Smin1080p

@SlowHandClap

Post Removed

Do not
post any material or manuals without proof of declassification / export restriction etc:

No, being available online does not mean it is automatically. If its newer than 30 years, it requires clear proof. Even if something is older, it needs to be checked for export restriction.

Hello

Firstly, please do not write in all caps lock. There simply is not a need for that.

Secondly, the dev server comes after the development stream for any major update. Since we haven't even had a single dev blog for the next major update, you can assume we are still some time away from the next dev server. We announce them clearly in the forum news section when they come.

Beyond our Mobile Game, War Thunder Edge, we do not have any plans currently for a "second" version of War Thunder. We will continue to update and support the game as always with new content, features and updates.

To answer your first question:

For your second, likely not as a video, but stay tuned to the news

We don't rule out the possibility of it, however every new control added brings its own limitations and restrictions (particularly for console players). So we have to give every new addition a lot of thought first.

There were no previously passed or forwarded reports on this matter before this one that I can see. So wherever they were being "reported" it was not via the correct means or likely not sufficient information.

This was the first valid report on the matter. So your claim about it being reported years ago is incorrect. It was correctly reported 3 months ago and now fixed.

We are always working to improve any FMs and make any positive changes wherever possible based on reports or our own internal developments.

But currently we don't have any spesific news to provide on FBW control.

It was reported 3 months ago, not years. As you can see by the report linked.

The only open flap issue is this one:

We are not expecting or asking anyone to post anything confidential. We have been very clear we will not allow it and will take any action required to remove it. We will not use any material of that nature.

I was responding to claims made without any source material to support them.

We already have the RAF manuals, which are the most authoritative sources that are publically available. Hence why we trust the value within them.

If you have a more authoritive source or any primary source to support your claims, please feel free to submit them.

However until then, we will continue to use the best available materials we have, which is the RAF manuals.

We include the same G limits for all aircraft where we have the legally released manuals. It's not just for the Tornado.

The RAF manuals on the Tornado that were declassified and released to the public are the most primary and authoritive sources available on Tornado. So in the absence of any further primary evidence, those values will be used.

Hello

At this time, we don't have any plans for this currently as they were exclusive to the pass they were present in.

Perhaps in the future this may be revisited, but its not on any short term plans.

Guys, I'm not going to ask yet again.

If you want to discuss the F-4F, please do so in the correct places. This is not the place.

This is not a BR discussion topic.

There is no way the aircraft was going to go down in BR and receive AIM-9L at the same time.

The feedback mostly was that it should receive AIM-9L. As explained several times, given the aircrafts performance at 11.0 already, there is no way it could stay there and receive the missile also. The developers did not want to add it on this version and also raise it to 11.3 as a result. Therefore in order to improve the aircrafts situation, it was lowered in BR. With many of the new top aircraft going to 12.0, its now impossible for it to face them and with the F-14 going up to 11.7 and the F-4F going down a spot to 10.7, it's now facing that Aircraft significantly less.

Once again, this is not an F-4F discussion topic. So that's enough off topic now

None of your posts on the F-4F were removed actually.

But you have now received a warning for ignoring forum rules with this post. Issues with moderation should have been taken to PM:

Do Not:

1.1.2. Start or participate in flame wars, intentionally derail a topic, or post useless spam messages in moderated areas.

1.1.5. Deliberately challenge moderation or administration, if you have issues or concerns with any actions taken please send a Private Message to Moderators, Senior Moderators or Community Managers/Administrators.

I'm glad it somehow made you laugh that we do actually listen to feedback and make changes based on what people asked for by trying to find a solution?

If you had read the further responses, you would understand that the Devs made it clear they did not want to include AIM-9L as this would see the aircraft go to 11.3 also based on how it was currently doing.

Meanwhile feedback was being passed on what people were saying and the decision to lower it to 10.7 based on said feedback was taken. If it does too well there, it's subject to going back up.

It would not have stayed at 11.0 if it were to receive AIM-9L, so the better solution was to decrease it based on feedback. Sadly it seems even with the aircraft in the best position it's ever been in, some are still not satisfied.

We can't add what didn't exist. Some nations wil...

Japan has even less options than this in the shorter term frame. The EJ Kai itself can have a few more upgrades, one of which it received last major.

The Japanese F-4EJ Kai is one of the only current options for Japan at Rank VIII. In receiving AIM-9L, it also took the aircraft to 11.7. F-4F with AIM-9L would have gone to 11.3. The developers did not wish to do this. Right now, it's a solid aircraft at 10.7 and doing just fine.

Germany has other options for Rank VIII, moreso than Japan. One of which will be coming soon in a future update. Hence why it's important to put things in their full context and not just a selective application of facts. Lots of aircraft don't have every missile they ever carried available to them. The F-4F is not an exception in this.

That's enough off topic in here though. The F-4F matter has been concluded several times now. It's got nothing to do with this topic now.

No changes are planned to the FM, as it's based on all available information on the aircraft that can be gathered.

Hello

A full response was provided by the developers on this matter here regarding both the Ariete and 2S38: