Rhayvn

Seconding this. Disabling the jamming greatly reduces the problem for the same aircraft and AI level. Though it does not eliminate it. Some missiles still track poorly in terminal. Again, this is very different that it was prior to the patch.

Caucasus. SU-27 Tacview-P16-27-CA.zip.acmi P16-27-CA.trk

Multiple track files have been provided. Can we get some sort of response? I have an entire group of people losing motivation for DCS due to the incredibly poor reliability of the 120s. I just reviewed two separate trackview files of the group over the last two days and there were 3 hits out of over 20, 120 launches. SM-2 and Hawks are not showing the issue, so it is definitely a 120 problem. All the target has to do is be low and roll. Please don't claim that your fix for barrel rolling targets didn't cause this nearly identical issue, that didn't exist against AI prior to the patch.

It's only part of defending against an incoming or potential incoming (Fox 3) missile. You definitely don't go lower than necessary and don't stay there unless you are using terrain masking to negate a range (Or other) disadvantage. It's highly dependent on what missile you are facing. Some will intercept you before your shot forces your target defensive, some will not. Fox3s don't care if your target is defensive, only how much energy they have left when you -start- to defend. Early enough and they aren't dangerous. I find it better to err on the side of caution. All that is just 1v1 too. In general, I find that (Blue vs Red) the closer you let the AI get, the more you give away your advantages. For the jamming, it's a setting in the ME with multiple options. Detected or Locked is the option I prefer as they will use it to mitigate ranges while also leaving it off for stealth if nothing is painting them. If you set it for Locked only, they tend to not use it until far too late because most Blue engagements are in TWS.

Why do you think it's nonsensical? I am not talking in this thread about bullying opponents you outrange so badly you can basically ignore any potential return fire. On not permitting the 29S to use their jammer, why are you artificially limiting their capabilities?

I think Default has an excellent point here too in that it is mostly an AI problem. I do not see the same problem at lower AI skill levels. Almost entirely at Ace level with some Veteran in higher tier ACs. Also, many aircraft don't generate the issue. Mig-23s, for instance, don't manifest the terminal guidance issues. But, a high performance AC with high level AI can expose a problem with the missile. Note that the changes in the last patch were based on a specific thing players were doing. If the fix for that enabled the AI to do something similar that is outside of the normal effectiveness for missile defense, then that needs to be fixed too.

Are your targets jamming? You generally can't lock up a jamming target at those ranges unless they launch, since their signature increases at that point. You are seeing the issue in more detail on the ones where your first shot does not hit. When the target is low and notching, the problem is most prevalent. This is different than pre-patch. "AI set to "Launch by target threat estimate" though. However, that would typically make it more of a threat, not less." Not really. It still means they hold shots longer in some cases rather than always making use of their range. I can mean it would be harder for you to defeat their missiles kinetically in rare cases where they drive closer to no escape range or have inferior weapons. But those aren't the case when you are using 120s. "Not sure about the exact situation, but in most cases, that's a bad idea. Exceptions being mostly radar performance on some aircraft and attempting to merge due to an asymmetric weapons situation." Descent is to counter incoming missiles. Even with descending, you will often have a fairly narrow window between an ER hitting you and your missile going active. The AI always does this, so the AI vs. AI tests, it wasn't something that could be controlled. If you have tacview files, I would be interested in viewing them.

Default774, if by "Random launch range" you mean the line in the ME that is "AA Missile Attack Ranges=RANDOM BETWEEN MAX RANGE AND NO ESCAPE ZONE LAUNCH", I always remove that. For the most part, it just prevents the AI from engaging before it has to defend. Resulting in them not doing A-pole or descending after their own launch. It has the base effect of making nearly every AI target much easier to kill. Especially with the inherent range advantage the 120 already enjoys. Also, do you have the jamming enabled for the 29S. You were locking it in a 16 at ~30 miles. Usually that's not possible if jamming is enabled. Also, note that it never fired on you. Generally, the 29S will fire a 27ER or, more rarely, a R-77 before you can burn through the jamming. Edit: One additional track file the previous post didn't have the room to add. P18-29-2.trk

I am still getting completely different results. Especially when there is any jamming from the target. 29As are at the bottom of the more modern BVR threats. Try this against a 29S/27/30/33 or if you really want to see the difference, against a JF-17 with SD-10s. That said, here are two tracks with 29As and two with SU-27s. Watch what the 120s do in most (Though not all) terminal phases. They are not flying lead and are overreacting to target pitch changes. Tacview-P18-27-2.zip.acmi Tacview-P18-27-1.zip.acmi Tacview-P18-29-2.zip.acmi Tacview-P18-29-1.zip.acmi P18-27-1.trk P18-27-2.trk P18-29-1.trk

Also, regardless of the initial shot, the follow up shots show the issue rather well. Your thoughts on those?

I usually run the AI tests first as they are quicker to get a larger sample size. I am doing the player ones now. Though I can't seem to get tracks activated again despite removing the disable_write_track=true from the autoexec.cfg. Edit: I see I can manually save the track if I exit instead of hot key restarting.

I assume you were using 29As since locking a 29S at those ranges is not possible if they are jamming. Can you tell me what BVR weapons they had? (I also assume you are running the latest open beta version.) I setup an Ace AI 18 against an Ace AI 29A at 35k as in your test and the attached was the result. No 120 hits and the 18 killed by R-60 and then by R-27ER. 0-5 on the 120s. I would attach the track files but I discovered I turned them off at some point in the past. They are back on now and any follow ups will have track files attached as well. Tacview-18-29-2.zip.acmi Tacview-18-29-1.zip.acmi

It's when they land in formation. Not sure what the ED AI does to choose to land singly or in formation. The other issue is if one lands while another is taxiing, but not yet on the runway itself. If there is only one entry/exit to the runway, they will get stuck facing each other. It can be minimized if you only have a single flight of two aircraft operating per airfield. But, even the larger ones like Mount Pleasant require some runway taxiing (from the large parking spots at MP) or other parking areas. This is an issue on all maps with airfields like this. Just difficult to circumvent on this map as that is nearly every airfield on the map. Not sure there is anything you can do about it, but maybe some pressure on the people at ED from a development partner to fix their ground AI would help get them moving on it.

Two more for Mirage and Mig-29. The initial shot hit rate is pretty poor mostly due to the targets defending and going cold. But not all and certainly not the follow up shots. Some of Player F-16 vs. Ace AI Mirage2000 and Mig-29S. Tacview-Mig291.zip.acmi Tacview-Mirage1.zip.acmi Tacview-PlayerMig2.zip.acmi Tacview-PlayerMig1.zip.acmi Tacview-PlayerMirage2.zip.acmi Tacview-PlayerMirage1.zip.acmi

Here are a some that cover Blue vs. SU-27. Blue vs. Mig-29S (With AIM-120Bs) and one with the same scenario but the blue units are JF-17s with SD-10s. Notice the much better hit rate of the SD-10. Tacview-AIM120B2.zip.acmi Tacview-AIM120B1.zip.acmi Tacview-SD101.zip.acmi Tacview-SU272.zip.acmi Tacview-SU271.zip.acmi

I don't know what you -think- you fixed, but 120s are incredibly broken after the patch. Tested AI against AI and got a ~25% hit rate against Mirage 2000s, Mig-29As and SU-27s. When testing as a player against AI Mirage 2000 and Mig-29S, I managed to get the hit rate to 30% against the mirages but under 20% against the Mig-29S. Not. One. Single. Initial. Shot. Hit. Over 10 tests with player against AI. This is with a 50 mile initial setup and most engagements starting at 25-35K for both aircraft at high speed and then dropping towards the deck after defending against initial shots (First shots from both sides at 22-28 miles). This was a common engagement type pre-patch and was reliably first shot kill 50-75% of the time. The missiles are not low on energy when they get to the target. They are simply tracking poorly in terminal. Either flying a pure pursuit curve or appearing to drop track as soon as the AI does a roll while notching. This is the same experience every pilot in my group is having post patch. I setup the tests to control for other variables we were experiencing in missions and the tests proved consistent. If your goal is to have AIM-120s with about a 25% hit rate against any reasonably maneuverable target, you succeeded in admirable fashion. I am sure all the people who have extra time to use DCS over the holidays will appreciate the gift.

I know there was a thread that was closed previously. That thread is half a year old and ANY fuselage damage results in complete fuel loss at the same rapid rate no matter where or how major/minor the damage is. You stated that fuel leaks are likely when the fuselage is damaged, fine. But, having EVERY hit, no matter how minor, to the fuselage cause catastrophic, rapid, leaking from all tanks, with no way to preserve any fuel, is ridiculous. Please give us an update on this or let us know we have to live with a single 7.62 to the left side of the intake being the same end result as a direct missile hit.

Localizer works fine, but the glideslope is inactive until you cross the runway threshold.

This happens on nearly every airfield that requires back taxi on the runway after landing. That means nearly every single airfield. It renders them difficult to use for AI flights as they get stuck nearly every time after landing and the whole airport is shut down for AI takeoff and landing after that point. This should be easy to replicate as nearly every airfield on the map fist this description. If the wind is right and the landing aircraft can exit the runway before it passes the last (or only) taxiway, this doesn't happen. But that takes some work to figure out and use.

Has anyone made or located airport diagrams for the SA map? There are packs for kneeboards for all of the other maps, but I can't locate one for SA. The instrument approach charts are included, but no airport diagrams.

Could someone please describe the hood implementation? Is it similar to the C101 where the hood blocks all forward view? Or can you set it on and off during flight? Looking for a good two person training with a hood that can be set in flight, but can also be taken off to simulate breaking out of IMC.

Opened a brand new map, added the supercarrier CV with a single waypoint after the initial one, added the TACAN, ICLS, LINK4 and ACLS commands to the initial waypoint, added one client FA-18. Saved. That's it. Single CV, nothing at all else in the entire mission except the ship and the hornet.

Same result. All missions with ACLS work fine in SP, but not on a dedicated MP server. This includes a completely clean Miz file with only the CV and one client Hornet added to it.

Did you see the missiles from two of the ships detonating repeatedly at launch?

It's a short track, just a complex mission. I sent you a message with the link.