. The forward citadel bulkhead is a flat 228 mm. Simply put, this cannot stop any shell which overmatches the 25 mm bow, at any range. We have already identified the ships just in tier VI which can and do accomplish this task. In addition to this fact, her turrets are vulnerable. Far from being poorly armored, the problem with Dunkerque's turrets are that they are stacked atop one another, and very wide. By the nature of her playstyle, these turrets take a lot of shells, and one or both are often destroyed. Each lost turret represents a net -50% decrease in firepower. Dunkerque has no special heal or any other advantage to make up for these extreme and pronounced vulnerabilities. My first con section is already three times the length of the entirety of the pros. -Torpedo Defense. To put it frankly, Dunkerque's torpedo damage reduction value is an insult. Coming in at a little over 7 meters in depth, the little battleship had what was universally considered to be one of the best torpedo defense systems ever put on a ship. The Richelieu had a narrower version of this design, and ingame receives a respectable ( albeit still rather low ) 35%. Dunkerque gets [edited] 25%. Why. With her armament and armor peculiarities heavily influencing her playstyle, she is incredibly vulnerable to torpedo attack. This low of a value is simply inexcusable from both a historical and gameplay perspective, and hurts her massively. -Main Battery/Offensive Power. On paper, Dunkerque's guns seem quite good. I’ve already detailed the great strength of her belt penetration and the advantages afforded by her high velocity. These strengths are more than ruined by their weaknesses. First and foremost, Dunkerque has 1.7 sigma. This in itself isn’t a death knell, but then the rest of the picture comes in. She has only eight guns. She can’t overmatch same tier battleship hulls. Her reload, although short, does not make up for the loss of four barrels when compared to the infinitely stronger Fuso, which shares the same rate of fire. Then comes her horrific vertical dispersion, and then the fact that she overpenetrates anything that’s not a battleship belt or unfortunately angled cruiser ( Roma Syndrome ). To say that Dunkerque's main battery performance is frustrating, would be a massive understatement. No part of it compliments the other enough to overcome the weaknesses inherent to the caliber and dispersion characteristics at this tier. Her 130 mm /45 secondary battery is also poor, although not quite terrible. The shells have a high individual fire chance and good damage, however they fall short on penetration with 21 mm base. The mounts are also positioned awkwardly, making them hard to use reliably. Although the quadruple turrets are well armored, the twins mounted forward are not. It is not worth speccing into these by any means. -Anti-Aircraft. Dunkerque's anti-aircraft firepower has been poor since release. Although the 3 x 4 and 2 x 2 130 mm mountings have decent range, they fall flat with their low damage numbers ( no information as of yet on how they perform with the CV rework ), throwing up a measly 54 DPS at 5.0 km. Mid range is essentially non-existent, five twin 37 mm guns yield 12 DPS at 3.0 km. Short range is very short, with 8 x 4 13.2 mm mountings yielding a combined 40 DPS at 1.4 km. Simply put, Dunkerque can add being incapable of defending herself effectively from aircraft to her long list of downsides, even with a full AA spec. -Detection. Although by no means the worst in tier, 16.4 with camo ( 14.1 with CE + camo ) is not great for a ship of her particular playstyle and vulnerability. She gets spotted early, and targeted by everyone for easy damage, with no real recourse to prevent such a thing from occurring. I could go even more in depth, but I think this identified most of the key issues which plague Dunkerque, and why I personally believe that she requires more help than just a 2 second reload buff. Recommended Improvements (not necessarily all at once, just general suggestions): -add 27 mm plating amidships over the side and weather deck. Already being plagued with the worst horizontal armor protection in her tier bracket, Dunkerque absolutely requires an improvement to her tanking capability. Increasing the protection amidships versus 381 mm guns essentially achieves the same results as the identical change made to some tier VIII cruisers. It allows her to mitigate some of the otherwise unavoidable damage from overmatch. Leaving the bow and stern sections 25 mm allows for damage to still be dealt, but requires a bit more thinking than simply “point and click for 10,000 damage”. -improve torpedo damage reduction to 35%. By her nature, Dunkerque spends a large part of any given battle with her bow towards the enemy, moving back and forth with the battle. This is largely a necessity forced by her poor armor, in addition to her armament layout precluding effective stern-kiting. This makes her extremely vulnerable to flanking attacks by destroyers, from which she has no real escape. Increasing torpedo damage reduction not only more correctly represents the strength of the real system, but also helps decrease her extreme vulnerability to all forms of damage. -increase sigma value from 1.7 to 1.9. To help offset her low barrel count and lack of overmatch ( combined with a propensity for overpenetrations and her huge vertical dispersion ), better hitting ability would help compliment her high velocity gunnery, allowing her to more reliably punish enemies who make mistakes, especially battleships. Sigma values are largely overrated, but they still do have an impact. -improve anti-air defense with the addition of the originally designed light AA complement of five 37 mm ACAD automatic mounts. Because of Dunkerque's more static reverse-advance playstyle, she makes an extremely enticing target to aircraft. Often she is simply unable to maneuver in time to avoid torpedoes, or attempt to evade dive bombers. This problem will only worsen with the carrier rework. This buff also has a degree of historical relevance. Dunkerque was originally supposed to be equipped not with the twin semi-automatic 37 mm Mle 1933 mountings, but with five of the twin automatic 37 mm Mle 1936 ACAD mountings. This little guy. Image taken from John Jordan & Robert Dumas’ “French Battleships: 1922-1956”. These mounts are already present ingame, four of them being mounted upon the heavy cruisers Algerie, Charles Martel, and the battleship Gascogne. The mounting has a base range of 3.5 km, and generates 12 DPS. Dunkerque was to be equipped with five such mountings, yielding 60 DPS ingame. This is quite literally a five fold increase over the current 12 DPS at 3.0 km. Given that the close and long range values are still quite low in damage or range, this won’t make her a floating AA castle. What it will do however, is provide her with some increase measure of self-defense. An AA spec might be viable with such a buff. -decrease base detection to 15 kilometers. This is self explanatory. As a light battleship meant to be flexing back and forth with the cruisers, a large base detection range makes her extremely vulnerable to being spotted early, and farmed for damage. A decrease of ~1 kilometer should help this slightly, and give her just a little bit more tactical flexibility. And thus ends my section on balance. Eleven god-damn pages of stuff that I shouldn’t have had to write, but did anyways out of love for Dunkerque. I want to see her be viable, fun, and rewarding of skill. WG’s proposed buff of -2s off the reload does not solve any of the fundamental issues present on her, so these are my suggestions. Please recall that I do not advocate for all of them being applied simultaneously, but I do feel that most of them could be without pushing the ship into being overpowered. Simply put: no matter what buffs I recommend, she will always be vulnerable to overmatch and IFHE spam. She will always have lackluster secondaries, and poor maneuverability. Her turrets will always be at risk of simply being destroyed, and she will always lack the ability to overmatch same tier battleships. Now, onto the more interesting part. ARMOR MODEL INACCURACIES, WOOHOO Ironically enough, while WG has seen fit to make Dunkerque suffering to play, they have actually overmodeled some sections of armor thickness. The errors are as follows: Armor deck is too thick. WG has modeled it as a uniform surface of 130 mm thickness. According to all known sources, Dunkerque has a main armor deck ( Pont Principal ) with two varying thicknesses over the machinery and magazines: 115 mm and 125 mm respectively. Machinery: Magazines: Images taken from John Jordan & Robert Dumas’ “French Battleships: 1922-1956”. Here’s how it looks ingame: Here’s how it should look: Fore and Aft Transverse Bulkheads are too thick. Paradoxically, WG decided to use the armor thicknesses from Dunkerque's uparmored sister ship, Strasbourg, when modeling her forward and aft transverse armored bulkheads. Ingame these are modeled as 228 mm and 198 mm respectively. Sources indicate that the fore bulkhead should instead be 210 mm, the aft bulkhead 180 mm. Fore: Aft: Images taken from John Jordan & Robert Dumas’ “French Battleships: 1922-1956”. Here’s how they look ingame: Ingame Fore: Ingame Aft: Here’s how they should look: Actual Fore: Actual Aft: Yes, I am in fact arguing for historical armor nerfs in the very same post where I call for buffs. Deal with it. Aaaaaaaaaaaand that’s all folks. As if it wasn’t long enough already. Stares at 21 page length in Word. I appreciate those of you who read through this and take the time to comment. Please for the love of god, DON’T QUOTE THE ENTIRE THING. I’ll be hovering over the comments area like an overly enthusiastic grade school soccer coach does his team, so feel free to ask any questions, discuss, whatever. Hopefully someone important will at least read this. Edit: No, I don't know why the Forum decided to center literally the entire thing. I can't undo it either. Edit 2: Whatever, it sort of fixed itself.
  8. I have been seeing some comments that people have received their 500 steel and 15k coal. I played 10 battles on the RU server CB time and I have not received my rewards.
  9. Every time I try to start WoW, an error message saying, "D:/World_of_Warships_NA/WorldOfWarships.exe crashed 07.23.2017 at 23:35:28 Message: [PFS] can't init pack info manager: D:/World_of_Warships_NA/res_packages" How do I fix this? I've really been wanting to play with all these new events out.
  10. El juego crashea y en el log de errores aperece la siguiente leyenda: Application C:/Games/World_of_Warships_NA/WorldOfWarships.exe crashed 10.24.2018 at 19:32:34 Message: Unhandled exception Hash: 1339 EIP: 0x0000000001C41FA3 System info: OS Name: Windows 8.1 OS Version: 6.6 OS Architecture: x86_64 Memory info: Virtual memory: 2081728Kb/4194176Kb (50%) Working set (process physical memory): 1719632Kb/4194176Kb (41%) Commit charge (working set + process page file usage): 1795640Kb/4194176Kb (42%) Global physical memory: 4327424Kb/12523640Kb (34%) Global commitable memory (physical + pagefile): 7530764Kb/15014008Kb (51%) System info: COMPUTERNAME = DESKTOP-3C8JSFO APPLICATION = DISPLAYDEVICE 0 = \.\DISPLAY1, Radeon RX 560 Series, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_67FF&SUBSYS_04BE1043&REV_CF DISPLAYDEVICE 1 = \.\DISPLAY2, Radeon RX 560 Series, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_67FF&SUBSYS_04BE1043&REV_CF DISPLAYDEVICE 2 = \.\DISPLAY3, Radeon RX 560 Series, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_67FF&SUBSYS_04BE1043&REV_CF DISPLAYDEVICE 3 = \.\DISPLAY4, Radeon RX 560 Series, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_67FF&SUBSYS_04BE1043&REV_CF DISPLAYDEVICE 4 = \.\DISPLAY5, Radeon RX 560 Series, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_67FF&SUBSYS_04BE1043&REV_CF Alguien reconoce el error y su posible solución?
  11. I had tried to click on a thread with a Cool, BAD, or angry, etc but I get this screen? What gives? The post was not closed as I checked. I can still reply normally and post.
  12. I'm looking at the website and a whole bunch of news articles are no longer there. The Tour of Duty, the Pirate Sign-up - they're all gone. I tried to get to them using google, which shows up in the cache, but then get a 404 error when I click on the page. Did someone do a wipe or did the site get hacked?
  13. Is there a solution to this "Transaction Error"? I can't put on camo or signals.
  14. So my game wont launch. Ive redownloaded it. had it verify and check all files. And everything. But it just wont this error keeps popping up and all so i dunno what to do.
  15. Randomness217

    "Entry Point Not Found" Error

    So I tried to run WAW for the first time on this computer and I've been getting an error. Here's what it says. "The procedure entry point MiniDumpWriteDump could not be located in the dynamic link library C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\dlumd11.dll." I don't know what this means. I am running Windows 10 on a lower high-end rig that I've never had troubles with before. Any help is appreciated! Thanks!
  16. Hola colegas. Me gustaría informar un error en el barco Moscú, cuando usas el camuflaje de Aurora SpaceWarship, el fuego que sale de las chimeneas permanece en las banderas conmemorativas, Como si se quemaran. Como verás en las imágenes de abajo: Lo publique en el foro en ingles pero no me respondieron ni comentaron nada. ¿ En este caso donde debería enviarlo ? Saludos
×