The APS did not intercept the 9M123 even though it should have
In the list of hits to the top left in the first screenshot you show they you’ve been hit twice within 3 seconds. In your second screenshot you can see that the APS list only one countermeasure loaded (at the bottom of the info for the APS). So i’m guessing that it had already used the countermeasure against the first missile and had no countermeasures left for the second one.
oh, i did forget to show the first hit, it did end up penetrating knocking out the driver engine and transmission
Do you have a link to the server replay?
That does look a bit odd yeah, kind of hard to tell angles though. But i would report that one on the CBR. You can bug report it here (just search a bit first so that you don’t report something that is already reported and known about): (Gaijin.net // Issues)
A guide on how to report bugs can be found here: ([Navigation] Technical Knowledge Base | War Thunder Wiki)
Bringing up a bit of an old topic, but can we get the APS on the KF41 fixed? There’s been an accepted bug report that’s over 9 months old now of how the KF41 gets damaged when the APS goes off (for example, it can knock out its own transmission, engine or even overpressure the crew which counts as J’ing out and crew locks you) and it still an issue. Also, as of writing this, the APS gets triggered by MG fire even down to 7.62mm caliber. I’d make a bug report but I’m banned on there for another 2 months for trying to get the AH-1G FFAR sight for the pilot IAW the TM :T
I HIGLY doubt that is the reason for such a ban.
If you have any questions about bug reporting or any specific report then you can contact the Technical Moderators. 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.
The QA team responds with “There is not enough information. You have to provide information on has this sight should look and work”, which is funny because it’s literally the same as the 3 gun based weapon system sights already in game except set up via the ballistic chart that’s literally in the cockpit. I told them I can’t tell them what it would look like exactly as that would be depending on what Gaijin selects as the attack parameters. EDIT (addition): I’d then have to remake the post because they’d immediately close it after putting a tag of “requires more information”. Hard not to “spam” the same thing when they close it out and I can’t respond.
And I already did contact them about multiple reports being denied and closed with blatant lies. I added them to the point I had to start including forum moderators and Smin responded with a half-baked response where I had to call him out on not reading one of the bug reports (AiM 7 tracking a target that was never designated by radar and tried to track through a hill. I included the .clog, explained the situation and in-game, unedited screenshots (which the QA team stated “I didn’t include enough information” somehow)). I did notice that after he responded, everyone was removed from the message list. I didn’t know that was a thing that can be done.
How would they know that if you don’t provide proof of this? Hopefully you understand why they can’t just take players for their word and what would happen if they did. Proof also has to be attached in the correct way (as described under the box where you add the files on the bug report site).
Then provide the proof that shows how it would look in a couple of parameters and attach proof of that (and hopefully also how it looks for all attackparameters).
I those cases you DON’T just make a new report, you instead contact the Technical Moderators here on the forum to ask them to re-open the report so that you can add more information that they requested or alternatively you can use the “report” function on your own report and in that ask them to re-open it so you can add the requested information. ( See: It’s fixed! №111 - #27 )
I have nothing to say about the rest of your post as i have no knowledge of any of the specifics. The only thing i reacted to was this:
Were they taken with the in-game screenshot key bind as the bug happened (correct way) or did you use a different screenshot function or only after the fact within a replay (two things that would make the screenshots not usable, i’m not entirely certain about the replay thing, that might still work depending on what the bug is, uncertain)?
The screenshots need to be taken at (or near) the moment the bug happens, they aren’t used for the image (unless the bug is a visual one) and are instead used because they put a tag in the code and game logs near where the bug occurred so that the developers don’t have to sit and scroll through tens of thousands of lines of code to try to maybe find the right place where it happened. If there is a screenshot tag then they instead have maybe a few hundred lines to look at instead.
The AH-1G Flight Manual that I sourced, screenshotted and directly linked to (as it’s an online archive) that also includes that it 1) exists and 2) it’s literally in the game model currently. There’s also 0 counter argument of them having a gunsight for the chin turret, the mini gun and 20mm but not the FFAR when the three gun based system information (such as the chin turret is zeroed out while the guns are boresighted) is buried deep in random paragraphs whereas the FFAR is a literal operating procedure and 3/4th of the procedure is literally modeled in the helicopter.
Ah yes, let me just pull out my personal M73 Reflex Sight to do that… or, and here’s a crazy idea, seeing how they have the ability to place assets with set parameters, they can choose which engagement setpoint they want to have established for the set sight and then figure it out where it would be in the sight picture. It’s literally somewhere in the vertical line and it will vary depending on what they choose. What could I ever pull up as a source for that? Draw in MS paint the sight somewhere on the vertical line and post it?
Again, you mean like how I did (and got ignored by every single one for two months until I added Forum Moderators)?
F12 via the in-game screenshot button and pulled directly from the War Thunder Screenshot folder. Sounds more like a cope seeing how many people have been reporting the same issues I have for years and got nothing in response (such as the T-72 commander copula being incorrectly modeled for the armor. IRL, it’s a dome but in game it’s horizontal, which even the 3D model shows it being a dome in game).
Is not attached to the report and only linked to and is also not described or screenshotted in the way they ask (bottom paragraph).
I’ve admittedly only skimmed the manual you have linked to, but i cannot find any information about how the rocket sight works or looks in that manual. At best it says "“The pilot uses the fixed sight and estimates the range” on page 37. Both page 36 and 37 list the steps to use the rockets operationally and both lists contain “align fixed sight with target”.
They want a source claiming that this is possible to do for the rockets, i cannot see this described for the rockets in the source you linked. You also show no visual example of how the reticle looks visually which they also ask for.
I’ve skimmed your reports, they provide the blanket response that covers all the things that could be wrong, i don’t think all that is listed in the response applies to your specific report. It’s just a list of all the things they need so if you’re missing one of them you can ask to have it re-opened and to add that file. They aren’t saying that all those things are missing.
From what i can see you are not creating your reports the correct way and when asked to provide things you don’t but instead re-create the same report with the same sources and only change how you describe things without adding the things they asked for.
Odd seeing how I’ve seen plenty of reports not include that or even source any documents (literally saw one accepted that said “this tank is missing armor” and linked a random page that had 0 armor information). EDIT: Addition of the report [DEV] CM34 | Turret add-on armor missing // Gaijin.net // Issues
There’s also no 20mm in that tech manual version (it’s from the 1975 update which they clearly have seeing how they not only added the 20mm gun but also gave it the boresight for it). AH-1G Flight Manual : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
So go ahead and explain what this chart is for… I’ll give a hint, it’s not there just to take up space. Also, doesn’t that also back up my statement of there should be a sight for the pilot seeing how you even highlighted it? Section 6-60 on page 6-17 states " The pilot is provided with a fixed illuminated reticle sight for firing the TAT-102A turret in the stowed position and podded guns and rockets on the wing
stores." We’re really going to debate that there would be gun sights for every other weapon system BUT the main long range engagement weapon (the FFAR)?
The knob on the top left is called the Elevation/Depression knob. You choose your attack parameter IAW the ballistic chart and set that knob to said value on the chart. It rotates the beamsplitter and moves the reticle to the given parameter. The pilot then estimates range, puts the reticle on the target and pulls the trigger. Pretending you need an in-depth procedure is insane, especially seeing how Russian helicopters operate the exact same (which funny how other nations get a sight for their rockets but the US doesn’t).
From the 1975 TM, there’s this data.
Which this shows the reticle where the 1967 one doesn’t so clearly Gaijin had access to this.
Attack procedure (which has even less steps. Turns out US air crew aren’t stupid)
Also, the 20mm has tracers when it shouldn’t
Just show them this lol, they’ll understand
1 Like
Ironically enough, that video is what made me dive into the bug reports on it (I had seen it before but thought they had fixed it. Clearly not).
1 Like
You cannot view the attached files for other peoples reports for safety reasons. There are likely files attached that you cannot see.
as for the rest of your post:
I personally believe that there is such a sight. BUT:
All this does not matter, you have to PROVE IT with screen shots of where in the document is says that and how it looks, you have not done this in your reports. You are calming things and expecting them to take your word for it or spend hours looking through manuals to see if what you claim is correct, they are not going to do that, no one would.
YOU have to provide the proof. YOU have to show images of what the sight looks like. YOU have to provide images of the manual page where it says those things AND provide the manual attached as a file (not only linked to). Even better if you also highlight the parts where the things you are reporting are mentioned.
All the images you have provided here were not provided in the reports. The asked you for this several times and you did not provide it.
Because it literally is already modeled IN GAME. Gaijin has it modeled where the pilot adjusting the manual sight for all the other weapon systems so why does it magically require a precise, in-depth procedure for the last one when it states the sight is also for the rockets that are also called out being used for? Hell, it’s the only one that has a known number for the sight as the bore sighting was helicopter specific. Also, strictly on a gameplay and balancing reason, why would the US not get a rocket sight when every other nation does? Even the Huey gets one xD
It’s just like how the AH-1G was released with them saying it will get the 40mm and 7.7mm minigun turret and actually showed screenshots of it (which it had IRL) but we’ve yet to see it added, which is from the 1975 TM.
Also, why would a link not work? There’s no red asterisk next to the file attachment nor is it stated anywhere that it has to be uploaded as a file and ironically, the only one required is the screenshots section. Also, why couldn’t they just say that instead of “well, this isn’t enough information” and close it. That gives me nothing to work on outside of “Ah yes, the QA member just doesn’t want to fix this.” I provided the title, date, images of the referenced pages and page number like is required so why does it specifically become invalid being in the screenshot section instead?
Every historical report EVER requires proof of this kind regardless of circumstances. Why is it so hard for you to just provide what they ask?
This is just a guess from me, but:
Links can (and often do) die and not be available anymore. A link also requires the one that handles the report to download the file which is not only a security risk but also not everyone has free internet and might have limits on how many Mb they can use. If the sources are directly uploaded then the bug report site very likely has security checks in place to prevent the ones handling the reports from being at risk. If screenshots and page mentions are attached then it’s way less data that needs to be transferred to the one checking if it’s a valid report to forward for more detailed investigation.
Because there is no “historical issue” category, it’s lumped in with other vehicle specific issues and will for obvious reasons not be required for reporting an actual bug on a vehicle.
It’s literally it’s own title for file selection to upload “Additional files for historical issues”.
They did say it.
It’s also described when you make the report:
-First report, zero sources and just claims.
-Second report links to a document but no information about how the rocket sight work or looks (they then ask for sources on this information as a response) only information on how the sight works for the turret.
-Third report you start talking about being able to change the zeroing of the sight, something you do not provide sources for. No information about how the sight works or any images of how it looks (they again ask for sources on this information as a response).
-Fourth report, exact same information from you and you make claims but you have only added one image of the source that only says that the sight exists at all.
They asked for sources on how the sight works and looks, you did not provide it. You made lots of claims and only once in your 4’th report showed an image of one page that mentions that a sight exists but not how it works or looks.
1 Like
Okay, so what should it state: the exact steps as to how to adjust the sight (which doesn’t exist in depth) which is already modeled in game for every other weapon system on the helicopter already? Literally, all they did was forget to add the one for the FFAR rockets and there is no step-by-step procedure so what they’re asking for is actually impossible to provide. With this logic of needing the procedure/image of, then how did they get the sight picture for every other weapon system on the platform as those aren’t specifically shown in the TM. This isn’t me trying to be sassy but legitimate questions.
Aren’t the QA workers part of Gaijin? Bit confused on why they would have limited access or have to pay for internet. As for the security bit, that makes sense but they could also use the title and production to search it up. Uploading a file could also provide a security risk as malware can be hidden inside things like PDFs or inside a photo download (idk what security or if any is provided on their side for reports. Hell, I couldn’t download the 1975 version b/c Windows Defender went “This is an unknown source. Denied” so I can’t upload it anyway).
Then why not state it’s mandatory for historical issues in that section? With the way it’s written currently, it’s not mandatory to add to that section.
I’ll give it on the first one that I didn’t add a source. I thought the ballistic chart and the fact it’s a reflex sight with a manual adjust that’s already used for the other weapons was obvious enough as to how it works.
Okay, so how did Gaijin come to the conclusion that the sight can be adjusted for the other weapon platforms? There’s no weapon select switch that auto adjusts the gunsight so why do we get those sight pictures? You got to admit it’s a bad excuse of “you need more evidence and how it works” when it’s the same exact evidence that provided the other sight pictures.
Either way, gonna cut this off because it’s off topic for the post.
You are going about this backwards. You can’t use already in game mechanics as an argument, you can’t use already in game visuals as an argument, you can’t expect them to go investigate for themselves by looking at other sources (at least not until a valid report is made, then they can look at other sources to confirm).
You are assuming a lot of things about what they do or do not have and assuming access to other things. That’s not how reporting works, you have to provide EVERYTHING in a report for it to be accepted and forwarded, only then will they even entertain the idea of looking at what they already have (if they do have something). It would be extremely impractical to expect them to spend hours going through sources to MAYBE find something that someone has claimed without showing proof for. Do you understand how many reports they get every day? Do you understand how many vehicles are in the game? It would take hundreds of employees each spending hours on every report just to investigate if the claims made are correct or not. That’s not reasonable or feasible. They require DIRECT evidence and DIRECT proof of how things are supposed to look/work and only then do they put the hours in to investigate claims.
I don’t care about your specific claim, this is the standard for every historical report ever regardless of in-game circumstances. You have to find and provide proof of your claims and not just claim them out of thin air. You also have to provide the proof the correct way. Having this discussion wont change their requirements and wont change how they operate. All you can do is adjust how you make reports to fit how they want them made, that’s it.