Andrew8604

I could see having an OPTION in the simulation to chose "snap" range of the basket as a "cheat" to make inflight refueling easier. But you have to be able to STAY in formation, too. Snap range could maybe be selectable between 0 and about 2 meters, maybe (0 - 6 feet). Right now, I think it is about 1 or 2 feet, fixed. I'm happy with it. I understand the desire for a cheat with this. It is REALLY difficult, at first. I nearly gave up and resigned to the fact that I must be just a hopeless "whiskey-delta". LOL But then I tried and tried again. And then it happened!! The probe went in the basket! It came right out again and I got no fuel...because I looked full-on at the probe in the basket! But I was there. It was an improvement. Practice, practice. Get lined up behind the tanker. Match your speed. Always making "tiny" adjustments to throttle to stay matched with the tanker. Use pitch trim to trim for your new airspeed. Find visual references between the tanker and the HUD symbols...don't look directly at the basket or you will turn to salt! ha ha Just keep slightly aware of the basket in your peripheral vision. And, of course, a mental image of where your probe is. Make "tiny" corrections with the stick--and use the rudder a little. Anticipate the corrections that will be needed. Be a step ahead of the airplane. Make small corrections in pitch, roll, yaw and speed (like +/- 1 knot)...practice, practice and you will get it. I have the Thrustmaster Warthog stick. It has stiff springs. But it responds to mere pressure on the stick, without flexing the spring. That kind of tiny movements. Hope that helps some. I'm just above whiskey-delta...I seem to be able to get some fuel in the tanks before they run dry...but by no means to the sierra-hotel level, yet. :) I continue to improve. A stick or yoke with noisy "pots" (analog potentiometers that don't hold a steady value or smooth response) can make it more difficult. My old analog stick had about 250 digits of response. The Warthog has about 64,000 (I think, or maybe 16,000). But when I center the stick, its axes read 0-x and 0-y, every time, with no fluttering. I think that makes some difference, too. I don't know that DCS sim reads all that resolution, though.

It shouldn't. Only CHANGES in wind speed and direction can make a difference--that's called turbulence. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but all that matters is the "relative wind". That is, the wind from the point-of-view of the aircraft surfaces. You and the tanker aircraft could be flying into a 200-knot jetstream. The only difference it makes (disregarding any possibly included turbulence in a strong jetstream) is how fast the terrain slides underneath you. The air mass you fly in may be moving over the ground at 200 knots (wind) but your aircraft only cares about how fast it is moving through the air mass...or more accurately, how MUCH air is moving over the wings, control surfaces and through the engines. The clouds should be moving with the air mass, too. If you are flying through a cloud at 300 knots true airspeed, you pass through it in the same amount of time as you would if the air mass you and the cloud are in is moving over the ground against your direction at 100 knots, with you at 100 knots or not moving at all. Wind is air mass movement in relation to the ground. Airspeed is aircraft movement in relation to the air mass.

The Philippine Sea Area -- from about 300 miles to the east of the Marianas Islands (Guam, Saipan) to about 800nm to the west, to include Yap, Ulithi and Truk islands to the south. Huge area of open Pacific Ocean for the ultimate WWII carrier battle in June 1944 that fell short of its potential of greatest sea battle of all time, but became the famed "Marianas Turkey Shoot". Imperial Japan lost about 315 aircraft in one day, June 19th, to the US Navy's loss of 20. They just didn't have the trained flight crews they had in 1941-43. About 130-deg East to 155-deg East longitude, and 5-deg North to about 20-deg North latitude. About 1500nm x 900nm. The Midway Islands open ocean battle area for the legendary Battle of Midway of June 1942. Maybe about 600nm x 500nm to include the Midway Islands...practically nothing but ocean and a few moving specks called aircraft carriers...and their 1 to 2 dozen escorts. And, perhaps, several prowling submarines. --These open ocean area modules might be about $10 and should be fairly quick and easy to produce...99.9% ocean...so put them out already. The real work would be making the aircraft and the ships. Yorktown-class and Essex-class carriers, Fletcher-class destroyers and Brooklyn and Cleveland-class cruisers, to start. And a couple classes of Imperial Japanese carriers, cruisers and destroyers. About 9 models of WWII USN and IJN carrier planes. Place a group of ships in a general area of ocean at random...such as within 100nm of a lat/lon. Then the attack force of planes know nothing but, "fly heading 250 for 300 NM and then just search." Of course, we can place modern ships in these vast open areas, too...and even potentially conduct submarine and anti-submarine action. Lots of searching. Lots of maximum range flights. Boring? Sure. But you have to keep your eyes open, and watch the radar scope if you have one. Blue water ops. A real need for in-flight refueling and carrier landing skills for the modern jets. Throw in something new...realistic tropical weather systems and storms, and the possibility to fly over or around them to avoid their turbulence. Add 3D modeled towering cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds...giant clouds that could stretch from 2000 feet to 50,000 feet MSL! The aircraft: USN - F4F Wildcat (AI), F6F Hellcat, SBD Dauntless, TBF Avenger (AI), TBD Devastator(AI). IJN - A6M2 "Zeke" fighters and fighter-bombers (AI), A6M5 "Zeke" fighters, D3A "Val" bomber (AI), B5N "Kate" attack-bombers (torpedo), D4Y "Judy" dive-bombers(AI). AI aircraft might come in a $40 package with the ships.

P-51D's artificial horizon is working correctly...at least as of v. 2.5.3.23954...and I expect the same on the current version. The horizon line should match the angle of the horizon you see out the window. That is: If your aircraft is banked 45-deg left, you will see the out-the-window horizon as appearing in the upper left of your screen and running down to the lower right of your screen. The horizon line of the instrument will also run from the upper left of the instrument face down to the lower right. The airplane symbol of the instrument remains fixed in a position which is parallel to your aircraft's wings. Works that way on all American aircraft since at least as far back as the 1930's, I would say. As the others have said, I too seldom uncage that instrument as I fly in visual daylight conditions and just look out the window for attitude reference. You only need it at night or in poor visibility, such as in clouds...or maybe if engine oil covers your windscreen...in which case you may be bailing out anyway.

The A-6A!! Vietnam! Read the book, "Flight of the Intruder" [Do not watch the crappy Hollywood movie of the same name with Willem Dafoe. The book is far, far superior.] The Intruder will need a "Jester" or a 2nd Player to operate the DIANE (radar/attack/nav computer system). 450kts, down on the deck! It is not a slow plane as it may appear, but it is subsonic. Big bomb load.

I like the idea of the T-6 as a "tail dragger" trainer that might be a little less frustrating to learn than the "what the hell just happened? This plane sucks!" reaction to not knowing how to fly the P-51, Spitfire, Bf-109, Fw-190, P-47, P-40, F4U, etc. But, I like the idea of the Fairchild PT-19 better. Much simpler systems...just pure learning to fly a tail dragger. The PT-19 is used in this 1943 training video, "Combat Aerobatics" --

1. Vietnam -- 660nm x 600nm or so, to cover most of Vietnam, Laos and Thailand. c. 1968 2. Philippine Sea -- from the Marianas Islands (Guam, Saipan) to about 800nm to the west, to include Yap, Ulithi and Truk islands to the south. Huge area of open Pacific Ocean for the ultimate WWII carrier battle in June 1944 that never really developed, but became the famed "Marianas Turkey Shoot". Imperial Japan lost about 315 aircraft in one day, June 19th, to the US Navy's loss of 20. About 130-deg East to 155-deg East longitude, and 5-deg North to about 20-deg North latitude. About 1500nm x 900nm. 3. Midway Islands open ocean battle area for the legendary Battle of Midway of June 1942. Maybe about 600nm x 500nm to include the Midway Islands...practically nothing but ocean and a few moving specks called aircraft carriers. --These open ocean areas should be about $7 and be quick and easy to produce...so put them out already. The real deal would be making the aircraft and the ships. Yorktown-class and Essex-class carriers, Fletcher-class destroyers and Cleveland-class cruisers, to start. And a couple classes of Imperial Japanese carriers, cruisers and destroyers. About 9 models of WWII USN and IJN carrier planes. Place a group of ships in a general area of ocean at random...such as within 100nm of a lat/lon. Then the attack force of planes know nothing but say, "fly heading 250 for 300 NM and then just search." Of course, we can place modern ships in these vast open areas, too...and even potentially conduct submarine and anti-submarine action. Lots of searching. Lots of maximum range flights. Boring? Sure. But you have to keep your eyes open, and watch the radar scope if you have one. Blue water ops. A real need for in-flight refueling and carrier landing skills for the modern jets. Throw in something new...realistic tropical weather systems and storms, and the possibility to fly over or around them. Add 3D modeled towering cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds...giant clouds that could stretch from 2000 feet to 50,000 feet MSL! 4. Korean Peninsula map, c.1951.

Viet Nam. Most definitely. If nothing more than for the F-105 missions from Thailand to North Vietnam. It's a huge area, about 660 by 600 NM. But there were a great variety of aircraft flown here and a great variety of all sorts of missions--both carrier based and land based. Rolling Thunder, Arc Light, Linebacker I & II. Combat search and rescue. Close air support. But, of course, we would have the option and freedom of flying whatever we want there. Yes, we'll need more aircraft. F-105D, F-100D&F, F-4B, C, D, & J...forget the F-4E...well, it looks like we'll already have it, though. A-4F, A-6A, A-7B, A-1E, A-1J, F-8E, F-111A. Helicopters--UH-1D (pretty close to an H, I think), H-34, H-3, H-46, H-47 and AH-1G. And the KC-135A and B-52D. I'm sure I'm missing some. Just the F-105D and KC-135A(AI) would be a start.

I would purchase a C-130 Module. Which version? Probably the USMC KC-130J. Also the USAF AC-130A/E/H. There has to be at least two or maybe three variants. I'd buy all three. Lot's of potential for multi-crew. Lots of potential for the pure joy of just hauling cargo from A to B...don't knock it. That can be a fun relief from endless blasting. Or challenging if B is a hot airstrip under fire.

NAS Fallon and NWS China Lake are Naval Air Stations that are visible on the NTTR map, but only at lower resolution satellite imagery--no details--can't land there. Fallon in the extreme northwest and China Lake in the far southwest. I think they would make useful distant airbases for longer range missions. China Lake has some target ranges like the NTTR ranges. I'd also like to have Wendover airport, just across the border from Nevada at the edge of Utah's Great Salt Lake basin -- way up to the northeast, off the map right now. It has long runways and a good sized ramp. It would make a great distant base for the map, I think.

I wish this was listed in a Known Bug List somewhere and officially addressed with a statement similar to this, at least, "We are working on these multiple night lighting issues. Will take extra coding and time." At least then we'd know we've been heard. The sunlight is shadowed so well. I don't see why multiple light sources cannot also be shadowed appropriately when the Sun is not shining. I find it most annoying in the Huey with nav lights set to flash and beacon on. They flash inside the cockpit when the light source, the beacon and the nav lights, are in positions (exterior) where they should not be able to illuminate the cockpit/cabin.

Thank you, Cobra and the rest of the Heatblur Team. It is really nice to see--and hear--the real people making these modules. I hope you'll share more behind-the-scenes info. I think it gets us in a happier mood when we see what you guys are working on and see your efforts. I know everyone here wants to get their hands on the most accurate and impressive F-14 possible, ASAP, and I think they want to help improve and perfect the module if there's any way they can. I sure do. But, for me, up until I saw this video, the people who make these modules has been a frustrating mystery...I've felt in the dark. It is so good to see and hear from you and see that you obviously really care about putting all you can into this module, and getting it right. I hope you will accept feedback from us about any problems or bugs (if any arise) and fix them quickly. Because, from my point of view, there has been a pattern amongst all modules of bugs being found and reported and seemingly never being fixed (waiting a year or more feels like never). I don't mind getting a product early and finding and reporting bugs. I don't think others do, either. What's tough is when the effort to report them seems to go no where, or not even noticed. As well, I don't know the proper procedure for reporting them...and no easy way to see what has already been reported. Please, at least try to let us know why they can't be fixed or can't be for so long. But I'll keep positive (because I don't intend to be negative at all). It sounds like for the F-14, here, you intend to release it as nearly bug free as possible. Thanks! It looks like it will be utterly awesome! I'm pre-purchased and waiting for the day.

I hope you can incorporate this idea of having an option for tone of language to suit the different tastes of us users here. Something of 1, 2 or 3 in excitement levels. Preferences are always nice.

In the Huey for DCS, looking a the throttle grip, if the word "Throttle" appears to be on the top-center of the grip after you twist it as low as it will go, you are probably still in "cut-off" and the engine will only spool up to about 35% or less and not light off--EGT will not climb. Twist the throttle up toward full throttle and then back down (probably after releasing the starter button to try again). If it now stops with the word "Friction" appearing top-center, you are likely at IDLE and can now get past 40% N1 on the next try and can successfully start the engine. It looks like if you crank it to 12% and the EGT does not climb, it may still be in cut-off. Otherwise, if you have it at the IDLE position, around 11% it will light off and the EGT will climb rather quickly into the green range, around 400 C. The N1 will make it past 40% then, and you should have a successful start.

Thanks for the info, Sandman1330. I laugh at myself a bit. I just realized I had it stuck in my head all this time that the twist grip throttle is spring loaded like that on a motorcycle. But it's not, is it? I mean that wouldn't make sense...take your hand off the collective and throttle would go to idle. ha ha. I don't think that would be good. I've only flown a real helicopter once. That was an OH-6. What a thrill that was! I didn't mess with the throttle, so I didn't learn that. Had more than I could handle with the collective, cyclic and pedals. The pilot let me transition from forward flight into a hover. I actually did it...until I fell behind the machine trying to hold it in hover. Every time I changed one control, it affected the others...or more accurately, it caused a need to adjust the others. The Huey in DCS seems a little easier in that regard...or maybe I'm just getting better at it. :) I have 33 hours now and about 120 landings. DCS isn't very good with the logbook, but I've been trying to keep track manually.

This thread is old, but the problem still exists: The UH-1H is set by default at start up to the bottom of the Kollsman window scale, 28.10 inHg, in an attempt to have it set to QFE. Suggested Solution: Provide a global preference setting in DCS for "Default to QFE" or "Default to QNH" or a 3rd option "Default to 29.92". Aircraft modules will then need to respect this option so that they default the aircraft's altimeter setting to the preference selected. Obviously, though, for NTTR the QFE setting is probably never going to work unless the Kollsman window scale in a non-US aircraft goes that far.

I've had the same problem as Kang [not Kang, I meant Frag]. I think you have to twist the throttle far enough for the throttle-stop button to pop back out, or else click it to pop it out. And then return the throttle to idle. Otherwise, for whatever reason, the engine will only spool up to 35% N1. Is that authentic to the real aircraft? I don't know. I'll do further testing to pin it down exactly what happens, if I can. Or unless someone else already knows the exact answer. I might try reading the manual again, too. :) BTW, real pilots, how far of a twist is full throttle? Is it about half a rotation of the grip? A little more than or less than 1/2? Maybe only 1/3rd of a complete rotation?

You're not the only one, Frag. I wish I could participate in testing and suggestions of airport traffic control and aircraft approach and landing patterns. I have air traffic control experience, but I'm sure I'm not the only one, either. As is in DCS 2.5.3, it seems that there is a complete lack of air traffic control. Essentially, only one aircraft can use an airport at any given time and departures have priority over arrivals, even those arrivals with critically low fuel (which is backwards). For instance, there's an F-86 on a 3-mile final to runway 8 at Creech (in NTTR map), but an F-86 on the airport ramp starts up and is ready to taxi. The F-86 on final breaks off the approach and circles around to wait for the taxiing aircraft to take off! Are you kidding me? Often the circling plane will lower and raising the gear repeatedly as if indecisive--"I'm going to land...no I can't...yes, I will land...no, going around...etc". And sometimes that circling plane will decide to fly into a mountain in clear and unlimited daytime conditions. It does all this while the F-86 on the ground is taxiing to the runway for minutes. Only after the F-86 gets airborne will the aircraft in the air resume trying to land...and if there is more than one in the air trying to land, chaos sets in. I haven't been able to determine the logic behind which aircraft gets to land when. Sometimes flights of aircraft will circle to fuel exhaustion trying to figure out who gets to land...with lots of use of afterburners. The way it should be is that taxiing aircraft are given limitations. Taxi and hold short of runway. Arrivals keep arriving and should be sequenced and spaced with adequate intervals. After an arrival passes a taxiway intersection where a plane is holding, that plane can cross the runway. There's time before the next arrival. If an arrival has to go around, it should continue flying a standard pattern, not circle on or near the final approach path. Departures can line up on the taxiway short of and clear of the runways waiting for a space in arrivals to use the runway for departure. I have a scenario with nine F-86F's operating into and out of Creech: four departures and 5 arrivals. Plus the departures fly a wide circuit up toward Groom Lake and return to become arrivals as well. I gave them generous spacing so that they will actually conduct takeoffs and landings without conflict. But when I fly amongst them in a tenth plane, I can sometimes interfere with the "clockwork". I spawn the arrivals about 10 miles out and descend them and slow them in steps to about a 5-mile final where the AI takes them in to a landing. I time the departures so they don't make an arrival go around. It all takes over an hour to play out and gives the airport a feeling of activity which is more interesting to fly missions out of. When inbound, unfortunately, I have to look at the F10 map view to find out where the traffic is because "ATC" tells nothing. There should be a custom ATC for each controlled airport in each map...well, just Nevada NTTR, I guess, because I don't know ho they do it in Caucasus and Persian Gulf areas, and Normandy didn't really have ATC back then..."The wind is out of the West at 10. Land from the East." So I make an overhead approach at 450 knots at Creech. ATC tells me "Cleared for visual, contact tower". Tower tells me to check landing gear, cleared to land." As I streak over the runway at 2000' AGL, 450kts, tower tells me "go around, runway occupied." I know it's a lie because I'm banked 90-deg in the break turn to downwind and can see the whole empty runway below. ha Most of the jets in DCS should normally make an "overhead approach" in visual weather conditions (in the US, anyway). Even the C-130 can make an overhead approach. That's where they over fly the runway in the landing direction about 2000 feet above the runway at 250 to 450 knots and "break" to the downwind, descending to pattern altitude and speed and circle the pattern to land. When the weather prevents the visual overhead approach, then they will have to do an instrument approach...ILS, GPS or other non-precision approach or PAR. PAR is a precision approach directed by a controller on the ground by use of approach path and glide path monitoring radar and issuing a string of verbal commands to the pilot on the radio to which the pilot need not reply. Pilot compliance is seen on the radar scope. In addition to this, AI "pilots" in DCS seldom fly smoothly and often cheat physics. I don't care if they fake physics as long as they fake it believably. And then there is wind and runway selection. I guess they refer to wind differently in Europe or Russia. On the weather definition page in the sim, the arrows point to where the wind is going, not where the wind is coming from. The speed is apparently in meters per second, even though I have it set to English units and it claims "kts". So, double that and you get approximately knots. So set it to 6 kts in the mission editor and it will blow a 6 meters per second or 11.66 kts in the sim. At Creech you can set the wind to 15 kts out of the West and ATC will still tell you to taxi to runway 8. I'm not taking off with a 15-knot tailwind! I'd like to know what rules they've applied to determine runway selection for departures and arrivals. It should be less than 3 kts is considered calm wind and use airport designated "calm wind" runway...which has to be Rwy 26 at Creech. It is the longest runway and there are mountains to the west that interfere with approaches to Rwy 8. Otherwise, the runway most aligned into the wind. So, wind 240 @ 15kts, means Rwy 26 is the runway in use.

I'll 2nd this! A-4B is essentially the same as the Argentinian A-4P/Q, as most of you probably know. However, as much as it may look the same on the outside, I don't know what instruments and systems the A-4P might have had different from the A-4B. Same with the A-4C. The A-4C has a radar in the nose. The A-4B does not have a scanning-type radar, not sure if it had something similar to the F-86F or just nothing, basically just a fixed, depressible sight (DSL). So which version to make for DCS? Depends on where it will be used. If for the Falklands, then I'd say the A-4B/P/Q. If for a 1965-67 Vietnam Map, then I would say the A-4E or F. And if for the Persian Gulf Map, then the A-4M/KU. My favorite Skyhawk--possibly favorite aircraft of all time--would be the A-4E with the J52-P-6A. But I also have a great affinity for that A-4B and its simplicity!...and that dirty old, single-spool J65-W-16 engine it had. I would frown a bit on the A-4M because it would seem too close in time period to the AV-8B N/A we already have. I believe all the Skyhawks have the same wing and tail plane...A-4F and later having split-flap spoilers. The J65-powered Skyhawks had a smaller engine-air intake than those with the J52's. Three different noses for the A/B, the C, and the E-and-later, as radar and avionics were added. Whichever Skyhawk you make--if we should be so lucky as to get one at all--I'll buy it! Maybe if you had an annual license requirement for the A-4 of $19.95 per year. Maybe then a lot of people would try it. If they didn't like it, they don't renew and aren't out much money. Alternatively, offer a non-expiring license for $119.95...I'd take that...if something like this is what it would take to get the plane, I'd go for it. Real fans of the A-4 would pay $300 for it...as long as they could get prompt results from reporting bugs and inaccuracies. Then you would have an invested beta-testing team...dedicated to making the A-4 the best module.

I noticed the same. GBU-12 and GBU-16 mounted directly to a pylon is mounted too high as if the pylon is imbedded into the bomb. F-5E-3 has the same problem with Mk-82LD's and GBU-12's. So not sure if it is an aircraft module problem or somewhere else. I also noticed there is a choice of three SUU-25 dispensers on a TER (triple ejector rack). However, they were invisible when installed on pylon #2. I didn't test it on pylon #6. Or they did not install when the ground loading menu accepted it, and therefore were invisible. Not sure which it is. One more item: Please check if two or three GBU-16's can be loaded on a TER. The ordnance chart in your (RAZBAM) Pocket Guide says it is "legal" for 3 on pylons #3 & #5. But looking at them loaded, the tail fins hit each other. They look like they are properly positioned on the TER, however. (I don't know how to upload a picture to show you)

The AV-8B has what appears to be the same problem but only with the GBU-12 (Mk-82-based) and GBU-16 (Mk-83-based). Does this mean it is not the 'fault' of either aircraft module?

What does that mean, "a problem with the new 3D model"? The 3D model of the Mk-82 series bomb? Are these same Mk-82 weapon models used on all applicable aircraft in DCS? Because it does seem to be only the Mk-82-based weapons--Mk-82 LD, Mk-82 SE & GBU-12. It occurs on inboard and outboard wing pylons and centerline pylon, but not on the MER (multiple ejector rack). While other bombs are correctly placed on the pylons, including the BDU-50LD--the blue "dummy" Mk-82's. But we can't place five BDU-50LD's on the MER...or I suspect we would see them standing too far off the MER ejector mounts (the opposite error). So, I was thinking maybe the bomb racks have "mount position coordinates" relative to the aircraft 3D (visual) model and the bombs (and other stores) probably have "mounting position coordinates" relative to their 3D model. I was thinking that for the Mk-82 series, this "mount position" might be in error...if it works like that. And since nothing else can be mounted on the MER, the Mk-82 LD's probably look fine there because the mount positions on the MER might be in error to match perfectly the error on the Mk-82 LD's. So, when the Mk-82's get fixed, the MER will probably have to be fixed, too. Maybe the TER's on other aircraft that use the Mk-82's, as well. Any idea when this might get fixed? I understand there are probably a lot of other issues that need fixing, too.

SP. Never tried online...just haven't gotten to it yet. Never tried a campaign...just haven't gotten to it yet...or I'm afraid to get my butt kicked all the time because I'm not good enough, ha ha. I can't bear the thought of a smart teenager or a man with a gray beard and a beer putting 20mm through me from 4 different ways while I'm trying to find the Master Arm switch. :) I like learning the aircraft and making my own missions that go at my pace...where I usually survive. The detail of the aircraft, scenery and the versatility and freedom of the simulation are what keeps me. I would really, really love AI that knew how to fly the various aircraft, though. AI that flew correctly and realistically in formation flight, too. That's one of the most painful-to-watch parts of the sim, when a pair of AI planes in formation makes a turn or approaches an airport for landing. Anyone ever heard of the overhead break to the landing pattern? If you were bingo fuel, would you light off the afterburner to get home quickly? So many basic rules are needed in the AI...and it would seem so simple to implement compared to the systems and flight models of aircraft. If paid-for modules are what drives excellence in the sim, then I'd pay money to get some real intelligence in AI. We need an Enhanced AI module.

I ran across this, too. Does it do the same thing in the real aircraft, I wonder? :)

I HEAR you guys!! And I agree so much! AI pilots, AI aircraft and AI ATC is very poor. It's so frustrating that so little is ever done to improve them when we get such fantastically detailed aircraft to fly like the MiG-21bis, F/A-18C, A-10C, F-5E and AV-8B (to name a few). It just can't be that difficult to make improvements on AI. Maybe it's money. Maybe there needs to be an "Enhanced AI" module for $70. We can talk and talk and talk on here, but is anyone who can make a difference even listening? AI wingmen will do things like call bingo fuel. You tell them RTB. They say "roger" and light the burner and fly home at 10,000 feet! Afterburner on and off with speedbrake! While I head back to the same base 15 minutes later at 33,000 feet and economical power setting. I make it with fuel to spare. AI flames out and ejects 20 miles from the field. No threats the whole way. AI needs to be programmed with the concepts of optimal climb speed, optimal cruising altitude and speed for distance and fuel remaining, and don't use the afterburner. (In the advanced waypoint settings, does restrict afterburner "on" mean they will not use the afterburner?) Also optimal letdown distance and speed. And AI needs to know how to make an overhead approach and pattern. ATC needs to know how to vector for the overhead approach and sequence traffic in the pattern and on the airport. Planes in the air circle (and crash into mountains) because one on the ground is taxiing to a runway!! If a plane does hold short of a runway while taxiing, it holds at the edge of the runway, not the hold lines. A KC-135 on a perfect downwind at 170 knots turns base and goes 100% power to accelerate to 300 kts, overshoots final and has to make a 270 back to final. What the heck?? Mig-21 turning to line up with runway seems to overshoot, lights the burner, cycles the gear 3 times and makes left and right turns...then impacts a low hill. What the hell is the stream of instructions going to it? Mig-21 flies for 30 minutes at 140 kts with afterburner on and high AOA at 1000' AGL to dogfight something like a P-51! It's absurd! The flight models AI use are of poor realism and over-performing. The AI Mig-21 with afterburner on at low altitude has a specific fuel consumption of something around 0.5 lbs fuel per lb-thrust per hr, it seems. Reality is probably closer to 2.0.