Smin1080p

This has been answered more times than almost any other question this patch.

If you think an aircraft is missing an loadouts and have evidence to support that, please feel free to make a report and we can check it out. Similarly with FM issues, a report is welcome. But I can't do anything with statements about an aircraft only just added for initial testing and nothing to support the cliams.

It's a premium aircraft. There are so many options available to every nation, and the premium for every nation follow the same sort of trends that define aircraft of that nation at or around that rank.

I'm not even sure what this question is. Those nations have some of the larger player bases and thus player interests in the game, coupled with a far larger vehicle pool of possible vehciles to introduce.

I understand. It has R-24 and countermeasures, but as I said it's not getting R-73.

As we explained on the Dev streams, it was always possible R-73 wasn't going to come. A final decision has not yet been made on it, but it's possible the aircraft will arrive initially without it and then a decision taken post launch based on how it performs. It's far easier to check the balance that way and add missiles if necessary rather than contemplating taking them away post launch. But as of right now, there's no final decision.

I'm not sure what answer you expect to your post. It's not a question, but a random statement.

Full details on the rank chnages will be coming in the news.

Soviet MLs could carry the R-24. The R-24 does not compare to 4 x AIM-9L. The British Phantom was capable of mounting AIM-9G. Giving it 4 x AIM-9L would make it directly better than the tree versions and also drive up it's BR. MIG-23s could also carry R-73, but we are not adding that for them.

BRs can change if the ML performs better.

R-73 will not be added to MIG-23.

All rank changes to existed aircraft were reverted for the time being. After the patch, currently it's planned to make movements to existing vehciles then. Unless something changes.

If you want to submit a suggestion proposal topic. Please feel free. But it's not the place here.

BRs are always subject to change, even post patch.

The Dev server is still up and has been updated.

We just keep it open for longer periods and update it now rather than close / open a few days apart.

As we mentioned yesterday, the question on the F-104S was forwarded to the Devs. On the J35D however, it's much more unlikely as it's an earlier variant to the J and countermeasures package.

Drop tanks themselves and the aircraft that may receive them are still not final at the moment. It's very much WIP.

Providing it is properly sourced and clearly defined as the correct variant we have (9-13).

I don't believe the aircraft is fully finished yet, but as always, it's better to submit a report just to be safe with the evidence

A second F-16 for the US this patch is currently not planned. The F-14 already covers plenty of longer range engagements.

Things change all the time on dev servers. If you can point to another aircraft where we have randomly cut 1,000s of thrust incorrectly or artificially that we have not already answered or addressed with material or a response, then I would understand the assumption. But since this is not the case, it can be reported and we can pass it on for review. Rather than jumping to random conclusions.

Im not sure what you are referring too here. The Mk 101 is not an artificial nerf. Its an engine the aircraft had. As I mentioned before, if any part of its performance is not correct with that engine, then it can be reported.

Please see my previous post for the dev response. That's as they have planned it for now.

Generally the TAF designation was considered satisfactory in identifying what the variant was.

We will pass feedback about the name of the IDS on for consideration

The comments I have posted today regarding the 101 / 103 decision in response to Gunjob and Flame. That was the comments I received from the developers, which I then pass on to you guys where possible.

Hello

The rank requirements on the dev server at the moment are not final. At the moment I don't have details on the final values.

The MK 103 report was closed with the developers comments which I have provided today.

If you believe its still wrong, please report it. I am only quoting what I have been told my the developers. We can pass on any reports to be reviewed.