Smin1080p

At this time, one is not planned. Both the previous versions of this took a considerable amount of effort to create and developer time, for very little benefit or positive feedback as a result.

Naturally options have been considered. But there are no plans to have aircraft outside of aviation trees, there is no sense or reason to do so.

The point I was trying to make was that speculative talk = rumour. Indeed nothing was promised for the next major update, but something as being outlined in our plans is not off topic when its a recent rumor.

The discussion on it was fair game here. Please leave talks about what is and isn't to us and the mods. You can simply report any post you feel is rule breaking.

Yes, this was reported 4 weeks ago.

It may be possible, but it has not been decided yet and most of the devs (BVV included) are currently away on well deserved seasonal holidays.

We already have raised the Etendard issues for review again, however in the run up to the previous update, the developers were considerably busy with the Israeli tree as it was a very aircraft heavy patch.

Now it's Russian Christmas/NY holidays.

Not today. Russian Christmas/NY holidays.

We dont have an answer from the devs on that, hence why one has not been provided.

I have already explained why the old report was closed and not accepted by the developers. You are free to submit a new one if you wish too.

Any and all documents can be considered when properly submitted via reports. This is a discussion topic. Not a report.

We have relayed the previous answers from the Devs and if someone wishes to challenge that, we can indeed do so via a report.

As I said, in a conflict of sources, supporting sources would be needed to override the FM.

F.6 would be needed. Regardless of how unchanged it may be, this is what the devs will reference.

If a report is going to be submitted, I would just first be sure you have sufficient info to back up the F.6 specifically without relying on the F.53, as it raises the chances of it being rejected by the devs. Perhaps if there are some supporting secondary sources that can back this up for the F.6, it has more grounds. Simply that for all aircraft in game, the Flight Manual takes precedent. So if there is a conflict of sources, the FM will always take the priority. So its better to go supported than having a 50:50 based on previous variants and the wording surrounding the crew manual.

None at the moment. Its currently NY and Russian national holidays. It has been fixed internally already and waiting deployment.

The last and only one submitted on Vne was this:

Which had the following developer comment:

Thunderskill is not representative of the actual stats or player numbers/values.

As we have also previously stated, if / when things change, then additional loadouts will be considered. That is however not going to happen over the New Year / Russian holiday period which you will no doubt know from previous years is a period of developer downtime every year.

Devs are currently mostly on New Year / Russian holidays which take place in January now.

As far as I can currently see at least, there are no open bug reports on the Type 10s mobility. (Unless im missing one, in which case, please link me and I can trace it through that)

There is insufficient information that currently proves the Etendard had a clear CCIP/RP system. Only a basic bomb toss computer which several aircraft in game also have IRL but do not have CCIP. We have mentioned this several times in the past and made clear if more (new) information that clearly defines an operational CCIP/RP platform on the aircraft, then we can forward this to the devs for additional review.

We currently have a backlog of bug reports from the major update and holiday periods. They take priority over historical reports, which we are also working through as a secondary task. On a quick overview, I cannot see anything obvious that appears amiss, but we will review the report in due course as we get through the backlog.

As far as im aware, there are no open reports on the Lightnings VNe being incorrect.

As for the Red Tops, as we have previous explained, in order to model their semi-all aspect in a very restricted cone (unlike R-60M), it requires a full code rework specifically for that one missile that has the potential to harm all other missiles. As such, its not a simple process and is in fact a very complicated rework for one missile which would actually yield not a massive difference in a massive capacity to the game overall. So as you can see, its a very complicated task, that whilst in queue, can have more of a negative impact than positive. Thus needs to be done when its possible for the relevant developers to able to fully focus on that and not have other ongoing tasks as has been the case.