Smin1080p

Other games manuals are not usable.

Primary sources are not necessarily the o only option if there is credible secondary sources to prove something is incorrect.

As soon as we receive some sourced historical reports on the matter, we will forward them for review.

It's characteristics (FM) is all based on souce material as all FMs are. So in order for any changes to take place, it needs to be supported by some form of evidence.

Meaning a threat of any kind over a video game does not make anything be taken more seriously, but in fact removes any notion that it will be taken seriously or aid the outcome in any way.

In no way does that mention anyone else or this topic as a whole.

Please don't be selective in what context you choose to put something and twist words.

Please re-read what I actually said. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that "all mirage F1 fans" are being accused of anything or treated in anyway as a result of a singular persons actions.

I made it clear we will not tolerate threats to anyone of any kind no matter whatever perceived justification someone tries to come up with.

Nobody here has been punished or accused of anything. Please check what was actually said before making accusations that are simply incorrect.

It's not just "sad" people make death threats, it is intolerable, unjustified and indefensible.

If you wish to report bugs or issues, please feel free and we will forward them on for review and resolution. But please do not make it out that anyone who is simply taking part in this discussion is being punished. I made it clear what is unacceptab...

That's not down to my decision. The developers decide what sources to accept for changes. The only part that involves me is the minimum requirement for acceptance on the forum. After that, the developers make the decisions on what sources to accept based on what they have / are using.

As we have already covered, Dev blogs cover most of the features of the vehicles in general and not necessarily everything it will have immediately. This has been the case for many vehicles in the past where their dev blog mentions features and novelties that they might not have ok launch.

We are not asking anyone to do that. Simply expalining what was submitted already is insufficient and can't be used by itself for any change.

Any kinds of threats to any members of staff or community members of any kind will not be tolerated.

There is no justification whatsoever in any capacity and it does absolutely nothing to resolve any of the matters being raised and in fact diminishes any sense of a serious constructive discussion and dialog taking place.

We haven't had any reports on it thus far other than this one which is incomplete and lacking any form of evidence: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/irw5jM56IE5M

If you can submit one, please do and we can forward it.

The developers are not going to accept a US military source that has no relation to what's in question here. This is just getting off track at this stage as I said these sources are way of any relevance to what's being reported or what the US military may define something as. It should not be used in any report on the R530.

We have highlighted what's necessary to be submitted and what ECCM is generally covering in the source you submitted on the R530.

We are not the US military and that source is referring to ground or ship dispersed chaff as you can see for yourself.

ECM packages can include countermeasures launchers within them. But in this case the source mentioning ECCM specifically also states anti-jamming circuitry. Unless that can be explicitly linked that its referring to anti-chaff. Its pretty meaningless with regards to chaff.

If they are correctly sourced and backed up. Plenty in the past have not been and some simply quote each other as a source. Encyclopaedias often cover things like Wikis etc.

The document itself would need to be proven as declassified and this supported in the report. Otherwise we cannot use it.

2 secondary sources are whats required to forward a report. Its not a guaranteed change if the sources turn out to be disprove, untrustworthy etc.

Encyclopaedias are not accepted, even as secondary sources. You can see what is accepted here:

ECCM is Electronic Counter-Countermeasures and relates to anti jamming and other ECM measures. Chaff is not ECM.

According to the information the developers currently have, the R530F had a pulse seeker. Doppler appeared on the R530D. As such its modelled in accordance with other pulse seekers.

If anyone has any information contrary to this, it should be reported here please:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1957-weapons-and-ordnance/

Hello

The value of 7200 kgf of afterburning thrust is for the Atar 9K50

on an engine test bench
. This is not operational thrust inside of an aircraft taking into account channel loss of around 5 -5.5% (applied to all aircraft in game who's thrust values are based on a static engine test bed.

The aircraft is already correct in game in taking into account channel loss at 6800 kgf (your aircraft in your screenshot was not fully upgraded, so that's also why its value was out of line).

The developers are already aware of the Phimat and Sycomor countermeasures.

Any other issues not already concluded above should be reported separately in a 1 issue per topic matter. Please do not stack multiple issues into a single topic.

Dear Tankers!

Just an update to this as some of you have been forwarding questions regarding this vehicle and its guidance systems. As our dev blogs are an insight into content still currently being worked on and configured, its often the case that as we reach the final stages, additional information is located and some changes can occur between the initial dev blog proposals and the final release of the vehicle. Naturally we try to ensure the blogs are always a reflection (as close as possible) of how the vehicle will appear in game, but changes can happen at every stage of a vehicles introduction and even after its been introduced thanks to historical reports submitted by players and further research / new information coming to light by our developers and consultants.

Initially the dev blog for the mentioned an upgrade module that would allow a semi-automatic guidance version of the missile weaponry featured on ...

Encyclopaedic type pages themselves cannot be used as credible sources. We would need the specific sources stating the specific values. These websites are often not reliable as they are.

Two valid secondary sources confirming a value would be required for the developers to review and consider the report:

Videos by themselves are not suitable as sources for bug reports unless backed up by other source material. The Devs haven't accepted any videos without also being supported by other source material.

These are the responses I was provided by the developers on the issues currently. As I've already said, many are already in progress and to be added over time.

Merkava 4 automatically detects missiles, and counters them, but it doesn't warn the player about a missile approaching before the counter system kicks in. Its part of the APS.