Smin1080p

Because this is the initial configuration also taking into account relation to the VFM5. This is the intended start point for the vehicle as it enters the game. Depending on how it does and feedback on that, then the developers will review the case for new shells should they be called for.

Shells are down to the developers to decide on, that is the point. This has been the same standard since tanks were introduced. They are always decided by the developers based on where they intend to start the vehicle and what role they want it to fill. Right now, the XM-8 is where they intend i

Here, any other XM-8 topics, the crafting event forum topic or website comments. We check everywhere

Please excuse me if I sounded as though I was accusing you of that. You defiantly have not. As I said, its just a very poor angle to come from when expecting changes on the XM-8 as its irrelevant to the subject.

Simply leaving constructive feedback as others have already done elsewhere rather than "bUt ThE f-4F" as thats not actually relevant at all here and has nothing to do with this tank or its shell choices.

We have already received feedback on its shell selection and forwarded those remarks. Again however, this is not confirmation of any possible changes as it remains down to the developers to decide.

The two situations are entirely different. Again, comparing them when we have a whole game full of vehicles configured the exact same way to blame it on double standards really gets nobody nowhere. Its also not going to lead to a reconsideration for the XM-8 because you can point to the F-4F. Its entirely separate.

Ammunition has always been a developer balancing tool and has been the case in the past, can be reconsidered with time. Many tanks have gotten better shells coupled with BR changes. But again, this comes down to the developers.

Not at all. This is the same system in place for literally all tanks in game. Tanks from all nations make use of shells they never actually had or fired and also there are equally as many that dont have their maximum possible shells due to balance and other factors.

This is nothing new at all.

Cherry-picking the F-4F vs XM-8 here is meaningless. This standard is applied across the whole game.

Shells and munitions have always been based on source material, but ultimately at the developers discretion.

Because as I have already explained to you several times, there is no F-104S source material linking it in any way to that missile. So there is nothing for the devs to consider. Meanwhile the F-4F manual and weapons manual both claim its possible and photos of F-4Fs in the USA show the 9J training missile mounted. As such, thats more than enough source material for the developers to consider the missile based on the needs of the aircraft.

We have had this conversation several times over, in multiple topics. This is not the place to discuss it yet again, however if at this stage, y

F-4F was not given AIM-9J automatically purely because it was present in the manual.

Tank shells, like aircraft weaponry are chosen by the developers based on source material, balance, gameplay considerations and position.

And if you wanted to go down the rabbit hole of "X vehicle never fired X", about 50% of tanks in game would loose their current shells. So this is not an F-4F vs XM-8 situation.

No.

If its present in source material, then its down to the developers to decide.

Shells, like aircraft weaponry are at the developers discretion based on source material and always have been.

All drops including schemes.

Update:

As well as normal random battles, containers with materials for the “Future Technologies” crafting event might also be obtained in both TailSpin and Warfare 2077 events! Every 10 minutes spent in battles grants one container.

Its on WT Live: https://live.warthunder.com/post/240523/en/

https://warthunder.com/en/news/7113/current/

What this topic?

Prepare yourselves for some quality memes )))

There is not one planed in the immediate future at least to my knowledge, otherwise we would have clarified this like the F-4F early / late.

Given there are two primary sources that link them to the aircraft, the developers review the whole aircaft and it's situation with consideration to what it can / can't carry. The aircaft has one of the best flight performances of all the Phantoms. Which Im itself rules out lower BRs. Given it also has no countermeasures, AIM-7 capacity and a worse radar than all phantoms, it's more logical to include these missiles it could use to better balance it.

The PFM situation was not the same. I explained that all here

Needless to say, it couldn't keep its main fea

Feel free to make a suggestion

As I said, its down to the developers to decide ultimately based on source material and balance.

No we do in fact not. I clarified to you that the developers are not here to dispute about what aircraft rails could / could not carry what missiles. That fact is in reality meaningless, because its not the system we use.

We use the sources for the aircraft to govern what missiles we can give it and then decide on balance. Not what the pylon can / cant carry.

Once again, you are ingoring the key point here. This is not about what you perceive as a standard. I have explained several times over now how things work and how the developers consider weponary. You dissagree, thats fine. But then there is nothing further to add here.

Two historical sources are present in this case that links the F-4F and AIM-9E/J. The fact one happens to be a flight manual is irrelevant as the second one is a weapons manual. On top of this, we consider a range of sources, not just the flight manual. But there is also no "rule" that we must equally ignore it.