So I’m still using real data to prove my point, not being unreasonable.
Besides, losing trust in Gaijin is not our fault—it’s Gaijin’s own laziness. A single bug can take months to fix.
If the test server isn’t used to find and point out errors, then what’s the point of having it at all?
8 Likes
it is.
Gaijin is very slow to do anything but they get around to it eventually most the time, until its something extreme, then it probably wont happen because lazy.
Generally all it requires is having actual data to prove it, and to make the report simple to understand for them
1 Like
“Easy to understand” – that’s the hardest part, bro. Sometimes I suspect the people in the issue section aren’t as logical as we think they are… you know what I mean :(
1 Like
easy to understand is the hard part yes.
Myself and other bug reporters have figured out a rather reliable template for the reports at least.
the way i write my own bug reports is:
Vehicle affected
[file name of the vehicle (found in the URL of its wiki page)]
Issue
[whats wrong and by how much, sometimes a breif explanation of how its meant to act]
source
[name of source]
i then attatch the sources and screenshots of the relevant parts
you need only one 1st party source (manuals or manufacturer document/brochure) but multiple 3rd party (history books/magazines) that dont reference the same sources just to ensure its not an editing error
Heres my bug reporting account as a reference
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/u/132670147/issues
1 Like
Alright right, thanks for the help, bro. But here’s the problem we’re running into now:
We’ve found out that Gaijin used data from Jane’s to make the J-15T.
But the data in Jane’s is contradictory.
According to Jane’s, the WS‑10B has a thrust‑to‑weight ratio of 8.8.
Based on that, the weight of the WS‑10B should be around 1500 kg.
However, Gaijin used the direct figure from Jane’s, which is about 1900 kg.
And here’s the kicker: Gaijin themselves don’t accept Jane’s as a valid source — even though they used Jane’s to build the vehicle in the first place.
That’s the contradiction that’s driving us crazy:
How can we make the developers realize their own source data is inconsistent?
I have no idea, so I’m just gonna have to speak up on public forums.
13 Likes
I’ve received a response to my report:
“The developers do not accept the empty weight report.”
Even with numerous authoritative sources confirming the J-15T has an empty weight of 17.5 tons, they are rejecting it without any valid justification whatsoever.
I do not believe for a second that they possess more authoritative or classified data to back up their refusal.
3 Likes
Janes is both a decent source for a rough idea of a vehcile and bad source for precision thats probably why they use it for the initial build of the vehicle but not as the fact-checking source.
Gaijin also couldnt ever do as good at researching as a devoted group of players to a specfic vehicle. They are heavily reliant on players who already have the information to let them know (they are far too reliant on this system)
Doesnt help that a lot of the bug reporting moderators are far from helpful and often a bigger obstacle than the actual bug/inaccuracy.
talking about an issue on the forums does bump the priority of the change up in their lists. However being obnoxious about it (like what happens pretty much every time a chinese vehicle isnt perfect on dev)
3 Likes
empty weight doesnt include oil, fuel and other vital things for the vehicles function, you need the “wet” or “combat” weights for a weight report.
Gaijin is also not very fond of doing weight reports generally, so even with perfect relevant info its usually ignored. focusing on thrust, lift and STR is usually best path to follow for buffing planes
1 Like
The J-15T is even newer than the J-16, so it’s highly unlikely we can find fully accurate information on it. This isn’t just an issue with Chinese vehicles — it’s the same for vehicles from every country. Gaijin has a lot of discretion in this area.
Most of the time, we have to make vague speculations, but the people who handle reports don’t accept speculation…
The main goal for Chinese players is to improve the performance of the WS-10B, such as increasing thrust or reducing the engine weight. Reducing the airframe weight comes second.
But we can’t get official manufacturer data, so public forums are our main source — haha.
8 Likes
Typhoon players have the same issue. the only plane thats managed to sneak unverifiable buffs its way has been rafale.
meanwhile the harrier jump jet has had tons of reports about it being not even half what it should, mostly ignored
1 Like
Same here.
1 Like
I mean if I would get a euo every time I heard someone say “it’s only the dev server, don’t worry it will be fixed on live” and said thing not changing at all I would have a decent amount of money now.
Ironic coming from one of the champions of the British victim complex.
11 Likes
most the time things are changed significantly when its clearly early in development still.
I actually do something about it instead of just saying things are bad. almost a dozen changes this update were from my own personal reports, probably more as dev gets updated. I speak and actually act.
This update makes it very clear from the tweaks to british stuff that if you actually research and do good reports things will be done
I can not understand why bwd both want to make money from Chinese player and let the high-altitude acceleration capability of the J15T be so unimpressive at 14.7.
TOO FUNNY
6 Likes
What is the source of this imfo
reliable?
It is obvious that This is a unfair treatment, The AL-41F’s thrust curve is a simple scale proportionally from AL-31F’s curve as it looks almost the same. But WS-10b only have a slightly thrust improvement in high altitude. If WS-10B’s curve was designed with similar way, scale proportionally from WS-10A’s curve, the high altitude performance could be better. So come on, if you want more income from Chinese players, treat us fairly first.
5 Likes
In real world, It is. As WS-10series are a very complicated origin engine, the core machine is almost the same with F-110series, and the many design are similar to AL-31series, and the great high altitude performance is probably origin from Chinese’s first turbofan WS-6.
3 Likes
Gaijin always fails in both balance and simulation.
If gaijin want to gain more money from players,at least they should give J-15t enough strength and right power curve.
2 Likes
Gaijin isn’t a company which know how to make money.
So it always fails both in balance and simulation.
If gaijin wants to get more money from players,they need to receive players’ thoughts.
Whether in terms of balance or simulation,J-15t in game need more improvement.
Based on the latest data from the test server on March 3, the WS‑10B engine shows a significant lack of ram effect at high altitudes and high speeds, even performing worse than its predecessor, the WS‑10A. This is inconsistent with the PLA Air Force’s combat doctrine emphasizing high‑altitude, high‑speed beyond‑visual‑range (BVR) engagements.
Take the 7,000‑meter altitude band as an example:
At 0 km/h: twin‑engine thrust of the WS‑10B is 11750 kgf, and the WS‑10A is 10447 kgf, with a difference of 1303 kgf.
At 400 km/h: twin‑engine thrust of the WS‑10B is 11915 kgf, and the WS‑10A is 10968 kgf, with a difference of 947 kgf.
The thrust increase from ram effect for the twin‑engine WS‑10B at this speed is 165 kgf, while for the twin‑engine WS‑10A it is 521 kgf. Despite having greater static thrust and more advanced technology, the WS‑10B exhibits lower ram efficiency than the older WS‑10A.
While this may seem insignificant at first glance, the gap widens further at higher speeds, including supersonic speeds. As a result, the performance improvement of the WS‑10B over the WS‑10A at high altitudes and high speeds is minimal, which violates the logical progression of equipment development. Consequently, the J‑15T ranks last among top‑tier fighter jets in terms of acceleration at high altitudes and high speeds, which contradicts the development logic of PLA Air Force equipment.
We urge the game developers to address this issue. Please adjust the ram effect of the WS‑10B appropriately at high altitudes and high speeds, so that its ram gain ratio across all speed ranges matches that of the WS‑10A.
1 Like