UPDATE: I made a correction/Q&A video as a second part to this video as I missed some important things. Link is here or in the description: ua-cam.com/video/nNxJ4aYSiR4/v-deo.html
Thank you for taking the time to test this! I do think there is one critical issue in the tests, which you did sort of cover in the 2nd part of your video, where you talked about the previous test that you logged in a spreadsheet, and the fact that Rotation Mechanism starts the aiming process sooner. This latter fact is disregarded in the test you showed first. In the previous tests that you showed spreadsheet results for, you did include the time it took to reach the target. That's how I think the test should go, but 360 degrees of turning is obviously not realistic, so I propose the following: I think you should do a similar test as the one you showed first, but turn the turret X amount of degrees, where X is an amount that you feel happens most often in real WoT situations. For example 45 degrees. If you want to be thorough, you can perform this test with 3 different kind of tanks (for example Grille, a tank with average accuracy and dispersion values, and a complete derp gun like the sheridan) and/or with more and less degrees of turret turning (so not just 45 degrees, but also 30 and 60, to see if there is a difference there. You can show the time it takes to reach the target (and show screenshots of the reticle size at that point) for the improved aiming setup to reach the same dispersion that the RM setup starts with when the crosshair reaches the target; show total time it takes for the RM setup to be fully aimed compaired to the total time it takes for the improved aiming setup to reach that reticle size (with video software), and finally, show how much total time the improved aiming setup would take for it to be fully aimed. Thanks again, I really like these kind of videos where you analyze how something ACTUALLY works, because with WG coding and communication, we really can't assume anything and must test, test test. I hope my test idea is helpful and workable. Cheers!
@@boukebuffel Thanks for response. From now on im going to compare using a calculator I got linked which should be accurate assuming it is working correctly. Looking for permission to link it from the owner. But yeah, my main point it doesn’t help bloom as much as IAU usually (which could use further testing to confirm for sure but I’m pretty sure is correct). I acknowledge the extra time to aim helps but not for snapshots where you are clicking as soon as your gun reaches the target.
Yeah I agree with what will likely be the conclusion: that RM is overrated and the effect of aiming device is somewhat underrated. I do disagree though with the 'snapshot as soon as target is reached' point, because with RM you will reach that target quicker ie with aiming device you would reach your target 0.0*** seconds later (we're probably talking miliseconds here lol). So with both RM and Aiming device, in snapshot situations you would probably shoot as soon as possible, and incorrectly think that the reticle sizes are equal in either setup. In reality, with RM you could aim for 0.0*** extra seconds, or shoot 0.0*** earlier. The test would prove whether the improved aiming lowers the start and endpoint of the reticle size so much that RM is actually worse for 'bloom' compared to aiming device
Really interesting video. This is how I thought they both worked, but it's hard to quantify the final effect it has. It's great you did the hard work to show it. There is one small issue I see, and it MAY be what bouke is saying but expressed slightly differently. I think it would be fairer to compare IRM to IAU at the same timestamp after movement started. e.g. if IRM takes 10.0 seconds to rotate fully and IAU takes 10.3 you should compare the reticle size for both at 10.3 to give IRM is proper credit for the speed increase. You probably have all the required footage already. I think this speed is particularly beneficial for tank destroyers, as their rotation speed is often slow, so rotating to the target in time can be hard. Tanks like the Grille are also almost always fired fully aimed cos RNG hates the Grille, and it has good aim time.
According to Wargaming, it shouldn't work like this. "This is mostly a module for turretless TDs to make them turn quicker. So increasing speed has nothing to do with increase dispersion and you will still get the dispersion benefit. You will get into position quicker it also means you can start aiming quicker." That is the quote I was given when I asked them. I will try and test to see how much of a difference there will be when using standard v-stab which has 20% reduction compared to bond IRM which has 17.5% reduction because it should be very similar. I think that will show if it's working how wargaming intends it to or not. Either way, good video explaining everything.
I am almost positive it will not be even close to the effect you are thinking it will be. WG has been wrong about their game in many occasions (even their own wiki is wrong about camo mechanics for example). Someone sent me an equipment analyzing tool with graphs and hard numbers which I am currently getting permission from the owner to share. But to me I plugged in the numbers for the Sheridan and came up with basically the same result I got.
@@darkninja___you should also consider that movements are not always fully rotating your turret like that. Forwards and backwards movements and micro turret movements with good mouse control will benefit from IRM especially the bounty and bond ones
@@JWil97 Not sure if that is true or not, would need to test it. Depends if micro movements is your turret continually going slower or if it is just your turret stopping/starting repeatedly.
@@Nightfox777 The only testing by CCs I have seen are only by iyouxin, Scorpiany, and skill. This guy tests this stuff on a regular basis on a much more in-depth level.
@@Nightfox777 I think they have made equipment videos but not with testing as far as I have seen. There are other YTbers tho who have such as 4tankersanddog etc.
@@Nightfox777Omg, please just try to find one. None of them had done any tests. Not that I would trust something from dez and Im not even gonna talk about qb. Actually now that I think about it, if you are taking advice from qb, the "tests" he has done are quite sufficient for you.
@@mikelsidler5821 I had a few replys from qb on his vids where i disagree and his replys are totaly idiotic,the last person to take advice from , but skill4tlu is great and has indexx page , funny that i do find all these videos and none of you do lol
The Sheridan comparison is not truly an apples to apples comparison because the turret turns faster with the IRM, which causes more bloom, but you reach your target faster and have more time to let the reticle shrink. I would be interested in seeing a timer attached to the comparison so we can see how aimed in the IRM setup is when the IAU setup catches up. Bounty IAU Sheridan with food - 46.88 turret traverse degrees per second = 7.68 seconds to make a full rotation Bounty IRM Sheridan with food - 53.92 turret traverse degrees per second = 6.67 seconds to make a full rotation So in this situation the IRM would have nearly a full second to aim the gun before the IAU catches up.
@@darkninja___ The thing is that proving that it doesn't affect bloom ignores the full second of aim time you get after rotation. I realize that your example is extreme, but a faster turning turret means you have more time to aim. I think a more wholistic approach would be better honestly. Love the content though and I've learned a lot from you.
I found an calculator for aim time and dispersion. I plugged the number for the Sheridan and got some surprising results. The Bounty IRM had better aim time by 0.1 seconds, a 1% improvement, however it had worse total dispersion by 0.3, worse by 4%. So if you fully aim the shots IRM is better. However if you snap the shot before fully aimed IAU is better.
This is very cool, thank you, appreciate the experimental evidence. One thing to note is that faster rotation is a good thing, not a bad thing. The faster you get on target - the sooner your aiming circle starts shrinking (measured from the event that prompted you to rotate in the first place). P. S. Never mind, you talked about that, too.
Always grateful for your effort in enlightening our understanding of the game and how to always improve. I couldn't find any possible flaw in your explanation. Very impressed seeing when two CCs come together to improve everyone's understanding using the SUM of knowledge in a thoughtful and polite way.
I mostly use IRM on TD's for the rotation, from what you're saying it seems the dispersion reduction is probably only offsetting the increased bloom from the faster rotation.
I think the test you did also Missed the bonus that rotation mechanism gives to the hull traverse, that may increase the bloom making it worse, but also make arrive on target sooner. I may not make much of a difference in the results so I don’t know if it’s worth doing. Thank you for making these test man really appreciate it
Great video! But I think in actual battle it is more complicated. 1. In most peaking scenario, we are driving straight back and forth. The turret and hall travers speed bonus does not kick in. So in this situation the rotation mechanism (IRM) does work like a mini Vstab. 2. For sniping, the turret traverse speed bonus helps target requisition faster, and start aiming earlier. (Same goes for turret-less TD) So at a giving time the reticle boom may be smaller or fire a shot earlier (but it depends how much the turret needs to turn). 3. As you mentioned in video, the IRM gives better bloom after firing (15% vs 8%)
Yeah I missed that first part, added it to pinned comment earlier. 2nd part I acknowledge in the video, but this video in particular I wanted to focus on the misconception that it helps like a v stab does, which is mostly false (except like u said moving forward and after firing). Tbh I mostly don’t use IAU on tanks that peek often because they usually have access to rammer and vents. TDs I use it a lot on and autoloaders half the time.
The dispersion on movement is also affected by speed AND duration of movement. IRM increases speed as much as it reduces bloom thats why IRM has the same aim time as without equipment or IAU if you were to turn the turret at full speed. However, IRM will still reduce bloom by the given percentage even if you were turning at a lower speed or with shorter movements. Tanks like the Grille and FV still benefit because you're not snap shotting at full speed with them. You're slowly turning to adjust fire which still benefits from the full bloom reduction percentage. Try the test again with the Sheridan but instead of 360° of rotation try a smaller arc, aiming at something thats like 300-500m away. Here you will notice the difference.
Hey Ninja, interesting video, I have a few critiques. I think the main dispersion factor is dispersion whislt moving forwards and backwards, (for peaking ridgleines shooting on the move etc.) more important than turning hull and turret, IRM offers bonus dispersion to moving with no downsides. Also in most cases you are not always turning the turret at full speed, honestly, most of the time with turret aiming you are just tracking the enemy (following their motion) and your turret is not turning full speed anyway so you are still getting the dispersion benefit here too. But most importantly and this is something I don't hear people mention and i think this is what makes the biggest difference. And I think you should definitely test this. I will try my best to explain... It seems to be the case that IRM stacks with Vstabs or other stabilising equipment, enhancing its effectiveness when combined with other stabilizing equipment. Instead of treating the reductions separately (-25% from Vstabs and then -15% by adding IRM), where your total dispersion is ~36% less. They combine into one big singular reduction of -40%. This means the final dispersion value while moving is calculated in one big combined reduction, not sequentially reducing from a reduced value. In game it says I have -50% dispersion on Bourrasque. This is using bond stabs, bond irm and stab directive. This is the value given by WG in-game and it feels correct when playing, but it should be empirically tested in-game as WG can be dodgy with values so there's a chance this isn't true. Now this is massively important for determining the effectiveness of IRM when paired with other stabilizing equipment, and whether it is better to use the improved aiming unit when you also have Vstabs. (so this won't apply for T.Ds) If IRM indeed stacks as one big calculation, it means that combining it with other stabilising equipment can lead to exponential improvements in dispersion reduction as you get incrementally closer to no dispersion at all (-100%). Put it this way, when I already have -50% dispersion if I added experimental turbo you may have thought that your effective dispersion would be another-6% but it's actually twice as powerful at effectively -12% dispersion as you've actually gotten ~12% closer to -100% dispersion (no dispersion at all) by adding experimental turbo. This is because the new total value of -56% is 12% closer to -100% (no dispersion at all) than 50%.This is why I believe IRM is actually way better than aiming unit whilst you are also using vstabs. As its effective dispersion benefit becomes amplified by Vstabs to a point where it's essentially like using another pair of Vstabs. And that's very important on tanks with bad dispersion values. Particularly amplified if you run Bond Vstab with stab directive. At a hypothetical extreme for understanding -99% dispersion gives you get twice as less dispersion than -98%, where a piece of equipment giving you -1% dispersion actually gave you -50% dispersion (that's like 2 bountry stabilisers!) Of course the combination of IRM and Stabs is not this extreme, but it is there and it is effective. Similar case with camo, at hypothetical 90% camo compared to 80% camo you get spotted at half the distance which is twice as good, not 10% better, so as you get incrementally closer to the best value it becomes exponentially more OP, that's why the ELC is broken at up to 58% camo. Every 1% increase in camo after 50% makes you like 2% more broken as an elc at 50% camo is 2% easier to spot than an ELC at 51% camo. This is why IRM is better than Aiming Unit in my opinion for tanks where you already have Vstabs. You should definitely put it to the test! Thanks for the content :)
1) Yeah I overlooked the moving part, added a correction in pinned comment earlier ur right. 2) I have a theory when slowly moving turret it’s just periods of stopping/starting turret, not actually slowing it down continuously. This needs to be tested. 3) I get your point with the stacked bonuses, it’s percentage of bloom towards zero bloom becomes larger, however I don’t think that is necessarily important when you look at the absolute difference it is making to your circle size radius. While it might be a higher percent of your remaining bloom gone, the absolute difference in circle size in terms of radius should not change like that. For example if 25% corresponds to 0.25 units of radius (using random numbers for an example), then rot mech would be still 0.15 units even though it is taking 0.15/0.75% of your remaining bloom off.
Yea. Thats how i felt it works. I do appreciate your tests and thoughts. Would be nice to test if IAU reduce the aimtime? Its impressive to see how much time the Vstab reduce the aimtime - EGLD seems useless if you can take Vstab. I dont know if you said it already, but iam curious to find out, of all the equipments, which is best to kill dispersion after firing? Thx for your effort
Might do a follow up vid we’ll see. With IAU it’s a bit complicated because even if it reduces aim time (it should due to less bloom) the fully aimed circle will be smaller too meaning it has to aim for longer to be fully aimed.
Genrally speaking my rule of thumb when it comes to equipment for gun handling is if the Base total dispersion is bad i take an IAU over the IRM because it will yield a more noticeable effect overall. but if the tank is like the grille where its base despersion is good but its despersion on traverse and turret traverse are bad and the traverse is slow i would use an IRM. and if the gun has good moving and traverse despersion but bad base despersion at 100m i would use a vertstab. So overall heavies seem to benefit more from IAU (some VS or both) mediums and lights tend to benefit more from a Vertstab and TDS more from the IRM (some need both)
What is the efficiency of IRM when moving a turret or hull relatively slowly? pre aim situation(mostly TDs job), or when getting out from the cover when the turret or hull is pre-targeted towards the enemy(Grile is mainly this case)
So like Aiming Unit is overall better regarding the bloom but Rotationmechanism favoring Bloom after fireing on Autoloaders and Clippers. Where does the experimental Fire-Control System come into effect?
See pinned comment for something I missed on rot mech, works on the move just not turning. Also in game description fails to mention the after firing effect of rot mechanism but shows on tanks.gg and in-game tests. I would say u should think of tier 3 as a partial v stab and partial gun laying drive, because that’s exactly what it is. You can’t mount it on tds unfortunately and v stab is basically always better than it, leaving few tanks where I would pick it. It’s bloom help is better than rotation mechanism overall I think and helps with guns that have long aim times too, but does not help with after-firing bloom as much as rot mechanism. The perfect tanks for that piece of equipment are probably the AMBT, and other slower firing bad bloom/aimtime autoloaders. Lion is a good example. Keep in mind you can use both on some tanks too, but I usually will use vents or aiming unit instead of rot mechanism if I choose to use t3 fire control. T49 durp would probably benefit greatly from it if you forgo spotting equipment.
@@darkninja___ Thats like my point. Speaking of meds there are some setup choices. Given Vents and Stab : What should i pick for the 3rd. I kinda like IRM for my Bourasque others prefer Aiming Unit. But i think Aiming Unit might be better for Carro.... Lion on the otherside suffers on other points so maybe t3 Fire Control? BUT. What would be technically the best (for example Carro) ? Is there any tests you did in the past or something similar ?
@@TheImmortal974 Sorry I can’t say for carro barely played that tank. On meds that can’t run rammer it depends. Borrasque I am still undecided, sometimes I even drop vents for IAU AND rot mech and I think it’s great for the gun and(just worse spotting and reload are the main disadvantages). With new bond IAU that changes things too. Now I think it’s better than vents and possibly even bond rot mechanism on borrasque. Borrasque turns slowly though so if I dont run rot mech I run right for first field mod and pray I don’t get engined. For lion I definitely recommend tier 3 because it has a 4 second intraclip or something terrible like that and has terrible aim time. The after firing of rot mech is not as useful due to the long intraclip and your first shot will be more accurate too with t3 fire control. Batchat is a hard choice. I still run v stab vents and rot mech but I might change it to bond IAU tbh. Tried tier 3 fire control but I missed having the good better aimed accuracy from IAU and mobility from rot mech (you turn backwards in batchat a lot and tracking targets between shots rot mech helps you get more aimtime in).
Thanks for the complete information and showcase ! I have one question : how does the "new" Fire Control System compare to VStab, IAU and IRM in terms of bloom and aiming time? Is it better, worse, in the middle?
I will prob make a video about this in the future, if not, I just got access to an aiming equipment spreadsheet that I’m getting permission from the owner to share which you could use.
Woahhh damn you really did your research haha good job man !!! Thanks for all the intel. I’ll switch them all out of my tanks . Are they good on medium tanks like AMBT or Arnie tank ?
Further study/clarification required? Assuming one would do only small adjustments, like for instance moving turret only like 10-30 degrees max for example, what kind of performance one could expect from RM compared to others? IMO your testing with 360 degree turn was scientifically sound and very much valid, but I would love to see another more ''realistic'' scenario what you would come across more often. My hypothesis is that the differences are not going to be as vast, and IMO its worth throwing GLD into the party for sake of comparison.
Might make a follow up video. Mostly just did 360 degrees so I knew the angle traveled was accurate. Not sure if less would make a difference or not would need to test it.
@@darkninja___ One method to achieve fairly reliable angles, would be approximating distance by having an opponent near one end of the building, and hovering mouse over the tank to get range, repeat same for other side. Little bit of basic trigonometry and soon you have an angle with X-distance. With angle and distance known, you use the ends of the building as your measuring sticks for aiming.
@@johnmcpudding857 I would probably just use bricks again tbh and the same spot I used. Even If I don’t know the exact angle it’s useful. But all that I think is not as useful now because I found an equipment calculator which would tell the circle size over time. Just need permission to share it.
There is one thing that I find gets rarely mentioned regarding rotation device and its bloom reduction. This might also be the reason, why many CCs use them as bloom reduction. AS I understand it, bloom is effected by the speed you turn your turet and hull. However, the bloom reduction from rotation device is always there, regardless of turning speed. So when you aim and do not use your full speed to rotate, as in small ajustments or "calm" aiming, your bloom will be smaller with a rotation device than without one. If you use your full speed it will have no or little to now effect as your video showed. That is also why it works well with auto loaders, because you usually stay on target or only do little aiming adjustments inbetween shots and thus u get a high bloom reduction from the rotation device.
I am not sure, but I am under the impression that whenever you move your turret, it does not accelerate but rather just instantly has its maximum velocity. I could be wrong, would be interesting to test.
@@fili0938 At any given moment your reticle when turning is either right or left of your gun. In order for it to be true that you can truly control the acceleration of your turret, that would mean that your reticle’s angular distance from your gun determines your turret’s speed. I just don’t buy into that. What I believe is happening is that they’re just controlling the “speed” by stopping and starting turret rotation. I am willing to bet if you move your reticle 1 degree away from your gun then turn your reticle at the same rate that your turret’s maximum speed goes you will do a 360 rotation in the exact same amount of time as if you just flung your reticle crazily away from your gun. Could be tested but I don’t have time. If you decide to test let me know what happens
@@darkninja___ Yes, I am not sure on this either. It was simply a conclusion I came to after watching many CCs use very good aiming skills and comparing them to me. Good players usually hold the right mouse button to lock the turret and often keep it in a position where they wont have to move the turret much once they actually start aiming in on their targets. The best players have some incredible calm aiming which results in very small aiming circle sizes and whenever they do micro adjustments with their aim the bloom is defnetly considerably smaller as if they would hard aim 180° to either side for example.
Maybe you can test this by taking aTD and locking its tracks. Then start on either Side and move somewhat slowly to the other. Then move back to the other side but do it as fast as u can this time and compare both circles
I think what you fail to consider is that the IRM will allow you direct ur gun in a direction 15% faster as well, so the IRM would've gave u more time to aim because u rotated in a direction faster. If you compared the no equipment/IAU and IRM going at the SAME turret traverse speed, the IRM will show its effectiveness. The comparison shown was the turret rotating at its maximum capacity for no equip/IAU/IRM, which is an unfair comparison. Also just testing the turret dispersion value is minimal so the results appear negligible, but tanks lose most of their dispersion values when the tank hull moves, which IRM improves upon. If you try tanks with poor gun handling dispersion values like leopard PTA, combining the V Stab and IRM has a substantial difference. On TDs, combining the T3 Turbo with IRM is essentially the equivalent of a V Stab.
Thank you very very much for your great work! I still love do drive my bourrasque with vent, rotation and vstab (all purple) and have a good feeling playing it. I also mind about the tank turns faster.
You cant say this from this one test, only thing you can say with confidence is that on sheridan IAU is better, and that is because dispersion on sheridan is a LOT worse than on grille and turret rotation dispersion is a lot better, so obv sheridan will get more benefit from IAU and grille will benefit a lot more from rot mechanism, also mounting rot mechanism on a slow tank with big bloom will improve stabilization a lot more than doing it on a tank like bat. Its very tank dependent Do this same test on grille and Im pretty sure rotation mechanism will massively outperform IAU
I will check later other tanks but the turret dispersion on grille is actually WORSE than on the Sheridan. The IAU applies an equal percent bloom reduction regardless of which tank it is on so I assume that would not change anything. Only other thing to check would be while moving and on tank traverse for various tanks, although tbh I think that is far less important than on turret traverse for basically anything that isn’t a light tank.
Same on most of them. I’m not knowledgeable on if GLD is better than rot mech on arties that can’t run vents like conq GC though tbh. I know most top arty players on those arties run GLD instead for CW but might be different for pubs.
Imo it needs rammer. I think turbo for the reverse speed, then your pick. I like IAU, but low noise or rot mech are not bad either. Could even drop turbo for both.
First of all i would say that YT algoritm recommended me MaxGamingFPS channel while ago so i gave him a chance. The more i watched him the more i disagreed with that guy. He is wrong in cmore things than this. For example, he was wrong also about how detracking works and he did quite a long video about it, where he was prooving that he is right. But it was actually just a coincidence that he gets results he wanted. :D (He is not even really consistand in his opinions, he made 2 vidios about badger with 8 months apart and he claimed completely opposite opinion in them about "how that tank MUST be played", which is kind of funny to me) The second thing i wanted to mention you already covered in the second video. I mean the fact that IRM works as V stab while you are driving only forwards and backward (Like KV-2 or FV4005 usually do) Conclusion: For me the MaxGamingFPS channel is not worth to watch anymore, since i am capable to 3th mark things and his advices and interpretations are for average shitters at best. It looks to me that you might be a new source of entertainment and education about WOT. Even after 12 year of gaming, i belive there is still planty thing that i dont know yet.
Same frame would be at the time the last one managed to rotate. i.e. measure the bloom after the same amount of time passed. What you did was measure the rotation mechanism earlier. The teeny fact that the time difference for full rotation is easily above 0.5s in this case, seems to elude you. You can do that measure in the video editor. Just count the amount of frames from start to end of the slowest rotation and add the same number of frames to all the test cases and then you'd be objective.
The maximum bloom depends on the rotation speed. So the max bloom is reached as soon as the max speed is reached which should be almost instantly. Therefore the time of the rotation is irrelevant. He just wanted a 360 degree rotation to have a brick wall background the circle could be related to in size.
@@hallesberries7813 that's the point. He's measuring maximum bloom, completely ignoring the extra time to aim, that you get when rotating faster. He also manages to ignore it again in his batchat spreadsheet despite having the data. Just sum the last two columns and you have the effective time to aim.
It would make no sense to do that in my opinion. The whole point is a target is a set amount of degrees away from you, you have to move that set amount of degrees away to shoot them, so you should measure the bloom by angular values, not time. But even still, someone linked me an equipment calculator vs time graph and even when comparing vs time the IAU outperforms the rot mech by far on the Sheridan at least.
@@darkninja___ the whole point is that targets move and "the target" will NOT be the same "a set amount of degrees" at a different time. Also aiming happens to take time. You test only makes sense if you snapshoot immediately after rotating, because that's the only time it would be accurate test.
Wow dark this Video is sexy af i swear i had goosebumps watching this. Love to see the math and minmax everything. So vert stabs are No.1 obviously but im curious how Aiming unit, Rotation mechanism, and gun laying drive compare to eachother on something like t57 or 50b.
I will prob make a video about this in the future, if not, I just got access to an aiming equipment spreadsheet that I’m getting permission from the owner to share which you could use to help your decisions.
UPDATE: I made a correction/Q&A video as a second part to this video as I missed some important things. Link is here or in the description: ua-cam.com/video/nNxJ4aYSiR4/v-deo.html
Thank you for taking the time to test this! I do think there is one critical issue in the tests, which you did sort of cover in the 2nd part of your video, where you talked about the previous test that you logged in a spreadsheet, and the fact that Rotation Mechanism starts the aiming process sooner. This latter fact is disregarded in the test you showed first. In the previous tests that you showed spreadsheet results for, you did include the time it took to reach the target. That's how I think the test should go, but 360 degrees of turning is obviously not realistic, so I propose the following:
I think you should do a similar test as the one you showed first, but turn the turret X amount of degrees, where X is an amount that you feel happens most often in real WoT situations. For example 45 degrees. If you want to be thorough, you can perform this test with 3 different kind of tanks (for example Grille, a tank with average accuracy and dispersion values, and a complete derp gun like the sheridan) and/or with more and less degrees of turret turning (so not just 45 degrees, but also 30 and 60, to see if there is a difference there. You can show the time it takes to reach the target (and show screenshots of the reticle size at that point) for the improved aiming setup to reach the same dispersion that the RM setup starts with when the crosshair reaches the target; show total time it takes for the RM setup to be fully aimed compaired to the total time it takes for the improved aiming setup to reach that reticle size (with video software), and finally, show how much total time the improved aiming setup would take for it to be fully aimed.
Thanks again, I really like these kind of videos where you analyze how something ACTUALLY works, because with WG coding and communication, we really can't assume anything and must test, test test. I hope my test idea is helpful and workable. Cheers!
@@boukebuffel Thanks for response. From now on im going to compare using a calculator I got linked which should be accurate assuming it is working correctly. Looking for permission to link it from the owner. But yeah, my main point it doesn’t help bloom as much as IAU usually (which could use further testing to confirm for sure but I’m pretty sure is correct). I acknowledge the extra time to aim helps but not for snapshots where you are clicking as soon as your gun reaches the target.
Yeah I agree with what will likely be the conclusion: that RM is overrated and the effect of aiming device is somewhat underrated. I do disagree though with the 'snapshot as soon as target is reached' point, because with RM you will reach that target quicker ie with aiming device you would reach your target 0.0*** seconds later (we're probably talking miliseconds here lol). So with both RM and Aiming device, in snapshot situations you would probably shoot as soon as possible, and incorrectly think that the reticle sizes are equal in either setup. In reality, with RM you could aim for 0.0*** extra seconds, or shoot 0.0*** earlier. The test would prove whether the improved aiming lowers the start and endpoint of the reticle size so much that RM is actually worse for 'bloom' compared to aiming device
@@boukebuffel True I think that’s fair
Really interesting video. This is how I thought they both worked, but it's hard to quantify the final effect it has. It's great you did the hard work to show it.
There is one small issue I see, and it MAY be what bouke is saying but expressed slightly differently.
I think it would be fairer to compare IRM to IAU at the same timestamp after movement started.
e.g. if IRM takes 10.0 seconds to rotate fully and IAU takes 10.3 you should compare the reticle size for both at 10.3 to give IRM is proper credit for the speed increase. You probably have all the required footage already.
I think this speed is particularly beneficial for tank destroyers, as their rotation speed is often slow, so rotating to the target in time can be hard.
Tanks like the Grille are also almost always fired fully aimed cos RNG hates the Grille, and it has good aim time.
According to Wargaming, it shouldn't work like this.
"This is mostly a module for turretless TDs to make them turn quicker. So increasing speed has nothing to do with increase dispersion and you will still get the dispersion benefit. You will get into position quicker it also means you can start aiming quicker."
That is the quote I was given when I asked them. I will try and test to see how much of a difference there will be when using standard v-stab which has 20% reduction compared to bond IRM which has 17.5% reduction because it should be very similar. I think that will show if it's working how wargaming intends it to or not.
Either way, good video explaining everything.
i saw your vid with the IRM
I am almost positive it will not be even close to the effect you are thinking it will be. WG has been wrong about their game in many occasions (even their own wiki is wrong about camo mechanics for example). Someone sent me an equipment analyzing tool with graphs and hard numbers which I am currently getting permission from the owner to share. But to me I plugged in the numbers for the Sheridan and came up with basically the same result I got.
was waiting for your answer pls make a second video on this topic
@@darkninja___you should also consider that movements are not always fully rotating your turret like that. Forwards and backwards movements and micro turret movements with good mouse control will benefit from IRM especially the bounty and bond ones
@@JWil97 Not sure if that is true or not, would need to test it. Depends if micro movements is your turret continually going slower or if it is just your turret stopping/starting repeatedly.
Dude you're an absolute gem in the WoT community, no-one else has the time to run tests like these, they'd rather just react to news articles
yeh because QB Dezz Skill allready done these vids ages ago,
wdym nobody has time to test lmaf
@@Nightfox777 The only testing by CCs I have seen are only by iyouxin, Scorpiany, and skill. This guy tests this stuff on a regular basis on a much more in-depth level.
@@Nightfox777 I think they have made equipment videos but not with testing as far as I have seen. There are other YTbers tho who have such as 4tankersanddog etc.
@@Nightfox777Omg, please just try to find one. None of them had done any tests. Not that I would trust something from dez and Im not even gonna talk about qb. Actually now that I think about it, if you are taking advice from qb, the "tests" he has done are quite sufficient for you.
@@mikelsidler5821 I had a few replys from qb on his vids where i disagree and his replys are totaly idiotic,the last person to take advice from , but skill4tlu is great and has indexx page , funny that i do find all these videos and none of you do lol
Always something to learn about how the game works. Great work explaining.
The Sheridan comparison is not truly an apples to apples comparison because the turret turns faster with the IRM, which causes more bloom, but you reach your target faster and have more time to let the reticle shrink. I would be interested in seeing a timer attached to the comparison so we can see how aimed in the IRM setup is when the IAU setup catches up.
Bounty IAU Sheridan with food - 46.88 turret traverse degrees per second = 7.68 seconds to make a full rotation
Bounty IRM Sheridan with food - 53.92 turret traverse degrees per second = 6.67 seconds to make a full rotation
So in this situation the IRM would have nearly a full second to aim the gun before the IAU catches up.
This is true which I acknowledged in the vid but I am trying to make the point it doesn’t help bloom all that much directly like v stab.
@@darkninja___ The thing is that proving that it doesn't affect bloom ignores the full second of aim time you get after rotation. I realize that your example is extreme, but a faster turning turret means you have more time to aim. I think a more wholistic approach would be better honestly. Love the content though and I've learned a lot from you.
@@tonster181g Yeah I tried to acknowledge that in the video but I guess I should have added a few sentences.
I found an calculator for aim time and dispersion. I plugged the number for the Sheridan and got some surprising results. The Bounty IRM had better aim time by 0.1 seconds, a 1% improvement, however it had worse total dispersion by 0.3, worse by 4%. So if you fully aim the shots IRM is better. However if you snap the shot before fully aimed IAU is better.
@@tonster181g Who's doing 360 rotations, maybe 90 so .25 sec
This is very cool, thank you, appreciate the experimental evidence.
One thing to note is that faster rotation is a good thing, not a bad thing. The faster you get on target - the sooner your aiming circle starts shrinking (measured from the event that prompted you to rotate in the first place).
P. S. Never mind, you talked about that, too.
Always grateful for your effort in enlightening our understanding of the game and how to always improve.
I couldn't find any possible flaw in your explanation.
Very impressed seeing when two CCs come together to improve everyone's understanding using the SUM of knowledge in a thoughtful and polite way.
I mostly use IRM on TD's for the rotation, from what you're saying it seems the dispersion reduction is probably only offsetting the increased bloom from the faster rotation.
I think the test you did also Missed the bonus that rotation mechanism gives to the hull traverse, that may increase the bloom making it worse, but also make arrive on target sooner.
I may not make much of a difference in the results so I don’t know if it’s worth doing. Thank you for making these test man really appreciate it
Thank you so much for taking the time to make these videos. Awesome!
Great video! But I think in actual battle it is more complicated.
1. In most peaking scenario, we are driving straight back and forth. The turret and hall travers speed bonus does not kick in. So in this situation the rotation mechanism (IRM) does work like a mini Vstab.
2. For sniping, the turret traverse speed bonus helps target requisition faster, and start aiming earlier. (Same goes for turret-less TD) So at a giving time the reticle boom may be smaller or fire a shot earlier (but it depends how much the turret needs to turn).
3. As you mentioned in video, the IRM gives better bloom after firing (15% vs 8%)
Yeah I missed that first part, added it to pinned comment earlier. 2nd part I acknowledge in the video, but this video in particular I wanted to focus on the misconception that it helps like a v stab does, which is mostly false (except like u said moving forward and after firing). Tbh I mostly don’t use IAU on tanks that peek often because they usually have access to rammer and vents. TDs I use it a lot on and autoloaders half the time.
@@darkninja___ sorry did not watch the last part of the video. I did put IAU on my 703 and it works really good (maybe its just placebo/copium)
@@numlock6019 That’s what I run as well. It’s bloom is already really good, but bad fully aimed accuracy,
thanks always wondered roto vs aiming
Just found ya in the recommendation side bar.. Thanks Video !
I love these videos! Thank you!
The dispersion on movement is also affected by speed AND duration of movement. IRM increases speed as much as it reduces bloom thats why IRM has the same aim time as without equipment or IAU if you were to turn the turret at full speed. However, IRM will still reduce bloom by the given percentage even if you were turning at a lower speed or with shorter movements.
Tanks like the Grille and FV still benefit because you're not snap shotting at full speed with them. You're slowly turning to adjust fire which still benefits from the full bloom reduction percentage.
Try the test again with the Sheridan but instead of 360° of rotation try a smaller arc, aiming at something thats like 300-500m away. Here you will notice the difference.
Yes you are right, checked pinned msg.
Hey Ninja, interesting video, I have a few critiques.
I think the main dispersion factor is dispersion whislt moving forwards and backwards, (for peaking ridgleines shooting on the move etc.) more important than turning hull and turret, IRM offers bonus dispersion to moving with no downsides.
Also in most cases you are not always turning the turret at full speed, honestly, most of the time with turret aiming you are just tracking the enemy (following their motion) and your turret is not turning full speed anyway so you are still getting the dispersion benefit here too.
But most importantly and this is something I don't hear people mention and i think this is what makes the biggest difference. And I think you should definitely test this. I will try my best to explain...
It seems to be the case that IRM stacks with Vstabs or other stabilising equipment, enhancing its effectiveness when combined with other stabilizing equipment. Instead of treating the reductions separately (-25% from Vstabs and then -15% by adding IRM), where your total dispersion is ~36% less. They combine into one big singular reduction of -40%. This means the final dispersion value while moving is calculated in one big combined reduction, not sequentially reducing from a reduced value. In game it says I have -50% dispersion on Bourrasque. This is using bond stabs, bond irm and stab directive. This is the value given by WG in-game and it feels correct when playing, but it should be empirically tested in-game as WG can be dodgy with values so there's a chance this isn't true.
Now this is massively important for determining the effectiveness of IRM when paired with other stabilizing equipment, and whether it is better to use the improved aiming unit when you also have Vstabs. (so this won't apply for T.Ds)
If IRM indeed stacks as one big calculation, it means that combining it with other stabilising equipment can lead to exponential improvements in dispersion reduction as you get incrementally closer to no dispersion at all (-100%). Put it this way, when I already have -50% dispersion if I added experimental turbo you may have thought that your effective dispersion would be another-6% but it's actually twice as powerful at effectively -12% dispersion as you've actually gotten ~12% closer to -100% dispersion (no dispersion at all) by adding experimental turbo. This is because the new total value of -56% is 12% closer to -100% (no dispersion at all) than 50%.This is why I believe IRM is actually way better than aiming unit whilst you are also using vstabs. As its effective dispersion benefit becomes amplified by Vstabs to a point where it's essentially like using another pair of Vstabs. And that's very important on tanks with bad dispersion values. Particularly amplified if you run Bond Vstab with stab directive.
At a hypothetical extreme for understanding -99% dispersion gives you get twice as less dispersion than -98%, where a piece of equipment giving you -1% dispersion actually gave you -50% dispersion (that's like 2 bountry stabilisers!) Of course the combination of IRM and Stabs is not this extreme, but it is there and it is effective.
Similar case with camo, at hypothetical 90% camo compared to 80% camo you get spotted at half the distance which is twice as good, not 10% better, so as you get incrementally closer to the best value it becomes exponentially more OP, that's why the ELC is broken at up to 58% camo. Every 1% increase in camo after 50% makes you like 2% more broken as an elc at 50% camo is 2% easier to spot than an ELC at 51% camo.
This is why IRM is better than Aiming Unit in my opinion for tanks where you already have Vstabs.
You should definitely put it to the test! Thanks for the content :)
1) Yeah I overlooked the moving part, added a correction in pinned comment earlier ur right.
2) I have a theory when slowly moving turret it’s just periods of stopping/starting turret, not actually slowing it down continuously. This needs to be tested.
3) I get your point with the stacked bonuses, it’s percentage of bloom towards zero bloom becomes larger, however I don’t think that is necessarily important when you look at the absolute difference it is making to your circle size radius. While it might be a higher percent of your remaining bloom gone, the absolute difference in circle size in terms of radius should not change like that. For example if 25% corresponds to 0.25 units of radius (using random numbers for an example), then rot mech would be still 0.15 units even though it is taking 0.15/0.75% of your remaining bloom off.
And for me anyways it’s the absolute size reduction that is more important.
@@darkninja___ Ahh I see, that makes sense thanks for reply :) I will give the aiming more of a chance.
Yea. Thats how i felt it works. I do appreciate your tests and thoughts. Would be nice to test if IAU reduce the aimtime? Its impressive to see how much time the Vstab reduce the aimtime - EGLD seems useless if you can take Vstab. I dont know if you said it already, but iam curious to find out, of all the equipments, which is best to kill dispersion after firing? Thx for your effort
Might do a follow up vid we’ll see. With IAU it’s a bit complicated because even if it reduces aim time (it should due to less bloom) the fully aimed circle will be smaller too meaning it has to aim for longer to be fully aimed.
Genrally speaking my rule of thumb when it comes to equipment for gun handling is if the Base total dispersion is bad i take an IAU over the IRM because it will yield a more noticeable effect overall. but if the tank is like the grille where its base despersion is good but its despersion on traverse and turret traverse are bad and the traverse is slow i would use an IRM. and if the gun has good moving and traverse despersion but bad base despersion at 100m i would use a vertstab. So overall heavies seem to benefit more from IAU (some VS or both) mediums and lights tend to benefit more from a Vertstab and TDS more from the IRM (some need both)
Thank you so much for this video, I want more like this !!!
What is the efficiency of IRM when moving a turret or hull relatively slowly? pre aim situation(mostly TDs job), or when getting out from the cover when the turret or hull is pre-targeted towards the enemy(Grile is mainly this case)
I am making a correction vid about this soon. TLDR: it works a lot better, even more than IAU at slow speeds
@@darkninja___👍
So like Aiming Unit is overall better regarding the bloom but Rotationmechanism favoring Bloom after fireing on Autoloaders and Clippers. Where does the experimental Fire-Control System come
into effect?
See pinned comment for something I missed on rot mech, works on the move just not turning. Also in game description fails to mention the after firing effect of rot mechanism but shows on tanks.gg and in-game tests. I would say u should think of tier 3 as a partial v stab and partial gun laying drive, because that’s exactly what it is. You can’t mount it on tds unfortunately and v stab is basically always better than it, leaving few tanks where I would pick it. It’s bloom help is better than rotation mechanism overall I think and helps with guns that have long aim times too, but does not help with after-firing bloom as much as rot mechanism. The perfect tanks for that piece of equipment are probably the AMBT, and other slower firing bad bloom/aimtime autoloaders. Lion is a good example. Keep in mind you can use both on some tanks too, but I usually will use vents or aiming unit instead of rot mechanism if I choose to use t3 fire control. T49 durp would probably benefit greatly from it if you forgo spotting equipment.
@@darkninja___ Thats like my point. Speaking of meds there are some setup choices. Given Vents and Stab : What should i pick for the 3rd. I kinda like IRM for my Bourasque others prefer Aiming Unit. But i think Aiming Unit might be better for Carro.... Lion on the otherside suffers on other points so maybe t3 Fire Control?
BUT. What would be technically the best (for example Carro) ? Is there any tests you did in the past or something similar ?
@@TheImmortal974 Sorry I can’t say for carro barely played that tank. On meds that can’t run rammer it depends. Borrasque I am still undecided, sometimes I even drop vents for IAU AND rot mech and I think it’s great for the gun and(just worse spotting and reload are the main disadvantages). With new bond IAU that changes things too. Now I think it’s better than vents and possibly even bond rot mechanism on borrasque. Borrasque turns slowly though so if I dont run rot mech I run right for first field mod and pray I don’t get engined. For lion I definitely recommend tier 3 because it has a 4 second intraclip or something terrible like that and has terrible aim time. The after firing of rot mech is not as useful due to the long intraclip and your first shot will be more accurate too with t3 fire control. Batchat is a hard choice. I still run v stab vents and rot mech but I might change it to bond IAU tbh. Tried tier 3 fire control but I missed having the good better aimed accuracy from IAU and mobility from rot mech (you turn backwards in batchat a lot and tracking targets between shots rot mech helps you get more aimtime in).
Great video Dark.
Thanks for the complete information and showcase !
I have one question : how does the "new" Fire Control System compare to VStab, IAU and IRM in terms of bloom and aiming time? Is it better, worse, in the middle?
I will prob make a video about this in the future, if not, I just got access to an aiming equipment spreadsheet that I’m getting permission from the owner to share which you could use.
@@darkninja___ that would be wonderful, thanks
Love your project cw videos😊
Woahhh damn you really did your research haha good job man !!! Thanks for all the intel. I’ll switch them all out of my tanks . Are they good on medium tanks like AMBT or Arnie tank ?
AMBT yes probably, Arnie in my opinion no, because v stab rammer and turbo or vents are all better choices or even hardening
Further study/clarification required?
Assuming one would do only small adjustments, like for instance moving turret only like 10-30 degrees max for example, what kind of performance one could expect from RM compared to others? IMO your testing with 360 degree turn was scientifically sound and very much valid, but I would love to see another more ''realistic'' scenario what you would come across more often. My hypothesis is that the differences are not going to be as vast, and IMO its worth throwing GLD into the party for sake of comparison.
Might make a follow up video. Mostly just did 360 degrees so I knew the angle traveled was accurate. Not sure if less would make a difference or not would need to test it.
@@darkninja___ One method to achieve fairly reliable angles, would be approximating distance by having an opponent near one end of the building, and hovering mouse over the tank to get range, repeat same for other side. Little bit of basic trigonometry and soon you have an angle with X-distance.
With angle and distance known, you use the ends of the building as your measuring sticks for aiming.
@@johnmcpudding857 I would probably just use bricks again tbh and the same spot I used. Even If I don’t know the exact angle it’s useful. But all that I think is not as useful now because I found an equipment calculator which would tell the circle size over time. Just need permission to share it.
very interesting... More tests with more tanks would be nice
Might make follow up more in depth. Didn’t want to make video too long.
There is one thing that I find gets rarely mentioned regarding rotation device and its bloom reduction. This might also be the reason, why many CCs use them as bloom reduction.
AS I understand it, bloom is effected by the speed you turn your turet and hull. However, the bloom reduction from rotation device is always there, regardless of turning speed. So when you aim and do not use your full speed to rotate, as in small ajustments or "calm" aiming, your bloom will be smaller with a rotation device than without one. If you use your full speed it will have no or little to now effect as your video showed. That is also why it works well with auto loaders, because you usually stay on target or only do little aiming adjustments inbetween shots and thus u get a high bloom reduction from the rotation device.
I am not sure, but I am under the impression that whenever you move your turret, it does not accelerate but rather just instantly has its maximum velocity. I could be wrong, would be interesting to test.
@@darkninja___ Turret rotation also has an acceleration. It's common to see high level players who turn their turrets slower on FV 4005's
@@fili0938 At any given moment your reticle when turning is either right or left of your gun. In order for it to be true that you can truly control the acceleration of your turret, that would mean that your reticle’s angular distance from your gun determines your turret’s speed. I just don’t buy into that. What I believe is happening is that they’re just controlling the “speed” by stopping and starting turret rotation. I am willing to bet if you move your reticle 1 degree away from your gun then turn your reticle at the same rate that your turret’s maximum speed goes you will do a 360 rotation in the exact same amount of time as if you just flung your reticle crazily away from your gun. Could be tested but I don’t have time. If you decide to test let me know what happens
@@darkninja___ Yes, I am not sure on this either. It was simply a conclusion I came to after watching many CCs use very good aiming skills and comparing them to me.
Good players usually hold the right mouse button to lock the turret and often keep it in a position where they wont have to move the turret much once they actually start aiming in on their targets. The best players have some incredible calm aiming which results in very small aiming circle sizes and whenever they do micro adjustments with their aim the bloom is defnetly considerably smaller as if they would hard aim 180° to either side for example.
Maybe you can test this by taking aTD and locking its tracks. Then start on either Side and move somewhat slowly to the other. Then move back to the other side but do it as fast as u can this time and compare both circles
I think what you fail to consider is that the IRM will allow you direct ur gun in a direction 15% faster as well, so the IRM would've gave u more time to aim because u rotated in a direction faster. If you compared the no equipment/IAU and IRM going at the SAME turret traverse speed, the IRM will show its effectiveness. The comparison shown was the turret rotating at its maximum capacity for no equip/IAU/IRM, which is an unfair comparison. Also just testing the turret dispersion value is minimal so the results appear negligible, but tanks lose most of their dispersion values when the tank hull moves, which IRM improves upon. If you try tanks with poor gun handling dispersion values like leopard PTA, combining the V Stab and IRM has a substantial difference. On TDs, combining the T3 Turbo with IRM is essentially the equivalent of a V Stab.
I think you didn’t watch the video taco because I talked about half of what you wrote about already.
@@darkninja___ ok then address the other half
@@taco_yunior Might make a video questions and criticisms.
Awesome! I'm still curious how vents do in comparison with everything else and if Quickybaby was onto something after all ;)
I might do an update video, but yeah vents are my go to over IAU on many tanks
good stuff, thanks!
Thank you very very much for your great work!
I still love do drive my bourrasque with vent, rotation and vstab (all purple) and have a good feeling playing it. I also mind about the tank turns faster.
I play it with the same sometimes
thats what i use, bounty thou
You cant say this from this one test, only thing you can say with confidence is that on sheridan IAU is better, and that is because dispersion on sheridan is a LOT worse than on grille and turret rotation dispersion is a lot better, so obv sheridan will get more benefit from IAU and grille will benefit a lot more from rot mechanism, also mounting rot mechanism on a slow tank with big bloom will improve stabilization a lot more than doing it on a tank like bat.
Its very tank dependent
Do this same test on grille and Im pretty sure rotation mechanism will massively outperform IAU
I will check later other tanks but the turret dispersion on grille is actually WORSE than on the Sheridan. The IAU applies an equal percent bloom reduction regardless of which tank it is on so I assume that would not change anything. Only other thing to check would be while moving and on tank traverse for various tanks, although tbh I think that is far less important than on turret traverse for basically anything that isn’t a light tank.
I use both the rotation device and gun laying drive on my arties, because it takes them forever to aim.
Same on most of them. I’m not knowledgeable on if GLD is better than rot mech on arties that can’t run vents like conq GC though tbh. I know most top arty players on those arties run GLD instead for CW but might be different for pubs.
You could do the same with grille and test that. Derp Sheridan has a lot of dispersion which means he will profit more from aiming unit.
Grille has 0.35, Sheridan 0.4. Pretty similar
Sorry, grille is actually 0.4 and sheridan 0.35, grille is actually worse on turret traverse.
So what to put on that demon of a tank. "most accurate turreted td in wot" Grille 15?
Imo it needs rammer. I think turbo for the reverse speed, then your pick. I like IAU, but low noise or rot mech are not bad either. Could even drop turbo for both.
@@darkninja___ will try that,can't say how many point blank range shots I missed with it,I use it like iyoxin a peek a boom tank in city maps
@@omarsaad5117 I use it more as a sniper because I’m often in a platoon with it
nice bro
Is it worth it for arties?
IRM is still worth for arty, but I gotta ask, you're not an arty player are you?
@@The_Ball_Snatcher Arty main :^^)
@@NotRuev Hmm I wonder who this could be
Clicked to learned about V-stab and Rotation mechanism, somehow ended up learning about improved aiming unit first 😂
Sry I didn’t know what to title it since I had to cover like 4 things. Tried to explain it with thumbnail
@@darkninja___ no issue ❤️ I love easy learning
First of all i would say that YT algoritm recommended me MaxGamingFPS channel while ago so i gave him a chance. The more i watched him the more i disagreed with that guy. He is wrong in cmore things than this. For example, he was wrong also about how detracking works and he did quite a long video about it, where he was prooving that he is right. But it was actually just a coincidence that he gets results he wanted. :D (He is not even really consistand in his opinions, he made 2 vidios about badger with 8 months apart and he claimed completely opposite opinion in them about "how that tank MUST be played", which is kind of funny to me)
The second thing i wanted to mention you already covered in the second video. I mean the fact that IRM works as V stab while you are driving only forwards and backward (Like KV-2 or FV4005 usually do)
Conclusion: For me the MaxGamingFPS channel is not worth to watch anymore, since i am capable to 3th mark things and his advices and interpretations are for average shitters at best.
It looks to me that you might be a new source of entertainment and education about WOT. Even after 12 year of gaming, i belive there is still planty thing that i dont know yet.
Same frame would be at the time the last one managed to rotate. i.e. measure the bloom after the same amount of time passed. What you did was measure the rotation mechanism earlier. The teeny fact that the time difference for full rotation is easily above 0.5s in this case, seems to elude you. You can do that measure in the video editor. Just count the amount of frames from start to end of the slowest rotation and add the same number of frames to all the test cases and then you'd be objective.
The maximum bloom depends on the rotation speed. So the max bloom is reached as soon as the max speed is reached which should be almost instantly. Therefore the time of the rotation is irrelevant. He just wanted a 360 degree rotation to have a brick wall background the circle could be related to in size.
@@hallesberries7813 that's the point. He's measuring maximum bloom, completely ignoring the extra time to aim, that you get when rotating faster.
He also manages to ignore it again in his batchat spreadsheet despite having the data. Just sum the last two columns and you have the effective time to aim.
It would make no sense to do that in my opinion. The whole point is a target is a set amount of degrees away from you, you have to move that set amount of degrees away to shoot them, so you should measure the bloom by angular values, not time. But even still, someone linked me an equipment calculator vs time graph and even when comparing vs time the IAU outperforms the rot mech by far on the Sheridan at least.
@@nikoladd I literally mentioned it in my video dude, near the end.
@@darkninja___ the whole point is that targets move and "the target" will NOT be the same "a set amount of degrees" at a different time. Also aiming happens to take time. You test only makes sense if you snapshoot immediately after rotating, because that's the only time it would be accurate test.
Dark ninja on top king of the autists
When wg doesnt know there own equipment works 😂
Wow dark this Video is sexy af i swear i had goosebumps watching this.
Love to see the math and minmax everything.
So vert stabs are No.1 obviously but im curious how
Aiming unit, Rotation mechanism, and gun laying drive compare to eachother on something like t57 or 50b.
I will prob make a video about this in the future, if not, I just got access to an aiming equipment spreadsheet that I’m getting permission from the owner to share which you could use to help your decisions.
If you join my discord the spreadsheet is in the "resources" channel.
WG sucks! Punish Wargaming by playing WoT only for free. Be smart and invest your money. I'm buying crypto. You do whatever you like. :-)