Exorcet

It's code that needs to me maintained. That combined with limited use is probably why it was removed. ED has a planned MAC product that is aimed at providing a less complex DCS experience, but it has long missed its original target date.

It was a little unclear to me, but I did see option mentioned in the post. Still I wanted to point out the potential issue just so it was considered. As an option, this is fine.

Double click can very easily unintentionally make switches hard to use. There are quite a few that I click through in quick succession to reach a given position. Hold click is also used for some dials and knobs. This can't be mandatory or it will interfere with these controls.

It very much would be needed even in that case. Smart AI still needs context. No matter how good the AI is, it won't know the difference between a training mission and a emergency interception unless the player tells the AI what is what. Floors are needed for common training scenarios, and would also be very helpful in setting up the AI for different types of missions. Other limitations may be desired for specific maneuvers like tankers, transports, or fighters doing a show of force. Better AI would mean less tinkering would be required, but you'll never be able to get rid of all of it.

The AI won't like trying to land at a FARP. There is a rearm/refuel waypoint option, I don't remember if it works with wingmen, but it will require a proper airport. If refuel/rearm doesn't work you can create multiple AI flights and just take control of them with the jump function (R Alt + J) to swap planes.

Update the code seems to have correct Syntax now, but the AI will not engage, even with the enemy in proximity, the radius massively increased, and AWACS and EWR support available: local sdzone = trigger.misc.getZone('TZB1') --Trigger Zone Blue 1 local sdposV3 = sdzone.point --Vec3 local sdposV2 = { --convert Vec3 to Vec2, Vec3 = {x (N/S), y (alt), Z (E/W) > check this | LAlt + Y to show Vec2/3 in infobar live sdposV3.x, sdposV3.z } local _f0 = Group.getByName("B") --Get aircraft group local _f0c = Group.getByName("B"):getController() --Get group controller local AAsd = { id = "EngageTargetsInZone", params = { point = sdposV2, zoneRadius = 185200, -- 185200 = 100 nmi, 92600 = 50 nmi, 37040 = 20 nmi, 27780 = 15 nmi, 14816 = 8 nmi targetTypes = {"Fighters", "Multirole Fighters", "Interceptors"}, priority = 1, }, } _f0c:pushTask(AAsd) trigger.action.outText('X: ' ..sdposV2[1] .. ' Z:' ..sdposV2[2], 60, true) -- Confirm Vec2 array handled correctly

I'm trying to bypass ME limitations and give ground attack planes STEIZ tasks for self defense. The annoying part is finding the position for the task. I thought it would simplify things to use a trigger zone in the mission to mark the position, but I'm not having success writing a script. I do get an error message running it in game, but the message is blank. Concept summary: -Place trigger zone in mission -Run script that: -Finds position of trigger zone -Translates position from Vec3 to Vec2 -Uses Vec2 position to define STEIZ task Code: local sdzone = trigger.misc.getZone('TZB1') --Trigger Zone Blue 1 local sdposV3 = sdzone.getPoint() --Vec3 local sdposV2 = { --convert Vec3 to Vec2, Vec3 = {x (N/S), y (alt), Z (E/W) > check this | LAlt + Y to show Vec2/3 in infobar live sdposV3.x, sdposV3.z } local _f0 = Group.getByName("B") --Get aircraft group local _f0c = Group.getByName("B"):getController() --Get group controller local AAsd = { id = "SDinZ1", params = { point = sdposV2, zoneRadius = 37040, -- 185200 = 100 nmi, 92600 = 50 nmi, 37040 = 20 nmi, 27780 = 15 nmi, 14816 = 8 nmi targetTypes = {"Fighters", "Multirole Fighters", "Interceptors"}, priority = 1, }, } _f0c:pushTask(AAsd) There may be a stupid mistake somewhere, but I'm just not seeing it.

Ground units have a setup/deploy time. Turn on time acceleration and take note of when they start to shoot. I know for SCUDs it's on the order of 10 minutes.

A video is better than nothing, but a track file is the most useful for debugging issues.

The Hornet can do a lot, but that alone doesn't make for an interesting plane. I purchased the F-18 when it came out because who wouldn't? Interesting historical aircraft and one I had come to like in previous, but less detailed, sims. I was surprised to find out it was a bit clunky in the cockpit. Later when the F-16 released I was also surprised to find how much it lacked in terms of speed and acceleration. I had always known on paper that the F-16 was faster, but it was never apparent how big the gap was until I flew them both back to back virtually. Since I focus on air to air, the F-16 just felt better. However I don't regret buying the Hornet at all and it's nice to swap aircraft everyone once in a while. The carrier operations are fun, and so is having to come up with different ways to deal with situations without raw speed. The radar isn't Eagle like, but it is powerful, and when it comes to low speed noise pointing there is no equal.

It may be that a significant AI overhaul is coming, but even in that case some quick fixes/additions might be worth looking into since AI is such an important component of the sim. Whether or not a pair AIM-120 armed strike fighters will defend themselves, or just wait for an enemy to get in NEZ and fire on them really changes how you approach mission design. It's also frustrating to see the AI trip over some very basic hurtles when can't even properly order around your own wingmen (no 2nd element commands for fighters, and whenever wingmen break off and finish what they were told to do, 95% of the time they run back in full AB and burn all their fuel). Depending on the exact situation, I might be willing to delay a complete overhaul if some simple additions can fix the AI's most major short comings.

That is a good point, adding something like notebook functionality, or the ability to curate all provided info, to the planner would be a good idea.

In DCS there is no way to control how multirole aircraft defend themselves. They tend to wait too long and get attacked before reacting, usually jettisoning payloads and being forced into inadvantageous positions as a result. If we could assign self escort tasks, they would provide some degree of control over AI self defense. I envision two primary tasks, but there might be a need for more: 1 - Self Escort - This is basically a copy of the existing Escort task except the group that is assigned the task will escort itself instead of another group. The purpose of this is to set a radius around the group within which they will automatically attack threats of the type specified in the task (fighter, interceptor, etc). An addition to this feature over the original Escort would be an option to only engage uncontested enemies. In other words if checked, the self escort only triggers on enemies that are not being engaged by other units on the same side/coalition as the self escorting plane. If checked, the AI does not engage fighters that are being attacked by other friendly fighters. Example image: xxxx xxxx 2 - Search Then Engage [ also In Zone] - Similar to the existing Search Then Engage tasks, but also has the checkbox for engaging uncontested enemies. I would like to suggest implementing this previously requested change to Search Then Engage of all forms: Summary - Give us control over what part of the route Search Then Engage covers to prevent the AI from chasing things 200 miles away. These tasks should also be available for ALL Task categories. Otherwise this existing problem may persist:

It's not a F-16 issues, affects multiple planes and has been the case for a long time.

I think if something was mature in design and documentation, but not built it can still fit DCS pretty well. You can do a lot of work without actually building a physical example. There are of course uncertainties that need to be acknowledged, but that's the case even with existing weapons in the sim. It would still be an interesting mission to include with the module, scored on how close you were to the planned profile, even if the actual weapon was just a visual prop more than anything else.

I think they'd be nice additions to DCS, for both the C and E. They were never built, but DCS is fine for exploring what ifs. I'd also like to see the option to remove/add the existing CFT's to be added to the E someday, and a C module should we ever get one.

This was planned, but never done. Ideas included gunpods, refueling pods, rocket propulsion pods, and more.

They are, but these things can be very sensative. Airfoil profile, relative to the rest of the shape of the plane is extremely minor, yet can be the difference between being able to exceed Mach 1 or not, or the ability to fly at 10 alpha or not. The canopy shape difference can't be dismissed purely visually.

The F-15 isn't 5th gen, so it's not really a one to one comparison. In the situations where the Eagle is fighting, the performance absolutely matters in BVR. And in DCS you're not limited to fighting Flankers, although even in that case you still want all the speed and agility that you can get. BVR isn't just two fighters meeting face to face in a fair encounter. It gets a lot more complicated.

It's not. How the planes were developed doesn't matter. What we're discussing is how they differ in DCS. From a player perspective you can argue that the Hornet and Viper do the same thing. If the argument is that the E makes the C redundant, the other two modules are in a pretty similar position. One is a bit faster, one carries a slightly wider array of weapons, they have different cockpits, but if you wanted to you could do the same missions in both for the most part. That statement applies to both sets of planes. The Eagles differ not just in the merge but also in BVR where the C is superior at maneuvering at altitude, just like the F-16 enjoys vastly better acceleration over the Hornet. The two planes feel different despite overlapping in capability.

This is the Eagle thread, but I need to be fair to the Phantom, it wasn't that bad. The real issue it suffered from was the lack of proper pilot training. When that was sorted it out, it really showed it potential. The Phantom gets an unfortunate reputation but it really was a trailblazer and set the stage for later planes like the Eagle. The C and E are both F-15's, but they are fairly different from each other, enough to consider them different planes in my opinion. Rather than F-4C to F-4E the difference is more akin to F-16 vs F/A-18. Those two on a superficial level overlap quite heavily, but the details differ. The fact that on paper the Hornet can do everything the F-16 can plus use a carrier and Harpoons didn't stop the F-16 from being developed, or from DCS players purchasing both. I'm not surprised at all, because the "little" differences matter. I suppose you can say that there is a trend but it's hardly binding. Heatblur went out of their way to model the F-14 partially because it's engines were terrible. That's part of the plane's appeal. Also with the E and C being distanced from each other more than something like the Tomcat, I'm not sure that the definitive model trend applies here. The E isn't an upgraded C. It's a repurposed one. It's not better, it's different.

The Eagle is legendary, that question is the same as asking if the Phantom or Tomcat will sell. Granted I'm just a forum goer like everyone else here, but chances are yes it would. It has the AA advantage over the E, it has multirole capability so it has appeal to those wanting to perform more than just air combat, it's simpler than the E which is a valid point because there is a demand for less complex/less cutting edge aircraft (F-5, F-4, F-14, A versions of F-18 and F-16, and different versions of the Phantom which is not even released yet), historically it fits in situations which the E does not, then of course there is also "cool factor" preference, what ever you want to call it, for some it's just more desirable because it is. Yes. This really needs to happen more. It worked for the Tomcat, L-39, Fw-190, F-4. If you stretch the same has happened with the A-10 and Ka-50. And people want it for a bunch of other aircraft.

Providing radio info automatically to the kneeboard would be great. It should have a checkbox on a per group basis to avoid over saturation in complex missions and to control for mission design - example if you have a mission with a defector plane and it gets set as a friendly relative to the player, you wouldn't want that info automatically available before hand. Automatically setting frequencies I find less appealing, especially with all the different modules and their radio settings, but as long as manual entry remains that can be worked out.

Oh I know, and I didn't mean to insinuate that you did, just electing to point it out. The way I look at it, the niche models are just interesting historically. They may not have had as much of an effect as a more common one, but they played their own role which can be just as interesting to explore - especially in the context of DCS where we can very easily get into hypotheticals. That is very true and I think it can be an important consideration in choosing a DCS module. I definitely understand the appeal of historical accuracy. I'm willing to make concessions, but for the most part I stay close to real world or plausible situations. I won't disagree with someone seeking to add more historic options to the sim, I just don't think the most common model is always the automatic or superior choice.

Upgrading the FC planes has been a popular request for a while. I don't think FC3 itself is even relevant. DCS is what it is because of highly detailed planes, not in spite of it. The MiG-29 is in the same boat as the Eagle and has a lot of support as well. Also in both cases, half the work (FM) is done. These could be the best value FF modules of them all.