Smin1080p

The developers of the other game have much lower requirements for what's necessary to get a vehicle in game. Hence why they have some vehicles that were nothing more than a single sketch.

We do also use private and paid sources. Nobody said we did not.

But so far there is nothing to suggest that any private documentation on the O-I contains any of the material needed or is worthwhile of the probable costs of a deal, if such a deal would even be possible given as you said, another game has already done so. The 3D model is not all thats required for the O-I to be realise

Not really relevant to the next major. New ones will be periodically added. I think enough have been distributed already to give some clues about the general timeframe in which they are deployed. Needless to say, they wont be frequent as most people dont have all of them.

Any historical reports in this area would be apricated since I don't believe we have ever had a report (at least that I have seen).

But it would need to be proven what its capable off and not just "its a copy of AIM-9B".

Because it's all that's available does not mean it's therefore automatically enough for implementing.

It's the same case with the O-I. Everything available publically has already been presented, but it's insufficient to model the tank with any degree of certainty.

Because we do not have Pulse doppler modelled in game yet for any aircraft.

Weaponry not yet in game is subject to balance and suggestions. We expand weaponry over time.

What people often do not understand is, simply screenshotting an issue or being very vocal about it on Reddit does nothing to actually help resolve it or mean it can be fixed faster.

Does it identify an issue exists? For sure. But thats all it does.

Then comes the 1 in 10000000000000000 different things that it could be, be caused by, be linked to or effected by. Hence why at least for PC (as its impossible on Console), we generally ask for clog files for game bugs as it actually provides more useful information to track a bug, but even then its not so easy.

Please do not come in with all caps. Its not going to get you anywhere any faster.

All feedback has already been passed on. Be that historical or BR. The devs are well aware of thoughts on the BR.

When there is news to share on something, we will. But the game does not revolve around a single aircraft and everything is not going to be dropped split second. Screaming at me here, in any other topic or any other place is also not going to speed that up.

As I said previously, the devs have only just come back and have been busy (as the changelog evidently shows

Everything thus far with source material has already been passed. Concerns about the BR have also been passed. We cannot simply ping the devs every 5 minutes because we ourselves are pinged on the forum. I think everyone can understand the developers are actually busy and have other things to do to.

There is nothing else new to pass here, but we have raised concerns and made clear the feelings.

As well as the photos, as I said, there are Hawker company (Both the makers of the Harrier and the SRAAM) documents and marketing material also supporting the photographs and directly confirming the GR.1s intended SRAAM options. Nobody ever claimed a photograph was mandatory for it to be possible, as long as there is primary / authoritative sources clearly showing the connection. In the case of the Harrier, there are, as Hawker's material are primary sources (eg from the manufacture).

By comparison, there is nothing of the sort for a Soviet PFM. A few dodgy websites that make a cla

Because its original state is correct. The aircraft is historical and how it should be.

If your referring to BR changes, they are entirely a seperate matter.

Im really not sure why the Harrier is still being used as the comparison here. There is clear cut evidence of the GR.1 being an intended platform for SRAAM. There are photographs of it alongside the weaponry, documentation by Hawker for the RAF that clearly confirm it and further company information and marketing that shows the clear and direct link. That is more than sufficient. The specific aircraft, we have in game, under its own flag, under its own service.

By comparison, there is no link to Soviet PFMs ever having used, intended to be used or even considered for this weaponry

Event vehicles are not gap filler aircraft or for a specific purpose. They are rare and exclusive niche vehicles, often representing a certain aircraft in a certain service or configuration. Like the previous FJ-4B VMF-232. They are not the same as standard tree / premium vehicles.

No Soviet PFM ever carried those missiles. If you have proof that a Soviet one did, then please feel free to make a historical report and we can pass it to the developers to review. But thus far, no valid sources showing the Soviet PFM we have in game ever had better missiles.

What you are asking for is a seperate aircraft and would need to be added separately. If thats what you want to see, I would recommend you create a suggestion for an export model PFM as a new aircraft (German or Polish) that can have wider and more modern weaponry.

Better to consult @BlueBetain this regard.

Right now there is no update to share, hence why we have not posted one. The developers just last week came back fully from holidays and as you can see from the changelogs, have been very busy with fixes and improvements.

I have no idea at all why we are talking about AIM-9X here but please take it to the pinned Sidewinder discussion topics if you want to carry on. This has nothing to do with this topic.

Matra Magic is not all aspect. Currently no A2A infa red missiles have all aspect in game. Hence why AIM-9L and R-60M have not yet been introduced for aircraft.

I would not place bets on things I said not to expect yet.

We do not use information provided by him as our only sources.

Something he said also is not enough of a source too I'm afraid. We had the same thing with the Lighting where people claimed to have spoken to pilots who said "it's like a rocket" and expected us to do something with that and treat it like a valid source.

Indeed he's extremely knowledgeable and we have used some of his source material. But spoken words or something outside of a proper publication are not proper sources or something we can use.

Its not. At least one prototype was built based on current information.

It is.