Smin1080p

Thanks to everyone that submitted sources. They have been uploaded to the existing report.

Thank you. This is both manuals or just the ASA-M?

We are not nerfing anything. The question was asked and we have explained that whilst it is WIP a lot of key details are missing that we in fact have for other radars.

This approach is not constructive and not helpful in the slightest. Let's get back on track. If you have source material to share then by all means.

We have only just had the first Dev server and we have already answered about that.

This is unhelpful to the situation in every capacity. We have already explained how almost everything raised so far with the exception of the radar was down to preliminary tuning on the Dev server.

Coming at this with a negative attitude for negatives sake is not going to help.

Generally it's performance capabilities. We don't have any details on how it's look down mode works, it's limits, range etc.

We are aware it had a LD mode. However it's perimeters, which are key to it's introduction, are not yet fully known. There is a lack of detial In this area.

4 AIM-9Ls are more than sufficient for top tier. The F-104S was give 9Js on the link between Turkish F-104S for balance reasons. The same does not apply to the ASA as it has the 9L. Which is more than ok for top tier.

It's not possible to have the cannon and Aspides.

Right now a combination with AIM-9B is not being considered as it would be fairly redundant at the very top BR particularly when you can carry 4x AIM-9L or 2 X AIM-9L and Aspides.

AIM-9Js have no relation to the ASA.

Update: Countermeasures have already been configured on a later build and will be included on the aircraft on release. The dev server configuration of the F-104S ASA was purely preliminary.

The developers are aware that there are many existing aircraft in the game that can mount the AIM-9L. However, at least initially, the missile will not be introduced en mass into the game and on every aircraft that could possibly carry it due to balancing concerns. Particularly top end aircraft that are already performing well for their current BR and that could also mount multiples (more than 2) of the missile. The introduction of AIM-9L would naturally have a serous impact on many existing aircrafts BRs also if it were to be introduced at this stage.

Therefore, while we are introducing these missiles to those aircraft on which no other missiles were installed (F-104S ASA, A-10), over time as we review the statistics of battles, it will then be decided on which aircraft to gradually introduce the missile too.

Where has it been said that all the documentation has been provided? Not only this, but I have explained just a few post ago in detail why Japan generally receives few additions to larger nations.

The evidence offered in many of these cases as a suggestion or forum topic. Both of which do not contain everything required to actually implement something. You have indeed missed several previous explanations of this, on this very page.

Every single nation in game has suggestions going on 1, 2, 5 or in some cases even 10 years now. Just this update, we are introducing the B-26 bomber for the US. That's been a common suggestion since 2012/13.

At this stage, it has been explained several times. Any further off topic after two warnings now will be actioned.

No please do not ignore what was previously said and use this topic when its not the place to do so. If you wish to report an issue or historical matter for that fact, please use the correct section: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1957-weapons-and-ordnance/

This topic is not the place.

The developers had sufficient information to implement that. Whataboutism is really also not going to achieve nothing here.

Nobody has said none of these vehicles cannot be implemented. But again, making a list is pretty meaningless and proves nothing. Anyone can do that part.

Also worth noting a detailed suggestion topic =/= automatically viable for implementation. Suggestion topics meet the bare minimum required to be considered for implementation.

Again. None of this was said anywhere. It feels like you either misread or misinterpreted what was said here. All of which has no relation to this topic and seems like just going off on a bit of a tangent.

This is an entirely open ended question with no specifics at all. What planes? What bombs? What reports?

Again this is not the place to discuss this at all.

Many historical related issues have been for the same or longer. We have over 2000+ vehicles in game and each historical issue requires consultation and validation by our historical consultants.

You misread the first part or didn't read the first part of that sentence that was referring to that type of weaponry:

The second part was not in relation to BL755.

All nations have additional bombs, rockets and ordinance options. Namely some down to the fact we don't have any of those types in game in any capacity currently (Cluster) and others because they have little to no realistic use. Britain or any other is not unique in that.

The issue of the GP/MC bombs is known and already underway.

A 5 minute google search is one thing. Actually locating and finding all the required source material, visual evidence required to make the 3D models (measurements, drawings, blueprints, photos) as well as all the necessary performance data is an entirely different matter. The fact that you can find a candidate not yet in the game is quite simply the first and easiest step to be done. One that our developers have already likely done.

The actual significant and meaningful part is if its actually viably possible to obtain everything needed to our standards for implementation.

This was something that was highly requested by the Japanese ground forces community. We originally did not want to go down that road, believing not many people would want it. However community demand and suggestions proved it was the correct choice to take.

We haven't said there is nothing at all left to add for Japan. Only that its additions are limited and far less than others. Thus sometimes will have larger gaps in-between.

Challenger 2 Black Knight is already a substantial addition and the main draw for the UK this patch.

The aircraft is already correct as a GR.1A with the 1Bs modifications being handled by a separate mod. A new c*ckpit is not planed this patch.

Not this update.