Could you forward this one?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0pjyC4bjkc9h
There is also this one.
They changed flap deployment speed but not how the flaps deploy so it’s still incorrect
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/I76KhkDL06Iv
Is there any update to getting this stuff fixed? Because for the French HAC this stuff was fixed on a timescale of HOURS while for the UHT we have been waiting YEARS. It is supremely unfair, and I feel if it isn’t fixed now, we will be waiting even more years.
In the same vein, I don’t know if this one has been forwarded but it would be good if you could provided it hasn’t already been forwarded, as Rafale lacks NCTR on dev, but should receive it. It would be quite peeving for the functionality to be added to other platforms but neglected from this, given the notable limitations already present to the platform.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/2BcynB0Aspy5
@DirectSupport is more familiar with this topic than me, and also put in this report.
Bug report website loaded properly this time, seems it has been accepted, but not actioned on dev server. Too sleepy to work out where to go from here, so leaving this put and passing out.
Let’s hope, but it’s something that depends more on the mindset of the developers
The Italian Air Force rarely displays its aircraft in an armed configuration, so the few available images come from real operations (e.g., Libya) or training exercises.
In combat scenarios, weapon loads are tailored to the mission, usually flown in pairs or multiples of pairs, resulting in moderate payloads. During range tests or weapons qualification, the loadout is even more restricted.
Regarding the proposed configuration, the GBU-32 bombs stand out. Only three are mounted, despite the fact that the aircraft could theoretically carry at least five or more. Photos show them positioned centrally on the ventral pylons, primarily for balance and center of gravity considerations. This placement is specific to the three-bomb load; a different configuration would be used for a larger payload. The aircraft’s balance (center of gravity) is one of the fundamental aspects to consider.
If I’m not mistaken, the length difference between a standard Mk 83 and a GBU-32 is minimal—just a few centimeters—and does not exceed the length of retarded bombs, which are longer due to their aerodynamic brake. In theory, the aircraft could carry many more bombs, including on the main wing pylons, which can support heavier munitions like the 2,000-pound GBU-24 and EGBU-24.
However, due to the lack of images showcasing a full payload, there is little visual evidence to support this configuration.
Throughout the entire forum’s history, there has been a TON of elaborated, polite suggestions made by players, dedicating hours doing a format to submit reports and details regarding missing features. Yet they have been dismissed and forgotten for years without any significant feedback at all on either the report platform or the forums themselves.
All it took for this NCTR function to get eventually added for the JAS39C was a Game Master to yell loud enough in a matter of minutes.
This engagement feels like a slight conflict of interest.
This is not true, I’ve passed the report (which unlike you claimed does not mean it will get added, but that it will be looked at by Developers and IF accepted added) before looking at the forum, at the same time the comment was made on the forum (Not even a minute of difference) and you can even confirm it by simply looking at the report. The fact a Game Master made the report have no deciding factor here .
I then answered here because it was asked to forward this report and I’ve made it before- I would advice you that, before making any claim, to check
No
Currently Ef pull 26.X degree AOA only
After nerf it would be max 24.X AOA
No even close to EF irl
There’s no reason why a feature such as the NCTR won’t get added soon enough to a plane given the nature of the feature itself.
It still doesn’t change the glaring fact that it took less than 5 minutes to accept a suggestion with a single document, while there has been tons of documented, and well elaborated reports that has been ignored or outright dismissed by sheer ‘Game convention, not a bug’ resolution.
The Harrier suffers far worse but the silly part is I can see gaijin nerfing the eft to be on par with SU30 and F-15
The continue to artificially nerf so many planes based on their own personal opinion
Except it did not get added, it was forwarded to the Developers for consideration, I’ve said it before. Can you read?
The single document in question is Saab themselves, it is a primary source, like every other report with a primary source, it gets forwarded, the number of documents here have no impact.
Hey, can you elaborate on the reasoning behind this verdict?
I disagree with it, because if the F-14s had this feature historically then it is by definition a bug.
I’ve got some umm primary sources but they where not fixed even after this next update claimed to fix them
If it was forwarded, it’ll certainly be added, as the feature currently exists, and it won’t be a gamechanger by itself. Your argument is closer to an euphemism than anything else.
Edit: unsuprisingly, it got swiftly added.
This primary source thing has been a convenient argument ever since the game’s beginnings. Don’t even bother me with that. Even @Apollo_1641 is forwarding you with an example of how that rule has inconsistencies.
Ok, what’s about Klimov RD-33 and RD-93 missing thrust? Why JF-17 got 1700 km/h speed instead of 1900 km/h?
Would you be interested in making a post for me?
I have multiple primary sources for the type 10 and tons of people interested in seeing this thing come to life
Better modeling by proper sizing
Better armor characteristics (not op just increasing it by 1.4 times the current amount
Equals to 791 for either turret cheek, 620 for the UFP all current weaknesses would remain the same)
Basically a more correct and balanced version of the type 10 and TKX
I wish that was the case.
Need it on the Tornados too
There is no argument here, Technical Moderator Job is to forward issues to Developers, JAS39 NCTR issue was created while I was online- I forwarded it.
Reports with Primary Sources can be forwarded as always, after a report has been forwarded it is up to Developers.
I can see only one report about RD-93 missing thrust, such reports cannot be forwarded because those thrust values are uninstalled one- we need installed ones.
Aye.
On many planes. That’s why I have full understanding if there’s limited dev resources or not enough time, but at the same time I think it’s wrong to reject valid reports for that reason.
It would be better to label them as “accepted - will be implemented later” or something like that, so we know it’s coming when the devs can get around to it.
Yeah, “forwarded as a suggestion” i think would have been tha appropriate tag.
But “nah, we cant be bothered to add it to any other aircraft at this time”
is kinda BS