I mean, they’ve implemented a double BR system so if balancing even after considering that fact is a problem then I just give up lol.
Is there any insite we could get on how choices are made for which bug reports are prioritized?
There are generally a myriad of reasons depending on type of issue, existing queue, planned model reworks and ongoing research etc. There isn’t generally a single answer to provide here really. It’s quite a complex matter.
3 Likes
tee-hee
pulled a fast one on ya
26 Likes
The report showed that the A-10C was having IFF using tactical datalink, which developers said is not yet in-game. Could you please pass the report?
1 Like
2 Likes
My bet is on the French M46 then. Literally checks those boxes.
Unless of course the trollface takes it into another league entirely lol
1 Like
Well no need to look far since this issue was fixed for Soviet/Russian aircraft soon after “Alpha Strike” came out.
There is nothing new in this report to pass. The A-10C has the features it should have and there is a suggestion open for the F-16C to receive HMD/S features. The Devs are aware of it.
That’s the problem, developers said those features do not exist in-game now (tactical datalink). The report is talking about inconsistency.
This answer was given some time ago. As I said above, the issue of what the F-16C is missing is known and there is an open suggestion on it. Comments on the A-10C were already passed at the time. There is nothing not already known in this report to pass.
The dive bomber could be the A-36 used by RAF
So probably a french sbd?
I fear that one of us is misunderstanding something.
-
The A-10C got its datalink IFF feature first before the F-16C.
-
The F-16C then had datalink IFF feature reported for it.
-
Developers responded that datalink IFF does not exist in-game (but this contradicts #1).
I completely understand that the F-16C has an open suggestion for datalink IFF for when tactical datalink arrives into the game, but this doesn’t answer why A-10C has datalink IFF when tactical datalink is not yet in the game.
Or is it a Thai SB2C?
1 Like
There for sure is no misunderstanding.
The F-16C response was posted some months ago. At the time, the OP of the report raised this and it was already forwarded back to the Devs. The report is a suggestion and was not closed and the Devs have already been made aware it exists on the A-10C.
There is therefore no need of another new report for anything here.
2 Likes
That would be incredibly disappointing, and I hope it isn’t that.
However, I do wonder what the vehicle to break the camels back for the community being against copy+paste vehicles will be.
I see a lot of any C+P sentiment, and I doubt it will get better until gaijin stops adding more.
Brit tree tank
Soviet tree bomber
If Gaijin stop adding C&P there will just be a new group of dissidents that will be demanding C&P vehicles, it isn’t like the whole player base is against it, there are some for and some against, and with valid enough reasons on both sides, so Gaijin are just going to continue to do what they want, and C&P makes for easy filler vehicles and allows them to continue pumping out 40 vehicle updates 5 times a year which is what the community expect of them.
I mean C&P isn’t clearly defined in the first place.
1 Like
Is there any specific reason why the APG-76 was denied in having MTI modes added?
In fact, the developer response was that the radar would not receive any further improvements.
Is there a specific explanation also for why a radar or aircraft would be refused in having any more improvements done to it?
For a long time, there’s been speculations that Gaijin refuses to action reports on certain vehicles in order to ensure those vehicles suit certain battle-ratings, but we never had such confirmation.
Here’s the reports I was referencing:
