I submitted a bug report for the F110-GE-400 engine with:
It was closed in 6 minutes for “not enough info” then locked so I couldn’t respond.
The moderator asked for “OEM manuals” which Is already provided in the initial report:
Then they locked the thread: Community Bug Reporting System
sounds about right they dont even read them
i mean 5-6m response most likely not
Gaijin has a predetermined idea of how they want game balance to look, they don’t change course because of “reality”
I guess this is the main problem:
also, wikipedia, grokipedia and other websites.
EVEN If that’s the reason The distribution statement is 33+ years old and the document is publicly available and declassified
Have you taken account for channel loss?
You HAVE TO prove that the document you provide is declassified, just because you can find it online doesn’t mean it’s ok to handle or share. Even if the document is declassified you still have to provide proof of that along with the document.
No need to publicly post about it, if you have questions about reporting or any specific report then you can send a private message to one of the Technical Moderators to ask about it and get an explanation. You can find all the teams and the areas they handle listed here: (Who is who and Reporting Procedure). If you don’t get an answer within a few days you can add more moderators from the list to the original message instead of sending a new message (that way you preserve the date of the message and it doesn’t look like a new request), adding one of the moderators to the message every 2-3 days or so until you get an answer.
Please do not to add the seniors until you have tried all other regular moderators, the Seniors likely won’t answer unless they are added and pinged by the regular moderators but if you’ve added all the regular moderators with no answer then you can add the seniors.
Edit:
Are you looking at stock values or with all modifications unlocked?
Have you provided all the sources in the correct way (and are they acceptable sources)?
The NATOPS manual is publicly available with no access restrictions. If it were still classified/restricted:
The burden of proof is backwards. If you claim it’s still restricted, provide evidence of that restriction.
MORE IMPORTANTLY: I provided 9 other sources WITHOUT any restrictions:
Why are these being ignored.
and response to your last thing about modifications i don’t have all of them but according to the wiki its still inaccurate wiki says 22553lbs thrust while the documents i provided say 26-27,000lbs
Okay?
Unless stated otherwise, that’s un-installed thrust, and typically tested at simulated speeds as well.
The F-14B also accelerates identically in-game to how it accelerates IRL, so any thrust buff would result in a drag nerf.
That’s not how that works.
Incorrect. YOU have to provide proof of declassification or you’re quite literally in risk of committing an actual crime.
Are they considered secondary or third party?
Gaijin will ask you to do all this and then add something to the game that has nothing to do with reality other than a pamplet said it
Why are we arguing about the legal status of ONE source while completely ignoring NINE unrestricted sources including THE MANUFACTURER OF THE ENGINE Even if we completely discard the NATOPS manual, the manufacturer’s specification alone should be sufficient.
Why aren’t you answering any of my questions so that i can better guide you in the correct direction?
I’ve seen enough things here to know for a fact that that statement isn’t correct.
Either way. Gaijin also have their own rules.
oh looks like its okay to use they say so.
what question?
These for a start:
I also edited my previous response with extra information that you might want to look at as well.
yes I provided BOTH specifications in my original report:
In-game value (fully upgraded per wiki): 22,553 lbf per engine
Even using the MOST conservative installed thrust figure (23,400 lbf) that accounts for ALL installation/channel losses, the in-game value is STILL 847 lbf too low (3.6% deficit).
If using the uninstalled specification (27,000 lbf), the deficit is 4,447 lbf (16.5% underpowered).
The in-game value matches NEITHER specification.
I provided 10 sources in my original bug report including:
PRIMARY SOURCES (no restrictions):
SUPPORTING SOURCES:
Regarding format: I provided URLs, document names, dates, and specifications. If there’s a specific format required beyond this, please specify what is needed.
no the core sources are PRIMARY:
-GE Aerospace = PRIMARY SOURCE (Original Equipment Manufacturer - they design, build, and test the engine)
-F-14D SAC** = PRIMARY SOURCE (Official U.S. Navy specification document)
These are THE authoritative sources. If the manufacturer’s own specification isn’t acceptable as a “primary source,” please explain what documentation would qualify?
Okay, so lets break this down.
You did not provide them in the correct way (did you even read the response from the bug reporting manager?)
You don’t seem to know what “primary source” means.
So lets break down your sources a bit more.
Source 1:
Good source, no arguments there. Provides dry (Edit: static) thrust and not installed.
Source 2:
Link leads to random third party blog and not the source cited.
Source 3:
Possibly classified/restricted and possibly a crime to share, no declassification proven.
Source 4:
Random third party website, not a valid source
Source 5:
Doesn’t open for me, at first glance looks like random third party website and not a valid source
Source 6:
Wikipedia, not a valid source
Source 7:
Wikipedia, not a valid source
Source 8:
AI, not a valid source
Source 9:
Random third party website, not a valid source
Source 10:
Likely valid source, provides no thrust numbers
