NineLine

Hi, the issue I see here is that as is standard on mission start the AI is not in position. If you allow the AI to get into position and then perform your turn they have no issue. Otherwise, you are starting from a deficient and the AI struggles to catch up without abusing speed and such. This method works fine for both tracks.

I am not sure I am seeing the issue here other than you are trying to force the AI to do something and limiting their ability to do that. I can maybe see limiting their speed or afterburner use at cruise speeds but why on climb? Also, I do not see this S maneuver in your track unless you mean when they hit the end of your assigned path which would just mean they have run out of commands and don't know how to proceed. When I tried restricting Afterburner I allowed 375ks, and it climbed fairly smoothly and reached altitude just about a minute later than the unit with afterburner allowed. You set the speed of the restricted after-burner unit to 330, and I can see in tacview that it did struggle to maintain speed and climb more. Even losing a little altitude near the end.

I believe this is known, but feel free to upload a track and I will confirm its the same. Thanks.

Hi, do you have the track from this event? Thanks.

This is already reported, thanks.

This is known right now, seeing it with WWII as well. so consider reported, thanks.

Please recheck, it seems like it might be worse now in that the AI doesn't seem to find any target. Let me know, thanks!

These are at least working internally, have you rechecked recently? Thanks.

Trying this mission, I am not seeing an issue, is this still a problem?

Please supply a track of this issue, thanks.

Thanks this has already been reported.

Please check again and let me know if it's better now. Thanks.

I have refreshed the issue internally, it should be fixed if the new ATC is not close enough. Thanks.

Sorry guys, I didnt update this. Its been reported for a while now, and the team is still working in it, they know its bad and how important it is to get fixed. Thanks.

The map team is separate from the main RB group, and only published by RB. So yes, that team has continued to work during this time.

Everything official is in the first post, that is all we are discussing here. Thanks.

Done.

Thread is tagged as TBD so we are not committing until we are 100% sure. Thanks!

Just know all, I will shamelessly lock this thread if it goes off the rails. I have made sure that management is aware of the video, and both me and BN have raised our concerns which are much of your concerns. So please do not turn on each other or go off the deep end if you feel this thread is still helpful. Thanks.

I don't think we have ever said there aren't issues. But I also do not think its fair to paint is that we are only 'pumping out' Early Access and not finishing them. The changelogs show plenty of work on EA modules as well as the core game. I also do not think its fair to say that the AH-64, F-16 and F/A-18 updates are slow, again they see updates all the time, and some take more time than others. The A-10C II was waiting on a free dev who is well versed in the A-10C, and it hardly hurt the module at all, I would argue that most people have gotten their moneys worth out of the A-10C over and over by now. The Supercarrier has been painfully slow, but its also adding things to the game that we have never had or seen. The directors alone have been going over major MP testing and tweaking, its moving crew on a moving ship guiding moving players, some who ignore or do not follow instructions. It's not a simple task. So I can concede these things take a long time, you also have to concede that some of these things require a lot of time. And the Supercarrier still works during that time, although I know bugs pop up here and there with something that has its guts being worked on in the background. The core gets work all the time, again you see it on changelogs. Ground AI has already improved in regards to non-AI vs air targets. AI still requires lots of work as well, but it is in progress, and results pop up all the time, including this upcoming patch. The AI is very intertwined (spaghetti code I think Nick said). So it needs to be pulled apart and tuned. We have seen where one thing can impact another and hurt gameplay. The Dynamic Campaign is a no win situation right now, I explained earlier in this very thread, I think even to you about the work going into it. Should we have not said anything until we were closer? Then it would have been we are not willing to make one. Instead, we are making one and its taking too long. If we release it too soon, then we are incompetent... This is simply disingenuous, no one is getting banned for saying RAZBAM (or anything else negative as proved by this thread), we have a whole thread on it. We are not happy about it, nobody is. While I understand the frustrations, let's at least discuss this fairly and not make things up. I think I have tried to be very fair in this thread. Let me know if I have not. We have talked about this before, Caucasus is the oldest map and the only one using a hybrid mix of old tech and new. Nevada was the first new map on new tech. To redo the Caucasus would require a complete rebuild. Now that isn't probably the biggest issue, the biggest would be the years and years of content built on that map and making sure it all works. Add to this that many people want actual warzones for the aircraft they have. I would prefer Vietnam or Korea before and updated Caucasus, but that's just my personal opinion.

There is two points here I will make as I understand this is your opinion and you are welcome to it. 1) Any Redfor jet, even export or older variant will still have limitations on what we can or are allowed to do. I know some of you see this as not getting things right or not understanding something but most times its limits to what we can do. I am sure we would all love a 1:1 jet simulation, I shouldn't have to explain why that is not possible. 2) If we wanted to make FC aircraft have clickable cockpits we could do that very easily. So please, even if it's not your intent, do not be insulting and say we are not doing anything more than that.

I am not sure I understand some of your statements here. This isn't a common market and in many cases, we are blazing the path, we might make mistakes or make the wrong choice but we try to right the ship and keep moving forward. What DCS was 10 years ago has adapted well beyond a specialized community, there are many different player types using DCS now and that is based on how we have grown and adapted to existing and new players. We have made statements that set expectations many times, and we have missed on them, I don't think we have ever denied this, we do make sure to point out that things can change, outside or unforeseen issues, etc. I don't think we have ever put this on the customer, if anything it's our ability to educate our customer on how long something takes or the challenges that may pop up that might be the biggest issue. But I do not see us blaming customers. Most times when a customer is impatient it's only out of excitement or need for something, I cant see us blaming or being mad about this. I don't think any chastising is going on. Not everything we work on is appealing to every gamer, this is what DCS is, it offers many different ways to play, I am sure there are a lot of people who are not interested in the F6F, I am sure there are a lot that are. You cannot put everyone into one hole and see that is where everything should go. Iraq and Afghanistan are two very important theatres, not having them would be a shame. Not having maps like Vietnam or places in Europe would also be a shame. Also, remember that ED also has a professional side and sometimes projects will drift into DCS based on the needs there.

Hey, thanks for the post, have you seen any solid evidence this was operationally deployed for US F-16 units 2007 or prior? Thanks!

There is nothing new to report right now, priorities such as DTC are currently the focus. Thanks!

I get that many people believe this, but we also know that money is tight for everyone these days, we thought offering the ability to buy part of a map if you cannot afford the entire map was something that could help. People are buying the parts, and how successful it will be time will tell, but I don't think adding different purchase options is a bad thing, especially considering those that want to buy the whole map can still do that the same as always. Again, same with selling individual FC3 planes, it's a quick and cheap way to get into DCS, again if you have the money or know you want to commit to DCS the entire pack is there and an option, options are never bad. I really do not get the concept of being mad at offering cheaper ways to get into DCS. Without seeing the exact example its hard to say. If you give the AI something to do, they tend to get stuck on that so you have to balance out what they are doing and what you want them to do. In many cases, the AI should "think" better but within reason. Considering all the possible scenarios and resulting actions that can happen on any given mission, programming all these in a while probably possible could make DCS unplayable performance-wise, also you would have AI making decisions maybe you never wanted or thought about. So its always a balancing act.