Fri13

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.

There is no limit for target speed, only for a Shkval gimbal rate. Target moving 250 km/h (134 kts) or 250 kts (463 km/h) has different rate depending is it flying 10 km from you or 2 km from you. Of course target flying perpendicularly and not toward or away. But I could assume that Shkval does have a high rates for tracking, like a 10°/s or something like that. And it can be faster rate in tracking phase than when slewed. The current problem is lack of proper contrast locking as you say. As if we have clear strong contrast, we should be able use even the largest tracking gate as it is dynamic one. Slew it around the contrast and initiate the lock. The system should spend some milliseconds to build a pattern for the contrast scene and then shrink around the strongest contrast. In Shkval panel we have Black or White symbology. I would assume that is not to make the symbology visible in one lighting condition or another. But to be same as with AGM-65D Maverick, that you will maintain FLIR polarisation but you command is it a Hot track or Cold track and it is notified by the symbology being black or white. So my assumption is that 1) if you have a black object on white sky, the Black mode would easily lock on it, while white mode would have challenge as it sees white everywhere without pattern and doesn't know where to lock or how to track it. 2) if you have a white boat in dark sea, then you get easily lock on it and track it with white mode instead black mode. And then comes the challenges where You have a dark green camo pattern vehicle next a dark green forest, where sunlight illuminates it from a side, where you would need to play contrast and brightness knobs to create wanted contrast and then use proper contrast mode and lock on it. So it is not just a adjustments for the TV but whole imaging process in targeting system where pilot adjust contrast, brightness and gain to create strongest contrast, as then it is easier without complex computer to try to do it by itself when human can do it quickly for the purpose and based target conditions, and the TV is nothing more than a visual observation tool to see what is the adjusted condition for Shkval. This based to all other contrast tracking based systems, where pilots are given means to control them this way. And the tracking gate that is dynamic, has easier time to acquire the pattern to track. Pilot job is to use the smallest tracking gate to command computer to ignore all other patterns around the target so it knows what pattern to track and what to ignore. This is important as if you have a above example of vehicle front of forest, that you can have unwanted "hot spots" or "cold spots" inside lock gate and tracking try to track them and the small moving contrast that vehicle creates gets ignored as it slips out of the large gate area. Why using small gate and get it around target will make other contrast to be ignored and system can track small contrast from the vehicle far higher propability. What this means is that fast moving target in a sky is easy to lock as you only need to get it inside largest lock gate and it will automatically shrink around the target even if small. But if it is against a mountain or ground, you would need to get it either be very individual contrast or use a smaller (proper) lock gate size to get it around target and ignore trees etc contrast. This would mean that one could easily use HMS with largest tracking gate to just "look at target" and initiate lock at flying target against sky. Keep Shkval inside it's gimbal limits and rate (turning toward it heading) and it would work great.

Check out how a AirLand warfare was designed to happen. You have two frontlines, each side has their forces against each other, ready to try to push through the other defense line. After that hole has been created, the second wave will come (positioned 5-10 km from the frontline) and push through the frontline in massive force attack. The helicopter forces in the Soviets were the Mi-8 and Mi-24. You have them to fly around the front line and engage the enemy second wave forces with hit and run tactics. You have example 16 helicopters, four groups with a four Mi-24 in each. Each will attack 1-3 minutes after previous one, holding a 30 meter altitude that limits the possible AAA, MANPADS and SAM systems to under 2-3 km engagement ranges. With the Mi-24's they drop some special forces to area, their task is to keep hitting hard on some positions and withdraw quickly, so simple raid tactics with support from Mi-24's. Then you will pickup the special forces and withdraw from the area. For the frontline skirmish you would have similar, but there you have Mi-8's after the first Mi-24 attacks to land the ground troops. First you layout a massive artillery salvos and rocket artillery. It can last an half an hour or even full hour. There basically is anything that survives the area. Then comes the Mi-24's "sweep" the ground, attacking specific positions and troops. Well coordinated attack in multiple waves. The Mi-24's keeps rotating the attack pattern and Mi-8's are capable deliver fire support as well if required, but their main task is to get ground forces to secure and hold the ground. There are some Mi-24's left behind to guard the attack, they are special ones with the A-A missiles as they are there to engage enemy fighters, CAS planes and other attack helicopters. They guard the ground attack as well, from where the BMP's and BTR's are rolling in, with the support of MBT's at the rear. You can have 48 of BTR's coming, with 32 BMP's and 16 MBT's. And this force can be focused to 1-2 km wide attack line. To make a such mission, it is currently almost impossible in DCS. It requires such scripting as there is no AI to have logic to do such form. Just alone to get a Mi-24 flight of four to approach at high speed, release 1/4 or 1/2 of their rockets and few missiles from max visual distance, roll off to same direction and return further behind own line, only to get in the new attack heading and timing to repeat it. And this to be done with multiple waves, until empty and get them to rearmed and back. Then time the Mi-8's arriving and land the troops and get them to continue fight. The Mi-8's landing is easy to do, the Mi-24's attack runs takes little more creativity, but with proper script timing it get to work acceptable manner. Utilizing "% of group alive" zones and such you get them to perform little differently. Using as well "attack ground" for rockets and such gets you achieve more visually, but to get the proper AI logic that they don't just waste ammunition on empty area is challenging. You would be part of the flight, maybe even flight commander. And hopefully we could get the full flight release their weapons when you do. So they fly the formation with you and when you release weapons, they do and that should saturate your aimed area with them too as they were flying in formation with you. And then you would repeat that circulation few times, varying the direction. All the common patrol flights and such are easily same as with any other. But to perform the massive battalion level attack as Mi-24's would be really performing nicely, that is challenging to do. I had one mission created months ago for the Mi-24V and Mi-8's, where I was to load troops and transport them to landing zone after Mi-24's and it was otherwise successful but the at the moment existing bug didn't allow all infantry mounting helicopter, part of the group just got stuck on ground and helicopter didn't leave unless commanded by timer. And that meant that 1/3 or 2/3 of the troops were transported to assault zone but once on the ground they started to run back to original place just to join with the guys left to pickup zone. Another problem that just exist is that ground units doesn't know such thing as "single fire" or "aimed shot", and such tactics as "Shoot and reverse to cover" doesn't exist. No such Ai at all. So all the attacks were just furbal and over in few seconds. So creating the full scale assault became just frustrating.

Why does people always drop the fuel tank, when real pilots say that it is not allowed unless emergency? Meaning you take-off with the fuel tanks, you land with the fuel tanks, even when they are empty through whole mission. So unless you are jumped on and you need to defend yourself, or you get to emergency where you need to again drop ordinance, you are to hold on those and suffer the drag... As even when those are simple and fairly cheap ($ 5000-15000 or so each) tanks, if everyone would be dropping them once empty the fleet would not have any in couple days.

I have no idea. Someone in the modding forum might know firsthand where to look. But it shouldn't be task for ED to make proper adjustments to increase the droplets lifetime.

I have started to fly Mi-8 again after long time for fighters for preparation of Mi-24. And there are few things that made me wonder that VRS is not suppose to be so easily achieved, based to multiple pilots here as well.

So every droplet has fixed real clock vanish time, but game time generates more droplets separately. This leads that at faster speed more droplets gets generated but as each vanish with a real clock timer, they start to vanish much later.... So the droplets were likely timed by the real clock timer instead game realtime. This so it doesn't stress the game own realtime simulation calculations because checking droplets lifetime in simulations realtime would cause severe CPU use to make sure that droplet is gone at correct time.

Visual bugs should usually be high in priority, because they are constantly reminding the customer that things are not correct but broken. If a HUD would look detached in some planes, it would be first thing to be fixed. If a stick wouldn't move when joystick is moved, or it would move in mirror manner, it would too be fixed in first patch. Okay, one can simply disable the rain droplets and just ignore them, but so can one always hide the stick and throttle, or one can always fly in external view instead inside cockpit.... Some visual bugs are lower than others, like a switch clips with a landing gear lever when looked from a side, or button highlight texture rotates with the knob... But those neither should be let to exist for years.... If a aircraft external texture has a problem, they usually get fixed ASAP. That is silly. As majority of time one doesn't look externally the plane. If a aircraft startup process has too low voltage 5 seconds longer than should but startup works, it is a smaller problem than a visual bug on your face reminding you everytime when that effect should be there to be admired. And small bugs are almost more important than major big ones, because when you get 1000 small cuts, it is worse than having 5 little bigger cuts, but it is the ratio that when they start to lower impression of the product quality. And it is not nice to be a developer either and see in a to-do list the years old bugs (not wishes... But bugs) that never get touched as it keeps the to-do list long and "annoyingly frustrating as it never gets shorter". ED should have own team that is meant to deal "paper cuts" only.

Not important for me, but enjoy to see a fellow pilot in Mi-8, UH-1, Gazelle.... As the body dimensions are wrong in those, it is like someone cut 1/3 away from shoulders, it is just immersion killer. As well I use virtual hands, so seeing four pairs of hands in cockpit kills immersion. One as in body stuck to throttle and stick, and then magical pair moving in cockpit. Maybe if the arms would move with the virtual hands when grip button is active and otherwise be on the stick and throttle and floating gloves disappear - then it could make sense. Please, allow us to adjust the shoulders width.... It is not nice to be like a matchstick in cockpit when your body has lost whole V shape. Using the world scale (that DCS calls "IPD") either makes body better (but you feel fat then if matching shoulder) but cockpit becomes like you would be 12 year old.