Reminder. If there was sufficient evidence that Gaijin had; do you not think a Techmod / CM would present it, to definitively prove it was mounted on, for each airframe.
The following isn’t enough to get the GPU-5/A mounted to the F-15A and -15C.
You sometimes need to find hyper specific documentation, and even then it goes both ways as an example;
The report for the GPU-5/A 30mm Gunpod to be mounted on the F-15A & -15C was rejected, since I only had pictographic evidence of it mounted to the F-15B that served as the surrogate for testing the F-15E configuration during trials, even though other sources state that it can be mounted on the MAU-12 bomb rack with no modification, and the brochure makes no reference to a specific variant.
Further the A-7E also has access to the GPU-5/A even though the USN never purchased any, nor was party to said trials but they were flown on the A-7D, of which the -7E is a modification of, I’d put in a report for its removal but I’m not exactly sure how you are supposed to go about finding “documentation” to prove a negative.
Building rapport and by doing so exposing a bunch of data that took time and effort to find. That would be a perfect pool of information for any competing company to get everything done for them basically.
Haven’t you seen what CMs do in the section of the forum dedicated to news ?
Give me tests, at least some. Or at the very least even fake procurement or exploitation documents on it. Training data? Maybe real usecases? Maybe some tests/evaluations?
If a liar tells me something - the first thing I do is doubt. The second he’s failing to show any compelling evidence he’s not beating a liar allegations. However much mental gymnastics you’re willing to exert it’s not taking you anywhere for around a year at this point.
The “It’S rEaL” guys like yourself prior to apearance of this image (mind you’ it’s the only one on the internet) were jumping through the hoops so unfathomably tight - a hydrogen atom wouldn’t go through them, now you have your sacred set of pixels that change exactly nothing, but hoops are still being jumped through.
A simple 2 AMRAAMS are being refused for Typhoon only because they “aren’t sure about pylon’s electronic compatibility”. UHT has 4 less PARS-LR missiles even though literal images and documents about additional launchers exist. And have you noticed? They’re being refused even though none of those changes would be gamebraking whatsoever. What about 38mt? How balanced is it? So balanced that it just had to be added to the game despite there being perfectly suitable substitutes that are in the game now? Mmw capability of Brimmstone is historical, why it was taken away? Why instead of limiting them they killed it’s only feature at it’s core with no substitution provided? I’m not educated enough about same cases for other nations, but there are some - that’s for sure. Double standarts on documentation procurement/impelentation requirements/balance weight points - that’s what is so annoying about this situation. No one, I’ll repeat, literally nobody would mention 38mt even once - would it be a reasonable addition for the game.
Gaijin rely on publicly available information anyhow - it isn’t particularly super-secret stuff that another company couldn’t find out themselves.
The issue is basically that Gaijin will accept some sources with little secondary authentication (the Kh-38 brochure) but demand far more information for other reports/suggestions. In fact, the bar to get a non-Russian vehicle or weapon added seems to be far higher (it’s possible, but good luck getting past Mr Not A Bug) - as evidenced by @tripod2008 above.
