Relayer

2025, and not much changed yet. AI is still much as I remember it from Flanker. In some ways, more broken. In regards to this, you took one tiny part of what I was talking about (assigning pre-planned ground targets) and said yep, you can do that in the ME. It ignores the vast majority of other items I had brought up, and is honestly a poor solution in any case, because the ME is omniscient. If I go into the ME to fix things, I also get to see everything that the OPFOR is doing as well. The 'recon' window in BMS does this better, I would say. And I do maintain that the AI is more or less, functionally useless and significantly detracts from what ED describes as its core experience - PvE. As a user, not a mission creator, I shouldn't have to spend hours diving into the weeds and defining every single thing about how the AI should react in order to not have a maddening experience. They should act like trained pilots and I should be able to direct them as such. We have great modules, but very little ability to use them in anything like a believable combat setting.

I've definitely noticed this a few times, along with occasionally random uncommanded roll 'kicks'. I was unsure whether it was a bug, or whether it was 'authentic jank'.

Reproduced on my system. Even making 'attack unit' tasks etc does not do very much.

Strange to see no reply to this. Absolutely reproduced on my end. Any comments or updates?

Tried exactly this, with it set to 0.5, and finding it much, much better. Still need to trim a lot - but I can actually get the amount I need, rather than constantly overcorrecting.

I don't see anyone asking for it to be "dumbed down".

Unfortunately, without FFB, how we interact with the trim system is always going to be different to how it was in the actual cockpit, since we simply don't have stick forces. My understanding is that, IRL, the general procedure is to move the stick to where you want it, and them trim to relieve the stick forces. Since we can't do that without FFB, trimming is inherently different. Firstly, trim is additive - if I hold the stick slightly aft, and apply aft trim - instead of the trim relieving the force I'm applying with my arm, it is added in addition to the force I'm applying. Which means I need to release pressure on the stick concurrently with the trim, without being able to feel anything, and then see if the nose is still moving, and apply further stick deflection +/- trim until the nose is where I want it. I've generally found the pitch trim to be very twitchy, and with it bound to a hat switch on my X-56, I can either have 'too much' or 'not enough' trim for any given circumstance, meaning I still need to apply constant stick pressure. Which, yes, I get it, the Phantom was a very hands-on aircraft and hands-free flying is not going to be a thing. But a bit more granularity in trimming would make it less of a chore. My general point is that striving for perfect realism is all well and good - but since we are interacting with the simulation with very imperfect tools, some concessions to absolute realism in the aim of achieving relative realism are probably worthwhile.

I mean that's not really a solution is it? That is, at best, an excessively complex, kludged together semi-workaround that doesn't come close to what we should have in 2024. I can't say I particularly want to have to go through and 'think for' every AI flight in a Liberation mission for example (which could be upwards of 20 AI flights) and even then still have janky stuff happening. Falcon 4.0 / BMS has done this much better for 20+ years, and while there it isn't perfect, I can at least get the AI to attack the stuff I want it to attack, sort targets and employ on something like a timeline, not do spectacularly dumb <profanity>, and employ some reasonably 'realistic' BVR tactics.

>1 year later, zero replies, zero acknowledgement from ED, still same useless AI. There's threads going back til at least 2016 and most likely before about this. Cool.

I am aware there are some restrictions on what can be loaded onto the wing pylons with AAMs present (eg GBU-28). However, there are other stores which, as far as I know, should be able to be loaded with AAMs present on the outriggers. Currently, you can load a Mk-82/84 onto that station with AAMs fine, but if you load a GBU-10/12 onto the same station, it will remove the AAMs. Given that the current DCS forum banner image shows an F-15E with a GBU-31 on the wing pylon and at least one AIM-120 on the outrigger, can someone provide some clarity as to whether this is the correct behaviour?

When the Base point 'B' is selected as the active steerpoint, I am unable to select any other steerpoint thereafter. Eg inputting steerpoint 1 results in no selection being made.

It doesn't have a FLCS system similar to the Viper or Hornet though. It has a Control Augmentation System which is superimposed onto the hydro-mechanical flight control system. It's more like the SAS in the F-14, than anything in the Viper or Hornet which are fully FBW.

Here you go:

This has no relevance to the F-15E, since it carries neither the HTS nor AGM-88 - but the actual advice you've given, to offset, is correct.

AIM what? AIM-9? AIM-7? AIM-120?