near_blind

Are you sure you're actually locking your target? Fun thing about PAL: it can and will lock onto chaff bundles which will then disappear after a moment as they dissipate. You can verify with TCS, the other easy tell is an aircraft will usually have some relative motion, chaff is stationary.

Oh man, they did change it for the AMRAAMs! That's awesome! Quickly testing, it looks like that was something done with the new API though. Every other ARH missile in the game (MICA-RF, R-77, SD-10, AIM-54) appears to elicit the instant prismatic situational awareness reaction from the AI. It's probably something ED needs to fix / only available with the new API, but I'll forward it along anyhow.

This was a deliberate decision by ED to make the AI generally aware of missiles fired at them that would not otherwise have an overt warning. They will also react to TWS AIM-120s fired by F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s, as well as IR missile shots.

Exaggerated for comedic effect, absolutely, but hardly fallacious. Why don't we try another example? The R-3S and the AIM-9M have nearly the same length, shape, size and weight, and yet the AIM-9M outperforms the R-3 in every metric. Ignoring that they both have completely different components, their performance should clearly be normalized because of their superficial similarity. OP's statistical analysis is perfectly valid, but the implication by others that the AIM-54s performance should be made more similar to the R-33 because they look a like is ridiculous. They are different missiles with different sensors, motors, weights, airfoils and performance.

This almost certainly isn't a general AI decision making issue. The AI *will* use the AIM-54, but only inside of 8NM, which also coincidentally happens to be the seeker range of all ARH missiles by default in DCS. If I had to guess there's some sort of issue with how the missile or AI Radar sensor are configured, and how the AI interpret that. In any case, HB are aware of it.

How do 14 of them do together on a pitching deck while the carrier is in a turn in 2020?

Considering the amount of change we've seen in the past two years compared to the stagnancy of the preceding sixteen, I'm almost hesitant to ask what your definition of a priority is. An Apple is of similar size, shape, and weight as an orange (perhaps a little heavier). I would expect my Apple to taste like an Orange. It does not. To whom do I address this bug report? It's going to upset my carefully planned fruit tasting contest.

I want the Aviators the F-15E WSO is rocking, personally.

The B would be missing the PTID, the HUD, portions of the fire control system, the navigation system, and the flight control system. The D would be missing all of the above plus the radar, the IRST and the MFDs. But other than that, we're totally good to go.

Are you listening to the Walkman with a human Rio present?

Don't sweat it, you're better than the AI. The AI HB F-14s in particular have a nasty habit of trying to use too much AoA, bleeding their speed, and then getting stuck low and slow as you saw. I suspect it's an issue with the values being fed to the SFM, but in any case HB are aware and will eventually fix it.

If you have a physical control mapped to the flap control in the pilot role (axis, switch), was that set in the deployed position? I'm curious if it was spontaneous, or if it momentarily interpreted your pilot controls before moving you to the RIO position. (Total guess on my part, I'm largely ignorant of how the infrastructure of Multicrew works)

Indeed! I wasn't trying to imply jester was the issue, just explaining why I suggested input error might be. I hope you're able to narrow it down.

With ASH be careful that the carrier doesn't make any sort of turn in the time between you spawn in and you are connected to SINS and have begun your alignment. With NAVGRID, well, it can happen with any coordinate entry but Jester loves doing it while entering NAVGRID, if the CAP isn't set properly and the buffer isn't cleared, it's possible to accidentally set a waypoint position as the ownship position, which will offset the aircraft's perceived location.

Shots in the dark to eliminate the basic stuff: Are you inputting ownship position? Are you doing a stored heading alignment, and if so, what's the boat doing? Are you messing with NAVGRID?

I tried to run the mission in single player and in MP, hopping into both lead aircraft and didn't get any crashes. Do you happen to have a copy of the log where this has occured?

It does.

Which also happens to be an incorrect implementation of how that jammer works, probably due to a misinterpreted manual graphic combined with a limited understanding of the system being plastered over a woefully underdeveloped EW "environment". I'd rather HB avoid that kind of "solution"

Nogo for a lazy or poorly trained JTAC perhaps. They can still pass you coordinates that are close enough that you can work the Pod onto a target, they can still do a verbal talk on, they can still mark the target with smoke, fire, or artillery.

You would assume correctly. Aircraft don't move around the deck with their lights on (unless there's a brake failure I believe?). Specific to DCS, the deck crew respond to the act of turning on your lights (I.E. hitting the button) after sunset . If you taxi up and connect with your lights on, you would need to cycle them for the AI to react.

I've come around on them, now it's a highly cherished form of entertainment. Each one is a portal to another world of paranoia and despair where the F-14 is this imposing super fighter with unimpeachable capabilities and prowess, whereas the Dart is this meek, tread upon shadow of an aircraft doomed to be out shot, out turned, and out fought at every opportunity by its betters. It sounds amazing.

Maybe its Maybelline

The Nimitzes are a bit chonkier at the waterline, but in terms of flight deck, the deck angle is the same as the Nimitz (9 degrees), and the width of the flight deck at its widest point is the same ~240 feet. Here's a Nimitz and the Forrestal next to one another, the diameter of the zone is the same. You'll notice the major difference between the two (other the elevators around) is by the time of the Nimitz, the Navy has added more usable area to the periphery of the flight deck, for example the area added by moving the port side elevator to the aft of the flight deck, adding usable space to the "finger" on the starboard side of the landing area, and expanding the deck forward around the re-arranged elevators. The Forrestals were very much a transitional design, bridging the relatively new technologies of the angled deck, steam catapults and mirrored/Fresnel landing lenses with a elevator arrangement and proposed deck operation that's something like a half step above the old straight deck carriers of WW2. This would all get hammered out and refined starting with minor changes to the Ranger and Independence, then more radical changes through the Kitty Hawks and Enterprise.

Because those buzz kills at China Lake say that two GBU-24s side by side create separation issues, but what do those nerds know?

The model isn't right currently, but there's a version of the Iowa that has Tomahawks and Harpoons in the mods forum.