Exorcet

The F-16 was built for speed, the Hornet less so. This not only impacts the drag/performance of the clean aircraft but also the aircraft with stores. The USAF uses smaller and less draggy pylons because they wanted more performance out of their plane. The Navy had the Tomcat to handle air to air for a lot of the Hornet's lifetime, so it was fine with the Hornet getting draggy pylons. While the plane is multirole, most of the time it was used as a strike platform. The Swiss actually have different pylons with less drag, and so have better performing Hornets. This is why your made up estimates for the Hornet and F-16 don't work. The drag change isn't the same, not even close. Adding pylons to the Hornet increases drag much, much more. You can still go fast in the Hornet, but you want to avoid fuel tanks and wing pylons. Wing tip AIM-9's and fuselage AIM-120's are very low drag on the F-18 and if you only take those four missiles you can actually compete with the F-16. You will still be slower, but not worlds slower. You mentioned not seeing the same effect on other planes, but I'd suggest rechecking. The F-14 can be slowed down tremendously by AIM-54's. The Mirage 2000 doesn't like to be loaded with fuel tanks. The F-16 suffers massively when loaded with some AG loadouts.

There are AI that can easily copy voices in high quality. If ED doesn't have the resources to voice the callsigns themselves, they should get an AI to do it. Even single person teams have successfully used AI to generate natural sounding voice lines from only a handful of sample inputs.

This is basically a wish for smarter self defense? If so I agree, but it shouldn't be a CAP task. It needs to be universal. I think the idea could be simplified by just making it an input, ie "self defense distance = x nautical miles" and then add the type checkboxs "aircraft, helicopter, SAM, tank, ship, etc". Put whatever x you want, and the AI engages anything hostile from the checkboxes within that distance. To stop the AI from chasing aircraft forever there could be a "maximum distance from waypoint" setting. Similar to self defense distance, but this would determine when the AI stops chasing. Alternatively, we could fix the problem that Search Then Engage currently has, which I brought up a couple of years ago: This would allow more control and give us exactly the option you're asking for, a way to set self defense for aircraft. We'd also need ALL planes to be able to access Search Then Engage:

Yes absolutely. Forcing fuel tanks on the MiG-15 can actually make it act reasonable.

If the issue here is Su-27 performance, comparing to the P-42 is not helpful. I've seen some anecdotal evidence for Su-27 performance issues, I know that FC3 stores drag is not as well modeled as full modules, and I know that the AI Su-27 can't even keep up with the player one, despite AI generally overperforming. However all of this is unrelated to the P-42.

The Kola region is an excellent location because of its size, terrain, military importance, history, and layout. The landmass is fairly large which good by itself, but then when considering the vast sea around it, the map bounds could potentially be very large (I know they've given us a boundary, but if there is water beyond those bounds then the map can be considered even bigger). This will be the map for realistic carrier and naval battles since the Black Sea can't support carriers in real life and Hormuz as modeled is one sided in terms of naval warfare and wouldn't feature carriers naturally (vs Iran). Syria's waters are carrier accessible but not really the place to expect large naval battles. The surrounding sea also means that threats can potentially be omnidirectional realistically. While there is a clear red and blue side on land, the seas could be more easily contested or used as a way around land based defenses. This is good for mission and campaign design. The region is also a good location for historical and modern scenarios. While the Cold War did not go hot, there was a large military presence there. That is still true today and with some imagination it's easy to come up with a situation where tensions escalate into conflict. Or the map could just be used for lower intensity saber rattling, things like bomber intercepts and border intrusions.

Yes, very questionable right side.

Inspired somewhat by the discussion in this thread: I think it would be nice to be able to assign waypoint options/actions/whatever to many units all at once. This could be done through trigger zones or maybe by multiselect on the unit list. So for example if you have 20 groups of tanks and want them all set to hold fire, you could put a trigger zone around the tanks and set all groups (maybe separated by type, ie plane, helicopter, ground unit, ship, etc) and then use "assign all in zone hold fire". Alternatively, if we had a menu like the unit list for group actions with multiselect, that would work as well.

Very easily, we don't have one, so people want it. It's simple.

Yes, while I appreciate the addition, it was added in such a way to make it painful to work with. It needs to be setup for each group individually, and even if you use copy and paste, everyone just shoots at one point which is not that convincing. ED has mentioned things like suppression fire for ground units. Whenever this is added something similar is needed for AAA where they can be set to blanket the sky in a simple, non tedious way. Well, if it's leading it does need to know where the aircraft is and where it's going. Blind targeting would just fire around the last known or suspected location, if it's not going to involve knowledge of the aircraft.

Yes, the run in the sim engine based on your inputs and use seeds for random events. The track should play the same on any computer. While DCS tracks are bugged, not all of them break. They do play out the same, sometimes. In the cases where they don't inputs can still be useful, and some idea of what happened can still be gained from an incorrect track.

The F-16 is pretty easy to refuel, you just need to be in the right place and everything else is automatic. The boom operator in DCS can be slow. Check external views if you feel like you're not doing anything wrong, you may see the boom very slowly getting into position. In my experience if you connect cleanly the first time, things go well. Reconnecting can be slow. I find the HUD helpful because the speed tape can warn you if you're accelerating very slightly, before hooking up you can also use this to gauge what fuel flow you need to keep up with the tanker, which is also useful.

It's a common opinion but I certainly wouldn't treat it as a given. FBW doesn't fly the plane for you, at the end of the day getting the most from the plane takes skill, effort, and knowledge.

The trucks have a black ring around them in the ME. They only resupply units within that ring. The trucks do not have to be the same group as the units they rearm.

Haven't seen that video yet, some nice HUD footage. The FC3 Eagle's HUD has always been so hard to read compare to the real thing. Really surprising that BMS of all things is going to get a full fidelity Eagle ahead of DCS.

You're right, AI is not needed to create convincing CPU pilots, but there are potential benefits in involving machine learning in the process. What I don't know is when the crossover point will come. We're not there yet. But as AI becomes better and more accessible, it's going to become a better and better option. I don't expect ED or any other developer to announce ML as a part of their products any time soon, but I would expect them to start looking into how they could incorporate AI into their product development at this point, even at a very shallow level. Computers have come a long way, but solving those equations remains costly. AI is there to bring the cost down, and indications are that it is well worth using this method if speed is the concern over total accuracy. That's the gist of the video I posted before and it's the reason why AI is making its way into my own work. Also just to be clear here ED isn't going to be making their own CFD code, AI assisted or not. That's going to be an external product that they buy from someone else. There are solutions here. The AI can train when the player isn't flying and then use what it learned in the next session. Or the training could indeed be done off of the player machine entirely with the ML being facilitated by sending player data to ED to use and the results sent back to the player. I'm not sure if we should be looking to solve problems without AI. I know that AI shouldn't be looked at as a wonder tool that can do anything, but at the same time I think it's much to early to categorize it in the niche solution bin. Go back far enough and similar discussions were had about computers. They are now practically everywhere because of the one thing they do very well, math. They can do simple calculations at inhuman speeds and their current performance is almost uncountably better than the first models. I feel like we're at the stage where we don't know what AI will be capable of, so I think it's good to experiment with it. Removing humans from the loop is not the goal, and really doesn't make sense no matter how advanced technology gets because the end goal of technology is to serve human wants. As far as DCS goes, automation is always going to be useful. ED can only hire so many workers and human workers can only work so many hours a day. Even if AI only breaks even with humans on a cost per hour basis and only breaks even on output quality basis, it can at least work continually 24 hours a day. At that point it becomes worth having. It's likely going to be valuable long before then though just by increasing the output of a human worker. Again, I'm not saying this is something ED can snap their fingers and set up right now. They're going to have to research and invest in the technology and then work to get results, but all indications to me are that in the long run it should pay off.

Yes these are surface based missiles and they do work.

This basically Although from what little testing I've done, the smoke only seems to come on when a unit has red health, which is basically a mission kill (at least for things like SAM radar). So not much has really changed with this addition.

Subscriptions only achieve charging more while providing less.

The physics behind how they work isn't what I'm talking about, more the high level methodology. Both AI and the human brain try to look for patterns. They will take in information and then interpolate or extrapolate from there. This is the idea behind using AI as a light form of physics solver: Much like a human does, AI will notice trends from "studying" what a fluid will do in certain situations and then be able to make predictions that are generally more accurate with more data. It's not a brain, but the process and end result are similar in a way. Getting back to DCS, AI as a mini CFD solver could be useful in supplementing CFD simulations for reduced cost or as a stand in for CFD all together when total accuracy is less important (AI flight model, flow around buildings, or terrain, animations for trees or other objects in wind, etc). AI has no agency or consciousness, but that's not important. Just like current AI (as in games and such) has no agency or consciousness but can act like it does if programmed correctly (NPC's in a RPG, etc). That's all we need. Give the machine data in a format that it can understand and it can start to "see" patterns and then learn to output data that fits those patterns. If you want to consider AI more of a really advanced algorithm rather than intelligence that's fine, but it doesn't change things. Just knowing how to make for loops by itself is something I'd say is pretty helpful. I'd much rather have a single button to press to make one, or make 80% of one than having to code one myself all the time, just for example. Yes it will. Developers aren't going to use ChatGPT, just like AI development going on in my own work will not. It's analogous to the rise of computers where different machines and software will be developed on a per need basis. I won't make estimates on pricing, but the AI work I'm closest to doesn't even seem to be the most expensive part of the equation. In the long term it will likely end up being a cost saver. As far as not replacing humans, that's totally fine. AI is a tool like any other, and tools don't do much without a user. The AI's job isn't creativity, it's the elimination of repetitive and mundane tasks. I'd take a smarter autocorrect. Predicting the future is difficult, but I'm fairly confident AI is going to fill these roles almost everywhere in the near future. It depends. If you only give it human procedures to learn, that is what it will learn. That's basically what AI language models are doing. They're learning how people talk and then blindly imitating that. The AI doesn't say "good morning" because it wants you to have a nice day, it says it because those words are a common greeting in the inputs it receives. I disagree here. Machine learning can learn, which is already a huge change. Current AI relies on the developer to update. True AI can update itself and "mutate" into different forms. This is interesting for games because both individual players and the player community as a whole typical evolve in terms of ability as time goes on. It would be nice to have an AI that can progress with players and the overall player pool. ChatGPT isn't some wondertool. It's specifically designed to model language. The algorithms your mention are closer to what a game developer might use. Indeed, voices are a huge area of potential for AI. Heatblur apparently lost or misplaced the original files for Jester (basically it's not easy for them to update or add lines I think), but an AI could easily replicate Jester's voice from the final sound files in game and then use the replicate voice to create new lines entirely. Then the AI could even be used to dynamically respond to situations realistically with the new speech. Something similar can be done with graphics, as AI could study condensation effects or bomb explosions and come up with realistic approximations of how those would look without input from artists outside of the initial learning. AI in the dynamic campaign or just built into the general AI would also be very interesting. It's one of the ways that ground forces can learn to do more than sit out in the open without the need for programmers to come up with very clever and potentially complicated scripts for determining unit reactions.

I disagree, coding is well within the reach for AI. It's going to take time to develop AI that is good at it, but it's not a far fetched idea. The brain and AI aren't much different. The only problem with current AI is that it's a very young technology. It's like saying cars will never go 200 mph because the the Motorwagon couldn't break 20. I work with engineers and software developers who are the ones pushing AI for product development, not investors. We already have automated processes for design in fields like aerodynamics. AI can easily (conceptually, creating the AI takes work obviously) work its way into these applications to improve them even further. There are many methods. Tracks are a good one, I don't see why you're saying there are too few. We can create more easily. Also as AI works its way into other fields, there will probably be publicly available resources like papers on how to train AI to fly, or strategize in general. That's essentially what AI would do.

AI is something that absolutely 100% of game developers need to look into starting now, but there is still a road ahead of us before we arrive at AI generated games. I'm not sure that 1-2 years is enough to expect anything major. Maybe in 10 years, but I'm just making guesses anyway. The possibilities are certainly enticing, as AI could make development much faster and less bug prone. I'd also like to see it replace the traditional AI of DCS. All of this is going to take work to accomplish though.

While I understand the desire, I don't think it's a good idea. I already dislike the unrealistic problems created by limited head movement that are imposed on hat switch users.

I like the idea of being on the same API for the sake of consistency. Even if there are bugs, at least it should mean both missiles are bugged in the same way, and then there is the benefit of being updated going forward as well as the more realistic avionics implementation.

Hello, I've been looking forward to the Kola map for quite some time as I anticipate that it will be one of the most used maps in my collection. As a long term DCS player I also have some feedback on the state and implementation of maps in DCS and I wanted to post these in the hope that it will help future map developers provide the best product possible. This was written months ago, but this forum was closed at the time: Kola is one of the upcoming modules that I'm most excited about and I plan to spend a lot of time with it in the mission editor. As a long time DCS user I have a lot of opinions about maps and the ME and I'd like to share some with Orbx for consideration with goal of maximizing the value and usability of the map. From the announcement, we know that the map will be highly detailed and feature important military targets. This is great to hear as it is exactly how DCS maps should be designed. However there is a bit of a disconnect with regards to the mission editor. It is usually difficult to find specific buildings and locations without knowing their approximate positions ahead of time. Please take this into considering when designing the GUI side of the map. It would be very helpful to have important/unique locations labeled from a zoomed out perspective. This way the most interest features of the map aren't hidden away, but readily visible for mission planners. I've outlined a similar idea in the following thread: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/307296-combat-oriented-display-options-for-mission-editor/#comment-5032281 An alternative to map icons could be what was done on the NTTR map where the different areas of the training range are outlined and named. Another issue I've run into with DCS maps is the limitations that AI have in operating from certain airports. The most significant problem is with airports that don't have full runway length taxiways that reach both ends of the runway. With this type of runway, the AI will tend to enter the runway from somewhere in the middle and then slowly taxi to the end of the runway to takeoff. They will do this one at a time, and it can take many minutes to launch a full flight of 4 aircraft. Ideally this will be fixed when DCS gets improvements to ATC, but in the meantime it can be mitigated with parking spots added to the ends of runways. These spaces would get around the taxi issue and allow for rapid takeoffs of full groups of planes. They would also make very nice spots for fighters set to interceptors that need to scramble quickly. See this thread for some more discussion: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/286131-allow-entire-flight-to-line-up-on-runway-for-takeoff/#comment-4815757 A second issue with airports is parking space size. Some spots that seem large enough to hold big fighters like the Su-27 won't accept these planes on other maps. For the sake of gameplay I think it might be worth it to slightly oversize parking spaces if this is going to be an issue. It might also be helpful to including the maximum airplane size in the parking space name (ie 9S for parking space 9 small fighter maximum, 10L for parking space 10 large fighter maximum, and 11T for parking space 11 transport sized plane maximum). Examples of the parking issue here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/295191-still-having-that-parking-problem/ https://forum.dcs.world/topic/308140-b52-has-no-parking-options-on-the-syria-map/ Finally, while Kola looks to be fairly large in size as is, it can't be understated the value that size brings to maps in DCS. Having airbases spread out across the map can really increase the replay value and can also make campaigns feel a lot more dynamic as you change locations through a conflict. Even if an airbase falls outside of the high detail area of the map I think it's worth including. Along with this, the ME GUI should be as unrestrictive as possible. Letting us zoom out far, even if it goes beyond the map image in the ME is totally fine because it makes utilizing the edges of the map easier. As much of the edges of Kola will be water, I imagine this will be very useful. I'm sure others have ideas as well since I'm far from the only dedicated DCS player here. I don't know how early the map is in development, but I hope it's not too late to take feedback like this into account. I'm greatly looking forward to the end product.