https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/2153-dev-server-bug-reports/
Not for the time being, but the feature is still in its infancy.
I would encourage you to leave your feedback here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/541705-feedback-scout-aircraft-in-naval-battles/
It might not be on every single ship from launch, the devs are aiming to get as many as possible and any others will be worked on in due course as far as can be.
You are referring to the vehicle from the perspective of personal opinion on the aircrafts performance. Which I was not referring too. As far as Rank V premiums go, the Vautour is one of the more popular and better performing premiums for players. Thats a fact based on the data we have for the vehicle.
My stats are not relevant in any way in those metrics, nor does it change the purpose of why its being added.
My role is to provide the facts and information from the developers. What you chose to agree or disagree with is outside of my control. All personal opinions are entirely fine to present in a constructive manor and we will always forward the feedback from that.
My point was, trying to use my personal stats in a context to which they are not relevant in any capacity is meaningless. Nobody claimed it was the best performing aircraft ever. But for it...
Read moreMy job here is to provide the responses I am given by the developers to the questions asked with all the information I can share. At the same time, any constructive feedback that is posted, is also forwarded on. However there is very little of actual substance now to pass on, that has either not already been relayed or is no long constructive.
We have already provided all of the information we can on the matter. There is nothing further I can add.
I was referring specifically to the conversation of using one persons stats on a vehicle as a means to somehow prove a rather meaningless point. Which is absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic as titled here which you are referring too.
My stats are totally irrelevant to the vehicle. I'm not sure what your point is here.
Again, all of this is really for nothing. We have already said more premiums are on the way. The Vautour replacement was to swap an existing premium thats now found a home in another tree for the closest French counterpart. This conversation has no constructive outcome and is rather meaningless to the topic at hand. Descending the topic into trying to use my personal stats for vehicle implementations is doing exactly nothing to progress any constructive points being made by others here.
All progress will be kept. We currently dont plan a wipe.
We have already said that France will receive a Rank VI premium too, which will be the more standard "meta" premium. The Vautour itself was never a bad premium and its replacement was always intended to be a direct swap. Its possible other Rank V premiums may come in the future.
These are the planned launch aircraft yes.
This was the best candidate to replace the Vautour with in the most seamless manor possible for those ahead who wanted a premium Vautour without the loss of any option of such.
You are referring back to when the IIIC and E were just introduced. In game results have not been the reason for some time. We have been saying for some time its in development.
Mirage 5 is not supposed to be a new "top". It is indeed a ground attack variant. We have already said we are working on new tops. This was not it.
Mirage 5 and Nesher share commonality, so its only logical from a modelling perspective and efficiency to have them created within a similar timeframe. To have them made separately is a massive poor use of resources. France was always planned to get the Mirage 5. Plans for Israel were an additional factor to consider when planning the Mirage 5.
Im certainly going through a lot of coffee today, thats for sure.
Please see the post I was actually responding too, then it becomes clear
No, its already reported.
I have just explained above how our classifications work. Its very clear you hold an opinion of what you wish it to be and thats not going to change. Im just here to clarify why it is how it is in game
More possibilities may present themselves over time. Much in the same ways you mentioned for other modes.
In game classification takes into account the context of all ships and all examples, how they are used and operated and their features. Classifications can change if the role does.
Vehicle classification in game is subject to in game classification. Not IRL classification. Its the same for aircraft and ground forces too.
Im well aware of the aircraft and its capabilities. But its direct counterparts for the nations that have them are well known and as already explained, are also not present in game. We are aware of demand for this aircraft and have plans for the future, taking into consideration those other nations vehicles too. But its not relevant for this topic.
This is entirely irrelevant to the context I was referring to and entirely off topic. A defence of every single possible Swedish vehicle possible is not necessary. All of these vehicles are known.
The Seafire III is probably the most requested FAA aircraft that was not in game. It was also used by the Aeronavale, which was an important part of consideration when planning it.
Other FAA aircraft remain possible. But the Seafire III was a stalwart for both the FAA and Aeronavale.
3 domestic French designs are coming this update.
The Mirage F.1 not being present has nothing to do with in game results or the MiG-27.
devtrackers.gg