AndrewDCS2005

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.

Eagle Dynamics and partners - you folks absolutely rock, you do outstanding work, you created top-class military flight simulator, and there is great community worldwide which follows your every word. Huge respect and thanks you - especially for memorable moments and bonds created by people across the globe which come together to live in DCS world. DCS came a long way over 15 years with so much done - just look at Changelog and roadmap tracker, there are hundreds and hundreds of weapons, systems, sensors, models, planes and helicopters, and ground units. DCS world is huge. And unfortunately, this scale and complexity has impact on overall quality - there are threads on bugs which are years old, and many bugs exist in the weapons and sensors which are of the core essence to DCS (I will not list them all here, each category has its own bugs subforum). So the question comes - does it make sense to continue pushing out more and more new features, while already released product has these issues? Would it make sense to take pause on new developments and actually make the released stuff work as it should? Poll is created to understand community expectations - please vote!

Syria is amazing. There's so much value in the map, thank you Ugra Media! It is beautiful for joyrides - mountain ranges, valleys, desert, sea and Cyprus with quality terrain mapping is just beautiful. Also with low latitude and sun angles at sunrise/sunset I can spend hours just flying around and enjoying the views. There are so many scenarios possible - Turkey/Greece over Cyprus, carrier ops from the sea towards Syrian and Lebanon coast, north/south invasions, Jordan strikes, Israeli wars, desert hunts, anything. No need for crazy fantasies and make-believe here - everything can be made historically relevant and realistic. It is rich with infra, bases, roads and settlements, nicely detailed and populated.

CBU-99 with FMU-140 is busted - it falls very short in both CCIP and CCRP modes. Tracks attached for both, images show designated target and resulting impact points. @BIGNEWY please ?! cbu-99-ccrp-fall-short.trk cbu-99-ccip-fall-short.trk

Ok I meant CBU-99 in my post above and though that FMU-140 is measuring atmospheric pressure and hence the altitude is in ASL. BTW this is why I asked for fuze documentation from DCS in separate thread. Thanks to folks sharing the links, I stand corrected - FMU-140 fuze has a radar, so it should be using AGL altitude - which makes more sense and is more practical for its use. FMU-140/B Dispenser Prozimity Fuze (tpub.com)

@Northstar98 thank you for response and links! Of course I did some searching on the web, and of course I spent time trying fuze settings and seeing the result. However, this was only part of the point in my request - yes all of us can do this, spend ton of time, get to our own conclusions, and have fragmented and mismatching tribal knowledge depending on the sources and conditions we used. The bigger point is the actual documentation on DCS implementation (and my questions were just few examples, the ask is for everything fuze-related). Yes public sources are nice (though ED often questions these and has its own approach to what is right and wrong), but I need to understand how fuze will actually work in the game, for which only ED can provide docs matching the implementation. I really respect ED for absolutely outstanding work it does, but in this specific case its a bit weird to release a significant change to weapon fuzing (which we all welcome, the closer to IRL the better!), but leaving the community in the dark about how it actually behaves in the sim.

@Raisuli Mk20 and CBUs contain Mk 188 Rockeye bomblets - which is specifically designed as armor-piercing, anti-tank weapon. It is HEAT-only design with shaped charge to penetrate ~200mm of armor - which only works on direct hit. Mk188 hits near the target do mostly nothing as it does not have fragmentation case.

@BaronVonVaderham my understanding is that CBUs are always ASL-driven since they don't have radar altimeters to measure AGL precisely, and are set to atmosphere pressure.

There are two separate issues here. 1. Spread/dispersion pattern of cluster submunitions which depends on several factors number of submunitions (higher number -> higher density of impacts over the same area) 247 pieces of Mk 118 Rockeye HEAT bomblets in Mk 20 Rockeye II 145 pieces of BLU-97/B bomblets in AGM-154A JSOW submunition properties such as weight and drag (BLU-97 bomblet weights almost 3x more than Mk 118) altitude of burst wind terrain It would be interesting to see the exact impact patterns in different conditions - videos from DCS often obscure this as the explosions don't allow to see where each individual bomblet impacts, and tacview tracks don't show each individual bomblet either. I wonder if someone in DCS community has a way to visualize this pattern. 2. Result of the hits directly or close to the target - which also depends on submunition type. Mk 188 Rockeye is specifically armor-piercing, anti-tank weapon which pierces almost 20cm of armor but only on direct hit. Hits and explosions near the target do mostly nothing as there's no fragmentation. BLU-97 on the other hand is combined effects bomblet, which has both anti-armor shaped-charge properties and fragmentation + incendiary effects, so it might do some damage to soft targets with hit near the target. Maybe DCS health bars on units will show that.

Thank you! Understood this is work in progress, hopefully it completes soon and we can employ full power of customizing A2G weapons.

From DCS 2.9.5.55300 (digitalcombatsimulator.com) This is all great! However, where is the documentation please? The video is just few examples, and mostly shows new UI interface operation to change the fuzes. It is really puzzling to see such a significant change for arming/fuzing bombs, and no info on how this actually works. This is marked as work in progress, however what is the FMU-140 ? What is the Mk 339 Mod 1 ? What are the Function Delay PRI and OPT? There are few threads already complaining about CCIP busted for Mk-20 CBUs, and folks trying to figure it out through trial and error and building tribe knowledge via YT videos. Can we have the docs please on each fuze type?

@skywalker22 thanks but in your case there's no DL correlation - you simply have your own FCR in TWS pick the tracks. This works for everyone as expected, no issues. As thread says, the issue is only with DL-correlated tracks, quoting my root post above: To test this, add a E-3 or E-2 to your coalition, and let it provide you tracks over DL/MIDS from further away, before your FCR can detect them (you'll see red triangles). Then after your FCR picks the same tracks, they'll correlate with DL tracks and become yellow squares. Once you have yellow squares, try converting them to system targets with single TMS RIGHT short.

@skywalker22 my DCS openbeta does not see this track file - how it was created (which version/map/etc)?

I never used a single mod, and exclusively fly only clean DCS with store-bought/installed airplanes.