RuskyV

Any Electronic warfare aircraft that could provide effective jamming, and or the Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS that interacted with the F10 map to be included in the fog of war logic.

Thanks for the insight, i guess when you start adding external scripts in with high unit counts in order to add in some resemblance to some sort of intelligence or tactics then you are forcing the "system" to work beyond what it is designed to do currently. On our dedicated server we have to have a system where we can leave it and it be semi dynamic where you can jump in and out without having and end goal, i guess this is where you start running into issues as you have to rely on external scripts to counter for the (sometimes) dumb AI when you already have a unit count that is proberby 3 times what it should be. Guess i cant blame the "system" when its already overworked. That being said i would love to have some of those externally made scripts built into the editor with some sort of total unit count with maybe a built in warning when you are pushing the limit. Being more informed on how things would run would save hours of play testing (which often end up being spoilers for those involved). The editor which is really so much better than it used to be could do with more power over AI units that is a more user friendly for its users, especially for people like myself who have little time to even learn how to script AI outside of DCS. Some of the external programs being used to ease mission generation are really nice and i've often wondered why these are not features in the editor..:doh:

Just out of interest what sort of unit count would you class as an upper limit in your opinion. Our dedicated server runs upwards of 750+ units that can swell quite alot with the Moose stuff. would you have any input on what you might think would be a good compromise? A bit off topic i know:book:

That makes sense thanks for explaining:thumbup:, so we should have plenty of overhead for AI if the only complex calculations done are for the plane you are flying and the rest just being positional information.

They need to make this option for "Dots Only" activate and available for VR users regardless of server settings. unless this option is available and im just talking crap.

Yea spotting is pretty bad in VR to be fair, spotting ground units is far better in the PG map than the caucus but spotting enemy air is a nightmare, i've noticed that playing around with the pixel density and SMAA settings can improve it slightly but not much. The only time i can see planes easily is when they are silhouetted above you in the sky, if they are co altitude or lower (especially over the sea)| then you pretty much have no hope picking them up quickly. I wish they would address and fix this issue..

That ingame scratch pad should have always been an integral part of DCS it is the single most useful app that i run, having the ability to copy paste any info from any screen in DCS at any time and then throw it up in front of you is an absolute win. You don't even need to type anything just highlight and copy paste:thumbup:

I agree with the part about only the positional information being shared across a network, but my question still stands about the AFMS and why the AI using them would be no more CPU intensive than in a multiplayer environment when as you say each local client runs its own AFM. Take for example blue flag or any server that would be running many aircraft, i think its fair to say a large percentage of that figure would be AFMs? i don't know the exact count of flying AFMs but take into consideration any of the paid single player campaigns and tell me the AI air unit count would be wildly different. My point is if AI is just a complicated set of rules used to govern any aircraft (AFM or not) why should it be any different in CPU use than individual clients running AFMs in a multiplayer environment?

I can see the logic behind what your saying but i don't see this as a valid reason when you take into account the multiplayer AFM (used by others) is the same as what you would be flying and yet this gets broadcast across a network not only to yourself but other connected clients at the same time. This should be far more resource intensive when you take into account some of the servers like blue flag that not only deal with all the AFMs being flown but also having to track all the ground units. How the AI uses any advanced flight models shouldn't need to be any more cpu intensive than transmitting this across any normal multiplayer network.

You could get pretty close to the radial idea with an option for a keybind that temporarily centers the VR mouse cursor so you can manipulate the radio menus a little easier, either making it a momentary or toggle switch that is bindable.

I've just been looking through the forums and noticed the issues people have been having with the ai and how little anyone has commented or even engaged in conversation with any of the threads. This sort thing i would have thought would be a little higher up in importance seeing the paid content for campaigns are based around AI assets that seem to be exhibiting really bizarre behaviour, specifically in this case the AI aircraft, especially the AI enemy. -My initial interest got peaked the other day while i was doing a mission i generated and i noticed that there were some really funny things going on, one of the things i noticed in tacview was that when i fired an aim120c at the same time a Su27 fired an R27 my aim 120 guided on his launched missile for about 2 seconds and that was enough for the 120 to then have bled enough energy that when re-acquiring the su27 it had lost all its speed to not be effective once the su27 went defensive, I've not seen this behaviour from the enemy missiles ever being spoofed friendly missiles in this way. After seeing this somewhat strange behaviour i started to look through more tacview files that showed even more bizarre behaviour when fighting enemy AI air assets on our server. One of the first things i noticed was the massive spamming of countermeasures coupled with this death spiral they do some times near stall speed to spoof incoming missiles.This weird behaviour is quite easily repeatable which will often see them just smash into the ground. If the enemy escapes the BVR onslaught with their death spiral completed and without hitting the ground, once out of counter measures they often just bug out and leave. On our server the other day (under slightly different circumstances) i chased a su27 from 5000ft in a constant climb up to 30k while slowly and rhythmically dumping all its flares after firing just one AIM9X while down low, i actually closed within gun range and shot it down without it even attempting to evade or go defensive while in its climb. The only part of the AI logic that seem to be better, (not perfect) is within the visual area where they present a good challenge, the capabilities of the individual aircraft could be brought into question here but this thread is already far too long for that.... -I could go on about other issues i have seen over time with workaround logic needed in the mission editor just to get AI to land on aircraft carriers. How people make such awesome campaigns has me perplexed. I can say for sure the AI is not up to scratch and does not exhibit any behaviour that could have me tricked into thinking im fighting or maneuvering with another opponent that has any intelligence at all. It's just a shame AI exploits seem to now work better as tactics than the capabilities and strengths of the given aircraft fighting for or against. Given MAC is supposed to be the new chapter in DCS world i would have thought that this would be given some serious love.... Peace:thumbup:

G simulation disabled until they fix a rather stupid joke....

Its true that we have all these cool and very complicated modules to fly, it just seems a little sad that the only way i can really get to appreciate using the radios for them is through 3rd party software for online flying. Not that im complaining about the 3rd party software, if it wasn't for that software id have little to no use at all for the radios.

Burrito good job explaining that, guess the man in the loop still has the final say. The gives good credence to what Piky was saying really.

I wonder if the NCTR system would come into play with classifying contacts that are not using IFF equipment? Maybe this might be part of "auto classifying targets"

I'm assuming this in reference to the Facebook screenshot of the new SA page that ED put up, could the colour of the contacts being red just mean that these are shared contacts from another radar as apose to them being classified red as emeny. That being said good point Piky it would be nice to have that as an option assuming it functions in that way.

I know i originally posted this in the bug forum but it got locked down stating its "Not a Bug" but an explanation on why it functions this way, the inclusion of any type of explanation would have been nice rather than just a locked down thread. I have notice when using the RWR functions on the Control Indicator Panel and when using the "OffSet" button to separate contacts, (If this button is left active) then RWR freezes and doesn't update. this happens when ever power is applied to the RWR regardless of the dispenser bypass switch or any other associated switches are used in combination, as soon as the OffSet button is pressed it pause's all contacts. Not sure if this is working as designed or if this is a bug, i have not seen any mention of this behaviour in the manual though. anyone else seeing this? im sure this can be discussed maturely.:thumbup:

I have notice when using the RWR functions on the Control Indicator Panel and when using the "OffSet" button to separate contacts, (If this button is left active) then RWR freezes and doesn't update. this happens when ever power is applied to the RWR regardless of the dispenser bypass switch or any other associated switches are used in combination, as soon as the OffSet button is pressed it pause's all contacts. Not sure if this is working as designed or if this is a bug, i have not seen any mention of this behaviour in the manual though. anyone else seeing this?

As far as i know the only accurate way is looking at the HUD, probably doesn't really answer the question but i know what your saying.

Add a 22-25% curve in the pitch axis, this will solve your problem.

Disable the LIDs system on the back left console and see if there is a change in hover characteristics. This will confirm for you if there are any changes in hovering. I've not personally tried this but it might be worth trying to see if there are any changes taking place.

getting the same issues....really bad:(

They should have it so you remove your mask when the canopy opens.

I remember in "lockon modern air combat" the f18c always had the 3d model that made you think they might do somthing with that one day.