Yes you can include a link. As long as all the content is also correctly present in the newer report and it’s not just a report that says “here’s a link to the old report, all the info is there” as that wont get accepted.
All listed moderators (except Community managers IIRC) are non-paid Volunteers with normal lives/jobs/families/hobbies. We also get quite a lot of messages to go through so It might take a while to get a response though we generally try to respond within a few days. A tip in general when contacting any of the volunteer teams and you don’t get a response within a day or two is to add one or two more people from the list to the same original message sent to the first person, that preserves the date the messages was sent and doesn’t make it look like a completely new request just sent 5 minutes ago.
Wepaonary has always been down to balancing decisions. This is not something just starting with the F/A-18C early. It’s always been the case. It’s no exception to the norm here.
Pending clarification and how stringent proofing requirements are you may want to hold onto the AAS-38A as it may improve the radar’s notch widths.
1 Like
But then what dictates the BR it should be balanced for?
Just C+P ARH logic from other ARH missile
Literally, even I can made it. So i don’t think its difficult for developers
The radar of the lavi that maked into the early sufa is being worked on by olivia
Efficiency, i.e. how much RP and SL is gained per flyout on average (with some modifiers like BR of opponent and things like that taken into account). So for example if a vehicle is performing poorly the DEV’s can add new munitions/ordinance to try to boost its efficiency, if it performs really poorly it can get lowered in BR if the munition it can get for a boost is to op it might get some extra things on top (that are subject to balance) and get moved up in BR.
They explained it a while back, I’ll see if i can find it again and link it.
Any info on the jump from .29 to .30???
1 Like
I get it it’s just that things are somewhat time sensitive as it relates to changes made on the dev server
I also feel somewhat questionable to throw “info requested” requested flags on a report and then close it to comment immediately which then required me to go via PM or risk a “duplicate report” flag and no action, as the original report had already been actioned by the moderator and slow rolling things decreases the likelihood that changes get implemented.
Instead of being able to reformat and swap out the source at issue.
The contents of the new report
As to their response(s).
It just makes no sense, as that is the issue with the report. Not the content of the provided sources. It doesn’t help that their proclamation is categorically incorrect and demonstrably false.
While yes the specific table originally provided isn’t definitively present in the referenced document, but it’s the substantively similar to the table provided on PDF page -83 of said report, in fact if I had to bet it’s the original that the reproduction in “Outsider’s view” is a partial scan of. (shown below), due to various scanning artifacts being duplicated in both images.
Additionally I’m not entirely sure as to what originating document actually is as it’s claimed to be an excerpt / scan of another document entirely, and as such is the most accurate attribution I could make unless I procure a copy of the book and I can track down a further reference (presuming that it exists), which is exhaustive effort unneeded since what I have should do is provide any attributable version (and prove declassification), since each source should stand on it’s own merit, and as per Gaijin’s Primary / Secondary Source definitions the Technical report takes precedence.
And it still references a IR / TV sensor, Which I’ve highlighted in the red square for clarity The only aux sensors used by the F-14 was the (IR / IRSTS)ALR-23, (TV / TCS )AXX-1 and (IRST)AAS-42 pending configuration.
Huh, that is a new label i have not seen before, “Not enough info” might be that there isn’t enough proof in the provided material for it to be forwarded. The “info requested” is likely if there is a question they have or more files/links needed to go forward.
But yeah, best bet is to just add a few more of the Technical Moderators to the original message and hope that they get to it soon. You can also see the general forum activity of each team here: (War Thunder — official forum) to get a sense of who is more likely to answer fast.
Yes.
All eurocanards now have the AOA button, among other things.
4 Likes
That doesn’t explain the baseline for which they originally set it for
Why did they choose to balance it for 12.7 instead of 13.0 on implementation?
If historical accuracy isn’t the deciding factor then what is, because you could argue that the F-16ADF would be better balanced for 12.3 if you swapped the AIM-9Ls for Gs
But they chose to balance it for 12.7 not 12.3 where 9Ls make more sense, I want to know what they use to decide the BR they choose to balance something for.
1 Like
Brahhh.
I get that you’re only the messenger but still.
It’ll surely be fun to fight a gen 4 in an 11.7 gen 3 or an early gen 4 fighter.
Surely that hasn’t been done just to bait in the bots to buy all that stuff and ruin the game for everyone that wants to play tech tree stuff right?
Just give it 9Ms and raise it up, please? I’m still not going to buy it but at least the devs will be able to boast that they’re selling top tiers now, and everyone else can start calling y’all Wargaming. The game is already going down the same path anyway lol.
I know, neither had I. And I don’t exactly know what to make of it. And how does it supposedly differ from an “Info Requested” flag. I’d be nice if there was a list of these things somewhere.
But that’s the thing lacking proof of what, exactly? that “IR/TV sensor” does somehow not cover the TCS? That it can’t provide angle tracking of a target to hand off to the radar to handle illumination?
Further what are they looking for? I’ve got video evidence of intercepts from the camera’s perspective.
3 Likes
That exactly is what the F-4E could be given to mitigate it not having a PD radar but Gaijin said nah, screw old stuff.
18C Late has its HMD…but only active when you turn on an IR missile or enter HMS to lock your radar on…does not display if you just look left and right
Weapon loadouts on MFD
Flight Model of the 18C Late still feels great :)
Going to check Su30 now…report back in a sec
Also I’ve no idea where this excerpt originates from (found here) but. This confirms angle tracking capability that the radar can be slaved to the TISEO output. It also agrees with symbology (Optical-Lock-On / Track, square corner “Track window” markers are present) seen in some of the in-flight TCS footage present in the F-14 ACE/AIMVAL video linked above [@ ~11:15].
3 Likes
If so, I’m still waiting for my A-4M “Late”
1 Like