Smin1080p

On question, I covered that here:

Even a basic source that gives an idea of what shells spesifcally it was supposed to provide protection against (not just generically saying KE as that's extremely open ended) would help provide a better picture of what sort of estimated protection it may have. Other tanks have had sources like this taken into consideration for their armour. A direct value is often not possible, but having no framework at all to base it on unfortunately means nothing can be changed in the meantime.

On the second point, I'm aware that it's generally (in most cases) not directed at me. I and anyone else providing responses can appreciate frustration that a particular vehcile might not be the way you particularly want to see it. All I can do however is relay the facts as they are from the developers and provide the responses in what can and can't be accepted.

Just a typo in the translation. P = R. Will be fixed.

Not nessiary. Simply that none of the sources within the report provide any level of even estimated or claimed protect levels. In many other cases, secondary sources or other information that at least provides broader information on what shells it was intended to defeat or what it actually aimed to provide protection against in a general sense too can be used for consideration. In this case, it simply says the itended purpose is KE protection. But that's just simply open ended.

We have already previously explained in detail how modern armour is handled with regards to vehciles that do not have complete sources available in detail here: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en - armour is created with any publicly known information possible and estimated from any sources or evidence possible. Some tanks have far more information available than others.

As it mentions, the developers are open to considering suggestions for armour changes providing it meets the basic guidelines for repeorts to be made. In this case, they reviewed the report already after we passed feedback on the matter as it is and don't find it viable to make any changes based on the information within as nothing really is ment...

Hello

The developers have reviewed the information presented thus far and the sources currently do not provide any information on any protection errors or suggested changes.

We will leave the report open for any additional information to be added, however so far, no changes can be made from the current information. Feedback on the topic in question has also been passed.

Not this one as far as I'm aware.

Full notes with everything within will be posted tomorrow.

No, as gszabi said its a big bugfix QoL patch. However that wont stop people from thinking otherwise.

I can predict a lot of bingo calls tomorrow

Unfortunately you lost some of them immediately after they saw "Planned technical works".

Hello

Please close the game and restart. Check you have the module equipped and see what the loadout screen looks like then. This defiantly is not how it should look (or does appear to look on attempting to replicate what you indicated).

If it persists, please create a bug report here: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder

Germany has the TAMs also because it's the tree where Argentine vehciles are deployed. Such a as the SK 105. Vehciles that have other nations vehciles in them generally have them because they have those sub branches or they have been predesignated for those trees.

Outside of this other nations vehciles typically are premium / squadron or event vehciles.

I have already responded to the other points and developers stance on the report in the rest of the response.

As I mentioned, there is nothing more to add at this time without any additional information.

Yes and I got out of there before the 4th July )))

I was responding to the question of why datamining reports are not accepted. I have already clarified the reasons why this report is not valid. Regardless of the fact it has the protection analysis elements in there too.

As I mentioned, the developers have reviewed the report already in its current state and nothing can be changed as the sources presented give any information about possible / intended protection. Without any additional information, the devs cant do anything with it.

We can certainly try to recover any even if they are from users who no longer exist.

It was good thank you, got to se a real F-14 ))

Nothing has been "deleted" but everything that was archived has been moved to an achieve area to clear the publicly visible suggestions area up. As it was impossible to notify each and every person individually of why their suggestion was removed, the Suggestion Moderators created the archive document with the reasons why. But should any user wish to retrieve the contents of their archived suggestions thread that they cannot otherwise access, they can PM me or any Suggestion Moderator for that.

The developers don't accept reports based on datamined information, because it can often be misinterpreted or misunderstood. The values often do not 1:1 mean what they appear to say as it can sometimes be necessary to have code reflected in certain ways to archive a particular effect or outcome that isn't possible any other way within the constrictions of the game itself.

As such, we cannot accept reports that rely solely on datamined information.

Players choosing to illegally post and share content that is not in the public domain, classified or in any other way restricted has nothing to do with us. We make it very clear that we do not condone or support the publication of any restricted material of any nature or kind. We have also made it clear that doing so will not lead to a change of any kind. Instead the relevant actions will be taken according to any legal requirements as well as account punishments.

This is clear from our historical reporting guidelines and also the general

Gaijin Community guidelines under section 6.

We have made it clear we will only ever use publicly available information and in many cases with modern vehicles, this amounts to estimations based off the material that is available rather than any kind of direct figures as they simply do not exist in any meaningful way in the public domain: ...

F.1C technically also did not have Magic 2 in its service life, but was also provided them for balance purposes as it could use them. The same is believed to be true to with Corail, as there is no information to suggest it could not use the system. But as mentioned, we welcome any suggestions for additional systems.

Based on the current information and the lack of clear evidence that shows it was possible on the CR, the developers believe that the EQ or other variants had other software/hardware modifications that made it possible to use self lasing. Currently all concreate evidence points towards the fact that both the CR and CT relied on buddy lasing. Even if the screen was at a baseline level, the same type.

Right now there simply is a lack of any evidence to suggest it was possible on any French domestic versions. But as I mentioned, we welcome any new information on that.

We don't have any information that Coral was not possible to fit on an F.1C. Suggestions for other systems are however welcome via Historical reports.