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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I give up, no more bug reports from me. Dealing with this is not worth the effort. I had like, 5 bug reports in the works but now no ones seeing them because this is actually insufferable to deal with.
If he’s really so unsure of if there’s enough information, the least he could do is say “more information required” rather then outright close it.
I mean, hold on drafts for now, I’m pretty sure it is same dude who closed last one. I’d go to support because this is like one employe issue and they show behaviour is beyond reason.
At this point I considering drafting formal letter to TRDI (now ATLA), Japanese MoD and probably MHI and asking for clarification on multiple points but idk how much it would do, I doubt they would just unclassify half of their air force documentation just to answer questions for a game out of all things and everything unclassified we alsready found.
Also, on your place I’d listen to propolsal to actually post everything here on forum instead of this bug reporting site
Nah, the thing is, i literally have multiple additional secondary sources confirming it. Its a very well known fact stated in multiple magazines and even a few other official first hand documents.
However i can’t very well add them with him just closing the reports. Given his earlier responses, its very evident he has no idea on this topic and should stay out of it…
@Smin1080p_WT Can you do anything about this report moderator? This is the 2nd time that they have denied a report using the TRDI sources that have been accepted for multiple other reports.
I would make a propolsal to collect all info you have on AAM-3/4, including accepted reports and unite it in a single post here on forum as a general suggestion. I don’t know if you still have motivation to spent hours drafting this thing, but I personally would have been very much interested in it.
Maybe tomorrow, its like midnight (also the rest my reports i was working on were for the F-2, this was pretty much the only AAM-4 one, i honestly didn’t even expect it to get accepted, but the way this moderator is closing it without properly even considering it is driving me insane)
Not exactly, ASM connector and markings are clearly visible im many images and mentioned in secondary sources.
For the MRMs I am starting to have my own doubts now, since there is a real possibility these pylons have no MRM markings on the electrical panel. There only seems to be one three letter marking (likely confirmed TER) and the other might be the electrical connector for the fuel tanks.
