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.
Apparently the institute that developed missile in question is not a credible enough source, this is comically unprofessional
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.
welp, it is joever
I swear to god is he actually…
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
What is even stupidier in this situation is that same source, literally previous page was accepted as primary source for AAM-3 report
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.
I still haven’t given it up, but I need much clearer images of the pylons to be sure.
Service aircraft can also reveive tested and/or technically compatible equipment in game, which would include F-2 HMD.
I wouldn’t say it was entirely fair to reject this report, considering it used a proper source to prove conpatibility and was submitted as suggestion.
F-2 has a low poly cockpit on the dev server (likley the model that you see from the outside)
Probably just a placeholder for now
That’s not actually a basis. There is no document that states 6 ASMs.
The pylon is split and simply shares the ASM section and the universal section. Or weight limit or computer.
Hmm, that’s strange. The common power connector is OK, and the other connector is clearly out of the panel.
We’ll also show you how other stations are connected to the LAMS later.
Yeah definetly, its likley the low poly model they use for the outside view.
