Not the case. Suggestion vs Bug is a simple classification of how the issues are tagged internally.
Bug: Unintended Issue with the game (Technical, Gameplay, graphics etc)
Suggestion: Suggested change based off information, sources or suggesting missing munitions etc
Something being passed as a suggestion or bug has no bearing on its importance. Things are further internally tagged to distinguish between what may be a historical error for example vs simple missing ordinance. Things can change classification if a developer confirms it should one way or another.
There is no need. The report is labelled correctly as it is. This is simply a misunderstanding of how reports are passed and handled as people commonly misunderstand that a suggestion is not treated “less than” a bug.
If you have further issues or discussion on this matter, then this should be taken to PM.
I will once again remind you for the second time, this is a Eurofighter topic, not an Su-27 or Pantsir topic and this has no relevance to this topic anymore. Your initial questions were answered already.
But, man, come on, ofcourse people will get confused. We have technical mods who deal with bugs and historical inaccuracies alongside suggestion mods who deal with new suggested features and additions, yet historical inaccuracies are said to be forwarded as suggestions? This is not even mentioning monthly suggestions passed to developers. It is only natural that a report of the OLS-27 having less than half of its detection range and a request to add the XF-15C both being called a suggestion raises eyebrows.
You yourself know how many times people ask why their report is a suggestion. Why not just use clear language?
For something that is clearly broken and does not work as intended, call it a bug.
For something that is a historical innacuracie with a fix within the intended scope of the game, like wrong IRST detection range, call it a historical inaccuracy or a historical bug.
For something that is a historical inaccuracy (outside the scope of the game) or a request for a new feature, like tracking radars not being able to double as a limitted seach radar, call it a historical suggestion or a suggested feature.
Suggestions on the Community Bug Report site are entirely unrelated to suggestions here on the forum. They are two entirely different processes, teams and systems.
We do not have a need for multiple different classifications for reports that serve no purpose. We simply have 2 which are purely to define the above distinguishing criteria
I will now for a final time ask that this be taken to PM if there is something you still do not understand or wish to discuss further. This will be the 3rd time of asking for the topic to remain on track.
Your questions have been answered, if you have further ones, they should be taken to the correct place rather than continue to detail this topic further. The next step will be action taken after 3 previous ignored warnings.
Have the devs got any plans in mind for the CAPTOR-M given that critical information for it isnt available, such as Scan Rate?
The Blue Vixen placeholder is fine for now, but would be very much interested in seeing a far more capable radar for it sooner rather than later. Especially as I doubt we’ll get CAPTOR-E anytime soon for it
CAPTOR has been and will continue to be set-up with all publicly available information. Reports are welcome for any inaccuracies that can be supported with public materials.
They aren’t right now, but they gonna need to be soon. We’re at the tail end of modern stuff of which declassified details exists, and it’s only gonna get worse from now on. If they don’t change their stance soon, all avionics will largely stagnate in terms of capabilities
Scan rate, Flame has good info for from the looks of it. Likely wont be a big buff, but it should increase when it gets bug reported and actionned.
The major ingame issues as I currently see them are:
Repeating bars kill high barcount radars like CAPTOR-M. This NEEDS to be fixed as it effects both the radars ability to track targets effectively and the overall situational awareness.
Priority track should be added, this will further mitigate the track issues of the radar.
Roll stabilization on the blue vixen (and therefore likely the CAPTOR-M) is electronic iirc. The CAPTOR-M should have no track issues from rolling maneuvers (already implemented on the Rafale).
Theres other info we dont have public sources for yet (unfortunately) that arent useable, but do point us towards things we can look for. Those are shots in the dark tho regarding if we’ll find acceptable sources for gaijin, and some info still eludes us overall.
Im just not totally convinced that the scan rate wasnt increased from Blue Vixen. I just dont see how 70° / sec is fast enough for the interleaved mode and why they would develop a radar capable of moving at 333° / sec if its only going to use less than 1/4 of that capability. Just seems wierd for me.
scan rate is limited by the radars range. Just a physical limit of having to wait for the return (multiple times infact as one ping usually isnt enough)
The question is if it would be sped up IRL if you reduce the scope size
