Smin1080p

Technical Moderators are recruiting!

Are you a dedicated and keen pilot, tanker or captain seeking to help aid the War Thunder Project?

The Technical team is currently looking for new recruits willing and eager to help improve the game and contribute to the Community Bug Report Site and Historical report areas.

Perhaps you have a wealth of experience with US tanks? Are you proficient with Mac, an expert on Japanese aircraft, Ammunition types or just want to help forward bug reports from the community, Technical Moderation may very well be just the place for you no matter what your area of interest or preferred platform.

Tech Mods are primarily involved in bug reports and technical support for the community; as a Tech Mod you are an important link between the game community and development, passing along any identified problems so they may be fi...

As I mentioned earlier, the Devs are currently away on NY holidays. However providing it's been reported, it will be checked out when they are back.

None of the Tornado IDS family carried 4. That was the ADV variant.

We already have Boz 101/102. We just don't have ECM for any aircraft yet.

The GR.1 and AASTA.1 never fitted them. I'm not aware if the Italian one did in its current configuration, but if so then that can be reported with evidence.

Not something to be reported.

As we have already explained, we are well aware about the full countermeasure suite of the BOZ pod. Currently however in game there is no means of having two different types of countermeasure sizes and charges, able to be fired and operated at once, from a technical perspective. For flares, the aircraft had 28 large calibre flares per pod. Chaff was not canister charges like most others but continuous release packets. Until such a system can be implemented (duel control / use countermeasures), the Tornado was given its full load of large calibre flares that can be used as chaff in the same way as all other aircraft.

Giving it 1000+ flares was both unrealistic and also even from a technical standpoint impossible for the pods to contain. You simply could not fit that many flares physically inside the pod.

These are separate matters / issues relating to performance and should be reported independently. The report was for the addition of the Komoran 2.

Forwarded thanks.

They are Stike Aircraft and should be viewed for those abilities rather than compared to go toe-to-toe with fourth generation air superiority fighters. Such is the same with the MIG-27K.

The two situations are not the same. There was a lot of community feedback on the MIG-29 as well as the data we had showing there was clearly an issue with its balance and existing loadouts. This was the new top Soviet fighter and the highest addition for them since the MLD.

The AS.34 on the MFG IDS were clear from the get go that they would be a novel anti-ship missile. We said quite clearly that it was a new feature and we would follow the feedback which we will continue to do. But it isn't the same case of balancing. The aircraft was never advertised to come with guided air-to-ground munitions.

Again, suggestions are more than welcome and we will pass all feedback to the Devs. But the MIG-29 getting a new missile is not a connected matter here.

BVV said on the first Dev stream before even the first Dev server that a second F-16 variant was possible and...

The vehcile was not available for testing and was viewed via a method using the Wikipedia. Again, we do not control what content creators make. They are free to make and show whatever they want. That doesn't however mean that because a creator shows something, it's final and will come that way or that it's us confirming / advertising a feature as is intended.

There is no means to prevent this method of viewing vehciles this way once it's in game and as I mentioned, it was necessary to include the aircraft in the major as it was the last significant content patch of the year.

Once again, the blog and all official means outlined clearly what the aircraft would have.

Feel free to submit a suggestion/ historical report. However those two matters are entirely sperate and not connected. One is not a means to another.

As far as I'm were that wasn't present on the version of the missile in game. If it was, and you have information to support that, please submit a report and we can pass it to the Devs for review.

We didn't hint at anything. The blog was clear from the start what it would have. The vehcile was included within the major update as for technical reasons, all content of that nature has to be included in a large update. Since it was the last large update of the year, the plane was included in the patch but the guidance for the anti-ship missiles was still WiP.

It is for this reason we did not hand out the aircraft early to content creators early to show because it was still being worked on and the functionality was not final. The Wikipedia method of vehicle viewing works regardless.

The feature was not "removed". It simply wasn't finished in the first place.

The content creators that showed the vehicle used a method using the Wikipedia that allows you to view aircraft in game that are not actually "available" fully yet. Anyone can do this. Not just content creators. That does not mean the aircraft was final or not WIP however.

We do not control the content that content creators make. They are free to make whatever they want regarding rumours, datamines and anything else WIP. However that does not mean whatever is shown by them is final or in anyway representative of the finished vehcile. The Dev blog outlined what the vehcile was going to have.

When vehciles are ready to be shown, they are available properly for content creators to request/ showcase. This was not the case with this vehcile.

Using videos created by content creators as a means to show we advertised or promised something, when we im fact did not and even said the opposit...

"Although, the naval version has no access to the guided bombs" - in there from the very beginning.

https://warthunder.com/en/news/8024/current

The blog had all the correct info from the get go. A Tornado with no guided bombs and anti-ship missiles. I'm really not sure how much clearer that can be said.

The blog explicitly outlined this missile as an anti ship. Further to this, we did also clarify as flame already linked:

Further to that, again, we always point out that things being in the finals or being accessed ahead of time until we have properly issued them for review or are available is not something to considered final.

This is incorrect. People used a method of checking the vehcile early whilst it's systems were still being finalised before we had properly even handed it out to content creators to show it locking tanks. This is why we so often urge cution when viewing datamines or using workrounds to check vehciles ahead of time.

We in no way advertised it would have the ability to lockup tanks.

Most is the Devs are currently on NY holidays.