Smin1080p

Not in this update.

Several tanks in game could have this type of system, but do not yet. The Abrams also wont have it currently.

Guys, we are now going vastly out of the scope of this topic. As a gentle reminder, its about Danger Zone.

Tree projects / discussions can be taken here please: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/939-international-tech-tree-project-unofficial/

Please submit a report with any evidence and the direct values that should be changed: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder

Its not taken as whining at all. Its just the facts as they are from the developers

We follow suggestions closely and have implemented many. Sadly making a suggestion topic does not mean that the vehcile is possible to implement or that everything is available. Even a well made suggestion topic can take years to come to fruition.

Any suggestions already passed have already been sent. The changes are focused on cleaning up outdated topics that don't meet the current rules from long ago and making the sections clearer.

Content creator links offer 3% discount. Likely he used one of those.

Off topic removed. A reminder this is feedback for the contents of the current Dev server.

Worth noting Japan has the fewest available/ viable vehciles left to add in terms of air/ground. Information difficulties and other restraints mean the vehicles they do have take some time and even then, it's generally less than almost all other nations.

Again, we currently lack any real spesific information on it's characteristics or effects. All aspect missiles (AIM-9L / Magic 2) already have better resistance than normal missiles.

10km for all aspect is generally not well supported in terms of sources. 3-4km is a more common range spesified.

Currently it has the performance most sources indicate and agree on. We have reported claims that its 50G, but many sources claim 35G for the Magic II also. One source actually clarifies 50G is the load factor the missile will take before destruction, not its actual performance manauverabilty. So there is a conflict without any clear outcome.

We also have no known constructional differences that indicate any form of improvement to the manauverabilty (from 35G to 50G), whilst for example we clearly know the AIM-9E/J difference is better servos.

We welcome any additional sources that clarify the matter however.

Feel free to submit a report with sources: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/2183-dev-server-bug-reports/

This website is unfortunately not a valid source to change anything. The armour is currently not final.

Thanks, its been reported.

As we have already explained, non are within this update. More are in development plans for the future.

Stat card figures are generally always subject to change and not always reflective of the actual values tested in the correct conditions.

Over 50% of the vehicles in game and in most trees never saw any form of combat. Not to mention they wouldn't have seen combat on many of the locations in game.

War Thunder is about historical vehicles in combat virtually. Not about vehicles that only saw combat. Otherwise we would have to remove many of the most loved vehicles in game.

Its just an X-ray configuration error. Currently known and reported. The boosters come with the preloaded pre-sets from the IIIC and link to the model as they are shared (III Family). This will also be fixed.

Right now we don't have any timeframe we can share, but we will try to include the question in a future Q and A.