Because its wrong. But then everything would be a suggestion.
From my understanding:
Suggestion → could be better
Report → is wrong
And this is simply clearly wrong.
It was chsnged from APHE-T to SAPHEI-T, with reduced penetration, however that is wrong, there isnt even any evidence for it to be SAP, IRl it was an improvement, with increased penetration, not reduced.
let’s try this again… the community bug reporting is highly flawed, I am STILL waiting for some kind of response about roof mounted MGs not working correctly.
The report is about SAPHEI-T being an incorrect designation.
The only time I mention “I suggest” is when I say:
I suggest to simply use the combined filler of 5.2g PETN and 6g Thermite as explosive filler of 11.2 PETN & Thermite, to reduce the armor penetration of the shell by also considering the Thermite filler and not just the explosive filler.
TNT equivalent could be put to 1.0 bringing up the TNT equivalent to 11.2g from the current 8.84g from the 5.2g PETN alone.
While what SHOULD be changed is written as:
→ Change the shell from SAPHEI-T back to APHE-T (or APHEI-T)
In this report I state that the French 7.5mm aircraft and ground MGs are missing an AP-T bullet, which is identical to the Tracer already in the game, except using a hardened steel core. https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/mb2RILVnj8Je
Yet, again the report is submitted as suggestion.
How does that make any sense?
Both instances are historical inaccuries. Yet they are treated as suggestions.
If you are having issues and require assistance, please PM any Technical Moderator, then Senior Technical Moderator or finally, im cases where something has not been resolved, myself for help: Who is who and Reporting Procedure - #4
This is a feedback thread for the next major update currently in testing on the dev server. Not the community bug report site.
Of course everyone knows that even reports that are accepted can take years to be changed.
So is that simply a communication problem?
Should Mods write “submitted as suggestion” under every historical report because every historical report is internally put into the suggestion box?
It’s just highly frustrating when something gets changed over night, a report is accepted and then it takes years for something to be changed back.
One recommendation when making bug reports write a description of what is wrong and what should happen. It make the Bug Report Managers have an easier time with reports.
But this is neither source or opinion subjective, because its simply wrong, neither 2 german nor US primary source put it as SAP. Its cleary normal AP with an Cap.
According to the developers. This is how our internal system works and is reflected in the CBR handling too.
This report was also accepted as a suggestion. When a report is accepted as a suggestion, it’s marked accepted and then closed. A bug is marked accepted left open.
Here the person handling it simply forgot to leave a “thank you for your report, passed etc” comment.
Again, this is subjective to what sources are saying.
Regardless of if it’s “right” or “wrong” it is not a game bug. It’s something to be decided on by a development team member based on material at their disposal. So according to our internal classification system, it is a suggestion.
it’s a video, the same one I put here, again, I’m not going to make it fancy just for it to get overlooked yet again, they need to change how things are done before I trust them again.
the chaparral issue for example, it’s been over 6 months with not even a hint that it’s being looked into. hell, I found where the problem was in 5min and mentioned it. Oh, but “the datafiles aren’t an acceptable source”
how about the game mode suggestion I made that was passed to the developers January last year? not a word about it, just been left to the void. you’d think the people that came up with the ideas of anything passed to the devs would get SOMETHING telling them what is happening with it?
There’s absolutely no transparency, they even decided to quit the roadmaps after it shut us up for a bit
Is anyone experiencing the Su 30 SM trying to go into a hover once you’re at low speed? The thrust vectoring seems to be using the same logic as harrier in that regard.