As per the old historical report section on the forum, all historical / source based reports are handled as suggestions.
It’s simply the internal mechanism to distinguish between historical / source based issues and actual game bugs.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
And then if/when a report is passed. You just have to wait 1 to 3+ years for it to be looked at
3 Likes
“Not a bug”
“No further improvements will be made”
1 Like
According to whom?
Almost all historical reports are simply accepted and not as suggestion.
Like here:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lyfEdblkqMUr
Something is “missing”, the report is accepted and closed.
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.
1 Like
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.
I’ve tried that in the past, it still gets ignored. I’m not gonna put any extra effort in if I don’t get anything in return.
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.
There is no description of the issue, no steps to reproduce and overall a lack of any clear information at all.
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.
Hey @Smin1080p_WT, can this bug report be reconsidered?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4F5UNwWpiKwa
Since it is a historical issue with documentation, it should really count as 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
These are 1000lb UK Paveway IIs. Many British planes already have those as “Mk.13” but Typhoon is missing the 1000lb dual-mode Enhanced Paveway II version, even though there’s half a dozen related tickets on the feedback tracker regarding how Gaijin messed up implementing an apparent alternate “Mk.18” guided 1000lb bomb for the FGR.4. And the correct model has been in the files unused since Tornado GR.4 was added in the “Firebirds” update in November last year.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BeFvmev7bGtg
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Pg8UrNgqxjcV
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Vkx1p9cNR0g5
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/mxYvNx1VeKjm
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/MeeHAKYsmKsq
The only 2000lb Paveway currently cleared for Eurofighter is the GBU-10, used by Spain and Oman
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/KmfiBbiVNBQS
1 Like
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.
Hey. At the moment the developers are not accepting suggestion reports for the AoA limiter feature on all aircraft. The current list of vehicles with it is the intended roster for now.
Are you aware of if they ripped and tweaked the harrier’s thrust vectoring code for ease of development? It appears that at slow speeds, and in some maneuvers, Su 30 SM tries to level into a hover in a manner similar to a harrier using the nozzles and becomes incredibly unresponsive (very similarly to a harrier in hover). Triggers the same error message as if you try to hover with harrier at inadequate nozzle angle or speed.
Unsure if the problem is known, common, or worth bug reporting.
I don’t understand why there is a limit on suggestions if there’s no obligation to fulfill them?
Is there any indication in the cockpit/MFD’s or is it another functionality that is useless in Sim?