Exorcet

Yes that's correct. But the request is still valid. I'd like to see the ability to change a template's country and to copy and paste between countries. If you try it currently the units are changed to the first in the list of their category from what I remember.

You don't need to see it. The nice thing about boom refueling is that you only need to get into place and then the boom operator does the rest of the work. Granted DCS's boom operator can be a bit eccentric, but you can get it to work most of the time. Start with the approach to the tanker. Don't come in too fast, you want to nicely settle into a speed close to the tanker's starting from a couple of miles out. When you get closer try to match the tanker's speed before connecting. This will let you reference your engine fuel flow and use it as a guide for your throttle. I find this easier than trying to set a specific speed. You can also get your fuel amount to show up on the DED by pressing LIST > 2. With that you won't need to move your head around as much and can keep an eye on the tanker.

This would make an excellent addition. IFF should be included as well I'd think. Perhaps having the AI hesitate to shoot without visual ID, instead of now where they will release weapons on the instant they are in envelope even in a mess furball in clouds.

For me this is one of the biggest points here, even more than the modules themselves. Post Hawk ED was supposed to have taken steps to prevent the situation from repeating, but obviously this didn't happen with RAZBAM. Why not? And does this problem extend to other modules?

I mean pay fairly for work done. Some unrelated party making new modules would have nothing to do with the previous modules. It would only make sense to pay for work done. No one buying the modules caused the problems, that's true. That doesn't mean we're entitled to free things.

Replacement as in someone else develops the same planes and the people who own the originals get to swap them out, sounds unlikely. Replacement as in someone else at some point makes the same planes and sells them as new modules, sure. I have no qualms buying them, if well made and supported, again as they would be their own individual modules with all the work that entails, but I wouldn't expect that for quite some time.

My answer is the same for pretty much all modules, the mission editor. The ME isn't that difficult to use in my opinion but it does take some time to learn. ME missions also don't have to be predictable even if you're the one who made them. There are many ways to add elements of surprise or random events into missions. There are also a few automated mission creation tools outside of DCS if you really don't want to use the ME. Briefing Room being one example. I have never used these tools though so I'm not familiar with them.

Some drag index data here: This is for the real jet. approximations labeled as aprx, NO DATA indicates a guess. The drag of the fuel tanks (CT for center tank, WT for wing tanks) depends on the other stores on the plane. There was an issue in the past with stores drag that I believe has been resolved and stores drag should be close to accurate now:

Hi BIGNEWY, I do have support for the takeoff rollout but this looks essentially correct to me and I had included it to try to see if the issue here, if there is one, is drag or thrust related. I can still share if you'd like. My primary question was on the original investigation as the thread is still labeled as "Investigating" and there was no follow up after the March 21, 2024 reply. Was the examination conducted? Was the F-16 level flight acceleration deemed correct? Thanks I agree that more test flights would be helpful. I've shared the original tracks (hopefully they still work) so the methodology is there for anyone to copy. For DI I've been using a spreadsheet. F-16 Stores Drag dash1source.zip

I was sent a helpful suggestion to test the F-16 takeoff roll since there was some discussion on whether the acceleration issues were down to drag or thrust. I've done the tests and it looks like the thrust in mil power is giving expected results. Test 1 - 34015 lbs 102 DI Real KIAS at 2000 ft from brake release - 136 Sim KIAS at 2000 ft from brake release - ~135 Test 2 - 42000 lbs at 144 DI Real KIAS at 2000 ft from brake release - 122 Sim KIAS at 2000 ft from brake release - ~120 Testing was done at Sas Al Nakheel in Hormuz at 10 ft MSL. Engine run to 90% RPM before throttle up to mil and brake release. This suggests that drag may actually be the culprit, though there is a possibility that the thrust curve of the engine is correct at very low speeds and incorrect at flight speeds. A response from ED @BIGNEWY @Lord Vader would be helpful. I have the source data as well, but following the procedure from last year will not post in forum.

The JF does not have the best radar. The target, aspect, and radar settings also play a part:

More options for AI tasking would be nice. Along with different shapes, being able to edit the 50% disengage radius is needed. The logic behind having is sound but for large zones it quickly becomes too big and for small zones it becomes too small. The existing other engage tasks also need some tweaking.

The F-14 being a two seater is the big question. Do you mesh with Jester? Do you have a human to sit in the RIO seat (or the pilot seat)? The F-14 is fantastic in a number of ways but I prefer single seat aircraft and as such have not used it as much as some other planes in complex missions. If you feel comfortable with a backseater, either AI or human, I'd certainly recommend it. The F-15 that is coming, with no timeline yet, will be similar while offering a single seater experience, so maybe consider that. The F1 and MiG-29 are pretty different being West vs East and a generation apart. The MiG has amazing performance and good missiles but is designed around less pilot autonomy which restricts how it can be used. The F1 isn't the best BVR fighter with shorter range less capable missiles. It's the most demanding to fly of the three as well. I wouldn't say that any of them are a bad choice, but the have their own pros and cons.

For player modules, variety can be difficult to achieve. In the case of AI units it's less complicated because AI units are simpler. With that simplicity we also don't need 100% accuracy, more like 80%, to throw out a number. There is probably a lot that can be done with Lua edits. 3D models are more work but for me that is less important than capabilities. I don't think AI variants are out of scope for DCS.

Not exactly what was asked for here, but I've also wanted some randomization for spawn times and came up with a low tech solution using triggers. Normally the random trigger only allows integer probabilities, which isn't all that useful because it amounts to a few minutes of variation at most. However these can be stacked and after stacking you can work out the math to figure out the time range at which you can highly expect a spawn. Example: This image shows the timings for 7 stacked random triggers, one set to 10% and the others 100% (so effectively one 10% random). Then I have a breakdown of the trigger success change by the second, minute, and hour. I vary the initial random triggers until I get a ~99% probability of success at the time I want. For example if I wanted a trigger to vary up to 24 minutes I'd maybe set the random values to 4 and 8, corresponding to two random triggers of 4% and 8% stacked together in the ME and get this: You can also put an OR condition in your trigger to force the spawn at the end time if you don't like relying on 99+% probability instead of 100. Spreadsheet attached for anyone who might find it useful. DCS_Random_Trigger_Probability.ods

Yes. To set up multiple routes in DCS, you need to make a very long string of waypoints covering all the possibilities and then use a trigger to push the AI to a specific waypoint to skip the sections of the route that you don't want it to fly. Ideally at the end of every individual route you also have another switch waypoint command pointing to the landing area. I've set this up in a few of my own missions, but it can be a cluttered mess and it's easy to lose track of what's happening. When it works, it does work fairly well at least. A better option may be to have special points than any unit can reference:

Indeed, however dogfights are more complicated than flying at a constant condition as in test fights. I don't think a solid conclusion can be reached from matching static testing alone. It may be that the AI doesn't pull any more g than it should while it also simultaneously doesn't feel some of the design limitations of the aircraft (as is the case for props without a doubt) or that the AI's physics violations are limited to specific actions, such as transient maneuvers or its reaction to an adversary.

Interesting discussion and nice to see someone attempt to bring data into this. However I wouldn't say that comparing the envelope and turn performance is definitive. I think at least some of the issue with the AI comes from transient maneuvers and edge of envelope performance. The AI never seems to struggle near stall. It's especially visible with WWII fighters as they can maintain a perfect climb under full power at virtually zero airspeed and not have to deal with the torque effects of props at all, nor cooling issues as far as I can tell. From experience the SFM also seems to do weird stuff during transient maneuvers. For example I'm not sure if there is any performance hit to holding max sustained turn while also rolling for the AI. The AI also seems to have unnatural abilities when it comes to changing speed, like somehow magically decelerating while the afterburner is engaged. Stuff like that may not show up in simple flight tests. It's also compounded by AI super SA. They know your speed at all times and will react to any change to your maneuvering even if they shouldn't be able to detect it.

I see, yes some expanded options like that would be nice. All of that is technically possible in DCS with the switch waypoint command, but it can take a lot of work.

Sure these were special occasions with many limitations, but it's up to the mission maker to construct the scenario. I do understand the reasoning behind some of the ME limitations like only carrier aircraft on carriers and ships only on the sea, but they don't need to be enforced all the time. Things like that should be toggles ideally so that unusual situations can be created when the need arises.

It is not horrible, it is horribly unfriendly, and I don't think that's hyperbole. An interface for it should exist in the ME at the very least. Having to manually edit files is very tedious and not the most obvious way of getting the kneedboard setup. The mission editor briefing at least used to allow a simpler option of somewhat replicating the kneeboard for less effort (but also less capability) but then for whatever reason a forced paused was added to that making realistic use of it impossible. Thankfully that can be disabled through Lua editing, but for whatever reason it remains overly difficult to get simple mission information presented to pilots in a realistic way.

Absolutely. The kneeboard is horribly user unfriendly for how important it is.

Definitely not a fan of wheel menus at all, though I do appreciate getting an update for communications finally. If possible, arranging the new updates in a smaller linear menu would be a nice option.

I very much appreciate having accurate controls for an aircraft. It helps with immersion, training, and proficiency. If I could, I'd have a cockpit for every module. So as far as is it beneficial to get accurate controls, absolutely. Is it worth the cost? That's a personal question.

It seems intentional. It only works on flyable planes and then only those in your own coalition. It is unfortunately undocumented, but that's not uncommon in DCS. Functionally, it's great as a tool to get around AI wingman silliness. Set your own plane to orbit and then take control of a wingman to go shoot something they refuse to do through radio orders. As it's not the topic here though, I guess enough has been said about it.