If there was a framework to object to certain mechanics and systems in game (that weren’t external, like review bombing or whining on the forums) then people would be in a far better place, and gaijin would have a better reputation.
There needs to be a way to see meaningful change come from the bug reports that aim to combat misinformation, instead of the infamous ‘not a bug’ or ‘accepted’ without seeing the light of day for years.
It indeed feels like there is an agenda towards certain vehicles and weapon systems in which it’s significantly easier to buff them, with dubious sources, than it is to nerf them with widespread and credible ones; Or in this case, no evidence exists to prove, or disprove the existence of this specific missile because it’s been shown to be nothing besides fictional.
The russian export site delisted any and all mention of the MT (MTE), we’ve seen nothing besides mockups and sketchy brochures, and yet people desperately campaign for it’s continued dominance over GRB
Furthermore, there is nothing that states the fictional IR seeker can track and maintain said track in moving ground targets, it’s an ASM after all and the Laser variant is the only missile that has been used for other purposes so far, this is already a feature of the ASM-1/2 and potentially the Hammers (if those bug reports get accepted)
Smim, with all due respect, theres no salvaging this situation.
Gaijin added a nonexistent missile, its nonexistence cant be proven as that would violate every burden of proof logic ever, and gaijin itself will never ever step down from its pedastal to go through the same scrutiny it requires from players and provide a proof that Kh-38MT exists. Rules for thee but not for me.
Ban me, delete my comment, but that wont solve the issue.
Rocket science doesn’t even come close — if someone can tell how ready a weapons sample is from just one photo, they’re a first-rate pro. Any halfway decent intelligence service would likely be interested, and weapons firms wouldn’t pass him up either.
BTW, You could test him by showing him that picture:
I hope I’m entirely wrong but I don’t think Smin will respond to this, and if he does respond it’ll be the some copy/paste about how you can make a bug report will all the info.
The developers already believe there to be a credible amount of material on the weapon for it to be introduced in the first place. Sadly not all modern weaponary has clear information, the likes of which some people want to see for them to be satisfied.
You are free to make a bug report if you believe you have clear information that the missile itself is incorrect in some way or not performing as it should.
Othwise, as mentioned previously, constructive feedback here on the forum is always welcome and we are always passing that on.
Since proving negative, in this case nonexistence of Kh-38MT, is impossible and goes against burden of proof logic, would the developers be willing to share their sources on the Kh-38MT?
Feels like this would calm the community unrest easily.
But why does only the KH38MT get this treatment? All other weaponry needs more sources and direct proof for compatibility with the plane its mounted on in game. Yet the SU30 gets the KH30 without any of these things?
It isn’t just the KH 38. Many vehicle’s and weaponary have had this applied. The Mirage 4000 as one example, having things planned but not proven / tested directly on the aircraft.
The Tiger HAC having countermeasures and RWR. Not fitted to the prototypes, but known to he possible from documentation.
The Swift F.7 also, with space for the guns being present and some drawings that confirm it to have been possible, but never actually done on the real aircraft. These are just a few examples.
Ok but those are prototypes which would be barely functional without creative license to add planned equipment like the Yak 141. The SU30SM is not a prototype afaik so why does it not have to fulfill the same type of proof that keeps the Eurofighter at 6 AMRAAMS for example
Bug reports require a source material to be accepted, how someone can make a bug report about a weapon that the devs are using their creativity to create since it dont even exist yet?
See? You can say that, but any bug report that is created will be rejected, very complicated…
At least the devs should provide their sources in these cases like kh-38mt, tiger HAC rwr, swift guns…
EAP sadly never tested weponary and was never planned too.
It was a research aircraft to prove new deisgn and manufacturing techniques for the next European fighter deisgn were possible and to collect flight data as a “flying laboratory”.
Mirage 4000 conversely had detailed plans for all of things it received. So the two dont compare.
Do you have any insider info regarding radar guided atg missiles, electronic warfare, and equalisation between nations in cas potential in like half year to 2 year timeframe?
