Yeah but USSR got a T-72 with APS, plus most nations already maxed out with velchies, we’re in the late 2000’s or in the 2010’s tech era, there are not many things you can add to the game especially not for Russia where we have things from 2010’s already.
I mean it was a rather weak update overall when compared to what we used to get.
Except maybe for naval players?
same as ukraine and czech
What ukrainian vehicle there is in game?
So what can the players do to fix the missile if the few reliable pieces of public info available of the AIM-120 gets rejected in the bug reports? It seems pretty much obvious that you people are asking for the same sekrit stuff you don’t want.
Or the development team can openly disclose and use the ‘we believe’ gimmick on the amraam missile series, so they
- confirm that they are satisfied with its anemic AOA and
- we can stop pretending that the bug report system is made to achieve some sense of accuracy, and its just a platform that Gaijin uses to justify the game conventions they seek/want.
3 Likes
Reports can be made with any publicly available sources that are in no way restricted or classified.
Once again, we have been very clear about our stance on anything restricted:
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/source-material-restrictions-on-classified-and-export-restricted-information-military-restrictions/2069/3
Not only do we not want it on any of our platforms, but we take immediate action to ban individuals who do so.
So this notion that we are somehow asking for restricted material is a complete fabrication.
We wont ever touch, use or handle such information.
Smin, I’ll repeat myself for one last time:
What can players do to fix the missile if the few reliable pieces of public info available of the AIM-120 gets rejected in the bug reports?
This position of ruling out classified docs literally goes out of the window the moment bug report managers reply suboptimal stuff like ‘game convention, not a bug’ or ‘I believe this is a clear marketing lie’, without giving meaningful feedback nor their own sources to back up.
You can do an awesome job doing PR to the bug report area, but the truth is widely known in the dedicated playerbase.
7 Likes
When we will get the Meteor and the AIM-120D, will we be able to leak sekrit documents?
The issue with this is that stuff is often added in a state that isn’t accurate to known and public data, however you won’t accept that data because it doesn’t fit your criteria. This leaves classified documents as one of the only actual sources that have a chance of being accepted.
The burden of proof shouldn’t solely be on us, but rather on the Gaijin team in some cases.
This is one of the most frustrating things about bug reporting modern vehicles. I’ve seen the Chinese community get 20+ reputable sources only for it to be rejected because it doesn’t fit with the sources Gaijin wants (which are almost completely unavailable in China). You see this a lot for NATO stuff too cause everything is classified. This is also ignoring the fact that accepted bug reports sometimes go nowhere (spall liners on Chinese top tier tanks for example).
How are we supposed to prove something is modelled incorrectly if Gaijin won’t accept any sources? And how are we supposed to know that it is correct if Gaijin won’t give any evidence of such?
10 Likes
People are really losing faith in the bug report system, especially when things have been reported for years, and not actioned on. It’s widely known and it makes people not take responses seriously
9 Likes
I will also repeat myself:
Anyone with information can make a report. If you have information to suggest something is wrong, a report can be made.
Reports can be made with publicly available sources. As always, they are treated as suggestions and down to the developers discretion.
Its not clear what cases you are referring too here or expecting a response on. Without links to specific reports, I cannot provide you answers for evert AMRAAM report ever made without context.
This is not the case. As classified documents will never under any circumstances be accepted. So it has no chances at all.
Seems like the Hornet is performing correctly then. I’m not seeing an issue here…
Oh, so you think the F/A-18C Late is fine in War Thunder? Brother man, I need to check if you’re playing the same game or if you’re flying a Dollar Tree knockoff.
Let me break it down for you because clearly Gaijin’s flight model dev team took a long vacation after scanning a museum pamphlet about the Hornet.
The AN/APG-73 radar isn’t some confused potato this thing could track multiple targets at range, using track-while-scan to maintain situational awareness and guide AIM-7s or AIM-120s (if War Thunder ever learns what those are).
Its low radar cross section (RCS) made it harder to spot and track at long distances, something War Thunder just says “nah” to It was designed for networked air combat, linking with AWACS, sharing target data, and working in tight fighter packs not blindly stumbling around like it does in-game with a gimped radar and no situational awareness.
You reduce the afterburner in the game and the Hornet drops speed like you hit a brick wall while in real life the F/A-18C I KNOW OF was known for high angle-of-attack maneuverability and insane nose authority and its funny because have currently 200 games in the f18 c Late with 174 ish deaths and 190 player kills cause I mostly play air RB and don’t kill AI and most of the time when ever I get into a dog fight AOA in War Thunder somehow translates to free airbrake mode. The energy retention in real life was actually decent pilots could sustain turns and regain speed efficiently. War Thunder makes it feel like you’re flying through molasses in January.
Don’t even get me started on acceleration. In the game, you go full burner, and a Cessna 172 pulls ahead like it’s Fast & Furious: GA Edition.
Brother man the real Hornet was a multi-role fighter with a heavy emphasis on air superiority in contested zones. It replaced the F-4 Phantom and flew alongside the F-14 and F-15 for a reason, it wasn’t a sideshow act. Naval aviators trusted this jet in air-to-air combat, especially for its high off boresight missile capability (once the AIM-9X came in),agile dogfighting performance, and stable weapons platform even under G-load.
In War Thunder, though? You get a half-baked radar, horrid acceleration, draggy flight model, and a BVR profile that makes MiG-23s look like 5th-gens. It’s like Gaijin pulled a Top Gun VHS off the shelf and said, “Close enough.”
1 Like
quite literally no aircraft in this game currently has this capability.
1 Like
I didn’t tell that WT has it right? I just said what it was capable of.
Yea well guess what, that’s what it also does in war thunder
Improved tactics will optimize performance
improved tactics will optimize performance
Which is funny because as of currently the thrust of the f18’s engines is overperforming as it has in fact not Channel thrust loss, but actually channel thrust Gain!
https://community.gaijin.net/issues
Margin will be gained by improving weapon systems
as a consequence of channel thrust gain, it is most likely overperforming too.
Spoiler
2 Likes
Hey, just a heads up — the document you’re quoting isn’t actually about the F/A-18C Legacy Hornet at all. That “Appendix F – Status of Major Deficiencies” comes from a 1999 GAO/DoD report on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet during its early operational testing phase.
So yeah, you’re trying to roast the C model using a document that’s literally about a different jet — bigger airframe, different engines, different flight characteristics. It’s like quoting F-35 issues and blaming the F-16 for them.
The F/A-18C does have some known flight limitations (like energy bleed and turn performance), but if you’re going to use official sources, make sure you’re at least citing the right airframe. Otherwise, it just looks like you’re copy-pasting without context.
Let’s keep it accurate, not desperate. I can post the entire document if you want. 🙂
1 Like
I would rather play an op nation and receive nothing, than play a bad nation, get told it’s being buffed, then receive the most useless and broken vehicle in the game.
I mean you brought it up in discussion about in-game performance of Hornet; also Hornet isnt special in this aspect, im sure most if not all western aircraft post gulf war have this capability.
Spoiler
IIRC Su-35 got smoked by AMRAAM guided in with data fed by Saab 340 AEW&C through datalink sometime last month.
1 Like