"Hi guys, I've been observing some of your RCS figures, in DB3K vXYZ, and I suspect there may be some inaccuracies present".
Start with that, and then we can talk.
Well, if we were mates then maybe I'll take a different tack. I'm sorry if I offended you. However you should keep in mind that your customers pay significant money (including the upgrade from CMANO to CMO) in order to access the must up-to-date and accurate naval and air-warfare simulations available. I didn't mean to pique your irritation but to motivate your sense of pride over your creation. That this really is a serious impediment to playing realistic scenarios in two modern aircraft that are probably amongst the most likely to be used in a conflict in Asia or the Middle East (the RAF/RN F-35B in Europe, and the Marine Corps F-35B in the Pacific), in precisely the scenarios I want to simulate, makes it something of an irritation for me, as a $$-paying customer, that it seems that very strange and disparate RCS figures were put in. If you want to say that the F-35A is 0.012 at low band, and the F-35B is 0.015, then I can probably buy that as the F35B is a bit "chunkier".
I would just hope that such important and likely widely used aircraft would be carefully checked to ensure that they are correct and accurate (and the 0.15m2 lower band Marine Corps F-35B RCS makes it almost unplayable in high-end DEAD scenarios. I just want to see the issue fixed, I have no beef against the management, but equally, I don't think you should take it as a personal attack against you as an individual when someone points out a flaw in the RCS values among very prominent aircraft, in numbers that simply don't make sense.
"Are you seriously telling me"
"And absolutely laughably"
"give me a brake"
"You're seriously telling me"
"This is an urgent fix"
This has to be one of the more disrespectful bug reports I've seen in a few years. A few points:
1) I think maybe taking it down a notch might on the aggressiveness factor might win you a few points
2) Post it in the database error reporting thread
3) Post the database you are referring to. There have been a number of database updates and the F-35 issue was reported before, I think.
D beat me to it.
I'll take number (1) into mind, however I think it should also be kept in mind that the owners of this product are not doing their customers a 'favour', this is a product they put on the market, that they market as being the most realistic naval/air simulator on the market, and then when I find that major, prominent aircraft are showing RCS figures that are unrealistic, inconsistent (for example, UK F-35B in 2025 is 0.085, which is higher than its 2018 variant, where the Marine Corps F-35B is 50% more detectable with a 0.15m2 RCS in low band, that just doens't make sense).
I might have approached this with a less confrontational post, but equally I think the developers can apply some common sense, and customer service mentality, in dealing with people who have shelled out hundreds of dollars for their products, rather than taking it as a personal attack. In reality, I'm bringing a bug/issue to their attention, that's something they should want to fix, and fixing it shouldn't be determined by how much obeisance I show to the developers in my posts, especially in an initial post which is obviously borne of frustration and a sense that the entry of these figures was, (1) not given the due care and diligence that you would expect, and (2) there seems to have been no double-checking of the work.