I dont know, I’d have to discuss that with a tech mod. As ppl have said, its effectively impossible to definitively proove something does not exist, so I’m still waiting for someone to post actual evidence the thing does exist.
Imo, the current qvailable info doesnt surpass the threshold of the Flakpanzer 341 Coelian which was removed from the game due to only being a mockup. Couple that with the balanfe issues and id assume any reasonable dev team would remove it ASAP, but this is gaijin we’re talking about so I think the odds are stacked against it being removed.
I’d like if some mods, particularly tech mods, would provide input on how i should handle the situation going forward.
Alternatively, an official reply from the devs/smin would be helpful.
I feel like I’m being more than fair with the potential of its existence, I’m discussing any arguments in good faith, Ive LITERALLY made the thread to try to find info that it does in fact exist, and yet ppl are attacking me over it and just making random bs claims. :/
Not once have I said it for sure doesnt exist, just that I cant find any info up to the games standard and that if someone else has relevant additional info, that I’d like to see it. Pretty sure thats super reasonable.
I am asking you if the standard for implementing vehicles/munitions in the game is whether it is physically possible for those machines to have existed.
From what i can tell the company created the “shell” but no info on the seeker in the front though which was the one i was referring to in that conversation. (funnily enough though the mockup-company titles it as MTE but writes “inertial + semi-active laser” as guidance lol)
At base it couldn’t, but it was modified to be able to use them, additionally gaining landing gear door pylons for them to be mounted on. On this test all 8 pylons could be used for mounting sparrows. However no more then 2 on a wing at a time, i believe due to structural reasons, for a theortical total of 6x sparrows and 2x sidewinders, a much much better loadout then the F-16AJ gets in game of 2 sparrows 4 sidewinders, and one i really wish they’d add for it.
I am not saying that that should be the standard. He says that the Tiger II 10,5 wouldn’t have worked (based on what, Idk), so it should not be added. I am asking him if it could be made to work, then should it be implemented?
From my point of view, it doesn’t matter whether you have to fully reconstruct a turret/breach or make an imaginary seeker-head.
And why didn’t you explain it to me, are you hiding behind other people’s backs? But at the same time you consider other people’s opinions to be true without even understanding them?
The developer said that he changed the flight model using video materials, he didn’t say anything about other sources.
And I saw this bug report and there were other sources, but these sources (brochures) cannot be official documentation for changing the flight model.
Why?
Remember the attempts to change the Su-27 flight model, where the developer needed an official source (Su-27SK RLE), but they didn’t even consider this source to be correct.
Because they saw a no-name flight manual for the Su-27, which was actually a T-10, because the aircraft’s weight was incorrect, the R-60 was in the weapons nomenclature, etc.
It was very difficult for us to explain this to them, but they then changed the flight model of the Su-27 even without a link to the bug report. (Ru forum)
Who is this “developer”? What’s their name. Do they work on FM changed by themselves? Do they work in a group? Is there more checks in the background behind closed doors? All of this is by Eye, there is no definitive proof bruh.
ppl have found the T-10 flightmanual and performance data,
and it more or less performed exactly like the Su-27 we had in game
(thats my understanding of that situation)
The community bug manager contacted the developer personally, he asked the developer about the Su-27 FM and passed the information to us.
The developer is Gaijin. This is not 1 person.
Wow dude. Answer my message completely. I pointed out obvious facts to you, but you were worried about one thing - the developer.
I probably now understand why you didn’t explain to me about the bug report about Rafale
