Smin1080p

The report was forwarded but no timeframe was provided. But it is a known issue.

Devs are taking a look.

Under review. IIRC it was waiting for secondary sources to be added. If thats done then it will be forwarded as soon as we can get to it. However I believe he was more referring to the chaff lock side of things.

Could you link me the reports please?

The source can be used, but as a single source on the R350 it wont be sufficient alone.

Thus far there hasn't been a completed report on it to fix.

This is incorrect. Providing the information is confirmatory and reliable enough, it will be considered.

So far every report that has been forwarded on the F.1 has been fixed.

The location of the rear bay is already known to the devs, but this wasn't sufficient to cover the modifications undertaken and fitting of the dispensers. When we checked for this at the time, with the exception of the storage bay being common, there wasn't any significant link rather than working back the improvements made from GR.1 to 3, of which are the very things that make the aircraft different. This drawing also doesn't detail the actual fit and mounting of the systems. Simply the existence of the storage bay.

Without any solid evidence of the modification being planned or taking place on the GR.1 and with a total lack of retrofittable evidence besides converting the aircraft to a GR.3, eliminating the need for that aircraft to begin with (unlike the F-5A / C) then its not considered the same situation. Mostly in those cases the decision is also made when we don't have or plan to have that specific variant in question (SPS-K etc). But we hav...

No words have been put in your mouth. As you mentioned, it's not a simple issue and not clear cut issue and the sources are also not currently conclusive. None the less this has no relation to this topic or any of the previous context. We are already discussing this via PM.

We have already explained why the Mirage does not have Greek weaponary and what options are open to it. Again, this isn't a Mirage topic or relivant matter to this topic.

If the sources were clear cut they would be resolved faster. There are historical reports pending for all nations, some older then then Etendards.

Again, let's please get back to the subject matter. This has gone off on a bit it a tangent not relsted to this topic at all.

This isn't even remotely related in any way to what was being discussed. What you are referring to are related to problematic historical sources, which if you are referring to the Etendard here, you yourself know and stated that the manual itself is not even fully clear and only rough conclusions can be drawn. It isn't a full radar like others have in game, but a form of advanced gunsight.

None the less, this is not only off topic, but not at all even related in the context of the previous discussion which was the choice of weponary and what is possible, as well as how that's decided.

Because the Mirage F.1C in game is not the Greek export version and has the weponary choices of the French F.1s. including the Corail flare / countermeasures system that doesn't occupy a wing pylon like the Phirmat requires and as already stated, has the option of better French domestic missiles in the futur...

The standards have not changed. As explained it's always been down to the developers final decision on whats actually possible, supported by material of some kind and then down to the developers final decision based in balance.

All nations make use of these standards. Every nation has tanks and/or aircraft with shells or weponary not used in combat, just tested or even were technically capable off.

Even for minor nations the same standards and balance considerations are applied (such as with the F-104S) unless it's known that the particular variant simply did not / could not.

On the contrary, were it not for these standards, then all of this time, as an example, Italy would have been stuck with AIM-9B as their top missile until just this update as well as many other additions big and small.

The standard has always been the same. If it was technically possible to do so on whatever variant in question in the absence of any sources clearly defining it cannot, then it's possible the developers would consider it on those grounds or in the case of balance unless it was a clearly defined version that meant its configuration was known and therefore predetermined.

In the case of the PFM, as above, its a Soviet service one with Xh-66. Therefor what it has in game is all it could based on that configuration it's in (radar, engine, etc).

Weponary has never been limited to what was used in real life. Otherwise half the tanks in game wouldn't exist with the shells they do and many aircraft would loose their weponary.

Ultimately it's down to the developers final decision based on if the aircraft was actually able to do something, the configuration it's in and balance.

...

In the case of the PFM, it wasnt even technically possible on the variant we had in game as many of the things being raised related to a different radar, engine or variant entirely. Not only this, but as explained at the time and subsequently many times, the PFM event vehcile was spesifcally made clear to be representing the Soviet version of the plane which could carry Xh-66 with the export related versions covered by other variants.

We also explained clearly at the time that because the aircraft had Xh-66, that meant its modification and thus possible upgrades were clearly defined.

You can indeed go back through the PFM thread and find answers to all of the main points raised and why the aircraft is why it is. Technical possibilities are considered for balance and when we also don't have a clearly defined version that is in a certain configuration.

We have also explained that th...

If you can back that up with source material to show the Gr.1 had the ability to mount them in the same area and wire that into the c*ckpit too, then it can be considered. But it sounds like just an assumption not based on any material as we have already checked for that and the ability didn't exist. Otherwise we would have considered it.

It isn't the same case as the F-5A/C (which is proven to be retrofittable to any F-5A family member) and has no relation to what's being discussed here it what I was responding too.

We only do something if it can be backed up. Unlike your argument for the Gr.1 which is not supported by any material. Just an assumption about the space in the fuselage. So the two matters are not the same and as you can see, this isn't a "whishy whashy" matter. It's in fact supported by proper material and the ability to do something, unlike the GR.1.

We don't have pr...

There is no such external pod compatible with the Harrier GR.1. The GR.3 has streamline launchers that are inserted into the fuselage structure. Unlike the F-5A/C pods which can be externally retrofitted.

Should be corrected with the custom loadouts, but there was also a report somewhere on this I believe I saw. If I can relocate it I will mark it up for now anyway until the loadout editor comes.

Camo trophy will be soon tm. Right now a lot of stuff is in the works, but there will be one this update of course.

It's that time of year again so busy busy for the Devs. But it's coming.

The criteria required to submit a report is outlined in detail here:

One primary source or Two agreeing secondary sources are required to submit a report. As I explained however, this is what's required to submit a report. The developers and consultants then check and review and make the final call.

Nobody has claimed all sources are not valid.

The only things we have clarified is:

1) for primary sources, they just be fully declassified (in the material being used) and sufficiently proven as such to be used.

2) two agreeing secondary sources that do not provide conflicting values or information.

No historical report has been submitted on the matter.

Other companies themselves come to conclusions based on their own assessments of material in the same way we do. It's not impossible they have made mistakes of their own and their material itself is not primary or secondary but a 3rd party amalgamation of material they have collected. Not to mention it is their own work and that prevents its own legal issues.

Therefore we do not accept 3rd party works or sources from other games.

Every vehicle in game is a collective work of a multitude of sources. Simply put, we cannot do this for every vehicle in the game whenever people cannot themselves locate material on a particular matter. We even trialed doing this a couple of years ago with the Challenger and Type 90 tank. Rather than solving any issues, it actual lead to even more conflicting discussions and did not really do anything to be contributing towards any conclusions in the communities...