Smin1080p

QoL suggestions are collected from all over. Not just suggestion threads.

We are constantly looking to implement QoL changes from across the community and always welcome suggestions. We cannot however comment at this time on the specifics of what / when can be implemented ahead of the weekly articles we post. But suggestions are always passed along.

Its literally just the 1st of August today my dude. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Because the T-69 IIG is a main part of the event.

BVV is now War Thunder producer. Zerbah is also no longer part of the team sadly.

Oh that's cute, they started adding fake image links to make them look credible. At least its more effort than the normal fakes

Sweden has a far smaller pool of possible vehicles to add that can fill each and every single BR gap. Where possible, we will always add candidates over time to try and fill BR voids for nations that have them

This was before we changed our stance on paper / incomplete aircraft. Lassar has not been a developer with us for many years now. So any comments from back then regarding what may come in the future are out of date.

As we have already explained, aircraft are being worked through sequentially to be transferred over to the custom loadouts configuration and all new top aircraft that join the game will have it.

Every major will expand the range of aircraft covered, however its not a simple task as it requires a complete reconfiguration of pylons, possible loadouts and other factors.

As for the second matter you mentioned, as there is no long to a report or any evidence of the matter your referring too, I would recommend you create a bug report: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder

Again, if we had news to share on something like that, it would generally be reflected in the changelog, its fixed or a Q & A. We have already explained the current reason and limitations on the in game representation.

Pilot models are updated over time as trees are expanded generally. So we do not rule out the possibility in the future.

There are no announcements to be made today, that I can say. If we have something major to announce such as an event, we will do so in the news. Not here in the RR topic

Events are not always 1:1 in the same dates every year. Particularly with the growing number of events we have, update releases and other factors, they have some leeway to move around a week or two whilst still being in the same general period of the year.

Honestly people fixate on the spreadsheets and "predictions" a little too much recently when it comes to major releases and event start dates.

I mean, we do have a timetable internally? That's never been in question.

What was incorrect is when people started saying "X major is late!" or "X event its late!" when we hadn't announced anything yet. Again, we have our own internal plans, yes. However there are no strict set rules that X must always be in X week year in year out. There is always the possibility of movement.

We've had a breakthrough recently with some material and the developers understanding of how it functions, so after it's been checked out. We may well have a conclusion to the matter soon.

A few things are still not entirely explained as I said above, but at the least a compromise might be possible.

We have the whole manual and have dissected it, however a lot of the functionality as I have explained to you in the past is not explained in as much detail as required. I also responded to you in full with the type of information need to clarify the matter, as was provided on the F-104S ASA radar.

Right now however, based on all the information we have, the radar would be little more than a radar gunsight of kinds with a few questions still to answer for its capabilities. But we have some addional material with better understanding still to check.

As I said, the Etendard already got it's CCIP based on what was reported in its original reports. Which is the most useful and usable function anyway. The A21 is still under question.

If it stays, the the Etendard likely may get it. But it's not clear at this time if the A21 will keep CCRP.

The Etendard was given CCIP for its bombs and rockets some time ago. The reprorts were spesific on CCIP. The Etendard was given this based on the SAAB AX 26 mentioned in sources, not the BT9.

The question of the A21 CCRP is still being decided. Initially it was not going to receive it, then that changed this morning. It may well change again after more information is reviewed.

To clarify we do not have information on all the required functionality and some information is still lacking which is why it has not been implemented. It's clear it's not a standard search and track radar but more like a niche Gunsight radar that displayed limited information through the HUD. How that information is displayed and the practical effects of it in game are still unknown.

Ok guys, we seem to be going down the missile / Rank VII / wishlisting rabbit hole in this topic, so I would ask everyone to please switch the discussions to the most relevant place. I don't want to get too many RR bingos this early in:

Based on all the data we have on these warheads, the HEAT warhead showed far for usability in game for anti-tank role.

As I mentioned, if you have information on the contrary your welcome to post it and it can be reviewed. However that was the reason why HEAT was selected in the first place given what we know of the smaller claibre flechette darts (which the CCIP cannot also correctly account for on the GR.1, just the initial rocket launch).

The Jaguar has a plethora of loadouts capable of dealing with soft targets and bases. A suggestion has already been made for additional warhead types, but as we clarified earlier, all of the other types have far less in game usage and viability than the current warheads and other loadouts offer.

France has entirely different rockets which we have information on and are not compatible with t...

The Chinese source situation was almost unique in itself as resources and information are significantly harder to get outside of China in some situations. This is generally not the case for France and other nations, where information is somewhat more freely available. We have already explained that there is no "one person" who decides what does and what does not come to any given tree. Its a development team wide decision on what ultimately does and does not.

There is nobody blocking, stopping or biased forwarding reports on the international side and all valid reports with valid material are passed onto the developers. We have an international team of Technical Moderators from all over the world, supervised by Senior Technical Moderators and myself. However just because a report may appear to be conclusive, does not mean it can be fixed without further review by the developers, shielding into development timeframes or additional material being sou...