War Thunder Dev Tracker

It doesn't replicate for me. So other members of the team are also trying to replicate.

As we have already explained, the figure comes from the official GR.1 manual.

It's arsenal may be expanded if particular types of weponary currnently not in game are ever added.

There is only one version of MiG-29 on live server, so if both you and him are playing on live server - vehicles are same.

Feedback on the matter has been continually passed and we will continue to do so. However at this time, the devs do not wish to provide AIM-9L to the F-4F as that would likely require a BR increase. This was the situation before the patch and the most up to date answer I can provide at this time.

The matter of the EJ Kai having them at 11.3 is more likely to lead to that aircraft getting a BR increase. However if the situation changes once we have a clearer view of the statistics we will update the response if there is something to be changed.

Yep. Forwarded thanks.

Thanks for your report. Forwarded for review

The F.2 would have no countermeasures or RWR. Its also an entirely different visual model, so its not exactly a very little issue at all and it would be a massive underestimation of the work required to label it as such. We are well aware of the desires to see an ADV variant, thats why we made it clear from the moment the GR.1 was announced that one was coming. But the GR.1 was always going to be the first variant to come to the game.

We don't only introduce new top fighters to the game. The GR.7 was currently the best aircraft in Air RB statistically up until yesterday in terms of efficiency and even now its still holding strong.

Frustration is one thing, but we do appear to be going round in circles in this topic with very little progress made. Some of those shouting the loudest haven't even flown the aircraft yet. Plus the added claims of things being wrong without any evidence or reports for me or anyone else ...

Thank you. I was checking the community bug site. Will forward that now.

We are treating and handling every properly reported issue seriously. Many of which were fixed on the dev server. Airspeed at sea level and the engines are however correct. So im not sure why this keeps being repeated. Crabbing, a report was made and its being processed. No reports have been made on the slats.

Its not comparable to the F-14? Nobody claimed it was. Again, you are comparing a multi-role strike fighter to a BVR armed carrier fighter.

If its BR requires a change, it will be done. But again, these comparisons of Tornado Vs F-16/14 are meaningless. You wouldnt directly compare a Lancaster to a Bf 109, so im not sure why you would use that context here for anything other than the fact they are on the same BR. Which can change.

This aircraft was not "rushed out". There are always teething issues with new aircraft and new technologies and develo...

You are comparing a multirole strike aircraft directly to an air defence interceptor using two player examples. Again, the developers are monitoring the situation and will make any changes required that are shown, but really this comparison is meaningless.

Statistics were not the only thing or even the major thing used here:

This was primarily a response to lots of the feedback on the aircraft and also just giving a general extra bit of information onto the development of the aircraft, our plans and letting people know we are following feedback.

Also quite a few more people are playing Rank VIII than you make out.

Firstly, its a different context and situation with the MiG-29 situation as its referring to the air-to-air aspect being an air superiority fighter, which the Tornado is not, and the F-16 ADF was also added.

Regarding the Tornado, the devs are reviewing the situation, but again, there isn't any armaments to add other than the addition of the 2 Paveways under the wings. Which is being discussed currently.

Once a conclusion is made, then its BR will be the next thing to review if any changes are made based on how it performs then, if that takes place.

The MiG-29 is not going down in BR, which is what was being asked for here that I said was too soon for.

As the post also states, which I also said earlier:

Dear Players!

We are carefully reviewing the feedback from players, looking at the statistics and playing ourselves on the new Ranks. At the moment, the statistics are not entirely clear - for example, the MiG-29 is worse than all the F-16s, the American F-16 ADF is the best according to the statistics of the first day with more sorties than the MiG-29, while being exactly the same as the Italian F-16 ADF, which has statistics similar to that of MiG-29 with a much smaller number of sorties (usually the fewer sorties - the less popular the aircraft, the more enthusiastic people play it - the better the statistics).

Regarding the R-27T missiles and their countermeasure resistance, the game has 2 available mechanics:

1) Dual-band photodetector - This works as a filter on the frequency of the flares signature. If a flares enters the field of view of the seeker head tracking the target, ...

ASRAAM was never used on GR.1. Its also too early for a missile like that in game.

Hello. M1A1 was corrected based on this report and additionally located material:

Possible we just haven't got around to it yet unfortunately if its pending. After the major there is a huge influx of reports, so our team work through them as quickly as possible.

We generally always use the manual stated Vne wherever possible in game.

Hello

The devs are monitoring the economic performance of the J-7D, but at this time, we cant give any further information as its tied to how the aircraft performs economically rather than a simple direct comparison with other Rank VII premiums. With premiums, they are always at least better than their closest tree counterparts in most cases (in this case the J-7E), however in this case, the J-7E is a particularly high performing aircraft.

So the situation will be monitored on the J-7D.

Please see my above comment. The devs will monitor the aircraft and its situation, making any necessary changes from there once a sufficient data sample is present.

The GR.1 has its correct engines and performance for those engines. Its not incorrect for it to have the 101.

Its using the offical manual speeds.

Not sure what issue you are referring too here, but I cant find a submitted report for it.

Invisible fuel tank bug on console has been fixed, its just pending deployment on the respective platforms.

No reports have been submitted yet on the FM. We will review and pass them as and when they come in.

Its too early for any clear or representative picture. Its only just been a single full day and many people rush to play specific vehicles along with content creators. The devs are monitoring the aircraft, but at least a reasonable sample review is required.