So what’s the “linked to the internal report” for?
Adding the same sources always ended up in “duplicate” now.
I mean if you think that might be the issue than I will make another report with all the sources combined, but I have a feeling it’s just getting the duplicate and magazine treatment…
This is what frustrates me the most, reports that decrease performance can be 3rd party but anything proving the missile to be capable of reaching mach 3 must be from diehl themselves
gunjob is typing :))))))
I kind of regret pulling him in here lol hope he just turns other way and runs xD
Not a requirement I’ve ever forced on players, provided its an operating country I would consider that perfectly acceptable as a source. I can’t do anything about the report right now as I’m working and stuck in some training session. But this evening I’ll take a look.
Thank you :)
could you by chance also look at this one?
like, I dont get what the Mod there is even trying to prove
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/7QLtjHf43Zin
So when it comes to buffing, they need thousands of sources, but as soon as something needs to be nerfed, they just trust a random report with 0 sources??
What? You say the radar doesn’t track nearer than 500 Meters, he shows a target 580 Meters away and says it does. Seriously, has this manager potatoes for brains?
Source was attached, any attachments are only viewable by BRM’s and the user who created the report.
actuel devs
From what i see he doesn’t understand you are talking about the altitude and not distance, luckly the comments are closed and you can’t further explain the issue ))
Source is hidden and only visible to moderators. But it’s definitely not a primary source from Diehl but rather a secondary source, so why a single one was enough I don’t understand… It was also likely a “foreign” source as well…
Probly atached pdf, but according to our post that just got denied as not enough info, so should that post have been denied as it’s a foreign source aswell, double standards man
That is however a primary source, so yes, only one needed.
For the SLM speed we only have third party (not accepted at all unless the other requirements are met by other sources as well) or Secondary sources (at least two needed).
We should be up to two secondary now, but we’ll see what Gunjob says when he’s had time to look into it :)
quick question in the wiki page of the aim9x it says at least 60g but in dev serv only 50g ?
“Not reliable source, get gud” bug report in their words
But we do have a primary source stating the travel time and the range.
Do we really need a primary speed for the exact speed? Mach 3 is unlikely to be the correct speed, too.
I don’t think the missile will have the exact amount of thrust to go to Mach3 so it could be between Mach 2.5 or 3.5 for example.
Primary source for range and time to target should be taken into account.
I mean look at the Rafale. They have literally no idea what the drag value is, had the supercruise number and tweaked the drag to fit it. Now the Rafale has an insanely and unrealistic amount of drag but Gaijin still did it.
I don’t understand why using 2 data points and trying to match the variables is okay in one case but not for the other :/
wiki page is run by volunteers and user made posts So isn’t always up to date or correct. Unless you mean the regular Wikipedia because that isn’t an accepted source.
The DEV server is also work in progress and never final unless explicitly stated by Community managers (and barely even then, dev’s can still make changes after at their discretion).
I found the MSIAC presentation with IRIS-T stating “50g turns reported”, searching the following “MSIAC” “IRIS-T” “50g” filetype:pdf
Surprisingly the same presentation states Reduced smoke for the motor
Yet its still more reliable than their own stats, which they can’t provide where they bring up those imaginary numbers to just nerf NATO equipment