Capn kamikaze

It seems that nothing fundamental ever gets fixed, there are bugs especially with the AI still that have been known about for years.

It's really annoying me since I prefer SP to MP, and do a lot of mission building, and to use your wingmen effectively it's impossible at the moment. Ideally I'd like my wingman to have his PDT as being my secondary target and his SDT as being my PDT if they're close enough, so we both fire on each then wait 5-10 seconds and then fire again, this time at each others SDT.

Why is it that AI F-15 wingmen only ever fire one missile, at one target, I've never seen them ever fire on more than one at once, getting pretty sick of their AI, there we are closing on a pair of Su-27's, and instead of us both firing on both contacts using TWS, it seems the AI is only firing on one target, no matter if I command engage my target (since I have both on TWS he should logically attack both, not just my PTD) or if I command engage bandits, which sounds like its a bit more free. Is there any way to get AI wingmen to take advantage of their AIM-120's and TWS, this seems incredibly unrealistic at the moment.

What? That was a question, not a statement.

.... and to repeat myself for Pedro's benefit.... "No, but why should it matter in any way, the US government doesn't tell google to not map Afganistan or Iraq or Syria, it's just laughable as a reason."

On the real A-10 can it be loaded on both and switch between them, so if you're getting close to obscuring the sensor with the airframe it will check the other side and if it's clear use that, a bit like antenna diversity switching (not A-10 related)?

No, but why should it matter in any way, the US government doesn't tell google to not map Afganistan or Iraq or Syria, it's just laughable as a reason.

I just don't buy the politics reason, it has nothing to do with modelling a geographic region, hell google earth models/maps everything and no one is complaining about that....

Can you point to a source on that, that seems absurd, and possibly just an excuse.

After the last patch.

That didn't work, but copying the 2.0 file over to the 1.5 did.

They were ok as of yesterday, did the most recent patch, and now it's all messed up, some things work, others don't, I'm going to delete the config files, and do a repair, see if that works.

On the A-10 so far things like nose wheel steering, weapons master mode etc, all no longer work.

What the title says.

And the implication in my post was that your post made no point because of that.

That's what I was thinking, the sensible thing to do then, is make a turn to the waypoint, and just ignore that he's off the line, and then at the next waypoint, do the opposite turn, so as to avoid gradually rotating the line about its middle over time.

If they can negotiate that access, then it stands to reason so could another company if sufficiently motivated to do so.

^^ That's not true, the A-10 and many other aircraft in DCS, and coming soon to DCS are still in service, and that includes gen 4 aircraft. Classified stuff will simply be left out and approximated instead of simulated.

Another thing is setting map borders to act as trigger zones, you can approximate this with multiple circular trigger zones, but it is cumbersome.

If could have sniper teams that would be really cool, so they could take out specific targets like a MANPAD and only that target among other troops, and also act as FACs. I made a CAS mission for the A-10 and wanted to have a soldier take out a MANPAD, and by playing about with some precision trigger zones, firing on a point with a single shot (which is impossible, he never fired just one shot) and deactivating the MANPAD it is possible to make a fair approximation, but that is it.

At the moment they're all circular, all we can define is the radius.

Even if we had airfields that were about right for the 50's-60's era that would be perfect for cold war aircraft like the F-86 and MiG-15 on that map, and that era would be almost indistinguishable from the 40's in terms of infrastructure etc.

Elysian, you don't have to use it, that's why it would be like two maps in one, the WW2 being the default, and the added airfields opening up more modern scenarios if you use them.

So, no one else thinks that's a good idea then?

I was thinking we have a Normandy map, and if we could add a modern airfield in the mission editor as static objects, it would make it like a lot of the UK and France is now, old disused WW2 airfields dotted about the place, and modern ones, it would be like having two maps in one.