vicx

Flagrum raises a good idea in general. I had no idea it would be focused on AI but as an example it is a interesting one. I was hoping this thread would be about adding operational modules but we'll leave that for another thread. The example Skatezilla provides for having a multiple styles of AI per aircraft to reflect combat eras is a good one and AI personalities aka 'the showboating AI' is also a good idea. I came to this thread after reading this -> thread and I was thinking that the reason that ED can't just let the AI aircraft focus on all aircraft equally is that the player is the random seed that is required to make the whole thing look more realsitic. If you take away the human as target then the AI get into predictable and very AI-looking (mathematical) combat. You swap one problem for another. Opening up the AI for mods would let ED focus on the engine and leave the AI as an aesthetic for the players to work on. Yes the results would be a bit random but that might be a good thing. You could have a WW2 squadron made up of different types of rookies, old chums, and aces and that would be cool.

Yes probably much harder than the real thing. Tor is nice. but Tunguska!! Firepower.

Just like to thankthe person who posted a cirrus cloud fix. It rocks. In CA sometimes I want a gods eye view just because I want to watch rocket artillery arcing across the sky. Now I can see everything, not just ... clouds.

Very much looking forward to testing this when I have the chance. The idea itself is beyond cool. Also curious to see how you are doing it.

The capability of AI SAM to use modern tactics is an engine subject. I think the AI should be capable of using effective tactics for engaging aircraft. I would see this as EDs area of responsibility to get right. Whether your A-10C is being sent over evil SAM units is totally in the hands of the mission designer and that is outside the control of ED. --- Darkwolf, Ihave tested the IADS script and it makes SAM units less stupid and even adds some neat enagement tactics. One tactic that I didn't actually get working but that I will keep working on is for one SAM unit to take launch control of nearby SAM site so that their missile launches are co-ordinated. Two missiles go up at ranges to bleed the energy out of the fighter and the last missile goes up at a range with maximum energy for a guaranteed kill. Is that fair. Hell no. I was starting to work on way to control the IADS script during a live mission using Radiomenus from the CA slot but then I stumbled on the MSF framework by Bantdit from the Rus Forums. All the work has been done and it is quite awesome. I'm working on my own demo mission to get a handle on how it works. Will probably make a post at some point to introduce MSF to people who haven't tried it out.

It would be good to have a permanent thread of Surprising CA results so that five years from when DCS:CA3 comes out it is the best it can be. I don't want to hear anymore DINATS. There are 'games' that make no claims to being simulators that do a a tidy job of vehicle damage using a health bar systems. Improvements can be made and they don't have to take anything away from other areas of traditional focus. Anyway, my surprising result in CA was that an 3 x M4 soliders (with 5.65mm Nato ammo) shot my Tunguska to death in a little over a minute. Yes I know DINATS! but come on these types of results are silly. Arma players can make fun of us when this type of thing is in the game.

Well you know I'm coming at this from another angle. The LUA interface is a good thing. We should have more of a good thing. DCS doesn't have to be this monolithic software that does everything. It just needs a LUA interface that lets you do more and more things outside of the window frame. You want a better mission map? How about one that uses Google Maps/Earth and lets you use all the neat features in that platform and syncs with DCS. Driving a tank through Vegas you will want to take the shortest route. You want to model a missile guidance system in Matlab(or opensource clone) and see the system working inside DCS - Perhaps a LUA interface. Make sure you patent your new model when it works better than A120C. You want to run a mission or campaigns that have a bit of Arma and bit of DCS in it at the same time. Perhaps a LUA interface. Yes all those examples are pie in the sky but it would be cool pie.

Mbots Detection script looks like something you should check out. I am looking at it right now to see how it can be made to inter-operate with a Commander or a unit being operated by a Player. Target cuing that EWR function provides to AI units could be extended to also provide a Bearing chat/text message to AA Units that are player operated. AddEWR(arg1, arg2) I have in mind to do something like this. I learn LUA by reading and testing great scripts like this one.

Lets call it a a drive-by view. --- Just decided to adjust my comment to make it plain that I agree with Sith. Modal View options are automatically intuitive. It's not like anyone would get confused if you changed to a universal system that treats what you are in as the object to apply a view to. It's actually confusing now and the more time you spend in Ca the more you notice it. Why are there no flybys/drivebys for vehicles. Or a follow cam Or view closest vehicle Or view closest airborne Is it because there are no "F" keys left? Is that the only reason?

This is an issue even if it is refused classification as a bug. This is another fundamental failing in the simulator. It is curious how some pilots are very selective when it comes to acknowledging issues in the sim. Some pilots will happily raise realism issues to give themselves more of an edge but will oppose discussing any issues in the sim that might see an absurd super-power taken away. This type of pilot-pleasing skews DCS into being more of an ego-shooter than some would like to admit. IR sensors are an optical sensor. Optical wavelengths get scattered by clouds and other mediums. 10/10 clouds are meant to represent a pea-soup visual environment of near zero visibility. How far you can see when flying through 10/10 clouds in DCS. It is less than 5m. There is no way any near-optical wavelength sensor can see through 10m of pea-soup cloud let alone 500m.

That screen at 1m33s is what the next version of Tacview could look like. We can have Boeing Godseye super touchscreens showing real-time air defense threats in our home pits.

I didn't mean to derail my own thread :/ but I have a better handle on the issue now. My interest in reporting this as an issue is more to do with the unrealistic ability for almost all of the planes and helos in DCS to perfectly MAP onto the allied tactical map, the longitude and latitude of enemy SAM unit positions The humble RWR has great power in a Combined Arms scenario. It doesn't just say SAM radar over that way - it actually gives you GPS co-ordinates (even if the radar is 150km or even further away), and it does this feat INSTANTLY, and it can do this from way OUTSIDE the actual range that ANY SAM radar can even detect the plane or helo, Right now in my copy of DCS:Combined Arms, a passive RWR sensor is out-performing a dozen specialized optical systems and radar systems for planes and helicopters that are present in DB_sensors. In my first post I caused a minor derail when I provided the F-86 as an example. I noticed it was able to map my SA-8 OSA from 50km away when it should only have eyeballs for sensors. Flagrum correctly identified an F-86 issue because someone snuck a RWR into that plane BUT that wasn't as important to me as the fact that the 'Abstract RWR' sensor is providing magical abilities to almost all the planes and helos in DCS. In my copy of DCS:Combined Arms a humble RWR doesn't just say SAM over that way - it actually gives itself and all it's allies the exact GPS co-ordinates of that SAM radar. Test it out yourself. Start a new mission in mission editor --- Confirm or Set [Customise>Mission Options>Enforce F10 View Options] to FOG OF WAR Add a BLUE Tactical Commander Role to the mission. --- Setup a RED search radar. (I chose SA-3 SR) Add a BLUE plane way outside the search radar range. (I put an FA-18 170km from the SR) and the next time (an F-86 170km from the SR) Add a waypoint that brings the plane into the radar range. --- Run mission. [Fly] Choose role - BLUE Tactical Commander. Watch empty map with moving plane. A commanders view of the AO. Accelerate time if you are impatient Marvel as the exact GPS location of the enemy radar unit is revealed from your plane that is BVR (and then some) from the SR. Marvel that you didn't even need to turn on your own search radar to do this. Visualise the detection zone of the SR Marvel that you still have a 80km safety zone before you even have a chance of being detected by the SR. Do the same thing with a Mig15 (Yes it works) Easiest Recon mission ever?

Yeah I thought it would be 'Abstract RWR' too. I actually think any aircraft using 'Abstract RWR' is able to map my ground units onto a Tactical Map from 50km away. They don't need to use any other sensors for this because 50km combined with instantaneous detection is a pretty good sensor. Lots of AI aircraft and many helos use 'Abstract RWR'. I looked into this because having your units trivially identified and located is not a trivial problem for a CA player. It doesn't need to be an aircraft that wipes you out once your positions are known. MLRS and Artillery will do the job nicely. --edited for clarity-- So I just tested with the P-51D which does NOT have 'Abstract RWR' entry. the P-51 does not actually detect the SA-8 OSA at all until a SAM is launched. This is because the SAM acquisition and engagement range are longer than the visual detection range of the P-51. This is as it should be. However after the P-51 is fired upon it take evasive action and is still able to map the exact location of the SA-8 OSA (still about 7km away) in about 5 seconds while doing corkscrews. Perhaps still a bit too skillful. Ideally initial markers on the map detecting units would have more ambiguity until more rigorous detection tests are satisfied. An ambiguous recon marker might have very basic type information and be represented by an area of interest polygon rather than a unit marker. --- Anyway after entering the SAM engagement zone the heroic P-51D evaded 5 out of 6 SAM launches and only took a hit when it put the SAM unit on its six trying to fly out of range. A good effort.

Today I was testing the ability of AI aircraft to identify and locate ground units. I'm playing Combined Arms as a Tactical Commander (Fog of War ON) and I noticed that enemy aircraft were mapping the position of my ground units from silly stand-off ranges. So I set up a test mission using the F-86 to test this because AFAIK it has no search radar or RWR. The Blue F-86 was able to detect Red SAM units from exactly 50km away and mark them on the Blue tactical map. That is some pretty good visual recon. If I turn off the Red SAM units radar then the visual detection range goes back to a more reasonable value of ~10km (which is still 5x better than I can do in DCS with a 1080P monitor). I have only just started looking at this and my next step will be to ask the unit which sensor it used to get the detect.

Interesting. It might be a bug or an undocumented feature Just today I was testing the ability of AI aircraft to identify and locate ground units. I'm playing Combined Arms as a Tactical Commander (Fog of War ON) and I noticed that enemy aircraft were mapping the position of my ground units from ridiculous stand-off ranges. So I set up a test mission using the F-86 because AFAIK it has no search radar or RWR. The F-86 was able to detect SAM units from exactly 50km away and mark them on the opfor tactical map. That is some pretty good visual recon. If I turn off the SAM units radar then the visual detection range goes back to a more reasonable value of ~10km (which is still 5x better than I can do in DCS with a 1080P monitor). I have only just started looking at this and my next step will be to ask the unit which sensor it used to get the detect. I'll need to use a LUA script but I'm still reading up on how the sensors work.

Someone was working a on a mod to re-position or mirror alert text away from the edge of the screen. How did that go?

Boberro, that is an interesting point but I can see why online pilots don't want these units popping up on their radar unexpectedly. Sim pilots would rather 'simulate' a mission with known SAM defenses, rather than one where the AO is a bit too hostile. While real pilots are compelled to fly in asymmetric conditions (they must take orders); virtual pilots can and will go to another server where there are easier missions and targets. For people who are power-gaming (and most pilots are power-gamers by nature) there will be a desire for realism when it can offer an advantage but apprehension about realism when it can take away an advantage. Server admins and mission designers know this and they cater to it. They make the calls that make sure their server isn't empty. If you aren't a power-gamer then it is likely that other things are important to you. What type of player are you? I'm an explorer and I like to study the sim.

I actually think the units re-arm without a Ural being present. Of course I will have to test this claim.

As a follow up to that last post. As it turns out I was completely out of missiles. An excellent skill pilot then took out the Tunguska and a KUB search radar in a single run. It was about to start raining mavericks and bombs so I ordered the BUK group towards cover and turned my attention to the ground attack. Twenty minutes later I noticed that some of the BUK group units hadn't moved. I started toggling the ROE settings to try and fix things when I noticed one of the launchers had re-armed. This was pretty interesting to me because I did not know they could be re-armed. Two A-10s were now overhead so I set the launchers to fire at will and five seconds later a SAM missile took off. It hit one of the A-10s from underneath; one shot, one kill. After that the fields were filled with smoking airframes including the F-16's. I used the KUB units for bait and sniped with the BUK launchers. After that the M1 Tanks were the only real threat and the airfield was then taken. This week I've been testing out the SAM units and looking at the IADS script by Grimes; What I know now is that networked air defenses are a thing of beauty but you aren't going to see the beauty if you rely on the CA AI. In all areas of CA you have to micro-manage the AI but I don't see that is inherently bad. I just wish that the micro-management was more fluid and felt more natural. I feel like there is some stuff that can be done with scripts to test some ideas out ... or we could wait for CA 2.0.

Where is the highway to the danger zone?

Nothing worth fighting over in that wasteland ... except for the alien technology.

Just adding my observations to this thread. I have been having a read through the sensor definition tables to get a better idea of the sensor capabilities of certain units. What I have tested is the capabilities of the Predator and Reaper. In terms of sensors the most unique difference between the two is that the Reaper has a ground scanning radar that can detect vehicles. It can do this at a pretty decent range through thick (100% cover, 1000m high) and low (1000m) clouds. The FLIR and Optical sensors are useless in this situation. The Reaper can also detect missile launches and take evasive maneuvers (not with great success) but it can confirm that a radar contact is a launcher (just before it gets shot down). This is the radar sensor that the Reaper has but that Predator does not. ["RQ-1 Predator SAR"] = { type = RADAR_SS, vehicles_detection = true, RCS = 5, RBM_detection_distance = 40000.0, HRM_detection_distance = 28000.0, scan_volume = { azimuth = {-180.0, 180.0}, elevation = {-90.0, 20.0} }, max_measuring_distance = 100000.0, scan_period = 5.0, }, Curious to know what RCS, RBM, HRM are about.

Russian Aircraft carriers need Ka-27

Look up Nvidia G-sync. A 4K G-sync monitor is probably an ideal monitor for flight-sims. Still maybe wait till Edge is out before committing to anything. Edge might be more taxing on hardware than people are hoping.

:). This is a nice appeal to authority in the first post BUT you must think in Russian. Most important thing to do in a Blackshark is to NOT burn the laser out. Laser standby button cannot be on a hat switch. You must drill a new hole in your throttle and add a red button just for this. Everything else is fine.