Exorcet

You want to avoid the default tasks. Those are only good for simple situations, like making an AI attack something for testing purposes. DCS does need some AI improvements, but you don't have to test every last thing. You will have to learn some of DCS's quirks but when you do, you can make simple attack runs that work 98% of the time in just a few seconds. You also don't have to script a mission to the point where you know everything that happens. When I said the Search Then Engage was more predictable I meant it makes the AI stick to a task rather than randomly flying all over the place. Also keep in mind that real combat missions are scripted to an extent. Actual pilots plan how they attack and how they will defend against being attacked. That's what you're setting up with AI waypoint actions. Even if DCS improves there really isn't any way around giving the AI the needed context it needs to approach its mission. If you share your mission file I and others can look at it and try to help you figure out how to set the AI to get what you want.

Were you using the default SEAD task? I delete the default ones and use Search Then Engage usually. Gives more predictable behavior. I don't recall seeing my SEAD flights going in for gun kills in recent missions.

I believe the XMIM-115 of the Roland also suffers from this issue.

FC3 won't be going anywhere. They should perform very closely. I also wouldn't say that the FF one has to be more difficult as FF comes with more capability and having the cockpit controls is an advantage. Though depending on additional limitations, there may be more challenges depending on what is being done.

I know there will be jokes made, but it's a really good question. I'm sure a lot of people just look at DCS as a place to blow stuff up, but with the flight modeling and systems modeling being so good it also has a lot of potential as a flight game without combat. We will have to wait and see what the DC will ultimately end up being but if it's really good it should offer the ability to generate non combat missions as well as combat ones. Or perhaps more low intensity stuff where something like a Yak could fit in and not be totally overwhelmed by cutting edge SAM's, etc. If the DC is only able to provide straight forward strike or CAP missions that users can then edit further, it will have done its job and that's fine. I'm holding out for the possibility that it can do more and maybe even orchestrate things like communication between AI units and players (imagine if it was smart enough to automatically create F10 radio options for example). Maybe those things are out of a scope, but if ED can figure out how to include them it would solidify the DC as the core of DCS content for all modules.

I know preferences vary from person to person, but the ME gives you unlimited content in DCS. I haven't actually played any of the official content for any module because of the ME and I never consider what content is available for a given module because of that. The ME will take some time to learn, but making small missions is pretty simple. DCS also gives you tool to randomize missions so that even if you make them, you don't necessarily know what will happen when you fly them. In the longer term ED is working on a Dynamic Campaign to produce content automatically. There is a very very simple version of this already available in the Fast Mission Generator.

Just wanted to bump this again as it has been a long standing issue and I've never been able to get clarification on if it's intended or if it's a bug. Either way reverting to the old system where the plane jumped from followed its route would be useful in a lot of situations, especially when wingmen don't quite do their jobs.

If you're bombing vehicles, CAS is the task to use. Then you can tell the AI to find and attach vehicles on its own with Search Then Engage (in Zone). It won't use JDAM's for this though since they can't track moving targets. Disperse under fire off should stop the vehicles from moving.

Start is a triggered action for the group, under Commands. You won't find it under the trigger menu, unless it was added on a unit, then it shows as an option for AI Task Push. DCS works as it does because uncontrolled was added some time after late activation (which is the same as changing the start time). It is also useful to have the start command tied to triggers and not WP0 time because then you can make AI start in reaction to events, like an enemy attack of unknown time.

The issue might be more complicated then. If someone from ED sees this they may ask for a log from your last session with stuttering. You can find the logs in the Saved Games folder, C:\...\Saved Games\DCS\Logs I don't know if this will help, but having it here might save a tiny bit of time.

It's more than maps. I don't have stutters anywhere. What is your PC? Do you use mods? How large are your missions? If you're using a HDD instead of a SSD, that might be hurting you.

Modules are fine. You don't have to own the same ones. You do need to own the same module to fly multicrew in 2+ seats. Both players need asset packs to see the associated units from those.

I think civil traffic in this case means the road traffic.

Typically I set refueling on AI ingress, I've used pushes a couple of times I believe and this seems to work as expected. Is the next waypoint after your CAP a landing? If so maybe the push is making the AI consider the orbit and CAP task ended. What happens if you set up a waypoint with a refueling command and instead of directly ordering refuel tell the AI to switch to that waypoint? Set the waypoint up so it's skipped initially, so WP1 (include switch to WP 3) > WP2 (refueling) WP3 > WP4 (CAP and orbit). This would mean that there is definitely a CAP and orbit task after the refueling.

Ship formations are an issue and I agree with the suggestion to have better control over their movements. Some automation would also be nice, like trying to avoid attackers when applicable. Due to the issues with ships I'm generally very careful when making them maneuver. I usually try as much as possible to limit them to straight lines and have them change speed rather than direction. Groups of one ship won't have the issue obviously so there is at least that solution, but it's less ideal from a mission building perspective.

Even if it is feature complete, ED can still listen to ideas. DCS is not set in stone.

If the smoke doesn't end up resting on top of the building, the only thing I can think of is to try placing a unit on the building and then hoping it explodes from the attack, forcing it to explode with the Explode Unit trigger, or use smoke marker on unit to place smoke on it. This might interact strangely when removing the building though.

Some unique buildings do not have damage models and you're probably attacking those. You might be able to remove them with Scenery Removal trigger. You can add the smoke and fire by activating Smoke/Fire static objects. Something similar was asked in this thread: Instead of using a mission start trigger, you can use Once and Bomb in Zone to trigger the indestructible buildings to be removed with a clear scenery trigger instead of a destroy building triggers. Or perhaps add a destructible unit near the building and trigger the building to vanish and produce smoke if that unit is destroyed.

You can just change the controls to match MSFS, for the most part, as DCS inputs are customizable. There's no reason to change the defaults and that could negatively impact people using the controls as is. Moving around the cockpit with the mouse also works in DCS, you just need to use the command for it. Was it double middle mouse click?

You do need to setup the second install if you want it to match the first, but DCS saves a lot of information in the Saved Games folder and from there you can copy from one DCS folder to another. This won't always work 100% because updates sometimes change controls and things, but it should work most of the time. The Config folder contains module controls and sim options. Also backup your DCS folders in Saved Games before messing around with them just to be safe.

I very rarely update right away and actually have two installs of DCS. One for normal use and one to try the latest update. It's also possible change versions, including going backwards, with the DCS updater. So it's possible for you to stick to a specific version while also playing with others on the latest version through multiple means.

I don't use MIST, but you could do this with no scripting at all, or at least something similar. Spawn a bomber group with multiple waypoints and multiple switch waypoint triggered actions. Have it orbit at spawn and then trigger it to go to a specific waypoint when required. I don't know exactly what you're trying to do so this may not be a good solution, but it is a way to make a plane take a random route to an objective.

I was able to reproduce on the Caucasus Two versions of the mission. I tried to see if moving the disembark point away from the waypoint would help. With the disembark at the default location (on top of transport waypoint) the troops ran. Moving the disembark off to the side of the waypoint helped, at first. But trying a second time, the troops starting running again. I think part of the issue is the troops being too close to the transport on disembark. They sometimes slide away from the vehicle as if they are being pushed by its hitbox. Or maybe they are colliding with each other. test_embark_forever_run_black_sea_offset.miz test_embark_forever_run_BlackSea_offset.trk test_embark_forever_run_black_sea.miz test_embark_forever_run_BlackSea.trk

This is very much needed. I try to steer comments away from the user files section and on to the forum where I would actually see it, but most people comment in the User Files anyway. It can take me years to respond to something posted there as I have no way of knowing without checking everything I've uploaded.

The bug might be ever weirder. I made a mission to try to replicate no embark, I could not reproduce it. But it did reproduce forever run: I did not save that track, but I took the above screenshot. I also backed out and saved the mission first because of the previous issues with saves. Then I played the mission intending to save the track and everything worked as expected. Saving the mission might change how/if the bug appears? More testing, moving the mission editor camera so as to get the save because of changes prompt and then running the mission causes the bug to appear. The bug might appear when the save prompt does in the ME. test_embark_2.miz test_embark_2_success_after_saving.trk