AndrewDCS2005

@SharpeXB thanks, that was 4 years ago.

Imho, for reasons below, it is time for Q&A with Nick Grey and time to hear from him about ED priorities, product quality, future vision, 3rd party projects, etc. ED is privately owned, and there's no reason whatsoever for Mr. Grey to do this, but I'm curious what the community thinks. In either case, results of the poll might provide good feedback for ED. Thank you! EDIT Nov.3 - reasons for this ask are the following. The problem is DCS significantly overgrew ED. The magnificent, amazing, wonderful, superb DCS (and its modules, terrains, tech, etc) can no longer be efficiently managed by ED due to mismatch in grand scale of DCS vs very limited ED capacity and capabilities. The sheer number of air, ground and naval assets including player-drivable, ground and atmosphere simulation, weapons and sensors, multiplied by their depth and nuances from WWII era piston engines small caliber ammo and control surfaces moved by rods and cables, to modern precision strike weapons and flight management computers, intermixed with bots/AI flying these in various types of missions, all on the shoulders of very small team (say 100+ people?) with highly fragmented and specialized skills (few modern era radar devs, few modelers, few weapon devs, few weather devs if any, etc etc) with each engineer/artist/tester/etc needing to handle a lot of "features" or "projects" or modules or whatever we want to call them. There are multiple direct indications supporting this and very few indications to contrary. Textbook examples are mission-critical bugs routinely breaking already released modules and systems, which ED itself declares most important (see subforums on F-16 bugs and F-18 bugs on very basic radar and weapon issues); 5+ years with no demonstrable progress on ED declared upcoming features such as Dynamic Campaign; prime products such as F-16 labeled as "Early Access" and unfinished for many years. These are just few examples, not my wishlist, and examples are many more. At this point the question is not when proper ATC or AI will be done (most probably never), but if ED can continue to carry the increasing weight of DCS world on its shoulders and remain viable business delivering quality product. And this would be great to hear from ED business owners, to understand what future is there for us - paying customers and highly devoted DCS community.

What does this mean please? Which missiles have been tweaked (not everyone knows which are legacy vs new), and what is the practical outcome of this - how does missile behavior change?

Requested official documentation on fuzes back in May (when it was released) in the following thread. However, it seems that short blurbs which are shown on mouse hover over the fuze (and copied by Muchocracker in this thread), is all we'll ever get - which is mostly useless anyway as it describes self-evident technical params, not their purpose or best use. I would not expect more than that.

@Wild Wolves VFW great to see European time friendly squadron with variety of aircraft. What are the typical days/times VFW gets together to fly and what is the expected number of mission/flight hours per week?

@ZuluThreeZero your track has no action - Harrier flying around the coast, no weapons release. Below is what I get using Mk-20 Rockeye via CCIP in F/A-18 - hits nicely as designated. fa18-bomb-mk20-ccip.trk

@PawlaczGMD please see attached tracks - Hornet, armed with Mk 20 Rockeye CBUs, fuzed with Mk 339 Mod 1, arm delay 1.1s, function delay PRI 2s, OPT 4s Configured to use MFUZ=PRI, QTY=2, INT=50ft CCIP visual designation, hit 5 of 9 targets (closely placed to show spread/hit pattern) CCRP designated with ATFLIR, hit 5 of 9 targets on the first run, then another 2. CCRP compute seems to put the very first hit on target (slowest and lowest Mk 118?), while the rest goes forward by velocity vector at release. So, when using CCRP need to designate closest target first, the rest will be hit by ongoing spread of bomblets fa18-bomb-mk20-ccip.trk fa18-bomb-mk20-ccrp.trk

Requested fuze documentation back in May after 2.9.5 release. Overlay in bomb settings panel is just basic type/arming text which is better than nothing but doesn't really help much

Understood, and thank you again!

Hi @Minsky thank you so much for your work, the kneeboard suite is great. Please let me ask if you'd plan to add HOTAS table for F/A-18 similar to what you have created for A-10C - this is super useful for folks like me who fly 2-3 multiple aircraft in DCS and switching between them might not always remember every HOTAS combo.

@bandit648 you absolutely rock! I always fly pristine DCS and yours is the only mod I enjoy so much to make an exception. Thank you for fantastic work!

@Kurnass1977 please see comment below, with track attached for GBUs hitting the targets as expected.

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.