michelip

Thanks Hawkeye - not much other response to that suggestion, but I have another item for the wish list: At the moment all shipping, static or moving is limited to the ocean. Fair enough for large ships, but Mission Ed. wont let us place any vessel in inland waterways (i.e.canals or rivers). Allied strafing/rocketing of small canal/river transport boats and barges was common in WW2, especially in northern France. Surely a couple of simple cargo barges and perhaps a barge-tug could be added to the assets. Ideally, these would be mobile and damageable, but if that is too hard, then as stationary objects placeable on such waterways. They would make interesting and realistic targets. Any feedback on that? Regards, Mich

Hi David, Thanks for reply on this issue. Normandy is now out and I (and probably many others) hope that the developers will now treat AI repair as a priority. I do understand that it is easier to complain about a fault than to overcome difficult coding to fix it. I'm sure we all understand that it will be a work in progress and will take some time, but it appears that no action has yet commenced. One only needs to look at the many threads reporting significant AI problems to realise that it is a real spoiler of an otherwise excellent sim. It seems only fair to let everyone know if the DCS teams are yet actually working on it, and if so, their progress. Regards, Mich.

I have the same problem with train speed. Also can't see train when press F7 ( enemy objects) in mission. Mich.

A.I. - The single worst feature of DCS. I know that this is not a new topic, but with the advent of the NORMANDY map I realised that there was still one major DCS defect, regardless of the excellence of the map or theatre of war: I wonder if the developers fully realise what a sim.- killer their current AI is. In a simulation that otherwise excels in performance & reality, we still have no clear indication that AI will be corrected any time soon. In case they are unaware, here are a few of the A.I. faults: 1. The selection of A.I. skill in mission Ed. makes no apparent difference to A.I. behaviour. 2. A.I. planes have ridiculously inflated performance in maneuverability, speed and rate of climb. 3. A.I. planes can survive significantly more damage than player-piloted ones. 4. AI pilots and gunners are superhuman marksmen. 5. A.I. vehicles do not always follow waypoints, and sometimes behave erratically. 6. A.I. vehicles (e.g. Trains in Normandy ) often do not comply with speeds set in Mission Ed. Simulation reality and immersiveness go beyond graphics, performance and sound - good A.I. is critical to realism, and that means three or four clearly different grades of AI skill that really reflect the differences you would expect to see in ordinary pilots and machines. If you try the experiment of attacking your own side's aircraft, you get no evasion or resistance, and that is equally unsatisfactory. So we have nothing in-between. Please, dear developers, give us an idea if you intend to treat this as a priority. Best regards Mich.

I cannot drive any of the Allied WW II armour in the Normandy map even though the "Player can drive" box is ticked. When I try to drive them, the screen just goes black and you get no internal view. Is this a common problem or just mine? Regards, Mich.

Re. Vinnie's comments: As well as trees obstructing runway approaches, some trees should be removed from alongside roads and railways. Whilst trees are probably the most important single natural feature of the Normandy map, they are very uniform, and make it hard to detect road and rail traffic, even from the air. From the ground, in Combined Arms, enemy AI tanks have the advantage of X-ray vision, and can hit you through several rows of trees before you can see them.There should be some random gaps of three or four trees every few hundred metres to add realism in both scenery and action. Perhaps these corrections, both as to runways, roads and rail, could be covered in the same update. Mich.

It seems from recent posts (my own included) that it might help the developers to gather in one thread a wish list of Mission Editor objects of the WW II era. Many of the existing M.E. placeable objects are too modern to fit the D-Day atmosphere which the Normandy map creates. There are many missing objects which would greatly enhance that atmosphere. I'm sure that the developers will already have many such objects in mind for future updates, but it can't hurt to let them know which ones we think most important. In listing our wishes it would help to specify if they should be A.I. or stationary, and also any added comments such as weathering would help. As an example, I would suggest something like this: (1) WW II era British, German and French civilian motor vehicles - A.I. - Weathered, (2)Small group of airfield ground personnel - standing and sitting - Stationary, (3) Bomb tractor - Stationary - Weathered. Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas. Regards, Mich.

I agree with those comments. Clearly the developers have done a magnificent job in the Normandy map, which no doubt will continually be improved. My wish list for that would include: More placeable objects in Mission Ed.: For the forward airfields a variety of tents and some WW2 style Nissan huts would go a long way toward greater authenticity. The FARP tents look good, but we need a few more varieties of WW2 tents. Also, some more "clutter" objects such as miscellaneous crates, boxes, un-crated oil drums (in addition to the existing cargo objects) , some 1940's civilian motor vehicles, a bomb tractor, a bulldozer, and a few stationary human figures ( or groups) sitting or crouching. As to the map itself, while I love the sheer complexity of roads, terrain, trees and towns, I would like to see a few stretches of road and rail with some random gaps in the trees every kilometre or so. This would reduce the uniformity and add realism, as well as giving better opportunity to attack road and rail traffic with armour and from the air. Regards to all, Mich

Thanks Justificus. Do you add each wagon as a separate entity, or do you make TRAIN (the locomotive), say, 1 of 5 and make 2,3,4 &5 the rolling stock? If you could walk me through the moves it would be a great help. Regards, Mich.

I see that TRAIN now appears in the vehicle list for the 3rd. Reich. In Mission Ed. you can place a train on a railway with waypoints that automatically follow the track. However, on saving and flying the mission no train appears. I have tried triggers but with same result. Has anyone been able to get AI trains to work? Regards, Mich.

ATC Vectors in DCS Many thanks Zhukov. Regards, Mich.

I am puzzled by ATC instructions after I radio "Inbound". The instruction gives a heading and then adds some number. E.g. "Fly 270 for 10". Is the second number a distance? If so, in what units? Can anyone help? Regards, Mich.

Thanks Orso - Once again I am indebted to you. I managed to get 3 Fortresses to bomb Evreux airfield. Details of distances, speed and altitude are: W/point 1 was 5.6 n.m. from target. W/point 2 (bombing W/point) 2.6 n.m. from Tgt. Bomber altitude: 6,500', speed 270 Kn. Wind was left neutral. Pattern was 300' long, ending at the targeting triangle. Thanks again, Mich.

Can anyone show me how to (a) arm the B-17's, and (b) make them bomb in single missions? As to arming, I have tried to arm by selecting NEW>New load out, and naming the bombs Mk 82*2. When this is selected as the load out in Mission Ed. it reverts back to "Empty" on the load out page upon saving the mission. I have tried exporting appropriate bombs from load outs of other aircraft for Ground Attack and Airfield Attack missions without success. As to bombing, my failures are probably due to fact that I cannot arm the Fortresses, but I have tried all methods available in Advanced (waypoint actions) without any success both through "Set Option">Action>Formation etc. and the "Perform Task">"Bombing" It all seems so unnecessarily complicated, but I know it is early days yet. Any help will be gratefully received. Regards, Mich.

Thanks Andy & Orso - Will give it another go. Cheers, Mich

Does anyone know if it is possible (or will be possible) to arm (with bombs) the AI B-17's in the Normandy theatre? Regardless of mission type, they all show as unarmed. Regards, Mich.

I'm sure that this topic has been raised before but it needs emphasising that the difference in the A.I. skill levels seems almost non-existent. A.I. speeds, climb and turn rates defy the laws of reality regardless of the skill setting. This takes a lot of realism and enjoyment from the sim., particularly for those who enjoy creating single play missions. We need at least three distinct A.I. flying / gunnery skill levels: High, Medium and Low. Stated as percentages of total AI skill, High could be (say) 75%, Medium 50% and Low 25%. Apart from adding realism and enjoyment, this would help in training for air combat, allowing us to progress upward to match the various skill levels. Surely this is not beyond the capacity of the DCS development team. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Peter

Robert's idea should not be dismissed lightly. Look how D.C.S. has been improved by Combined Arms vehicles, and they are not aircraft. Being able to control any ground vehicle that might be of military significance is, surely, relevant. Let's broaden our minds. For now I would be happy with well modelled AI trains that could be programmed in Mission Ed.

Lack of bomb delay fusing in DCS. The ability to enter a delay of dumb bomb detonation would add significantly to realism and the player's bombing skills. Very low level bombing and skip-bombing were valuable techniques in WW2: e.g. the Mosquito raids on the Amiens prison (operation Jericho)and the Liberators on the Ploesti Oil refineries (operation Tidal Wave). Try it any lower than 500 ft in DCS and you're dead. Given the brilliance of the DCS developers, I wonder how hard it could be to allow the player to dial in (say) a 1.5 or 2 second delay when bombing up before a mission?.

I agree that DCS AI behaviour is so dysfunctional that it is dragging down an otherwise great sim. ; in particular the lack of difference between AI skill settings. Many of us prefer to single - play and to hone our skills by working up the enemy AI scale of skill. We need AI to have at least 3 grades: novice, medium and ace. Novice skill could be 30%, medium 50% and ace 80%.The developers should not treat this as a minor issue. If left uncorrected it will become a real game - spoiler.