The requirement of sources to make changes is outdated

With the introduction of things like the AIM-120D and the PL-12A, is it not completely ridiculous to refuse bug reports that aren’t directly source-based and are instead using math and common sense to extrapolate data? Both the AIM-120D and the PL-12A are all but completely classified in everything other than vague statements from both the PLAAF and USAF. To expect documents to make any meaningful changes is practically inviting people to leak classified documents.

A positive change would be allowing mathematical proofs and data extrapolated from publicly accessible documents to be used in bug reports. Gaijin claims to have a focus on realism but completely ignores things that are obviously true but cannot be documented due to their classified nature. When dealing with modern systems, especially missiles developed in the last two decades, the available information will almost always be incomplete. However, physics is not classified. Parameters such as aerodynamic drag and energy retention can often be reasonably estimated using known equations, videos and comparisons to earlier systems whose performance is better documented. By combining those physical constraints with manufacturer statements, export specifications, and historical development patterns, it is possible to create realistic approximations without relying on restricted material.

Completely rejecting this kind of analysis discourages well-reasoned discussion and prevents the community from helping improve the accuracy of the game. Instead of demanding documents that realistically cannot exist in the public domain, Gaijin should implement a system where mathematically supported estimates and carefully sourced extrapolations are reviewed alongside traditional documentation. This would allow knowledgeable players to contribute meaningful corrections while still maintaining a standard of evidence. In a game that markets itself on authenticity, acknowledging the value of physics-based reasoning would be far more productive and allow for a more accurate game.

4 Likes

Im afraid that issue lies with peoppe who, in their quest to make their country vehicles better (or country they hate worse) would fumble the numbers.

4 Likes

This.

How would it be fair to simply guesstimate performance metrics of a missile while other countries (particularly Europe, for the Meteor, as an example) have just enough data to go off for proper implementation?

You can’t lie with maths and physics, it would be fair as long as they provide the exact methods they used so it can be repeated.
It’s all about how we do it, but tbh it doesn’t change much since the devs do whatever they want for balance anyway

We have no expectation or tolerance for anyone wanting to “leak” classified material. We will never use, accept or handle such materials on any of our platforms: Source Material: Restrictions on Classified and Export Restricted information (“Military Restrictions”)

All that will come of that is a ban.

We have to have some baseline standards of acceptable material to be able to accept even suggestions for modern equipment.

Unfortunately, with AI, people can easily manipulate basic sources of information. So speculation and even some sourced based (but unsourced in origin) cannot be trusted: Community Bug Reporting System