captain_dalan

I think the difficulty comes from DCS specific reasons. I expect trimming her would be easier IRL. In a sim though, people are often forced to count clicks.....

Check the already existing topics

And HB have stated time and again that they have no control over the missile after it launches. Hence my comments.

I checked and it's definitely the missiles and not the planes. If given Sparrows, they engage just like any other fighter. But something about the AI makes it think the AFM Phoenix should have a 20 mile range. Has anyone ever reported this behavior to ED?

I'll try that. As for the different missiles, is there a way then, to make them engage at longer ranges? Or change the preferred range based on the missile? Right now there is very little use for the AFM AIM-54 in AI use, that is for slots not used by human players.

And how are we expected to fly behind the boat in visual flight conditions?

I've been thinking about asking this question sooner, but work keeps me distracted and by the time i get home i always forget But recently i had a discussion with a fellow DCS player on his attempts to assign certain planes as AI CAP or Intercept craft and how they, depending on platform sometimes fail to engage at desired or expected ranges. This correlates with my own observations. Namely, when i don't have the time to fly in DCS, or i'm too tired to do so, i sometimes watch missions created by myself play out on auto-play, that is with all planes controlled by AI. During these sessions i noticed the same thing my friend noticed with his missions. To investigate this further, i made several missions of very simple nature, just 2 planes, separated by 70-80 miles, set to either CAP or fighter sweep, armed with BVR loads, set to joust one against the other, usually starting at either angels 25 or 35. The results were strange. No matter how i configured the waypoints and conditions for missile employment (max, between max and NEZ, NEZ or so) some planes when controlled by the AI just wouldn't engage, until very close. As i assume all AI's use the same logic, then my question is, what makes the difference? Say, the following example. MiG-31, F-14A old, F-14A HB, F-15C, F-16C. The 31 and the old 14 will launch their missiles from about 50 miles away, as expected. The 15 and the 16 their AMRAAMs from about 40 miles away as expected. But the HB 14 will wait till well inside 30 miles. So, how does the AI decide when to launch? And can we even control that in out missions? I tried in prefab mission, flying the F-14 with AI wingmen, and no matter if order them to engage at 40 or 35 miles, they just flat out refuse to launch till very close.

Bagged to MiG-29's in instant action last night. Radar aspect set to nose, target size set to large, launched at 40NM from angels 30, i forgot the closure. Then slowly dived and cranked to give the guidance most favorable conditions to maintain tracks. Splashed both bandits, even though they were bellow my nose at the time of launch. I never found any problems endemic to the C, not in SP, MP PvE, or MP PvP. The problem is, there doesn't seam to be any difference. In PvP the range disadvantage can be offset by the lack of smoke, thus your shots are stealthier. But in SP? Always take the Mk60's as the AI knows you've launched anyways. I take C's with me at times, for role-playing reasons though and they work just fine, with a bit less range. Now teaching AI wingmen how to use them, that's a neat trick. But i don't think there's anything HG can do about it.

I have to join in on this one. Crossing the wake is one of the main checkpoints during CASE I's. As it exists now, under many weather conditions it's not visible, and when it is, it's usually completely masked by the ripple effect. I too think the foam-y part of the wake needs to be more pronounced, especially behind the boat.

If it has home on jam capability then it will home in on your jammer emissions, like a passively guided missile. Hence, once in a burn-through range of an enemy radar, it's usually a good practice to turn-off your jammers.

1. You are aware that by far the larger, or should i say the largest part of the community is hardly aware of this forum's existence, let alone some tournament, right? 2. How are things not developed by that developer under jurisdiction of the said developer? When your canopy doesn't melt in the F-16, do you come to HB to fix it for you? Or when a Hornet is over-stressed indefinitely without any issue what so ever, do you come to HB to fix that too?

Home-on-jam? Did you have your self protection jammers on?

Only a couple of skips, and both were clearly my fault

Freeze i can only get out of by ctr+alt+delete and terminating the process (DCS not responding), and once even that didn't help and i hat to restart the PC

Amen....

But that right there is the strawman. Just because nobody is playing 100% realistically is no argument for lack of realism and even less so for submitting realism to the needs of "competitiveness". This isn't about SP VS MP or PvE VS PvP. It's about the consequences of adopting certain mindset when developing for the chosen mindset. When people get into a game (no matter the genre) with sport-like mentality, they expect "fair-play". They expect rules and standards that ensure that fair-play. War by definition isn't fair-play. Like that famous quote goes (paraphrased here), "if you find yourself in a fair fight, you've screwed up". DCS being a game in the military simulation genre should always focus primary on implementing those features that make it so the most. Any individual that wants to make a sport out of it, should adapt to this environment, not the other way around. This is at least what i think when consider the competitive crowd, especially the apparently vocal minority that keep complaining on certain issues, issues that in relative weight are (at least to me) marginal when compared to the issues the platform as a whole is facing.

Ah, good to know i wasn't hallucinating! Thanks for that info mate.

I think there was a circuit breaker that when pulled out would disable the AUX flaps from dropping, so only the main ones will respond to lever movements. No idea if this was actually true or if HB have implemented it. Can't even recall where i've read it. Maybe it was these forums? But in my old age i've grown senile.....

The problem is with much slower targets as it currently stands. At first i though i was the problem during the last PvE session. Then last night, instant action Gulf Map, Beyond Visual Range mission. Kept losing all the locks, PD-STT and TWS, even at mach 0.7-0.8 at 15000ft. I assumed ED has implemented some space-age AI techniques and the computer controlled bandits now performed some top-notch notching maneuvers. I'm talking before actual lunch maneuvers. Then i clicked F2 and decided to observe them, you know, maybe i can learn something. Nope, they were flying straight! Then i jumped into the RIO seat, set the switch to nose. No more lock loss. I actually prefer the STT locks now, at least with good SA. Unfortunately i can't jump in the RIO seat when in MP

This realization came to me when i was discussing the old Jane's flight sims with a friend i used to fly with at the end of the previous century. Back then we were like "whoa, Mavericks on double racks! Man that awesome! Why would anyone want anything else?!" And many gamers of today would probably feel the same way in DCS today. But what people often fail to take into account is mission design. Back when we were kids we failed to take notice that we could take all those Mavericks and Harpoons with us on any mission because......well, you know, that "any" mission was designed with taking them in mind. So the carrier was in double digit miles of the hotspot and yet it never got hit by any surface to surface ordnance. You bring a real carrier that close to shore and you botched it, real bad. It's the same in DCS. Just because you are tea in a cup that fits your shape, don't think the universe created that cup especially for you and that all the cups are the same. In the real life you are the one that needs adapting. And with short legs you are going to find that more difficult then others. Just imagine the refueling logistics required to extend the range of the ops when the engagement ranges exceed several hundred miles. You won't find that on most DCS servers. Now compare that to the 1000 mile doctrine......

The TID repeater, both SP and MP. It hasn't occurred to me to jump into the RIO pit and check if it's there too, but the issue fits perfectly with the bug you describe, so it's probably that.

What helped me (only one crash-freeze since) is set program compatibility to Win8 or Win7. However do be warned that loading times will escalate.

Roget that! Good to know. I actually thought it may be a feature

That's a strawman right there. Not dying when you lose in a game is no base for arguing against dying in games. Or trying to implement more authentic-realistic rulesets in game design when such design is called for You mean like every time i take an AI F-14 with me and he refuses to engage with his 54s at any meaningful range? Or when he runs out of fuel during the ingress? Welcome to the reality of SP that has been broken as long as the MP has, if not longer. Yet we still do SP (some of us, though in my case not exclusively) and soldier on waiting just like everyone else for bugs to be fixed or features implemented.

That's only been around since the 2.7 though. Like i said, war has become sport. For better or for worse. And with it, come terms like fair-play, buff, nerf, balance.......