I thank you for helping me and helping the Italian community
4 Likes
I unfortunately have it on very good authority (that being a conversation with a Technical Moderator on Discord) that this bug report has been rejected.
Discord screenshot
I have blocked out the names of the other people in this screenshot because I do not want people to be mad or attack the tech moderator (red) since when a bug report is rejected after being “accepted” and forwarded to devs that means the devs themselves have therefore rejected it, and tech moderators act simply as messengers for this information.
I have many things to say about this plane and battlepass, specially since I haven’t been playing the game until recently so only now do I have enough activity to post.
Starting with my personal thoughts and opinions, I love the Re.2005 and it is one of my favorite WW2 fighter aircraft. I find it to say the least disappointing to see the MM.495 being added in what I can only say is the most boring way possible.
Now past the realm of my opinions… This Battle Pass announcement lies.
To quote the section about the Re.2005 VDM:
This variant features a new propeller and a slightly reshaped nose, improving all key performance characteristics.
As it stands right now this is blatantly untrue. This Re.2005 VDM performs worse in all key characteristics. I managed to get a hold of it and test drive it a day before the battlepass came out, and since the flight model has not been changed since then all these tests hold true. I tested top speed at sea level and at 7 km for both this Re.2005 VDM and the standard Re.2005, using MEC to force radiators at 0%, and the VDM was slower in both cases, doing 505 and 629 km/h while the standard Re.2005 did 516 and 651 km/h. Following this I did a basic climb rate test assuming all the other characteristics of the planes are the same. I simply put the planes in a 15 degree climb and checked what speed they achieved. Standard Re.2005 did somewhere around 330 km/h while the Re.2005 VDM did 315 km/h.
Overall this means that the plane simply has less thrust. That means that even turn rate is worse since you will be achieving sustained turn rate at a lower speed, therefore increasing turn time.
Edit: I have since gone and tested both the Re.2005 and Re.2005 VDM using the browser map to see their thrust output at different speeds with an altitude of 100 meters. I can therefore confirm that the Re.2005 VDM just achieved consistently lower thrust output than the standard Re.2005.
Thrust table
Rerunning the tests might not give you exactly the same kgf values, specially at lower speeds where fast acceleration means the exact speed won’t always be exactly what is on the table, but my results were this and I tried being as precise as possible.
I don’t know if this is a miscommunication between whomever wrote this announcement and the people that actually work on flight models, or if a straight up lie in order to boost up sales, but one thing is certain: Gaijin must address this, either correcting the announcement to say that the plane performs worse (not better), or buffing the performance of the Re.2005 VDM to whatever level they think is correct when they were making this announcement.
Onto bug reports, I have a lot to say here.
As far as I am aware, there is no primary documentation available on this specific plane, any and all information coming from secondary documents. If someone can prove me wrong I am more than willing to edit this part of my comment, but as it stands, to my knowledge Gaijin is using purely secondary sources to model this plane.
This is not a problem in of itself, and it’s not the first time either. The T20 medium tank is modeled entirely using information gathered from R.P. Hunnicutt’s book on the T20 series. Sometimes primary sources are simply too hard to access so secondary sources have to do.
The problem is that even when this is the case, two secondary sources or one primary source are needed for a bug report to even get forwarded to the devs. Even when the devs themselves rely on a single secondary source for modeling a specific vehicle, you have to actively provide more than what this multi million dollar company can gather in order to correct a certain characteristic.
I ran into this specific problem with none other than the T20 itself. I had to spend months, if not a year, looking for some other source other than Hunnicutt for my bug report on the T20’s transmission, because I knew for a fact that if I had made a bug report with just Hunnicutt as my source (even though Gaijin bases the T20 entirely off of Hunnicutt), it would be rejected. And I have no doubt in my mind that for this plane Gaijin has used the very book that is being used in the bug reports that advocate for the addition of MW-50, and simply chose to ignore that part of the source, and despite this they still reject those very same bug reports.
In short, the rule of “2 secondary sources or 1 primary source”, for vehicles like this which revolve almost entirely around secondary sources (sometimes even just a single secondary source), is stupid. There have to be exceptions when primary sources are simply non-existant or extremely difficult to get a hold on, because otherwise it just slows down the development of the game.
16 Likes
Based on the recent information by @FlipAllTheTables you might rethink your plans - spending money and time for a worse performing BP premium aircraft (compared to TT Re 2005) looks very strange - similar if Ryan Air would charge extra for having a seat in a plane, not really a fan of that.
I decided to skip this BP - it is not about money and/or time, it is about getting something valuable in exchange.
1 Like
It’s beyond me how they managed to turn a super cool addition into a mediocre boring one.
Why?
4 Likes
I mean, if this is not “it”, then what will be? They either buff the hell out of this plane, introduce another one, or just leave it as sh*tty as it is, just like they decided to not remove the game-breaking plywood bug and just general hopelessness of Real Shatter 3.0nwhen anything but low caliber cannons are used (just had a game where I landed possibly 4 37mm M-geschoss on Pe-3, and only 1 did anything, luckily dude decided to crash on his own).
1 Like
Of course, I don’t have the resources of a group whose Hungarian subsidiary alone has an annual turnover of €145 million, but over years of passion I’ve built up a respectable personal library. Leaving aside the original aircraft manuals — which all refer to the production version — this particular subject, being a one-off prototype, is described only in secondary sources.
I own the books in question (photos of the covers are attached), and only three of them include any comments regarding the performance of the MM 495. All three sources agree in stating a maximum speed of 720 km/h, and that the aircraft was powered by a special DB605 engine equipped with WD50. This is consistent with the fact that, around the same period, tests were being conducted on what would later become the DB605AM (see the attached table, also included in the original submission), dated August 1943 — perfectly compatible with the testing period of aircraft serial number 495.
The material attached to the report included the cover and consisted of three sources in total. For the sake of completeness, I would be interested to know which secondary source was used by the developers.
7 Likes
I think you should make a post with all of these things. If we don’t get other players’ attention, Gaijin will never do anything to fix this.
Anyway, it’s absolutely crazy that they’ve decided to implement the aircraft the way it is. I really can’t see a single source justifying this. It doesn’t even make sense to give it a fictional worse performance for the sake of balance since it’s at the same BR…
At this point a premium copy paste Re.2005 serie 0 would have been better.
I think that this is a question everybody has to decide for himself.
It is simply sad that gaijin is following this path - i would have zero issues to pay an annual subscription fee in the range of 100-150 € for a bug & bias free game with a fair and semi-historical MM, flightmodels & weapon damage output without artificial buffs or nerfs and, ofc, BRs based on plane and not on player performance.
But if the overwhelming majority of the alleged 70 million users is willing to pay a hell of money in the current state of wt it is somehow comprehensible that gaijin does what they think is the best for gaijin.
I mean the “buff” option looks like being dead.
As predicted earlier: Hope is usually just delayed disappointment - and optimism is usually just based on a lack of information.
I am not even mad at gaijin, i can’t force them to take my money.
3 Likes
I have like 240 Gaijoobeans in various vehicles, I’m just mad I sold my last ITP-M1, not like it was going to go up in value much, but still.
Guess it’s time to get Do-335 B2 once some good discount appears.
Edit: The only things in Ground RB I’m good at are CAS and CAP, right now I’m using D9 and Ta-152H, so a a 5.7 powerhouse will surely boost my capabilities.
Was hoping for a true 6.3 Italian menace, got a joke instead
3 Likes
What do you mean with balance? Did Gaijin artificially put the MM.495 only with the German propeller to balance it?
Yeah, except that I refuse to believe that it was a balancing decision. Performance has never stopped them from adding broken stuff to the game… I mean the BI exists lol.
This is not even a financially smart decision.
They gave the aircraft the entire MM.495 design and for whatever reason didn’t include the most important part of it…? It’s not even an accurate MM.494 variant either.
1 Like
It’s basically the most boring battle pass since the french M46.
How can you mess this up so badly?
Same situation as with sholef, a very cool vehicle stripped of literally everything that made it cool and reduced to borderline copypaste slop.
They literally shot their own foot with this
4 Likes
I don’t know if this is the case, but it’s something they did a couple of times. One example on the top of my mind is when they removed the stabiliser on the T25.
I’m saying I support this kind of decisions, but if they choose to do an unhistorical nerf at least change the br accordingly.
Specially given that MM.495 is written on the tail section, on both the standard and unlockable camouflage.
Spoiler
3 Likes
Yep, I seen it.
There’s like nothing that can justify this aircraft being the way it is right now. It’s an abomination.
3 Likes
So did the tech mod or anyone else ever elaborate on the rejection? I don’t understand how they can justify a completely fictional configuration of the plane, especially when advertised as a specific real variant. As far as I know, the VDM propeller was ONLY fitted in conjunction with the new MW-50 boosted engine. Even the MM.494 didn’t fit the propeller. The thrust loss on the current version is also weird, probably to do with having the wrong propeller for the engine.
Fantasy nerfs as some sort of balance is just so disappointing, worse than the infamous “late war steel” modifier for german heavies. But nobody cares because it’s an obscure Italian prop. People go to war over the IRIS-T or the EF-2000 but don’t care about this thing.
If Gaijin wanted a copy-paste Re.2005 they should’ve just used the MM.494.
2 Likes
@S_bastienZ88 @paolgand1975-psn @Real_K_Soze
I made a forum post on the VDM situation The Re.2005 VDM situation is crazy
Perhaps if we get enough attention we can get Gaijin to fix this. Please feel free to suggest any modification to the post
2 Likes
I wrote you an email and look if the other great great people can help you too like @paolgand1975-psn etc
1 Like
Hi
will take a look this evening
thank you
1 Like