Fri13

Shturm and Ataka guidance system... The main thing that separates Mi-24P from Mi-8MTV2. Cannon is already seen in Su-25 and KA-50 (when fixed), as well gunpods in Mi-8MTV2. The YakB would have been very interesting but now it is those missiles.

I Didn't know anything about that Iranian F-14 idea, it sound very interesting. Seems that we need those old cold war fighters to make dogfight interesting.

IMHO all the older tech is more interesting than latest and greatest. R-60 with limited angle to get a lock is interesting. Same thing like getting some old AIM-9 that would have similar limitations + others it should, but doesn't. Getting to position to launch these missiles is one of real challenges but it doesn't exist in DCS.

What are you? You are ED customer using DCS World. You are here to buy the products that either ED produce or some third party does. If you want to maximize your marketing, then you stay in contact with the customers (remember, customer means that you are a person belonging to target audience that are considering to buy something in the future. Customer doesn't mean that you need to pay for someone, a transaction is not required to be a customer). You have just based your argument that no one should never reveal any module for the DCS World until it is ready to be released. That is your case. In the PR you want to have good relationship with your customers, not bad one. You want to minimize the rumors, negativity, incorrect information etc. That means you need to be constantly in touch with the customers so that only correct information is out, that there is no guessing or speculation but you stay in control that everyone would know what is the situation. You don't need to reveal any exact schedules, not any personal details or anything about partners etc. You are making lots of excuses that why something is so impossible to be done, while talented people do such things daily and quickly. If someone can write a couple tweets for twitter, they can do so quickly amazing positive effect to their product. It is about understanding the context and status and knowing how to explain situations without going to minor details like who is writing the code and how many lines were done or anything like that. It is not like someone would need to be reporting a short sport event (couple hours) or longer one that takes days, just by inventing ways to be publishing something few times an hour or more even! That is totally wrong attitude. You should keep updating the status. If it is just in line of "We are making good progress, we had a few unexpected challenges by feedback by testers but all went fine and we are in happy". IF you go silent, then you are root to rumor mill. When you are not in control of the information and status, you are causing more trouble than anything else. Spending a 10 minutes a few times in a month does a lot for boosting the positive attitude and communications. It doesn't take more than that if you know how to. Did you read what I wrote? "We did mention about it 2 years ago.... Now go away and it is done when it is done". And here are people again waiting status report, as nothing is told or informed here, developers spending "hours in a day" just for Discord.... Do you know how much time it really takes to even read the backlog from previous day? Far longer than it takes to write a short update for weekly or monthly announcement.... Marketing is about communication, it is one-way direct information delivery to the customers. Even when you do not have anything to sell at the moment, you are directly selling your future product. If you do not market your product, no one will know about it. If you have existing customer base, you need to maintain relationship with it to keep them trusting to you and see that their loyalty and investment is valued by the company that their products they either are going to or have already purchased. "If you don't like the way government does their thing, just suck it up." "If you don't like the way wife does their thing, just suck it up." "If you don't like the way children's does their thing, just suck it up." "If you don't like the way customers talk about your products, just suck it up."

I used to stay in KA-50 for years, then I bought to A-10C when it was mature enough. Then when MiG-21Bis got out it was the go-to fighter. Then Mi-8 was go-to helicopter. For sometime I did a lot of jumping around for module to module only to find out that it is not wise, why I made "1-module-1-month" philosophy. Spending one month in one module gives enough time to just enjoy for it and refresh with its features etc (these days it doesn't take than few minutes regardless the module to remember how things works). More modules meant that less time for a A-10C, I think I spent just one month with the A-10C II as it was the old same old with just little different HOTAS functions. When I want to do CAS, my go-to module is the AV-8B N/A Harrier. It is everything that A-10C should be (as real plane wise) but just better (but not by DCS module wise). There is something in the Harrier that puts Warthog to shame, maybe the possibilities and the capabilities to complete so different tasks. In time I have started to enjoy more of the old school flying, why I would like to see A-10A instead A-10C. It would be far nicer to get it operating in full fidelity. So maybe then I would be spending far more time with the A-10 than Harrier.

IMHO these autopilot systems should be with virtual deadzone. So all possible joystick jittery etc is countered with 20% deadzone and slight moves. As joystick is not same thing as physical stick in cockpit.

IIRC the R-60 was earlier available for those, but since then has been removed.

Contrary, it is super easy and simple. You come to this forum, you post weekly or at least monthly a report that how you have progressed. 1) what is done/completed. 2) what is underwork. 3) what needs to be done. You clearly and openly tell the major challenges etc. Information is the key. People who think that it is on good shape needs to know that there is work to be done. Those who want to know what has been done, will get to know what has been done and what needs to be done. Everyone is happy. But if you will hide to discord or any other playroom than official forum, you are generating serious problems for yourself. Your customers can not find information, and information has no history but telephone effect. And hiding the progress is nothing good. Give a good, honest reasoning and almost all will understand it.

It is very challenging to do such function that AI wouldn't chase you. As we don't really have "AI" (in sense of program that would use small logical elements to build a complex "logic pattern" that has sensible idea) but just a pattern that is utilized and hence is called as "AI" for the most loosest definition. As one bugging out from fight would need to be recognized first by the AI that it is as such and not as a extension to come around. That would require to understand that what is another reason to get out or return to fight. Even as how simple the question "Does he return to fight?" really is, it is very challenging to question as by AI from a player that has no status swtich "RTB" activated that a another AI would read it and know that it is not returning by any means. Decision that is it sensible to even chase one, and how long it could be done is again very complex one. Questions needs answering like: - What benefits does it bring to chase one? - does the fuel limit it? - is there a risk to deviate from flight path - what was the original mission? Like example in the recent Fighter Pilot Podcast it was well explained what difference is between USAF Wild Weasels and Navy practicing, where Wild Weasels go to kill the enemy air defense to make area clear for future missions, while Navy just goes to protect the strike package for limited time period and doesn't care about anything else (doesn't go hunting targets) as only mission is that package gets "in and out" that time. So how you would write a logic that would make that decision for a AI? Does it chase one fighter or does it let it go? That requires that ED should rewrite DCS core of units behavior (very much required) where units groups are removed, no more waypoints attached to groups or units (leave them for air units for missions) and no more triggers on them or so. Basically they need to rewrite and cut compatibility to every single mission ever made.

Not a bug. The tunguska designs one feature was to be able shoot down all munitions regardless their size with either missiles or cannons. For Maverick it should use cannon when it is coming at its direction as it is fastest and easiest, and you can't really saturate tunguska easily. For longer ranges it uses missile first as it can only guide to one target at a time few missiles. DCS doesn't simulate these SAM systems properly. Example Tunguska can use either a radar, optical or combined guidance. The missiles are command guided, not IR or SARH missiles. The target doesn't get to know it is being targeted with optical guidance or mixed where radar is not either at all in use, or it is only in search mode. The missiles can be launched without radar emissions, and only be activated in the terminal phase. The guidance logic is different in such situations but target doesn't receive launch warning and be required visually spot the launch and track the missile. You would have multiple SAM systems launching simultaneously at you from multiple directions and you would only see a one search radar somewhere far away. This capability is almost on all Russian SAM systems and even in AAA. Where the AAA only utilizes their ranging radar just before firing, so you likely have nose inside cockpit looking RWR on the moment the shells or missiles are flying at you. The skill level, methods for situation, weather etc should matter how they operate.

It is not misleading advertising or marketing. It is really that what they sell scientifically. They sell you a completely empty storage medium with the stated storage space available. But, you choose as customer that what is the filesystem you want to use with it. Then your decision what filesystem you use, to take specific percentage of that space for their own functions. You can use dozens of different filesystems and each will take different amount of space just to format the drive for them. It is just that NTFS, ExFAT and VFAT takes different amounts of space from drives. For Windows-only drive you as well need to allocate couple extra partitions for it use. Nothing comes free, so if you want to use the drive that is sold as is, you need to decide how you want to use it. Let's make a analogy. You buy a 19 liter cooler box. You can place inside six 1.5 liter water bottles. Would you go claiming that it is misleading or marketing that you only got a 9 liters cooler box and not a 19 liters?

Does the CA support now the VR?

Rift S resolution is 1280x1440 per eye. That is equal for it, just not so wide as it is 8:9 ratio instead 16:9. 1.8 Mpix vs 2.1 Mpix so nothing special for 2D. Difference is in PPI value, where a 1080 resolution display at far distance looks better, the VR one is literally front of your eyes and covering larger field of view than those displays.

Likely so. The advanced or final one will likely come out in few years.

Pilot is free to fly inside +/- 60 degrees from the target, and required to maintain +/- 60 degree roll (just rechecked). you need to be heading the target when launching missile so that target is inside pilot gunsight. I believe that pilot will authorize launch, but you can always deny missile by just not having gunner cross inside gunsight. System doesn't allow launch then. Totally so...

It is not hypothetical from parts that ED has already explained and shown. You can't get Jester (Iceman) fly or search your looked direction. It is similar that you can command Jester to change speed with +/- 50/100/200 knots, but in Mi-24 it is with 10 km/h stepping via scroll list (WIP). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zTy7o2tIlzk&t=180 If you know how these interfaces are designed and what are their pros and cons, it is easier to understand. The Jester is challenging as the pie-menu is primarily for player to play the another seat without going to by itself to do it. Like switch seat to adjust radios or to jettison weapons etc. It is more as new virtual interface for another cockpit where the AI will try to finish the actual task. Not in DCS, but Jester is not first of its kind and not unique. I even explained the Jester before it was known by anyone else than Heatblur when F-14 was announced when in discussions people wondered how to fly a two separated cockpit aircraft, and my hypothetical explanation was almost spot on, as I had explained such earlier for other purposes in DCS before Heatblur even existed (had not separated). Of course there can be all kind bugs, as the Petrovitch is adding new features that example Jester doesn't perform because it doesn't need to. We need to remember that where Jester flies and operates closer to 15 000 ft, the Petrovitch is operating at ground level to max 2500 m or so from it Only thing that you mainly need to do is to have the gunner aiming cross inside the pilot gunsight. So gunner says that he has a target and your task as pilot is to turn toward the heading to see crosshair. Then gunner is authorized to launch by the system. When the missile is flying, pilot is free to fly +/- 60 degree angle from the target and stay under IIRC +/- 30-40 degree roll angle so that targeting system doesn't hit gimbal limit and reset (boresight) to center. The gunner job is to do same as tank gunner does, maintain crosshair on target as sight is stabilized to Mi-24 and not to target (if Hind moves 50 meters to left, sight moves 50 meters to left). If we can tell Petrovitch to look specific area, target wanted target, it is almost as doing it alone. Pilot. The gunner can as well take them as control if pilot is incapacitated. But gunner has only same sight as Mi-8MTV2 offers for pilot. So no CCIP computing.

It is great unit. One of my favorites for some odd reason that I don't understand, maybe for the roadspeed it can achieve. Wishing to see more of these kind new units, like Russian variants too. I really like these new models like this and the BTR-72 and T-72B3 they just look amazing. I can't wait to see a better RTS gameplay and commanding functions to get to use these vehicles more and see them moving etc.

The AI has capabilities and limitations how it can spot enemies. And to assist player, AFAIK it should get a virtual HMS ring for player to command AI to center their search for a given sector when player spots something and wants to give a hint for AI where to look. "Look at 2'clock 1 klick" as a style, and AI need to try find target by itself then in that area. So it is not a AI as we know that calls all units inside 10 km and then performs a first straight attack run to them and get shot down by something else closer by. You get a new GUI for commanding AI how to fly and how to operate. Something that is easier and better than Jester in F-14.

Well there are so many things you need scripting to do basic things. IMHO, scripting is extremely important to be possible. But it should never be required for the player to get even believable skirmish to happen. We do not have AI in game. It simply doesn't exist. Drop a unit on ground and it does what? - will check is there a "opposition" inside it detection radius. - Checks is there LOS to them. - start shooting at them if both true. - run the weapons proper firing rate, ammunition and rearming timers. - If damaged, turn randomly and move X seconds to scatter around for 600 seconds. - If damaged X % then pop some smoke once. That is the basic ground unit function. Anything from that adds more requirements for each group that is wanted to do anything else than those and follow easily made waypoints (automatically selected "Add" for waypoints). So anyone can easily make groups move a specified path and engage in quick combat by their those abilities. But try anything more complex, like get units to wait in ambush position, wait enemy to get close enough (closer engagement range/line) and then open fire, and withdraw to cover and move to a new further distance location if the enemy would chase them.... Then it becomes a real challenge as it requires scripting. Basically players are required to learn not just LUA script language, but as well programming how to program a basic AI logic for their needs. It is not a user friendly expectations. Not at all. IMHO it is ED job to make a actual AI, utilizing a human logic and military tactics from a single unit behavior to command structure. You have a someone who issues you commands, and you have troops that follow those orders. Every single unit has their basic moral, fear, will and logic. Simple key elements. Like if you have 3:1 ratio of firepower then you attack enemy. If enemy has 3:1 then you avoid engagement. If you have 1:1 or 1:2 then you are in stale mate. This is based to experience that how much you will lose troops in engagement if you don't have ratio advantage. As results can be with 2:1 that you will win the engagement but you have lost 80% of your troops to do so. 3:1 ratio and you are losing 30-40% of your troops. 4:1 and you lose 10-20%. If you have to advance in enemy territory where you have multiple engagements like that, you are not going to survive with 3:1 ratio as after first engagement you are not capable perform tasking forward without reinforcement. Why you want reinforcement in first place to minimize losses and crush the enemy. And if player is expected to program the AI logic of such, it is then not really suitable for flight simulator. A multirole fighter can drop a bomb through clouds to stationary target, but helicopter pilot can't get enjoyment to attack in enemy positions alone. If you are usually suppose to fly with 16-20 other to create air assault, then it doesn't make fun experience if it is just a messy random mob that gets shot down etc.

IIRC the Hind costed to me less than 40€ and that was without any ED miles. I was very surprised for a such low price that is nothing for any enjoyment time. 1-2 hours playtime and it has paid it value IMHO. I can put more money for so many stupid things that I don't want to or care for.

For a while the DCS installer had capability to define spare direction for downloads, and it didn't count that against DCS installation drive if it was on another drive (installed on but downloads to D:). But it was bugged and deleted data, so feature was quickly removed (on next patch or something). Using a normal symlinks or hardlinks doesn't matter as installer will check the installed drive capacity to extract data, even if mods/terrain directory is on another drive as it doesn't know it.

One day we get ground units to be blind what happens outside if they can't hear or see. They can't aim at you unless you fly straight at you and they know exactly where to look when you attack. Suddenly mainly helicopters become engaged by BMP or LAV-25, maybe a A-10 at low level flying. A Viggen flying 10 m above trees and it becomes almost invulnerable, and then Mi-24P similar way as long you maintain either range or speed. But all again needs to be balanced for realism, ground units capable to hide in forest, make them extremely difficult to spot like in reality (< 1500 meters to spot a vehicle sitting still at open, < 200-500 meters when edge of forest etc, FLIR useless, optical targeting systems mostly...) and that means you go to drop laser guided weapons designated by ground units because you have no idea what you are attacking. So one doesn't need BMP shooting up in air when you can't see them. And it would make Mi-24P so much fun to do those rocket attacks to area X degrees and X meters from smoke marked area. - Do you see smoke? - I see a yellow and red smoke. - From yellow, heading 155° and 300 meters to white one floor house. Destroy it. - Coming around, attacking in two.

I have always wondered that why time based history instead frame. As the frame would make more sense as you understand it better. But there must be some good reason for time based one? Like you can look the screen and see three blocks trail and think "that last one is 16 seconds old..." Do you could think speed or something for target based to that?

I have always thought that AI will stop shooting once they are out of ammo. But if on your scenario they would, they wouldn't definitely shoot at you when you come to pick them up. Unless they are enemies that has retreated further outside of engagement ranges. As that has happened on me, infantry starts moving further and further away from harms way and they then will just sit there waiting.

Would be nice to have the infantry skill actually be sensible for accuracy. Untrained is like hitting a man size target at 150 meters to 1-2 meters, while excellent skill is for head size area. Similar to compensate for flmoving target, a lowest is missing by 5-7 meters lagging. While expert is hitting half a body area off. We need a system for AI to not know target real distance automatically. So they misjudge range by 50-100 meters at ground and for air targets it can be hundreds of meters off. So they can have proper lead for helicopter flying by but miss because range was estimated 600 when it was 1000 meters. So flying toward makes you easier target than flying past. Flying near untrained infantry is not so dangerous than flying toward a well trained special forces with years experience.