Exorcet

I've been wondering about a multistage approach for assets. Like add simplified model first and then update it later. I wouldn't mind having less than perfect models if they acted somewhat realistically. DCS covers quite a few times and locations now. We've got gaping holes in the unit list and no idea when they might be filled.

How I would improve unit handling Add a checkbox called "Copy current unit changes to remainder of group" What it does: Any change made to the current unit in the existing unit selection menu is copied to all units listed afterward. So for example if you want to change 5 tanks into 5 trucks, select the lead tank and turn it into a truck. If the box is checked, all units in the group will be a truck. If you wanted 1 tank and 4 trucks, select the second unit and change that tank into a truck. This would also work with names. So if you copied a group of tanks to make a group of trucks, normally the name is copied to, lets say all the units are called "Tank 1-x". Currently you'd need to change all unit names at once. However if the checkbox is checked and you changed the lead unit to "Truck 1-1" all the following units would become "Truck 1-x".

I think there are some youtube videos on this exact topic

It's extremely useful. Damage, weapons, is wingman even there? Changing something like this should never be done lightly as it can cause as many problems as it solves (and in my case, it doesn't solve anything). If you want a quick target view, make it its own button so it doesn't screw up existing functions.

Not only do we need more options, but I think a better menu. Cluttering the current radio menu will make it even harder to find things and make issuing commands take longer. It's painful trying to micromanage a flight of more than 2. Something that allows us to manipulate more information at once and also gives instant feedback would be helpful. I've proposed such a thing here:

Nevatim 114 startfromramp.trk

Search then Engage in Zone works well except that it uses the entire WP path. If this was fixed, we'd have a pretty smart CAP system. I made this request here: There is also a similar request: I'm not sure what the logic for this is. You'd want to use AB long before this. Anyway it is technically possible, but the AB command is a trigger, Making it an option attached to engage tasks would make it easier to use.

This was a nice feature in FSX, would like to see it in DCS as well.

Did you download it with the module manager? I had it the instant I bought it.

ED have made changes here actually. The lights being on when air starting was something added in later. It's a small thing, but I admit that it does bother me and I'd like to see it reverted to lights off. Most of the time if I'm airstarting it's when I don't have time to do a full mission, or maybe I want to record a video. It's nice not having to worry about forgetting to switch off the lights while in the middle of a merge and ruining a dogfight video because you have nav lights on the middle of a fight.

Yes, this is why I feel like changing the "stop behavior" or adding a separate limit for the STE boundary by waypoint is preferable.

While testing Search Then Enagage for a long standing issue where the AI will chase anything near its flight path (in a separate thread) I noticed that the AI now tries to lead when intercepting enemy fighters. However this lead doesn't take distance into account. This can cause very inefficient intercepts over long distances. We need something like missile guidance for the AI where the pursuit strategy changes with distance. See track STE_issue_2023.trk

OK I see. My interpretation was that @twistking found this to be a drawback, as I do, since it can make the AI engage in unexpected ways or at unexpected times. Using Search then Engage in Zone is an alternative, but it's limited to circles, which creates it own problems.

This is incorrect and is the basis of my thread. EDIT - STE still causes fighters to engage well beyond the stop condition in 2023: STE_retest.miz

The idea is, aircraft generally patrol a specific location, so limiting their hostile behavior to a certain region should make sense most of the time. Distance from enemies also needs to be taken into account, but if that's the only consideration then fighters may end up in endless afterburner chases and run out of fuel. To really, really solve the problem the AI probably needs a smart disengage script. For example a flight of 2 chasing a bandit will disengage one at a time, so that someone is always looking at the bandit, and they will slow down preemptively to create space, rather than keeping full burner all the way to the point where they do decide to turn around. I was just trying to provide a simple method, but there are multiple options here.

Not only will it be more CPU intensive, the AI has to be coded to intelligently fly. You'd increase CPU workload and ED's literal workload by making them code 1:1 AI that flies as the player does. It also wouldn't work because AI just isn't that smart, so it would probably fly poorly. There is zero reason to do what you're asking because 99% convincing AI can be done with less demands on the hardware and the developers. Just let ED finish their AI changes and GFM and we should be good.

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.