Well, than what if Dev’s fix it in wrong way. Only at this DEV server what we found was (Iowa’s shell room wrong again / Roma’s penetration wrong again / They make fire mechanism not matches to what they said).
…then simply report the issue for live server, that possibility we always have.
1 Like
How can one think that the Devs need to do what the community think is right!!???
Its their choice to implement as they like to. And you can file a bug report, given it is a bug or accept the fact that the implementation might be fantasy and not like IRL.
If the devs think that an F-86K Ai can go at mach 1.5 so it be.
You can report, you can suggest and if you are paying for the game, you have a right to complain.
You can try to contribute to the improvements, but by no mean, you can expect it to happen, unless you are creative director of that company.
1 Like
Is usually much slower than on DEV server. That’s another thing I’m worrying about.
I mean there are certain means you can use to get them to change things. It’s just that they are usually not doable as you need almost the entire community united to get it done.
Also, the weighting of the issues is very important, and very often not appreciated enough by the community (including myself, admittedly).
We all have our “pet issues” that we feel must by all means be corrected in what we think is Right.
Again, I’m no exception there: For me accuracy to reality is the main focus, and I don’t like unauthentic changes for the sake of game balance or gameplay. But I DO understand that there are many factors involved, and that those factors in some cases will go against my desires for the game.
Atm for me it’s the correctness of ordonnance the new Swiss aircraft are or are not getting that has me worried: Can be documented with reference more or less easily, but still may be subject to unrealistic decisions for gameplay and balance reasons.
Other issues are simply not important enough and carry little weight, because they are not gameplay relevant and of a more cosmetic nature. Also those, I -the authenticity buff that I am - would love to see fixed, but I’m fully aware resources spent on gameplay relevant issues will be better spent there than on “do the flaps of my beloved jet move the correct way?”.
Then there’s stuff that’s much more difficult to grasp: How does fire propagate through a warship? Nearly impossible to say what is right and what is wrong there, and again, game balance weights in heavily…
After all, a complex game like WT is like an equation with many, many, MANY variables, and all those variables have different weight and are extremely difficult to balance, due to completely understandable constraints.
And at some point there will always have to be someone who says “ok, here we decide to do it like this or like that” - and that are not the players.
And those decisions will never be 100% accurate and fitting reality perfectly, and of course never will be equally popular and accepted by the whole player community…
1 Like
That’s wrong. It has a 40 km effective range, not max range, and was in testing perfectly capable of hitting a manoeuvring target at 30km out at an altitude of 12km and reached said target in around 60 seconds.
5 Likes
Is that source used in a report ? If not, it should be added quickly so that the devs can maybe decide to move their ass
It is already in a report along with all the other sources we do have(secondary sources) stating the speed of the missile is somewhere above mach 3. The devs simply do not care or have mistaken ‘effective range’ as ‘max range’ due to a translation error and now dig their heels in to prevent CAS from having a bad time.
Same with the IRIS-T not giving much of a damn about LDIRCM. That they also sit on and don’t even address it in the bug report despite it being addressed explicitly in the source.
5 Likes
I’m pretty sure it’s not that, since it’s max range isn’t even close to 40km in game.
I do wonder what they use to model the missile, because SLM currently do not conform in anyway, shape or form, to what is claimed IRL.
And even then it’s not a copy paste of the SLS which they could have done temporarily until they modeled it correctly.
I’m afraid they are purposefully nerfing the SLM because its performances would be to high, not just by its ability to deny CAS itself, but also compared to all other systems in game.
Which would just be another Gaijin adding a vehicle at the wrong time moment
Cue Leopard 2A7V (everyone who knows anything about it said it was way too early to add) which still misses up to 180mm of frontal hull protection, same as the PSO because they refuse to believe that internal D-Tech armour in the hull is a thing or in use.
1 Like
While this does give some insider infos, I find this to be very ragebaity (the German discord can attest to what happened yesterday lol).
« Yet, they are going to ignore them ».
Unless the leaker is a dev, which I would doubt, as he probably get his infos from TM or devs without being one itself I would guess, this is just « copium ». Yes, they haven’t actionned any report yet, but update is still a week away basically. Things can change.
This leak was mainly here to create some drama imo
As the Kh-38MT is getting GNSS guidance on top of the IR seeker intercepting the SAMs won’t even be necessary.
Both the Su-30 and Su-34 can just outspam the SAMs from ranges where they are still almost untouchable.
If that is true, why even add new SAMs to begin with. (H)ARMs would render these already extremely vulnerable vehicles unplayable.
Well, it is what it is :)
At 12.0 the MiG-23ML(A/D) would still fight 11.0s tho?
Also, their 11.7 BR is completely fine from my experience.
Right. It’s s good thing I prefer 10.3 over the top tier circus anyways lol
GNSS doesn’t do anything significant on the 38MT.
4 Likes