Kang

While the idea sounds great, I don't think it's really worth the effort. Once in a while, if I happen to eject near a known friendly position or a settlement or a decent landing zone, I decide to walk the pilot there. It's nice and obviously adding a few functions to that would make it nicer, but travelling by foot is annoyingly slow in comparison and even knowing the destination 'is just on the other side of those trees over there' results in a march of half an hour. You look at similar timescales for a helicopter dispatched from a friendly airbase to reach you in a lot of places and I highly doubt that many people would get a lot of enjoyment of the 'sitting in the shrubs and waiting'-simulation. I wholeheartedly agree that for a dynamic campaign it is a topic to be considered rather seriously, but perhaps there would be other ways of conducting it. For example the dynamic campaign might just forward in the background (perhaps even run the CSAR flight without player intervention) from a map view until the player returns to flight status. For a more multiplayer-minded environment it might make sense to give everyone a limited number of pilots to use, so one can actually enjoy the game and have a benefit of making an effort to get the 'lost' pilots back somehow.

The easier method of at least mimicking the functionality would be to run a script that makes a supply truck stop by your air defence positions periodically.

Quite possibly nothing. Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons for this. One is that the radar altimeter in many modules gets a bit inaccurate when in a bank (because it measures slant range, then). The other is - and I'm not perfectly sure about that - the possibility that the trigger doesn't read the ground level for its entire area but just for the point of its center, which would cause such inaccuracies easily in mountainous terrain.

Wouldn't surprise me if the JTAC units were set to be invisible to AI to precisely prevent your plan. Or, for that matter, render them entirely useless because the very tank they spot would just obliterate them most likely. This is a common workaround for these kinds of units, as camouflage is not really a thing the AI does.

Definitely agree it is some kind of new issue that hasn't been there in the previous open beta version. I've suffered similar crashes today, as well as a few in the past days. I got right here since today's was triggered by spawning in a Tomcat twice in a row (until I called it quits with DCS for the evening). The other day it happened on a flight in a Hornet upon being hit by something. So there definitely is a correlation with some events withinin DCS. Sadly no proper log has been produced for my incidents today. DCS just plain ceased to be.

The way I see it the big challenge about many of these ideas is that they would all require a lot of 'core' work to be done.

Having some fond memories of that myself, as well as some of its predecessors. I definitely like the idea, but personally would suggest to take a few smaller steps in between. The idea of a 'SAM simulator' module that goes a bit beyond Combined Arms for the more advanced multi-vehicle SAM sites was floated a while back and perhaps that is a more obvious way to go for now. I mean, both concepts would potentially be a bit more 'slow-moving' yet technically interesting ways to enjoy DCS. And simulating any ship's systems is a huge undertaking, I reckon. So perhaps, get a decent 'from the station' simulation of select air defence systems, then add the naval versions of these systems and then take it from there.

Ah, I thought I had missed something in regards to 2.6.

Admittedly the change in name of the team associated with the F-1 had fooled me yet again for a moment into thinking it was being done by different people.

I think this is a bit due to the fact that the C-101's wheel chocks were put in place long before the 'generic' placing wheel chocks command for ground crews was introduced by ED. Perhaps it would make sense to decouple these functions now?

So far I'd conclude that the answer to the question 'What AI aircraft would you like?' is 'Yes.'

The most concise guide I have seen so far.

Would just like to post a reminder that this issue still persists. It has been alleviated slightly in an update since and has become rarer for the usual primary loads, but in a usually heavier AG load, the sinking, scraping and wobbling still happens. I for one would much prefer proper handling while taxiing on tarmac over the reasonably exotic option of mud-borne operations, if it truly turns out to be an either-or situation.

I love the idea for sure, but I'm afraid the AI in DCS is rather far from that, in that I'd rather see some of the more basic issues addressed.

What could be a more 'generic figure' than an actual former president of the United States?

Alternate suggestion: Consider jumping into the wacky world that is DCS in online multiplayer. Just meeting up with someone who's been flying it for a while might help you out when they can talk you through the processes. Jester gives you a gist of that for start-up at least (in the assisted start up option he'll read out the checklist piece by piece), but someone there 'live' would add the benefit of also being able to quickly tell you where to find everything if you get stuck, which might be less stressful.

I tested that a long time ago and this might not be accurate anymore, but my findings were: - IR suppressors have an effect on the range at which IR guided SAMs will launch at you - the decrease in range was small. While measurable it made little practical difference - there is no noticeable performance penalty at low altitudes - the hit probability of heat-seeking missiles isn't noticeable degraded once within launch range

The Su-27 by default lets you choose between Russian and Chinese, for what it's worth. Probably not making things any better for you.

To be fair the probability of accidental triggering of the ejection seat is even less in DCS than it is in real life.

Glad to see there is some movement in this. Might I suggest also to add a keybinding to toggle this in-cockpit? I think a lot of us actually see a good point in it at times, but would like to have more control over when exactly it is on or off, since the automatic logic is a little dodgy at times.

And thus this request moved from 'somewhat strange' to 'borderline insane'. Lovely. DCS has no option for missions to run any custom Assembler code as well, I hear.

1.) Disappointed in the lack of kangaroo content right there 2.) I disagree on them being 'still the same'. For example the HUD of the Ka-50 has undergone some change with the recent (in DCS terms) cockpit overhaul and I think that kinda addressed what you mean.

The surprising part is that the pilot hasn't been instantly killed as he is somewhat prone to be in the F-18 in DCS. It's like the ejection seat has an automatic throat slasher attached in case any of the valuable, expensive hardware takes damage.

Also: what do you consider 'heavily armed'? In terms of simple firepower a Tor has nothing against any of the MBTs. The most dangerous to aircraft... I'd agree with the S-300 (and Patriot), being high in the list. Tor is quite dangerous to aircraft and also capable of defending nearby units against missiles, which makes it valuable. Personally I find the Tunguska rather dangerous, mostly because it gives very little warning of its launches. Heavily armed per se... any MBT. T-90, T-80, both versions of the T-72, but also IFVs, especially ones armed with ATGMs deal major punches; never underestimate the BMP-2. Of course the whole topic of artillery units can be considered heavy armaments as well. 155mm shells are going to cause a little chaos on your dinner table.

They used to differ slightly in that regard, as 'Inbound' would send you towards the approach point and 'Azimuth' would send you to the field itself, but somewhere along the line these got a bit muddled up. Generally the communication proceeds further once you are within a certain radius of the center of the base nowadays.