Exorcet

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

I didn't have issues getting them to bomb rigs on the sea. My mission is attached. Harrier Attack.miz

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.

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.

Obligatory "can this be the next DCS module" request.

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.

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.

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.

Map Objects are default generated buildings. There are no map objects to attack, statics count as units. Change "attack map object" to "bombing".

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.

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.

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.

The save feature could be limited to flag triggers or something if that's a problem, but also just allowing triggers to reference generic stand in items would be a benefit. That would allow you to create a trigger before the required unit is on the map and not have it disappear when you close the trigger menu. Setting up triggers is a big time investment for me and they tend to be similar mission to mission, so if I could just import from an existing list I think it would save a lot of time.

Missiles have reaction times, which can be in the tens of minutes. To make sure that they're not working, place them alone in a mission and speed up time to see if they do anything after about 20 min. Some weapons also have a minimum range. The SCUD is one of them. If the target is inside the min range ring, it won't fire. Check that the point to fire on is between min and max range rings. Lastly when targeting a unit, that unit needs to be detected. Add an AWACS to help the Silkworm or see if there is a "visible" checkbox in the targeting task. This forces the target to be detected.

I'm not dragging anything off topic, at this point you don't really have to reply, I'm just trying to raise a concern so that we don't end up with a minor problem upon making a change. By the way, I am one of those mission designers.

I'd consider this a component of revamping the briefing/mission planner systems in DCS. By intel markers I mean icons on the map that represent where friendly intel thinks enemy forces are. Right now, everything on the map is shown in its exact position and includes waypoints. That's a bit too specific for many situations. I get around this by hiding some units on the planner and then placing dummy units that don't spawn which represent intel. This works well enough, but real units looks the same as intel on the planner. Also for things like SAM's that appear on MFD's, you also need to add multiple units to make the SAM rings show up. This could be simplified a bit by having an intel layer on the map, or by having dedicated intel markers that are distinct from real units, perhaps with additional details like radii showing uncertainty in positions or timestamps showing when the unit related to the intel was last spotted.

Also try changing Alarm State to green, this will slow the reaction time of SAM defenses.

It's more that most people might be used to the default as it is, rather than the impact on a specific module. But if you want an example, currently with unit info on by default, someone placing down SAM's for a F-16/18 mission where intelligence on the enemy is strong doesn't have to mess with the checkbox at all. If the change were to go through, making a new mission would have everything hidden on the MFD's if they didn't realize that the default had changed. In this simple case a global checkbox would make things easy to fix. However you can make things less easy to fix if this was a mission in progress from one patch (with MFD hidden unchecked) to another patch (with MFD hidden checked) and the visibility of units in the mission wasn't supposed to be uniform. A global checkbox wouldn't fix things if you didn't notice the change, you'd have to manually go through the list to fix stuff. But I think this is kind of going off topic a bit. I'm not against the spirit of the request. I'm just trying to make sure it's done carefully to avoid creating unforeseen problems. That's all. If I have anything to say about the idea directly, I think the most flexible option is to provide a separate checkbox for "internal aircraft data" that way hidden on MFD can be left alone. I don't think that's true. In a training mission for example, you could very easily expect full visibility of enemy forces. Even in a real combat mission, you could be creating a follow up strike where the player is tasked with flying a mission over an area where other aircraft have already found the enemy and can relay their positions to Command and Control. In general for me, not everything on the enemy side has a known location, but at the same time that is not always the case 100% of the time. No offense to ED, but they can't do that. What's best is going to depend on what mission designers do and how they use these features, and that can vary from person to person. We absolutely should not trust that ED are mindreaders that can predict every possible drawback with a given solution. We need to actively communicate with them to help them find a solution that works in as many cases as possible.

The whole civil traffic feature could probably use an overhaul at somepoint and include options for animal spawns. X-Plane randomly spawns wildlife across the map, so it's hardly unheard of in a flight sim. I know "DCS cow" has gotten flak in the past, but things like wildlife are nice to have in enhancing scenery and immersion depending on the mission. However the downside with making them available only as static objects means that a mission maker has to go through the effort of manually placing them everywhere. Some automation would be nice to have in regards to this stuff. Of course it should also come with some user controls so as to not be completely random. Whether auto generated wildlife can penetrate airports and by how much should be a setting for example.

I understood, the thing is just as easily as the default behavior is a problem for Apaches, it might be a good thing for other airframes. That's why changing defaults in software is something that should be considered carefully. It will solve problems for one side but could make problems for another group of users. Adding a separate option or checkbox to clear Apache data would have the least negative side effects (basically none) for other users. A toggle all option would be nice to have too, maybe with sub options to limit it to coalitions, countries, and unit types (ships, SAM's, etc). Or perhaps this is a good time to even revamp how intelligence is presented in DCS. From the mission briefing you can tell that DCS was not built with limited intelligence in mind since it lists every single unit on the map unless hidden. And the mission planner even shows you exact routes for enemies units which you would be unlikely to know. In general we need more control over what is supposed to be known/unknown/partially known, etc.

F11 > L-Ctrl F3?