War Thunder Dev Tracker

Well, we have said, time and time again, this is not the place to discuss it. If you want to discuss it, take it here please https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/396-general-upcoming/

Just because you want to talk about it, it doesnt mean its on topic. The thread has been cleaned and warnings stated twice now.

Please use the correct area and topics for that discussion. Here is not the place.

Well the ones in game are supposed to represent combat aircraft. If you look at any historical photos of Japanese aircraft, they were always extremely worn and scratched. They have heavy weathering and use.

The photo I showed for colour reference was a museum example, so naturally is going to be sparkling and clean as an exhibit, but thats not correct for a combat game setting.

As for the Mod 11 having mismatched colours, thats correct for the particular group of aircraft we are trying to represent

Guys we literally just had a major update this week. We cannot start confirming stuff so early.

Both are within development plans. We cant say how far along they are right now.

I came across this subject a few years ago when making a model of an A6M2 also. Pretty much most box arts and some books depicted them as a white / ivory colour as was done in most movies too.

In reality, it seems the actual colour was a more off coloured caramel / sky / beige that is closer to for example early RAF aircraft undersides (See Spitfire / Hurricane Mk I for example).

The "Brilliant White" colour doesn't seem to have any historical backing. Most airworthy or museum aircraft are now represented in a more true colour.

That makes two of us.

Thread cleaned up a little.

Please take the personal debates on random subjects to PM or an appropriate area on the forum.

We have a huge amount of areas specifically for such debates. This isnt the place.

They are a big step, but there will indeed still be more ammunition improvements over time too.

Typically the plan is always 5 yes.

Good thank you, working towards my Jaguar

Afraid we cant give specifics just yet, all I can say is take a look backwards at the past and where major updates typically fall. They often offer a solid guideline for where the next will fall

Well a replay / clip for example of the situation where a 1.8km shot in combination with Sarin's source would be a perfect example of a complete bug report for investigation.

Regenerative steering in its basic form was implemented some time ago. At least a general simulation of the effects it has. Where possible, further improvements will be made.

But like everything, there are limitations to what can be done in game and how something can be replicated in game. Such as the Hydrogas suspension defectiveness claims.

That doesnt really change the point, not every tank is a T-34 and each is unique based on its own characteristics as far as can be replicated in a game setting.

Lots of rounds in game can do this. Its not about simply comparing them to .50cals and saying "how cant they do this?". With a good aim, 50.cals are more than capable of reaching that range. But the Swedish MG is a higher caliber. Every round in game has its own ballistics. The core composition of the 13.2mm is different to a .50cal also accounting for the damage.

Some feedback from the devs on the feedback so far

We are working on improving server stability and overcoming lots of the issues happening recently. We understand frustrations and hope to have a proper resolution to the issues.

Both

The GR.1 used in sidewinder trails in Germany was not a spesific variant and had no specific designation. It was simply an early GR.1 before many of the upgrades more typical and standard on GR.1a came into effect. The GR.1 we have in game accurately represents an early GR.1 variant up to the point where sidewinders were trialed. This is because we plan to introduce later variants of Jaguar and making them all basically identical serves no purpose. As such, what we currently have is both correct and historical for a GR.1. Indeed whilst it was not typical for all GR.1s t...

Just before conclusions are jumped too, I also mean in general long term too. Not specifically the next update.

The WW2 content is not stopping anytime soon thats for sure.

We have some more plans indeed for that area

Squadron Vehicles in the Russian translation I believe.

For those that should have it, they will receive it when the feature is ready if/when its implemented on future vehicles.

When we have some news to share on them, it would generally be via a dev blog. Right now there is nothing new we can say.

Then there is far more likely another factor in play here that needs to be confirmed. Different standards of shell calculation are not applied to different nations. They all follow the same system.

It was, as I already explained a lighthearted joke. Quite how that somehow translates into us being directly aware of an issue and deciding just not to fix it I dont know.

Im afraid its just not the case actually. We closely monitor the statistics of every weapon in game. The stats of Swedish MGs are not dissimilar from other similar caliber weaponry.

I would recommend reporting it as a historical issue here https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1957-weapons-and-ordnance/

How may I ask is it "obvious" we are aware of it?

Its not only about raw fixes alone, but also the quality of life improvements and changes. Of which, there were indeed more.

The developers are aware of the communities concerns in these areas.

Spawn areas and map terrain on several locations has already been adjusted to prevent spawn-spawn shooting and the remaining ones as we have already said are planned to be investigated also.

Bombers very much do have a role and many of them continue to be the most played and used aircraft. The recent changes to remove airfield destruction were done based on the feedback of the community as a whole. Bombers being able to end games via base destruction was not popular for the whole community. There are also other ways bombers can be deployed and contribute towards a victory and we will continue to monitor the situation for them as well as any feedback and suggested changes that the whole community can agree on as a positive. Air RB for example over the past 2 patchs has seen a number of improvements that came from a previous roundup of community fee...

We listen to all feedback. Nothing selective about it.

There is a big difference between something that takes time, investigation and further review than just simple "quick fixes".

Lots of changes are made across the board, some without bug reports, so trying to justify every change with whatever singular source we list on the patchnotes is logical. We cant list every source used for every change because the changelog would then become enormous.

Where did i say this?

Please do not just twist the context of my words to suit whatever situation you can link it too. Each case is different and every matter thats properly reported will be reviewed and where it is proven correct, will be actioned. Not to mention, it has quite literally no relation or connection to "money" at all. Creating links where there are none are rathe...