Smin1080p

Having the "ability" and actually having them are two separate things.

All sources show so far that the R-60 and R-13M was not on a Soviet MiG-21PFM with Kh-66 and the export models did not use Kh-66.

Yes there is. It's just a typo in the blog text.

This is a topic for Naval Enduring Confrontation. Aviation Simulator Battles is not even close to on topic and have nothing to do with this.

Beacuse there is nothing more to add that I have not already said. I warned that it was very unlikely before the next major at the very least.

There were a string of issues in the previous version that needed to be fixed. When the developers are happy with the build and it's possible to run it, it will be back again.

Right now we don't have an ETA on that.

There is nothing I more I can add to what I've already said right now and I'm certainly not going to respond to baseless made-up conspiracy theories.

If you don't want to believe what I or any other member of the Gaijin team have already said. There is no reason for us to respond further to what we have already said.

Please re-read what I said as you just misunderstood it.

R-60s + R-13M are joined. Both are only shown to be present in export variants. So it cant have R-13M and not R-60. Both would have to go.

So the developers are deciding between:

Export variant standard with R-60s + R-13M but no Kh-66 at a higher BR


Soviet PFM with Kh-66 but no R-60 and R-13M at a lower BR

The developers are reviewing this matter currently.

Of note however, our consultants could find no information that the Soviet MiG-21PFM had R-13s either. Only Warsaw pact nations (Germany & Poland) were proven to have this on the PFM. So the choice is either having R60 + R-13 at 10.7 or neither of them at a lower BR. Which is what is still being decided.

Off topic posts again removed.

Again @SilverSho0t, we have a dedicated feedback topic for economics. If you want to leave feedback, do so there and do not just keep ignoring warnings that you have clearly seen and continuously keep derailing this topic.

I had already previously warned that any further posts off topic would be removed and warnings will start to be issued.

Please re-read what I wrote again. Mirage IIIC is, factually still one of (not
the
best, but one of) the best aircraft which you admitted yourself in your own post. The fact that it can and does perform so well against F-4E and MiG-21Bis shows how effective the aircraft is even without Flares and RWR.

Now this has nothing to do with the subject of this topic, once again

We have a Mirage topic and this can be discussed there.

Economy feedback is important so we can cross check all the figures and numbers and see if there are any major anomalies or black holes. Vehicles where both player feedback and the data agree.

In the cases, such as the one you speak of, most (speaking broadly here) French tanks earn more, stay alive longer in battle and have higher efficiencies than many other nations tanks. Thus as a result, have a higher repair cost. Feedback cannot be used as the only measure of adjustment, especially in cases where some players feedback say one thing and then the facts of reality are entirely different.

Not all feedback can be implemented, especially when the data shows a very different picture.

But again, this is not an economy discussion topic. So if you want to discuss it, you can use that topic.

From this point forward, economy...

A full list of changes and bugfixes are published in the release patchnotes

We have continued to tweak and improve repair costs this year with many important changes such as the reduction of event vehicles and focused on many other key areas of concern for the community. Next year we will continue to do so. But that is not the subject of this topic, so if you want to keep discussing it, take it to the economy feedback please.

Pretty much this stage. There are always some vehicles that are questionable, but everything that was certain to come is in the patch now and those that were not will be in the next update.

Its set soon. How soon we cant say.

Guys, we are diverting massively from the subject matter and point of this topic. There are other places where you can leave feedback for the patch, this is for discussing rumours and upcoming elements.

Off topic posts regarding bug reports and other things irrelevant to this topic have been removed. Please take them to the correct area.

This is not a personal dumping ground.

Different matter entirely, different context entirely So no, it does not.

Other aircraft had these issues too and they were fixed

Again, this is not exclusive to the Etendard and means nothing. There are reports for other nations aircraft too.

This is just totally off topic now.

None that were correctly bug reported then. As almost all reported bugs were forwarded and fixed.

105G had no RB 05 as far as im aware. As for Ballistic computer, it will likely need a report with sources.

Sorry to burst your conspiracy, but the bug reporting system does not distinguish by nation. Everything is treated the same.

There are several aircraft with reported missing CCIP / RP, not just the Etendard. They require further investigation.

The visual model quality is all done in the same way under the same standards.

What you are referring to here is FM bugs which specifically related to the quality of information available. Which for a lot of aircraft, can be worse than others.

Im not sure if you are seriously suggesting the Mirage IIIC was a good idea when the F-4C and MiG-21F-13 were first added, because the Mirage IIIC remains still one of the top performing aircraft even today alongside F-4E and MiG-21Bis. Mirage IIIC was already planned and being worked on...

I mean at this stage you have literally no idea what's coming next year, so isn't anything a surprise?