Exorcet

Thanks for looking at this problem. There is a track in the first post. EDIT Recorded a new track AI_jump_route_2.trk

I think something like an AWACS could be branded as CA type product but focused on command and control. If so then it doesn't have to be extremely detailed, and it would still add a lot to DCS. I'd take a detailed aircraft module too, but just having a person replace the AI in the seat of even a simple AWACS could completely change the feel of a mission.

It might be a fuel issue then. If the AI uses too much fuel they refuse to start attacks.

I'm not sure if I fully understood, but here is a mission with triggers for your requests. If you play it you should see this: An A-10 orbits and drops flares every X minutes while a Helicopter switches orbits depending on if an enemy is near, messages saying what's happening are output as text. What's happening: A-10 Every X minutes a flag is turned on and pushes A-10 Flare bombing task. The next waypoint after bombing returns to original orbit and the cycle repeats. AH-1 Has two orbits. The second orbit is within a trigger zone. If enemy planes enter the zone, the AI will go hide further back at a predetermined orbit. Once the zone is clear, the AI resumes its mission. AIsetup.miz

Setting AWACS to its own frequency is a good idea, just make sure it's in the mission briefing so people can see it. A possible alternative is to remove the default AWACS task and instead use an AWACS triggered action that turns off after a set time and link it to F10 radio. Players could call AWACS through F10 which would then push the AWACS task that will only run for as long as the duration is set. Still not perfect and I've not tested it, but if it works as I expect this should at least keep AWACS quiet when no one is asking for updates. One small downside is that AWACS won't call out nearby threats automatically. I'm also not sure how datalink information will be affected.

Having it native to DCS would be nice. As would being able to fly the AWACS, even if not FF.

It doesn't matter where ED puts the price sticker. It all goes into their pocket. Charging for the core won't change anything. The modules they sell right now depend on and fund the core already, there is nothing that forces modules sales to only go to supporting module development. On the topic of subscriptions, I remain against because of increased user cost for no benefit.

AWACS won't report missiles of any kind, probably intended to reduce clutter, but it's annoying when dealing with large missiles like cruise missiles.

True, I was imagining that this would be on the way in before weapons were used, but it could be used after as a quick rearm. I think DML has a tool to penalize slot swapping so maybe that could be setup to prevent it after the first time?

They're going to have to switch slots. Mission Start > Slot in to plane at airport > Fly to tanker > Exit slot to despawn plane and then respawn in the air in predesignated slots. This disallows choosing weapons/livery though.

One way to utilize the speed difference between the two is to have the fixed wing perform passes over an area while helicopters loiter around the perimeter. The idea being that fixed wing comes in higher and faster to avoid being in the sights of air defenses while helicopters sit waiting for the defenders to shoot or be spotted by fixed wing and pounce on them when they do. The two can communicate with each other to coordinate as well so it doesn't have to come down to hoping that they end up at the same place in the same time. The idea can be expanded to armed reconnaissance where fixed wing cover more ground and search larger areas by flying higher and faster and then point out targets for helicopters to strike. Fixed wing can make attacks too and then revert to recon when out of ammo if fuel allows. Something else that might apply that I've tried in single player missions, but not MP as I don't have a server, is to create dynamic objectives. A pilot is briefed for one mission, but an emergency happens while enroute and they are retasked, or an objective of opportunity is detected and the pilot is given the option to engage with it. These can be designed to call whoever happens to be around and then let them figure out how they will cooperate, or they can be designed to call one asset to another, like calling fixed wing to an area where helicopters are fighting but don't have the tools to overcome an unexpected obstacle like a moderately armed ship or a medium range SAM.

The example was about dropping off the troops and swapping into one of them, not having the pilot get out of the helicopter.

While CA is a mess, I don't think I've seen anyone outside of DCS really complain about it. It doesn't compete with bigger games because it didn't manage to attract a wide audience. DCS ground troops would probably be the same and just compete within the simulator niche. DCS FPS will have to make some compromises, but that is fine. It doesn't have to be the pinnacle of FPS games. It only needs to provide us with some way to allow player controlled troops to interact with aircraft. Even just adding controllable infantry to CA is a good start. There are some issues of scale when mixing aircraft and ground combat, but it's not a massive problem. I've made missions where I interact with ground forces for more than 5 minutes, and even if one pilot can only stay around for 5 minutes you can have more than one pilot available to extend the interaction time between air and ground.

They are set to "Start from ramp" meaning they need to do a start up process before taking off. For the B-52 this can take 15 minutes. Ctrl Z will let you speed up time. How much you can go is machine dependent, but as this is an AI only mission you should be able to speed up pretty far. I was able to run this mission at 100x speed. Shift Z brings you back to 1x speed and Alt Z slows down time. In the ME you can also change the first waypoint type from Start from Ramp to Start from Ramp Hot, this will make them start taxi sooner as they will already be started. Or just make it takeoff from runway or turning point to start on the runway/in the air.

Antiship for the B-52 should only have 1 payload option which is AGM-84's. You can add extra AGM-84 under the wings. I'd be careful with default settings. They will get the AI to act but sometimes in unpredictable ways. Nearby doesn't sound good for an antiship mission. If there are small boats close to the airbase that's a mission better served by lighter CAS aircraft. Also many naval ships have very powerful missile systems because they need heavy defense to be worth the cost of building. B-52's should not come within 50 miles of enemy ships. Here is what a flight plan might look like: Notice the distances. B-52's main defense against ships is to never get close. The AGM-84 allows them to attack from miles away. The situation where bombers take off from a base and try to attack ships nearby isn't realistic and that's the problem with the situation you set up. Realistically the bombers would attack from a distance and use a mass missile salvo to overwhelm the ships: Here is the attack from the plan above, this is as close as the bombers ever get and notice they fire a lot of missiles. The mission is attached. AntishipB52.miz

The Encyclopedia information needs an update and consistency overhaul. Though in the case of the S-300 25 nm seems about the max distance for a non closing target. Missile range is variable, so a single number can't covey performance very well.

Yes, install a new DCS version in a different location and you'll be able to choose which to launch. Previously OB and Stable had different names which made keeping track of which was which easy. I haven't updated to the new unified DCS yet, so I'd back up the current Saved Games DCS folder you have now before installing the second one just to be safe. C:\Users\<USER>\Saved Games\DCS\Config Contains settings for DCS The folder \Input specifically has the controls for modules. Copy this folder to the same location in the new install Saved Games to bring your controls over. I believe there is also an option in DCS to save your inputs as a file and then load them. You can try that too. If you make a backup of each (old and new) DCS Saved Games folder before copying files you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

The DCS manual covers task types I suggest picking the task you need, deleting the default waypoint action and replacing it with some kind of Search Then Engage or Search Then Engage in Zone action. 1. SEAD for focusing in SAM/AAA, CAS for ground targets in general including SAM/AAA. With Search Then Engage you have a list of target checkboxes that you can use to exclude certain targets like ships. 2. Antiship, although CAS has some antiship options through Search Then Engage. 3. This is always mission dependent. CBU-105 is great for groups of armored vehicles or short ranged air defenses. However it also reduces range and performance and doesn't have the reach to fight long range SAM's nor the concentrated fire power to defeated hardened targets (maybe, DCS damage modeling may let it excel at roles it shouldn't). AGM-88, AGM-65, Mk80/JDAM/Paveway are all common AG weapons for these planes. Additionally jammers and avionics pods are available when needed. 4. This is again mission dependent. Both planes carry AIM-9 L/M/X and AIM-120 B/C. The F-18 can also carry AIM-7/M/MH/P. AIM-120C is the longest range and best use against the highest threats. AIM-120B is slightly worse than the 120C but might be more available depending on timeframe or situation. Missions against lower threats may use 120B's to save C's for tougher fights. The AIM-9 is a short range IR missile. Use it when dogfights are expected, or perhaps when low capability air targets are present. It's common to mix both types, with more 120's carried, as if one kind of missile fails the other can be used. Both planes also have a gun with different types of ammo that can be swapped depending on mission. 5. The F-16 is not an antiship aircraft. It can attack ships with AGM-65 and dumb/laser bombs, but the Air Force would use B-52's instead. The F-18 has AGM-65's and bombs in addition to AGM-84 Harpoon antiship missiles. Harpoon is overkill for very small ships but needed for large warships. To set the planes up in the ME they need a route with waypoints and tasks at the waypoints to follow. Search Then Engage and Search Then Engage in Zone allow you to configure their attack settings provided the correct Task is set when adding the plane to the map. The DCS documentation explains in more detail.

ED offers miles as a reward to buyers. And your past payments to ED were for the modules you received. Why should ED owe more than that?

I agree. FF planes usually aren't that complex control wise, but there are exceptions. At the end of the day the designers don't want pilots to be looking down, they want them to be looking out of cockpit to fly and fight. That's the entire point of HOTAS. FF allows you to push keys as FC3 does but also lets you find a switch and click it in the cockpit which is an advantage when it's not clear what key a command is bound to. I think the true advantage of FC is that it standardizes controls across multiple planes. That's harder to do with FF. There is no "lock on" button, there is TMS up short or Sensor Select down long. Buying the entire pack gives you multiple aircraft that you can jump between with consistent controls and that's how I would sell it to people that are trying to decide between it and FF. Controls are about compromise and that will also be the case in a simulator. The ideal controls would be a 1:1 replica cockpit but that's not always practical. I try to replicate the real controls as much as possible, though I don't think that adding a switch to HOTAS controls defeats the point of FF. Some switches are going to be easy to reach in reality. The multilayered switches like the protected gear levels in the MiG-21 and Mirage F1 are difficult to replicate correctly as buttons. In those cases I think combining the commands to lift the guard and the lever at the same time only makes sense because for the real pilot it would be a very simple motion. It's a subjective area that people will approach differently. Anyway, I don't see a need for camps. FF and FC can coexist and they bring benefits to each other. People have more options now and that's good.

Should work with attack group for drones. Cruise Missiles only with Search Then Engage I think. AI is not good at it.

Making new planes takes more work. Using the existing planes only makes sense. They were already in development for MAC, they didn't want to waste the work, so they converted them into FC2024 modules. F-5A, etc would have meant throwing out and wasting previous work and then starting over and having to wait years(?) for results. Also with FC being simplified, the F-5E might as well be a F-5A in the same way that while the F-15 is technically a C, the simplified modeling makes it good enough as an A stand in when AMRAAM's are restricted. Not quite as good an example admittedly since avionics are simpler in the FC and the bigger difference will come from the engines and airframe, but it's easier to blur variant lines with FC modules than with FF ones.

That DCS lacks credits and XP is good. This is part of why DCS is better than other games. Credits and XP are just a bandaid to hide that your game isn't fun to play. If a game is good you play it out of enjoyment. Grinding is not fun, it's a waste of development resources, and it often leads to overpriced content. DCS is fine as it is. This is nothing about moving with the times. It's about destroying what DCS is and make it a generic and dull product. If you want daily missions, DCS can do better than something like assigning a random and what I'd consider predicable and meaningless objective to fulfill day after day. DCS will have a DC at some point to give you actual missions to do. Today it has the ME and online servers which are dynamic. If anything I'd want games in general to move toward the way DCS does things. It's so much better. From reading you post it does seem that you like having a to do list in games. I guess DCS could include some guidance for players unsure of what to do, though none of that requires XP and the like. It's because ED is aiming for a certain level of fidelity, and because the Russian government is trigger happy. Growling Sidewinder's Su-47 has nothing to do with the topic. It doesn't change the fact that a realistic MiG or Su is risky for ED to model and that the documentation needed to model it in detail may not exist. You may have found some documentation, but that doesn't mean you've found enough to model a plane. I do think that DCS, as a simulator, has room for less than perfectly modeled aircraft. FC does fit with that idea and now that ED has reversed their previous stance and are considering more FC planes, maybe it will open the door to aircraft that can't be simulated as FF. It's an insane price. The problem with microtransactions is that they inflate the price of items by immense amounts. Just consider how many skins are in a given module, which you pay around $60 for. If you divide the number of skins by the price you get a price per skin. Let's say it's 20 skins. $60/20 is $3. However this would mean that the entire cost of the module is skins. Not flight model, not system model, not 3D model, etc. $3 a skin is ridiculous and standing video game marketing practice is to hide that ridiculous price behind a low transaction cost to make people unaware of how much they are spending. Effectively undoing the free user files system and making things worse for everyone. I disagree. Nothing should be about encouraging people to spend money. A good product makes money by being worth buying. Also if people don't want to play something then they don't need encouragement. They need to find something that interests them. Encouragement typically takes the form of unfun forced content or hoops to jump through before you can actually enjoy anything. My encouragement to play DCS comes heavily from the fact that it leaves what to do up to me. There is nothing to indicate that what you're saying will work. Your example also works just as well with the current system where people just buy the planes. Let's not forget DCS has free trials anyway so people can already play for free. ED will probably never run out of planes. Not unless they can greatly increase the rate of module releases. For most aircraft we have one version, out of the dozens on offer. Players want multiple versions or versions with additional capabilities. ED has catered to this demand with module upgrades like FC3 (upgrade to FC2), BS2 and BS3, and A-10C II. The same can be done for other modules. DCS offers infinite content through the ME, and the DC is under development. While its current state might not be very attractive to some I don't see overpriced video game marketing as any kind of solution. The foundation for a great experience is already in DCS. It just needs more development, not to be replaced by price gouging system that just makes the sim harder to enjoy.

I share the sentiment. I prefer FF in part because it's easier than FC3, but everyone has different workflows that work for them. One thing I can say about FC3 is that if you like to jump between aircraft often it's nice to be able to use the exact same controls across many planes. In my opinion that's the biggest thing that FC3 offers.

As much as a more advanced spawn system makes sense, the fixed slot system we have now isn't really out of place. Going to the other extreme where a player can slot anything anywhere could break missions. Just to use the example you provided, what is a IRIAF Tomcat doing on a carrier? In any case have some curated form of advanced aircraft slot selection would be a very nice addition to have and it's relevant to any expansion of FC aircraft since it would be a shame to have to place separate slots for FC and FF versions of planes if a mission builder wants both.