Smin1080p

This topic is not even 1% of the playerbase. It's not at all. People come here because they know we (Gaijin) post here a lot and leaks/news generally end up here first . That's all.

With all due respect. We cannot make a Dev blog on something that's not yet ready to show. No matter how much a group of people are expressing displeasure.

That happens every patch regardless. This isn't new.

It's not a waste of a Dev blog. It's the main reward of the battle pass. Players that don't watch YouTubers or follow the forum wouldn't know much about it. We don't make Dev blogs to please this topic or any other singular area. But for the whole community.

This one forum thread is not representative of the whole community.

Except I can't just "say anything". We have planning, we have schedules and no about of "wow boring update" / "omg hype dead" is going to change that. We can't publish Dev blogs that don't exist or are not yet ready to show.

There are things we have not shown yet and things we have shown. Both of those are going to get blogs. That's just a fact. Always has been that way and always will be.

I do try to read each and every ping and answer where possible. But every day is just turning into some asking the same questions I've already said I can't answer yet.

W

As I said. The developers always try to give an aircaft it's maximum possible payload unless it's clearly disproven or impossible whilst based on factual sources. SRAAM is that and so far this is also that. But it's always open for consideration.

If you have this "clear evidence" that you claim you do, then please feel free to submit a report and we can forward it to the developers for consideration

This topic however it's not a report. So, if that's the intention with this, it needs to be submitted properly with all clear sources attached.

This "line of thinking" is already in game for aircaft weponary and tank shells. Unless it can be confidently disproven, the developers always try to give an aircaft it's best possible payloads to make it more interesting, useful and ultimately it comes down to a balancing choice made by them at the end of the day.

If it can be solidly disproven the Chinese one couldn't use it, then by all means please feel free to submit that as a proper report and we can pass it to the developers for their consideration.

There is clear evidence Soviet PFMs never used the weponary t

We are aware its USAF, its clear by the markings.

The photo proves the existence of the payload. The devs always try to give an aircraft its maximum possible payload unless it can be disproven with evidence.

We know the Germans never used AIM-9J on their 104G and there were no flares on the Chinese 104G. Same with he F-100s.

Off topic / spam posts removed. Lets on topic please guys.

As @Miki_Hoshiihas already pointed out, such a payload was tested:

As has already been explained, this is not "false advertising". All aircraft have effective research and the aircraft you were using to research is not effective with regards to what you were researching: https://wiki.warthunder.com/Research_Points#

One at least is now for sure (unless something spooky happens).

Generally because the time after the dev server is spent working further on the patch, reviewing feedback, addressing bug reports and continuing to finish things off.

Why would there be news, on a Sunday, only in the rumour topic on the forum ))))

As I said. When there is news, will will announce it.

I said counterpart, not direct equal or competitor or analogues. Some people are taking that a little too literally.

Again, we will have news both on the French vehicle(s) this patch as well as the SK-105. But trying some big brain mental gymnastics to deduct what's coming, when you could just wait a few days and find out properly.

Guys, this isnt a bug report topic.

If you want to report it, please do so via the proper means.

With all due respect, we have to be cautious with museums of any kind. Taking their word and their world alone without any backed up documentation or support is never great.

If it was primary documentation or an actual source from the museum then yes. The word of the museum alone spoken verbally is not a great source.

Then please feel free to submit any extra sources you have to back up that claim to speed up the developers decision. Neither of the two submitted were wholly conclusive or considered authorative.

Hence why a final decision has not yet been reached.

The two posted in the report so far was:

1) A 3rd party website: https://www.wk1963.at/sk105_kuerassier

2) A video from a museum which is not considered a primary source:

The M60 was backed up by clear documentation for disproving it. Right now, all thats been submitted wa

Nobody claimed it was added solely with the use of a single video. Multiple sources were used to come to the current conclusion.

Videos are fine as supporting sources along with other sources which were provided by consultants. So there is overall much conflicting information on this matter.

However as I have explained, the developers have not yet conclusively decided on the fate of the stabilizer right now.

As I said, it has not been fully concluded yet. There appears to be evidence of A2 having one (at least that can be determined as such), but also there is evidence on the contrary too. A museums word is sadly not really enough. We would need proper documentation or source material.

Its BR is not final and we wont make a decision based on its BR as that can always change.

In our documentation for this tank, the presence of a stabilizer was indicated, the presented report that was forwarded contains only secondary and non authoritive sources (museum employees are not an original source). In addition, judging by the information available (video from exercises), the Kürassier A2 version used by Brazil is equipped with a stabilizer, therefore it is technically possible to have a stabilizer on the machine. We continue to search for more information, but in the absence of unambiguous primary evidence, the decision on the presence of a stabilizer will be made based on