Exorcet

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.

Those aren't FC aircraft, they are part of the DCS core, so any FC related news isn't relevant to them. ED does plan on more model improvements but expect that to take time, as the bombers and S-3 did.

As someone with a complete preference for FF, while I won't be purchasing FC versions of existing planes the aircraft are still fairly good simulations. From the cockpit of an opposing fighter FC planes are hard to tell apart from FF ones and even simplified as they are, they are more complex than the AI. If they bring more players in, it's a win for everyone.

That would be incredibly silly. Personally I'm not all that interested in simplified versions of FC planes but I am curious to know if the existing FC aircraft will receive any changes. Kola being available already is unexpected but welcome.

You want to avoid the default tasks. Those are only good for simple situations, like making an AI attack something for testing purposes. DCS does need some AI improvements, but you don't have to test every last thing. You will have to learn some of DCS's quirks but when you do, you can make simple attack runs that work 98% of the time in just a few seconds. You also don't have to script a mission to the point where you know everything that happens. When I said the Search Then Engage was more predictable I meant it makes the AI stick to a task rather than randomly flying all over the place. Also keep in mind that real combat missions are scripted to an extent. Actual pilots plan how they attack and how they will defend against being attacked. That's what you're setting up with AI waypoint actions. Even if DCS improves there really isn't any way around giving the AI the needed context it needs to approach its mission. If you share your mission file I and others can look at it and try to help you figure out how to set the AI to get what you want.

Were you using the default SEAD task? I delete the default ones and use Search Then Engage usually. Gives more predictable behavior. I don't recall seeing my SEAD flights going in for gun kills in recent missions.

I believe the XMIM-115 of the Roland also suffers from this issue.

FC3 won't be going anywhere. They should perform very closely. I also wouldn't say that the FF one has to be more difficult as FF comes with more capability and having the cockpit controls is an advantage. Though depending on additional limitations, there may be more challenges depending on what is being done.

I know there will be jokes made, but it's a really good question. I'm sure a lot of people just look at DCS as a place to blow stuff up, but with the flight modeling and systems modeling being so good it also has a lot of potential as a flight game without combat. We will have to wait and see what the DC will ultimately end up being but if it's really good it should offer the ability to generate non combat missions as well as combat ones. Or perhaps more low intensity stuff where something like a Yak could fit in and not be totally overwhelmed by cutting edge SAM's, etc. If the DC is only able to provide straight forward strike or CAP missions that users can then edit further, it will have done its job and that's fine. I'm holding out for the possibility that it can do more and maybe even orchestrate things like communication between AI units and players (imagine if it was smart enough to automatically create F10 radio options for example). Maybe those things are out of a scope, but if ED can figure out how to include them it would solidify the DC as the core of DCS content for all modules.

I know preferences vary from person to person, but the ME gives you unlimited content in DCS. I haven't actually played any of the official content for any module because of the ME and I never consider what content is available for a given module because of that. The ME will take some time to learn, but making small missions is pretty simple. DCS also gives you tool to randomize missions so that even if you make them, you don't necessarily know what will happen when you fly them. In the longer term ED is working on a Dynamic Campaign to produce content automatically. There is a very very simple version of this already available in the Fast Mission Generator.

Just wanted to bump this again as it has been a long standing issue and I've never been able to get clarification on if it's intended or if it's a bug. Either way reverting to the old system where the plane jumped from followed its route would be useful in a lot of situations, especially when wingmen don't quite do their jobs.

If you're bombing vehicles, CAS is the task to use. Then you can tell the AI to find and attach vehicles on its own with Search Then Engage (in Zone). It won't use JDAM's for this though since they can't track moving targets. Disperse under fire off should stop the vehicles from moving.

Start is a triggered action for the group, under Commands. You won't find it under the trigger menu, unless it was added on a unit, then it shows as an option for AI Task Push. DCS works as it does because uncontrolled was added some time after late activation (which is the same as changing the start time). It is also useful to have the start command tied to triggers and not WP0 time because then you can make AI start in reaction to events, like an enemy attack of unknown time.

The issue might be more complicated then. If someone from ED sees this they may ask for a log from your last session with stuttering. You can find the logs in the Saved Games folder, C:\...\Saved Games\DCS\Logs I don't know if this will help, but having it here might save a tiny bit of time.

It's more than maps. I don't have stutters anywhere. What is your PC? Do you use mods? How large are your missions? If you're using a HDD instead of a SSD, that might be hurting you.

Modules are fine. You don't have to own the same ones. You do need to own the same module to fly multicrew in 2+ seats. Both players need asset packs to see the associated units from those.

I think civil traffic in this case means the road traffic.

Typically I set refueling on AI ingress, I've used pushes a couple of times I believe and this seems to work as expected. Is the next waypoint after your CAP a landing? If so maybe the push is making the AI consider the orbit and CAP task ended. What happens if you set up a waypoint with a refueling command and instead of directly ordering refuel tell the AI to switch to that waypoint? Set the waypoint up so it's skipped initially, so WP1 (include switch to WP 3) > WP2 (refueling) WP3 > WP4 (CAP and orbit). This would mean that there is definitely a CAP and orbit task after the refueling.

Ship formations are an issue and I agree with the suggestion to have better control over their movements. Some automation would also be nice, like trying to avoid attackers when applicable. Due to the issues with ships I'm generally very careful when making them maneuver. I usually try as much as possible to limit them to straight lines and have them change speed rather than direction. Groups of one ship won't have the issue obviously so there is at least that solution, but it's less ideal from a mission building perspective.

Even if it is feature complete, ED can still listen to ideas. DCS is not set in stone.

If the smoke doesn't end up resting on top of the building, the only thing I can think of is to try placing a unit on the building and then hoping it explodes from the attack, forcing it to explode with the Explode Unit trigger, or use smoke marker on unit to place smoke on it. This might interact strangely when removing the building though.