Problem is that America likes vague posting
1 Like
Cannot wait for harms, will be fun to do sead.
Hopefully it will also be useful in sim EC with new objectives
2 Likes
Hey. This report has already received a response from the developers.
Hello, yes the bug report was initially passed to the devs but later changed to not a bug. While exact numbers won’t be possible for an in service weapon the documents I posted here mention that it has improved Hobs capability over the charlie model.
I posted to bring attention to this fact as the moderators commented in the bug report that 120c and d have same aerodynamics characteristics
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT Anything on whether the F15E will receive the AESA radar and GBU 53 as there is ample evidence that it has those? Or even possibly the AGM 187 of which there’s pictures of the plane with that missile on it. GBU 53 based on its capabilities could act in game exactly as the spice 250 and AGM 187 could act exactly like a brimstone. Thank you.
Hello!
I’m sorry for bringing this report up again, but, since we are in the more direct communication phase with the devs… is there a way to have them even acknowledge the existence of this issue?
After 5 long years and several reports, I just don’t know what else we can possibly do to have this fixed.
I wouldn’t insist so much if it weren’t because it’s been such a long time… it’s so long overdue!
It really is a quite simple issue to fix, which even YouTubers have already done just to showcase it; therefore it is beginning to appear as if it was an intentional manipulation of the vehicle’s performance for whatever reason. It is difficult to believe such an issue would go unnoticed or remain unsolved for so many years and after so many reports.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OKu3KDR8Sx85
3 Likes
Smin, can we pls never launch a Dev on a Monday again?
As most of the Mods who forward the report are at work or busy with other stuff, it looks like barely any reports are getting forwarded compared to a normal Dev Server on a weekend
not his choice unfortunately
if they had opened the dev when unready there would have been a flood of reports and the same effect of not as many reports being fowarded
maybe a good chunk of the backlog will dissapear overnight, who knows
Sure, but he is one of the closest to the devs what we have here :P
Still very poor, it should at least be improved to the level of fm3000.
Can we get something done about the off center seeker on the Type 81(c)? It’s barley even on the screen if you zoom in:
there is a bunch of open reports on it:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/tiWW5PRlnGo2
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0RiVoQvCtdBY
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/5s9FXIKuxi4s
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Bkb2FBcGKnuH
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/YoRwgo2Uo3sD
There is only 1 report that has been looked at and closed for the reason that “is is done specifically to prevent rockets from hitting the ground.”
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/6ZK349oy9jU2
This would make sense if it was off center to the gimbal limit like the Type 93:
this causes the launcher to be elevated above the aim point to loft the missile on launch, with the Type 81(c) however the seeker is still centered within the gimbal which means that to acquire a target you have to aim lower which just results in the same launcher elevation as if the seeker was centered in both the gimbal and on the crosshair, but harder to aim because the seeker doesn’t go where you thing it should, it also often results in lose of lock as you have to manually lift the launcher above the target once the seeker is on it to avoid hitting the ground, on fainter heat signatures this can cause the seeker to jump of the target, especially if they are near the sun:
As you can see the explanation that “is is done specifically to prevent rockets from hitting the ground.” simply doesn’t bear out in reality and to do that the seeker should be set up like on the Type 93.
Could we please have a review of the decision to ignore this bug and at the very least have the seeker centered on the crosshair so it’s on screen when zoomed, or preferably fixed to be like the Type 93 to actually loft the missile like the bug report manager claims it should be doing?
1 Like
Adding the turret basket to the Type 10 and especially the Leclerc (which is mid as hell) while the BMPTs still haven’t gotten theirs (not to mention the fact that they should’ve been there in the first place) while it’s literally breaking the game is just… Infuriating and frankly despicable. No other words.
13 Likes
any news on the proposed falcon radar?
hallo from abrams and leop
Did the same hull armor changes get applied to the T-26E? They share the same hull, as mentioned in the report, but it’s not clarified here if it was applied to it as well.
1 Like
at least they have armour and can lose 2 crew with out being completely destroyed. The Type 10 has a 3 man crew and a 40mm LFP that wont stop a 25mm APDS at 2km range, hell the weasel can pen it at 300m.
I Don’t see an IRST blister on that airframe, so it’s not what has been implemented. I’d be enough to get a suggestion marked as “not a bug” if it was to go though the reporting portal.
Remember;
F/A - 18 e didn’t get his equipment gbu-53 b guided bombs
“F/A-18E != F/A-18F”
What are the chances 120D will get its seeker fixed?
what leclerc also gonnna suffer from: