Chenstrap

I thought about suggesting/requesting adding parameters to the current tasks, but I think that risks breaking older missions. Plus I think would make things a bit complicated for new mission makers trying to sort out the parameters. Entirely separate task keeps things a bit more straightforward I would think. Having the flight split up would be really great actually.

The current racetrack orbit is has fighters making long slow lazy turns that take close to 3 minutes for the AI to complete the full 180 degree turn. Thats fine for heavies, but for combat aircraft is far too slow and means they take up way too much real estate (Pretty common to see ~16NM between legs which is way too much space). Comparatively, the circle orbit has a much tighter radios and only takes the ~60 seconds to complete a 180 degree turn and get to the reciprocal heading. In the Racetrack orbit planes will only bank too roughly 25 degrees in the turns. In the circle orbit they maintain 50 degrees of bank. A new "Combat Racetrack" orbit with parameters tweaked to ensure the AI make their 180 turns much quicker would be great. May honestly just need to change the bank angle setting they use.

I am a week or 2 late but I have been doing a lot of tinkering with SEAD flights and SAMs and want to give my 2 cents on their behavior. That said I generally want to echo @Exorcet in that the current behavior is more realistic then what is being proposed. To expand on SEAD tactics a bit, generally SEAD flights will only want to shoot at 2 targets: Search radars and tracking radars, so things like Early Warning Radars and communication/C2 vans arent engaged by these sorts of weapons. The purpose of a SEAD flight is to suppress air defenses to allow time for strikers to ingress, bomb targets, and get out. Because they carry a small number of anti radiation missiles, they generally cant afford to shoot multiple missiles at one battery since they often need to keep a window open for 10+ minutes against multiple potential threats. An SA-11 battery with 4 TELs and a snowdrift STR isnt 5 threats; its 1 threat, because the SA-11 TELs are reliant on the Snow Drift SR to search for targets. As for the behavior in DCS, right now aircraft firing anti radiation missiles (This goes for flights with task SEAD or any A/G task where you give them ARMs) only shoot at active radars that the aircraft have detected on RWR. IE if you put a radar unit in the mission but have its radar off (AI off or emission off triggers do this), aircraft wont shoot at it because it is not actively emitting. Another example of this is the SA3. The Flat Face search radar is picked up on RWR further out than the Low Blow tracking radar (This is true for Player and AI flights). As such AI SEAD flights will engage the search radar from max range, but they will only engage the tracking radar from ~15 miles out because that is when the radar is picked up on RWR. This explains whats happening with the SA-11 in the given example from @Capn kamikaze . The SA-11 Fire Dome TEL does have onboard radar, but its a fire control/tracking radar ONLY, it doesn't do search which is the job of the Snow Drift. SEAD aircraft wont shoot at the TEL unless has locked onto a target and launched a missile because thats the only time the radar is emitting. However thats unlikely to happen seeing as HARMs have a longer range then the SAM does and by the time the SA-11 can shoot a missile the Snow Drift SR has already eaten a HARM and the TELs never had a target to engage. @Flappie if you have already pushed a ticket regarding this thread I ask you amend to it as the behavior being asked for by Kamikaze is less desirable then the current behavior by the AI SEAD flights. With that said, there ARE features for AI SEAD flights that need to be added in. Namely, AI SEAD aircraft currently can not perform pre briefed HARM shots (Players can do this already). As I described above they will only shoot at actively emitting radars. This post has already gotten quite long, but if you like I can provide more details on what sort of features would be really nice for pre briefed HARM shots.

Its a really odd decision for them to focus on the northern part of the map first. I understand the ISIS fight happened in the north, but we have the Syria map already to do exactly that. The south and east is where most of the interesting military action happened, and thats really what people have wanted for years. I was really hoping we would get something like this for the first pass: Have Baghdad as the rough northern boundary. Eastern part of the map stretch into Iran including Dezful, Omidiyeh, Bandar Bushehr, and Khark Island. The south should include Kuwait obviously and some part of the Gulf, but the Saudi region will need some creative/historical workarounds due to size (And MANY people are underestimating just how huge the region is). The closest major Saudi airbases are 600 miles from Baghdad (Thats 90 mins of transit time, one way, not including tanking), a distance far too large for people to want to use in day to day flying. I think a reasonable work around would be to use rework civilian Saudi Airports into military ones. Al Qaisumah airport and Rafha would be the best options. As for the west, something a bit past Mudaysis would make a good western boundary. Would be a bummer to miss H2 and H3 but the line has to be drawn somewhere reasonable given Iraq is so huge. The play area above would have provided good flexibility for recreating historical scenarios the Iran Iraq war, Desert Storm, OIF, and fights against a number of terrorist groups right out of the gate. It would also allow for great fictional scenarios such as US coalition vs Iran.

Before people shout down my throat I am not talking about the flyable F16 module. I mean the AI only F-16C Bl.52. Putting Aim 7s on this jet would be great for 2 reasons 1: Realism. Exports models of the Block 52 are often Aim 7 capable due to embargos. For example, modern Iraqi and Egyptian air forces do not even have the AMRAAM in inventory due to embargo, and their F-16s fly with Aim 7s. 2: This AI version of the F-16 comes with an Aggressor livery by default. By giving this aircraft Aim 7s it would be a more flexible Aggressor jet for missions. Giving it the whole Aim 7 family would give max flexibility for mission making.

With the comms rework underway theres a couple features I would love to see personally. The first is, currently, the new callsigns are segmented by aircraft. So right now the F16, F18, F15E (AI only model), and B1/B52 all have new callsigns in game but they dont share these new callsigns. Personally I think it would be great if all the callsigns were shared among all aircraft. Simply put this would give mission makers max flexibility for making missions. The way its currently implemented is extremely limiting as missions designed for multiple aircraft are still limited to the old Gun/Car callsigns, in particular those with custom voice overs. Secondly, we have a number of training focused Terrains in DCS, and more coming (NTTR and Marianas in game and North Australia on the way). I think it would be a great addition to have some Red Air/Aggressor based callsigns for mission creation. AWACS Callsign: Baron - Baron is typically the Red Air AWACS/GCI at Red Flag. Fighter Callsigns: Ambush, Bandit, Flanker, Gomer, Ivan, Mig, Stalin

Noticed this tinkering in the editor. In 1v1s the AI will shoot a Fox 3 and crank after the shot. In any form of 2vX, 3vX, or 4vX the AI will shoot and stay nose hot for several seconds before they pull a max escape maneuver. Even when targeted or shot at with Fox-1s (R27ERs in this case), aircraft in 2/3/4vX engagements who have shot an Active Missile do not perform any kind of evasive maneuver until the missile is extremely close to hitting them. For these tests all aircraft are set to fighter sweep (CAP aircraft do not crank ever for some reason...) and their AA missile usage is set to "Max Range Launch". The target flankers do not have jammers. 2v2 Not Cranking.trk2v2 Not Cranking JF17.trk2v2 Not Cranking F16.trk1v1 JF17 Cranking.trk1v1 F18 Cranking.trk1v1 F16 Cranking.trk

Fixed the mistake with the variable name, but issue persists. Im purely going off what info I can find on the forum/in the scripting wiki and am basing my formatting off that. Learning as I go really Im just confused because pushing other task in a similar manner works just fine. For example these work perfectly, and are generally structured the same as the follow parameter (at least the line where the task is pushed): EngageGroup = { id = 'EngageGroup', params = { groupId = 2, priority = 1 } } Group.getByName('Aerial-1'):getController():pushTask(EngageGroup) local function follow() nCAP = {"27", "29", "F1", "18", "16", "F5"} unit = nCAP[math.random(4)] myGroup = Group.getByName(unit) selection = Group.getID(myGroup) followTask = { id = 'Follow', params = { groupId = selection, pos = {x = 200, y = 0, z = -100}, lastWptIndexFlag = false, } } Group.getByName('follower'):getController():pushTask(followTask) trigger.action.outText(unit, 15) trigger.action.outText(selection, 15) end follow() But the switch waypoint task keeps throwing this weird empty error

Hi, trying to learn lua scripting to streamline making some more complex missions where triggers can become a cluster. I am not using Mist or Moose, just the default DCS scripting stuff. Open to using either if an easy solution can be found. I am having with the switch waypoint feature in Lua, every time I try to call it DCS triggers an empty error box. No info on what the issue is as theres no text. Script I am using: SwitchWaypoint = { id = 'SwitchWaypoint', params = { fromWaypointIndex = 2, goToWaypointIndex = 4, } } Group.getByName('Aerial-1'):getController():pushTask(SwitchWaypoint) When I run the script it just throws an empty error screen with no context on what the error is. When I try another task like Engage group it works fine. I have ensured the aircraft has enough waypoints so that there is a 4th one to switch too Secondly, can someone help me understand how the "AI options" work in LUA? They are structured differently from the other tasks, but theres little in the way of examples to follow for someone who is unsure of the syntax. For Example I am trying to manipulate the Radar Using parameter but cant sort out the proper syntax or how to update these options during a mission (IE I want an aircraft to start the mission with its radar off, but turn it on at some point during the mission).

Theres not an "F-15E" option in the user files section of the site, so content for the strike eagle is being uploaded to different sections. Need to be more attentive with this in regards to 3rd party releases as this happened with the Mirage F1 also and theres a bunch of content for it still hidden under "Other" .

You can do this in DCS. To my knowledge the limitation is the search radar and tracking radar need line of sight. So pick an elevated place for the search radar (I notice some of the rocket icons on the map arent at SAM sites, but mountain tops. Likely good choice), and place the tracking radars as needed. Coverage needs to overlap so I also wouldnt spread them out too far either.

Loving the new map and particularly loving the pre placed SAM positions and the markings in the editor. It would be really nice to have these assets as static structures that players could place in the mission editor. That would let us have detailed SAM sites in areas where maybe there aren't any emplacements. Plus, some of the maps don't have these revetments of any type at all, and these would be really nice to use on those maps as well.

Sounds good Kerbo! Im familiar with Wyverns liveries as well. Hes a fan of "What if" Flankers

Hey Kerbo, thanks for all the work. I notice you forgot the Egyptian JF-17 you did, may wanna include that If I can make a request, Egypt liveries for the Mirage F1 and a Flanker would be awesome as well. The F1 is a good standin for the Mirage V, and given Egypts history of goin back and forth on where they get military hardware from a flanker would fit nicely. Maybe the J-11 since it uses R-77?

Im 502d but it happened AFTER I bought Sinai. I logged in just fine initially, eyeballed the Strike Eagle AI for a min. Used the module manager to buy Sinai, and after that is when I got the 502 error.

Bumping as this is still bugged

The answer is kind of half and half. The way to do it is to modify the Unit payloads. These will be under savedgames/DCSopenbeta/MissionEditor/UnitPayloads followed by a long list of planes. Then you can switchout the weapons pylon per pylon. This github has all the weapon names data mined. Some are ez, some are a garbled: https://github.com/pydcs/dcs/blob/master/dcs/weapons_data.py Be warned, doing this may break IC. With that said the weapons may not work for your module of choice. The high fidelity modules are hard coded to use certain weapons. So you cant put like an SD-10 on a Hornet for example. The FC3 jets dont seem to have this limitation. IE you can put SD-10s, PL-12s, PL-5s, and PL-8s on the J-11 and I believe it will work okay. One thing to note is that the AI are much more flexible in the weapons they use. For example, say you want to create a Red Flag mission on the Nevada map, and you want the AI aggressors to have red weapons but you want to fight the F-15/F-16 Aggressors, not Migs/Flankers. You can make a loadout for those jets and the AI can use and shoot the missiles just fine, even if the player can't. This can be useful for some scenario making. IE you can give the HARM to the F-4 for SEAD, or the AMRAAM for CAP to emulate an upgraded German or Greek F-4 that got the AMRAAM. Plus, because the loadout is saved to the miz file, if you share the mission with someone the AI will still have the updated weapons. There are some weapons the AI just cant use due to radar/other limitations though (Su-33 I couldnt make use Anti Ship missiles using this method alone for example).

I think one thing it could be useful for is helping ppl who do not understand coding at all do some simple things, or take some simple things and go from having to setup multiple triggers to having it be done in a script. An example is I have been kicking an idea around of some missions/a campaign and wanted to have a script where the AI calls their missile shots. I had a version of this already but experimented with having chat GPT make its own version. Doing that I was able to get something that not only has the AI calling missile shots, but it can also call out its target. For someone who knows coding well that not overly impressive (And they could likely make something better, as the current version is reliant on unit names), but for someone who doesnt know programming well it gives some ability to expand ideas.

I know last year the Micas were buffed after some issues where they weren't reaching their target. That was tweaked, however they still have issues with energy depletion. Mica is still underperforming however, hitting non maneuvering targets at 420 kts when other missiles are hitting the same target at 650-750 kts. As you can imagine that makes the missile useless vs a maneuvering target. Its definitely underperforming vs other missiles in class (Aim 120B/C, SD10, R77, R27) and it seems weak even when compared with the other French missiles (S-530D, S-530F, and R-530. Would be nice to see the missile get some buffs, especially as on many maps the Mirage 2000-5 is both a potential friendly and threat aircraft for scenario creation(Syria for Greece V Turkey. Persian Gulf for UAE. South Atlantic for fictional "What if Argentina was modernized" scenarios. And Egypt V Israel on the upcoming Sinai map.). Attached is a track file testing a few of the missiles Mica Missile Tests.trk

On the user files section of the site we still don't have a section for the Mirage F1. All Skins, missions, ETC are having to be labeled as "Other" which is makign searching for stuff a bit of a pain. I know there are several versions of the aircraft coming, but 1 master list would likely be best due to the number of AI aircraft included also. Please and thank you

Bump as this is still a bug

Been having this issue for a couple days. The updater runs, and gives me a handful of error messages. I am also unable to launch the older version of the game (When I click "Later" when the updater prompt comes up) Error 1: "cant delete c:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World Open Beta\bin/ed_sound.dll: (5) Access is denied". This error message triggers twice. Error 2: "Cant run C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS world OpenBeta/bin\DCS.exe: (2) The system cannot find the file specified." It also generates 2 txt files. These have been attached to this post. autoupdate_log.txt autoupdate_templog.txt

Bumping this, recent build claimed Mica had been changed. While that is true, there are still scenarios where the missile will not reach its target, even if target is non evasive. This is likely also being exasperated by a new bug where AI aircraft are not accelerating when within 50nm of a bandit, they throttle back and coast it seems. As such they launch probably .3-.5 mach slower then they should be. You can see the new Mica behavior, and the acceleration bug in this thread here:

Good shout, didnt think about that. Flipped the tasking and they now all launch at the same time. Woops..... Your comment on the Mica is about spot on. A lot of the older AI only missiles seem to still not be working correctly, likely due to being on the old API or w.e. The Mig 23s R24R is a good example of this. It accelerates up to a seemingly decent speed, but then just dumps air speed like a mofo. Only goes like 8 or 9 miles before it falls out of the sky, when the Mig 23 will launch 20-30 miles out. Its far from performing the way one would expect given the R24 should be similarish to the sparrow. The Mica used to do the same thing. Its now "better", but still far from ideal. Also secondarily, ive been seeing a new bug where AI aircraft wont accelerate towards target aircraft. You can see it in this mission. Theyll go full AB, then at 50 miles theyll coast until launch. This is obviously not helping launch parameters, as the aircraft are probably .3-.5 mach slower then they should be on launch. Initial thread on Mica/R24 terrible performance (The Mica is different then what it was previously, R24 still the same). Thread about AI not accelerating at their targets

I noticed this testing the MICA. When AI aircraft are set to CAP or fighter sweep, they will engage from a further distance then when they are set to intercept. The difference is quite drastic. All aircraft set to attack a single target aircraft, all have "AA missile range" set to max. Target aircraft setup to act like drones. The reason I noticed this with the MICA is that the missiles would not hit when set to CAP for Fighter sweep, they would always miss short. I believe it is still broken despite the patch notes. You can see this in the supplied mission. AI tasking.miz