Smin1080p

Thats what I have been doing here as far as it is possible to do. I have provided you with the answers we have from the developers, status updates on reports and direct reasoning as to why certain reports have been closed. I have also explained what is required for the issue to be reinvestigated. Similarly at the same time, we have been passing feedback in the opposite direction for the devs to receive on PUMA since its introduction.

Again, I fully understand you disagree with the outcome of the report. However that alone is not sufficient for myself or anyone else for that matter to reopen it. If you have new substance, evidence, content or examples to provide, then a report can be revisited.

Sadly as I said, if we are going to drop to sarcasm or trolling, then I cannot help further here.

Trolling and sarcasm is not going to help matters here and I'm afraid if its the level we are going to drop too then there is little more I can do to help here. I made no mention of rejecting and valid report. Simply we cannot pass the same exact identical report twice.

As I have just explained above, the report was sent to the developers, reviewed and answered. We cannot simply reopen the same report without any new material (sources, evidence etc) whatsoever because you do not personally agree with the outcome. If you have something new to submit, then please do and we can pass it.

This was the report. Everything here was included:

The additional sources submitted later are under consideration now. Initially it was not sufficient.

And to everyone

New materials would be anything that was not present in the original report.

We passed the original report and everything within it. The devs reviewed it and provided the answer that I have now provided you guys with.

Therefor in order to raise the issue again, a new report must be made with new substance of which to pass on. We cannot simply reopen the report with the existing content it had, because the devs have already reviewed and answered it already. I understand you may disagree with the outcome of the report, but that is the procedure we have to follow.

It would not be a duplicate as the original report has been closed as I already mentioned. If you have new materials to submit, we can again pass them for consideration. However as it currently stands, this was the response from the devs on that original report.

Im not sure what's not "fine" about this report? The user provided primary documentation for the issue. You cannot see it, as historical sources are hidden from public view on the CBR, but the user provided the manual cover page and relevant page with the required info:

Im not sure what relevance any of this has to do with this topic. If you have issues with the bug report system, as always you are free to PM about any matters. But im not going to start or invite a discussion about it here. Its simply not relevant to the topic.

As above, this has no relevance to the thread. The report was checked with the devs before it was closed as intended behaviours and my response was also clarified from the devs. We pass on what we are told to pass on. I dont have any control over what is reported on the RU forum. I can only pass on the information I ha...

Of the ones I can gather at the moment and share, the following have been fixed and implemented (some others may be internal reports or Alpha reports):

30mm gun overheats too fast



Spz Puma cannon barrel hitbox incorrect size


PUMA should have optical tracking


Missing description for 5.56 MG



In the event of an ammunition fire, the internal modules start to get damaged by damaging the ammo rack in the turrets.




When firing at in the analysis, shells fly at the wrong angle into the armour




Driver hatch incorrect thickness




Missing roof plate




The PMC308 projectile has no tracer.




Ammo stored in tank hull is lost when ammo in the back of turret is destroyed


...

Of those 39 resolved, 8 I can see where not closed due to not being an issue.

Two were also fixed this month, pending implementation (possibly held for the next major)

30mm gun overheats too fast (Fixed, pending implementation)


Spz Puma cannon barrel hitbox incorrect size (Fixed, pending implementation)

Thank you. It remains open and has not been closed.

As explained here, we will be using all (publicly) available information to be taken into consideration in order to achieve the values. However as it also mentions:

As far as I can see, the UFP report has not been closed or rejected. It remains open. But yes, as above, it is down to the devs decision on it.

I might be missing it, but I cant actually find a report on the LFP. So if you could link the report please, I will be able to find its status.

Just for context on that, 39 reports have been fixed or resolved with now under 20 remaining. So the bulk of the reports have already been actioned. I understand some of the more significant ones in the eyes of those here might not have been yet, but the PUMA has indeed had a fair amount of fixes and very far from "not a singl...

Hello.

As mentioned in the report, it was forwarded. We are asking for more info in order to give the issue the best possible chance of being resolved. Many times in the past, pixel measurements have been rejected as not sufficient. Therefor this is something we advise against.

As for the nature of modern reports in general, we did our best to explain some time ago that due to their exact background, they would be handled as suggestions: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en

As such, they can still be accepted and passed on for consideration, but wont be treated as bugs. Those that cannot meet the reporting standard can still be posted in topics suc...

Hello

If you hover over the F.3 or GR.1, it will tell you how many vehicles of the previous rank you need to unlock in order to access that rank.

As an example:

You have access to the Harrier GR.7 as you obtained this before the Rank rebalance post Apex Predators. As such, you will need to research the required number of vehicles to gain access to that rank.

Its planned to be reworked as we already mentioned yes. It has not yet been confirmed for any specific update yet.

They are not planned to go back. This was part of a new feature:

There are topics already on this (that you have posted in, so you are aware they exist), so lets please not start more off topic here.

Will be some point next week most likely. Feedback was sent for review Friday. So devs first have to go through all of it and check out all the situations for each vehicle.

New economy update wont be before that at least.

Forwarded to the devs. Its been confirmed as an error with the blog text. It has now been updated thanks

Its possible to do so with the decorator

Right now we don't have this type of drone for tanks as a playable feature.

The F-5C is an F-5A airframe. Its well established that the AN/ALE-40 can be mounted to the F-5A family airframe. Therefor the developers chose this option.

Meanwhile currently the manual that was submitted for the report on the F-4C flares, actually explicitly states the AN/ALE-40 for the F-4D only:

Now it would be appreciated if you can please remain on topic please. This thread is not about the F-4C or F-5.

There is nothing to "fix" so to speak with the aircraft, as these are not errors. The F-4C never had flares. The aircraft currently suits its BR well with the weaponry and capabilities it has. AIM-9J is a feature of the later F-4E.