Smin1080p

None of your opinions have been hidden, only the posts where you started flaming other users for the following:

1.1.1. Insult any forum members, Gaijin employee or forum staff.

1.1.2. Start or participate in flame wars, intentionally derail a topic, or post useless spam messages in moderated areas
.

I would also recommend, if you wish to discuss moderation, you do so via so via PM:

1.1.5. Deliberately challenge moderation or administration, if you have issues or concerns with any actions taken please send a Private Message to Moderators, Senior Moderators or Community Managers/Administrators.

There has been some on the side too, all 3 of these remain open:

There has been no mention on the side armour. The original discussion you quoted me on was on the UFP array. Not the side armour.

This quote:

Is for the report linked above from a developer on the UFP array.

The developers have confirmed the composite exists, but as with most modern tanks, the array has been simplified to optimize the DM.

You appear to be referring to this report:

Which is on a different issue and still open.

The report I linked, was closed as the array is already in game:

As the developer quote explained:

The report is on the UFP array armour.

None of these reports have been closed. Thus no sources have been provided as the investigation is still ongoing.

The only one that has was this one: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/548658-feedback-puma-ifv-upper-frontal-plate-should-be-a-nera-array/

The back plates of the combined armour are already present in the DM. They are made in one block (more simplified) to optimize the DM

Finish vehicles will be in the Swedish tree much like how Italy hosts the minor axis nations currently. Germany is not really in any need of Finish vehicles and has plenty of choices without them. So its better and more relevant to Finland to be with Sweden.

As far as im aware, no reports have been closed due to a lack of sources and for those that have been closed / resolved (RPM and Reverse speed) we have shared where that information came from already. The responses we gave as to why the reports were not resolved at the time of asking. Reports lacking info are not closed, but placed under investigation until such a time when more info can be located. It would be helpful to know specifically what reports you are referring to that have been closed (and their forum link) as this is otherwise a rather broad and general span.

Additionally nothing has been "brushed off" with regards to a feature not being present in game yet, nor have we said it would never be added. Plenty of vehicles have been added in the past and received features later on. We have also not ruled out any missing features and have not made mention of having no intention to work on them.

...

I understand. I mentioned this one as it's the only issue (other than visual) to be reported. None of the other matters you listed have been reported with sources.

Yes. There should indeed most likely be one.

The vehcile has been in game for just coming up to a month now. We have over 2000+ vehciles in game and many of those with reports on them too far older than that.

The bug report requirements are correct and not in need of any updating. They reflect what's required to pass the report. Beyond that, it's down to the developers and consultants. Many of the sources require further validation because they are either insufficient or conflict with what the developers already have.

Generally the concerns mentioned on the 530F (Range and Chaff) have both indeed been covered by @DirectSupportin the subsequent files that have been added to existing reports.

Regarding the FM, as you mentioned, the weight and thrust both correspond to sources and are accurate. The rudder issue was partially reported here, however requires some additional info that has not yet been provided: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/glQKRfcXLhXv

Reports such as these in combination with sources (such as the video you found, depending on configuration and variant) help to identify these issues. However generally pilot interviews do not. Since they can be interpretations and not always spot on. Generally this is why we dont use them in any situation and follow the known petametres of the aircraft....

We require two agreeing secondary source materials to make a report valid. If that criteria can be met as described within, we can forward it for review:

As mentioned above, the only claims so far reported (and thus supported) on the 530F have been the range and chaff resistance.

No other claims have thus far been supported. As above, we welcome any additional sourced based reports.

Hello

It seems the user was directed to make individual reports on those issues as it was bundled into one. Do you perhaps have a link(s) to the resulting reports? As then I can confirm their status.

I've responded to (as far as I'm aware) every post I've been tagged in here. Generally also jumping into to provide clarification when there is some misunderstanding or incorrect claims made.

Generally you have not provided any evidence to support some of the claims you have making. Meaning there is little we can do. If you have evidence to back up things, then there is more we can do to investigate.

I replied to a claim about the AIM-9P and clarified why it was not chosen and why the Magic II was, as there was some misunderstanding around that. I have not taken part in any discussions about the "number of battles" as you can see.

Given how many people (even in this topic) mentioned it and in the larger community as a whole, coupled with how minor the differences they are and 0 gameplay impact at all, its a fair assessment. ...

If we provided all the sources used for every situation each and every time someone said "I don't believe you" and only provided 1 source to support their claim, our developers would spend all year just answering those questions alone. So far you have provided no sources or evidence to support the claims you have made and therefor there is nothing further that can be done with your posts as they are unsubstituted.

The visual elemwnt of the Magic 2 is a change of colour of the seeker dome and a small cut in the fin. Both of these matters have no impact to gameplay and to 99.9% of players, are meaningless.

We are working on those reports that have been properly sourced and the data that has been raised on the R530F. However I would remind you the consecration was on the Magic II.

I would also remind you of the forum rules again, which you should be well aware of now:

...

AIM-9P4 is worse than Magic II and would be reflected as such in game. There was also no reason to include it since it was never used by France and the Magic II, as we said before the F.1C was released, was always going to be considered based on how the aircraft performed.

So far apart from the known visual model being incorrect, many of the claimed isuses with magic II have not been supported by sufficient source material. But we welcome further sourced reports.