Cause if EAP is allowed then PMC/private aircraft in general are allowed, and Gaijin has a universal rule of no privately owned aircraft.
Even if EAP wasn’t a private venture, 4x AIM-9Js, and a gun, its 5 minute fuel capacity would make it a rather bleak 11.0 jet.
Kikka and Yak-141 are not private ventures, and both were days to months away from their weapons being installed onto the prototypes themselves.
Kikka very much was not an unarmed demonstrator, let alone privately owned.
Plans can change. This would not be the first or last example of when plans have changed.
LAV-25A2 got closed off after being open for 3 months, 2 years ago. This is definitely problematic for the discussion of a vehicle.
I understand what you mean, but you could just create a post in Machinery of War Discussion or something
Not at all. Otherwise some of the lesser known vehicles would never get introduced. Of course we cant ignore the popular ones also, so there is a spread of both.
This argument can be made for many vehicles in many nations arsenals that we don’t yet also have in game. Sadly we cannot add everything all at once. Lots of options for vehicles remain possible for the future across the board.
If something was stated to be planned and then changed, can there be updates to reflect that the previous stated plans have changed?
Generally we aim to when we can. But a lot of news and answers are given all the time. Sadly its not always possible to update them all.
We try to make it clear that everything is always subject to change.
yes, but still would be nice to adress the fact or changes to the plans and not just leave the playerbase waiting. Hell another example would be the hugely controversial turret baskets
The year is over, only leopards and abrams got them and they are a massive nerf to the vehicles.
In the meantime T-series APU systems got removed afterwards as a model, cause the system is not implemented yet for all vehicles.
At this point it would be better to remove leo and abrams turret basket until the ones for other vehicles are ready.
It realy makes gajin seem inconsequential, if they cant focus on such aspects that hugely affect gameplay and seem to forget them mid development
Yeah, I’m sure that’s why Russia got the BMPT, but why does this argument stop, what is being said, from happening? The LAV-25 and TOW HMMWV would fill gaps that are currently missing in the US TT (which was a big point of 2025’s additions) on top of being very iconic pieces of the US military. It’s not like it’s just getting added because it’s popular, it would genuinely fill a couple missing roles.
It doesn’t “stop” anything. We have countless more vehicles possible to add to the game. Nobody has said these vehicles or others like them or similar to them in class cant or wont come.
Unfortunately we cannot give spesific answers as to why each and every individual vehicle has not yet come to the game. As you can imagine, for starters, we would be here all day with post after post asking why X or Y has not yet come. On top of that, as I mentioned, we add a wide spanning range of vehicles of different types, roles and purposes across the whole game.
We also still have “iconic” additions at any stage. Like the P-47 Razerback for example or B-26, which came much later in the games development.
“Everyone has there iconic vehicle” = me looks at the BE.2c
u got your hot dog mobile
@Smin1080p_WT dear smin, (once again since you are active today, hope the lads arent giving you a tough time)
Old:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lQGbGfuJCr5O
New:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0FCWYsUo1gof
We have had a bug report for RWRs not working properly in sim(i play both modes RB & SIM n can confirm these issues myself) but after certain numbered deaths, RWRs stop pinging from fox3 launched missiles.
This is issue has been there over a year however at the time the issue was simply rare and fixed by exiting the sim lobby and joining another and leaving that and rejoining the original. However now it has be come super common and especially amongst certain eurocanards like the rafale and eurofighter(no idea why) but oh well.
Can you get devs to look at this urgently, i can assure the numbers on those bug reports kinda point out alot of the player base is facing that issue.
The old bug report got rejected because of lack info, all we can say is you have to play the game (sim) lol if you want to experience it. It is not my bug report but from mustang, who is quite popular amongst the community and i mean his live streams can show the certain issues faced as well.
I mean there’s still a difference between PMC/Private owners and Companies. For example failed private venture exports are still added, such as the Cadillac Gage Stingray for the US, which was entirely private and never tested by the US military.
Less than that, as again it was never armed. If we follow “provisions to be armed” we suddenly also get radar, Fox 1 missiles and RWR since those “could have been fitted” as seen by aerodynamic tests with Skyflash mockups for example, but that’s not how demonstrators are treated in game.
These aren’t unfinished prototypes cancelled before their time, they are finished aircraft that just weren’t armed.
So just like that EAP is denied because it’s armament would be literally nothing.
Yes, it’s an unfinished prototype, just like the Yak-141, but unlike the EAP or Su-47.
hello guys my name is TheChosenMonolit and OH MY GOD we need Spyder fix right now
Hello TheChosenMonolit, why I didn’t even know you name was TheChosenMonolit but if I had to look at your username I guess it would read as TheChosenMonolit but now you’ve told me you name was TheChosenMonolit so greetings TheChosenMonolit : P
The issue is there are no documents with intent to arm EAP, only documents to arm a later “EAP” military intended aircraft, similar to F-20A and AIM-120s.
Su-47 has the government contract order.
And while I don’t personally care for Su-47, comparing it to EAP is a false-equivalence.
I didn’t vote on Su-47’s suggestion despite seeing it the day it was posted, my biases are semi-against it.
I’m going to compare it closest to something that was government contracted that failed to deliver a product.
Edit: Proof of future “EAP” aircraft would’ve likely been armed has been provided by @Sebbo_the_Plebbo in this post, I didn’t have the documents folder open on my computer at the time of my post otherwise I would’ve posted the promotional material document as well.
Hey. The report has been forwarded.
By steps to reproduce, we mean a simple list of actions / steps to take to get the bug to happen. For example:
Steps to reproduce:
Unfortunately just saying in a report to “play the game” is not sufficient or helpful to locate or resolve an issue practically.
As evident from the very hollow A-6E SWIP and tech tree BMD-4 promises (lest we forget about the other more minor things like MAW on J-8F)?
Y’all literally waited for Russia to come out with a new BMD model that’s how bad the devs cornered themselves. And of course you made the tech tree one “worth grinding” by making it the worst of the bunch ( Not the first time the premium “sidegrade” is an upgrade, need I mention a few more examples?)
Did I get that whole thing right?
hello im TheChosenMonolit