do you guys have any photos of the engine or it being built ?
this is what the tank for the MW.50 looks like including pipeing to the engine so if you can find this youll have your stuff
definitely bug reportable
pilot reviews cant be used as evidence sadly but you can definitely use documents
I think so, someone just needs to make another report
yeah they just need more eveidnece its not rejected they just need more stuff to back it up
We are waiting for the Reggiane archives to reopen in January. There’s a document called “MM495 with VDM” se we hope to find some useful info.
Other than this, we are waiting for a guy to go the italian airforce archives to check if there’s something there.
A second bug report was made Community Bug Reporting System
Please go and click “I have the same issue” to boost it.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZaPpsUfxHzrr
Hello. The developers have reviewed the report in full. The engine was modified. A water injection system was added and boost was increased in emergency mode. However, this resulted in a slight increase in speed, which is to be expected. The top speed has increased to 652 km/h. The current weight aircraft is 3,600 kg, which requires no changes. The only source to mention speeds specifically for the 495 prototype was referring to indicated air speed. So sadly this was not an accurate measure. The remaining materials presented are not related to the characteristics of the 495 aircraft prototype. The above listed changes will be released in the next major update.
thank you so much, finally i will buy the battle pass
Hurray!
This response still angers me.
While the bug report does contain information on the MM.494, it is ONLY because the performance of the in-game Re.2005 VDM is based on what the MM.494 achieved.
Even now, the new 652 km/h speed is based on the 629 km/h top speed of the MM.494 but with the additional horsepower of water injection.
In short, that last bit of the response is insanely hypocritical, because Gaijin is actively using information on MM.494 to model the vehicle EVEN NOW with the boosted engine and VDM prop which the MM.494 never had.
More information spesific to the 495 is always welcome, however this is the best possible outcome with the current provided information. All viable information is currently being used to make these improvements.
I’m curious, what should gaijin also fix with the changes of now?
Part of the bug report used sources related to the MM.494 to show that:
My problem is mostly that this is being ignored under the pretense of “it’s unrelated to the MM.495” when, as far as anyone knows, the current performance itself is unrelated to the MM.495.
i understand, sadly it’s typical of them to do so, so basically gaijin will raise the speed to 652km/h and call it a day? damn
in this case i’d love to know what sources gaijin themselves used for this bs claims
another thing, what should gaijin do aside the more fitting raise in Km/h change?
If I understood it correctly they don’t adapt the 720kmh speed neither the 678kmh speed mentioned in the sources.
What the Devs are changing on the Re.2005 MM.495 VDM is the engine, its new engine wil be the suggested DB605A-1 with MW-50 system C3 feul, different compression ratio etc etc and that means alot
It should be a much more powerful engine wise for the Re.2005 mm.495 VDM
DB605A-1 standard power with the upgraded MW-system to put it at the same level of the AM version
I’ll take any buff tbh I thought this whole thread was pointless but next we just gotta get them lowered in br…
The Re.2005 serie 0 could go down to 5.7 (even to 5.3, but let’s be real: this will never happen).
The VDM, depending on the extent on the buffs, could really just stay at 6.0
it could be a mid fighter at 6.0 yes, the series 1 should be 5.0 it literally has the performance of a 4.7 spitfire while having worse guns. I just hope it doesn’t suffer from the Italian tax and end up at 6.7…
Any reason why I can’t use 500 kg + 2*100 kg bombs configuration as I can do on the regular 2005?
Weight limit
Why is it different at the first place?