MBot

The Jester Wheel doesn't work, so I am a little disappointed right now

I can't even click on the items. Opening sub-menus works, but it won't accept making an actual selection at the end. Neither with the UI button or by mouse click. Reverb G1.

See attached track. F-14A set to "Restrict Afterburner = on" will use afterburner to accelerate from 250 kts waypoint to 500 kts waypoint. RestrictAfterburner.trk

Does ED intend to implement this anytime soon? Currently, use of tactical tankers with AI receivers is extremely limited and frequently leads to crashing aircraft due to fuel starvation.

That is quite interesting. It seems that the datalink transmittal range is also somehow depending on the target's attributes. Indeed in your track I also see less than 100 NM. But if you make the bombers hot instead of cold, the first 3 are transmitted immediately. If you make them high, all six are transmitted. At first I though that it's because AWACS just doesn't see the low/cold targets itself, but even in your mission if I ask for a picture he reports 3 groups while he still only transmits the closest on datalink (under 100 NM). For a high and hot target I get 180 NM max.

It is a little sad to have to make this wish after DCS got 15 years old, but I would like to have a briefing in multiplayer where I can see my flight's waypoints (position, altitude, speed, timing) and assigned targets. Don't give me the Supercarrier briefing room. This functionality should neither be payware nor exclusive to naval aviation.

AI currently follows flight plans in a way that it climbs (and descends) at a rate to reach the set altitude of the next waypoint when it reaches the next waypoint, at the set ground speed for the next waypoint. So if we have WP1 (alt 1000m, speed 500 kph) and then 200 km away WP2 (alt 10000m, speed 900 kph), the AI will climb 9000m over the course of 200 km between WP1 and WP2 at a constant ground speed of 900 kph. While this can be a useful profile in certain situation, depending on the distance between waypoints, altitude difference and speed, it can also lead to various problems: -If the climb angle is too steep or the climb speed too slow, the AI can get stuck in an almost stall like situation where it will drag along in full afterburner and deplete its mission fuel already during the departure form the airfield. -If the climb speed is set too high, the AI will us excessive after burner trying to match it. This also can lead to early depletion of the fuel needed for the mission. This gets even more complicated as optimal climb angle/speed changes with altitude. For a climb from ground level to 10000 m at a uniform ground seed (as set by WP2) may be impossible. In practice this leads to endless trial-and-error when creating AI sorties during mission making. Basically you have to run every mission and observe every single AI flight throughout their entire sortie to find possible problems with climb profiles. If such problems are found, you have to make adjustments and re-test to see if it is better. This is extremely time consuming. I therefore propose that the climb profile can be selected for each waypoint: -Continuous (as it is now) -Optimal Military (fly at military power, adjust climb angle to stay at optimal climb speed, when reaching target altitude, continue at set altitude and set speed to next WP). -Optimal Afterburner (same as above but with afterburner)

Sadly this still wasn't addressed. Latest test shows: Radar detection range look-down: MiG-19: 60 km (excessive range, radar not look-down capable) MiG-21: 60 km (excessive range, radar not look-down capable) MiG-23: 60 km (excessive range) MiG-25: 65 km (radar not look-down capable) MiG-29: 60 km F-5E-3: 85 km (excessive range, radar not look-down capable) I was looking forward to the Kola map as it features long distance and relatively sparse EWR density. Therefore it should offer various opportunities for low level penetration and detection avoidance tactics. Unfortunately this is absolutely pointless if aircraft such as the MiG-19, MiG-21 or F-5E can pick you up at 60+ km look-down.

For many years I have been using this little tool to find optimum speed and altitude for AI mission planing. A big problem in DCS is that AI is very inefficient at fuel management and frequently runs out of fuel unreasonably during missions. I think sometimes a contributing factor is excessive fuel burn in the AI flight model at usual flight profiles. I know that ED has told us for years that it wants to improve AI fuel management but we have not seen anything to this effect so far. So I thought I would support the issue with some data. Following are measured best cruise altitude and speed (lowest fuel burn per km) for various AI aircraft. Please note this is only for AI controlled aircraft, even for types which are playable. Take the data with a grain of salt as this is also greatly weight dependent which changes constantly during a flight. The granularity of the measurements is 3000-12000 m altitude at 1000 m intervals and 500 to 1000 kph speed at 50 kph intervals. Lowest fuel consumption per km: Type Altitude (m) Mach Comment MiG-21 12000* 0.84 Higher may be even better MiG-23 7000 0.57 MiG-25 9000 0.86 MiG-29 12000* 0.89 Higher may be even better MiG-31 8000 0.85 Su-17 8000 0.58 Su-24 4000 0.59 Su-27 12000* 0.79 Higher may be even better Tu-22M 4000 0.59 F-4 9000 0.77 F-5E 11000 0.79 F-5E-3 10000 0.78 F-14A 9000 0.68 F-14A-135-GR 9000 0.77 F-15C 12000* 0.79 Higher may be even better F-15E 7000 0.71 F-15E S4+ 9000 0.77 F-16C 9000 0.68 F-16CM 8000 0.67 F/A-18C 8000 0.76 F/A-18C Lot 20 12000* 0.79 Higher may be even better Tornado IDS 5000 0.56 B-1B 7000 0.66 B-52 9000 0.59 E-3 9000 0.59 KC-135 5000 0.6 Some observations: -Cruise speeds for swing wing aircraft are too low. MiG-23, Su-17, Su-24, Tu-22M and Tornado all cruise below Mach 0.6. As AI fuel burn rises rapidly above optimum speed, this this leads to excessive fuel consumption at tactical speeds. A pleasing example is Heatblur's F-14A at Mach 0.77, which shows that it can be done better even for AI flight models. -Some outliers cruise best at very low altitudes. Su-24 and Tu-22M at just 4000 m, Tornado and KC-135 at 5000 m. -Various heavies (B-52, E-3, KC-135) cruise best at very low Mach 0.6. -Other aircraft look quite reasonable, especially the AI flight models of playable aircraft. An interesting outlier is the F-16CM at very slow Mach 0.67. Attached is the full set of test scenarios. But you can easily take any mission, change the aircraft type and adjust the speed and altitude range you want to test in the triggers. Run the mission, wait 40 seconds for the measurements and the results will be presented. FindBestCruiseEndurance_Missions.zip

Thought you might find this interesting. From https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA231546.pdf This is from 1989. AMF is the Allied Mobile Force, a NATO quick reaction force to reinforce its flanks (either Norway or Mediterranean). MAB is a Marine Amphibious Brigade.

In light of the new Kola map, could a land-attack variant of the Kh-22 missile be reconsidered? Would be very useful for Backfires to strike Bodo. Use of conventional land attack Kh-22 missiles (even with its lack of precision) have been sadly demonstrated in current world events.

I agree with the original request for proper Badgers. In the meantime I hang AS-4 on H-6 as a reasonable substitute for AS-6. Works well and looks ok enough together with the skin above.

I wish they would split the existing dam models into multiple independent models, keep the dam itself indestructible but make elements like the turbine house destructible. Quite sad current events have shown that hydro power-plants are key targets in war. I had success with destroying the long bridge at Murmansk. This is actually consisting of a lot of narrow spans so destroyed sections are obscured and hard to see when the bridge burns after being hit (*yawn*). The arch bridge further south on the other hand seemed indestructible.

Tried two bridges at Murmansk which couldn't be destroyed.

The irony is that none of the sub bases have water deep enough to place any

I am very disappointed by the look of the submarine bases near Murmansk. The area should by rocky and barren. The coloring is wrong, even disregarding seasonal differences in the photos. The vegetation is completely off. They got to topography, but it is not looking like the real place at all. Is this supposed to be the fleshed out high-fidelity area? All screenshots were taken at maximum graphics settings. Polyarny: Gadzhiyevo: Nerpa Shipyard:

Very good catch. To me the screenshots somehow didn't look quite right but I couldn't put a finger on it. It just didn't look very nordic. I think this is it.

I see that ED is endorsing the Pimax Crystal now, so I feel that I need to drop a warning here about Pimax's business practice. Last summer I brought a Crystal which did not function according to specifications (battery lasted only for 2 hours playtime even with power cable connected). After some back and forth, Pimax has ultimately acknowledged the defect and agreed to my demand for a refund. What followed is a half-year odyssey of Pimax resisting to accept my return shipments of the Crystal, with shipments not being picked up by Pimax and getting returned to me. They say they will not refund me until they get the Crystal back, at the same time not actually taking the Crystal back. After half a year, this is still ongoing. For anyone considering doing business with Pimax, especially with this endorsement by ED, I encourage you to consider these business practices.

I think it it is interesting how strongly many associate the F-4E with Vietnam. From the Heatblur F-4E manual: In detail, the USAF confirmed 21 kills. In combat, the Israeli Air Force downed 116 jets. The IRIAF shot down 83 aircraft.

So after many years I got back into the Hornet a bit. And to my dismay, bomb salvos are still aimed first bomb on pipper instead of center of stick on pipper. 5 years later! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Maintining a lock/track is the job of the AWG-9 and the pilot (by remaining within the limits). There is nothing the RIO can do about that.

Tracks on which a Phoenix is being guided should be held and extrapolated even when they are "lost". The sole purpose of this functionality can only be that a Phoenix is supposed to keep guiding on the extrapolated track. If the real target happens to remain adjecent to the "ghost track" it should still be hit. I don't think this is working in DCS though. When a track is lost the Phoenix (A) is gone.

I basically stopped at some point last year. There were just too many insurmountable AI problems. I could never get the AI to do what I envisioned DCE to be. Instead I have been actually flying a lot more for the last 1.5 years and had a good time. I spend a lot of time in multiplayer, for example on Enigma. But after many years of trying hard, I basically abandoned the belief that a realistic (semi-)historical scenario "grand campaign" is possible with DCS.

New development. At first the life of both batteries seems to have gone down to about 2 hours worth of DCS (with powered USB-hub connected). Now the headset has developed a new trick. When one battery was getting low, the headset started to constantly dim and shut down. I just changed the battery and also with the other (which is about 3/4 full at the moment) the headset keeps fading to black and shut down. Extremely disappointing! I have already opened a support ticket at Pimax. One thing more to add to the list...

Modern bombers equipped with tail guns (Tu-95, Tu-142, Tu-22M3) take evasive maneuvers when attacked by fighters. This is a fruitless maneuver against a fighter and will actually make the bomber easier to catch-up to and shoot down (turning aircraft present a larger profile). In the case of the Tu-22M it is especially counterproductive as its high speed should force any trailing fighter to slowly creep up from dead astern in its tail gun field of fire. Instead it will try to turn against fighters. Bombers will also lose mutual protection from defensive fire from any wingmen. Reaction to threat setting has no effect (to be expected, works against ground threats only). Restrict Air-Air Attack will stop them from maneuvering against air threats but will also prevent them from shooting their tail guns at all. The WWII bombers in DCS actually fly straight and level while engaging with defensive guns. The modern bombers should do the same. Attached track shows no particular outcome. It just illustrates that modern bombers go evasive while WWII do not. EvasiveBombers.trk