Temetre

Btw, tangentially related: On a first glance, the Mig-21 AI update seems pretty solid. Now a player-flown F-4E can actually outrate a (low AI skill) Fishbed, as it should be IRL. Im sure ACE skill will still do things that are beyond physics, but thats kinda the point.

Especially annoying since these are some of the most famous/relevant opponents to have in cold war DCS! From my tests a while ago I found the Mig-19 was a more reasonable opponent, tho maybe too weak for good players. I do also like the 90 degree off boresight trickshots

Ive seen that Liberation and EW still use this mod (and it adds so much to the missions/matches). Does it still work fine dropping it into modern DCS missions, or are there fixed/updated branches/versions? Are there alternative AWACS/early warning mods? Also idk if youre still around @Steggles, but thanks for this amazing piece of work!

IIRC the current stance is 'GFM is gonna come in the future', and thats about all we know. Its not in the game and who knows when if ever itll be a thing. I suspect its so broken that ED wants to just redo a lot of stuff with the GFM, and therefor doesnt bother with bandaids? Theyve done some improvements for Mig-29, but not much more. Cant say I like that logic; considering how far away the GFM seems and how damaging these issues are to the experience, bandaids could go a long way. See the Mig-15 mod, a single person fixing a lot of stuff.

Thats interesting, so the SFM values arent actually very accurate? Implies OPs basic calculations are wrong, not just his assumptions about the application of those numbers. Do you know if theres similar AI mods for planes like the Mig-21? Thats another classic offender.

Yeah, I feel like I couldve made the conclusion earlier, but there is this morbid bit of curiosity xD

Yeah no question, this entire thread is some weird attempt to troll.

@Lidozin Frankly, this thread tells more about pyschology than any aspect of mechanics and simulation. You wrote these two things in the same post: First this: And then this: In one you say everyone else is wrong, because factual arguments have a hard time against group consensus (which is a funny thing to say btw). In the second you say you dont need to present facts, analysis or evidence regarding applicability of your analysis, because group consensus supports your position (also funny in context of this topic). How do you rationalize these two contradicting lines of argumentation?

You definitely got a strong point there. I probably confused or misremembered the Mig-15 with a Mig-19 or 21, my bad!

Its well possible im misremembering the exact details, but Id be careful to draw quick conclusions. You cant assume a buggy flight model always performs the same. Unintended behaviour is the problem! For example, the Mig-15 vs 15 climb video showed the AI plane go past 7km (23k feet) without too much of a slow down. Yet in your video it seems to struggle a lot more. Lets be real: Basically everyone in this thread is either neutral or disagrees with you, but you seem to see no reason to question your conclusions and even claim its 'well understood' that you are correct? Its fine to disagree, but it seems pointless to talk if your view is set in stone regardless of anything else. You wont convince anyone else with that either.

I think one thing people often miss is that a game, or even simulation, cannot replicate reality. Reality is just infinitely complicated, and eg a plane might sometimes do specific things in specific environments that are hard to explain even in the real world. Where even the designers can only make a good guess why this happens when they start testing the plane. Cant just expect a game engine to simulate that kinda stuff from the get go. Hence every accurate plane in DCS has an insane amount of custom coding/scripting/etc to make the flight model as realistic as possible despite the simplification.

To be fair while I was thinking about that, Pyker did a really good job actually putting that issue into words! If you could easily make a framework where you just enter numbers and the result was realistic, then making simulations and games would be so much easier. Im sure MSFS for example has a very, very complex framework that Asobo devs put a ton of work in, but even then you just 'feel' how most planes use that framework. They inherently feel like MSFS2020/2024 planes. And then have AI make good use of that frameworks is another layer of complexity... but also a very important one in DCS. Oh agreed, there is so much to AI and simulation. Personally Id be happy if the GFM for the AI is just generally in the right ballpark with the performance numbers. And as you say, maybe with the performance numbers of an average well trained pilot, rather than the planes theoretical maximum. Stuff like seeing an AI F-14 do the roll reversal wobble would be pretty funny.

Just to be clear, the guy youre talking to is a beta tester. His literaly role, probably job, is to find, observe and test how the game works. I dont know Pikey personally, but he probably knows a lot more about the games inner workings - and issues - than most of us. I would take his word seriously. And Ive seen, for example, the Heatblur devs say similar things on their discord. Those guys really know what theyre doing. Theres an issue here, youre not applying the same standards to those two aspects: 1. You use the lua number for your original calculation, which might well be accurate. It even makes sense that ED isnt actually applying fantasy values into the lua docs. Actually something that makes them look a bit more sensible and news to me, thanks for that. 2. When challenged on how those numbers actually translate into the ingame physics and flight model, you are using your 'observation' to tell the level of accuracy. Thats a lot less rigorous and scientific approach, especially if you didnt consider this facette yet. And Im not gonna pretend I know the exact issue, but the AI flight model can be deeply broken in very common A2A combat situations, in a way that does clearly not follow physics. To me the energy retention, somewhat during aggressive turns, but especially during climbs is the most obvious. The video of the AI Mig-15 outclimbing a player controlled one is a good example; a track view is better, but this video doesnt even pass the smell test, it should be blindingly obvious that something is quite wrong there. And talking about personal 1v1 experiences? I recently had an honestly quite funny situation where I had my clean F-4E, at good speed, IIRC half fuel and only sidewinders left, do a hard AB climb on Syria trying to shake off an AI Mig-15. The Mig-15 was stuck at my back the entire climb, and even when my plane was approaching stall, the 15' was in stable flight, IIRC fairly low AoA and could easily maneuver even while climbing. Do you know how absurd that situation is? A 50s variant non-afterburning swept wing fighter keeping up with a 1975 3rd gen that should have 4-5 times the nominal climb rate and is optimized for high altitude flight? The F4E can climb and do high altitude better than a Mig-21Bis, and that plane was also a much more powerful high altitude interceptor than the 15'. I recommend that test to you: Take a plane that should clearly have better climb rates and high altitude performance than a Mig-15, any AB 3rd gen or newer should do easily do. Have the AI Mig-15 chase you up. Use F2 to observe the 15s speed, stability and AoA. You will see why most people dont even consider if the AI is broken much of a topic of debate. Its that obvious during climbs.

Agreed with all. I would consider memory that is advertised with XMP speeds, yet doesnt reliably run them to be defective. Idk whats the legal perspective about that is tho.

Btw, just wanna note that this is usually bad advice. XMP is technically 'overclocking', but realistically its manufacturer-defined and the speed your memory is supposed to run at. If XMP causes issues, thats a deeper problem usually.