Exorcet

This did not work. I've added the log file if that helps. dcs.log

We have training bombs with smoke, not sure if you've seen those.

The mission attached will never finish loading. It stops at "Wait for pooled tasks - 1". I have tried three times now. No mods are installed. The mission was made by Saving As from another mission after deleting units to allow for quick testing. The original mission is able to load successfully. F-16C IHC Sirjan CAP A routing 3.miz

Tankers at ground speed is one of those AI things that makes anything but calm weather unusable. The default aircraft speeds are also totally unhelpful and add work if you end up switching a plane type, please allow them to be disabled:

The distance does look to be offset from the nearest surface from testing. For good measure I fired on a MiG-31 from the front and behind and an AIM-120 exploded consistently from both directions. I hadn't realized before that the proximity fuse also always detonates, I thought direct contact was possible but it appears not.

I wasn't sure if this is better placed in the mission editor wish list, or here. It's not about the mission editor itself, but the campaign creator. I'm finally getting close to finishing and going through the process of making a campaign instead of one off missions has left me with some thoughts on the campaign creator, especially when it comes to organizing missions. It would be nice if we could change the date and time of a mission in the creator directly instead of having to open missions one by one. The same goes for the briefings too. This would make checking continuity of missions much easier and also allow for mass corrections or copying and pasting of updated information between missions. Variant missions would be nice to have as well. For example, taking one mission file and then having the ability to tell the campaign system to store an alternate version of the file with a different time of day, or weather. This could also be done at the mission level and should be an option at that level too, but having it available in the campaign creator again helps with seeing the overall picture. Another desirable feature would be the ability to make missions as one time only. Currently the system is supposed to jump between stages and randomly pick a mission, but there are some that wouldn't make sense to play again. There are probably a few more that I forgot, but the theme here is to have the ability to make changes while seeing things zoomed out to the campaign level instead of the mission level.

If they're going to do that I'd prefer a tickbox. It gives more user control and then you don't run into an unexpected limitation when you try to do something that people haven't thought of before (say Finland loans a plane to another nation in your mission, so you'd want Finnish Hornets with a non Finnish livery).

A sensitivity option should exist regardless of whether there is a bug or not. It would be a nice feature to have.

The design of the mission and the intent of the creator should absolutely be taken into consideration. I didn't want control to be taken from the mission creator, but instead was advocating for rolling part of this request into another popular request, which is the revamping of aircraft selection in MP. If the mission maker so chooses, the slot should be configurable by the player selecting that slot. Of course if the mission is designed to require a cold start, then that should be possible as well.

It's all related. Sustained turns are just PS=0. PS +/- are the cases where you're storing or trading energy, but they're related to PS=0. Sustained turns aren't everything, but they should be correct.

They could probably copy and paste the vehicle smoke effect. It would look good coming from a SAM launch.

I can try to look later, but I think the fuse issue will only show when the missile can't physically hit the target, otherwise yes it will explode on contact. Does this impact flare resistance? I thought this was for the initial lock on only and once locked all that matters is AB on vs off.

It looks like some of the confusion arises from the speculation that missile fuses base distance on the pilot and not aircraft, but a quick search left this unconfirmed. Anyway I agree with @Dragon1-1's point that the seeker tracking the aircraft as a point probably isn't a big deal, although it would be nice to have. I think more important would be refining the heat coefficients to make them more than just two values, and then possibly have them vary with aspect like RCS now does.

From what I know, targeting is centered on the pilot for weapons in general, not just missiles. Weapons/sensors just see a point on the target to go after. IR missiles also see the heat level of the target which is set as a coefficient for mil power and AB power. I'm not aware of any plans to change this specifically, though ED has mentioned a desire to improve AI targeting, which might cover missile seekers.

Any unit with a radar should be able to do this. Communication is a huge part of military flying and sometimes units have to improvise. A F-15 flying around with a bunch of F-5's could direct the F-5's with radio while scanning with radar.

Players would need some control over them.Some aircraft have rough field and STOL capability and would be able to operate from less than ideal runways. It would become a negative if trucks drove out on to the runway unannounced and disrupted these aircraft. Their presence would also need to be communicated to any aircraft that might use the runway, so this would need to be integrated into ATC at least.

From the info we have on module development, it might be more realistic to get the above as full fidelity rather than FC, at least for the blue side. There doesn't appear to be a clear cost savings from FC modules in terms of development work, or at least it's not a 50% savings. It may only be 10-25%. Based on that, FC might make more sense for more modern vehicles, or for red side aircraft, but this is speculation on my part.

Nothing is happening the FF planes. FC2024 has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Early development probably looks the same for FC and FF. They need to do research, collect sources, etc. FC is simplified, but it's still a simulation that requires information on the real aircraft, especially as the FC standard has increased over the years. The original FC planes with copy and pasted systems that were extremely generic were easier to make than what FC has become now. I'd assume ED wouldn't want to backtrack, so FC module development will probably still be involved. The simplification of the controls also isn't free, they need to be developed separately from the FF controls and that's means less sharing of code between FC and FF. My guess is that the biggest difference would be a shorter EA phase for FC planes.

The planner could use some enhancements. The entire briefing process could actually. The displayed threat list is annoying since it shows everything, including units hidden on the planner. The lack of waypoint and radio/TACAN information is painful. One note on anything related to route planning and ATC management and coordination, the ME doesn't know how to properly account for uncontrolled or late activation units. It just assumes that these will start at mission start time. Ideally this should change to make working and planning with these units easier. Proposals around this have been made before:

For clarity, Group Close is the formation spacing, and not the aircraft arrangement. You can set the wingmen to be Group Close while in Line a Breast, though it might need to be done in the mission planner as I think the F10 radio only has options for Combat Spread and Close. Yet another issue with that menu.

I don't mind keeping the old models, especially if removing them can cause problems. In the cases where they have unique capability, they absolutely should not be removed (M2005, F-16) I wonder how hard it would be to code an option to use the old model once a unit is updated. It could be useful on some machines and in cases where you won't really see the unit in the mission.

You can see the fuel state via triggers/script. Of course this has the limitation of needing to be added by the user into missions that do not feature it, so it does not remove the need for updated wingman communication, but it can help ease the issue in the mean time. And the formation you use. AI will waste far less fuel if using group close formation. Something about their flight physics also changes when they are in formation. I've had wingmen fly with me in mil power, but then when I tell them to break formation and follow waypoints they engage AB despite flying at the exact same height and speed.

This is difficult to pose as a yes/no question. The thing with product development is that it depends on a lot of factors. It's not realistic to ask ED to drop everything and work purely on bug fixes. Asking for a greater focus on them is something that might make sense however. I'm not sure if it's that straight forward. People already hesitate to buy modules because of bugs. Fixing the core doesn't bring in revenue directly because it doesn't have a sales price, but it does influence DCS sales. Not to mention stuff like smart AI is easily marketable, not only by ED directly but also through DCS content generated by users.

160 is way too far. Max range is closer to 50. Does the F-16 have ECM? Is the S-300 being masked be terrain? How much time elapses before the F-16 comes into firing range? Some AI units have a setup time.