Smin1080p

Hello

Please provide sources to specify the "better ballistics" and performance differences here. There is nothing of substance for this matter than can be forwarded or changed as there is no values or evidence to forward. M247 is a Warhead for CVR-7 and a correct example of one.

WUD-5002B has already been forwarded for consideration. but it was not in service until 1993

Sources that the BLK had them please?

We have already explained this.

Both the French and British are starting out with the first variant they had. We have plans to add GR.1A in some form later on. This jet is not "supposed" to receive AIM-9L at all. AIM-9G is what was used and trialed on it and entirely historically correct.

Jaguar is a strike aircraft and everyone is just trying to make it a pseudo GR.1A so it can be closer to T-2K. Britain already has several capable top fighters and we are not going to make the Jaguar something its not.

Yes, whilst we are here, lets remove Spitfires Mk. V - 24 and just add all the features of them all onto Mk 1a. Because thats how things work?

Please stop acting like the Jaguar is unique and needs to be the first aircraft with all variant slammed into one because you dont want to research 3.

The French one is not multiple variants merged into one and the French community are fine with that. We are starting with GR.1.

Trailed in the mid 70s before the engine upgrade in Germany. XX731 was never converted to GR.1A either.

The CASTOR is too modern and used only in the 21st century. WDU-5002/B FAT (Flechette Antitank) is too modern and was operated on GR3 or even GR1A, it was operated in 93-94.

Without proper reports on those issues then yes the chances are very low. Since people seem more intrested in spending time bashing the devs and game here than using 1/3rd of that time to report the issue correctly.

Thank you to those of you here that have reported issues correctly.

I understand the reasoning and I have passed that to the developers but it does not change the fact its not incorrect as it is.

This topic is now becoming almost impossible to keep track on so im trying to focus on actual issues / bugs missing things that need to be properly reported whilst we still have time to do so.

Thats for the FGR.2 and in queue.

Nothing to do with this here and not of use here.

We are going around in circles here. I have already explained why we are keeping the Mk 102. Its not incorrect as it is and we intend to save the Mk 104 for a later upgrade.

The engines are correct as they are for GR.1.

Once again, if we had the correct reports. Right now this topic and several others have descended into multiple screaming "this is wrong, thats wrong" and nothing of any substance in terms of reports that I can actually forward is being presented here.

Yes we can and will indeed make changes if there is something properly reported as it should be. Throwing a practically worthless document that doesnt help anything or an odd photo of a bomb here or there does not help.

Please link any of them?

A single photo is not something I can really use.

We have this document already. Its already been passed.

It really does nothing in terms of the models or spesific bombs aircraft should have. It details that bombs were indeed changed, but not on what aircraft, what ones specifically (model wise) and everything else.

The document is useless in this regard.

Ive already said twice its engines are correct as they are for a GR.1. We are well aware of the later engines, but they can come on the GR.1A.

Links to any reports are something I can use to actually help here. Repeating the same things said and not reported on the last few pages isnt going to help the situation.

As I said above. Its known that the 104 came before GR.1. But that was a later in life upgrade closer to GR.1A and as I also said, as we have potential plans for the GR.1A, it make no sense to just make the GR.1 a clone of GR.1A when its already planned.

It never had flares as GR.1.

GR.3 is a whole separate variant. As I said above, we have plans for the Jaguar in the future, so we are not going to mash GR.1/1A/3 into one.

XX723 began as a GR.1 and thats what we have.

Such as?

Reports please?

They occurred later in GR.1s life close to GR.1A. As I said, its planned to have GR.1A in some form later on, so it makes to no sense to make a clone of it now when what we have is correct for a GR.1.

GR.1 had no flares. That came with GR.1A. Its not incorrect.

Sources would be useful in bug reports for any incorrect loadouts. As was the case with the AIM-9G situation.

As I already said on the deb blog today, we are getting GR.1 right now. The devs have confirmed from several sources that Sidewinders were tested and capable of being fired from GR.1 and thats why they have them. There is no reason to strip them of that.

GR.1A with its better engines, overwing pylons, fares and everything else is better suited to a later upgrade or separate aircraft rather than trying to make this variant something its not.

Second Dev Server Discussion now open

British Jaguar GR.1s never had Magics.

In the meantime, I can provide my cat whilst you wait)))