Shadow KT

Hah, I just recorded 52 minute video explaining the problem with the AI weapons and AI armor, wishing to use it for evidence to post a bug report, but I guess no one will watch a 50 minute video.... :lol: I don't know if something has changed last patch, I've mostly did my mass testing with T-90s (because I thought they would be better than a T-72), but I decided to use T-72 now.... T-72 turns out to be second best tank after Abrams in DCS :lol: I am not joking, although this is hilarious.... From 5 matches 2v2 T-72 against Abrams, half of them T-72 was either able to destroy both abrams (AP only) or damage one or kill one and damage the other before dying. Same match up with T-90, T-90 looses every round. New thing I found out is that if they run out of AP in their primary ammo storage, while in a fight they will shoot one ATGM out before switching back to AP. In general if within 3600 meters, AI will use AP against tanks. For some reason in DCS, turret (cheek) armor is weaker than hull armor on the Abrams and T-90 at least. So aim for the cheeks. For another reason, unknown to me, T-72 HEAT is better than T-90 HEAT. It can even penetrate the lower portion of the lower plate. To be honest alpen, last night you damaged and destroyed quite the bug amount of Abrams I had, I was even surprised. It just felt like you had way less tanks than I did. Also, manual control really makes a difference, I was able to kill a big amount of tanks, because I was able to react faster than the AI or you were driving somewhere and didn't see me. Another thing is if you lower the health of a tank it will start loosing speed, reloading slower and if low enough, AI won't even shoot, but if you take manual control everything works, which is stupid. If you really think it will make that much of a difference, replace Abrams with Challenger or Leopard

Bump

Track ?

Post the track

RBGcd-1pb3o Thank you for the mission, I lost track of time and it got to 2 in the morning, so I was trying really hard to not to laugh there

for a brief moment

Meh, implementing jamming for these aircraft means they have to spent resources on adapting it to the new radar technologies (compared to FC), which will later be scraped for the new thing (eventually). Don't think it is that much of an advantage at all.... most servers are full with full fidelity modules anyway. I see your point, but I think that it is not big enough of a deal

Thanks

for a moment there I thought they meant in terms of DCS, not in a historical way and I got overexcited :lol:

You can see similar, bugged behavior without MIST as well

So every soldier is a spec ops ? What's the point of having skill levels ? Put them on Excellent and US soldiers on Great will still beat the Russian ones, you are missing the point. Not to mention them getting stuck in a loop or not spotting targets in front of their nose

This bug is back

In addition to all other issues AI (infantry) has right now, which I have commented on here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4400841&postcount=4; Russian infantry have worse accuracy than US infantry, meaning that unless there is a massive numerical advantage, russian infantry can never win a fight (same AI skill). Russian infantry sometimes can't even hit the side of an APC Here are a couple of tracks which show their accuracy vs the side of an APC, against another infantry man and in a fight. [ATTACH]240976[/ATTACH] Infantry Accuracy APC.trk Infantry Accuracy INF.trk

I was going to make a bunch of Infantry related bug threads, but here: Infantry cannot spot further away than their engagement range, even if the targets are in an open, level desert with kilometres of visibility. This is if you are lucky, as you can see in the track, infantry would sometimes just randomly loose sight of each other, even tho they are 100 meters apart. (sight popping in an out). In this track you can see how infantry cannot see further than their engagement range, have issues with path finding, AI gets stuck, contacts pop in and out, Russian infantry's abysmal accuracy compared to US infantry and then lose complete sight of each other, until they are 100 (or less). Bonus video: PHu9efL37ec Infantry RU vs US.trk

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=253981 also relative to the stinger

If you enable you are HMD and lock a target in boresight (Sensor Control Switch FWD) and then loose the radar behaves as if you don't have an HMD. You can see the boresight circle in the HMD is no longer limited to the radar gimbals and if you put the circle on the target again (when it is offset from your nose) it will not lock it. You have to press Sensor Control Switch FWD again to fix it. You can also notice that if you loose a lock you will only be able to lock a target again (without pressing anything additionally) if you put him on your nose (normal boresight, with no HMD) Hornet Boresight HMD.trk

PRF is a filter and does not increase or decrease RCS or affect it. You need to be able to detect the aircraft first (get a return), according to its RCS and then you have your doppler filters on top of that which will decide if the return will be displayed as a contact or ignored.

Split needles, drag and LTE

:lol::lol::lol::megalol:

Huh, didn't know this was a thing, but tested it and it sadly is the way it works, because when you give an order via combined arms it wipes its whole flight plan, so it no longer has the task of tanking. Same process with the AWACS and other aircraft. I guess you have to have a triggered action, which to activate, so it can do its task again. This is such a shame... just another downing moment for the HUGE potential of Combined Arms..... Combined Arms would be 10000000% better if there was an UI for when using the CA slots to give AI different commands. I don't really understand why there isn't one, because most commands can be dynamically given trough scripts, so why not make it native with an in-game UI. Specific Attack Commands. New whole routes with the ability to set orbits, refuels and landings. Don't even get me started on ground vehicles

Here is an image, created by Quaggles, illustrating all DCS aircraft RCS and IR signatures. Take a look at the Razbam Mirage values for RCS and IR signatures, compared to the ED Mirage 2000-5, which has the same body and engine. Compare it to other aircraft of its class. Mirage 2000-5: RCS of 5 m^2 and an IR signature in AB of 3 Mirage 2000 by Razbam: RCS of 4 m^2 and an IR signature in AB of 1.6 (???????) Another to look at is the Deka JF-17. JF-17 RCS of 3m^2 compared to the F-16 (4m^2), RB Mirage 2000 (4m^2) and the F-5E-3 (5m^2) which all have similar sizes and shapes. JF-17 IR signature of 2, compared to the MiG-29 (same engine) of 4.... and no... removing one engine, doesn't cut your IR signature by 2, you still have the same engine, which operates at similar temperatures. The MiG-21 has an IR signature of 1.... in AB. That's how much a Su-27 has in mil power....An F-5 has a coefficient of 2, but runs its engines a lot cooler (depending on setting can be more than 100C cooler).

Can we get a hot fix for the horizon bloom before that, my eyes are bleached :music_whistling::lol: Besides that, good I guess. I hope to see the AI crashed and path finding sorted

I was trying to test if loss of tail rotor effectiveness was modeled in DCS and I got this weird jitter, which literally stopped the aircraft in mid air and froze it for a moment. Huey Weird Flight Dynamic.trk

Ah, the good, old..ancient AI models. This with MiG is not new

If you are talking about the the white bloom effect on the horizon, it has been there aince 2.5.6and it is superannoying and unrealistic