Smin1080p

Hello

Our team are always working through and answering reports. Currently there are 3000+ reports in the English section alone, so it takes time to process through all of these due to the levels of spam / incomplete / invalid reports. Hundreds of reports are processed every day and week, but unfortunately due to the volumes there may always be those that slip through and get delayed.

Historical related reports also take a lower priority than actual game bugs. So the team will always prioritise larger issues, crashes and serious matters.

We will however get to these reports and others as soon as possible.

You are watching The Shooting Range – a weekly show for all tankers, airmen and Captains in War Thunder.

In this episode:

Pages of History: Glowworm’s Last Battle


Round Study: Choosing Ordnance for the 20-Pounder


... and Metal Beasts: The Top CAS Su

The War Thunder Team

BR changes would occur if the aircraft was not preforming well where it currently stands, not due to any pending reports or matters that can or cannot be implemented. However both the F.1 and F.1CT are not on the lower end of the scale for BR 11.3 relative to all other aircraft at that rank in efficiency.

At this time, we also don't plan to start removing weaponry from the F.1 after already issuing it Magic 2. However this and other options may be considered in the future.

None of the moderators are here to work against anyone or prevent anyone from making the game better. The suggestions rework took an enormous amount of team effort from the Suggestions team and the end result is a far more improved, level and all round coherent area. All in all that will only benefit the excellent suggestions made by those that contribute and drive standards to higher levels. If you have further feedback on that, then its welcomed via PM to the relevant people.

This now has nothing to do with the topic at hand and and continued derailment of the topic will be removed and warned accordingly. The matter of why this topic is where it is had already been answered and concluded. Anything further should have already been taken to PM.

The suggestion covers multiple nations in the poll to decide where its most desired, so its entirely fine for it to be in this section. The poll covers Italy too, so people can vote on what they believe is best. Really what section is is not relevant to where it could end up ultimately if it were to be considered. But this is the correct place for such a topic.

Had the suggestion only covered Italy and not had other options, then it would indeed have been more appropriate. However, again, for the purpose of this suggestion, what section its in really has no baring on the outcome.

Please see the forum rules.

1.1.1. Insult any forum members, Gaijin employee or forum staff.

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

If you have an issue, it should be taken to PM, not breach the rules further:

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.

Lots of vehicles in game do not have variant spesific c*ckpits from launch. This has generally always been the case. c*ckpits are used by a significant smaller percentage of the community, so priority is placed on a solid placeholder c*ckpit before sometimes a ve...

Unfortunately this doesn't just mean the issues and conflicts with the current sources go away and can just be ingnored because some sources quote a higher value. There are many missiles in game in which its possible to find sources that claim higher G overload. However with a lack of credible info that supports it from many levels, they can't be used. The developers have to use the most realistically achievable values based on all of the known information.

There are on average 1000+ fixes and improvements every major update of all kinds and scales. We also have weekly quality of life updates with many fixes and improvements that come directly from the community and what they want to see.

There is no justification for insulting any developer or member of staff just because you personally disagree with the implementation of something(s). Because something is no...

As I said, we welcome reports with sources showing the relivant information. If you have it to support your claims.

Insulting developers or staff however will not be tolerated and does nothing to change or progress anything.

Nothing for the time being. Right now is typically a bit of summer downtime for everyone after the major too. We of course will have the standard Q and As too.

This does not address the points I made above or provide the necessary information that I mentioned. We are aware of this extract (its already been forwarded).

Your report was specifically on the range and that only. There was also a conflict of material. 3rd party website sources were also used. Kishins report met the requirements and was forwarded as such, however the sources for some aspects have still been non conclusive.

Additional sources were provided and the report was finalised first, thus it was forwarded. Direct extracts were also provided in the report.

Based on the developers current information thrust vectoring doesn't increase maximal load factor, it only increases missile manauverabilty at low speed. The current evidence we have does not lead to the trust vectoring resulting in a 50G overload. If its...

The consultants that work with the developers generally are not public interacting members of staff. They work internally with the developers and its not part of their role / job to communicate with players. Their job is research. The former Chinse (and for that matter any other consultant) that may choose to interact with players does so under their own discretion and choice. As a reminder, all staff are under NDA.

I would also add, "it's quite obvious many of them are biased" is generally not a good way to try and seek getting a response from anyone. The situation with the former Chinese consultant was answered and resolved. Applying that to every other situation you do not agree with personally is not going to further any progress.

Just to also add, normalizing that as ok and using that as a benchmark is not a good idea. "Someone said worse things to staff/mods and still got a respon...

Because based on the collective information the developers have on all missiles, a jump of improvement in manauverabilty like that requires a change that allows the missile to do it. Given some sources directly outline that the improvements between Magic 1 and 2 were to do with range, gimbal and sensitivity, not manauverabilty this also solidifies the fact that conclusive evidence is needed of what changes would cause a improvement like that. The fact its 11 years of difference doesn't just make it so as a result with a lack of contextual information. Some sources also confuse Magic 2 and MICA that we have seen, so the 50G may well come from that.

Tracker differences are to do with the all aspect and target tracking. Not manauverabilty. A better tracker does not allow the missile to pull more as a result. That would require something like fin servo improvements or something similar.

Again, we welcome supporting or...

Others have claimed 50G is the overload destruction. So as you can see, a direct conflict is created. There was also no mention of a 135G overload in the report that was posted:

Nor the later report:

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/NJpYA5HN5Afm

So if you have these "same sources", please post that extract as it will help clarify things.

This is also just one element, as I explained above, how it would actually achieve 50G manoeuvring overload given the known structural / hardware changes between Magic 1 and 2 also does not support that currently. There is no current evidence to show how the missile would actually pull 15Gs more, without knowledge like what we have on the AIM-9J for example that clearly defines servo improvements.

...

The aircraft has always been BR 11.3 from the moment the update went live. Before Magic 2 was added. It was only ever 11.0 on the dev server before it was fully configured.

Magic 2 also fully conforms currently too all available source material. The claimed 50G manauverabilty has not yet been properly verified, as multiple sources claim 50G is actually the missile body overload maximum before destruction. Not manoeuvring capability. This is further backed up by the constructional changes between Magic 1 to 2 that don't show any new features (such as servo improvements) that would justify and back up such a jump from 35 to 50G manoeuvring overload.

So until conclusive evidence that supports a 50G overload can be located, the missile is currently performing as it should. All aspect lock range and maximum launch range reports are also under question due to conflicting material.

Hello

This type of issue cant be replicated easily. Please submit a report with your clog file here and we can check it out further. Thanks

Hey.

Unfortunately no, not that I'm aware of or have seen. Likely it was a consultant find or compatibility choice.

Hello

Unfortunately there is no real evidence in this clip from which to make a fix or any changes. Its not clear at all from the video if this tank was even alive or if this was a connection related issue.

Please submit any issues via the bug report system here: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder

Fixed in an upcoming update.

We have a pinned topic for such subjects at the very top of general discussion:

Hello

This issue is known and has already been forwarded to the developers for review

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/fspDZVjDPiEu