Clunk1001

@Callsign JoNay, you meant Aircraft gross weight, right?

Acceleration, Mach, and endurance should have a marginal increase, without the weight of the pilot.

I’m the opposite. I love the authenticity of the worn cockpit. You know what the button does by its shape/colour/position, any factory text wore off years ago, and the Dymo label stuck next to it by maintenance is now barely readable. I spent some time flying a brand new aircraft, I was literally like the 6th person in the cockpit. It was like a new BMW fresh out of the showroom. Within 6 months it was a complete mess; Knobs and dials had been bent and broken by pilots clumsily climbing in and out, canopy was scratched from items/headgear placed in places they shouldn’t be, unidentifiable stains on the switches, the floor, the seats. Come to think about it, Pilots are disgusting . This is just how planes are (at least in my experience).

Okay, here's the same thing in the F/A18, Caucasus. I'm not so good in the F/A18, but it still only takes about 80 seconds from the merge before the F5E-3 decides to take a bath. Trackfile and Tacview file attached. (I see that Trackfiles work with the F/A18 but not with the F-14 - didn't realize that). And here's a clip.... Swim.mp4 Tacview-20230401-122003-DCS-test3.zip.acmi 1.miz.trk

I changed the loadout slightly: F14A has no missiles, no guns. With no weapons I can consistently (5 out of 5) kill ("dunk" might be a better word )the Ace AI F5E-3. The F5E-3 load was as follows: Whilst I've seen this with other aircraft, I can only replicate it consistently against the F5E-3. Mig29, Mig23, and Mig21, all seem to have better ground-collision awareness.

You just need to get behind the AI, and stay there; It will eventually just turn itself into the ground (seems to be triggered if you sit behind it and then start a high yo-yo, it’ll turn low with no regard to its height agl so collides with the ground). (The track files are useless and neither aircraft perform in the same way as the actual encounter)

This topic is currently marked as "Cant Reproduce", so I thought I'd chip in because in around 8 out of 10 of my engagements today the Ace AI crashed themselves into the sea and died. To replicate, in mission editor, I just dropped an F-14A (player) and an Ace F-5, 10 miles apart (default altitude, default payload). In one flight, it takes just 70 seconds for the Ace AI pilot to smash himself (or herself) face-first into the sea. Mission attached, 4 TacViews attached. I'm finding dogfights in DCS are more a game of "Shoot him before he kills himself". What my RIO sees is coming: What's actually coming: And how I'm scoring my sorties now.... Note: this is just meant to be a bit of light-hearted satire, before anyone get's too upset, I think the team at ED are doing an amazing job. Thanks Tacview-20230331-161729-DCS-test2.zip.acmi Tacview-20230331-162056-DCS-test2.zip.acmi Tacview-20230331-161933-DCS-test2.zip.acmi Tacview-20230331-163334-DCS-test2.zip.acmi test2.miz

I’ve been getting the same issue for a few months. “Forrestal Damaged 1%” message on cat launch.

Just wanted to feedback on this item from older update: Potential fix for mission freeze including F-14 AI. Before patch 1 in 3 flights would freeze about 45 minutes in. I’d never fly more than a 40 minute sortie in case of losing results (I fly DCS Liberation campaigns) Since that patch, the last few months, not had one single freeze, flying sorties of several hours with no issues at all. That fix was a game changer. Just wanted to say well done, and thanks, for finding and fixing that issue!

That’s really useful info. That explains a lot. Is ED dealing with that?

No, I’m talking about the hundred or so tests I’ve carried out, including other tacviews I’ve posted here where the migs don’t even flinch and 4 Phoenix missiles sail right past them. Katsu has asked if there is something wrong with the missile. The replies on here will be : it must be you, or it must be the mission maker, you’re not high enough, wrong model, not fast enough….. Rather than - “yes there’s something wrong, it was working really well about a month ago, HB are no doubt on the case.” There’s no doubt all these things play a factor, i just think people should answer the guys (or gals) question. yes, Katsu, there’s something wrong. HB/ED will no doubt resolve it in time. or you can get a replacement in Bolton:

Having done similar tests with the C against 60s aggressor, I found it makes little difference. All versions seem unreliable.

I agree with you Katsu. But sshhh in case they hear us …. …oh too late

It’s called “primary source”. if you had any form of education you may understand that. Edit…..I think I’m just gonna leave you guys to you computer games …

I’m highlighting the importance of eye witness accounts regarding the real-world effectiveness of munitions and the disparity between official numbers and reality. That is not a poor argument. In this 30 page discussion (by mainly non-aviation/non-aerodynamics experts) the complete disregard of viable information is disappointing to say the least.