this one was shot down fast
Same game where Challenger 3 exists
8 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
4 Likes
I don’t think they’ll ever let a suggestion like HMD pass on the issue site. Perhaps someone could make something like a suggestion post for it instead here on the forums (if not done already). It’s worked for things like getting the Harrier T.10 its BOL pods when Gaijin were adamant not to give them. With enough support they’ll have to respond with something other than citing historical accuracy.
12 Likes
True. Would say making a suggestion for it would be wise.
1 Like
I have many things i could say about gaijin’s insane double standards, but…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0lGisVepBBUr
Oh well here’s a bug report which is more accurate and will make the F-2 even more powerful then HMD ever would.
Somehow no one thought to bug report this before, there appears to have been a misunderstanding where we thought it only applied to the datalink tranceiver, as we assumed the AAM-4’s seeker wasn’t capable of it due to not being an AESA, but it still uses gallium arsenide FETs instead of like a traveling wave tube, so its still possible, so i have no idea why we thought it wasn’t, especially with multiple official sources stating it as being so, but… who knows, here it is now.
15 Likes
If sure of ASM, can be sure of MRM, but it seems like the logic is difficult for them.
The ASMs/MRMs have different electrical connectors, just because something can use one does not mean it can use others.
The thing is, while it does appear that the markings for MRMs are there, and that the electrical connector does appear to be there. We do not have up close crystal clear images of them confirming them to be the exact same like we do for the ASM stuff.
If we had as perfectly clear images for MRMs as we do ASMs, i’d agree, but we don’t, so for now it’s kind of just “it looks like they should”, which is not and should not be taken as 100% certain proof.
1 Like
Yet another post spreading indirect hate against the Kikka in an F-2 topic.
Prove that F-2A was never put into service, or prove Kikka AND Yak-141’s service record, otherwise your post is nonsense.
There is no hypocrisy.
Incomplete prototypes are not combat-ready prototypes nor service aircraft, and service aircraft are not prototypes.
Prototypes are not service aircraft, and service aircraft are not prototypes.
The ADTW XF-2s are literally prototypes that are service aircraft.
1 Like
In the end it’s not a real wiring diagram, it’s a matter of appearance. And they will not be the same. The rear of the STA-5/7 has different panel lines for fuel. However, since rocket can be installed, there is a reason for this. You should ask DMM to provide you with photos.
Actually tired of the bug report managers.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/V0OsYYhR4M8z
I give up, if they continue to be how they are you guys aren’t getting any more bug reports from me, it’s clearly not worth the time investment with how bug reporting is.
7 Likes
Post amended to be more specific in the text.
For air and ground there are 3 rules that have never been broken.
1- Service aircraft can get service equipment.
2- Combat ready prototypes can get what they were tested with.
3- Incomplete prototypes can get what their service intended for them.
There are zero double standards for any of those 3 categories.
Comparing any of the categories to another category is a post of bad faith, no matter the anger behind the post.
If you want to compare F-2A to anything, compare it to F-4J, which has its service-tested HMS.
Granted, service-tested is the operative term so if you really want HMS on service F-2A you need service-tested example.
As for combat prototypes… F-20A? Can’t think of what F-20A has that was only tested on it… maybe its AIM-7s? Either way that’d be a similar standard since F-2A ADTW is a combat-ready prototype [if a prototype] and not in the Kikka unfinished prototype category.
Also, you need to cite other bug reports when you claim precedent.
That’s how I got 2x1 inch flares to be classed as large-caliber.
When my AN/ALE-40 bug report failed, I cited it inside my Gripen flare size bug report as a link.
In the end, 2x1 inch flares were made large caliber instead of Gripen getting nerfed.
Rocket mounting: Yes TER mounting: Yes. Those markings are as shown. So what do we see between them? There should be GBU and MRM markings there xD
They rejected a source from the official website of the manufacturer of the CS/SA5 lol.
Yeah, Gaijin needs to change the way these bug report mods look at bug reports because stuff like this is ridiculous.
I’ve helped others with making reports before and there’s not a single time where I don’t get frustrated with their responses.
5 Likes
Apparently the institute that developed missile in question is not a credible enough source, this is comically unprofessional
9 Likes
The bug report moderator who closed it claimed it didn’t even say what missile it was to. Clearly he didn’t even look at the source I sent as it literally had the missile name in bold on the section I specifically said I was quoting.
8 Likes
I haven’t seen your new report yet the remake version. But you should definitely say in bold that its for the AAM-4 and also say that the source in question is literally the maker if you haven’t already. With these bug report people you have to explain everything like if talking to a baby.
7 Likes
I guess his point was that it doesn’t specify which exactly AAM-4 you referening to (Even tho just 5 pages up there is example of how modifications are marked with 8 1 式 短 距 離 地 対 空 誘 導 弾 (C) ). But even that seems comical considering in 2002 there was no AAM-4B to start with
1 Like
This time i specifically included images showing that it was talking about the AAM-4. It should’ve been obvious enough but i don’t even know at this point what they think.
8 Likes
welp, it is joever