Whether you’re doing this intentionally or not, you need to reply to the post rather than making a post with the user tagged in. Anyone else who is reading cannot follow the conversation without scrolling through countless other posts.
This just looks like you don’t want others to read past conversations.
cough cough
looking pointedly at my own bug reports on Dev vehicles
I have an ethics rule not to click reply to posts that contain personal insults/may be removed.
If they wanted their post to be directly replied to the post should’ve avoided false accusations.
Also I found a bug with J-11B pylons and reported it. Hopefully that gets passed and fixed.
That is the type of bug that should be addressed in bug updates
Nothing substantial was added …nothing has been done in separating WWII from Cold war and Cold War from modern .
Nothing has been done to move vehicles to BR;s where they belong
At this point list of tanks that have missing armor,wrong armor missing ammo/wrong ammo and so on is so long that would take hour to remember and type.
But hey …we got worst tank added to the game …for real cash … Buying Arriete for cash is like of throwing money into the wind
What about my reports lol
That’s now how it works when it comes to debating… You of all people should that you make controversial statements.
And it’s not like you don’t make insultd/false accusations. i.e accusing other of spreading Russian propaganda is one big example.
Saying that you won’t reply to false accusations only works if you haven’t done it before.
You mean an example that shows up zero times? The most I said is “Your post reads like propaganda.” Not the person.
I forgot to include advise to be more tactful in statements, but that’s cause past me was far from tactful.
I’ll keep never accusing others.
Oh, and BTW, any instance of “you” instead of “your post” is a reflexive mistype from my youth where typing faster was necessary to win matches. All instances of “you” = “your post” and pointing them out to me will result in me deleting or amending them to be correctly typed to my intended meaning.
Incorrect JF-17’s max speed and thrust of Klimov RD-33 and RD-93 // Gaijin.net // Issues what about this report (my)?
what helicopters does this include?
Hi Smin,
Sorry to tag you, I was just wondering if you knew anything about the flight characteristics of the Rapier MK.2 being corrected?
Currently its speed, G pull, range and smoke signature are all incorrect. The bug reports have been accepted but there still dosen’t seem to be changes on dev. Do you know if the devs have taken a look at this as it should be a shame for it to go live in such a state.
Thanks :)
No offense, but i would like to say your response is disappointing and dishonoring.
I would like to kindly ask if there’s a report for Rafale to have a maximum speed in Mach 2.
Then where is the report or so-called sources or historical information about the nerf on reducing the Max AOA from like 26.X to 24.X and lowering the G-limit to 12G.
If you said all the changes are based on sources or historical information. Then I believe the sources you get are legal and can be publicly shown. RIGHT?
You guys said don’t “nerf” and “buff” planes without material to suggest a change.
I have looked into the report about the Max speed Mach2 issue. It was just three books, and it is unclear about the credibility of those resources. Even Dassault Aviation posted that Rafale max speed is just 1.8. Mach 2 is unstable to achieve and can only be performed under special conditions. Mach 1.8 is a more practical approach for Rafale to reach and you guys blindly smash the extra 0.2 Mach to the max speed. Is it fair?
People are reporting from time to time that CAPTOR-M is underperforming. F14B should have historically had AIM9M. Even the EuroFighter should have an AOA from 30 to 40 degrees IRL. Simple high school physics tells us already that the longer the moment arm, the larger the torque.
With EJ200 (60KN and 90KN with AB) and the far-canard design, the canard will have enough thrust to provide a large AOAAnd you guys just see it like nothing.
Always use “Balancing” as the excuse to not address those mistakes.
You know it is so shameful for me to introduce War Thunder to my friends since you claim yourself as a Realistic Military Vehicles Online Combat Game for PC, and yet I know we all know you guys partially choose the resources or historical reasons based on your preference
Well it’s British
And suffers the exact same as the harrier
So give it 5 years
i think they should just provide sources for major vehicles changes, like for example the ADATS lose its neutral turning from what sources? Its a Bradley chasis, and M2 and above has neutral turning
They nerf and buff without giving us any sources
Sometimes people who report things using the materials they have don’t want their sources and materials put out there for everyone to grab. They spent time and money collecting those sources so the bug-reporters have to have their rights respected in this aspect.
Yes there was a report: Rafale has incorrect VNe speed // Gaijin.net // Issues
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/62K6hXxwf7Xe
These issues have been and will continue to be addressed. Many of the improvements come in the next major.
All wepaonary loadouts is subject to balancing decisions by the developers. They are not and have never been considered “bugs”. This is not just for the F-14, but all aircraft.
Speed has already been resolved internally. The other reports are currently under investigation.
Do you think 3 books shouldn’t overrule a web page from an intern? Anywho, Dassault Aviation themselves have said Rafale can do Mach 2. Internal government materials show Rafale can do Mach 2. There were other sources added to the report afterwards than what is shown in that report.
Hello Smin.
Yesterday, when the dev server opened - the SU30 Flight model seems to have broken at low speeds in full-real. It’s been pointed out that it’s extremely unstable under AoA, and using TVC feels like constantly fighting against it.
It’s no longer capable of performing most of the TVC aerobatic manoeuvres typically seen at airshows.
We’re at a loss for how to address this, since it’s documents are classified and airshow videos can’t be used for bug reports. However, I was wondering if you could at least pass along the feedback to the devs that the SU30 in full-real mode broke yesterday?
It likely happened with this change:
Ive been playing around with the Su30 since it opened again yesterday and didnt feel any changes that broke anything, wdym
Yes, I did look into the reports, but how do you define the resource as trustworthy and make sense enough for you to apply it?
I have a book published in TaiWan tells that EJ200 has 60KN and 90KN thrust with AB. That is 6118.297278 Kgf and 9177.445917 kgf respectively. And in the game now is just 5800 kgf and 8670 kgf. Would you consider taking it into consideration or just disregard it as part of the “BALANCING” that you have stated. Thank you !
