Barra1

Is the AI SFM created by the developer or ED?

You hit the nail on the head here.

This is affecting the AI flight model as well. It can pull more AOA than the Hornet and remain in control.

I’m blathering? I’m not the one going on and on and on about crashing into treetops. The reality is that the more things that get simulated in the game, the greater processing power is required to run the game. Why is the tree collision model simplified? Probably because ED would rather use CPU power to calculate more important features. And what about missiles hitting treetops? Should they be able to continue on or would missiles be destroyed when clipping treetops? Can you shoot the top off the trees with cannons? Frankly I would rather see ED focus on more accurate radar modelling, better AI and dynamic campaigns.

I’m pretty sure MSFS doesn’t have a collidable tree model and what’s more there is apparently trillions of them to crash into. Maybe this could be your thing. At least until one of the third party developers decides to do DCS: Spruce Tree Simulator. I can see it now, high fidelity tree damage model with bending or breaking branches, accurate wild life fall physics, and accurate leaf float model based on wind tunnel testing in our backyard.

It’s a simulation, not real life. For years we asked for colidable trees for more realistic helicopter flying and now you complain because you fly your jet into the treetop and it explodes. Seriously, do you want ED to model tress bending over, birds flying out of their nests, a big puff of leaves and cracking branches falling to the ground? I see a lot of valid shortcomings mentioned on the forums but this isn’t one of them. Pilots avoid hitting trees in real life because it’s dangerous, how about you do the same in the sim.

I’ll give that a try. Thanks for the heads up.

Can I ask when you set up a mission for AI to attack ground targets, can they generally strike their target? I'm having all sorts of problems getting SU-25s to engage ground forces. They have the search and destroy command and ROE is weapons free at the target area but they will not use rockets to engage.

Some of these issues I identified were in dynamic campaigns not of my creation and quite frankly, telling units to search and engage targets at a waypoint with weapons free should enable them to attack targets. I've used the editor in both ARMA3 and DCS World and it seems AI in DCS World have no ability to use sensors to find the enemy nor do they seem to be able to get visuals. In the ARMA3 editor, if you put two enemy units in the same vicinity they will engage each other without the use of three or four different waypoint instructions. In DCS World I have locked up air to air targets and had my wingman tell me he can't engage. I've been using DCS World since its inception and I don't claim to be an expert with the mission editor but on the whole the AI in this game has deteriorated badly.

my vote would go for Korea or Vietnam. I lean more towards Korea for the obvious reason that the Korean war could be played and a more modern hypothetical scenario. Vietnam is a bit of a one trick pony if you know what I mean.

Seriously, if you want to talk about realism, I think the greatest shortcoming in the game at the moment is the so-called artificial intelligence. Simply put, any realistic mission you can create in the mission editor will be ruined by idiotic AI. Everything from flying around oblivious to threats, crashing into the ground, unable to take off from carriers calling out contacts over and over and over again, wingmen unable to attack your target. Simply put, Eagle Dynamics have bigger fish to fry than this at the moment.

My missions are very amateurish and are based on my skill sets and abilities. That said if you know Mission Editor basics then you would probably want a mission to practice using HARMs, a mission for guided munitions (laser and GPS) and probably a mission to practice ground radar.

What Timezone are you in?

I would just create a mission with some older SAM systems first (I started with SA3 and SA6) and have AAA units covering them for a bit of realism. Once you can reliably kill and evade the older systems, move on to some of the newer systems. That’s what I’m in the process of doing.

The Hornets training missions do not cover many of the aircrafts capabilities such as guided munitions, HARMs and radar usage. Have you learnt these skills? I only ask because at some point in a campaign they will be required and I’ve had to setup my own training with these skills.