The IDS variant is not even in game yet. The GR.1 and IDS are different 3D models and there are also some minor differences in their loadouts. So at the moment, nothing is finalized.
As far as the GR.1 is concerned, the flare countermeasure containers should be coming next week.
HARM and all forms of anti-radiation are not something we have in game currently.
Just to clarify the manual doesn't mention Paveway on it at all. It just doesn't say it's not possible. The report is using the logic that Paveways can be mounted on a standard bomb mount. So the manual at the moment just shows it may be technically possible.
The issue is there is no evidence of it ever happening, being suggested, listed, documented or occuring even in training / trials. So it raises some questions as to if there is perhaps another reason for it not happening other than "they always took drop tanks".
The Devs would rather be certain than add it now just to remove it later if we find out actually that it wasn't possible.
All the things in game that get them because they could generally are things we are certain that they could. Right now that's not the case for Tornado and wing mounted Paveways.
Its not going to change rank. Its at its intended rank. As always with BRs, they can change depending on how the vehicle performs in game. Not by asking me.
Contains fabricated loadouts.
That's ok, at times my notifications in these two topics have been:
No worries. There will be some good news shortly.
Im not really sure what you mean by this. The aircraft matches its documented performance. It was a strike / multirole, not a fighter.
As for wing sweep flaps, its been reported:
This is incorrect. People used a method of checking the vehcile early whilst it's systems were still being finalised before we had properly even handed it out to content creators to show it locking tanks. This is why we so often urge cution when viewing datamines or using workrounds to check vehciles ahead of time.
We in no way advertised it would have the ability to lockup tanks.
The blog explicitly outlined this missile as an anti ship. Further to this, we did also clarify as flame already linked:
Further to that, again, we always point out that things being in the finals or being accessed ahead of time until we have properly issued them for review or are available is not something to considered final.
The blog had all the correct info from the get go. A Tornado with no guided bombs and anti-ship missiles. I'm really not sure how much clearer that can be said.
"Although, the naval version has no access to the guided bombs" - in there from the very beginning.
The content creators that showed the vehicle used a method using the Wikipedia that allows you to view aircraft in game that are not actually "available" fully yet. Anyone can do this. Not just content creators. That does not mean the aircraft was final or not WIP however.
We do not control the content that content creators make. They are free to make whatever they want regarding rumours, datamines and anything else WIP. However that does not mean whatever is shown by them is final or in anyway representative of the finished vehcile. The Dev blog outlined what the vehcile was going to have.
When vehciles are ready to be shown, they are available properly for content creators to request/ showcase. This was not the case with this vehcile.
Using videos created by content creators as a means to show we advertised or promised something, when we im fact did not and even said the opposite, is not an accurate reflection of how things really are.
We didn't hint at anything. The blog was clear from the start what it would have. The vehcile was included within the major update as for technical reasons, all content of that nature has to be included in a large update. Since it was the last large update of the year, the plane was included in the patch but the guidance for the anti-ship missiles was still WiP.
It is for this reason we did not hand out the aircraft early to content creators early to show because it was still being worked on and the functionality was not final. The Wikipedia method of vehicle viewing works regardless.
The feature was not "removed". It simply wasn't finished in the first place.
As far as I'm were that wasn't present on the version of the missile in game. If it was, and you have information to support that, please submit a report and we can pass it to the Devs for review.
The vehcile was not available for testing and was viewed via a method using the Wikipedia. Again, we do not control what content creators make. They are free to make and show whatever they want. That doesn't however mean that because a creator shows something, it's final and will come that way or that it's us confirming / advertising a feature as is intended.
There is no means to prevent this method of viewing vehciles this way once it's in game and as I mentioned, it was necessary to include the aircraft in the major as it was the last significant content patch of the year.
Once again, the blog and all official means outlined clearly what the aircraft would have.
Feel free to submit a suggestion/ historical report. However those two matters are entirely sperate and not connected. One is not a means to another.
The two situations are not the same. There was a lot of community feedback on the MIG-29 as well as the data we had showing there was clearly an issue with its balance and existing loadouts. This was the new top Soviet fighter and the highest addition for them since the MLD.
The AS.34 on the MFG IDS were clear from the get go that they would be a novel anti-ship missile. We said quite clearly that it was a new feature and we would follow the feedback which we will continue to do. But it isn't the same case of balancing. The aircraft was never advertised to come with guided air-to-ground munitions.
Again, suggestions are more than welcome and we will pass all feedback to the Devs. But the MIG-29 getting a new missile is not a connected matter here.
BVV said on the first Dev stream before even the first Dev server that a second F-16 variant was possible and already in progress. It's addition was nothing to do with anyone crying about anything, and purely because it was finished in time and decided to be added alongside the Italian F-16, giving them their first modern fighter.
They are Stike Aircraft and should be viewed for those abilities rather than compared to go toe-to-toe with fourth generation air superiority fighters. Such is the same with the MIG-27K.
Forwarded thanks.
These are separate matters / issues relating to performance and should be reported independently. The report was for the addition of the Komoran 2.
Not something to be reported.
As we have already explained, we are well aware about the full countermeasure suite of the BOZ pod. Currently however in game there is no means of having two different types of countermeasure sizes and charges, able to be fired and operated at once, from a technical perspective. For flares, the aircraft had 28 large calibre flares per pod. Chaff was not canister charges like most others but continuous release packets. Until such a system can be implemented (duel control / use countermeasures), the Tornado was given its full load of large calibre flares that can be used as chaff in the same way as all other aircraft.
Giving it 1000+ flares was both unrealistic and also even from a technical standpoint impossible for the pods to contain. You simply could not fit that many flares physically inside the pod.
The GR.1 and AASTA.1 never fitted them. I'm not aware if the Italian one did in its current configuration, but if so then that can be reported with evidence.
We already have Boz 101/102. We just don't have ECM for any aircraft yet.
None of the Tornado IDS family carried 4. That was the ADV variant.
As I mentioned earlier, the Devs are currently away on NY holidays. However providing it's been reported, it will be checked out when they are back.
We don't have any evidence it was ever done currently. Concept artwork is not useable in this situation.
The event Tornado will not receive GBUs. This was a balance decision by the developers that also allows it to have a lower BR. Regardless of the fact it's possible for other Tornado variants to carry them. It was clear from the blog that this variant would not have GBUs.
It's the German F-4F. As Flame explained, they had to have US markings when in the US for training initially. Here's the same airframe back In Germany a few years later:
As we have already confirmed multiple times now, Marineflieger Tornados did not use GBUs and we do not plan to introduce them for this variant regardless of its compatibility with other IDS variants / services in order to retain its lower BR.
This aircraft will not receive GBUs.
Not sure where this is coming from, but as far as I can see, both the ASSTA.1 and MFG both will have the 103:
Should be fixed in a later version. But it doesn't have 105s.
Yep. The config changes were not finished from the version which was datamined. But the developers have confirmed that in a later build, its already been corrected.
Your posts were removed as you were breaching the forum rules (which you agreed to follow when you made your forum account)
Specifically:
Now you are also in breach of the following:
So I would suggest you re-read the forum rules and if you have any issues, use the correct and appropriate means (PM)
The only remaining FM reports open are these two, all others have already been fixed:
There is no evidence it was ever done or even tested at the moment. A lot of sources simply saying it was "possible" but no real evidence of that or if ever happening or actually being possible. Many of the books and diagrams quote each other and are just 3rd party magazines or modelling resources. So right now, not planned at all without more solid evidence.
Both reports have been marked fixed. So if they are not already implemented they will be by the time of the next major.
At the moment, some reports may be held for the next major as fixes start to be stacked for the future builds unless planned for a QoL. So if it's not fixed by the time of the first Dev server, we can look at a fresh report.
It's a reported issue.
As with all issues, it needs to be verified and confirmed by the Devs before a fix takes place.
We include the same G limits for all aircraft where we have the legally released manuals. It's not just for the Tornado.
The RAF manuals on the Tornado that were declassified and released to the public are the most primary and authoritive sources available on Tornado. So in the absence of any further primary evidence, those values will be used.
If you have a more authoritive source or any primary source to support your claims, please feel free to submit them.
However until then, we will continue to use the best available materials we have, which is the RAF manuals.
We are not expecting or asking anyone to post anything confidential. We have been very clear we will not allow it and will take any action required to remove it. We will not use any material of that nature.
I was responding to claims made without any source material to support them.
We already have the RAF manuals, which are the most authoritative sources that are publically available. Hence why we trust the value within them.
The only open flap issue is this one:
devtrackers.gg