Exorcet

Placeable light objects are something I've found myself wanting as well. The best that can be done currently is to place the one or two vehicles with illuminating headlights as lights, or to use illumination flares. Both have issues though. For helipads though, there should be lights built in with the option to turn them on or off, it would save on the object count in missions and mean we only need to place the helipad and not many lights (though if the helipad lights were toggable, they could be toggled off and lights could be placed if the mission maker so wanted).

Data has been sent.

Comparing AB to Mil in acceleration it looks like it's probably thrust. AB accel is much closer to the real jet, especially when supersonic. Subsonic accel was slightly underperforming, but that was probably because of imperfect flying when the jet is close to stall at the low starting speed.

For a while now I've felt like the mil power performance of the F-16 was a little low, though I chalked it up to the DCS version being Blk 50 as the GE engines favor AB over dry thrust. However I did finally get around to do some testing and it looks like there is a lack of thrust/overprediction in fuel flow even taking into account the F110's. I have tracks attached, though due to forum rules I am not posting the source info. I can send it via message. Summary of the issue: Testing at DI 102 at 34015 lbs weight to compare to data at DI 100 at 34000 lbs weight DCS shows increased Delta between speeds when accelerating under full mil power. This not only impacts acceleration, but climb and cruise, so the F-16 has a harder time getting to optimum altitude and uses too much fuel when cruising. DCS fuel burn at 510 knots is approximately 4200 PPH while the actual value should be just under 3900 PPH. Ideally some more testing is needed to see if this is more of an engine issue or drag issue, and it should be tested at more speeds, altitudes, and weights, but the condition that I did test is an important one as it's relevant to the F-16 in a CAP role. F-16CFuelFlow_35000FT_102DI.trk F-16CMilAccel_30000FT_102DI.trk

You can use "time since flag" to get what you want. So for example 1, Target A is hit > flag A on, then flag A = true > explode Target A, time since A = 10 > smoke on B, time since A = 15 smoke on C.

Have you tried AI Task Set to see if it is more reliable? Does the AI have any other tasks? Task set will wipe out the AI's route, but it should also eliminate any other tasks that may be causing a conflict. You can pass a new route to the AI via script if necessary as well.

This topic comes from my experience creating missions. DCS has a powerful flag system that can be used for many things, but I keep finding that I need scripts to trigger flags for specific things. One example is signaling that the AI has completed its mission. Take for example AI on a strike mission being escorted by the player. It would be ideal for the AI to communicate the completion of its mission to the player so the player knows to leave. You can do this with triggers but the options for doing so aren't ideal: -Target destroyed > requires strikers survive, attack target, and hit target. If this is not triggered there is no message to indicate that something went wrong -Bombs in zone > Can be falsely triggered by bombs from other aircraft (and possibly jettisonned bombs, I don't remember now) is also finicky when you need to evaluate multiple bombs (and you need to consider what happens if a plane is destroyed and a different number of bombs than expected enter the zone). -Group in zone > You can check that the AI is close to target, but then this will go off even if the AI fails to engage its mission The solution that is best is to write an event handler that looks at multiple things. It's great that this is an option and it works well, though sometimes there are debugging issues and even with a library of scripts it seems like I somehow always find a need for something new. An alternative would be to add some additional AI communication options to missions and flag triggers: Message on Task start/end - Tell the AI to send a message (or use the text messages) when a task is started or finished, or a certain amount of time after the start/finish Message when under attack - AI (or text message) announcement that they are under attack or even just being tracked by hostiles. Message when unable to perform mission - Message when losses are too great to continue mission. Might also apply to fuel or weapons. Ideally these would have their own prerecorded radio messages so they would be played by the AI naturally. Some emotion would also help from just having these messages fade into background radio chatter. For example when taking losses they should sound concerned and not speak in a flat tone. Tying to radio would also allow the messages to be tied to frequency properly, enhancing realism and immersion. Additions like this would be a huge improvement for complex missions where the result isn't scripted and there is some intentional ambiguity in the design of the mission itself. The player can't be expected to work in a vacuum and needs to help from allies to build a picture of what is happening in order to respond correctly.

Difficulty is part of the point, but adding smart SAM behavior doesn't have to take away our options for setting up AI. They can still have skill levels, alarm states, triggered actions, etc. We can also control how many there will be and if intelligence is provided on locations. Ideally we should be able to go right back to static always emitting SAM's (may be useful for training missions) even after this change. The new behavior could be tweakable as well with options for SAM aggressiveness, reaction times, etc. Things will be perfectly workable as long as all AI units are brought to a similar standard. Smarter SAMs should have to deal with preemptive AI SEAD launches, jamming, and the fear of being destroying.

Checks out for me, AI was able to fly through mountains at 200 AGL without crashing.

This may not be desirable. Modules may be uninstalled for more than one reason, and some people might install and uninstall as needed. Seeing the full server list can also give you an idea of how popular a module is which can aid in buying it. Being able to store settings sound good but default I'm less sure about unless maybe it is very clearly highlighted. Being able to see all slots is useful. You can tell where most players are operating and what they're flying. Example you only own A-10 and want to know if CAP is around. If all the fighters are hidden, now it's harder. A lot of these would be fine as options, but as changes to default behavior they could cause problems.

I think the SAM issue is one of the larger ones in DCS currently. From what I gather, ED seems to think AG is preferred to pure AA. Maybe that's true for most players, but I find it hard to get into AG with SAM's as they are. They barely do anything to warrant the I in AI since they just sit emitting until something gets close enough to be fired upon. When the Hornet came out I thought SEAD would be the most fun AG mission to fly, but it turns out it takes a lot of setup to make SAM's exciting. While SAM systems could be improved massively in a lot of areas, I think as a first improvement they need is having some kind of life to them even more than they need detailed systems or radars. At a minimum they need to try to hide emissions and work together with other radars around the map. That alone would make them many many times more engaging and threatening than they are now without putting a burden on mission editors to spend forever setting up triggers or IADS scripts. Then of course, like all AI, they also need some human fallibility. Without that we run the risk of going too far the other way and creating nigh unbeatable super weapons. Ideally some delay time in communication between units/groups, uncertainty on the part of the AI on what they're shooting at, especially if friends and foes are in the same area, and some kind of aversion to being shot at by the enemy.

I thought the AMRAAM issue had been fixed but I encountered it recently too. Haven't had an issue with HARMS though.

Look at the last video, wake effect over a minute between landings. I've also noticed flying into turbulence when taking off behind other planes that have departed far ahead of me. DCS wake turbulence doesn't dissipate all that quickly. EDIT It also looks like helicopters are affected. I hadn't really ever tested them myself, but I stumbled upon a video:

That's just wake turbulence, it already exists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INq75CS7mJs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXYdzIuZgck

As great as the save feature is, having to start over in SP because your plane was destroyed should be a rarity. DCS has for years had a very neat feature to fix that very issue, and it also has helped with AI wingmen something being less than competent. That feature is plane jumping. As amazing as it is, almost no one seems to know about. I can only find one video on YT that even covers it: And a tiny handful of forum/reddit mentions: Basically, if you have a flight of four you have 4 lives. Even more if you count planes outside of your flight. You can take control of them too. Of course the mission designer needs to account for this, but I feel like that should be satisfied just by sound mission design. I do hope that this feature is not forgotten after saves are implemented as it does things that saves cannot do, like giving a SP player the power of 4 player controlled planes without needing to be in a MP session. Somewhere along the line the feature was degraded because jumping out of a plane wipes its route. I'm not sure if this is intentional or a bug, but it needs to be reversed.

The F-14 was a naval fighter for the US, but not Iran. The 29's came too late to participate in the Iran Iraq war, but they were very close to being direct rivals. FC3 F-15 with simplifications basically lets it stand in for any version as long as weapon restrictions are in place. It would probably be difficult to tell the difference between a FC Eagle and FF Eagle from the cockpit of another plane. As for the F1 I believe one managed to shoot down a F-14. It's definitely capable of being a threat even if the MiG should have an advantage. Air combat isn't always neatly sorted. Older jets fly along side newer ones, so it's not really a problem when a version is a few years older or newer, they are still very much in range of each other.

F-14, FC3 F-15, M2000. The F-4 will be an 80's version I think and while it is older, that's fine, planes don't always fit into nearly organized match ups in real life. The MiG-29 will be appropriate to fight even the F-16/18 despite being less advanced.

Please make it optional, as this would make it very inconvenient to people that make use of the lack of memory that the current feature has. For example if F5 remembered the last thing looked at, you could use it once and then some time later only for it to randomly look at something that has long since moved away and then need to fiddle with it just to look at a wingman or something. Also a solution to your problem, depending on which F button is used, use the F10 map to select the object to look at.

Suggested from discussion in another thread: A request to change the SATNAV option to enable more options and make it more intuitive. Specifically to allow it to work independent of coalitions and for more than two coalitions for future expansion of the sim. Quick example:

The current option seems to be built around Blue with the assumption that Blue will always have optimum GPS while any other coalition may or may not. If the option was separate from Blue and could be applied independently to any coalition, that would add the following new possibilities: -Blue with degraded GPS -Non Blue with optimum GPS while Blue has degraded GPS -Better support for more coalition if added in the future I think it would also be a little more intuitive form of the GUI. Here is a rough edit of your image showing what it might look like:

Would it be possible to move this option, and any related options to a coalition configuration menu? That might make it more obvious, and also allow customization of sides instead of relying on a preset notion of which coalition represents what.

I believe default tasks like SEAD override others. Don't use them unless absolutely necessary. Try Search Then Engage or similar instead and see if this works better. You might also want to create an end condition for the STE task so that it doesn't top the AI queue list indefinitely. I can't look at your mission right now, so apologies if what I said does not apply.

What is the problem? FC3 is not study level. It's not being ignored or abandoned either, it is serving its purpose as a mid fidelity sim. If FC modules bother you, then exclude them from your missions. Personally I find player preferences a bigger obstacle to realism than module limitations. If a mission is setup to be an air to air scoreboard, it doesn't feel very realistic. No, SP requires as good a radar model as possible. When the F-16/18 had the horrible look down issue it impacted SP as much as MP, if not more, since the AI weren't impacted.

That's a huge limitation yes, and something that needs to be included in the event that we do get smart SAM's.

Doesn't this option exist? "Head Movement by G Forces in Cockpit"