So the bug report asks for CCIP for the guns even tho its describing a targeting computer, something not modeled in the game on any vehicle.
Of which many should have it, but its not as much missing from the B29 as its just not a feature in the game.
Then the bug report goes offtopic talking about missing radar and the functionality it has. Which probably should be its own report and not this one.
And then goes offtopic again talking about missing armored bulk heads.
So in other words this bug report should probably be 2 suggestions, 1 for adding targeting computers to the game, and 1 for adding that type of radar to the game.
And 1 bug report for missing armored bulk head.
So yeah report should have been closed a long time ago as “not a bug” With encouragement to create a report for the bulk head
there’s a bunch of them in this forum, the more time u spend here the more you’re convinced, how can a guy stay in this forum for hours, it’s crazy he got like 1k hours per week in this forum.
He already has, I mean we already know Eddie, and a few others are WT forum memes. Forgot his name but he was the one putting irrelevant comments related to CAS needing to be removed while making 15 college-page essay topics of the same regurgitated stuff. But I digress.
Dude… you’ve gaslit yourself so hard.
I personally spend less than 8 hours a week on the forum, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s less than 5 hours a week, or even less than 3 hours a week.
Cause whenever I’m active here, it’s almost exclusively when I’m playing War Thunder.
You’ve been successfully gaslit by yourself @sartt and @Pegasus7217
I highly recommend you take a break from the Internet.
It’s very much the same thing, and with current radar gun sights would be minimal effort to employ in the current capabilities vs the desired capabilities. It’s just the math of calculating trajectories and velocities… Predictives on top of that are easy. Since we don’t have to truly simulate actual radar/optical systems it’s much easier. The engine passes that data.
Oh it’s 100%. Every post that diverges from Gaijin worship has him as our moderator. He stops in and tries to deflect all blame and get us back to loving Gaijin…
The firing computer thing could actually be implemented, but you need to make a suggestion post and not a bug report. If you go to Suggestions - Aircraft and made a post presenting the targeting computer for the B-29, they may actually add it. Suggestions is the key thing here, because they won’t see it as a bug that it isn’t present, they just haven’t added it due to whatever. Please make a suggestion post for the targeting computer portion on here, because that would be pretty amazing for the B-29.
Why should we address this as a suggestion, subject to arbitrary consideration, instead of recognizing it for what it really is: a historical issue that we simply must accept? All B-29s had onboard ballistic computers, and the fact that we are currently firing without parallax correction and guns harmonization mechanics is merely an error/bug, an incoherence for the context of a video game aiming to be a historical simulator. This would be as absurd as if the B-29 were modeled with .30 caliber machine guns mounted in the turrets instead of .50 caliber; no one would judge such a report as a suggestion, as if it were merely an opinion or personal belief of the player for a B-29 to have .50 cal.
Because a bug is an issue with an in game feature. Lead indicators simulating the use of a targeting computer for aircraft gunners is NOT a feature. Therefore there cannot be a problem with the feature because it doesn’t exist. Therefore making a suggestion for it to be added is more appropriate.
There is a method to doing things, expecting proper results when you don’t follow the proper methods is insanity. You cannot fix something if that something doesn’t exist. Bugs in a feature to not exist if the feature does not exist.
It isn’t an error or bug. They just haven’t put the feature in. Just because the game lacks something, doesn’t mean it is an error. There is such a thing called “not having a reason to add a feature”. If the B-29 has been the only plane in game with a firing computer like this, it makes complete sense that they wouldn’t go through the extra effort to design the feature and add it if it didn’t really matter to people or gameplay. This also is not a historical simulator., it is a vehicular combat game.
The point is that these posts shouldn’t be categorized for later consideration, as implies by the “suggestion” term. Instead, the approach should involve a direct pass; examinating just the historical accuracy. If the references checks out, it should be embraced without the need for prolonged deliberation. Engaging in debates about whether to include features like the ballistic computer is as inappropriate as debating whether the Sperry Ball Turret should have 360º azimuth rotation as indicated by the manufacturer’s manual, or if we should stick to the previous 30º. Such actions shouldn’t be debated; they demand promptly implementation like a bug correction. Unless Gaijin Developers are adopting openly a doctrine of indifference towards historical fidelity in their vehicles.
Wanting to post this in the suggestions section, at the same level or priority as the user’s post suggesting to add more Eva Elfie decals, it’s really inappropiate.
Everything that people want to see in the game goes in the suggestions. New vehicles that haven’t yet been added, new weaponry, new gameplay idea, anything people want to suggest to be added to the game.
That is why you put it in the suggestions area, it allows Gaijin to see and review it, and then move on to considering it.
I find it odd that you think that just because the vehicle had the system means that it MUST be added. This game is not focused around historical accuracy, not at all. Otherwise, You wouldn’t see matches with the Su-25 sharing the same airspace as the F-86, or the M109 Paladin firing shells at a Tiger 1.
Noone ever said that it would be at the same level or priority as decals. They have separate sections for each type of suggestion, probably for that reason. The crazy thing about this is that you could have made the post for him at this point instead of arguing with me. I think the gun computer would be a neat feature, but I have my own little Warthunder projects I’m trying to work on, so I’m not going to do leg work for something that I don’t need to. I was trying to be helpful by telling him a suggestion post would probably be more successful than a bug report. I have no idea why you are making such a huge thing out of this when I have tried to HELP IT GET ADDED by bringing up making a suggestion post.
But a report on the ballistic computer is not necessarily a desire that the player longs for their own enjoyment, it is simply a warning of incompleteness in the already constructed model of a historic aircraft, like an missing wheel. There is a section of reports with its platform intended to address everything related to historical inconsistencies for this reason. Nor is there any condition that this must already be previously implemented. In fact, it was reported some time ago that the Ki-48 II Otsu never had a Type 89 machine gun, but rather a Type 1 double-barreled machine gun. This weapon does not exist in the game, so a new one had to be modeled from scratch just for this plane, including its sound. Was this an reason to deny the report? No.
I find it odd that you think that just because the vehicle had the system means that it MUST be added. This game is not focused around historical accuracy, not at all. Otherwise, You wouldn’t see matches with the Su-25 sharing the same airspace as the F-86, or the M109 Paladin firing shells at a Tiger 1.
It is understandable. Therefore, Gaijin should openly express these principles, indicating that all historical reports will be subject to a consideration filter on whether they align with the overall objectives of gameplay. At this point, there should be no relevance as to whether you presented a revisionist essay on certain characteristics of an aircraft, with official manuals or plans, because there is certainly the same risk of it being arbitrarily dismissed without any response. That we soon see a B-29 reaching 1000 km/h like a jet in order to balance against its counterparts should not have to admit any complaint. Right?
Noone ever said that it would be at the same level or priority as decals. They have separate sections for each type of suggestion, probably for that reason. The crazy thing about this is that you could have made the post for him at this point instead of arguing with me. I think the gun computer would be a neat feature, but I have my own little Warthunder projects I’m trying to work on, so I’m not going to do leg work for something that I don’t need to. I was trying to be helpful by telling him a suggestion post would probably be more successful than a bug report. I have no idea why you are making such a huge thing out of this when I have tried to HELP IT GET ADDED by bringing up making a suggestion post.
By sending them to the suggestions section, you expose them to the same treatment as all random garbage that players suggest. They will be easily ignored.
@Necronomica
You do realize that Internet browsers have these things called “tabs”, right?
And these tabs can be active but not viewed/engaged.
Each time I open my browser and refresh the tabs that’s more activity on the website even though I haven’t engaged.
you do realize that that isn’t counted right? i have a tab of the forum open basically at least 3h a day. more often than not around 6 hours. i have an average of 30 min read time per day on the forum spread over the days i’ve been active.
