Jump to content

Exorcet

Members
  • Posts

    5079
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Exorcet

  1. AI planes can actually have many routes at once thanks to switch waypoint. The trick is to plant an alternative route (or 12) between waypoints on the main route. Force the AI to skip the alt route with a switch waypoint on the previous waypoint, but have a triggered switched waypoint to activate the new route. Not only can you divert bombers like this, but you can make tankers and AWACS retreat from enemy fighters. The current problem is that the mission maker needs to add these to the mission. They could be default AI behaviors, and I think they should be in the future.
  2. I am a bit confused on your thoughts between Flaming Cliffs and full DCS modules. While FC is simplified, the concepts are similar from one to the other. Firstly, when it comes to modern planes you want to operate mainly with HOTAS (Hands on Throttle and Stick). In other words the important stuff is where your hands are 95% of the time. In this way, despite FC being simple, it's a good stand in for DCS. Where DCS and FC tend to split in my opinion is MFD's. These are powerful tools for the pilot but add many buttons for flight simmers without MFD button boxes. My solution as one of those simmers is to map the most used MFD keys to keyboard (you can HOTAS too, but I like to be realistic somewhat, so I don't map non HOTAS to HOTAS). The other area where DCS and FC differ is that DCS models each plane's control logic instead of presenting bindings designed for keyboard and PC controllers, but this shouldn't be that big of a problem. To answer your questions: 1 - In general older means simpler, but at some point you're going to move away from modern jets with missiles, which is what it seems like you want from your plane choice. 2 - Trainers are used in real life because they are cheaper and don't allow new pilots to fly in extreme ways that may put them at risk. In a simulator, you should train in the plane you want to fly. 3 - The F-18 isn't very difficult to outperform. It may be able to do a lot of things, but it is not the best at every role. The F-16 is a better air to air and SEAD focused light fighter, and I'd also say it has much more intuitive controls. The A-10 is better at CAS. The F-15 is more of an air superiority aircraft than the Hornet. The Tomcat is a better bomber interceptor. You can find success in many other planes. If the missions/campaigns you're referring to are the ones built for the Hornet though, then know that subbing another plane into those missions may or may not work. It's technically possible in the ME, but some missions use advanced scripts that might break with a plane change, or may have editing protection.
  3. Yeah, hopefully all of these are parts of the code to revisit eventually. For the AI hopefully sooner than later since ED has recently made some changes to it. I can't be sure if my ideas are fully compatible with the AI as it is now, as you stated depending on how it's coded we might run into problems by trying to change how they can access sim information. I just took my best guess based on experience with DCS.
  4. I think point 1 is just as big an issue, at least when combined with chaff. Missile are of course not infallible, but chaff doesn't have any of its real life drawbacks in DCS. These drawbacks should also inform 3, because employing chaff correctly requires flying a certain way. As for 3, it's not just about knowing that the missile is incoming or not, but what information the AI uses to react. Right now it seems like the AI uses the exact position and speed of a missile to react to it. That's not right. There is no way for the pilot to have this information. One way to create a sense of incomplete information is to change AI reaction to being based on launch condition instead of missile information. The AI would have scripted responses for long range missile shots, medium range shots, and close in shots. Maybe for close in shots they could even just use exact missile data if they can acquire the missile visually (smoke trail). Another method for making the AI more human like in awareness is to give it exact data, then add some error to it. Also limit the sampling rate. For example, right now the AI probably reads the position of a missile every simulation timestep, ie continuously. This could be changed to have the AI only take this information every 10 seconds and then on top of this add a random error to the true values. With this change the AI will inherently become imperfect. Higher AI skills might have higher polling rates and smaller errors, but they would always be there. ED might even be able to replace or supplement the current difficulty levels with direct tuning of the errors and polling rate. This would allow mass testing by players to determine what values provide a good experience.
  5. Not to mention we have people asking for 2 seat versions of single seaters as it is. There is hardly a module no one would buy, I'd think. I'd certainly still want a C if we ended up with a D somehow.
  6. Maybe with scripting. If you're using triggers, you'll either have to use something like detecting a SHOT event in the zone, or detect damage to the unit you want suppressed.
  7. It's already in the GUI. When you set a modifier you can set it as press or switch, not sure if those are the terms actually used, but it's there.
  8. DCS doesn't really have native GCI, servers usually get by just using the F10 map and voice communication. Your best bet might be to find one of the servers set up for GCI and see if the group that runs it is recruiting or maybe offers training. There might also be a couple of youtube videos on the subject.
  9. I know the ring isn't optimal range, but I was thinking if two rings were about the same size the missiles should perform similarly. If the Patriot is smaller in DCS though, I'm not even remembering the size correctly.
  10. While on the subject of Patriot, does the missile not underperform in DCS? If I remember it has the same range ring as the SA-10, but the missile bleeds speed very quickly and generally doesn't do much better than medium range SAM's. Was this part of the fix, another bug, or is this accurate according to ED?
  11. I was testing the Land, refuel, rearm waypoint in the latest OB. A couple of issues: The AI won't refuel if starting with a small amount of fuel. I originally set AWACS to orbit for 8 hours, but only gave it 20% fuel. I wanted the AI to land and refuel before doing the long orbit. This lead to the AI landing, shutting down, taking no fuel, and then despawning. After changing the AI initial fuel state to 100 and orbit end time to 10 minutes, refuel would happen on the ground. But upon taking off the AI would just fly in circles around WP0 and never actually begin its orbit, which was at WP1. Track attached. Also a side note, why does Refuel/arm need us to add a waypoint change command, shouldn't this be inherent in the task? RefuelRearmbug.trk
  12. The F-15's air to air focus shouldn't impact its viability DCS. It's pretty much exactly like the F-14 and should have exactly as much appeal. This is besides the fact that the F-15 can carry AG weapons, including LGB's. And air to air fighter is also no less interesting single player than it is in MP. Remember that back when FC3 was the only way to even fly fighters in DCS, the F-15 was no less popular when it came to single player missions. As someone that players SP only, I find AA AI more interesting than ground AI anyway. Air AI is dynamic by nature, while ground forces are basically static unless scripted to be otherwise. As far as E vs C, they don't have to worry about competing with each other any more than the Hornet and Viper do.
  13. They are similar enough and different enough that the order doesn't matter. As both are US fighters the same general ideas apply to controls and they have very similar weapons options. They're both light fighters with weaker radars. Specific HOTAS logic is different, and I'd say that F-16 is better here with less steps needed to setup systems in general. Both are fly by wire, but the Hornet's is a little more hand holding, however the twin tails on the F-18 allow for a lot more high AoA performance. Conversely the F-16 is much much faster than the F-18. Flying each in combat is slightly different because of this. The last major difference is that the F-18 is carrier capable while the F-16 is not. If you're interested in naval aviation, lean toward the Hornet to learn carrier operations and drogue refueling. If you prefer air force, go with the F-16 and practice land operation and boom refueling.
  14. I fly everything that I buy, but my seat time is not evenly divided. I don't mind having less used modules, but I won't buy something if I don't intend to use it at all. I prefer fixed wing, but DCS's helicopter flight models are so good that I bought the Ka-50, UH-1, and Mi-8. It's great that DCS has such a large library but the downside is that it's becoming harder to make use of everything. I'd like to get the Apache and Hind for example, I have some fond memories of flying them in a few PS1 games, but I barely have the time to make missions for the Ka-50.
  15. I didn't have issues getting them to bomb rigs on the sea. My mission is attached. Harrier Attack.miz
  16. Exorcet

    F-15E vs. F-18C

    You have things backwards believing that fighters cruise at Mach 2 routinely. Acceleration is what creates speed in BVR combat. Even with 100 mile separation distances, Mach 2+ engagements are unlikely. If anything it sounds like you might play on some very unrealistic servers, maybe this is where you are getting your ideas from? When it comes to supersonic performance thrust and drag matter more than TWR. The numbers are so close that they can basically be ignored, even if the EF tends to gain a little more with reduced weight. We also know that the F-22 supercruises much faster than the EF, at least as far as public data is concerned, probably indicating that the F119's are better at high speed than the EJ200's. RCS and aerodynamics don't actually have to be a tradeoff. The blended shapes we see in modern stealth aircraft are pretty aero friendly. The F-22 has some flat surfaces, but it's not really very different from the F-15 or MiG-25 in that reguard. Even the EF-2000 is a bit boxy on the underside. Modern computing also makes optimizing RCS and aero a lot easier than it used to be. CFD codes have become very powerful and automated optimization tools exist to refine multiple aspects of aircraft design simultaneously. I know the F-22 is old at this point, but some of these technologies were available to aid in its design.
  17. I imagine they're referring to technology being incorporated into next gen fighters. Networking, drones, and optional unmanned capability. They also mentioned that the B-21 can take on more roles than bombing. I wonder if some capacity as an AWACS is intended given the vulnerability of something like an E-3 and the development of long range AAM's.
  18. Obligatory "can this be the next DCS module" request.
  19. Exorcet

    F-15E vs. F-18C

    Acceleration is everything (almost). Fighters can't fly at max speed. The fly at cruise speed and accelerate in response to threats. This is what makes the F-16 so good at BVR in DCS. It doesn't have the highest top speed, but it will likely be the fastest plane in a BVR engagement because it outaccelerates everything else. You won't be at speed unless you can accelerate fast enough. The EF-2000 accelerates better than the F-15 and can supercruise. The F-15 is pretty heavily outclassed when it comes to performance in this comparison. Realistically the EF could be approaching Mach 2 as the Eagle struggles to break though M 1.3. You get speed from acceleration, and maneuverability is extremely important as well. The better you can maneuver, the faster you can react to threats or defense yourself. Especially if you're going fast. Flying directly at your enemy at Mach 2 is a great way to die. You need to consider more than radar, like RCS, ECM, and supporting platforms. While the Eagle has an impressive radar, it's RCS is terrible. A low RCS fighter with a worse radar could possible see the Eagle first because of this. Lowering wing loading doesn't mean lower drag, especially at high speed. The EF is probably lower drag, but mostly because it's smaller. However the F-22 has a massive thrust advantage, and while it is stealthy, the low RCS doesn't really hurt its drag.
  20. AI using the bombing task drop the bombs exactly on the marker, so you have to make sure that the little triangle is centered on the oil platform.
  21. I don't. I try to make sure criticism directed at them is fair so that problems are actually addressed. Saying that "nothing works" for example is ridiculous, false, and unhelpful. Absolute nothing good comes from a statement like that. What helps is focused discussion on problems and proposing solutions. Something I am very familiar with: https://forum.dcs.world/profile/8656-exorcet/content/?type=forums_topic&change_section=1 ED has released many modules and fixed many bugs and greatly improved DCS over the past 10 years. That is a fact. They aren't focusing on modules and totally ignoring the bugs. The reality is that things take time and effort to fix and because of this they can't make DCS bug free over night. At the same time, there are very old bugs that many players eagerly want to see fixed. Valid criticism. It's totally fair to point these out to vocalize the demand to see them addressed. As for DCS being empty, that's a point of view. It's my most played game and I do more than fly around. DCS is fully functional. It has massive untapped potential, but at the same time I think it's one of the best games ever made. You claim that literally nothing has changed, while quoting a post replying to another post that mentioned AI changes. This is why I post as I do. People exaggerate needlessly to make ED look bad. It's silly. It doesn't get things fixed. Stop doing it and instead provide useful feedback so that DCS can improve. DCS today is not DCS 1.5. The modules are nice, but it's the core improvements that really drive longevity. ED has done more than "little" for the core of the game. Whether or not you think they've done enough is your opinion and whatever it is, so long as it's based in reason, it's fair to have. I don't know how you've been using DCS, but I can certainly appreciate how much the core game has changed over the years for the better. Again, this doesn't mean ED has achieved all that they can, but they deserve recognition for the effort that they have put forward. I don't even buy those $70 games anymore. They're not worth the money. DCS has provided me with a decade of enjoyment, AAA games don't. I honestly feel like ED is ahead of the curve as a developer. They provide better content and better pay models than the industry standard. Makes no sense. 3D modelers can't improve AI. Where I work, I have a specific task. When my work volume is low I don't get transferred to another department to do a job I wasn't trained for. The module developers are going to develop modules, or they're not going to have anything to do and they're going to get laid off.
  22. Map Objects are default generated buildings. There are no map objects to attack, statics count as units. Change "attack map object" to "bombing".
  23. Read the patch notes if you want to see stuff getting done. ED kills countless bugs, the problem is that there are always more. Nothing getting done is a myth and I have no idea where it has come from. Yes there are long standing bugs, but that doesn't mean that ED does nothing. Unfortunately that have to pick their battles.
  24. It depends. In general you can go where you want, just be careful that you don't taxi in the opposite direction of AI. The mission can also designate a parking spot for you, but if this is the case you should be informed in the briefing.
  25. Along with this I wonder if the range of ammo supply should be looked at. Right now if you have a widely spaced SAM site, it can be a challenge to fit all the launcher in range of the supply truck. In reality the truck could just drive from one launcher to another as needed. This could be simulated by having a larger radius and a delay time between the reloading of one launcher and the next.
×
×
  • Create New...