Smin1080p

There is nothing fake about this. All of it is based on source material.

We are introducing the vehicle in the finished state it was designed, planned and intended to be in based on all available source material. Not the incomplete state the prototypes found themselves in.

Many vehicles in War Thunder follow this exact situation and there is nothing new here. The tank as a whole is entirely as it should be with the additional frontal plate protection it was intended to receive to make it combat viable as many vehicles in game find themselves.

No. We are not going to start tweaking direct historical armour values for balance and this is not the same thing.

A prototype tank in real life that never saw combat was intended to have an additional frontal plate if it would have progressed and if it saw combat.

In game, that tank will see combat and in order for it to actually be useful, it requires that frontal plate that it was intended to have.

By the same logic, we should remove every shell never fired by a specific vehicle, but given for balance. Then a huge portion of tanks then suffer badly as a result.

The tank never saw any combat. Its a prototype. One that was intended to have an additional frontal protection plate, but never received because it did not see combat.

Because its going to see combat in game, it has that plate that it was intended to have.

The tank was faithfully replicated with historical source material and is as close to the real counterpart in terms of its model as we can make it. In terms of the armour plate, its simply the additional armour plate attached to the front of the frontal plate which was proposed and intended for the project, but never came about fully as the tank never went further.

In our game is has that chance to see combat and without that plate that the tank was planned to have, it would be fundamentally useless frontally as its entire frontal plate would be a instant pen zone as its just thin

The document used for the bug report on the Challenger 2 turret rotation speed is still not approved for public use. It will not be considered and / or accepted anymore.

We had evidence that the document was in fact not declassified. As such, we cannot and will not accept any material that is sensitive or not entirely cleared for public use.

It wasn't a hint. It was a joke because it doesn't really matter what comes in a major update, the one constant of life is that there will be wine in this topic ))

Amazing how somehow even a joke turns into a who's better contest )))

No.

Fine wine to drink to go with the fine wine that will occur as always in this topic ))

It wouldn't be an update without some juicy Drama in this topic ))

I have some fine wine and popcorn already prepared.

The point of the South African subtree is to bring key and important South African vehicles to the game for them to be represented by.

With 1600 Eland 90 Mk 7s built, its a key vehicle.

No idea why we are restarting this discussion yet again after its already concluded.

Its South African and was added to the South African sub tree.

Its a good thing we dont have the AML-90 then but the Eland 90 Mk 7

My mistake on the Cheetah, we still dont have any plans on it for the time being. But being what would be a current top tier its not really the same as the Eland at all.

Its entirely logical to have South African vehicles in British line-ups since the South African sub tree is in the British tree. There is no reason whatsoever after adding a South African ground forces tree to one nations to then splinter off its vehicles into another nation when it is itself a domestic product of said nation.

To be honest the last few days / weeks worth of discussion went so far of the rails with so many wrong guesses for the next patch it was more fun just to sit back and watch

From one Q and A we somehow got onto the most outlandish discussions )))

Thats because we have a South African tree inside the British tree

You were comparing a domestic South African variant of a French Vehicle to which they had the most input in to a Mirage IIICZ, which is straight up just a French Mirage IIIC sold to South Africa. You quoted a post that was pointing out how we don't plan to add which is just a straight Mirage III to the British tree, purely because South Africa used it and compared it to a vehicle that was actually domestic with heavy South African impact and significant to them.

All nations in game are going to use foreign

You are free to read up on its history, but the Eland 90 Mk 7 is not the same vehicle as the AML-90. Unfortunately not everything based on a French vehicle is therefor a French vehicle. Regardless of what physical differences there are in game or what minor or major differences you can pick out, the Eland 90 Mk 7 is a domestic development

Soon™

Options remain open for South Africa

Really doesn't matter. Its domestic South African. Not French.

This is not the same.

This is a Domestic South African variant based on a French one. Not a French Vehicle itself. France has its own version in the Eland AML-90. The Eland 90 Mk.7 is a domestic development.

A Mirage IIICZ in South African service is straight up just a French Mirage and we have no plans (currently) to give a Mirage to the UK tree solely because South Africa used it.

Providing you have source material to back up your claims and the evidence that you are actually testing the aircraft correctly, its not a "ton of work" all. All thats required is you have something to back your claims up and you test the aircraft properly.

Unfortunately we cant ask the developers to thoroughly check each and every aircraft every time someone claims its bad. So far no historical evidence or performance based evidence has been brought forward.

All we have had so far is claims that it "feels" wrong.

This is also the exact reason we have a F

Thats not how any game or game development works. No game is every bug free. Every new advancement or change with the game, no matter how big or small can generate a bug. There is no game out there, no matter after however many years can ever eliminate all its bugs.

Once again, this isnt how game development works. Someone who works on maps and missions for example is not going to be the person capable or working on fixing a bug with an aircraft flight model.

You don't hire a plumber when you need an electricians work done. Its the same situation here.

Thats because we have this every week without the need to dedicate a whole major update just to bugfixes. Bugfixes are deployed on a near daily basis, fixing the issues players bug report and we also detect in testing. This has been happening for years, just people tend not to actually read, check or even know of the existence of the changelog, hence why we are now having these weekly articles to highlight the many important bug fixes the game actually gets every single week:
https://warthunder.com/en/news/7131-it-s-fixed-pilot-release-en

Major updates themselves are also packed

Thats exactly what I said, other than these repots created on the payloads and boosters, we have had no other reports on the Mirage IIIE.

Im aware of all of these, thats why I said we have had no other reports except for those related to payload and boosters

Non on its flight model, weight, performance or anything that people are mostly saying is wrong.