Kobymaru

I admit that this was hyperbole. But even AK-47 can hit me in a decent range with really high accuracy. The main point is, apparently all Ground AI have the magic "aim here to hit" reticle as the vehicles in Combined Arms. If you fly straight for 1 second, they will hit you. And not once or twice, but a continuous stream of bullets, despite maneuvering. I know it's theoretically possible to hit with an AK or a BTR turrent, but think about this for one second compared to real life: are you going to land a perfect stream of AK shots onto a helicopter? Can you judge the range, calculate the exact lead, bullet drop in your head, and perfectly keep the gun aimed at your calculated position? I would love to see a video of that, but while I doubt the average infantrist can do that, the AI in DCS definitely can. As I said, it's an extreme case of an issue with all ground vehicles. Aiming an MG on top of a tank, or a BTR/BMP gun is not possible this accurately without targeting computer. AA guns maybe, but even manual AA guns shouldn't be as accurate as they are. Sounds great in theory, but from practice I can only say that it feels like they just always know where you are. In the last few patches I have never seen an AI jet run out of flares. I didn't count because I was busy flying, but they were flaring through the entire fight. That's interesting to know. So they just "radio" your exact position instantly to every other unit on the map? Get spotted once, be visible forever? Would be curious about the blindspots, because I thought i got spotted from really weird angles.

Here, I get a RWR detection warning at a range of 250 km! Mind you, the detection range of Buk is still 100 km. Mission: rwrtest_sa-11_250.miz Track: rwrtest_sa-11_250.trk A short time after the A-10 is shot down and crashes, the warning goes off and RWR is silent. Interestingly, no lock warning this time, just detection warning.

Consider the followin g situation: An Sa-11 Buk battery, an A-10 as target flying perpendicular, and the player approaching head-on Mission:rwrtest_sa-11_100.miz Track: rwrtest_sa-11_100.trk Screenshot: The maximum detection range of the Sa-11 Buk is according to the map: 100km My distance to the Buk is 117 km, we should say out of the detection range, no? The angle between the Buk, Player and A-10 is 40° Before this screenshot, the RWR already shows a detection. At the time of this screenshot, I already get a lock warning! However, no missile launch warning After the A-10 is shot down and crashes, the RWR goes back to being detected but not locked for a minute or so, then goes back off. Three questions about this: Why am I being detected outside of the detection range? Why does it matter for my RWR if the other plane is detected? This makes no physical sense to me. The angle is 40°! Forty! Isn't the locking beam supposed to be pretty narrow to focus all the energy on a target? If this works in the other direction as well, that would be a beam width of 80° which is almost literally a quarter of the sky. Not sure, but I'll keep an eye out for it when I play MP. OK but please keep in mind that I'm neither a radar physics scientist, nor a QA tester, so I'd prefer to not have to do testing/debugging work when I try to relax after a day of testing/debugging work. I feel like this issue has been noticed by so many for so long that it shouldn't be too difficult for ED to make test cases for this, no? Building from the mission above and from the mission from Flappie I'll try to test various radar sources/distances/angles. That is whenever I find the time and energy after work to do free debugging for ED

"the beam signal strong enough" - That's exactly the problem. There is zero attenuation with distance or angle or line-of-sight it seems. It's especially funny when you get locked while still on the ground. All radars at all distances. I tested with Su-27, Mig29, Su25, Su25T, F-14, Mig21. I have been "locked" and got launch warnings at ranges up to 220 km, way outside any detection radius, from all kinds of AI planes and ground SAMs who were actually locking and firing at a different, much closer target. On a busy MP server that has SAMs, this means that lock warning is pretty much permanently on.

The RWR in any plane displays a radar lock or a missile launch even if it is not aimed at me, but at some other plane roughly along the line of sight between me and the source. The distance is unlimited, so you get lock and missile launch warnings from halfway across the map. This is the case in ALL airplanes, but here it was tested with F14. 4YA_Cau_PVE2_V2.53[01_MAY_FEW]-20230730-165137.trk Please, please, please fix this. This bug makes it so that the RWR alarm is ringing PERMANENTLY even if I am not being fired upon. This is incredibly stressful and makes the missile launch warning effectively useless.

It's definitely the AI. Enemy planes are just tanks, see attached track file. It took like 30 hits to down a single P-51. It even took SEVERAL hits with 30mm cannon for it to *gently* fall apart. Meanwhile in the real world: p51-tank.trk

Does ED consider the AI simulation to be in a good spot? The modules are becoming more and more realistic and that often results in limited capabilities (flight dynamics, radar detection limits). Which is a good thing because it's realistic, but meanwhile AI aircraft and ground units are enjoying such a simplistic model that ignore a huge number of real life limitations and act like aliens from the 24th century. - They can see through clouds (Good luck fighting AI warbirds on a cloudy day) - They can spot you instantly anywhere from any angle (behind them, in front of them, above them, below them) within a certain range. Example: I was below and behind them they instantly saw me. Meanwhile I'm sitting in my metal tube and can see like a quarter of the sky. - They react immediately: Instant reaction and dodging of incoming missiles. - They have a perfect radar. Example 1: My AI F-14 wingman saw all and engaged targets at 100nm further out as separate contacts, whereas I had to wait to get to 60 nm and then a 2-ships showed up as one contact. Example 2: My Mig-21 radar has a range of around 20km on a good day and theoretical maximum of 40km. My AI wingman in Mig-21 called out contacts for me at range 100nm = 160km??? They don't have to contend with ground clutter, merging of contacts, have fixed and easy range limits, have scan a huge chunk of the sky instantly. - They have a perfect RWR - They don't seem be too affected by flight physics, a lot of them flying like UFOs. Example 1: I was in F14 accelerating to maximum speed, full burner. Told my F-14 wingman to engage the enemy. He just puts in ... full-erer burner (???) and overtakes me?? Another Example2 : Me Mig-21 vs AI Mig-21 dogfight. He still has 3 tanks on, is faster, can accelerate faster, can turn harder and loses less speed on turns. What? - Infinite flares: when engaged in a dogfight, all AI aircraft will pop flares continuously and never stop. Good luck hitting something with older IR missiles. - Ground units always see you. Perfect situational awareness, they can look into all directions at once and instantly react. - Ground units have perfect aim. Me flying Hind at 200 kmh doing maneuvers at 3 km away, guy in an AK47 lands perfect hits. If that's realistic, I would love to see a video of ED programmers with an AK trying to hit a maneuvering target at that distance lol BTR's are more dangerous than ZSU-23. They always know where you are, they always know where you will be when their bullet hits. You can not surprise them, you can not evade them. Fly within 3 km of them and you are dead. I understand that (supposedly) I as a human have an intelligence advantage over AI, but surely, all of this unrealistic behaviour is not supposed to compensate their otherwise dumb decision making process? Is this game made exclusively for Multiplayer, or why is the AI so simplistic and unrealistic? Like, this isn't just me whining about the wrong number of rivets on a plane. These issues make the game NOT FUN with certain modules in certain situations. For example, only being able to engage BTR from a distance deletes a huge chunk of the Mi-24 gameplay of going in with rockets. Having perfect radar and visibility kills the gameplay of most older fighters. Being able to see through clouds makes all WW2 missions with clouds pointless. What's the point of adding more and more modules and single player campaigns that you can't enjoy because AI is both perfect and idiotic at the same time?

Is there a way to toggle my mirror with a Joystick Button? It's greyed out. I dont want to edit lua files and worry about the server check.

Sitting in Beirut: https://youtu.be/lqWQU4a1pwU Multi Thread Preview: 2.8.4.38947 Settings: mi24-beirut-mirrors.trk

Hi, is there any update on this Bug? I can reproduce this 100% reliable. Going from 90 FPS with mirrors on to 100 FPS with mirrors inactive back to 90 fps with mirrors off. Any screenshots or tracks that are needed?

Since you're so good at reading, could you help me find the part of the changelog where they talk about fixing 8 year old bugs?

Just hop in Mig-21, fly around 600 km/h and pull on the stick until exceeding AoA limit. Not sure how a track is supposed to help against an abandoned module though.

Thank you, this does it! Now I have to figure out what a collective clutch is What is the bug part, does Petro forget to turn the collective clutch off? Can moderators move this thread to the bugs forum or should I create a new one?

If I trim out the helicopter, I can press LCtrl+LShift+H to engage the altitude hold channel. However, if I ever switch to the CPG seat, and press C to give pilot control to petro, the altitude hold channel does not work anymore for the rest of the flight! If I push the LCtrl+LShift+H button after switching back to Pilot control, the Altitude Channel light either never goes on or briefly lights up and then immediately goes off. Does Petrovich disable something while he's in control? From looking throught the switches, Radar Altitude is still on, DISS is still on, Gyros still working, other autopilot channels still working, but just the altitude channel goes off immediately. Any Idea what could be wrong?

Thank you for your answers. I disabled Petrovich AI Auto Handover as per Chucks Guide, but then didn't see that you had to press C to hand over control.

I really hope they prioritize this issue, because the Mig-21s make performance bad for EVERYONE on the server, not just for Mig-21 players. Was flying on the Enigma cold war server, and when looking into the general direction of fight, my FPS tanked to 40. Usually I'm flying at around 80-100.

I was doing the training mission, and I tried to bring up the Petrovich AI interface with Ctrl-V. It works just fine when I'm the Pilot, but when I am the Gunner, it just won't come up. The keybind definitely works when I'm in Adjust Controls window, and I tried to rebind it to another keyboard key and a joystick button, but to no avail. Version is 2.8.1.34667 and I repaired my game. Am I doing something wrong? Did I screw up a setting or something?

Hi, sorry for necroing this thread, but apparently the same Issue still exists 5 years later. Has anyone here found a workaround or at least a pattern for the randomness?

According to the manual, the radar is able to scan between -1.5° and +17° in elevation. Is this relative to the airplane axis or is it relative to the horizon? Naively i would assume that the radar in the mig21 is dish that points in one direction and is steered by a motor if I interpret wikipedia correctly. If that is the case, shouldn't I be able to point my nose down, and detect targets that are below me? In the game I have made the experience that for the -1.5° and +17° elevation only the relative altitude matters, so if a plane is 1 km below me I have a slim chance of detecting him no matter where I point my nose. In dogfights I keep losing radar lock which I believe happens whenever the target dives below me while my nose is still firmly on him. Is this just me misinterpreting the situation or have you guys experienced this as well? I just want to know if I'm reading and using it wrong and how to properly employ our alcoholic electronic friend.

BTW, this is a quote from the official Bf-109 manual:

I don't understand how ammunition in this game is supposed to work. Just flew a match vs two AI P-51D's. I made some 13mm hits, but the first AI didn't care too much. Eventually got it with the 30mm. But I ran out of 30mm for the second one, so I unloaded half my ammo into the second P-51, but it just kept flying. Eventually I managed to disable its engine, the plane looked like swiss cheese, but it still kept flying. Made a lot more hits on it, but eventually I ran out of ammo. The enemy plane happily glided home, completely undisturbed by being hit. What's going on? Was real 13mm ammo this weak? Is it the AIs that are the problem? Did I do something wrong? It's just confusing to me why it is this weak. The other day I flew the "Project Kraftwerk Nord-West" mission, and I completely failed to shoot down those A-20 . I didn't fail to hit them, but I did run out of ammo from the strafing runs that were only enough to get 1-2 out of the fight. Just how many bullets are planes expected to be able to take?

OK, I do not understand all you peoples "fun" vs "realism" argument, I fundamentally don't. Look: I know that unrealistic games can be fun. I know that bugs are normal and it's still possible to have fun, enjoy the game, have a great experiene, all the good words. For example, compare the low fidelity FC3 modules vs high fidelity A-10C II, KA-50. Do I have fun playing low-fidelity FC3 modules? Yes, actually! Do I have fun playing high-fidelity modules? Also yes, but it's different type of fun. You have casual-arcade style fun (Type I), vs deeply commited, study the manual, practice for hours, be really proud of mastering something difficult, type of fun (Type II). I like both, sometimes I want the former, but sometimes I want to have the latter, because it's a challange. Now I just don't understand why you people are saying I'm dumb for wanting Type II fun, I should just shut up, I shouldn't expect so much, I'm never happy, this stuff. Why are you people telling me that my way of having fun is wrong, or that I shouldn't expect realism at high level? We are here not on War Thunder forum or Battlefield 4 forum, but on the DCS forum. Of course DCS is still a game, but DCS has commited themselves to providing a maximally realistic experience, prides itself with realism, and whose main selling point is its realism. This is why a lot of people are here, and this is why a lot of people spend so much money on DCS. Because they want that realism. So why is it so wrong of me to ask for realism, and why do you say I should just be happy with what I have and shut up? I don't understand. Even M3 and Leatherneck Sim clearly know (or used to know) that people want realism. For example, if all that matter is "fun" and "experience" and "enjoyability", then why on earth would you spend time implementing RSBN/PRNG and NPP when you can just have simple HSI/ILS with waypoints like in russian FC3 modules? Why do you spend time implementing alcohol radar cooling when you can have just as much fun without it? Why would you implement pressurized air reserves and meter for wheel brakes? Why bother with Radar ground clutter at all? Why simulate hypoxia? What was the point of adding all this, if all that matters is "fun" and "great experience"? I can have an enjoyable experience without it. No, these systems are there and modelled because Leatherneck Sim knew what it means to make a good, challenging, captivating, immersive simulator that makes your heart pound in a dogfight because for a moment you get to forget for a moment that it's not real. Let me just quote you the official description of the module: So they advertise and pride themselves making an accurate and comprehensive simulation, but when people ask to fix issues of accuracy to make it a more authentic simulation, we are unpleasable people who like to shout around on forums, should just shut up and enjoy the experience, just because you don't mind the inaccuracies? I don't understand. Again, I don't mind that devs make mistakes, because they're humans. But I do care if devs never admit or fix their mistakes. OP asked for personal opinions on whether they should buy the module. I gave my personal opinion of whether they should buy the module. I'm sorry my personal opinion does not correspond to your personal opinion, however, I see no reason why your personal opinion is worth so much more that my personal opinion shouldn't be allowed on here. I rather dislike your allegations, because I am quite pleasable. Here's how easy I am to please: if you call a module PFM and high fidelity, you have made a commitment. If there is an issue, look at the issue, respond in time, and fix it in a reasonable time frame. That's it. That's how easy it is to please me. I'd actually consider that basic respect towards your customers, but I guess not being treated like entitled naggers that only deserve to be ignored is too much to ask these days. How not to please me: Call your module PFM/High fidelity, model systems incorrectly, ignore all bugs despite having evidence and documentation, never respond except to say "you're wrong, I don't care about documentation, all is well" or "we're looking into it" and then never look into it. Tell me, are you pleased by this way of handling feedback? BTW, it's not about the money for me. I would actually pay the same money or more again for a better Mig21 module. But for a finished module, and not for promises of a better module, not for a early access, alpha or beta. My two main gripes are ASP (useless for guns), and scripted stall departure. Not main, but also bothering me: bad performance (compare to ED modules), completely unrealistic ground targeting (hidden always-on laser range finder), enemy RWR not triggered by Mig21 radar in multiplayer. Most other stuff I can live with, or rather let's say tolerate. But then again, I also don't understand why I have to "tolerate" long-standing known bugs and inconsistencies for the better part of a decade. If it's broken, why not fix it? A good list of inaccuracies can be found here: English: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/262635-realistic-asp-general-questions/?do=findComment&comment=4794177 English: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/279897-mig-21-rear-view-mirror-remove-in-options/?do=findComment&comment=4781530, https://forum.dcs.world/topic/279897-mig-21-rear-view-mirror-remove-in-options/?do=findComment&comment=4782104 Russian: there's a much more comprehensive post that I will edit in here if I find it. Generally you will find so, so many more well-sourced, documented and proven inaccuracies on the russian forum, ranging from small funny things like oxygen meter upside down to completely fictional functionality like ground mode. Thank you Rudel, I'm obviously happy to hear this (updates in coding were not mentioned prominently or explitly before). However I hope you understand that my recommendation will remain the same until those updates have been implemented.

I'm glad you had fun playing, good for you. In terms of fun I could play games like War Thunder or Ace Combat, but I want to play a realistic module with as few bugs as possible. I have been watching this forum for 8 years now and have come back to check out the module every year or so, every time leaving again because it hasn't changed fundamentally. I'm ok flying with some bugs or unrealism for a while because you know, people make mistakes. But flying with the same bugs for 8 years is quite frustrating and seriously ruins my fun and immersion. All I can say is that DCS in general and M3 in particular have all the incentive to create buggy alpha-version modules and no incentive to finish a module. Don't add more incentive to developers to create unfinished modules.

No! Don't buy it. I have owned this module since 2014 and many things are wrong and have been broken since then. ASP/aiming is completely useless, flight model is very clunky especially in stall regimes, A2G mode is complete fiction, performance is really bad. Please do not make the same mistake as me and throw money into an unfinished title, Devs are not willing or capable of fixing it. You will discover more and more bugs and incorrect system modeling, and the devs will completely ignore you, as they ignore everyone here, just open Bugs forum or one of the many complaint threads. Devs believe everything is great and do not respond to any issues except occasionally with "not a bug" or "working on it" when not really working on it. They have no incentive to make me happy because I already spent my money on it, but you should use your leverage as a potential customer to NOT reward the abandonment of modules.

It's fine if the FM is not "competitive" with newer planes, it's fine if it's hard to learn and use, it's not fine if it's completely scripted. Currently, the plane departs in an extremely consistent but strange manner at extremely consistent conditions. It feels not like a real stall (you barely lose g-forces), it feels more like someone is manipulating my control inputs. This ^ here explains a lot, which I didn't know because I had a long break. I agree. I think being able to pilot a plane and being able to correctly model a planes behaviour are very very different things, one requires a good "feeling", practice and coordination, the other one requires deep theoretical knowledge of aerodynamics, math and programming. I would not automatically assume that someone who flew the plane will be great at writing a simulation of the plane. Also I don't know details about Rudels flight experience, but I can only assume that IRL these high AoA and stall regimes are really really scary and dangerous. I don't want any real pilot to endanger themselves and die without being able to respawn. But at the same time, this means that those regimes can not be explored with physical measurements and personal experience, but it needs to be simulated and calculated. And if I'm wrong about my assumption, I would really love to see a video of this sort of consistent departures IRL: "oops, I went .1° over exactly 16° AoA and now it will roll right for .5 seconds, then yaw left for .5 seconds, then reverse roll/yaw". This is the main point here. OK, back in 2014 it was all new, first 3rd part developer, everything was difficult, it was groundbreaking, so we gave them the benefit of the doubt and some of us invested into the promises ("early access" is just promises, not more). It all made sense back then, but only under the assumption that it would improve. But now 8 years have passed, and many things are unchanged. And that's when some emotional people like me slowly but surely start to get salty. I like this plane a lot, and I wish the module would do it justice.