Phantom_Mark

I think you are exaggerating the problem - I struggle to see anything beyond 3 or 4 miles in VR, ground or AIR, unless it is sharply contrasted, Shape, Shine, Silhouette...ya know, some of those factors are missing, which makes it even harder in a virtual world,

It fits the aircraft very well, looks pretty awesome I agree

I think the notion that there is, and and never will be a solution is a very negative one to take tbh, never give up, and never stop looking for ways to do something is my attitude to life and work

Maybe there needs to be a visual configurator, so like in the old days we used to have a splash screen come up where you setup your gamma and corner edges of your display etc, we have a thing comes up and we can setup some "basic" params to enable parity when it comes to visual contact sensitivity, you could do it in a way which could kind of make it a questionnaire, ie if you don't enter the right response it isn't a valid user response, maybe a number which becomes clearer or something idk ? One the user has made a valid configuration that information and setting is stored for possible future use as well, maybe to tell a multiplayer server the player is using a verified and calibrated configuration ? - that option should be "optional" server side to enforce, and optional by the player to use - especially if they are only someone who flies in single player anyway. Just thinking out loud here, so there may be holes in my idea

Yes, I agree, It would almost be worth scripting their death on impact if near enemy units to prevent the whole situation arising in the first place

Would you agree with my observations from 15-20k things being pretty well defined - just out of interest I know when we are at full cruise height the world is a tiny spec lol

So when you have a ton of triggers it gets messy really quickly, sometimes you may have several triggers related to one actual job, would be nice to group those triggers and have then under one heading with an expandable dropdown tier, so you can close the sub group up and keep things better organised, being able to name your sub group would obviously be hand in hand with that. In much the same way you click the down arrow on FONT in this message window........with the FONT being the heading. (so we are clear) Currently I use a custom line break to keep things organised, not ideal tho Also re flags......Not thought this one through fully yet, but from the top of my head, could it be possible a prompt is made if you attempt to use a flag already set ? might be just the prompt someone needs so they don't accidently duplicate a flag already used. (Flag already used - are you sure ?)

Yep, having had a look it just ignores the instructions, I did try re-arranging the sequence of your trigger orders but to no avail ......so he was given authorisation to engage, and then the order to attack the target, made no difference at all tho, so def seems related to the AI generally ignoring specific instructions, and what was your other guy doing ?? when I ran it here he dived and climbed randomly......very weird, despite "no reaction" condition.

Given we are on the home run for the Hornet can any official word be given for when we will get a fully enabled Wingman, I asked about this long ago and it was rightly mentioned "WIP", so currently the Wingman is still not functioning anywhere above the bare bones basics, which as a predominantly "single" player , player, will hurt in the end if the wingman doesn't receive at least the same flexibility as the A10C - specifically being able to tell your wingman to attack your target correctly and things like that. (currently if I have something targeted in my FLIR I cannot tell my wingman to "attack my target" - in the A10C you CAN)

If you are on a CAS mission and you come across a developing battlefield with new targets of opportunity ?

lol yes indeed, its more the way the AI drive past like nothing is taking place lol, kinda like, oh look, there's 2 dude who just killed some of my mates, hiya.......bye....

Thanks , my choppers are going too close fully armed tho ,so seems "just a problem" The area they are attacking in as you can see in the screenshot is quite flat tbh. I have just been running the mission again actually, took 3 choppers and 9 missiles to finally kill the last BMP3, the BMP finally shot one of the Apache down, one already had been shot down because it flew too close. As I am not scripting the attacks it just seems their AI logic is currently just broken. Thx

For lots of years now and since playing DCS every flight I have ever taken I pay careful attention to how visible ground units are from the air, it is surprising how much detail you can see at 15/20 thousand or so feet in clear conditions , just IMHO, as for range IDK, as you cant exactly see forward properly from an airline passenger seat

Slightly unrelated, but just because they look awesome, check out these versions

Simple mission with 4x AH64D's on a route set to CAS, all aircraft loaded with 16 AGM114's, full load of pain. Deliberately placed in that route, off to one side is a large group of BTR's and a few BMP and quite a lot of T80's AH64's are set to stand off to 8 miles in the advanced waypoint instructions - to maximise their range advantages with the ATGM's The AH64's detect the group and engage probably at around 4 miles in the first instances, and they maybe let off 1 or 2 missiles each at most, but constantly creep towards the group, they then release another missile here and there and eventually they decide to fly slowly right over the top of the group before sweeping off in various directions to make defensive turns etc.......then they dither around very closely seemingly struggling to decide whether to shoot again or not, the odd one might let another missile go, but generally its just a mess, and again they start creeping towards the group with incoming ground fire, including now the T80s have woken up a few Igla , quickly the four AH64's are all lost and its just a mess...in all they took out a few targets, but given the advantages they had they should have taken the lot out in the first contact tbh !! and they would not ideally close in right on top of the group. So I can assume either I setup this engagement really badly, and I made them behave stupid, or there is a problem, or I missed some tricks to ensure they do as they are told more properly ?

Not sure if it is intended, but the AI do not engage a downed aircrew stood right next to their stricken aircraft.....they simply drive straight past and don't even acknowledge their existence. Summary. Large group of BTR's & BMP & T80's engaged by 4 Longbow Apache, because the Longbow didn't respect the instructed stand off range and got too close, the group shot all four down, one of them made a controlled crash landing near the group and the crew survived and got out, stood next to their aircraft, when the group resumed their route the remaining units just drive straight by them like they are not even there, even tho they are clearly alive and enemy still.

I personally fly without labels, in VR and non VR, but I appreciated the extra visibility in VR due to the VR tech still not being up to displaying the same quality as my monitor......an "option" would surely cater for both sides, and at that, for MP purposes a server side forced "option" , then everyone is surely happy ?

Not sure which section this lives in , but here is a link to an exhaustive demonstration of it not working properly.

Bottom line is 1 pixel in 4k is not the same as one pixel clarity in 1080p, and certainly not the same as 1 pixel clarity in VR, IMHO. And 1 pixel is all that suggests a visual contact at range.

I often use barebones missions to clarify a scenario I am working on before getting on to building a mission including that particular feature, and then store that mission for future reference as a future guide in case i forget how to make something work, if it needed a workaround , which is sadly how I came across this and other things in the first place.

From my observations of the AI vs terrain it appears the "look ahead distance" for the AI controlled unit is not far enough ahead meaning the AI plans everything seemingly last moment, the AI also need to cache that information to memory for continual reference regarding the full 360 situation awareness of elevation, so that can have a hope of reacting realistically when going defensive unexpectantly as well. A cpu cycles and memory saving can be made my storing only the "highest elevation points in each direction" rather than trying to build a full virtual picture of every lump and bump in the terrain, thus the AI will always have a safe escape route in any direction with pre calculated minimums.

Thanks

I think if you look back historically some of the better suggestions have been lifted and implemented over the years, obviously their dev time is finite and they can't do "everything", meaning many people probably feel they post for no reason. Mods do visit these threads tho - for sure, probably when something really interesting catches their eyes tho, which I am sure in turn gets passed along the right channels.

I wanted to be sure I had exhausted all user error before coming to that conclusion, your observation is exactly what I observed in my first post, thanks for your help, appreciated.

Will take a look thanks , re Max Attack - reading the text notes it does strongly suggest either it is broken, or not being understood by the user correctly, or simply a bad translation possibly ?