AndrewDCS2005

Direct hits with GBU-12 + FMU-139 at default 4s arm delay, 0s function delay, ATFLIR-designated. Track attached. gbu-12-ccrp-hit.trk

I was testing this when patch came out to see if the claimed fix works, and it does work (updated the thread https://forum.dcs.world/topic/350464-cbu-99-with-fmu-140-is-useless-falls-very-short-in-ccip-and-ccrp). Hornet with ATFLIR and a pair of CBU-99 with FMU-140 fuze set to 1800ft AGL airburst, target designated with ATFLIR, CBUs set to CCRP/AUTO - hits as designated, see track attached. cbu-99-ccrp-hit.trk

Same issue with the track attached and a bit more discussion here

This might be intentional, and noticed by others as well - looks like new fuze settings don't replicate to the new bombs spawned in the air (but works for on-ground rearming after landing)

Disabled, do not see the value of it, does not solve any of high-pri problems. From DCS 2.9.6.57650 Who and where has asked for this? Don't recall it being discussed as a problem in the first place.

Confirmed fixed with DCS 2.9.6.57650 - CCIP and CCRP hits as designated. Thank you!

Confirmed fixed with DCS 2.9.6.57650 - CCIP and CCRP hits as designated. Thank you!

@Muchocracker oh did I miss an ack from ED on the CCIP/CCRP issues, where was that please?

Thank you for prioritizing quality above arbitrary dates! Thank you for transparency and clarity and communicating this publicly to your customers and partners!

For PGU-28, the impact energy (0.5*v^2*m, where velocity is higher at closer range) should not play a role. The spec by manufacturer says >Projectile Material: Hardened steel with aluminum nose cap Aluminum nose is not what penetrates the target, but the shaped charge inside of it - see the projectile cut here. Nose is hollow anyway and filled with incendiary mix. So it does not matter at which speed the projectile hits, as it immediately discharges on impact. My conclusion - Hornet A2G gun is only effective against non-armored targets. I don't recall IRL fighter stories which would mention successful use against armor, but happy to be corrected

Good topic for some research and experiments! M61A2 installed on F/A-18C is a 20mm gun, with the PGU-28A/B semi-armor piercing 20mm munition (100g projectile with 1050m/s muzzle velocity) as the only option against light armor. Here's what I got with 6000 shots per minute rate of fire, in a shallow 25-30% dive, side/rear/front aspect attacks, with two 2-3s bursts on each target: - killed BTR-80 and BTR-82A, bunch of MLRS and MTLB - BTR-RD, BMP-1/2/3, BMD1, BRDM2 have zero damage like if nothing happened. Track and mission attached (endless ammo and fuel just to speed up the test). fa18-gun-range.trk F18-gun-range.miz

No, the EULA section 3.2 says "the Program has not been developed to meet your individual requirements". No one really expects that. If anything, lets quote EULA section 3.3 (emphasis mine) and Terms of Service (emphasis mine) As you say this is a boilerplate legalese, and no one is making any legal claims here (in contrast to RB/ED <profanity>show thread full of lawyers ). Law is hard, and users might forgive issues there. However, in this thread we are talking about ED's own claims and statements. If ED says you can use CCIP/CCRP to deliver free-fall bomb on target, but it falls 500m short or long, ED is eroding trust with its paying customers and community. There's no breach of contract or law, but customers generally remember where they've been lied to, and trust is very, very hard to restore. The problem is DCS a market leader and there are no alternatives, so voting with money doesn't work here.

Thank you for correction, my assumption was wrong. Indeed, looks like ED only has legal entity registered in Switzerland, and most of its engineering team is based in Moscow and Minsk.

@Eagle Dynamics any update on getting this fixed please?

@Eagle Dynamics any update on getting this fixed please?

Not sure what is the sarcasm you refer to - I had none in my messages. Quality beats quantity - I've seen enough success stories and compete studies to say this. Swiss clock was a fun reference to cultural context ED currently operates in, based in Switzerland I am curious about ED business goals and priorities, not daily task breakdown. What are the things that Nick Grey and ED owners (whoever they are) prioritize above all in everything ED does? Users NSAT/NPS? MAU/DAU? Profit margin? Revenue growth? I have my assumptions but would be awesome to somehow understand what ED is driven by.

I don't think ED is entirely sales-driven - and I have this opinion being part of community since my early LOMAC days nearly 20 years ago. It seems ED has got its core priorities right, driven by passion and vision for the best combat flight simulation. Maybe vision needs an update as DCS has arguably reached total market leadership and has no real competition in this segment (yes there are few other good WWI/WWII/modern sims but nothing comes close to DCS). And quality always beats quantity and IS the primary driver of sales. High-quality product which works like Swiss clock every day always outsells nebulous has-it-all bells-and-whistles.

So what are the priorities of ED project managers please? @Wags is this something you would be willing to share with the community here (or in upcoming interviews if any)? And I am not even remotely suggesting using few personal opinions to drive the business. Look at the poll results, heck run the ongoing poll yourself every month/quarter, to know what makes your paying customers happy.

Relevant thread with similar asks and sentiment from @vgilsoler and @virgo47

@BIGNEWY this is exactly how you manage quality vs new features (disclaimer: decades of leading software engineering teams building products with millions of users). Prioritize what your customers need or ask for to be happy and allocate most of engineering capacity to that. In this specific case, your customers who already paid for the product, just want it to work in its current state. What is the point of adding new modules and weapons and features, if existing ones are often broken and make it unusable? New things occasionally get broken too, adding to users' dissatisfaction. You have very engaged, very loyal users - ED can run ongoing poll each 3-6 months and ask community to vote for what makes them most happy and use it for prioritization. I think there were few polls in previous years, but it wasn't consistent and mostly run by users themselves, without making it part of ED roadmap.

Yep Mk 20 is useless now - CCRP is broken too, falls very long. There are more threads posted about similar issues, and it seems most (if not all) CBUs are now broken and can't be used in DCS

@Tholozor VT2 selected for CBU-99 doesnt work either - it falls very long. So CBU-99 + FMU-140 is now totally broken

@BIGNEWY thank you for response! What is the percentage of engineering team capacity allocated to bugfixing already released product? You said "large amount" - for the sheer complexity and detail of DCS and its age, I'd expect it to be >50% And my proposal (and the poll to find out if your customers agree) is to go 100% for lets say for 3 months

@Tholozor thanks, will check it out. Though this would mean a facepalm moment for folks who released this.