Exorcet

The AI knows how much energy a given missile has. That decides whether they split S or not. There might be some other factors, but I think that's the primary.

Until the GFM is released, do not expect the AI to fly within realistic limits.

It's interesting that according to this video the F-4 has better radar lookdown performance than the DCS F-16 or F-18.

Were weapon restrictions on? Were AMRAAM in limited supply?

I don't know where we are exactly with Phoenix lofting at this point since I've been distracted by other things, but while I agree that a high loft is good - and you can clearly see the effects of a steep dive angle on energy when the missile decides to maneuver in a specific way - steep climb angles combined with aggressive steering logic do cause the missile to bleed a lot of energy. I guess it's possible that a steep climb out is fine if the missile is less aggressive when turning into its terminal phase. From memory I don't think I've seen many recent launches end at or above 30 degrees dive. 40-50 degrees, I think, will allow the missile to actually accelerate as it comes down from ~100k feet. It's an issue very similar to that of HARM missiles when they were being tweaked. They would take a shallow dive and lose all their speed trying to glide through thick air instead of coming down vertically. Anyway, this might all be besides the point, was the real Phoenix loft "perfect" in the first place? That I don't know, although I'd like to think it would be slightly more effective than it is now. Indeed, the acceleration of the Phoenix is very low in thick air. All the thrust goes toward fighting drag rather than imparting kinetic energy to the missile. Not to mention that part of lofting is energy conversion. What you put into potential energy, you get back in the end, minus drag losses.

So I've noticed the whales are still under "Structures" as static objects. Unless they're supposed to be robots, can we move them to the animals category?

The in game tutorials are meant to be stepped through slowly. After watching them a couple of times, it might be better to switch over to Youtube tutorials that will let you skip over parts that you don't need to see.

While AI sensors are a significant issue that needs to be addressed, the engagement range and fuel conservation problems are more because you're using a general CAP task I assume rather than Search Then Engage, which places range limits on the AI. Any remotely realistic mission would need to use Search Then Engage type tasks. CAP/Fighter Sweep/etc are for simple missions where you just want the AI to shoot stuff ASAP.

The mission editor solves this. And you as the end user don't even have to learn how to use it between other mission makers and tools like Liberation. What was said originally, and what I replied to was that there was "nothing to do" in DCS. If that's being retracted, then fine. I have no issue with people saying that they want more or different things. I fly singleplayer and own most modules. I don't really have a content problem and I don't consider a DC necessary. The ME doesn't have to take all your time, although when learning how to use it I can see a player being slow at first. In any case, I'm not against more stuff in DCS and the game does have long standing issues that should be fixed.

I have infinite content for every module via the ME. The Fast Mission Generator could use some updating, but it can be a nice starting point for quick missions. Online is pretty active with a decent variety of content. If your 8 year old mission doesn't work, chances are it still opens in the ME can be updated. Then you have training and practice which is fun by itself just because of the depth of DCS modeling. Yes, there are bugs and problems that everyone wants to see addressed, but that doesn't mean that there is no content in DCS.

We should retain the ability to have 0 wind everywhere, but other sure an option for realistic wind is fine.

Before adding different types, I think more accurate modeling of the effects of CM's are needed. Seekers need to be better at filtering out chaff as it slows down, or when the chaff deploying aircraft isn't in the notch, for instance

In case you have not tried it, the unit list can show and hide units by type, sounds similar to what you're proposing.

It's helpful to post a mission if it's giving you trouble. I find more tankers are better with many AI flights. Also check the mission log to see what happened to the fighters

It's many things, but it's not everything. One easy way to trump a bigger radar is to be closer to the target than it. AWACS can't fly on the front lines, they are too vulnerable. A fighter however, can operate even in contested territory. Sure, but what if your air force does not have an AWACS, or doesn't have an AWACS in a given theater? A fighter radar watching the sky would be better than nothing. F-14's and F-15's have served the role in real life. This is certainly something that can also be added, the two ideas aren't in conflict. Part of the drive behind my idea though isn't purely AWACS related, but trying to get some better coordination between player and AI, especially in single player. If you are flying something like a F-5 and there are F-4's nearby, they would have a much better picture of what is going on than you and they would certainly rely info to you because having your assistance is only going to improve their own chances of survival. The AI does make callouts on bandits and such, but not with any real purpose or priority. I'd like to see them at least try to coordinate with the player and I think some kind of AWACS like functionality would play into that.

This would probably require some overhaul of the AWACS system in game, but that's needed anyway. The idea is for fighters, especially those with powerful radar (F-14, F-15, MiG-31 / F-4, MiG-25 for earlier time periods), to be able to provide guidance to other fighters nearby, serving essentially as localized AWACS of sorts. This has been done in real life and even if a fighter isn't trying to be an AWACS, there tends to be some coordination of radar usage between fighters so that firstly, not everyone is scanning the same airspace, and secondly, no one is leaving a particular azimuth/altitude unchecked which may allows enemy aircraft to sneak by.

Interesting, this might make VR actually competitive with flat screens. I had not heard of this and will have to look into it.

I just wanted to provide some feedback and considerations on some of the minor changes made in 2.8. In short I think it would be nice if these things were proposed ahead of time, or were added as options. The changes made certainly aren't game breaking, but it can be annoying to have something that works one way suddenly change for seemingly no reason. One example is the view controls when using a hat switch. The camera used to stop instantly when you released the hat. Now it keeps going and stop gradually. This just makes views harder to control. I'd prefer to have the old camera motion restored. Another minor thing was moving the file name of a mission in the ME. I spent a few minutes looking for this the other day only to realize it was put at the top. Again not exactly something that makes DCS unplayable, but why was this done? I don't see the benefit. I think it would be in the best interest of everyone for ED to at least propose changes like this beforehand and get feedback before implementing. Take a measure of who is impacted and how and then see if it's really worth making these changes.

I am absolutely for a livery manager. I think it would make sense as an extension of the module manager. Players would choose what liveries are downloaded with the module, and DCS would just use a generic livery when a plane is using a paint scheme that isn't downloaded. Well on this it depends. Storage space can be easier to solve than RAM. If your space problem is that you have many files, you can just buy a USB external drive and move some over to it. You don't even need to turn off your PC to do this. If your drive it too small for DCS then fixing the issue is more involved though, yes.

Ah I see then the Phoenix should just level out regardless then? I missed where that was mentioned previously in the thread.

By loft assist, I mean the launch platform pitching up, not the missile changing its profile. Exactly, though from what I've been seeing in DCS, I don't think the benefit from cutting out the initial pitch correction is so small that it's trivial, but then again if the loft was more optimized the missile probably wouldn't be pitching up 50 degrees all the time which should help with the energy loss.

At some point going fast is going to stress your PC. The stuttering depends very heavily on how complex your mission is. If you're just watching a lone AI you can speed up 20-30 times with no problem. Simple missions with FC3 planes can hit 5-10x. Complex missions with full modules are only smooth at maybe 2x speed. Have you tried switching to F10 map or some other view while time accelerating?

I just want to point out, the pilot doesn't necessarily get to decide these things. What you want works for a generic casual MP server I guess, but it's a bit too open for something more sim based. Even on more casual servers there can be issues. For example I've seen some limit planes to certain airbases, which would clash with your third point. I agree that plane selection should be improved, but there are quite a few things that need to be accounted for.

I was with you until this point. I've always really disliked the way seeker target size is modeled in DCS because is so far off. I feel like the correct implementation with all the downsides should be modeled at some point. For the sake of completeness, why not try it the other way around too; launch the lofted missile first. A small difference in launch time can have a surprising effect on which missile gets there first. There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about loft assist though. You're allowing the missile to put all its thrust into gaining altitude and you're giving it a boost in doing so. Without the assist a few seconds of burn time are wasted on a pitch up maneuver and the missile will also never reach as high a speed as the assisted one. The problem is that the current loft profile is not optimal and almost ends up negating the assist. The missile wants to be as high as possible, but going straight up is one of the worst ways to achieve that. Going vertical means that the missile has to waste energy turning on to the target at peak altitude, and it also ignores the very important horizontal component of velocity. While you want the missile to go high, you also want it to close in on your target as fast as possible. Not taking air density into account, this is going to be a straight line from you to the target. The new F-15 radar really lets you see the difference a good loft (AIM-120) makes. The F-15 can now fire AMRAAM probably 100 miles and still kill a fighter when taking advantage of speed and altitude. Part of it is the better aerodynamics of AMRAAM, but it's also because the AMRAAM lofts efficiently (until it doesn't, my testing also helped me appreciate the work that goes into modeling in DCS - The AIM-120 seems to be worse at maneuvering above 100k ft compared to the AIM-54, and when the latter is fixed this will probably be an important consideration in 120 vs 54 matchups, anyway it's nice to see the missiles have tradeoffs where as less detailed sims would just make the 54 a longer ranged AMRAAM). I really can't wait for the Phoenix to get the new API.

Yes, 80+ nmi detection range on fighters. Though besides the range, it's still a FC3 radar with all the weaknesses that come with it.