They use the 300lb (80lb explosives mass) (AP)HE warhead ( a Laser homing or IIR seeker[effectively the same as the AGM-65D]) so would actually do damage, and can only be loaded on the LAU-117 (single launch rail adapter) since the HEAT warhead is significantly underperforming for unknown reasons.
Not really, as it should still be impacted by smoke ( as some multi-spectral mixtures include chaff so should be effective, and as we have a generic smoke mix it could be used as a balancing mechanism) and would otherwise act as existing F&F ordnance (and inherit the existing issues with their implementation), if need be the -114L could be deliberately limited to the twin rail adapter or further to a single pair of stations at a time to balance the numbers carried to prevent things from getting out of hand.
And for all intents and purposes they probably should have already to restore the balance of power between nations, as had specific things been properly modeled in the first place existing options would be significantly worse, and they would only approach existing effectiveness with the omitted options.
As I asked in another thread, I would like to hear from a community leader why this entire discussion isn’t a violation of new forum rule 3.6: ““reporting game bugs, errors, or other flaws is not permitted.” This entire poll and ensuing discussion seems to be a pretty flagrant violation. (Link)
I don’t want to stop the conversation, just wanting clarification before I risk my community rating participating as a community member in discussions like this.
Not a community leader, but its pretty clear. Its not a game bug, error or flaw, its a discussion around a potential suggestion, huge difference.
The rule exists to make sure people use the dedicated bug reporting site for bug reports, nothing talked about here would be accepted as a bug report there. Because its not a bug.
Is there somehow supposed to be an issue with telling people about acknowledged bug reports, and that observed behavior may be changing / non-obvious due to prior / upcoming corrective action?
Or effectively theorycrafting about potential fixes to perceived issues as they relate to performance, balance & new / proliferating mechanics ?
My interpretation of the intent of 3.6 was that it was codified so that there is something written up to allow the removal of bug reports made directly to the forums, as they are supposed to go though the proper bug reporting channels, which occur elsewhere (for now) and the removal of things deemed exploits.
Of course pending precedent being set that may well change, but would depend on moderation being transparent about outcomes and decisions, making obvious that this was to far.
Which itself may fall under 3.8 or 3.14 if not handled properly so its probably best taken up with moderation via a DM or otherwise, though these edicts at least outwardly appear to be more for for flagrant violations than nitpicking through content since there appears to be some leeway in what constitutes a violation.
Discussion of missing features, in-accuracies or even bugs is not prohibited on the forums. if they were, pages like Panavia Tornado (UK versions) - Technical data and discussion Would not exist, and a vast number of bugs and issues would not have been resolved.
The issue is not with troubleshooting, or gathering data. many issues, especially historical ones, require collaboration to research, test and ultimately compile a decent bug report worthy of action. What they dont want is for bug reports to be submitted exclusively on the forums where they will sit un-reviewed. That is what the bug-site is for.
We’re in the “Machinery of War” section, which is dedicated to discussing real life vehicles and / or their implementation in War thunder; so discussion about the pod is innkeeping with this section’s purpose. The pod being missing is not necessarily an “error or a flaw” as the decision could have been made intentionally to not include it.
You are taking a very literal interpretation of the rules. I do not represent Gaijin, but I’m fairly certain that rule is there to give the moderators something to point at if they need to intervene when people start going way off-topic talking about bugs. Or if people create threads explicitly about bugs in entirely the wrong forum section. In reality moderators take a more relaxed approach most of the time.
Also the full rule is:
Alongside the rules of paragraph 3.5 above, reporting game bugs, errors, or other flaws is not permitted other than in the Forum’s section(-s) related to the technical support of the Games.
The “Machinery of War” section falls within the umbrella term “related to the technical support of the Games” when it comes to issues with the implementation of vehicles. This area is regularly used to discuss issues with how vehicles and how such errors should be addressed by Gaijin. In addition moderators regularly engage with such topics providing updates on the status of reports.
If the forum moderators do not have a problem with vehicle implementation issues being discussed here then you shouldn’t either.
+1, i would definitly like to see a thermal pods on a russian aircraft. Using the su-25T/su-39 integrated camera makes it way harder to find target than on others nations (Atlis, Tiald, Damocles…). Plus it is already in the game file.
I was doing research and saw your posts on https://www.secretprojects.co.uk about missing info such as field of view and sensor resolution. To be fair, gaijin could simply implement a 1st generation thermal view instead of the actual night vision on the merkury, and keeping the actual FoV. Considering the two pods have about the same camera size. We have a lot of things in this game that aren’t exactly accurate, so this would cause no problem.
Concerning the Kinzhal radar however, i have doubts. As seen of technical plans, such as here :
Dont you think the Kinzhal was a choice inside the suspended container ? Like you could chose to either use the Khod targeting system, or use the integrated system and use the Kinzhal insted the Khod, but in the same container ?
I might be wrong, but i find it weird to be able to put a radar and a targeting system simultaneously.
In fact, Khod was tested on the T8M1 plane and Khinzal on T8M2, so i imagine you could mount either one or the other in the same container ?
Yes, naturally, but they rejected bug reports due to “little information” even though many things in the game have only approximate characteristics.
Thermal imaging devices are roughly implemented, just division by generations (and completely inaccurate), so yes, Khod is 100% 1st generation thermal imager in game classification. Angles of view to give from the mercury also nothing prevents it
I understand your doubts and don’t know myself if it’s possible to cram 2 systems into one container at once.
However, the radar of Hrizantema has very modest dimensions and is also millimeter range, which probably gives me the right to assume that the size of Kinzhal is smaller than Kopye-25.
I found the information about the co-installation on this site, which looks extremely accurate and reliable.
Actually, the number 3 and 4 of this document might be the answer for gaijin : they descibed the field of view of the merkury system, and then just said the Khod suspended the same way as the merkury. It lets me thiniking than if they did not describe the Khod caracteristic, it might be the exact same as the merkury.
And concerning the radar and the pod being in the same container, it might be true.
Is there any way to contact the author of the post, DIMMI, for morre clarification ? I dont speak russian and i dont have an account to check this, but maybe you have one ?
I will give it a try, however on all forums like this the account is verified by a moderator. I’ve been waiting for this on another forum for 2 weeks now)
I dont know i he is going to even respond, considering it’s been more than 10 years, but you should try to re-open your gaijin.com ticket about it. For the Visual confirmation part, i cant see if you already inculded this pics : .
(if you did in the google drive, maybe they didn’t open it, because it is clearly a visual confirmation. ) and for the caracteristics part, just tell them considering it should have about the exact same FoV as, the merkury.
Well, unless some magic happen and we find the caracteristic of the Khod, one way or another, i guess we will have to wait.
It’s sad that gaijin sometimes introduces unrealistic things (f5C with flares) but when there is proof, photo and report evidence, they cant just convert the NVD on the merkury with a TVD…
.