Smin1080p

We dont have any reports currently to my knowledge.

The Puma is not the first vehicle to be implemented without all of its IRL features also being implemented at the same time. It also wont be the last, as its not uncommon for vehicles to be initially added and then more gameplay features added or expanded upon over time.

Check my initial response you quoted. My response was to this post:

As far as im aware these people you speak of (who im unsure on who or even if they are consultants) have made no reports in any areas that I can see, with none visible on our tracker.

I understand there is frustration that some reports have not seen the outcome you wish to see, but many of these matters, when not having fully conclusive material by the developers standards cannot be resolved quickly. They require further validation and confirmation if what was provided is insufficient.

The toxicity however is not going to speed that process up and would be best left out of the topic.

Please check again. The report was on the system as a whole and the system as a whole was what was answered. The developers made no reference to any specific part of it. We do not have that system in game with 360 coverage right now.

The
MUSS is an electro-optical protection system which is what the report was referring too. We dont have anything of this kind in game. The others are hard kill.

Im not sure who or what you are referring to here. These are all of the reports open with all of the information required.

These are not electro-optical active protection systems.

Now you know.

Guys if the topic cannot remain constructive without falling into insults at the developers, accusations of lies and other simply unnecessary comments. We will close it.

An update on the reports was requested and whilst the devs are currently focused on working on core bug reports with the major update, they took the time to briefly summarize and respond quickly to the issues that have currently been reported. I apricate some of you may not like / agree with the answers. But the spiralling negativity and flaming is not going to progress the matter faster or lead to proper outcomes.

We provided the quick responses to keep you guys in the loop, not open up direct insults, flaming and hostility. Please keep on track and constructive. Everyone here is trying to work to improve things and make things the best possible.

There is absolutely no need or justification for toxicity here.

Nobody has clamed the vehicle has been in development for 2 years.

Fixed pending implementation.

The mechanic itself does not exist at all for any vehicle. The BMP-2 was an example provided by the developers of another vehicle that can also have the feature.

It is not about comparing what the Puma has or BMP has. The mechanic simply isn't in the game for any vehicle yet.

Dev blogs cover the charactistics of the vehicle in general. Not everything is necessary implemented immediately and everything is subject to change.

MUSS does not have 360° coverage - Known, but this feature is not in game currently for any vehicle. This will be implemented in the future.



Driver hatch incorrect thickness - Armour values may be evaluated in the future. More Source material is required (Report insufficient by itself)




3D model of 15mm frontal plates does not correlate with assigned armour value - Armour values may be evaluated in the future. More Source material is required (Report insufficient by itself).




Rear armour plates and door should contain composite or be made of thicker steel - Armour values may be evaluated in the future. More Source material is required (Report insufficient by itself).




Frontal armour not classified as composite - X-ray will be improved in the future.




CLARA ERA should protect against 30mm APDS while sta...

All new top jets are generally placed at an initial BR and then depending on how they perform, changes made from there.

I was just clarifying that we can't do anything without backed up reports. Well aware of the sources situation.

"We all know" based on what exactly?

The developers can't make changes to FMs just because you make a claim to know something.

Please submit any valid sources via historical reports and we can forward them for review. But we can do absolutely nothing with baseless claims.

All FMs are based on historical souce data. Primary and secondary sources.

We do not make flight model changes based on the fact a previous aircraft may be better / worse. It's based on factual information. Which you are welcome to submit.

There have been no historical reports thus far spesifcally on it's maneuverability.

The G fix was for the R530F.

The known issue was the G limit, which has been fixed already.