I would like to know the criteria for a bug report to be accepted. What is the reason that a proposal that does not include documentation, does not include links, just words that say that a developer or researcher said this is how it was done, is accepted?
Gaijin.net Issues
Just don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining about the proposer, although I’m giving examples. I’m genuinely just asking why.
That bug report does have documentation.
The person that posted the bug report chose to only show the documentation to Gaijin staff.
Links for the event vehicle test drives for when the update of theirs goes live (so they obviously aren’t working right now)
Su-25BM: https://wiki.warthunder.com/special:GameObjectView?object_id=su_25_558arz
le.Pz.Spw. 204 (f): https://wiki.warthunder.com/special:GameObjectView?object_id=germ_amd_35_kwk
Patria AMV HWP (CT-CV 105HP): https://wiki.warthunder.com/special:GameObjectView?object_id=sw_patria_amv_ctcv_105
Renown (72): https://wiki.warthunder.com/special:GameObjectView?object_id=uk_battlecruiser_renown
“result”: “unit_not_found”
Looks like they are not in game yet.
Yeah he says it in his message we need to wait the update for trying
In descending order, things I’ve noticed from WTM which may be relevant to WT:
The Q-5A is present in the files but unused, since Mobile has an accelerated development schedule ( introduced jets & MBT 's in their first major update !) and plan to have the Abrams nd MiG-29 according to their " About " webpage we might see more advanced aircraft before they arrive here, same as they’re doing for Naval.
Unused naval weapons from here, like the 4in/33 QF Mk.XXIII submarine cannon, OTOMAT antiship missile, and OTO 76/62 SR (1988) dual-purpose gun, have been copied over to there. It 's possible the vehicles which will employ them will appear there first, too.
The acoustic countermeasures and large-caliber artillery support modifications long sat in the files here have icons there, and the latter has now been implemented to Mobile along w/ smokescreen artillery, which is likely borrowed from Enlisted
Instead of Air/Surface/Any/None targeting for AI gunners, WTM has Aircraft/Missile/Any. However, missiles are not yet present in Mobile NF, so these are currently unused.
AShM interception was discussed as a consideration for WT 's future naval missile implementation by Bvvd in the video Q&A.
Along w/ the usual letter/number objective marks ( D point etc. ) there 's also icons for other targets, seemingly for Air modes
" Living Sector " and " Parking " look like this:
These all might be for a similar Airfield-target structure to those found in our EC modes, where the different structures/sections of the area count as Modules contributing to it 's destruction when attacked.
Related to the above, there 's also minimap icons ( confusingly referred to as " _radar " icons ) for all the usual, like heavy tanks 
but also for structures,
More dynamic airfield targets were mentioned in the Feb '23 Q&A, we might be seeing them early through WTM.
The presence of HUD icons for coastals might mean we’ll see some w/ much more advanced armaments than what we have here in WT yet; after all their naval starters are our 4.0+ - and their toptier is going well past our current 7.0 's
objective_destroyer.png looks alot like the ship from the " 10 Year Better Together " decal
Icons for target count, similar to what we have in Air and World War Mode. Once again, more target types we might see here later
Despite neither nation yet having vehicles for the mode, French and Italian ship purchased screens exist. Both might receive ships they don’t yet have in WT, before those appear here.
Italy also has a tank purchased screen, but their tanks are only in the files - not yet visible there.
Loading screen featuring Stalingrad BC, which was leaked here in WT a few years ago
The presence of USS Midway, even if just as a placeholder techtree icon, shows us that it 's not just WW2 carriers we can expect to see joining the ones we borrowed from WT:E in update " Apex Predators " - there 's development ongoing into the angled-deck era of CVA 's too.
Exciting things are ahead for both games ! Lets keep watching, to see where we might be heading next.
It depends what kind of Su-27 if its a Su-27P you can put it on 11.7 like the F-14A if its a Su-27S thats a different story. But it would be better if they add both main Su-27 variants like they did with the F-16 the Su-27P for example has no bombs or anything only air-air stuff while the Su-27S recieved air-ground armament.
No you cannot put any Su-27 at 11.7.
You cannot justify 6x R-73s with 4x R-27s even below 12.3.
It’s not happening.
I’d like to see this added to SAMs, they tested this during the 2077 event.
An idea I actually had is add the Su-27 with 4x R-27T and 4x R-27R then in the future when we are ready for fighters to get the R-73 we can give it R-73s and mayber R-27ERs
No reason to since we’re close to the likely 12.7 for it regardless.
can you post this on WT live?
Again specify your aircraft, you might not be experienced with russian aircrafts it has like 20 models, the Su-27P cannot even use R-73, its good on 11.7
Su-27P can indeed fire R-73s, that’s in-fact the only IR missile it can fire.
We’re not going to see an Su-27 without IR missiles.
R-73 came out in 1984 and the Su-27P is from 1982 how do you expect it to get R-73 ?
Su-27 itself was introduced in 1985, Su-27P cannot be in service in 1982 since no Su-27 was in service yet.
Unless you mean in prototype, which R-73 was in prototype during that year as well.
You mean Prototypes Su-27 pre T-10S? And R-73 was completed in 82, year the missile was put into service 84
Su-27P joined the VVS in 1982. You can see it with R-60M not R-73, very limited ordnance you cant put this on 12.3
For comparison this is a late variant Su-27K, this one can go 12.0+ it has the neccessary armament to survive.
.jpg)
