Historical sources do matter and thats why in the case of the F-4F there are two primary ones that back up the decision to consider such missiles.
As for the Mirage, I have no idea how you came to this conclusion after already making clear to you and others in the Mirage IIIE topic that it was simply something that needed to be reported, not something rejected by the devs.
Thank you everyone that applied!
After reviewing all applications, we have selected the following candidates for Suggestion Moderation:
@super_cacti
@Thatz
@GandhiKhan
We will reach out to the users above in the coming days detailing further steps.
Once again, thank you to all applicants and we welcome our new team members!
Not a requirement for being in game and never has been.
The comparison was to point out how its in fact not a double standard and considerations from all aspects are taken in everyone's case.
It actually benefits everyone. Much like the G.91YS that was not used by Italy at all, but was actually just a singular prototype for Switzerland to evaluate based on a requirement to have Sidewinder capabilities as well as a Swedish weapons control system.
The G.91Y that was used by Italy did not have that.
So as I said, to everyone's benefit across the game
The historical standard remains:
1) GAF TO 1F-4F-1 Flight Manual, 15 October 1975, revised 15 July 1976,
2) GAF TO 1F-4F-34-1 Weapons Delivery Manual, 15 September 1976.
However since the start of the game, all weaponry choices have and always will be at the discretion of the developers decisions.
Again this does not compare to the PFM situation.
In the case of the F-4F, there is primary documentation linking the missile to the aircraft and no constraints on the configuration of other weaponry. As such, the developers decided on the grounds of that source material and taking into account the negatives of the F-4F over the other E model family Phantoms (No Countermeasures, worse radar, no AIM-7 capability) that given the aircraft could carry AIM-9E/J and two primary documents also confirm it, it was a reasonable balanced choice for the aircraft.
In the case of th
None of this procedure you are trying to use is what we use in game or what was used on the F-4F here.
Quite simply and clearly, two F-4F sources directly mention AIM-9J and tie the missile to the aircraft.
1) GAF TO 1F-4F-1 Flight Manual, 15 October 1975, revised 15 July 1976,
2) GAF TO 1F-4F-34-1 Weapons Delivery Manual, 15 September 1976.
Not the common rails, not the "ability to". Directly and clearly, they state AIM-9J as a weapon choice. Its therefor viable for the developers to consider for implementation.
On the contrary, there is n
The Soviet PFM does not have two primary sources for the aircraft directly linking the weapon system and aircraft together in the same way the German F-4F does:
1) GAF TO 1F-4F-1 Flight Manual, 15 October 1975, revised 15 July 1976,
2) GAF TO 1F-4F-34-1 Weapons Delivery Manual, 15 September 1976.
It has nothing to do with what nation an aircraft belongs too. Provided the sources are valid for the aircraft in question, the developers review them and base their considerations on these.
In the case of the PFM, its key feature was the X-66 which requires the radar
To be clear, the devs are saying there are 2 primary F-4F documents linking this aircraft directly to the missile.
Nothing has been said about what can / cant hypothetically fire something as you are assuming. What has been said, is if you are trying to make a suggestion for consideration, like the F-4F, you will need a primary / authoritative source or multiple secondary sources with the aircraft in question directly linked to the weapon in question.
Belt composition is an entirely separate matter and not relevant to how missiles and other similar ordinance are consi
Hello
Thank you for taking the time to make a report.
This matter was previously reported here and has been passed to the developers for their review and consideration:
Smin
You answer this yourself with the second point:
Indeed the Flight Manuals are not the only definitive source, but they are a primary source (German F-4F Manual) and when directly linking the aircraft in question (German F-4F Phantom) and the weapon in question (AIM-9J) thats an authoritative grounds for the weapon to be considered for the aircraft. In the absence of any specific source material that directly links the systems, the most authorities sources are used for the decision to be taken by the devs.
The developers consider them on a case by case
Rank II is indeed correct as far as I'm aware
None of these aircraft have any mentions of better missiles in their manuals or any primary sources we currently have on them.
These do not compare to the F-4F, as there are two primary sources supporting the decision for the inclusion of AIM-9E/J on the F-4F:
1) GAF TO 1F-4F-1 Flight Manual, 15 October 1975, revised 15 July 1976,
2) GAF TO 1F-4F-34-1 Weapons Delivery Manual, 15 September 1976.
Again, as I explained to you last week, we welcome suggestions for further aircraft weaponry expansion / improvement, but with the inclusion of source
devtrackers.gg
