rgk86cavalry

CH-47F AI Wingman Landing Bug – Expanded Report with TacView Analysis To the ED development team, Thank you again for following up on the AI behavior issues. I've performed a deeper analysis using both the .trk and TacView .acmi logs and wanted to share additional findings that confirm systemic issues in AI CH-47F landing logic. --- Previously Reported Issues (Recap) 1. First Landing Attempt – Sudden Collective Dump AI helicopters hover at ~182 meters AGL, then abruptly drop collective. They fall ~178 meters and violently impact the ground. All three AI wingmen (Rotary-1-2, -3, -4) exhibit this behavior. Time stamps of the drop: Rotary-1-2: 17.65s Rotary-1-3: 37.66s Rotary-1-4: 39.73s --- 2. Second Landing Attempt – Abort, Fly Away, Return After I land, AI units initiate a landing approach, then abort, flying away from the LZ. Max distance before returning: Rotary-1-2: 1.43 km Rotary-1-3: 2.73 km Rotary-1-4: 2.91 km They eventually return and attempt another landing, but again drop collective and crash hard. --- New Findings from TacView Review Flight Behavior – Rotary-1-4 Following the abort, Rotary-1-4 continued flying away and reached over 3.5 km from my location before turning back. Timeframe of this flight segment: ~90s to ~110s mission time. The AI followed a wide arc, likely re-evaluating the LZ or resetting its approach logic. Collective & Pitch Behavior During both outbound and inbound flights, telemetry showed little to no pitch or collective modulation, suggesting limited AI decision-making in approach vectors. On return, instead of flaring or hovering, the AI descended rapidly from 182 meters to 4.67 meters, matching the earlier crash pattern. Impact Estimate Descent: ~177 meters in under 2 seconds. Estimated vertical speed: 30–40 m/s (~110–145 km/h) Result: Ground bounce, potential blade strikes, and failure to complete a safe landing sequence. --- Conclusion The AI behavior for CH-47F helicopters, particularly during landings, appears to lack: Proper flare or hover logic Controlled descent rate management Stable landing decision trees after aborts This issue happens both with a clear LZ and after dynamic behavior like landing aborts. The current logic results in predictable, repeatable crashes regardless of terrain or AI skill level. Track and TacView logs are available and highlight these issues clearly. Thanks again for the hard work—hope this helps nail down the bug. Tacview-20250421-201020-DCS.zip.acmi

AI Landing Behavior – Detailed Report for Developer Review thanks again for looking into this. There are two separate AI landing behaviors observed in this mission track: 1. First Landing Attempt: Location: Open field near the city, just off the airfield. The zone is mostly clear—only a single tree nearby. Behavior: The AI helicopters begin their approach normally and hover at around 50–75 feet AGL. Then, without warning, they dump collective and crash hard into the ground. In several cases, the aircraft bounce off the surface with enough force to trigger rotor strikes. 2. Second Landing Attempt: After I land, the AI begin their descent. They get close to the LZ, then suddenly abort the landing, climb out, and fly halfway back toward the airfield (roughly a 5-minute flight). Then they turn around and come back to attempt another landing—again resulting in a very hard impact. This pattern repeats consistently. It seems like there may be a logic issue with the AI’s landing resolution, possibly tied to terrain or collision clearance checks. ch47f test.trk

2025-04-19 22-26-08_1.mp4

Game Mode: Single Player Mission Type: Player CH-47F with 3 CH-47F AI wingmen Map Tested: any Issue Summary: When attempting unplanned or dynamic landings (e.g. in open lots or roadways), AI CH-47F wingmen behave erratically and often crash violently despite having clear, safe landing zones. Observed Behaviors: AI wingmen approach normally, then: Suddenly drop all collective from ~100 ft AGL and smash into the ground. Attempt to flare, then pull max pitch and perform a backflip, overshooting the LZ and crashing. Hover near the ground, wobble, then commit to a nose-first impact. Break formation and RTB without command, even when ordered to land at a visible and accessible LZ. Nearly land safely, then abort at the last second with a high-g pitch-up, loop, and fatal stall. This behavior occurs without enemy presence, under calm conditions, and in flat, obstruction-free areas. Expected Behavior: AI CH-47F wingmen should: Follow the player’s example or landing order and land safely in open terrain. Maintain controlled descent profiles and adjust dynamically if terrain allows. Not randomly abort or suicide-dive on final approach. How to Reproduce: Create a mission with: Player CH-47F 2–3 CH-47F wingmen in formation Fly to an open flat area not designated as an airfield or FARP. Attempt to land without using scripted LZ or waypoint commands. Observe wingmen behavior. Additional Notes: This appears to be a rotorcraft landing logic issue with the CH-47F. It makes ad-hoc logistics, troop insertions, and player-led dynamic landings nearly impossible in single-player scenarios.

I’ve noticed some odd behavior with cargo loading when using the tail gunner position. If you spawn into a mission with a tail gunner already equipped, and then try to load cargo (CTLD, etc.), it will fail unless the ramp/door is open. That’s expected. However, if you spawn without a tail gunner, open the ramp first, and then add the tail gunner afterwards (via rearming or scripting), cargo loading works just fine. It’s almost like the logic checking whether the ramp is open doesn’t properly update when the tail gunner is already present during initial spawn. But if the door is opened first, everything registers correctly—even after adding the gunner. Might be worth looking into. Could be a logic check that's not re-evaluating door status once the tail gunner is active.

Hello everyone, I've been a dedicated DCS World player for quite some time, and I deeply appreciate the effort that goes into developing such a complex simulation. However, I've encountered several issues that I believe are worth discussing for the betterment of the community and the game itself. Multiplayer Experience In the current state of multiplayer, the variety of available missions seems limited. Most servers predominantly feature "capture the flag" scenarios, which, while enjoyable at first, can become repetitive over time. I believe introducing more diverse and dynamic mission types could greatly enhance the multiplayer experience. Single-Player Limitations When it comes to single-player mode, the experience feels somewhat underwhelming. Often, I find myself manually placing targets on the map and then flying to them, which removes the element of surprise and challenge. It would be beneficial to have more engaging, randomly generated missions that offer unpredictability and require strategic planning. Mission Creation Challenges The mission editor, while powerful, is not very user-friendly for those of us who aren't experienced in scripting or programming. I've spent days trying to script LUA files with Moose and MIST to create dynamic scenarios such as: Insurgents launching indirect attacks on NATO bases from random locations. Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs) moving around the map, requiring interception before they reach critical points. Large NATO supply convoys moving between bases. Implementing Quick Reaction Forces (QRFs), both ground teams and aviation units. Despite my efforts, I've faced difficulties, particularly with getting VBIEDs to follow tasking movements. A more intuitive mission creation system or additional support and documentation for these advanced features would be greatly appreciated. Quick Mission Generator Issues The quick mission generator used to be a helpful tool for jumping into action without extensive setup. Unfortunately, it no longer functions as expected and often displays "null" when attempting to generate a mission. Fixing this feature would provide a convenient option for players looking for immediate engagement. AI Ground Forces Behavior Another area of concern is the behavior of AI ground forces, especially troops, in both multiplayer and single-player modes: Multiplayer: When transporting troops using the CH-47F, I've noticed that after landing them near enemy forces (approximately 500 meters away), they tend to form a defensive perimeter around the aircraft instead of engaging the enemy. Even after returning with additional troops, the initial group remains stationary, which diminishes the effectiveness of coordinated ground assaults. Single-Player: Conversely, in single-player mode, AI troops sometimes exhibit overzealous behavior, such as expending excessive ammunition on insignificant targets (e.g., a prop shovel assigned to the enemy team). Balancing the AI's engagement priorities could enhance realism and gameplay. Focus on New Features vs. Core Gameplay While new features like the upcoming Iraq map and advanced fog and dust rendering systems are impressive and showcase technical advancements, I feel that core gameplay issues deserve more immediate attention. Enhancements to mission creation tools, AI behavior, and existing features could have a more substantial impact on player experience than graphical improvements alone. Conclusion I share these thoughts from a genuine desire to see DCS World continue to improve and succeed. Addressing these concerns could significantly enhance both the single-player and multiplayer experiences, benefiting the entire community. I'm interested to hear if others have had similar experiences or have found solutions to these challenges. Let's work together to provide constructive feedback to the developers. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hello DCS Community, As we strive for greater immersion and realism in DCS World, I wanted to share ideas on how ground forces and asymmetric warfare elements could be improved to enhance tactical complexity and realism in missions, especially in modern, urban, and Middle Eastern settings. Below are some concepts that could bring a new level of depth to combined arms operations. --- 1. Enhanced AI Logic and Tactical Awareness for Ground Units Ground forces could benefit from AI that assesses surroundings dynamically, making tactical decisions on the fly. Instead of staying static, units would move to cover, set up defensive positions, and prepare for engagement based on the enemy’s location and strength. 2. Intelligence Gathering and Recon Capabilities Ground forces could take on recon and surveillance roles, actively scanning for threats, reporting enemy movements, and relaying intelligence to command. This would create real-time battlefield awareness and give air assets meaningful coordination objectives. 3. Waypoint and Objective Setting Players could set specific waypoints and objectives for ground forces, such as clearing buildings, securing areas, or advancing to strategic points. This would allow for more precise ground control and open up combined arms coordination. 4. Dynamic Engagement Tactics Ground units could use adaptive tactics like flanking, setting ambushes, or falling back when overwhelmed. This would make engagements more fluid and realistic and require air assets to coordinate effectively. 5. Patrol and Security Duties Ground units could take on autonomous patrols, securing perimeters or acting as sentries, giving them more roles in support and reconnaissance missions and providing more opportunities for players to coordinate with them. 6. Infiltration and Exfiltration Skills Units could adopt stealth tactics to infiltrate or move tactically through high-threat zones, using cover and concealment to avoid detection until engagement is necessary. This would add a layer of realism to recon and direct-action missions. 7. Improved Pathfinding and Terrain Awareness Ground forces would navigate urban, rural, and forested areas more intelligently, using terrain for cover instead of taking exposed direct routes. This would enhance their effectiveness in complex terrain. 8. Command and Control Options for Players Enhanced command options like “hold,” “advance,” “take cover,” or “secure area” would allow players to coordinate with ground forces, creating a more seamless command-and-control experience. 9. Specialized Ground Unit Roles Introduce units with specific capabilities, such as: Forward Observers: Relay precise enemy positions for air support. Combat Engineers: Detect and clear mines or IEDs. JTAC Units: Designate targets for CAS. Sniper Teams: Take up concealed positions to eliminate key threats. 10. Asymmetric Warfare: IEDs, Car Bombs, and Insurgent Tactics Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs): Include IEDs as hidden hazards in urban and rural settings. These would require recon, route planning, and sometimes even ground dismounts to detect and neutralize. Vehicle-Borne IEDs (VBIEDs): Implement car bombs and insurgent vehicles with explosive payloads that could target both air and ground forces, making it necessary to exercise caution in populated areas. Insurgent Tactics and Ambushes: Enemy forces could use guerrilla tactics, blending with civilians, setting up ambushes, and utilizing hit-and-run methods. They could also react based on player actions, actively setting up new defenses or reinforcements as the battle progresses. 11. Civilian Dynamics and Collateral Consequences Civilian populations could react to player actions, and collateral damage could impact mission success, reputation, and interactions with locals. Civilians might rally to support insurgents if mistreated, creating complex ROE scenarios. 12. Autonomous Tactical Reactions Ground forces should automatically react to situations, such as explosions or sudden enemy encounters, by repositioning, calling for air support, or requesting reinforcements if equipped with communications. 13. Optional Ground Missions and Side Objectives AI-controlled ground units could carry out secondary tasks, like securing supply routes or assisting civilians, adding a sense of a larger, integrated battlefield. Players would feel they’re part of a more complex and multi-layered operation. 14. Casualty Evacuation (CASEVAC) and Medical Support When ground units take casualties, they could call for MEDEVAC support, creating new objectives for players to extract the wounded, adding depth to transport and logistics missions. 15. Expanded Mission Debriefing A detailed debrief could provide feedback on ground unit actions, intel gathered, collateral impacts, and areas successfully secured. This would help players refine their coordination with ground units and adapt their strategies for future missions. --- Closing Thoughts Implementing these features would transform ground forces into essential assets on the battlefield, actively contributing to intelligence gathering, securing objectives, and supporting aerial operations. Adding asymmetrical threats like IEDs, VBIEDs, and insurgent tactics would make modern combat scenarios far more complex and immersive. These changes could bring DCS closer to a fully integrated simulation of modern warfare and enhance the combined arms experience significantly. Looking forward to your feedback!

So there I am, 1:00 a.m., launching out of Kandahar airfield with my three trusty AI wingmen on a top-secret night op. I’m feeling like a true special forces pilot, cruising in full blackout mode, blending into the shadows. Just me, the quiet hum of the CH-47, and—oh, wait. I casually check my six and… Yep. There they are. All my AI wingmen lit up like a Christmas tree on December 24th. Anti-collision lights, navigation lights, probably even a disco ball I hadn’t noticed before—all flashing bright as day. But fine, I tell myself, maybe they'll turn them off at the LZ. Surely, right? We reach the LZ, and as if on cue, every single one of my AI wingmen goes full Broadway. Landing lights beaming like they’re filming a music video. But it gets better. They're blinking them on and off like they’re trying to communicate with alien life. I can almost hear them saying, “Hey, enemy forces, we’re here!” Finally, when they do decide to “land,” it’s more of an uncoordinated nosedive straight into the dirt, each one igniting into a glorious fireball. Now I’m sitting there in the dark, surrounded by three burning craters, totally exposed, my cover completely blown. So much for stealth—guess it’s time to call in an Uber! Is there any possible way that we clean up the AI wingman pilots?! Please ?

Tailrotor pitch control links and T/R hub don't rotate with the tail rotor blade. I'm not sure if this is new or because of the last patch. Just noticed it today.