The developers are reviewing this matter currently.
Of note however, our consultants could find no information that the Soviet MiG-21PFM had R-13s either. Only Warsaw pact nations (Germany & Poland) were proven to have this on the PFM. So the choice is either having R60 + R-13 at 10.7 or neither of them at a lower BR. Which is what is still being decided.
Please re-read what I said as you just misunderstood it.
R-60s + R-13M are joined. Both are only shown to be present in export variants. So it cant have R-13M and not R-60. Both would have to go.
So the developers are deciding between:
Export variant standard with R-60s + R-13M but no Kh-66 at a higher BR
Soviet PFM with Kh-66 but no R-60 and R-13M at a lower BR
Having the "ability" and actually having them are two separate things.
All sources show so far that the R-60 and R-13M was not on a Soviet MiG-21PFM with Kh-66 and the export models did not use Kh-66.
We already have seen this source and its not enough.
Whatever explanation there may be, it does not really change the fact the majority of sources show it should not have anything past R-3S if we are going with the Soviet PFM and not the export PFM.
No actually as we have already explained, that was an art error. It also lacked the gunpod underneath.
Kh-66 is the main feature of this aircraft (intended to be) so its more likely going to come in the correct Soviet service configuration with Kh-66 and R-3S at a lower BR.
Again, technically the missile could be fitted. Was it actually ever done so on a PFM is more the real question and why its not being done here.
There is no proof it was ever used.
Right now Kh-66 and R-3S is the most likely configuration.
This was posted ages ago by our consultant in the bug report regarding this matter. F-89D also has nothing to do with this topic.
It never used it at all and at 10.0 with Kh-66 being its main feature its perfectly fine at 10.0. Its an upgrade over the F-13 and joins the MiG-19 below the top variants of SMT and Bis.
The comparison with Harrier is rather redundant as a MiG-21PFM with Kh-66 and R-3S is perfectly starting at 10.0 whereas a Harrier GR.1 without SRAAMs (the only missile tested on a GR.1 era airframe), it would hardly be even 9.3 worthy but has performance above that. Regardless, this is not about the Harrier, but MiG-21PFM, which is exactly whats coming.
No we dont actually. Again if you have proof of a Soviet MiG-21PFM with this mounted, please do share it and we will forward it. But so far, there is no proof outside of export models.
If its not 10.0 worthy, then as with all BRs, that can change.
This is an east German MiG-21F-13. Here it is with its unfaded paint.
As for the others, they will require proper sourcing to show its a PFM and what you say.
Right now its not. It has Kh-66 and R-3S.
It was still WIP back then.
An aircraft monument is not a valid source. Since they can often be made of a mash of parts and simply for cosmetic display.
Yes and in the game environment, it was deemed too poor to even be worth implementation. It would be best only against a blind target in level flight.
Having Kh-66 already make the PFM unique.
The difference being that was Swift F.7s one and only missile and its core purpose. The PMF has far more choices.
Its not ruled out forever, but certainly lets say for now, its not coming.
Again, we are aware of foreign and export use. But this is a Soviet PMF, which didn't have R-13M.
They are not based off a museum piece. They are based of the tests conducted by Hawker with a Hunter F.6 and the actual mounting to a Harrier T.52 which itself is a T.2 which is a 2 seat GR.1. This was done as it's the only possible missile Harrier GR.1 could have. Without it, it would be much harder to balance as it's flight performance dictates it should be at an awkward spot without the air-to-airs it really needs to be relevant.
Meanwhile MiG-21PFM has its own historical weaponry which was the exact reason people started this topic (to have a historical PFM) and will be perfectly fine with it's correct armament.
No they have them because they actually had them and there is clear evidence of them in service or used on those aircaft. I have no idea where you got the notion that it's because a museum piece of monument has them being the sole reason they have them in game.
Please re-read what I said.
Harrier GR.3 has access to air to air missiles. For now that's AIM-9G with the prospect of later missiles as an upgrade too.
GR.1 by comparison had none with SRAAM being the only one closest to its timeframe.
So it's clear SRAAM is the only option for GR.1 whilst Harrier GR.3 has multiple choices.
There really wasn't a need for 3 early Harrier variants. Plus again, the whole point of SRAAMs on GR.1 was to actually make it useful. Without them it was a questionable balancing prospect as its performance dictates more towards a higher BR whilst it's combat capabilities in the hands of most without any air-to-air is not great at all.
T.52 is indeed unique and survives today in Brooklands. I've been several times to see it
But the fact the aircaft is there does not mean all the required info to implement it also were widely available.
In the end it was decided to focus on the two most famous variants. GR.1 and 3.
All articles should now be correct. Some of the languages were updated before the presents were updated.
Yes. There was some confusion in older texts in some languages because the preset changes were only recently made.
Also nothing has been ignored. I have already responded regarding the first source being A) Secondary B) Unproven and so far, no further correct evidence has been brought forward to show it should have R-13M.
If you check my first post here, I already quoted and responded to that source.
Its also now explained in the article what it has:
There is nothing new to pass on. So far you have not provided anything that shows a Soviet PFM with R-13M.
Its just been going round in circles with unsourced or unproven (and then disproven by others) images that anyone can do for any aircraft.
Anyone can grab a rough picture and make a claim. For example, Harrier GR.3 with AIM-9M:
The image quality is so bad, a lot of people would probably believe that without knowing their sidewinders properly. But its not, its an AIM-9L when you check the source
Images must be clearly and properly sourced and any florigen export models are irrelevant to the one coming in.
I have already told you the exact information from the devs and explained why some languages are behind. They all need to be updated.
It has R-3S.
The OP was mainly asking for R-60 to be removed and using only 1 single source to validate R-13M, which as I have already said, is not enough and has been disproven.
Im not even sure where you are even getting that explanation from because its not at all what I said.
Sidenote, all fixed now.
Please actually read my posts before you mistquote them
Only pictures is not necessary. The point was, in the entirety of this topic, the only close to valid source posted has been the one you originally shared.
Whilst its correct about the Warsaw pact PFMs having them, there is no further evidence to suggest the Soviet ones did. Hence why thus far its not getting them.
If you have more valid sources, we can gladly pass them on. But so far nothing else has come up.
Im not ignoring anything. Ive already responded twice on these sources, so perhaps its you ignoring things.
These are not Soviet MiGs. They are Bulgarian ones. Again, we already know Warsaw pact nations had them, but this is specifically about a Soviet PFM going in the Soviet tree.
Bringing up the Harrier over and over is not going to suddenly make the sources any more valid.
The devs are very much aware R-13M was in foreign PFMs. It doesn't change anything.
I mean to say 3, the 9 was a typo
And yes, GR.3 had L later in its life for sure. But its a bit too soon for that now.
It's not. As the Dev blog said, it's in its historical Soviet configuration with R-3S and Kh-66.
Perhaps read the topic title and original post and everyone that agreed with it. Thats why.
As I previously said, 10.0 is the introductory BR. If it does poorly, it will go down. If not, it will remain. Its an improvement over the F-13.
BRs are never calculated based on an aircrafts stock performance. Otherwise the Hunter F.6 would be different entirely.
Thats mostly due to R-13M not being present, which thus far are still unproven on Soviet examples apart from the only valid secondary source posted so far in the OP.
This wont wont be changed as its as it was intended to be and what we said it would be. Future variants are not ruled out though.
Event vehicles are typically specific examples either of a certain unit or period. In this case, a MiG-21PFM in Soviet Service.
Its the same case with the FJ-4B VMF-232 which only has 2 x AIM-9B but Bullpups whilst the regular tree FJ-4B has 4 x AIM-9B but no bullpups.
Premiums and TT vehicles can be much broader scope. But event vehicles are supposed to be rare and unique.
With regards to the T-72 TURMS, there were actually multiple sources. So far on the PMF, the only valid source posted to date has been the secondary source by the OP. Everything else has either been an entirely different variant, the wrong missile in the picture or a foreign export PFM and not a Soviet service one.
Last time I checked, this topic was on the MiG-21PFM. Not a Harrier. I've explained multiple times that this is an event vehicle which are usually based solely on a specific variant. If legitimate historical sources can be provided that show R-13M on a Soviet service PFM, then the decision will be reconsidered. But so far all anyone has done for the last 5+ pages is just to repeat over and over about Harrier and SRAAM, which I'm not going for explain in detail for a 5th time because it's not the same case as this as much as some are really trying to make it out to be.
Actually I've spent the past week explaining that if valid sources are posted, the developers can review them. But so far the only one posted has been by the OP which is a secondary source at best. Bringing up the Harrier for the 20th time does not change the fact that this is an event vehicle which are usually always based on a specific time period or service state in game like the FJ-4B. Repeating the same thing about the Harrier isn't going to change anything. Valid sources will.
If 10.0 is not suitable for it, then quite simply it will go down. The original purpose of this topic, as per the title and OP, was to have a "historically accurate" MiG-21PMF and thats exactly whats coming.
Please don't automatically assume because im explaining why something is how it is, that im also not communicating with developers on matters at the same time. It seems to be a common trend that you don't understand. Its also been the Christmas holidays, so I and most other CMs have not been here.
Its already known to the developers that an Experimental Type 77 configuration was done during trials. As EpicBlitzkrieg also pointed out that you omitted here, this was not a standard PFM and is no more valid than the export ones already discussed previously. The same case was true with the MiG-21Bis, in that certain configurations were possible to allow for the firing of the Kh-66 on that platform. But this again involved swapping radars to one like the PFM currently has that can guide Kh-66.
We don't have RS-2US in game and don't currently plan to add it due to how bad it is. But yes, its known about the radar as I have already discussed this with you on the MiG-21Bis topic regarding Kh-66.
The rest is known to the devs already.
At this stage, what people are pushing for is closer to either an MiG-21S (which is what that very example above was leading towards) or an Export PFM. Both of which have nothing do to with a Historical Soviet service PFM.
We dont plan to change this current PFM to an export model or the MiG-21S (or its prototypes), so its better to divert that line of though to suggestion topics on new variants.
Something being derived from something im afraid isn't enough to quantify it being added. It needs proper sourcing to show explicitly it was used and in what configurations.
But then there is always developer deaccession at the end of that too. Ultimately they decide what does and what does not appear.
Right now there is nothing to comment on regarding it. At least in the short term, there are no plans for any new MiG-21 variants in the Soviet tree right at this moment, unless something drastically changes.
As I have already said, if 10.0 does not suit the aircraft, it can move down or up depending on how it performs.
As we already discussed before, the devs are aware that in certain configurations the MiG-21Bis could mount and fire Kh-66, but ours is not currently in that configuration and they don't plan on changing it.
No, we have said from the start that certain configurations of Bis could use them. But not our one as it currently is.
PFM has Kh-66 now.
Our Bis in its current configuration cannot carry them, so yes, only this PFM thats coming can carry them in game without a rework. Since thats its key point and feature, the devs don't plan to change the model of Bis we have.
In its current configuration in Aviation Battles, MiG-21Bis is one of the 2 top performing and capable aircraft in game as of present.
In ground battles at the same BR, USSR line-ups have Ka-50, Ka-52, Mi-28 and Mi-35 with even more anti-tank capabilities than 2 x Kh-66 can offer. On top of that, more USSR ground-attack capable aircraft are planned for the future.
Options are always open for future variants.
At the moment, its not planned to add RS-2US, but perhaps in future its possible.
As todays update showed and as I previously said, if something is performing above or below where it should be, then we can change the BR. Today the Harrier was moved to 10.0 and the A-7D to 9.7:
The exact same thing can happen to the PFM.
We will forward the ones relating to issues with the performance etc as soon as possible.
However the R-3R report is not a bug but a suggestion as its not missing from the PFM and the devs will not treat it as a bug as they are well aware Soviet PFMs did not have these missiles. Especially as all of the sources you have included even themselves quote it as a MiG-21PF/FL.
Regardless of when they go, its also very unlikely anything will be changed soon as its now New Years holidays and then Russian holidays for the first half of January.
We will need proper reports to forward.
Thanks. These will be tested as soon as possible.
Reported issues are fist tested for replication by Technical Moderators, then forwarded to the developers for resolution.
Yes. As I said, its New Years Eve today and Russian Holidays almost immediately after. Even if the reports were forwarded today it would not make a difference.
I am only relaying the information I have on the devs and that is that our version, was not equipped with them in this configuration. If you have evidence to show it does, then please forward a historical report.
Very unlikely now since its New Years + Russian Holidays for the majority of Jan. Being capable of and actually firing are two separate things too. If our Bis had them, then as I said, a historical report is all thats needed for the devs to consider it. But its also down to them to decide what receives what.
Some of the sources you posted in the report even conflict and disagree:
As well as:
So at the moment, the only source mentioning clearly PFM is this: http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft19985-3.htm
Which is again secondary at best.
The plane is going to be available before Russian holidays are over. As I said we have New Year now for most of the world then Russian Christmas holidays starting basically right after.
As I said this is also not a bug. Its not something missing from the actual PFM. Its an experimental configuration so far only backed up by one secondary source. So at best its a suggestion and will require the devs to search for more sources to actually validate its a PFM as that website claims it is. So even if they were not on holiday, its not going to happen before the plane comes out.
Im not really sure why we keep going back to the GR.1 having explained it so many times. But the difference being GR.1 without the SRAAM it has no air-to-airs whatsoever, making it far more problematic to balance. MiG-21PFM on the other hand had air-to-air missiles in soviet service and will be perfectly fine as an upgrade to MiG-21F-13. As we have already explained with the BR. If 10.0 is not suitable and it performs poorly, the PFM like every other plane can be adjusted.
Because its a marketing photo with weapons simply laid out for people to see. You cannot fire SRAAMs without the pods and the pods always have X2.
Again, why we are going off topic here with the GR.1 when the PFM as it stands now has its fully historical and correct payload is pointless. The PFM thats coming is exactly what this topic was asking for. Historical.
This link convolutes things even more as it claims the PFS is an entirely seperate aircraft to the PFM, which is then further backed up here:
This one is the one source we have so far that solidly confirms it, but its secondary. We need something stronger.
F-13 is the first and one of the most iconic version as well as the main version that fought in Vietnam. Thus it was the first to join the game with SMT not far behind it.
Im not really sure what your point is here. You yourself even mentioned earlier how Bulgaria and several others took on ex-Soviet PFMs as well as other MiG-21s as well as the fact that countless Warsaw pact states used inspired styles of Soviet camouflage and repainted their own markings over the top.
The camouflage the PFM in game has is a standard Soviet one of the era that was also used on ones in Afghanistan and there are countless examples and variants of it:
Its not a Bulgarian skin. Its a USSR skin which you are misinterpreting.
He is mistaking a Bulgarian MiG-21PFM that has a similar camo to the Soviet Afghanistan era conflict camo. Many Warsaw pact nations that took on PFMs took them on with Soviet inspired camos.
There was no "conflicting information". The aim of this topic was to make it a historical PFM and thats exactly what happened. Some people are then aiming to make this plane something it is not.
Im not even sure what new sources have been posted as thel last few pages appear to be a bit of a mess. But any sources should be added to a historical report. If they are irrelevant, then they wont be used.
Oh yes those. I thought he meant new ones.
They are still secondary sources and again we are talking about an unconfirmed experimental aircraft here which other sources conflict with.
So again, it will be forwarded when possible as a suggestion with those secondary sources and then the consultants will need to do further reviews to confirm if its correct and then its down to the developers to decide upon as they have the final call.
Two points:
1) As I have already explained, its New Years + Russian holidays, so the developers are not fully around and non-critical issues wont be able to be dealt with
2) Two videos from two content creators is not worthy of a knee jerk reaction to change things based on that. Once stats have been gathered properly, if the BR needs to go down, it can. If further consideration needs to be given to historically backed up armament, it will. But so far, whats been provided will require the consultants to check and validate more.
Please check the title and opening post of this topic. Exactly what was asked for in this topic is whats coming. A historical Soviet service PFM.
As I have said many times before, if the stats show it needs to go to 9.7, it will. If it performs as badly as some make it out to be, it will show.
We don't plan to add what is basically a separate aircraft into the MiG-21PFM. The opening post of this topic and the aim of the topic was to make this a Historical Soviet PFM. Thats exactly whats coming.
An export PFM or MiG-21S would be separate aircraft.
Again, if 10.0 proves to not be viable, then its BR can always change if the stats show that.
We dont make a vehicle to suit a specific BR, as that can always change.
Its not the same comparison.
One is an export variant. One is not.
Again, the aim of this topic, was a historical Soviet PFM. Thats whats coming. Trying to make a vehicle suit a BR in any way possible does not work, because thats not how things are done.
The vehicle will be available in a matter of days and the sort of changes you keep trying to ask for cannot be done in that time as its major holidays in Russia right now.
BRs can change and it will if it shows not to be 10.0 material.
BRs are nothing at all to do with me. They are decided based on the communities stats.
If a change happens, we will put it in the patch notes.
It was not what the developers used as a camo reference, it was another example of the same camo. It is a standard Afghan period Soviet Camo. Its also featured in game on the MiG-21Bis.
@Einherjer1979Already provided even better period examples:
Thats a little bit contradictory to what you are also saying on Reddit at the same time to me:
Nobody is taking any historical nitpicking as precedence here and nobody said some of those things cant happen.
We are expanding flares for all aircraft over time like many ordinance options. If the Soviet PFMs had examples of flares or flare canisters, then that is worth reporting as a historical report.
R-3Rs and K-13Ms land solely with the devs to decide if the sources are strong enough of a link.
On the contrary, it was directly linked to GR.1 and intended for use on it:
This is one example. The devs based it of documentation, literature and further sources from Hawker linking the SRAAM proposal to GR.1, its tests with T.52 and the intrigration with the Harrier airframe.
Laid out weaponry alone is never the sole source. It was the same case with G-LYNX where some weaponry shown here couldn't be validated:
It was demonstrated on T.52 for the purpose of mounting them on GR.1. Both the RAF and British Government funded SRAAM development and trials for use on their Harrier GR.1, but later scrapped the project entirely due to budget cuts and simply opted to buy off the shelf sidewinders and upgrade the rest of their GR.1s to GR.3 standard over time.
GR.1 was the intended recipient, was clearly linked both in photographic and literal sources as well as Hawkers marketing and was proven capable by the tests on T.52.
I believe it came down to the lack of availability of critical sources needed to model that particular variant that stopped the T.52 being possible. The aircraft itself visually is still available to see at the Brooklands museum. But for example its manual and other details are much more complicated. Perhaps one day it will be possible, but certainly not anytime soon.
Lots of vehicles in game have weaponry, shells, ordinance and other systems that were not necessarily "used" but either proposed, intended or directly linked by clear source material. Ho-229 for example in game has its Jumo 004D engines that were proposed, Flak Rak Rad has the VT-1 missile that was a developmental proposal as well as countless tanks in game that have shells they did not necessarily fire but were either capable off, linked too or proposed with. T-72 TURMS is capable of firing 3BM42 for example and there is also background sources that confirm its use. Lynx Ah-1 never actually operationally used all of the weaponry it has available in game. But it was proposed and proven by Westland on G-LYNX that it could.
The point being, if there is credible evidence to show it was possible, was done or was intended to be done, then its something the devs can consider. But at the very least, it has to be grounded in proper source material.
These are export models and in service with other nations. Not the Soviet Union, which is who's PFM we have added now. A Polish, German, Romanian, Bulgarian PFM is not the Soviet PFM.
You misunderstand entirely. He asked why the T.52 variant of Harrier could not be added, and thats because there currently is not enough information on it to add it.
Harrier GR.1 having SRAAMs is backed up by more than enough primary and secondary sources to make it more than viable. The two cases are separate.
You asked why we did not add Harrier T.52, a separate variant entirely.
Not why we added GR.1 with SRAAM, which there is more than enough information to support.
Confusing the two cases, then claiming "double standards" is bending my words.
If you read the very next line:
If the developers consider the current source material to be sufficient for the PFM to receive extra weaponry, then it will be done. That decision is entirely with them. My point being the reason why it was not done from the get go was because there is no source material showing historical Soviet PFMs (what was originally asked for) with them. The only sources so far are on a testbed aircraft that need further validation.
If the devs believe its correct, then its more than possible it can receive them.
There is currently no primary documentation supporting it for a Soviet PFM. Only a photograph of a test best aircraft that is echoed in several books / websites.
Its now down to the developers to decide if that is enough.
This is a GR.1 though as well as all the supporting primary documentation there is by Hawker, along with their marketing to also back it up.
Again, using the Harrier over and over again does not make the PFM case more valid when all that has been presented so far is 2 photographs of a claimed MiG-21PFM test bed development airframe compared to all the supporting documentation the SRAAM has by Hawker, various museums and the photos.
So yes, the two cases are different. More sources on the PFM are welcome, but for now, everything thats been presented is down to the devs to decide.
Once again, this is incorrect and misquoted.
You asked if we had enough data to implement Harrier T. 52, which we currently do not.
However there is more than enough primary source material that shows the SRAAM is also correct for the GR.1 as it was the intended aircaft. T.52 was only a technology demonstrator.
We did not put SRAAM on GR.1 because we did not have enough information to implement T.52. We pit SRAAM on the GR.1 because there is more than enough primary sources to back up the validity of it being proposed, intended and developed with GR.1 being the primary recipient for the RAF. To add, we also didn't just add it because of the single photo of it laid out in front, there is both primary and secondary sources from Hawker to back that up too.
Meanwhile the only sources so far on the PFM are not only secondary but also themselves don't agree. With some sources calling it a PF and others a PFM coupled with the fact it has the early F-13 style of canopy and not the one featured on the later Soviet PFM model.
I have not in battle yet as im still 1 task behind to complete. But flew it on tests.
As Ive also been saying for weeks. If the stats show it needs to change, the BR system is there for a reason.
The aircraft was the reward for the holiday event. We could not delay its release and this was never expected. The report will be investigated, but as I have already said, its the holidays in Russia, so any expectation that it was going to all be done before release when the report only came in last week was impossible.
This has been said about other aircraft before. Again, thats what the BR system is for and the stats will show that.
When the devs have a chance to review the stats and if its shown clearly to need to go down. We have already forwarded all feedback.
What was asked for by this topic as you can see is exactly what came. A historical PFM.
If you read the first few pages, you would see I have read it all and was involved from the start with discussions.
The suggestion was not to have any export PFM options but have a historical Soviet PFM. The further suggestions were for RS-2US, which we dont yet have in game, but would be worse than the current missiles.
Devs are not here to communicate directly, they are here to develop and then pass things through Community Management.
A developer would tell you all the same things I have already told you, because my information comes from the developers themselves.
They are beam riding and even worse. Closer to the Fireflash on Swift F.7.
The devs have said right now its not planned at all for any aircraft. But its possible in the future.
As I have already said, they are considered much worse than what the R-3 offers and more of a gimmick that most will not use.
I'm not sure why your so keen to get my experience, because it is meaningless what I think of it as I or any other member of staff here does not control BRs or Weaponry. We are here to forward player feedback to the developers, which we have been doing.
Whilst I work for the game I am also just 1 player too. My feedback is not more important than any other single player.
We share our opinions and thoughts when its relevant to do so on a subject that requires personal opinion when it comes down to that. This is not one of them, as the largest factor in deciding if a BR is wrong is what the statistics show. Not what a singular person, no matter who they are personally feels about something. Indeed I can and do offer my recommendations, as thats my job. But my personal opinion does not come into it.
As for the Harrier, that was a very simple test. The person claimed you lost 14-17k per game with the Harrier every time at 10.0. What I posted was simply to show that even a not great jet pilot like me can somehow walk away with 230k+ after several 10.0 - 10.7 games in GR.1.
I think you entirely misread my post. My personal opinion of PFM, how it does and how it plays is irrelevant to the matter. Its not my job to give my opinion, but to collect and forward feedback and offer all the recommendations that are available. How I personally "feel" about something is meaningless, because at the end of the day, I too am only 1 player and the game is not about what I or any one person wants.
Just to conclude this, it is indeed a Czech export PFM. Not the Soviet one we have in game:
The RAF and FAA are under the same national military and both British. They often passed aircraft backwards and forwards as well as often combined operation. The case with the Phantom FG.1 is also entirely different, because not only was the F-4K originally tested with a gun pod by Mcdonald Douglas (just not by the FAA because they didn't want it) but the FG.1 was the same aircraft just passed from FAA to RAF service and then fitted with gunpods. They are the exact same aircraft and just continued their service with another branch of the military.
Its not the same as an export model of MiG-21PFM that is a separate variant or modification entirely.
I have answered this many times already. The developers have been away for the moment on new years/Christmas holidays (Russian Christmas is Jan 7). Until they are back, there will not be a BR update. The situation will be reviewed when they return.
Please read the opening post of the topic and title of this topic.
On the dev stream it still had R-60s and more, which was unhistorical. People also pointed it out (this topic) and requested a fully historical Soviet PFM.
Very easy to be willing to take a risk when it is not your risk to take and when all the evidence suggests its not viable.
Current overall population, current matchmaking pool, current queue times, current daily average global over a 24 hour period numbers and current vehicle pool. These are just a few factors.
Its very wrong to assume because you can currently get quick matches in X vehicle, that an expansion to the BRs is possible.
Right now, you are seeing lots of PFMs because its a brand new event vehicle not even a full week into its infancy. All new event vehicles are "spammed out" in the first week or so and then it drops off.
BRs cannot be expanded based solely of a short term period of higher population, but is done over a long period where consistent numbers are shown.
Right now there is no update to share, hence why we have not posted one. The developers just last week came back fully from holidays and as you can see from the changelogs, have been very busy with fixes and improvements.
No Soviet PFM ever carried those missiles. If you have proof that a Soviet one did, then please feel free to make a historical report and we can pass it to the developers to review. But thus far, no valid sources showing the Soviet PFM we have in game ever had better missiles.
What you are asking for is a seperate aircraft and would need to be added separately. If thats what you want to see, I would recommend you create a suggestion for an export model PFM as a new aircraft (German or Polish) that can have wider and more modern weaponry.
Event vehicles are not gap filler aircraft or for a specific purpose. They are rare and exclusive niche vehicles, often representing a certain aircraft in a certain service or configuration. Like the previous FJ-4B VMF-232. They are not the same as standard tree / premium vehicles.
Im really not sure why the Harrier is still being used as the comparison here. There is clear cut evidence of the GR.1 being an intended platform for SRAAM. There are photographs of it alongside the weaponry, documentation by Hawker for the RAF that clearly confirm it and further company information and marketing that shows the clear and direct link. That is more than sufficient. The specific aircraft, we have in game, under its own flag, under its own service.
By comparison, there is no link to Soviet PFMs ever having used, intended to be used or even considered for this weaponry
Because its original state is correct. The aircraft is historical and how it should be.
If your referring to BR changes, they are entirely a seperate matter.
As well as the photos, as I said, there are Hawker company (Both the makers of the Harrier and the SRAAM) documents and marketing material also supporting the photographs and directly confirming the GR.1s intended SRAAM options. Nobody ever claimed a photograph was mandatory for it to be possible, as long as there is primary / authoritative sources clearly showing the connection. In the case of the Harrier, there are, as Hawker's material are primary sources (eg from the manufacture).
By comparison, there is nothing of the sort for a Soviet PFM. A few dodgy websites that make a cla
Everything thus far with source material has already been passed. Concerns about the BR have also been passed. We cannot simply ping the devs every 5 minutes because we ourselves are pinged on the forum. I think everyone can understand the developers are actually busy and have other things to do to.
There is nothing else new to pass here, but we have raised concerns and made clear the feelings.
devtrackers.gg