Oh… Right, because apparently no one has noticed this for years.
5 Likes
And when the 100mm of KE protection of Brenus ERA?
Very good!
Now please add the missing CCRP symbology to the sights of the Phantoms; Thunderchief, Skyhawks, etc.
Recently the lack if such symbology was fixed for the F-111’s - outstanding work and really a gamechanger for the Aardvarks especially in sim - hopefulyl to be repeated also for the aircraf tmentioned above… = )
4 Likes
That being since September with no word on when it would be fixed.
I can finally use my F-117 again :)
Mig-29 fix when?
They noticed this problem when they tested the new French ELC tank destroyer, which they claim shoots VERY!!! POWERFUL cumulative shells)))Ha-ha)))
Well done, people are working hard, they fix problems when the Snail needs money.
It would be great if you could fix this one here too - its a quick win
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/512i6ZRSHyxy
Fix for HEAT sounds great, can we get a fix for HESH though?
3 Likes
Nice.
When you are goingvto fix Ariete armor and the warkit?
Or the KF-41 APS, the ATGM launcher, the armor and giving the spall liners It should have?
1 Like
Is there open reports on it? If not, then almost never.
1 Like
If I am missing any reports for the KF-41 (or for the Puma+Puma VJTF that apply to the KF-41), please let me know and I will add them to the list. I love the KF-41 and want to help the Bug Reporting Managers integrate and/or close duplicate reports to make fixing these issues easier for the Devs 👍
The following bug reports have been accepted for the KF-41:
KF-41 APS issues:
KF-41 APS Issue: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 StrikeShield aps underperforming: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 APS on the middle right side not working: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 APS Malfunction: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 Weapon Issues:
Puma(/VJTF) & KF-41 [30mm MK30-2/ABM] - Incorrect Dispersion: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 Spike launcher should be adjustable: Community Bug Reporting System
Puma IFV and KF41 missing PMC 359 apfsds-t ammo: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 Armor Issues:
KF-41 Missing armor plates on the sides of the KF41 Lynx IFV: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 Strikeshield module armor value is wrong: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 Spall Liner issues:
(There are 2 accepted reports for lack of Spall Liners, these 2 reports should be integrated)
KF-41 Lack Spall liner: Community Bug Reporting System (Report made Dec 10th, 2023)
KF-41 missing spall liners: Community Bug Reporting System (Report made Sept 14, 2024)
KF-41 Other issues:
KF-41 Lynx - Rubber Track Pads: Community Bug Reporting System
The following KF-41 bug reports have NOT been accepted:
(But are not closed, and/or have no reply from the Bug Reporting Managers yet etc):
Open reports without Bug Manager Replies yet:
KF-41 ready rack size: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 Armor incorrect: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 Lynx APS should provide protection against KE rounds: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 IRST, Spike-LR II and APS not working correctly: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 ROSE Smoke grenade explosion distance is wrong: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 Wrong armor numerical reference object Turret armor thickness: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 turret wrong protection value: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 Lynx incorrect Muzzle Brake: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 (and Puma/Puma VJTF) Inaccurate internal Projectile amount in PMC308: Community Bug Reporting System
KF-41 Lynx Missing Ammunition: Community Bug Reporting System
The following reports should be integrated with existing accepted reports:
KF-41 (and Puma/Puma VJTF) 30 mm MK 30-2/ABM Incorrect Dispersion: Community Bug Reporting System [Dec 30th, 2025] (should be integrated with this accepted report: Community Bug Reporting System [Sept 25th, 2025] )
KF-41 Lynx Rheinmetall Strikeshield model incorrect: Community Bug Reporting System [July 4th, 2024] (should be integrated with this accepted report: Community Bug Reporting System [Sept 29th, 2024])
KF-41 missile launcher elevation error: Community Bug Reporting System [March 29th, 2024] (should be integrated with this accepted report: Community Bug Reporting System [Sept 20th, 2023])
The following bug reports are Duplicates for the KF-41:
(If the Mods/Community Managers would like to send a note to the Bug Reporting Managers to close some of these duplicate reports):
KF-41 Missing Spall Liners: Community Bug Reporting System (There are also 2 accepted bug reports for this same issue, see list above for links and dates for the 2 other Spall Liner reports.)
KF-41 Active Protection not working: Community Bug Reporting System (This shows “not enough info” but I believe it might be considered a “duplicate” of this report, which was accepted 2 years ago: Community Bug Reporting System )
KF-41 APS being inconsistent and “weird”: Community Bug Reporting System (Possible duplicate)
KF-41 is unplayable at the moment: Community Bug Reporting System (I think this report should probably be closed. The report is not specific about an issue, and it is only cluttering up the other reports for the KF-41)
Thank you Mods, Managers, and Devs! 🍻
When will you adress the Gripens wing model being wrong or admit you’ll change the name since its not an E model?
1 Like
The F-111F still has the F-5Es RWR and Radar copy pasted as placeholder, when will it gets its own kit?
1 Like
Merkava fix when?
Namer fix when?
Spyder fix when
What is the point of reporting issues if you eventually get banned for it? Let me explain what usually happens.
A player reports a bug that is caused by multiple issues, such as a bad model, poor game design, or other problems. The moderators decline it and then ask you to create separate bug reports for each issue. You do that—and then you get banned for spamming. Works like a charm.
(In our community there was atleast 14 members banned for this reason :)
Then, if you actually find a critical bug that adds no realism to the game, for example:
- A 7.62 mm gun never overheats, while a 76 mm gun—which was specifically designed not to overheat or jam—does overheat or jam.
Eventually, you receive a moderator message like:
“Unified time for ship ready rack mechanics.”
So what is the purpose of reporting issues if, first, you risk getting banned; second, the game applies selective realism; and third, the report is likely to be rejected anyway?
Sadly, some countries did not deploy their equipment efficiently in real life, and some designs were simply worse overall. But Gajin has magical wand which will fix things.
Let’s bring up the same topic where a tank manufacturer contacted the developers on the forums and explained how their vehicle actually operates and performs. Yet Gaijin responded by saying, “No, it doesn’t—you’re lying.”
No matter what evidence is provided, it’s never considered good enough, because it always comes down to opinion rather than facts.
Banned? I have not heard of this happening, ever. Do you mean muted? Because banned means your account was effectively “deleted”. I have a large amount of doubt that anyone got banned for making bug reports.
Hello
You were not banned for reporting issues separately. You were banned because you were spamming the same issue in quick succession with no new information or changes from the previous report. You simply resubmitted it as it was because you were not satisfied with the outcome:
This is not the correct way to ask for a second review of the report and will result in a short ban for spamming. If you wish to have a second review, you can use the report post function or contact any Tech Mod here on the .com forum or Community Bug reporter on the CIS forum.
Reposting the same report in quick succession will lead to a ban for spam.
In other cases, you posted a slew of reports on the Tiger II, with only a single secondary source (book) as the source or not properly listing your sources (so we have no way of verifying them). Which does not meet the basic source critera:
As per the source requirements:
WARNING: Please note! Any information or sources deemed restricted (not cleared for public release) by their respective ownership will not be accepted and will be dealt with according to any legal requirements.
What is appropriate source material for historical issues?
OEM Manuals (primary source):User manuals, repair manuals, factory manuals, operating manuals, technical manuals etc.Single source is required (preferred source).
Authored works (secondary source):Reference books on collections of vehicles/aircraft/ships (‘coffee table books’), biographies, specialist books, “expert” opinion publications, industry magazines etc.At least two unrelated sources required.
You need to provide the following information about the source:
- Title and if applicable: publication date, document number, ISBN;
- Author or organisation;
- Image of the cover;
- Images of all the referenced pages and their page numbers;
- References for photographs;
1 Like
I don’t mean just me overall, but okay, let’s dig into this.
First of all, if you create a post and it gets declined, it’s apparently not considered a bug report—even when it clearly points out serious issues with how bad the website is. For some sections, it does show how to fill out a report, and then we’re told to rely on a guide on how to do it… which is on Wikipedia. That honestly blows my mind.
Then you create another report with more information and even a video, and it still gets marked as a duplicate. So let’s stop here and analyze this for a moment.
Before submitting a bug report, a user is apparently expected to:
- Visit every website with a War Thunder / Gaijin suffix
- Search for instructions scattered across different pages
- Read at least 20 similar bug reports, possibly in Russian or other languages
- And then submit a report
Is that really the expectation?
Moderators want to have everything “on the table,” don’t they?
In my case, the issue was only fixed after I contacted a moderator directly, who probably pushed it through. That suggests the categories themselves need proper explanations, so users don’t have to play cat-and-mouse with moderators.
And finally, this isn’t even about my reports anymore. I’ve given up spending time trying to help, because reporters are treated like the problem. We’re expected to waste hours searching for documents, and if anything is missing, the report just gets closed instead of someone letting us know what needs to be added—so we could actually fix it.
That’s not a reporting system. That’s discouraging people from reporting at all.