Smin1080p

This does not need to be discussed yet again here. I would also apricate if you did not mislead people about a discussion that was had elsewhere and matters that were certainly not what was said.

The claim of the MiG-15 is also a very poor comparison, as no MiG-15 variant ever had BVR missiles. Whereas very clearly, the MiG-23 family did have countermeasures and we do not have any evidence to back up the current claims of that functionality being removed on the MF or the MF being unable to support the countermeasures it currently has.

Getting into false claims about engines, FMs and the "end of historical reports" is simply not true and the MF followed the same system we have had in place for over 2 years now from which multiple vehicles have benefited.

As we have already said, if you have evidence to back up and support your claims that the MF had the wiring that was required fo...

My post was on th Vautour thats coming this patch, your confusion with the variant in today's blog and on the direct feedback given for this patch on French aircraft. Everything else past that is not relevant to this topic and can be taken to the wishlist topic.

As we already said, that is the main consideration right now indeed.

We already said that considerations for a tree version, which is something that was asked for in the feedback, were already within plans. But would not be within this update as this was the premium replacement and the most important priority being worked on was a new French top. Which is more important than another Vautour variant in the tree right now.

This is the early IIN. They were not present on this version.

The crew model itself is not the only or most important factor.

As also explained, due to the way crew animations and positions currently work, simply adding a crew member to the model now would unrealistically limit the traverse angles of the weapon, that in real life could operate with more flexibility than what our in game crew animations could perform on such a small space like the Wiesel.

This is not how armour profiles are created for modern vehicles: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en

The XXI's armour has been created with a combination of material relating specifically to that vehicle and the values/estimates that are available within the public domain.

Again, if there is a claim the XXIs scheme is incorrect, then a report with the necessary supporting material can be submitted for consideration. Generic studies do not have any application or relevance here. Leclerc specific material does. We cannot publish all material and sources used in the creation of tank armour profiles for every machine every time a challenge without the relevant credible material to cou...

The initial explanation was that an increase in the size of the armour scheme does not automatically therefor mean an automatic increase in protection. There are other considerations to be made as to why titanium is used within armour, such as weight, which is in general worse in standard protection than other composite arrays. The only application applied to the Leclerc armour is the values that are known and available to use in consideration. Not a generic study.

Whataboutism is not going to convince the developers to bring about any changes here, as is a back and forth personal opinionated debate about what titanium armour arrays do in a "general" manor or not. Credible source material is. Not a random and very generic study into titanium armour and mentions of "improved protection" from some sources. These are the explanations we have been given by the developers.

The model in game has improved protection curre...

The same standards are applied to all tanks. The most reliably known and supported values are the ones taken into consideration using all forms of what is available in the public domain. Which is explained here: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en

The same reporting standards were already explained when similar situations of the Challenger 1 and 2 series were reported simply with sources stating "improved" armour / protection, but no viable means of which to indicate a change in terms of value, percentage or range. Thus that too, was also not accepted.

We are now strongly off topic here. This discussion can be taken to a suitable place: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/29-aircraft-discussion/

This is a general investigation into Titanium alloys in armour. Nothing specific or related directly to the Leclerc XXI that can be used at all.

The developers will not "assume" the armour of the XXI is better without credible evidence to do so or any actual metric or value of which to increase it. This study does not show that, but makes an entirely general point about certain test packages.

If credible material is located or found, then changes can take place.

Not currently and certainly not in this major.

A physical increase in size does not automatically equate to an increase in protection, depending on the different composites or composition within the armour. Titanium in armour it is worse in durability than armour steel of the same thickness. It is most commonly used to reduce the weight of armour, not increase protection. But again, providing proper source material can be located or provided that shows a distinct level of increased protection, we can forward this for consideration.

You are more than welcome to submit a suggestion for it, whenever the time comes.

There seems to be some misunderstanding. There is no policy to "enforce a change". The policy of two secondary sources is the bare minimum required to
forward a report on for consideration
to the developers. There has never been a policy, that just because this baseline criteria is met that a change will occur for certain as a result of that. Neither of these sources are guaranteed to generate any changes.

Once again, as I mentioned previously:

None of the sources provide any kind of substantial values, ranges or even estimates (%) of the protection. This is the exact same situation we had with the Challenger 1 and 2, where sources that claimed there was "improved protection" over a previous model or package, but yet provided no tangible metric by which they could be changed.

I would also draw your attention here: ...

Some more detailed explanations from our development team

Thesis: The caveat to this is: if you get your useful action at 10 minutes into the 15 minute timer... From 10 minutes onwards will be counted as participating in your useful action.

This means, from 0 minutes to 9 minutes you did not make any SL.

Developer Сomment: Absolutely not. The calculation takes place once after 15 minutes or less, if the player has lost a vehicle or the mission has ended. All actions within the interval are equivalent and are considered in aggregate, regardless of the time when they were performed.

Thesis: So for instance, if you have a plane that makes 1000sl every minute, and you get a kill 10 minutes into the timer. You made 5k sl for that 15 minutes.

Developer Сomment: If you have an aircraft that makes 1000 SL per minute and you made one kill, which brought you 450 score points (w...

Nothing has changed recently. It has always been about first being technically possible and then also down to developer decision with balance in mind.

This isn't new and has been this way for multiple years now.

Because in this case, the German one had a spesific pod that is well documented. So it receives that.

If there are distinctly different and more appropriate options available, we will use them.

This is an experimental prototype that never saw mass production. Its often asked if Italy can get more event vehicles, particularly premium. If we include something too similar, its "boring copy / paste", if we issue something cool that people want, but mass produced, its "it should have gone in the tree". In this case, its a unique variant that was solely prototypical and the best example of something that's an Italian event vehicle for aviation. It takes nothing away from the main tree and is a free obtainable premium. For those that dont have the time, there is also the option to purchase stars.

Again, if you have the information to prove its impossible, please forward it via a historical report and it can be passed for consideration. Right now, you are talking about probability. Indeed it is a different modification. But without the proof to sustain this, it really does not need to keep being discussed here. A report is all that's required if that does turn out to be the case.