Yes more funny’s please.
Spoiler
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT A quick one to answer right 'ere:
Why did the devs decide to give the Su-30MKK the PL-8/12 inly based on some confused photos? We know they don’t have the documents on it nor any other valid sources. Only the MK2 integrated chinese weaponry. At the same time, things like the Q-5L are STILL missing their air to air missiles and let’s not even mention other things like the J-10C engine or JH-7s weaponry.
So, how come there’s premium bias?
ah fair tbh after we got a more modern EFT and Ajax I actually have no wants for new tanks or planes
like I look forward to the new missiles coming out but there isnt anything im desperately looking forward to, maybe a later Ajax with Iron Fist and Javelins but thats still up in the air if its functional
Yeah, new EFT is pretty good. Definetly dealt with one of the major handicaps we’ve been strugglign with for the past year. Just a shame they failed to fix any of the old reports
My most “major” want would probably be a Leo 2A6 CAN and/or (preferably and) Aussie SEPv3 to join the UK so I can make a Canadian and Australian/ANZAC top-tier line-up. Anything else from these nations leans towards a like now.
After that, it’s missing lend-lease and the “funnies” for wants.
PL-8s and PL-12s were reported:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ykqPIJqRF66C
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/DaVRgtrFwheb
They can also be seen in photos and videos: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV19zmGYDErq/?spm_id_from=333.999.0.0&vd_source=a8f6ac869b1a1245942a111891166e85
This was also confirmed with promotional materials at airshows and public events.
This is still under review. The sources are limited: Community Bug Reporting System
The J-10C has the correct engine for its current model. Which is that of the early J-10C batches. As we said, the model needs to be changed to incorporate a later engine. Which is not a quick change.
Suggestions remain open for these.
one thing i’d like to see is improved aircraft damage visuals
you see similar stuff at times, but its really rare, and not so great quality in the end, also rather buggy/glitchy when it does happen
could come as one of the neat changes that happen randomly, like the metal scraping sound and reworked sparks on belly landing, or Volumetric Afterburners, Burning Fuel tank trails, and the ammuniton detonation effects you sometimes see in ground vehicles (the BIG one)
2 Likes
A rename would uhm… Be sensible??
Thank you for the answer.
2 Likes
Nah, clearly marketing lies :P
Quick question for anyone, does the turret cheek next to the gun look flat?
Spoiler
I know it wouldnt be very good and would fill a similar role to the badger (most likely being better then it) but I want the Lav 6
1 Like
you shouldn’t put EAP and F-15SE together since that kind of implies the F-15SE never actually had a real armament
This is very frustrating to read. While I understand it looks like “just play the game bro”, it is quite literally ALL we have to go off of. We don’t know whats causing, but what I can tell you is we know how much an issue it is. We have been scratching our heads as a community for the past few weeks diving in and looking for commonalities but all we seem to find are more variables that throw wrenches in our theories.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but bug reports are just that, reporting a bug. Sometimes we can’t provide an exact list of how to recreate something, we just don’t know what causes it. The most we can do is list out as much info we can, provide literal proof of in game footage, and hope the devs can figure it out. I understand the logs is something I should have added and didn’t think about, but saying a report just “says play the game” is such a frustrating thing for me personally.
We don’t know what we don’t know, and to have literal game breaking bugs get reported and turned down because we just don’t know how to recreate something puts such a bad taste in my mouth.
2 Likes
did the silent eagle mount weapons? all I can find mention of is it having weapon bays and they were meant for AIM-120s and AIM-9s but no mention of if it actually had them
It fired an AIM-120 out of the conformal bay some time ago
The SE was never really built. But it did have a tech demonstrator which flew with the conformal weapons bay and potentially RAM coating too, F-15E1.
I mean RAM and conformal bay is close enough for WT. Did it have AESA?
Unsure, it depends on if the F-15E they used for it was upgraded or not. They used F-15E 86-0183 which was actually the first production F-15E built for the tests.
I did try and make a suggestion for the SE a while ago and it got shot down as it was just F-15E1 planned be dammed but I just literally just remake that suggestion into F-15E1 with the CWB and RAM so hopefully that gets approved.
1 Like
Hey. It seems you misunderstood.
To clarify, I was answering the user above who claimed:
I was explaining to them the importance of why steps to reproduce (even at a basic level) are important. And also why saying “just play the game”, is not helpful for those who need to test and replicate the bug to be able to pass it to the devs
You included the steps in your report, which I reformatted to use as the example I provided:
This is all thats required generally. Nobody claimed your report (the second one) did not inlcude steps to reproduce.
The report has been forwarded.
1 Like
I’d love the LAV family. Even more so the UK getting getting some do to how many Commonwealth nation used them(at it being domestic to one of them), major ones at that.
The earlier LAVs might not be the greatest (I still want them) but the LAV-6 MK II is looking at have missiles so should be ok.