would it kill the devs to give ground forces some leeway from the cas?
Gebt der Rafale ihre richtige bewaffnungs Anzahl.
Es kann nicht sein das der Typhoon seine bekommt und die Rafale nicht.
Auch die Anzahl der AASM und GBU49 ist Falsch aber der Typhoon hat seine 18 Brimstone
Bilder sind von Wiki
You are looking at the wrong Rafale variant.
You can be happy already gajin was so nice to give you the HMD that never was in french service with thar version.
Besides that doesnt even look like a reliable source
1 Like
and SU-33 missing all surface guided munitions meanwhile someone still complains about how rafale dont have enough guided bombs
That implies people researching things quicker, so being less prone to spend hundreds on a pay-to-win. Next question.
1 Like
Wow what a rushed update and it shows.
This is still untouched since its release, meanwhile it has been accepted but nothing has been done, please fix that.
Bug report
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/oH2uJg6RleKg
second the incosistency on ho the vehicles are presented in the tech trees.
Placement of Strela and its requirements
Strela and Osa are of the same BR for realistic and simulator battles and they do not differ that much. Plus in Italian and UK TT they are in bracket.
Plus the requirement for research is different
Germany (350k RP)
USSR (300k RP)
UK (175k RP)
Italy (175k RP)
CV 90 MK Iv and Namer Tsrikohn are no rank 8 vehicles
There is no justification for them to be in rank 8. Their BR is 11 or bellow its counter parts like PUMA/PUMA VJTF or Lynx are of same BRs and are in rank 7. Even HSTLV with 11.7 is rank 7.
Tornado IDS should be rank 7 nd A-10A should move after A7 and into bracket with 10C
Tornado IDS ASST 1, Tornado IDS MFG, Tornado GR.1, Tornado IDS (1995) are no top tier fighter aircraft. As its Br is of 11.7 and 11.3 it makes sense to be put into rank 7 instead of 8.
Other counter parts like SU-24M or A-10C are in rank 7.
While I am at A-10C I believe A-10A Late should be moved after A7 and folded into brackets with A-10A Late
I wont mention obvious and previously stated.
Please fix this inconsistencies
1 Like
I really don’t understand why there is so much real estate either side of our profiles. Surely you can let us select other things for the side panels, or even three of the same (such as three favourite vehicles)
3 Likes
They literally just have. Giving Strela to UK and others is the equivalent of a no fly zone for CAS.
1 Like
@gromvoiny where are the new Packs for PlayStation?
The BMD-4M is allready aviable m, but the RDF and Two Fronts pack are still not there
Hello.
Research point cost can be different per nation, as it’s based on that particular nations RP requirements and the number of vehicles that they have both at that rank and in that line.
As such, this is not incorrect for them to have different RP requirements.
Thank you for the report. We will be taking a look at this.
You know the update is rushed when Gaijin drops the developer blog of the HQ-17 after the actual update lmao.
Devblogs have occurred after updates for years.
Why Italian 100-mm Minizini cannons still have different RoF on Italian and Soviet vessels? Another Italian one, RN Ghibli, has been added with lowered RoF, compared to same cannons in Soviet service.
There are differences in documents, but isn’t RoF a balance factor or Soviet ships have that worse statistics?
It isn’t a frequent thing and do you honestly believe this update isn’t rushed? I absolutely love it when my Eurofighter turns into a literal submarine!
2 Likes
They’re coming this week (except for Apache, that one was delayed til January unfortunately).
1 Like
Interesting, do you know why its delayed?
Or why the BMD-4M is allready out but the other not?
(Russian Bias?) Just kidding :D
Technical issues with PS Store, basically.
1 Like
They Said before they fills the gaps in futur
Dear Smin, is the radar of the Typhoon in an unfinished state?
My issue with the profile update is it’s clearly aimed at making it more mobile friendly, not more useful. It had the information people wanted and they took it away while planning to add it all back.
I’m sure it’ll be fine in the future, and it’s not really a huge issue to me. But it feels like they made the change not because it was needed, wanted, or would be better, but rather because they wanted a change they could talk about and point to as an “Update”.
For the wiki, I think the old was better, it again feels more like a flashy change for the sake of making a change and having something to point to. I’m sure they’ll add things back, but it feels more cluttered and frustrating, more like it’s built to have adds attached than to be useful.
But that’s neither here nor there, what’s done is done, we all have our opinions, I just think they should stop implementing things before they are ready.