MBot

+1

I just thought this was a cool shot, not necessary in 1990. Here are a couple shots of VF-21 on USS Independence (so they must be 1990 or later, but most likely 1990): Note the various nose numbers.

Also it is worth noting that whille most squadrons adopted TPS in the 80s, some kept going in hi-viz beyond CAG birds. For example VF-21 were it their glorious hi-viz livery into the 90s.

EWR units not returning targets beyond 120 km continues to be a major obstacle for GCI scripts. Considering that the range rings for both EWR units appear at arbitrary 120 km, which is about 1/3 of the actual range of these units, I still think this is probably a simple database error. I would really like to have this fixed and am waiting for this for 3.5 years now, since pretty much all of my missions rely on EWR controlled ground alert interceptors.

Has this issue ever been acknowledged? AI that is too late to reach a waypoint with a set TOT at max speed for whatever reason (for example taxi delays or combat) will revert to fly the remaining route near stall speed. For helicopters this means they will simply stop completely. AI_Late_TOT.trk

The AI is performing unnecessary maneuvers after completing a ground attack task to proceed to its next waypoint. Note the expected optimal route for this simple attack setup versus the route actually flown by the AI. After the attack, the AI is performing almost 360° of turning, including overflying the target area a second time, in order to proceed to the egress waypoint. My suspicion is that as soon as the bombs are dropped and the attack is completed, a route segment is created from its present position to the next waypoint. The AI then needs to maneuver to fly this route segment for its entire length, returning to overfly the bomb-drop point in the direction to the next waypoint. AI_Waypoint_Maneuvering.trk

AI will attack ground targets at the speed it currently has when initiating the task, not the speed assigned by the waypoint. Observe the attached track. An AI Hornet at a speed of 1000 kph is tasked to attack an SA-2 site with Snakeye. It will initiate the attack run at 1000 kph. Halfway in the attack it is engaged by the SA-2 and goes defensive. When the SAM is defeated, the AI will resume the attack at the speed it has when the evasion ends. In the track, the AI performs the remainder of the attack at merely 650 kph. In a tactical setting this would make it very vulnerable to air defenses in the target area. The same can be observed when the AI arrives at a waypoint with an attack task at slower speed than assigned to the waypoint (for whatever reason, for example still accelerating). It will perform the A-G attack at the present speed it has when it hits the waypoint. As a little side note, observe how in the first seconds of the track, the AI deploys speed brakes to slow down to 900 kph and then immediately engages afterburner to accelerate to 1000 kph again. This rather unnecessary quirk (speed brake then AB) can be observed whenever the AI gets an attack task. Has been present in DCS for a decade. AI_Attack_Speed.trk

Sounds great. Is the ALR-45 capable of identifying and filtering emissions of friendly platforms?

Has this problem already been acknowledged? I still frequently get this.

I haven't followed all the Phoenix issues lately, but is the problem of Jester switching to RWS (repeatedly pressing his button) upon launching an AIM-54 being looked into?

AI is frequently dropping from basked during in-flight refueling and can get stuck in a position without taking fuel. AI_Refueling_Basket_Drop.trk

AI is waved-off constantly upon trying to land on carrier. This is happening in almost every of my missions but the exact cause is difficult to track down. In my experience this is affected by aircraft weight (fuel and stores), carrier speed and wind. But something is seriously bugged as the effects are often contrary to expectations. See attached tracks. In the first track the carrier is moving at 10 kts and two Tomcats land without issue. In the second track the carrier moves at 30 kts and the AI is waving off for 30 minutes. Playing with the fuel level (weight) of the aircraft will also affect whether AI will wave-off. But again this often seems bugged. For example I had reduced the fuel of only the leader, which resulted in the wingman being able to land (but not the leader). This happens on the Supercarriers and the Stennis. F-14 seem to be most strongly affected by this but I have also seen it with the Hornet, although more rarely. This is a major issue for my carrier missions, as the AI getting stuck in the wave-off limbo will block every other AI aircraft from recovering, usually resulting in various AI crashing waiting over the carrier due to fuel starvation. I assume this whole issue is caused by the (bugged) attempt to enforce a maximum trap-weight on the AI. I strongly suggest to reconsider this in the light that the AI is unable to reduce weight by dumping fuel and that the AI doing wave-offs for 30 minutes, blocking all recovery operations, is an extremely unrealistic outcome. Considerably less realistic than the AI doing overweight traps. F-14_WO_Carrier10kts.trk F-14_WO_Carrier30kts.trk

A very bold claim from ED, but encouraging that this is the level they are aiming for.

I am really excited about this project, this is my most anticipated module right now. I love the A-7E, this is really the Golden Age of carrier aviation.

It would be nice if we could define a limit for each tanker how much fuel it will offload per tanking aircraft. Right now, AI receiver will always refuel to full tanks. This creates problems especially with smaller tankers with limited offload capability (such as the S-3 or the upcomming KA-6D). Usually the first AI to refuel will completely empty the tanker, leaving its wingmen to not receive any fuel at all and usually crash due to fuel starvation. It would therefore be useful if we could set the tanker to give only let's say 4000 lbs fuel (or watherever number the mission designer thinks is appropriate) per refuelling aircraft.

I fully agree. It is a shame that these very nice and complete models cannot be used for missions.

Thanks, that is good to know. Hopefully it will be able to adjust this in order to have the AI F-14 perform better in Backfire defense.

Will you Heatblur be able to set up your AI F-14A/B (and/or your AIM-54 entity) so that the AI will be able to shoot multiple AIM-54 simultaneously in TWS against aircraft? While the Heatblur AI F-14 is currently indeed able to shoot multiple simultaneous Phoenix at incoming anti-ship missiles, it is not capable to engage aircraft simultaneously. This makes the HB AI F-14 very ineffective in fleet defense scenarios, with the aircraft shooting single AIM-54 and then cranking. This means it usually gets only 1-2 Phoenix engagements until it merges with bomber formations and then engages in close combat with Sparrow, Sidewinder and gun. Usually the AI runs out of fuel before out of Phoenix missiles. Please see attached a track with the old legacy F-14A/AIM-54 which demonstrates that the AI is capable to engage multiple aircraft simultaneously. It should hopefully be possible to set up your F-14A/B/AIM-54 the same way. AI_F-14A_multi-Phoenix.trk

First class update, as usual. Thanks!

I am away on vacation right now so will keep it short. My biggest issue with the Harrier is the improper implementation of the ARBS, which should be the very core of the AV-8B's attack system. This should be a system that uses a TV camera to make a contrast lock (like a Maverick) to measure angle rates to calculate slant range for ballistic calculations. RAZBAM's ARBS seems to use TGP-code, can be slewed on any point on the ground with target elevation and slant range being provided instantly by game-magic. ARBS as a system is basically not simulated, instead it is faked with shortcuts. I bought the Mirage 2000 and the AV-8B but skipped the MiG-19, even though I was very interested in the Farmer, because it was a RAZBAM module. I will certainly not buy RAZBAM's Strike Eagle because I have no confidence that they are able to model such a complex aircraft. I think it is a pity that such a high-profile aircraft is subcontracted to such a low-profile developer.

Having individual aircraft in a group bomb individual targets simultaneously has never been possible with the default ME. The only solution is to assign an Attack Task to the wingmen individually via LUA (the leader can use the attack task from the ME). Once wingen have completed their task they will rejoing with the leader automatically. Be aware that when getting their own tasks, wingmen will revert to default settings (reaction to threat etc.) and not inherit the settings from the parent group, so respective settings need to be applied to all wingmen as necessary. Having native support for simultaneous group attacks on individual target points is highly desirable for the future, but I would categorize this as wishlist item.

Attached are two tracks, one with a sea level target and one with a target at 1'500 ft elevation. Two aircraft with a bombing task and Snakeye bombs. The left aircraft has no "Altitude Above" set in the attack task, the right aircraft has "Altitude Above" set to 100ft. Sea level target: -Left aircraft climbs to default 1'000 ft above target to attack (issue) -Right aircraft attacks target at reasonable low altitude (ok)* 1'500 ft elevation target: -Left aircraft climbs to default 1'000 ft above target to attack (issue) -Right aircraft does not attack and directly proceeds to next waypoint (issue) *Previously the "Altitude Above" setting had the effect to impose a minimum AGL attack altitude to AI. It had no further effect if the aircraft was already at or above the set Altitude Above. I don't know if this setting is intended to have a new meaning now (have more far reaching control on attack altitude). If so it should perhaps be considered to rename it. Snakeye_MSL.trk Snakeye_1500ft.trk

New custom external engine sound has been added with the latest beta!

Well, a quick test with an AI F-5E and Snakeye shows this issue is still not properly addressed. With waypoints set at 100 ft AGL and given any of the regular air-ground attack tasks, the AI will still climb to 1000 ft to drop Snakeyes. I had success to enforce a bomb drop at 100 ft by using the "Altitude Above" setting in the attack task and setting this to 100 ft. This only works against a sea level target though. Against a target at higher ground elevation, the AI will refuse to attack altogether with this method. It seems this issue needs more work and should then be properly tested.

I agree, this will be essential. My guess is this is also the reason why the original F-4E was put on hold and why now we won't see a Phantom for at least another 2 years. ED simply doesn't have the tech for it yet. We will see what they come up with for the Hind as a first small step. Jester AI is not perfect but for the role it has to fulfill, it is extremely impressive. Heatblur has set a very high bar and it will be difficult for ED to even reach the same level (and frankly, comms, AI and UI are not exactly ED's strengths).