On the dev it had the exact same loadouts as the italian AV-8B+. So 2x AIM-120.
You could try installing the CDK from the wiki and then open the model viewer. Might be able to find the models there. I’d love to see 'em if you do try it out, and if you succeed in finding them.
No, a Viggen D without RB99 is like an F-14 without AIM-9Ms, it’s fine.
The F-14 is well known for the Pheonix, not the AIM9M
Dude, the whole point of the Viggen D was to make it compatible with AIM-120s
5 Likes
British aircraft have some of the worst naming inconsistency in WT, it’s so depressing. They’re not even complex either…
1 Like
Yeah it’s like actual torture to my OCD, makes my brain itch just thinking about it.
1 Like
so if i saw correct… Su-27SM will get stock R-73 stock, meanwhile F-15 still with 9L stock? and now F-16AM have 9M stock as well but F-16C also have 9L Stock?? HAHAHHAHA this game is so funny really
1 Like
Sea Vixen F.A.W. Mk.2 and Javelin F.(A.W.) Mk.9 are two especially atrocious examples, both individually bad and not even consistent with each other.
A lot of periods where they don’t belong, and periods lacking where they should be. Ditto for spaces. The odd brackets here too.
Attacker FB 1 and Attacker FB.2 for another pair (though at least the latter is right).
Vampire F.B.5 for yet another different issue.
Why does the Chesapeake Mk I use its American commercial manufacturer name, V-156?
Periods after Mk instead of a space are common.
Sometimes the subvariant suffix letter is caps, sometimes lowercase.
And while we’re here, the five billion different ways of writing Late late (Late) (late) /Late /late (L) (l) /L /l
9 Likes
I dont think gaijin really cares for that? And sometimes similar thing are written different in some documents.
Like german Sd.Kfz.251 its all written together without space inbetween the letters and numbers. Or Pzgr.40 is also written together. Sometimes not.
God dammit. Im not going to be able to unsee those now. Thanks
2 Likes
I thought I was the only one who noticed how sloppy the localisation is for the British tech tree, glad to see you point out how bad it is.
A few years ago I submitted a localisation report for the Spitfire F Mk IX. It had a double space in the name and they fixed it like 6 months later I think. Used to be called “Spitfire F__Mk IX” (two spaces after F) and got it fixed to “Spitfire F Mk IX”
I also tried suggesting changes to the subvariant suffixes, some having caps and some lowercase was driving me insane. Hurricane Mk IIB/Trop and Spitfire Mk Vb/trop were especially annoying.
Gaijin are so particular about sources for vehicle names but if they are just gonna slap “late” on vehicles that they can’t put a name to, then why not just overhaul the localisation to make it neater. I prefer neatness and uniformity to having the historical name that was printed on a flight manual.
In the print and paper age before the internet and the chaos and fast development of planes during WW2 (from multiple factories) I imagine keeping track of whether or not to put a period or space, or upper or lowercase after “Mk” was difficult. I imagine though that if it were easy to maintain consistent nomenclature then it would have been done.
4 Likes
They generally do, or at least a good chunk of devs care about the little things. These inconsistencies seem more like different parts of the team making different things and not communicating (also language barriers, etc).
These sorts of inconsistencies are actually considered simple UI bugs, and don’t need sources to be submitted as such (per Stona, Smin, and others). Getting through some of the mods on the bug reporting site, well, that’s its own issue.
Sometimes they are, which is precisely why it’s important to look at the forest and not the trees when it comes to consistency.
The amount of current/former US military people I’ve seen write a particular rifle’s name as “M-16” is depressing, for one example. People are just people, even those who write “official” things.
Oh there’s more. :|
Over in the Swedish tree things aren’t quite as bad, aside from every plane missing the space between the type letter and model number (like German designations have). Except the T 2, which is correct all alone.
There’s also the J22-A and J22-B which have a dash before their variant letter because… ??? (J 22A and J 22B)
For Japan, one issue is the blending of long-form and short-form Navy designations, specifically the ko/otsu/etc suffix. (“ko” itself should also be “kou” or “kō”, ideally the former).
They’re also not consistently upper/lowercase (Otsu/otsu).
The short form system is supposed to be: cap letter for type, number for model, cap letter for manufacturer, number for subvariant (all good so far), but then lowercase letter for subsubvariant, not the long-form (and also Army) “ko/otsu/etc”.
Let’s look at a set of Zeros:
-
A6M5
-
A6M5 Ko / A6M5a
-
A6M5 otsu / A6M5b
-
A6M5 Hei / A6M5c
-
A6M6c (the only one to get the layout right… and it’s still wrong. There was no “c”, as there was only one built. It’s a mistranslation/misunderstanding due to being developed from the A6M5c.)
I did submit a report the other day on Japanese long vowel use (for ships, as that’s the most notable area), so maybe if it actually goes through this time I’ll write up some more lists.
Ah I think I remember that being a thing. And yeah, internal consistency is all about the forest not the trees, so if you get people stuck on some specific written document it can be an issue… especially when the people writing those may not know/care (to varying degrees, see “M-16”) what the standard is. At the time and in the context it’s understandable, but for us (devs, players, all of us) with the armchair perspective as it were (and the internet) we really should be trying to get it right, at least in a setting that strives for this sort of detail like WT.
As for reporting… it’s mostly the reporting site that ends up being the issue. Back when the BV 138 C-1 was added it was “BV 138C-1” on the dev server. I pointed this out here on the forum, Smin (IIRC) saw and passed it on and it was fixed. He told me what I said above about reporting it, so I made a huge list, submitted it… and had it “closed as not a bug” and “needs sources”, despite neither being true.
This patch the patch notes listed the “Fokker G.1” instead of Fokker G.I, and I pointed this out before realizing the actual in-game name was already correct (this happens often too), and again Stona this time told me the same thing, asking for these to be submitted as sourceless bugs. Submitted that IJN ship names thing last week, hopefully it goes somewhere (literally just copy-paste the list, devs).
1 Like
Absolutely I think gaijin are hung up on the trees.
The Japanese tech tree localisation is a headache, I was also so disappointed how for the Swedish tree they decided to see the forest, but got it wrong. I was gonna submit reports for the Swedish tree but knowing Gaijin I feel it would have been a waste of time.
There are a few Russian coastal ships that need attention too with inconsistent upper and lowercase.
MBK pr.186
MBK pr.186 (MK 85)
MPK pr.122A
They should have uppercase P in “Pr.” like the rest of the ships on the tree. If some source however says it must have lowercase though who am I to argue with Gaijin.
1 Like
And at that time J-8F with 2x PL-5B stock:
And J-2 and J-4(Chinese official never used them, just call them MiG-15 and 17)
AFAIK CN and JP clients show them in another way, like A6M5 is literally Type 0 Model 52 and Ki-61 is literally Type 3 Fighter(this naming rule use more often in these 2 languages), so i wonder which system is more official cause Japanese naming rules are really complex
https://wiki.warthunder.com/Abbreviations#Japanese
2 Likes
For the IJN designations both are correct in that there’s the long-form and short-form designations. You’re indeed more likely to see long in Japanese-language places and short in English/etc, which makes sense for each case. The Army names are basically the same story.
Mixing them together doesn’t work though, as we currently have for most of the IJN ones.
2 Likes
@Smin1080p Are there any updates regarding the Italian F-16 ADF? Besides being the first case of an aircraft with obviously outdated armament, it would be a real mistake not to equip it with the armament it has historically and exclusively used. It would be yet another disadvantage for Italian players. Moreover, it doesn’t make much sense to leave it without Fox 3, especially when there are already many aircraft equipped with Fox 1 to practice game dynamics. There are 2x F-104, 2x Mig 21, a Mig 23, a Mig 29, and the Tornado ADV with semi active radar-guided missiles. If the current model is to be retained in the game for training purposes, another model with AIM-120B or C5 and AIM-9L(I)-1 can always be introduced. Honestly, it doesn’t make sense and is contradictory to leave it as is. It has already been stripped of the air-to-ground capabilities it had because it was used by the ITAF as a pure fighter, but at the same time, it is denied its actual historical armament.
They’ll likely leave it as is to keep it at 12.0, just like the chinese F-16A MLU. Amraam would instantly make it 12.3 and amraam+9L(i) would see it moved up to 12.7 or 13 0 even.
and so?
It doesn’t seem like a sufficient answer to justify its non-historical armament. At this point, they might as well give it air-to-ground capabilities. Frankly, there isn’t an objective response or one that aligns with the much-vaunted game policies.
They can always introduce a “late” version with the correct armament. Additionally, the Taiwanese F-16 at least has air-to-ground weapons.
They haven’t received historicial pod and GBU… also it should have the ability to use AMRAAM A after unlocked AMRAAM C
And at the same time, Swedish Gripen could get AGM-65G just because it is ABLE to use it but not applyed it?