Main page

new IS-7 size

[/img]

new IS-4 size

lololol, lol. Thats a T-59 they are next too.


pic's are from corbs thread here about 7.2 testpatch~ http://forum.worldof...702-is7-resize/


EDIT~ and this is'nt a troll/hate thread. If the devs were from mars I would has said its Martian bia's! its not possible to look at these changes as anything other then Dev's buff'ig tanks they want to drive. Sorry about the bad links, photo bucket got all techy on me since the last time I used it.

wow...that's much much smaller...not sure I like that.

For reference, the Type 59 was 6.04 meters long (hull only).  The IS-2 was 9.9 meters long, and the IS-4 is longer than that by an extra set of road wheels.  It is not clear whether this figure includes the barrel or not.  (Numbers from Wikipedia so usual blah blah applies)

Oh noes it's slightly smaller? GASP! I really don't see the issue here...

No, I'm serious, what is the huge problem here?

 autorev, on Mar 10 2012 - 07:24, said:

IS-2 9.9 meters long? IS-4 was 6.6 meters long(link) and IS-7 was 7.38 meters long(link). Considering that wiki states the length of IS-2 as 6.77 meters long(link), you must have visited wrong place.

I see no much problem here.

 Myshella, on Mar 10 2012 - 07:31, said:

http://cdn.overclock...r-troopers.jpeg

You know, I pretty much believed them that they weren't biased for a while. Then they inject bounconium into the IS7 one patch and make it tiny the next. As if having cold war prototypes vs. WW2 tanks wasn't silly enough!

http://pds10.egloos....c23178e92ed.jpg


Well.

Thats a king tiger behind it, and they are about the same length in the picture.

King tiger lenght: 6.4 metres
Type 59 lenght: 6.04 metres

and the pic of the is-7 and 59 together shows its a hair longer then the type 59. So it is probably the correct length.

Height wise.
Type 59 height: 2.59 metres (8 ft 6 in)
king tiger; 3.09 metres (10 ft 2 in)


and from the picture the kt is much taller then the is-7.


SO just looking at the height and lenght it seems about right.




And with the change it height, it actually reduces alot of its slope, cause most tanks should be firing down at it.

-double post-

Actually the screenshot of IS-7 is misleading as the perspective is distorted.
From EU forum(link)

In the specification, IS-7 is about 1.3 meters longer than Type 59.
So, the size is in fact quite appropriate.

 therowman, on Mar 10 2012 - 07:38, said:

 KrasnayaZvezda, on Mar 10 2012 - 07:43, said:

You guys know what the word bia's means? In this case it would reference WoT selectively picking which historical details to change in their game.

 Ricky_Bobby_26, on Mar 10 2012 - 07:47, said:

Do you know what the word conspiracy means. In this case it would refer to WOT picking the historical sizes of the tanks and bringing them in line with every other tank in the game being there historical sizes.

Well historical accuracy was thrown out the window as the devs have stated before that tanks are adjusted in scale somewhat for balance reasons, so an IS-7 shrink would simply be a buff for the tank and really it was already buffed by normalization which benefited tanks with the most sloped armor.

Since the other pic shows its really just deceiving because of perspective, looks like much to do about nothing though.  Whew!  

 KrasnayaZvezda, on Mar 10 2012 - 07:33, said:

The figures apparently include the length of the barrel facing forward--I mentioned this in the subsequent edit.  So, there is not much of an issue, I think.

Can someone provide a comparison picture of their current sizes?

No I do not know what bia's means but I do know what bias means!!( I beliive this is what you meant!!) sorry was just kidding around lol.