twistking

I don't think that is a good enough solution. The search and engage task is valid for the whole flightpath and not only for those legs of the path that are part of the CAP area. If AWACS/EWR is available, CAPs will often leave their station to hunt targets very far away, that just happen to cross the transit flightpath of the CAP. Therefore i think the "search and engage" task is absolutely useless for bigger, somewhat realistic scenarios. For these only "search and engage in area" is viable... but with it, you run into the issue of the flight not being aggressive enough on transit.

For me the Sikorsky double-decker helicopters are THE iconic helis of the vietnam war. They are missing on the list, so i had to begrudgingly go with the Cobra. Fixed wing is easy: Thunderchief. Why even poll?

you are right. i have however seen a slightly damaged aircraft continue taxi... but that damage came after the "start" and AI taking control. so i'd give DCS a pass on that one...

I'd assume that uncontrolled aircraft track damage more precisely than a static. An uncontrolled AC will eventually fly and therefore accumulated damage must feed into the FM. I would guess that damage to statics is just hitpoint based... no?

yes, damage modeling is poor for both the 16 and 18...

ED is already working on an advanced FM for AI. It will not be based on the full fidelity FM, because - honestly - that would be crazy. Current AI FM can barely called a flight model by today's standards. You can make it a million times better and still only use a fraction of what a full fidelity FM needs for processing power. I'm not sure to what extend they want to also simulate AI factors like perception, workload, stress... i'd already be happy when AI can't see through clouds anymore...

my bad... did not read your post properly it seems...

I have enough hours in the Viper that i'm familiar with CCRP symbology. Maybe you are right though. The thing that i got hung up on, was the fact that the HARM is not targeting SPI, while a SPI is generated but not targeted by the the active weapon. That goes against the Viper's dogma of only having one sensor point. That's the "reason" that you can't slave around your TGP while in CCIP f.e. It would often be nice to do so, but it's not possible. HARM POS mode seems exceptional in this regard. I would have expected the TGP to lock on the steerpoint a.k.a. the location of the steerpoint being SPI.

@NineLine@BIGNEWY If this is not yet reported internally, can you move it to the bug section. seems to be confirmed, that it is indeed one. thanks.

related to this?

ok. now it also got moved into the bug section. hope it get fixed soon. i'd think that they can just copy the config from the normal AIM-9M and just tweak that part where it does (not) fire...

This would make a lot of sense. However i would guess, that in order to be configurable via data bus, the 103 and 105 would need to be equipped with a digital fuse that would allow that. I don't know if DCS models such a fuse, or if it uses the same fuse as on the 87 and 97... Anecdotally i can only say that i got better and more reliable effect on target when not changing the burst parameters in cockpit. Therefore i believe that the 103 and 105 use the same (manually set) fuse as the 87 and 97... I did not test this scientifically, so i could very well be wrong...

When seeing pictures of those vintage transports, i always think of some CIA shenanigans going down on a remote airstrip somewhere in Laos...

this would be a neat feature for the upcoming dynamic campaign. for single sortie missions it seems unnecessary.

Yes. That's working. Basic functionality is all there.

Thanks for the replies. I know about VAICOM and while i haven't tested it myself, i did have a look at some youtube-content of guys using it with Jester. Sure, it gets rid of the GUI, but i feel that the interaction is still very robotic. It's not terrible... but i guess "immersion" is very subjective. For me it did not click. On this forum, you'll find many people who think the same by the way, but this is not about right or wrong... On the other hand, if Heatblur could improve their AI even more, everybody would appreciate that i think. Even those of you, who are already happy with the current version. By the way, if you look at ED's VoIP FAQ, you'll see that ED are at least investigating native voice recognition in DCS: They list AI not reacting to voice commands as "known issues and future features". Sounds promising. Native voice would maybe allow Heatblur to push it a bit further in that direction. GUI could always be a backup for people without MIC.

Ooops, i must confess, that we did not check for that. If i remember correctly the GUI shows encryption status, but of course it could still be WIP...

thanks!

i think burst altitude is set by ground crew - not from the cockpit. until we can change cbu fuses from the rearm/fusing menu, you are advised to not touch fuse altitude in the cockpit, becuase you'll create a missmatch bewteen FCS and actual fuse setting. that's at least the last information i got. correct me, if this has changed recently.

If i IFF my buddy and get a response (green blib), the FCR will not correlate that to the radar contact. Track stays white, HUD target box does not change. If i IFF a bandit, the track will stay white. I'd have assumed that the track turned yellow (?)... If i IFF a bandit and do a succesful NCTR ident (Mig21 - obviously hostile), the track stays white. It should turn red... no? Intended behaviour? User error? A bug? Place your bets!

CAP-9M does not interface with the avionics in a meaningful way. Doesn't give a tone, doesn't track. I was under the impression that it does have a working seeker for training purposes. If so, i can't get it to activate. Is this intended behaviour? User error, or bug?

Hello Heatblur, my favorite American jets are probably the A-6, the F-14 and the F-4, so i should be very happy with your roadmap... However, after having tested the Tomcat during a free trial, i did not buy it, even though the visuals and simulation are obviously very good! I would even say, that Jester AI is "good", but it was still the thing that ruined the module for me. Ruined is a strong word and i want to stress that i think Jester implementation is decent in itself and i'm sure it was a lot of work to develop it. For my enjoyment it was simply not good enough... and this was my fear already when the module was still in development. Interacting with a module in DCS is - for me - the most immersive kind of interacting with any game or sim. Interacting with a slightly robotic Ai through a (necessarily) intricate GUI just takes so much away from it, that the magic of DCS just vanishes to some degree for me. Having a human RIO/WSO does probably turn that upside down, but you at Heatblur figured out early that this is not a satisfactorily solution (and i agree), otherwise you would not have put so much effort into Jester. I'd therefore wish that you'd improve your RIO AI even further by replacing the GUI with voice recognition and making the AI more human-like so that interacting it with it feels less mechanical. I am aware that thereby you'd push Jester beyond anything we've seen in the gaming/sim space concerning Ai interaction, but i think you are generally capable of pushing boundaries with your modules, while at the same time big advancements in AI make a humanlike virtual flight buddy seem a way more reasonable expectation than only a few years ago. Thanks for reading!

It is. Thanks!

I've only heard complaints and so was hesitant to test it myself, but now i can happily say, that it is actually rather good. If you haven't yet, give it a try! It doesn't have feature parity with external solutions yet, but what is there already works well. User experience is nothing short of excellent: Easy to set up. The ingame voice config overlay (strg+shift+Tab) is very well thought out and easy to use. To my surprise integration with the aircraft radios is already working flawlessly. A lot of things are still missing, but it's already fully useable and in our (admittedly quite small) test mission, we did not encounter any bugs. If you haven't already, give it a try. That's all i wanna say basically! Thanks.

you should always have an up-tp-date manual in the game files. i just use the windows search function on the DCS folder with *.pdf ro show all pdf-files.