Mad_Shell

New infantry with more diverse units (ATGM, machine gun...) and improved ground AI

Shouldn't you just ban the word 'temu' at this point?

Imagine being mad because ED improves weather in a FLIGHT sim... I often criticize them, but come on.

Hi @NineLine do you know in the next update what sensors will be blocked by fog (IR seekers, lasers, some effect on radars...) and if clouds will also effect these sensors? It was a little bit unclear if it is coming for only fog or for clouds too. Thanks

But is that realistic? Don't pilots IRL manage to remain connected in such conditions? And will the new AI GFM will help solve this?

Thanks 9L. To me here are the main bugs/lack of features: - bug: as you observed radars never turn their radar off when ARMs are incoming. They should turn radar off IF there are too many ARMs incoming compared to what they can intercept, and IF the ARMs are coming towards them (skynet script calculates ARMs trajectory and turns off the targetted SAMs if they can't intercept them). - bug: SAMs magically know they are the ones targetted by the ARMs. If SAM 1 is targetted by an ARM, SAM 2 right next to it magically knows it has nothing to fear (once again, more realistically calculating ARM trajectory would solve that) - lack of feature: inability to assign a point defense SAM to another SAM. If a Tor is put next to a SA-10, be able to link it as a 'point defense' and it will be taken into account by the main SAM to calculate its ability to defend against ARMs. Those point defense SAMs should not turn their radar off unless they are out of missiles.

I did a few messages above. You're free to see if the last update fixed the issue, but I seriously doubt it given what I observed. The only thing that was solved is that now SAMs will successfully launch against closely grouped targets.

Issue still not fixed according to my tests this morning. The SAMs attempt to intercept incoming ARMs, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, but they never turn off their radar, even when the number of incoming ARMs is overwhelming. When I see how this 'new reaction to ARMs' hasn't worked correctly since day 1, I wonder if ED really tested this feature... And even if it was working correctly, the Skynet script is so much more refined (ability to assign point defense SAMs, ratio of SAMs/incoming ARMs taken into account for the SAM behaviour, real calculation of ARMs trajectories instead of the SAMs just magically knowing they are the ones targetted...), I wonder why ED hasn't taken any inspiration of it.

To me, it means that now, missiles won't explode as soon as they are less than X meters from the target (X meters being the radius of the proximity fuse), but they will explode if they are less than X meters AND the distance to the target is increasing. That means that the missiles will approach the target as much as possible before exploding. That's way more realistic, and should lead to a better kill ratio.

According to the lua file reload should be 2400 seconds. Have you tried placing the SCUD in a controlled airbase? Maybe they consider that the SCUD is too big to be reloaded in the field?

Indeed, we'll never know the exact capabilities. However, if we try to model a missile, we have to take into account the clues we can find to begin somewhere and try to be somewhat close to reality. That's why I did some standardized tests, and found a big difference with the real life demo tests, even if the conditions are close but not exactly the same.

2070 only has 8GB of VRAM, and DCS has BIG textures according to some people who looked into it. Have you tried the 'optimised textures script' ? It seems to give good results for a lot of people.

Edited the first post to link it to my report about the AI and radar guided missiles bug. But yeah, it's a bit disheartening to spend so much time doing research and not even have an answer after 6 months.

Pretty big bug across the board this one. All AI planes will always detect a radar missile targetting them when the missile arrives at less than 20km or so of them. That is a problem for several reasons: - even planes without a RWR detect a radar guided missile (even WW2 planes). - AI planes react to FOX 1 launches when the missile is already very close, while they should detect a fox 1 launch as soon as the missile is fired. - same problem with SAM launches, the AI reacts only when the missile is already very close (I made a pretty detailed topic on how this 'bugged' behaviour is actually more realistic than the 'correct' behaviour in DCS for some SAMs: Also, a track included of an AH-64D detecting the SA-10 launch as soon as it happens, but only defending with chaff, and maneuvering only when the missile is less than 20km or so away. More testing of helicopters on this topic is needed. AH-64D detects SA10 only chaff at first.trk F18 detects SA10 at 20km.trk FW 190 detects FOX-3.trk Su33 reacts Fox1 like fox3.trk TF51 detects radar missile.trk

But... are return bombardment even implemented? I mean, afaik the artillery AI units won't fire on anything unless manually tasked to.

Thank you for the answer @NineLine Good hollydays to the team!

Almost one year since the Q&A was put online. We only got one video of... questionable quality since then. Can we expect more answers, or is it more of a Questions&Abandon?

@Chizh Hi. Since you're onto the IRCM/IRCCM topic, could you take a look here too please? Thanks.

@Flappie If it can help I also posted tracks showing this issue, amongst others, on my post on this other topic.

From the latest changelog: ME. Added a warning, when appropriate, about placing a unit on a sloped surface. A notification will appear on a red background indicating the current value and affordable limit (in parentheses).

Yes, pretty bugged at the moment sadly:

Sure is a bug if you can see it with FLIR. IR pointers should only be visible with NVGs.

@Flappie Well after more testing than I thought I would do... I think the whole thing should be reviewed for more Q&A testing (please take more inspiration of the skynet script ) I can't get the Sa-10 nor the Patriot to stop their radar (didn't test other long/medium range SAMs). I tried different skills, ARM evasion on/off/defaut, RED/GREEN/DEFAUT STATE, more/less ARMs than SAM missiles... nothing. The Sa-10 and Patriot either intercept as many ARMs as possible then die if they fail or run out of missiles, radars remaining on, or just sit there, radars on, and eat the ARMs in the face radars without trying to intercept them because of the infamous engagement logic bug making the radar have an existential crisis when there is a large number of targets very close to eachothers and coming towards the radar. It's like the radar can't choose a target, and ends up doing nothing (You can see the Sa-10 track radar turn towards the targets, and move a few degrees left/right every few seconds, as if it couldn't decide which target to choose). For Tors it seems better. With default setting (not specifying the ARM evasion option in the mission editor), they don't react to ARMs. If I set the ARM evasion = on, they react accordingly. Which is fine in my book. By default, these should try to intercept ARMs as they are often tasked with protecting other radars (in DCS anyways, since we don't have the Pantsir that was announced in the january 2021 newsletter. Yes I'm salty). I haven't had the time to really test if the reaction depended on the number of ARMs for the TOR, maybe another day... And yes SAMs know magically if they're the ones who are targeted too. Put a Tunguska and a Tor a few meters apart, set the Tor to ARM evasion = on, send ARMs on the tunguska, watch the Tor intercept the ARMs. Anyways as I said, I think there are quite a few different problems plaguing this feature and making it very non functionnal as of now. ARM_evasion_engaged_anyways.trk ARM_evasion_intercept_low_number_ARM.trk ARM_evasion_intercept_low_number_ARM_then_dies.trk ARM_evasion_radars_remain_on.trk ARM_evasion_radars_remain_on_2.trk ARM_evasion_TOR_dont_works_if_defaut.trk ARM_evasion_TOR_works.trk

I'm baffled that they haven't made them available throught the launcher. I discovered that DCS had the aircraft manuals, as well as the DCS manual itself, in the game files after 1 year (ONE YEAR!) of playing. And see the message above: 2 years! And we're not isolated cases... ED has said several times that the complexity barrier to entry for new players was a problem, that they wanted to make DCS more accessible, they even opened a thread for the community to suggest what should be said on tips that will appear in game (feature to come I guess). YET they don't even tell people that manuals even exist and are in the game folders! I don't know what to say honestly...

will do in about 2 hours