Robo76

It is not necessary to rank the targets exactly according to their danger, It is enough if they are at all at the top of the Ai list and the player will be able to choose the one that is the most dangerous for his next planned attack. When attacking an airport, even in the current state of Ai, the order of the targets in the Ai list is not correct. For example, if you destroy a Hawk-TR or Hawk-CMD, the Hawk's launchers and search radar may no longer be at the top of the Ai menu.

It is difficult to maintain a phlegmatic approach in a discussion when people from the ED team or their admins oppose, despite the evidence, arguments and testimonies of more people, that something is different than what they think in ED. When they don't know where to go and it's embarrassing, they admit the error or problem by looking at it - and then usually nothing happens for years (like the unbreakable landing gear on the F-16 reported a year ago, which I reported a year ago and ED initially denied). The cancellation of the stable versions of DCS was made by ED out of beta testers who pay ED and report problems for free in their free time. And as a reward, most " beta testers " encounter an arrogant approach to reporting with the justification that we don't have time for it now, because we are making the next great news here and there (which they then release full of often serious bugs) and they don't care about fixing old problems because they don't make money from it anymore. With every major update, most MP players pray that DCS will work at least as it always has and not paralyze MP. Then comes the standard ED excuse that the fix was very complicated and took longer, but that they have discouraged many players during that time and they still don't get it. ED is supposedly just people. But so are we DCS players. If someone gets upset by this attitude and expresses themselves more strongly (not in a rude way), they will get demerit points and a warning of a possible discussion ban. The person who constantly excuses ED or defends how they are doing it right doesn't have a problem with such a debater, so you don't have to worry.

Whatever it is, I don't have the strength and time to prove it to ED for several days, and they won't touch it for several years anyway, with the excuse that it corresponds to realism as they see it. And if I don't like Ai, the most I can get from ED for dissatisfaction with their work instead of a fix is a threat of a ban from the discussion forum.

But those AI "eyes" suffer from cataracts. And when I look out of the pilot's window myself, I see enemy units before the AI calculates and realizes. That can't happen when the AI operator looks out of the window the same way as the (player) pilot. That has nothing to do with realism, it's just errors in the AI, which you then pass off as an imperfect pilot-operator who makes mistakes, has "bad equipment" and is having a bad day.

If an enemy unit is unmasked by its own fire, it should immediately appear in Ai Petrovich's target menu. From a greater distance, it could be "unknown". If Ai were not at a sufficient distance to identify it, she should be aware of the threat of hundreds of projectiles flying at her from a given location, and register the threat as a general designation according to the danger, e.g. medium-range anti-aircraft systems, short-range anti-aircraft systems. Because when you attack an airfield full of AAA, there are bullet paths in the air, do you avoid them and Petrovich? He pretends to look for fire units, even though they are already shooting at his sight. In such a situation, I always wonder how much vodka Petrovich drank again and that he must have gone blind.... And then next time I'll take the Ka-50, where I can find the target myself.

If George has a problem, he just needs to turn on the FCR radar, which can find and shoot at targets in the bushes.

So for another debater who apparently doesn't use Ai Petrovich : 1. AI doesn't even see the units already firing around the Mi-24 cockpit. If there are trucks next to the AAA firing, it refuses to target the AAA. I would expect the AAA firing to be at the top of the target list and not at the bottom (it often isn't there). 2. Ai cannot see the JTAC smoke signal. If the unit is near a forest or in a city, it doesn't matter if the colored smoke can be seen for miles. Ai "searches" all the trees in the forest and buildings in the city, she doesn't primarily look around the marked location, so she may find the unit after searching everything in sight. 3. Ai It cannot see and therefore will not target a partially damaged unit. I was killed several times by an M1A2, M2A2 and a Gepard, which had red health, but the AI did not see them even after repeated approaches until they shot me down with a machine gun / cannon. 4. Ai can swap an enemy target with a friendly helicopter. All she has to do is momentarily lose sight of the marked enemy and if another helicopter is nearby , Ai will continue tracking it. Ai won't even tell you that she's already tracking another target. (If you want to argue that this doesn't happen to you, it's just that you don't use the Mi-24 for combat.)

General: It's normal that not all of them are listed in the changelog, I've encountered this several times. The changelog cannot be relied upon.

with the Ai Petrovitch, I am convinced that whoever programmed it did not test it in combat with multiple combat and non-combat units at the same time

In some multiplayer missions it is necessary to destroy ground units in order to capture a base. Which you can't do well enough if Ai refuses to target a damaged Abrams, which has a bit of life in red but still fires a 0.5 machine gun at you. You can try to destroy him manually with the cannon, but he'll probably destroy you first. I've had this happen 3 times recently with Abrams, once with a Gepard. And yes, units with life in red shouldn't shoot anymore, but they usually do, which is also DCS's fault. When Ai sees logistics trucks from 10km and a Gepard standing next to them from 5km, it's not even remotely realistic. Ai will absolutely unerringly primarily list targets that can't hurt you and only then track down the dangerous ones standing nearby. And it doesn't matter that those targets are already shooting at you, Ai pretends not to see them and keeps long-as-searching for them. That has absolutely nothing to do with the realism of the search! As for the Ai night vision, I take it that the Mi-24 has an optical sighting scope and an operator with the night vision on would hopefully be able to see as well, though probably not as well as he does now. The Ka-50 transmits the image to the Shkval screen via cables, so the pilot's night vision won't help there. Plus, even the hardcore multiplayer servers don't play at night because no Russian machine in DCS has night vision or TGP, and most people on the red team can disconnect if they don't have a JF-17 or AJS-37. When a target is marked by smoke, Ai should first look to see what unit is at that smoke, register it, and then look for the others. Now it's just the opposite, like JTAC can't see the smoke. Ideally, he should also be able to scan the area for a particular color of smoke if there are multiple units in the target area. I think the smoke is used to make it easier to find the target. The Air Force has used target designation by colored smoke or flare since it's inception, it's not a DCS "cheat" contraption. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Coordinates are now entered into CK37 in unrounded format. Would it be possible to round the coordinate values to insert them into CK37 from the Mission Editor / Route Tool ? Otherwise the deviation from the target is unnecessarily increased, for example when bombing with a Bk-90.

Think of it as a war and people prefer to hide at home. The lack of people bothers me in the Snowrunner simulator, for example, but it doesn't bother me a bit in DCS because I'm flying combat missions, not scenic flights over the countryside.

I'm of the opinion that ED could work on Ai in peace, and deploy it when it is functional and usable enough. In the meantime, the original working Petrovitch could have remained in service. ED always half-builds something and then runs away from it for 1-2 years and half-busts x other things. Buyer, you're out of luck, it's a preliminary approach and maybe someday we'll get it done, when that will be, no one knows. Over the years I see more multiplayer players quitting DCS than starting DCS. They'd rather go play something else that works and doesn't annoy them while playing. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

1. Ai Petrovitch ignores the partially damaged targets, but they are still firing. A damaged target does not appear in the target menu and therefore cannot be selected and destroyed. But a damaged target will destroy you. (2). Ai also has poorly set priors - it can see and indentify trucks from a distance, and often doesn't register AAA Bofors that are nearby, even when AAA is firing at your Mi-24. (3). The colored smoke that JTAC uses to mark the target is also ignored by Ai, who rather takes it as smoke to mask the target. Ai should be the first to find units that are marked with colored smoke, and instead it searches all other objects in view - trees, bushes, buildings, thus stalling as if there were no colored smoke on the map. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Mi-24 needs most to complete the functionality of a functional Ai Petrovich