[2021] Mirage F1 Main Thread

Because the Mirage IIIC and E were planned within that timeframe and come before the F.1.

Nothing to do with it being too good. It was not planned for this update. This update was planned to be the modernization of the Jaguars (A and GR.1A/B).

As we have said, more French Aircraft are in the works.

Jaguar A now has some of the most advanced and longest standoff range laser guided missiles in game, which if used correctly, can defeat any SPAAG currently in game. Comparing them to mavericks is not the same as they are better in every respect.

As we have already said, new air developments are always coming. Comparisons to other larger and more popular nations are not really meaningful in this context. As for Japan and Britain, they have pretty much just in the last 2-3 updates got their top end jets and equipment for this current generation, as the British Phantoms and EJ Kai represent the latest technologies for these nations without much room for upwards expansion in the pure air fighter department at least for some time.

They are popular for many reasons, such as they have more domestic players and their vehicles are generally more globally known and of interest to more players.

Indeed the IIIC was one of my favourites. I play all nations and cycle through a lot of jets over time. I dont stick to a single nation

We are always passing all feedback.

Japan is still a more popular nation than France. Unfortunately just with not a great deal of vehicle choices to add, which complicate things.

Sweden has many famous and iconic vehicles as well as ones that are undoubtable unique in numerous ways. Certainly in the last few years even more so, interest in Swedish vehicles globally has grown drastically in military based communities / games. Things like the Draken and Viggen are super popular and that showed last update with the introduction of the Viggen.

Its nothing to do with the total population of a country. But the number of players playing said country.

The standoff ability of the Jaguar A is pretty much one of the highest in the game. But it just shows even when something relevant and competitive is added, it still brushed aside as though its nothing at all by some.

The fact something is fire and forget does not take away from the improvements and benefits of the AS-30L.

The EBR 51 is also being introduced, something that was also feedback and requested directly by many of the people here.

Anyway, I can see this conversation has no constructive outcome and my presence is no longer meaningful here. The original question I was tagged for is answered.

Vehicles like the EBR and Mystere IV were direct results of your feedback and others being implemented. Understandably everyone has opinions on timeframe and when they come, but things can take time amongst all other plans.

Nothing was taken as a personal attack. I was simply clarifying that the whataboutism of other nations is not really a road to go down.

The Devs have been adding things that were directly asked for such as the EBR and F-8E FN, as well as of course working on the larger and more significant domestic designs too. These take longer and their is a whole community which we aim to satisfy across all nations. Content additions have to be planned and taken into account in terms of the who what where when.

Going down the same road with the feedback every time of the suffering approach us not going to help anything at all. Everyone is free to pass their opinions, but there is a constructive way to do it.

Again, more event vehicles for France were asked for. These vehicles have to be something that intrest a broad range of players and be something players actually want to take part in the event for. Like the EBRs.

When things that are not so unique are added, like the P-39, they are not that popular, obtained by fewer people and not interesting for many. We continue to work on some like this, but sometimes more interesting options are needed.

It's all very well saying "but what about this prototype" or "what about this variant of X you could have used" but considerations like:

- can we actually get all the required info?

- is it a vehicle that is actually known enough and popular enough to be desired?

- would it actuaktk be of interest to a wider range of players or just a very niche non novel vehicle?

- is it even practical to implement?

Often the amount of information required to implement something Is underplayed and missunderstood.

Even when investment is made to spesific vehicles that were asked for (EBR, Mystere IV) the first response is generally always negative anyway.

The notion of "this could have been added X patch" is well understood. But unfortunately it doesn't work that way practically and not everything can come at once or instantly when first asked for. Models take time, resources and availability.

My personal opinion is irrelevant here. I'm not a game designer and my role is to forward feedback and relay the answers. My opinion has no place in matters.

As I have said above. It's a combination of factors.

3 domestic French designs are coming this update.

The Mirage F.1 not being present has nothing to do with in game results or the MiG-27.

Please see the post I was actually responding too, then it becomes clear

You are referring back to when the IIIC and E were just introduced. In game results have not been the reason for some time. We have been saying for some time its in development.

Mirage 5 is not supposed to be a new "top". It is indeed a ground attack variant. We have already said we are working on new tops. This was not it.

Mirage 5 and Nesher share commonality, so its only logical from a modelling perspective and efficiency to have them created within a similar timeframe. To have them made separately is a massive poor use of resources. France was always planned to get the Mirage 5. Plans for Israel were an additional factor to consider when planning the Mirage 5.

This was the best candidate to replace the Vautour with in the most seamless manor possible for those ahead who wanted a premium Vautour without the loss of any option of such.

We have already said that France will receive a Rank VI premium too, which will be the more standard "meta" premium. The Vautour itself was never a bad premium and its replacement was always intended to be a direct swap. Its possible other Rank V premiums may come in the future.

My stats are totally irrelevant to the vehicle. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Again, all of this is really for nothing. We have already said more premiums are on the way. The Vautour replacement was to swap an existing premium thats now found a home in another tree for the closest French counterpart. This conversation has no constructive outcome and is rather meaningless to the topic at hand. Descending the topic into trying to use my personal stats for vehicle implementations is doing exactly nothing to progress any constructive points being made by others here.

My job here is to provide the responses I am given by the developers to the questions asked with all the information I can share. At the same time, any constructive feedback that is posted, is also forwarded on. However there is very little of actual substance now to pass on, that has either not already been relayed or is no long constructive.

We have already provided all of the information we can on the matter. There is nothing further I can add.

I was referring specifically to the conversation of using one persons stats on a vehicle as a means to somehow prove a rather meaningless point. Which is absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic as titled here which you are referring too.

You are referring to the vehicle from the perspective of personal opinion on the aircrafts performance. Which I was not referring too. As far as Rank V premiums go, the Vautour is one of the more popular and better performing premiums for players. Thats a fact based on the data we have for the vehicle.

My stats are not relevant in any way in those metrics, nor does it change the purpose of why its being added.

My role is to provide the facts and information from the developers. What you chose to agree or disagree with is outside of my control. All personal opinions are entirely fine to present in a constructive manor and we will always forward the feedback from that.

My point was, trying to use my personal stats in a context to which they are not relevant in any capacity is meaningless. Nobody claimed it was the best performing aircraft ever. But for its intended purpose and in terms of player data, it is a solid performer.

Unfortunately there was nothing relevant or constructive of substance that in any meaningful capacity can be passed on here. My stats or any one players stats are not the deciding factor on a vehicle.

Attempting to get a "gotcha" moment really is not constructive in any capacity. It proves or achieves nothing at all.

All constructive feedback has been passed, but this is no longer that. Thats why I have made several attempts to course correct this discussion and clarify that the current trajectory has no meaningful outcome for anyone. You have your personal opinion on the vehicle in question, so do others here. Its very clear that no statements or words from me or any other Community Manger can change that, but thats not the purpose of that. You are fully entailed to hold them.

But please do not mistake the previous discussion for constructive feedback.

Constructive feedback is always passed. Ranting, sarcasm, attempting to prove a point that's not relevant for a "gotcha ha" moment and everything else that's now being "attempted" is going to achieve or do absolutely nothing. If that's the direction you wish to proceed in, then unfortunately there is nothing more we can add or do here.

If a constructive discussion and feedback is the intended outcome, thats entirely fine. But at this stage, there is nothing more to add here.

It will be within a future update, most likely when there is a new top rank aircraft to research (that's not the Mirage 5 thats coming, but something else). We will be sure to share some more details and news when the time comes.

A bit of emotion is entirely understandable. We are all here after all for the same reason and that's to improve things

The point was more about keeping things here in the realms of actual mature and constructive points we can actually pass, rather than seeking Reddit clickbate or a "GoTcHa" and also to provide the answers that we can actually do.

The attempted justification that simply because the intended / desired outcome has not yet been reached, that all constructively aimed discussions should stop because "it didn't work" is just not going to move anything anywhere.

All 3 have indeed already been raised. But yes, this is a good example of how to leave feedback

Every single major update has a dev server feedback topic for every version as well as a post launch feedback topic for any overall thoughts about the update.

Currently, that area is here:

For suggestions (modifications, reworks, loadouts or new vehicles / premiums etc) there is this area:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/611-suggestions/

Lastly, solid discussion topics showing support for said suggestions or ideas in any of the relevant areas is also another means of showing support for something:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1267-france/

With the relevant supporting sourcing materials submitted in the relevant areas, we can indeed pass them on for consideration. This however, is not the place and with 0 supporting evidence such as this post, or inconclusive evidence (as was the case with the UFP Hull) then nothing can also be done. If reports have already been submitted, then they will already be under review and likely pending the need for further information to fully resolve the matter.

This can be reported with the appropriate video / test evidence to show it happening here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1973-ground-vehicles/

Tech Mods will also then test to make sure its reproduceable, then it can be forwarded.

Balancing issues can be raised in the most relevant topic. If for example, its BR or Economy related, it should be raised with those topics when those updates are present, then we forward them onto the developers. The more people that support/agree with a point, the better.

Anything else can be raised in the relevant forum topic for that vehicle and one of us tagged. If we can get an answer, one will be provided.

A historical report with clear values of its intended performance and showing what exactly is incorrect and by exactly how much is all that's required. All tanks are modelled as closely as can be within the game engine as they can be made. If there is any other reason, when the report is actioned, we can provide the answer back.

Exactly so

I think its best we keep conversations about matters nobody here has any of the details on away from this topic. Not only is if off topic, but since nobody here has seen my contract, coupled with the fact it has nothing to do with this topic, it does not need to be discussed here.

Needless to say, I'm well aware of my role as a Community Manager and everything that entails and have passed all feedback whenever it was given, no matter how far back it was. It's not a matter to be discussed here or anywhere else. There seems to be a missunderstanding from some that somehow I or any other CMs did not "transmit" the thoughts being relayed here. That is not and has never been the case.

So let's please keep the conversation on matters relivant to this topic so we can better focus on the actual subject matter.

Nobody has been asked to suppress their opinions and thoughts, simply that we ask the conversation remain constructive and something we can continue to keep passing thoughts on with. I think some have missunderstood that.

We do not plan to contact any one individual or small group. We have been following all the feedback here and passing it all on. It is far better to engage with the whole community rather than a few select individuals and gather everyone's thoughts and feedback.

None the less, the developers are very much aware of what people wish to see in the form of a new French top fighter and are working to make it a reality.

If there are any further groups, or platforms of which we can participate to discuss with more people, we will always do that where possible.

Typo on my part, just "working". It's been underway for some time.

The Player Council did not work in any capacity really. Both for players and developers.

We already had a question in the next Q&A, however the popular vote of the other questions in the YouTube comments meant it wasn't possible to present them all this time. But we hope to have it in the next one.

We have already forwarded all feedback, both on the matter of production vehicles on the Vautour IIN long before the premium replacement was even mentioned and we have again relayed those thoughts based on some recent constructive posts from @panzerknoef and @Cedjoehere:

The developers do already have some considerations for the Vautour IIN within the standard branch too, however it will not be with this update. Primarily because there is already the Mirage 5, Seafire III the IIN premium replacement was planned for this update due to the replacement being necessary for the release of the Israeli tree which we already said was coming.

The main priority air wise for the French tree is a new top fighter aircraft, followed then by considerations for a IIN within the tree after this point.

At the moment, the model itself is not yet fully finished, so we cannot share anything further at this time. But more information should be available in the coming days that we can share.

We have forwarded the suggestion. The current reasoning is that the 2 x AS.30 would simply be the better option, but we let the devs know there is demand to see the AS.20 option too.

Currently the new platform is also being tested by both the QA department and Russian Alpha testers. For the time being, the platform is primarily intended for actual bugs. Not historical isssues, so for now, its better to report those types of issues here on our forum, to ensure we get them and can handle them.

For the time being, it will be actual bugs with the game. Historical issues are better reported here for now. In time however, we plan to expand the platform and ultimately replace the forum system entirely.

Not everything is ready to be shown yet.

You asked what BVV said and I've clarified the answer. More is to come that's not been shown.

We almost never show everything by the first Dev server.

We have only just had the first Dev server and we have already answered about that.

There is nothing to help with. We have already explained that not everything has been shown and every single patch, there are things that are not ready in time for the dev servers.

Starting a "Righteous Crusade" is just going to get topics locked unnecessarily.

R550 II is closer to the AIM-9M + or R-73. Both of which are not currently in game. The MLD also does not yet have its all aspect R-60Ms either. Magic 2s performance far exceeds almost every other missile.

In terms of its overall characteristics and capabilities, it's closer to the M than the Lima. Whilst they are close, the Magic II is on the upper end of that spectrum.

Once we have some more detailed factual statisrics to check over and go by, we can then begin to make decisions on BR or missile changes. For launch however, Magic II at this time is simply not required.

My bad, not enough coffee in the world for today

Being present on google or any online resource is not proof of declassification.

As per our rules, proof of declassification / public domain use is required:

The example of a Spitfire manual is a very clear situation. The manual originates pre-1980s has been cleared for public release and is being sold by the RAF themselves via offical means. This is a pretty wildish example.

There are examples of manuals post 1980 that do not have any obvious classification markings on them yet still are not cleared for the public domain. There have also been cases where something was falsely marked as declassified when it was in fact not.

As such, this requirement comes from the developers and our legal team. If material post 1980 is to be used that does not have a very clear source of declassification to the public domain, it must therefor be proven by the reporter that it is fit for use. Almost all other games / simulations operating in the same vain also require this.

Exceptions may apply. These are additional rules on top of the existing ones. Anything classified without clear declassification / public domain will still require proof as has always been the case.

Just for clarities sake and remaining on subject. A total of two reports have been submitted so far on the Mirage F.1C. One was already fixed on a later version of the Dev build before the report had even been forwarded, and the other cited sources from a static engine test bed thrust. So
there are no outstanding reports currently for the aircraft.

All nations have historical issues outstanding, some longer than 2 years. With two significant ones for the French tree have now been resolved this patch, as well as the Mirage F.1C coming, this should lead things in a positive direction.

The link is to a 3rd party website, which are themselves not accepted as secondary sources, since it's just an amalgamation of material without proper citation. It's also not relivant to the report in question.

We are not asking anyone to do anything. You made the claim the aircraft is "broken" and I have pointed out how only 2 issues were reported, both of which have been resolved.

If you believe something is incorrect and have the evidence to prove that, we can forward it for investigation. However this far, there have been no reports to fix.

As has been the case for other top teir aircraft, providing it's compatable to mount something, it's possible modifications from other variants will be considered. In this case flare/chaff is important for top tier. This is not incorrect and present on several top aircraft.

The other "multiple known aspeects of the aircraft" that are wrong have not been reported in any capacity.

We have aircraft in game already of this calibre. Fares / chaff are an important gameplay consideration and as you know, providing a system is compatible with an aircraft, but from another variant, it's open for consideration by the devs. Many examples of tanks and aircraft like this exist in game.

Unless there is evidence of a lack of compatibility or lack of clarity on that.

Providing it is not restricted or clasfied, it can be used a secondary source requiring an additional source.

Every case can be different depending on the sources and origin. Therefor it's not possible to have spesific rules for every possible instance, but instead have general rules that cover all likely outcomes from a legal perspective protecting both the user and Gaijin from possible implications.

Again, other games / simulation genre titles have similar rules coving such source material. Given the legal issues that can rise, it needs to be safe.

This is what it currently is in game (within the margin of error)

Wikipedia is not a valid source. I'm also not sure what this has to do with the thrust output that was being discussed.

If you believe it's incorrect and have more substantial source material (wiki won't be accepted), please feel free to report it. But 8kg extra on the engine is not going to make much difference, if that claim does turn out to be correct.

As far as I'm aware, as Grom said the FM was final. There have been some fixes to the aircraft.

Defiantly not finished I might add*

This is just the CDK for the time being. A lot of aircraft have this.

It does not use the Phirmat pod currently, just the Corails. But may be expanded when the loadouts come in.

Gun pods can be under the wing too.

"Currently" I should add ))

We are waiting on a response, but a proper report with factual testing would be best for trackabilities sake.

We dont have any outstanding reports on the forum that im aware of. Can you please link the reports?

Devs are aware of it. To be fixed.

The fix should be implemented now. The Devs said it should be at similar levels of agility to the R-24R.

All reports will be reviewed in due course.

On and around patch day, the priority is actual game bugs and stability.

The issue has already been fixed, as @WreckingAres283has already pointed out:

So far there is only one pending report to be processed that's a compressed report.

Multiple issues combined into one rather than separate reports. Confuses the issues within and leads to higher chances of error.

The known issue was the G limit, which has been fixed already.

There have been no historical reports thus far spesifcally on it's maneuverability.

The G fix was for the R530F.

I was just clarifying that we can't do anything without backed up reports. Well aware of the sources situation.

"We all know" based on what exactly?

The developers can't make changes to FMs just because you make a claim to know something.

Please submit any valid sources via historical reports and we can forward them for review. But we can do absolutely nothing with baseless claims.

All FMs are based on historical souce data. Primary and secondary sources.

We do not make flight model changes based on the fact a previous aircraft may be better / worse. It's based on factual information. Which you are welcome to submit.

All new top jets are generally placed at an initial BR and then depending on how they perform, changes made from there.

According to the information the developers currently have, the R530F had a pulse seeker. Doppler appeared on the R530D. As such its modelled in accordance with other pulse seekers.

If anyone has any information contrary to this, it should be reported here please:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1957-weapons-and-ordnance/

2 secondary sources are whats required to forward a report. Its not a guaranteed change if the sources turn out to be disprove, untrustworthy etc.

Encyclopaedias are not accepted, even as secondary sources. You can see what is accepted here:

ECCM is Electronic Counter-Countermeasures and relates to anti jamming and other ECM measures. Chaff is not ECM.

The document itself would need to be proven as declassified and this supported in the report. Otherwise we cannot use it.

If they are correctly sourced and backed up. Plenty in the past have not been and some simply quote each other as a source. Encyclopaedias often cover things like Wikis etc.

We are not the US military and that source is referring to ground or ship dispersed chaff as you can see for yourself.

ECM packages can include countermeasures launchers within them. But in this case the source mentioning ECCM specifically also states anti-jamming circuitry. Unless that can be explicitly linked that its referring to anti-chaff. Its pretty meaningless with regards to chaff.

The developers are not going to accept a US military source that has no relation to what's in question here. This is just getting off track at this stage as I said these sources are way of any relevance to what's being reported or what the US military may define something as. It should not be used in any report on the R530.

We have highlighted what's necessary to be submitted and what ECCM is generally covering in the source you submitted on the R530.

We haven't had any reports on it thus far other than this one which is incomplete and lacking any form of evidence: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/irw5jM56IE5M

If you can submit one, please do and we can forward it.

Any kinds of threats to any members of staff or community members of any kind will not be tolerated.

There is no justification whatsoever in any capacity and it does absolutely nothing to resolve any of the matters being raised and in fact diminishes any sense of a serious constructive discussion and dialog taking place.

Please re-read what I actually said. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that "all mirage F1 fans" are being accused of anything or treated in anyway as a result of a singular persons actions.

I made it clear we will not tolerate threats to anyone of any kind no matter whatever perceived justification someone tries to come up with.

Nobody here has been punished or accused of anything. Please check what was actually said before making accusations that are simply incorrect.

It's not just "sad" people make death threats, it is intolerable, unjustified and indefensible.

If you wish to report bugs or issues, please feel free and we will forward them on for review and resolution. But please do not make it out that anyone who is simply taking part in this discussion is being punished. I made it clear what is unacceptable.

Meaning a threat of any kind over a video game does not make anything be taken more seriously, but in fact removes any notion that it will be taken seriously or aid the outcome in any way.

In no way does that mention anyone else or this topic as a whole.

Please don't be selective in what context you choose to put something and twist words.

As soon as we receive some sourced historical reports on the matter, we will forward them for review.

It's characteristics (FM) is all based on souce material as all FMs are. So in order for any changes to take place, it needs to be supported by some form of evidence.

Other games manuals are not usable.

Primary sources are not necessarily the o only option if there is credible secondary sources to prove something is incorrect.

Other companies themselves come to conclusions based on their own assessments of material in the same way we do. It's not impossible they have made mistakes of their own and their material itself is not primary or secondary but a 3rd party amalgamation of material they have collected. Not to mention it is their own work and that prevents its own legal issues.

Therefore we do not accept 3rd party works or sources from other games.

Every vehicle in game is a collective work of a multitude of sources. Simply put, we cannot do this for every vehicle in the game whenever people cannot themselves locate material on a particular matter. We even trialed doing this a couple of years ago with the Challenger and Type 90 tank. Rather than solving any issues, it actual lead to even more conflicting discussions and did not really do anything to be contributing towards any conclusions in the communities that requested. It's not just a case of dumping our entire library of source material, but requires significant time in of itself to organise and present it, which as previous experiences have shown has done little to nothing to actually resolve any of the questions.

Doing it for one vehicle also sets the president we will do it every time for every vehicle that becomes "hotly discussed". As such, it's better to keep it simply to if an issue is located with sufficnet material to suport the claim, then we can forward it for review. We simply cannot reasonably or realistically drop all the materials used for a given vehicle over the many months of its development.

No historical report has been submitted on the matter.

Nobody has claimed all sources are not valid.

The only things we have clarified is:

1) for primary sources, they just be fully declassified (in the material being used) and sufficiently proven as such to be used.

2) two agreeing secondary sources that do not provide conflicting values or information.

Should be corrected with the custom loadouts, but there was also a report somewhere on this I believe I saw. If I can relocate it I will mark it up for now anyway until the loadout editor comes.

Thus far there hasn't been a completed report on it to fix.

This is incorrect. Providing the information is confirmatory and reliable enough, it will be considered.

So far every report that has been forwarded on the F.1 has been fixed.

The source can be used, but as a single source on the R350 it wont be sufficient alone.

Under review. IIRC it was waiting for secondary sources to be added. If thats done then it will be forwarded as soon as we can get to it. However I believe he was more referring to the chaff lock side of things.

One of the developers has confirmed the correct weight also in the link I posted in the response. It's 7850. https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/F2VDy6qRnMOE

We haven't denied any reports with any manuals. We have said that if they are to be used, proof of declassification is required for us on the forum to be able to accept it. Providing it can be proven to be declassified, it can be used

I am responsible for the Technical Moderators and have guidelines set by developers and our legal team that we have been asked to follow. I am not responsible for what developers choose to do.

Its also worth noting even the sources you submitted didn't fully agree, as one stated 7600 not 7400. So its not "every single source" out there.

The issue is not that its a manual, the issue is that its not conclusive and not for the relevant missile at hand. Thus its not as authorative this way.

They are for two completely different matters. One also provides a direct figure on the issue in question allowing clear confirmation, the other provides a rather loose statement on a different missile of the same family.

The Tech Team still handles the bug tracker, but developers from time to time pass on there too. Again what they choose to do is not down to my decision or control. I can only go by what we have been told by development lead and legal.

We don't confirm or deny any future additions ahead of time. We announce them via dev blogs, news or Q & As.

Because it was a long expected addition that we had made clear for some time that it was a priority for the developers.

If its not realistic, you can submit whatever sources you have to make that claim here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1951-aircraft/

We can then forward the report to the developers for review. However making a random negative statement without any backing isn't going to change anything unfortunately.

Regarding the chaff resistance, only the R530 was reported here as it lacked any sources on the S530F: https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/Ta0aSuimK6s8

A developer also responded above about the wording of those types of sources:

Additionally this report remains under investigation:

We are aware of it, doesn't really provide much new information. As per the previous dev response in this thread already.

Please check my post again, a developer has already responded in this very thread about the chaff resistance sources submitted so far and their wording:

We have one here: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/f2xx0MdVQmAo

I will pass it on.

You will need a second source for the G overload. As you didn't mention that in the original post.

Looking at the second quote, it also doesn't match. It mentions a lock and track range of 10km, but doesn't mention all aspect. You need a second source to confirm your first sources figure of 4.5km for all aspect.

Both need to show an agreeing figure for a change to take place. The 10km value also makes no reference to the all aspect element which the first source claims is only 4.5km.

Because the second source states a 10km lock can be achieved, that does not mean that's in all aspect ratios or between 4.5 and 10. A clearly defined value for all aspect that agrees with your first is required to pass the report.

Two agreeing secondary sources are required and this is the same standard across the whole game for all nations.

In this case the two sources do not agree.

All radars follow their historical data. If you believe one is incorrect, you can report it with the appropriate documentation.

As far as I'm aware, none are "buffed" above where they should be unless its already been noted somewhere. All radars are generally implemented based on whatever source material is available. However this question would be better directed at @k_stepanovich.

To clarify, the F.1 was always planned this patch and was not "rushed out the door last minute" due to people complaining it wasn't on the dev server. We never officially confirmed it was going to be in this update, so if it wasn't going to make it, it wouldn't have been added. Models take months of work and are not able to just be dropped in a matter of days.

Your indeed correct we have been monitoring this thread and welcome any source backed reports. However claims of:

Are not really going to progress matters much. Especially since they are incorrect.

Its better to focus on factual information. Which we will of course review seriously.

Common for most new unique vehciles when first uploaded to the Dev server. Never made it to the live server so the Dev server was doing exactly as it should here.

The only major thing changed after the patch went live was the extra G overload. It was was not a copy paste.

Not bug reprorted.

Incorrect. Many of the reprorts were misunderstanding the value of weight in game and the overall weight was matching several source materials including manuals.

Nothing else thus far that hasn't already been forwarded has been properly reported or backed fully with the required sources. As mentioned above, we have been following the thread. However it hasn't translated into a lot of proper reports or supported evidence.

Primary data is generally always used where possible and there are declassified manuals for the F.1 family available as well as supporting secondary material.

We don't expect anyone to find anything. You are suggesting something may be incorrect, but the data we have does not show that. Therefore we will gladly review any and all repeorts with the relivant data, however if you can only find 1 source that provides the value you are trying to achieve, that's not our fault you cannot find another. Sometimes sources have conflicting values, which is why we generally go with the ones either A) confirmed by a primery level source B) multiple supporting and agreeing secondary sources.

This is not an issue. We have multiple french speaking members of staff available to translate. You are referring to one issue (Etendard radar) and that is due to a lack of clear source material on it's operations.

You are free to hold your own personal opinion, but it does not make it a fact. However going into tinfoil hat conspiracy theory level of any sort of intentional "hold back" of France is both untrue and simply irrlivant to progressing any of the matters in question. It is not constructive, not productive and not going to move any matters in the correct direction you seek. We are here trying to progress matters.

We will continue to work through any properly sourced reports and constructive feedback on this aircraft, however incorrect assumptions like these sadly do nothing to progress any of the matters at hand.

We welcome any reports on the issues mentioned.

Magic 2 conforms to the available source material the Devs have. We welcome any further reports if you believe something is incorrect.

I have already answered your PM last week. We don't require "full documentation" simply further supporting evidence that detials the radars use and functions. None the less, this has nothing to do with this topic and should simply be handled via PM.