shagrat

That's not what I meant, or was remotely implying, but from most if not all accounts I came across, after let's say 3-4 months into deployment fatigue and constant stress all take their toll. What puzzles me, is these simple things, that under high stress levels and urgency, combined with fatigue isn't this little detail something the designer of an aircraft want to omit? I mean, yes you can do the math, but why add this risk, instead of consolidating measures. Just because you can simply do some arithmetic to get things going, it does not have to be a good idea. I always thought, especially in military aviation the goal is to minimize the risk and give the guys the best chance to achieve the mission goal. No offense meant, just my personal thought on "on-the-fly" conversion under high pressure.

Just looked at a "conversion table" for aviation fuel... You imperial guys do take a lot of drugs, don't you? Are we talking US gallons or Imperial, I guess US? Then 50 lbs is 7 Gallons, but 100 lbs is 16 Gallons and 200 of course is 30 Gallons not 32 and 300 lbs is 46 Gallons? Why is even the fuel handled in different measurements in the same(!) aircraft? Doesn't that beg for mistakes endangering service members? And even if nobody cares about the monkeys operating the controls, the aircraft isn't exactly cheap, either.

Setting inventory - actually being able to fill storages and fuel tanks by script commands - is a huuuuge step! Finally we can create real "convoys" that directly impact available ressources. Thank you sooo much, for finally adding this feature. Total game changer!

It is totally worth it. Btw. to easily populate a 80ies/90ies war scenario, there is the "Generator" in the Mission Editor. There is the Option to select a "Node" and drag it around, select templates to suite your scenario (there is a separate template editor in the Generator Menu, if you want to fine tune forces). In the "Node" menu, select any of the Red Templates and Blue Templates you like (rectangles show force organisation and placement, these can be dragged to match your desired "front layout". Finally hit "Generate" and add Client/Player slots as required... Not a full immersive story campaign, but a quick way to setup larger engagements. Btw. you can of course add your own templates etc.

Just go for it! Learn the mission editor, some Lua Scripting and build a full fledged "Fulda Gap" campaign. Or use the generator in DCS to create a classic red vs blue scenario, with the templates (unfortunately only fully supported on the Caucasus map).

...and its own starting position/heading/pitch etc. to know "where 3° to the left" is after launch, as the launch platform isn't necessary stable.

TV ist in der tat nicht wirklich optimal. FreeSync ginge aber auch mit 60Hz, z.B. ASUS TUF Gaming VG289Q1A oder halt sowas wie mein alter 4k Monitor: Acer Predator XB280HKbprz, 71 cm (28\"), LED, NVidia G-Sync, 1 ms, 4K der in der Tat nominell 144Hz schafft. Aber der Punkt war ja: die Hardware sollte, insbesondere mit Multi-Threading, locker in der Lage sein 4k zu rendern.

I stand corrected! It IS now possible to "limit target type" to "ground" (to prevent shooting at airborne stuff) or "air" (to prevent AAA from devastating ground forces). Definitely something mission designers should consider. But I would still prefere a general solution on the AI decision making level.

Ja, zumindest konnte ich das mit meiner alten RTX 2080 S einem i5 10600K@3.8GHz und 32 GB RAM mit der Singlethread Version, bevor ich GraKa upgegradet habe und Widescreen genommen hab. Mit Multi-Threading und deinem System solltest du auch bei guten Einstellungen problemlos 4K in 30-40 fps schaffen. Ein Faktor, der meiner Erfahrung nach eine Menge für gefühlt flüssige Darstellung ausmacht, ist G-Sync/FreeSync.

Unfortunately the relevant options don't apply for them. "Engagement range" and "Target Aircraft" y/n would be helpful. Though I would prefer a generic change in the targeting of AI so air targets get handled differently and based on height/speed will be ignored, and if they try shooting air targets, add a calculation error to the lead simulating the difficulty in tracking and judging lead in 2-3 seconds.

The real issue is, most ground forces shouldn't even shoot at fast moving, low flying jets. Their engagement time for a jet at 400 KTS and below 500m is measured in a couple seconds. It's not enough time to swivel and aim a gun, find the target, through a sight and in case of the dreaded BMPs lase the target for ranging, while keeping it in the sight with manual controls... In real life that's Impossible, so the infantry man's air defense bible says "spray and pray" or safe precious ammunition. If(!) a jet is slow enough or a helicopter high enough to spot it early enough, it's still no easy task to hit it (I know, because I did that myself during training). We were all very confident ("how hard can it be" - "Just walk the tracers on target"), but learned quickly how difficult it is to do corrections. The target flew in a straight line, towed by a prop plane and we couldn't really hit it. There's a reason why military developed dedicated Self-Propelled-Anti-Air-Artillery with radar and sophisticated targeting computers for lead calculations to be embedded with ground forces, instead of just putting larger autocannons on IFVs. I explained it more detailed in this post: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/329932-sniper-btr8082s/?do=findComment&comment=5271762

Yepp, since 10+ years. But we need a fix to the ground AI that is not a ZSU-23-4 Shilka, Gepard or 2S6 Tunguska that could be as simple as "if target == air then aimpoint randomize position by x%" to simulate a human trying to inaccurately lead an aircraft and "do not engage if faster than 400 KTS"... While leaving aiming against ground targets the same.

That's because a lot of mission builders arrange groups in a way that have them face at least partially to the rear, as well. A unit with a radar in the group is a thing. And ultimately if you fly close enough to be in range of DSHK, AK-47 and RPG in a helicopter the distance factor is basically negated. If they have LOS and you show against the sky, they immediately spot you. The real issue is the insane AI lead calculation. That one is a long standing issue where BMPs, APC and IFV calculate lead as well or better than the AAA designed to shoot down aircraft. As for the WWII dogfight, I didn't fly warbirds in a long time, but I remember that was discussed in a newsletter quite some while ago. How the cockpit layout and "blind spots" are taken into account, but also how AI wingmen will use scan patterns to monitor there flights respective blind spots... They definitely are not ominiscient. I am not saying the AI is perfect, it is far from it. The point is, we need to be precise and showcase actual bugs, or realistic improvements, instead of generic "the AI sees everything and it sucks", to change it. This is my take on the BTR/BMP/IFV issue, as it isn't how ground forces do anti air:

(...)" If the jet is crossing, use a lead of 200 meters (two football fields) and fire--letting the jet fly through the cone of fire from the machine guns. Do not try to track or traverse your fire with the jet--it flies too fast."(...) Sums it up pretty well.

As having had anti-air defensive training in the army I definitely would expect them to miss no matter what skill setting (!), or even more realistic only take shots on approaching aircraft. This is hammered into your head during training, as trying to lead a fast moving aircraft flying away(!) from you is basically a waste of ammunition. A ZSU-23-4 with its radar can calculate lead in realtime, but not a human gunner eyeballing the target, laser rangefinder or not. The concept of defensive Anti-Air (Fliegerabwehr) is trying to deny the airspace in the direction of a target by putting as much tracers/bullets in the air in front of the aircraft as possible to scare the pilot into maneuvering, failing the approach. If you hit the aircraft it is more by luck than any skill involved (talking about a jet at 500 kts, not a slow moving helicopter). In real life the ground forces will only fire at an aircraft flying towards(!!!) their position and stop firing, when it passes the 3/9 line of the gunner. Air defense against jets is what SHORAD like Roland or Gepard were designed for. Autocannons against slow or hovering helicopters is fine, heck, even Tank crews train snap shots against helicopters with the main gun in the simulator, but not against fast movers, as it would be waste of precious ammo. This is a long standing issue with the AI. It's a constant gripe, since DCS: A-10C Warthog days, that BMPs especially, but also BTR, MBT with Anti-Air MG hit jets perfectly at their max engagement range, making them a bigger threat than dedicated AAA. It's not just a simple skill setting issue. I would love to see the AI no longer shoot jets with a DSHK after it already passed overhead and with a perfectly timed lead in 3 dimensions adjusted for 500 KTS snipe it out of the sky.

I get the frustration, but there are so many wrong statements here, you try to convey as "facts", I don't know where to start... - Maybe the AK-47 that can't shoot at you if you are 3km away, neither if you maneuver or hover, as it has a max range of 500m. - ground units can't spot you immediately, unless you go in guns blazing. They will eventually spot you from any angle, but it takes time! The longest if you approach from the rear. This simulates the crew of a vehicle scanning the surrounding area with a priority to the front. If the group has units facing in every direction, a unit seeing you will use "radios" to inform the other units in its group, this is something mission creators need to be aware of. A lot is factored into the time to spot an enemy, from distance, weather (humidity/haze), time of day (lighting), flying against the sky or a mountain as background, size and number of aircraft/units in close vicinity to one another (a bunch of aircraft is easier to spot than a single jet), if another aircraft of your flight has been spotted already, the skill level, sensors available (modern tanks have FLIR, other vehicles at least scopes, a ZSU-23-4 Shilka has radar), your exterior lights setting (christmas tree vs. stealth)... and a modern MBT/IFV had Laser Warning Receivers that will alert it, if you use a laser rangefinder or targeting laser. - spotting instantly, depends on the airframe. AI Pilots should by now mostly have sophisticated angles defined where they can spot enemy aircraft. It is a while since I did a dogfight against AI in a warbird, but all aircraft have that blind spot low and aft... but they have radio and the wingmen do their job and do the scan pattern, unlike most human players. - the BTR-80 is not that hard to dodge in a helicopter, the BTR-82A or the godd...n BMPs is another story. Every vehicle with a laser rangefinder seems indeed to have a better fire control computer to calculate lead, than any AAA... and they can hit moving helicopters with ATGM at 4000m using a hand operated joystick as "guidance system" which is ridiculous at such ranges. - clouds are still work in progress and definitely a problem, if it comes to AI and spotting. - IIRC there was a comment in one of the newsletters about work on improvement to the AI flight model, but I guess this is a longer process. - I never noticed, or heard the AI had unlimited flares. I am aware they do pre-emptive flaring (to prevent Heat Seekers to lock in the first place) and flare if shot at with IR-missiles, but that's what humans should do, as well. If you're dead, you don't need all those saved up countermeasures. A last advise on flying helicopters against vehicles with DSHK heavy MG and AAA armed with 20-30mm autocannons: never fly longer in a straight line when shot at! Watch the shots fired, as soon as you see the tracers, immediately maneuver in at least 2 dimensions (up/down, left/right, accelerate/slow down). The shots are aimed at where you will be, if you fly the same course and speed... and rockets are an area effects weapon against infantry and vehicles, if you're lucky, even against light armor, like APCs. Use stand off capabilities against armor and anti-air, wherever possible. A frontal rocket run against a couple BTR-82A or BMPs is asking for trouble...

Since the City of Paris secured itself the IP to everything about the Eiffel Tower™ lights, from photographs to the design, I guess they are simply cautious...

...and to emphasize, this is not "correct as is". The BLU-97/B Combined Effects Munition used in the CBU-87 is designed(!) as a Anti-Tank and Anti-Personell weapon. The Combined Effects part ensures it is effective against light armor and infantry. It has a shaped charge AND fragmentation body with roughly 280gr Explosive (more than a hand grenade) and it is designed to kill a light armored tank with a direct hit and fragment and blast shrapnel into the area plus a zirconium incendiary element, effective against vehicles and infantry. There is plenty public information on the design, fuzing and components available. If the effects of the BLU-97/B as currently depicted in DCS are "correct as is" all those reports from pilots killing SAMs, vehicles, artillery pieces, infantry and small tanks with CBU-87 during Desert Storm and Allied Force, must be preposterous lies. From this article ( https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0791weasels/ ) citing Dan Hampton: (...)"The CBU-87B turned out to be all it was advertised to be and more. Because it has no delivery restrictions and can be tailored for use against virtually any target, it was ideal for the medium-altitude attacks we were using. In fact, “devastating” is a better word. In one attack against a SAM in northern Iraq, we saw the CBU-87 create nine secondary blasts in the target area. Post-attack reconnaissance photos confirmed the kill. The terrain surrounding the site was chewed up to the extent that it looked as if it had just been plowed. We called it the “shotgun” school of bombing."(...)

Did you check the PERF page and performed a hover check, during start up? Could you get the aircraft in a stable hover with pulling less or up to 90% on the collective, doing it yourself, in the same environment? This would ensure it's not because of weight/power limitations (16 Hellfires, 100% fuel and gun ammo at 2000 ft in 28°C), but actually a bug with George.

Cluster Munition still needs some love. While Mk20 had at least got some love, the bomblets in the CBU-87/99 seem to be still as ineffective as ever. A good test is to drop a cluster bomb on an array with infantry some 5m apart each. IRL there should be no one left in fighting condition after a couple dozen HE bomblets threw their shrapnel in a radius of 30-35m (we can agree the HE effect is at least similar to a standard hand grenade). In DCS the 20mm, 25mm, 30mm gun ammunition and luckily the rockets after they were finally fixed, still causes more damage to infantry in the open, than cluster bombs. I am not saying everyone in the area hit with a CBU-87/99 will be dead, but surely incapacitated and out of the fight and that is what matters. This should apply to unarmored vehicles/trucks, as well, and to a lesser degree to lightly armored vehicles, like an M-113, TPz Fuchs, Humvee or BRDM-2, if they take a direct hit or stand in the center getting blasted by 3, 4 or more exploding bomblets.

I wonder if it would be a good idea to adjust George so he is basically flying the aircraft in a way to NOT crash/die, assuming he wouldn't deliberately follow orders that would kill the aircraft. Instead he should correct the order to safe the aircraft and inform the gunner. Example, rather than slow down into VRS with a way too heavy aircraft or in low density air, he should keep the required speed and say something like "Unable, not enough power!" or "Can't hover, we're too heavy!" as a feedback.

They tweaked the flight model AND we get better at the inputs. Muscle memory clicks, it seems.

This is good news! So it is just waiting until it's fixed, but they've already put it on the list. Thanks for the info.

You may want to read the post, I commented. He(!) compared the F-15E to be similar in T/O behavior... I pointed out the flaw in the logic, as they are totally different. As for the "Rollercoaster" just have a look at WizzRDs video what was possible, even before Monday's update, by simply following the manual.

Plus at least another decade until the tech is mostly declassified. All Electronic Warfare stuff is still pretty much classified. Weapon systems and the tech behind them, the same. What we may get is better "reverse engineering" from public available sources and thus better approximations, but that's pretty much it. I am sure we still have a lot of compromises in the current modern DCS modules for this reason. But as others already said, we have incredible stuff in DCS, that is so far more detailed and true to life, than even the best Sims back in the 90ies, that I am a more than happy.