Killshot0597

As with anything with a parachute, wind can push them way off course making you miss. In my experience a CBU-97 in the right place can be very devastating.

You underestimate the sheer amount of work a world map entails. Easier said then done.

It would be nice but would be completely impractical for DCS. I don't see a point to it honestly. I would love if maps got bigger, for example. With the maps we have now, Caucasus, Syria and then Persian Gulf. They are all pretty close to each other and at most I'd love to see maybe the 3 maps or at least Syria and Persian Gulf combined. A world map is just too much. I love the detail of the maps that DCS gives us, a world map would entail poor quality for the parts of the world that haven't been developed yet. ED simply doesn't have the resources to take on such a huge undertaking.

Razbam F-15E flying over Port Stanley

Razbam's South Atlantic Map + Asset Pack HMS Invincible (left) with Leander class destroyer (right) + some tug boats.

Razbam South Atlantic Map Mount Pleasant Airport (MPA) Development update Argentina / Chile part Tarmac detail Hind passing over central runway looking north of MPA Some of the 26 trillion trees looking south in Argentina towards the mountains which you cannot even see due them being so far away. Mare Harbor Working Lighthouses with rotating light beams.

For all we know by the time the F-18C came out only 4 years later to add to this, there would've been a lot of stock for the 7F still available to the F-18C at that point in time. Which leads too..... ....it being used for training as you said so yourself. You forget NTTR exists right? People might want to roleplay being in a training exercise and load up some 7Fs? I'll say it again, if the wiring and software was present at the given time frame regardless of weapon stock or doctrine. Then that specific ordinance belongs to the module.

As of last night I was able to use the AIM-7F in all situations, RWS -> STT, TWS -> STT and ACM -> STT. All worked and tracked fine. I'm not at home and unable to watch the track, but did you press the Cage/Uncage button to toggle the LOFT off? This will make the 7F go dumb as it was never meant to loft. This most likely because by default with you select an AIM-7, it's set to loft, which the 7MH is designed to be capable of doing. I was in a PVP game just the other night, I was flying the Hornet with 7Fs equiped and keeping in mind to make sure I press Cage/Uncage to remove LOFT. I was able to shoot down a good 3-4 players in the match! Perhaps the recent update fixed the 7F. As I can say for sure, they are performing a whole lot better than they used to! All I can say about this is, if the wiring and software was present at the given time frame (regardless of weapon stock or timeframe). The module should be able to employ such weapons in DCS. This doesn't turn the hornet into a "Frankenjet" as it is still an F/A-18C Lot. 20. I'm no expert in the matter but if ED's SME's believe they are possible then who are we to say otherwise? If not feel free to inform ED of the mistake, I'm sure they'll be happy to take in the information, provided it's legal of course.

@Ben27603 @doublebarrel We already have a Falklands map underdevelopment by Razbam, no news on it's release but we are constantly getting small updates regarding the AI units that will be shipped with it. It's name so far is South Atlantic, below is an in development screenshot from quite a while back, on release it'll be the largest map we have. I can't remember when it was released but it was maybe half a year ago?

I'm no IRL fighter pilot, perhaps this is how it is IRL? I'm not saying no to tweaking the RCS values as I'm sure they still need adjustment, all I'm saying is it should be possible for a Fox3 to lock on and engage another Fox 3. Especially when they've acquired each other. Especially when they are head on to each other. I've had one occasion my AIM-9M tracked an AIM-7 that went stupid that was falling out of the sky in front of me almost a year ago. I'm not surprised since rocket motors burn really hot so it's reasonable to assume AAMs would have an IR signature, even if it was falling out out of the sky already. Perhaps with the IR API we could expect IR signature to degrade over time after the missile's motor has run out?

Initially yes, it looked like the missile didn't loft at all though? Did you launch in STT with the ACM cover up? None of those 54s looked like they were launched in TWS at all. After the initial fight, the 2nd fight you got into (the one that eventually splashed you) You were actually above him a lot. Honestly, if you uploaded the video on youtube, might as well have made it a little longer by selecting both your aircraft and the bandit. It's hard to judge the ranges you were firing at. They were definitely too close, one thing is for sure. What is even the point of this exercise? Ideally, your missile and his missile wont ever intercept each other. I think it is reasonable to a degree that a 120 could (on pitbull) track an AIM-54 instead of the F-14. As the saying goes, the Fox 3 goes after the first thing it sees. What might be a more presentable target to a 120's radar? An F-14 trying to turn away at mach 0.88? or a chonky missile travelling at towards it at mach 1.83? Just to cite the first engagement. I'm sure they aren't finished tweaking the RCS values but I'm sure is a possibility of it happening. Is this "shield's up" really worth doing? Seems like a pointless waste of an AIM-54 to me.

This has nothing to do with what is reasonable, what NineLine is saying is if our specific variant of the F-16 has software capable of accepting such loadouts.

if both missiles acquire each other and are going head on towards each other, I would think the chances of them actually hitting each other is a lot higher.

I don't know about this, at the moment it just seems like AI aren't programmed to engage anything under the "bomb" category. I get a GBU-38 being hard to detect but an AGM-62 Walleye? That hefting chonker is somehow able to sneak past a ship's defenses unhindered while APKWS can be engaged by SA-15s. All because AGM-62 is under the bomb category while APKWS is under the AG Missile category.

I do think that anything and everything has an RCS. Even missiles, something as big and chonky as an AIM-54 should and can be tracked by an active AIM-120 if it detected it first. Perhaps the reason why the AIM-120s are tracking and hitting your AIM-54s could be because he is launching down at you and the 54 is flying up towards your target. Their noses relatively pointed at each other, I'm not surprised if they detect each other and home in on each other. I have no idea how realistic these RCS values are but perhaps you could change your tactics? You can still reliably get kills on targets whi8le coming from a higher altitude and observing proper BVR tactics since the 54 is coming from a steeper angle the chances of your 54 being intercepted will be very low. You'd have the range advantage too. Turn your ECM on and launch at 30Nm and you'd be untouchable.

Mig-29 9-12 came into service in 1982, and the only conceivable reason we could even have a module of it was because it was exported over to Poland and East Germany. Su-33 came into service in 1998 and is only in service with Russia. I have high doubts we will ever get a FF Su-33 any time soon with how strict on military secrets the Russian government is.

Hard to say, but I'm going to make a guess based on what I see a lot of people do (or don't do in this case). If there are AAA in the area of any nearby SAMs, the Su-25s might not want to engage those targets as their "Reaction to Threat" setting will prevent them from fulfilling the mission until it is safe enough. Try setting the "Reaction to Threat" to "Evade" this will make the AI Su-25s swallow some brave pills and make an attempt at an attack despite SAMs and AAA. This is yet another example of the mission editor being unintuitive, in a lot of cases. You'd need to run the mission and observe how the AI behave, change some settings and see if something works. This is how I learned to control the AI, through trial and error as well as reading the manual (which covers the mission editor very thoroughly) I'm now able to build a mission and expect the AI to do what I want. As a side note, a lot of ground attack taskings are often hindered by the default "Reaction to Threat" setting. By default it is "Allow Abort Mission", which in effect makes the AI give up if the area is too hot. I recommend setting them to Evade. Another thing, for ground attack if you set something to Search then Engage the AI will pass through the waypoint and if it doesn't detect anything (IE too dark, no radar emissions) then the AI will just fly over the target area and then follow their waypoints to RTB. So if you want them to linger and engage targets as they are detected, have them orbit the area for a given amount of time. Alternatively if you want to have more fine control of the AI, just use Engage Group under Perform Task (which gives them omnipotent vision of their target no matter where they are). You'll need to place the waypoint a good distance away from the target you are assigning, like say about 20-30Nm away. This should give them enough of a run up to do a proper attack. Otherwise if you place the waypoint too close. They'll reach the target waypoint, realize they are too close and awkwardly fly away to set up a proper attack. The mission editor is very daunting, it's unintuitive in a lot of places and misleading everywhere else. Unless you read the manual, gives you a better grasp of how to set things up.

If Search then Engage or Search then Engage in Zone was used. They do use their sensors, the skill level you set them to affects their detection range and reaction time. Time of day also affects this for older aircraft too. For example, in missions I've built, I have a patrol of F-18s on Veteran skill set with a race track orbit with a search then engage set to a distance of 80nm. With an AWACs present F-18s respond to a threat (Su-33) at about 60Nm away. Meanwhile, I set up an F-5 patrol with a search then engage with a skill of Trainee set to a distance of 60nm with no AWACs support and on a moonless night. My group, once fully fenced in with lights turned off, was able to get within 20Nm of the F-5s and fire Amraams and they never knew we were there until our amraams went pitbull on them. Long story short AI do make use of sensors, and datalink too. I'll have to disagree on this in the sense that the AI is deteriorating, they've been improving. Over a year ago, ED improved the AI to now crank after firing a Fox 1 or Fox 3. To cite an example, a lot of the issues with the AI is the default settings given to them. Which I do agree need to change as the default settings are what makes them as brain dead as a lot of people claim it to be. With the right settings and the correct set-up you can create a very competent AI for PVE. I would love improvements to the AI, to this day they still commit with suicidal intent in a BVR engagement. They still do not know how to skate and always Banzai instead. I'd love to see the day the AI can actually competently hold their own against people in BVR.

When there is skill involved there can be competition when people compare their skills. This is true in combat in DCS regardless of what plane you are flying. Now obviously, there is very little skill involved in splashing an AI Mig-21 with an AIM-120C-7. There is really talk of skill and competition when you match a human in an F-18 vs a human in another F-18, F-16, F-14 and so on. PVP is a thing and is a place where people testing their skills against the skills of other people. Warbirds tests pilot's ability to BFM, Modern aircraft test pilot's ability to do BVR, splash the enemy and come home in 1 piece. This statement can't be anymore wrong. The challenge to BVR is knowing when to shoot and when to skate or to banzai or being able to quickly recommit without sacrificing too much energy to try and regain an advantage in the fight. Do you shoot early for a posturing shot? Do you wait a little and lit the bandit get closer for a more lethal shot but risking yourself more? What's my escape plan? What direction do I crank to? So many things are happening in such a short amount of time. BVR is a different kind of skill set which people can compete in.

F/A-18E/F Block III, F-16 Block 70 are way too new, the F-21 is only a concept so far afaik. I'm sorry for bursting your bubble on this, but let's try to not wish for something that we can't possibly see as modules in the next 20 or 30 years. You said so yourself that 5th generation aircraft are still classified and so these modern upgrades to 4th generation aircraft will be a no-go for the same reason. I know this is a wish list but let's try to keep things realistic at least. That being said, I'd love the idea of "DLC upgrades" but for other older variants. Problem with this is development time for one modern fighter module takes so long as it is, and I'm not talking about release into early access. I'm talking about full completion of the module. Then I'd say ED and or 3rd parties can potentially make DLC of older variants once the module is complete. An idea I've had for a while now is ED could sell a module as an airframe. Let's say an F/A-18 Legacy module, it'd have the base price of 79.99 as it is now. When you add it to your cart the website would let you choose what variant you are interested in, be it A, C or D. Then you can later on buy the remaining variants for maybe 9.99 USD a piece. Alternatively you could buy it all together as a bundle for a slight discount. Without the discount it would've costed 109.97 USD. With a discount maybe it'll cost 105.99 USD instead. I'd pay for that.

Regardless of what was retired and what wasn't and for whatever reason. It'd still be nice to see a Super Hornet in DCS even as an AI only unit for now. That way our Carrier Decks are populated realistically with legacies and super hornets post 2006. I've said this before, I still think it is too early to ask for a Super Hornet, let ED finish the Legacy and Viper and maybe even the A-10C2 first.

More directer AA Jester commands that ban be bound. Things like: 1. Scan Center, Left Center, Left etc. 2. Scan Center, Center low, Low, etc.

I was able to get your track file to work, so far I only had the time to watch your GBU-12 track, and noticed that it got suddenly pushed off the side by the wind on low altitude (wind at 5m/s). It tracked the laser all the way but because of the sudden gust of wind, it missed the target by just a little. As of the moment I'm unable to watch the rest of the track files, will update when I can.

FlyingIron Simulations A-7E cockpit renders.

Mitigated by correct usage of "Reaction to Threat" setting. In my personal experience, the only time I've seen AI crash into the ground was if they were damaged, out of fuel or was busy dodging a missile and a mountain happened to be in front of them. The latter is pretty rare, one would think that a human pilot might make such a mistake. There is a reason "Maneuver Kill" term was coined. This is a bug at the moment and I believe is already known to the devs and being worked on afaik. This again is dependent on settings From experience you need to command your wingman to engage the bandits, if you don't he will shoot back at any bandits that fire first. Now for this I don't know, depends on what you mean by target? It seems a lot of what you said stems from lack of knowledge of how the mission editor works. Granted I do have to say a lot of the default AI settings make them seem dumber than they can potentially be. With the right settings, you can definitely improve on them from the default. That being said, the AI do have a lot of short comings. They do not respect the BVR timeline as an example. I would love to see the AI improved but poor AI is a sickness of a lot of simulators, it's just incredibly challenging to build an AI that is smart and not require a NASA super computer to run. Simply put (and this is true for a lot of other Sims like Arma) good AI requires very powerful computers. This is to hope that maybe the Vulkan API can help facilitate that.