Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'ai'.
-
How do i get my wingmen to start with Group ID? So we can link our TADS. It would be nice, to see what they are lasing. The AI identify targets very easily. Also, knowing where my wingmen are and what altitude would really be nice. I have tried manually setting up NET ID, then using ALT J to jump between craft, but when you change aircraft.. any Group and Self ID seem to disappear, along with any SPI. The A10 TADS and CDU is what set this module apart from everything in this SIM. Its be nice to utilize them.
-
Problem: AI uses afterburner too much, even when totally unnecessary, i.e. when they take off and form on flight lead 5 km away flying almost at stall speed so that wingman knows he doesn't have to rush. It leads to extremely large fuel consumption which sometimes even causes wingmen who have burnt all their fuel to eject. Proposed solution: give flight lead an option to restrict usage of afterburners by wingmen. Since we have such an option for mission designers, I don't think it should be too hard. And since it's player who would make the decision, devs wouldn't need to write complicated AI algorithms. Restriction might be ignored when engaged in combat.
-
Despite facing strong resistance from Afghan rebels, the Mi-24 proved to be very destructive. The rebels called the Mi-24 "Shaitan-Arba" (Satan's Chariot)". In one case, an Mi-24 pilot who was out of ammunition managed to rescue a company of infantry by maneuvering aggressively towards Mujahideen guerrillas and scaring them off." Any chance the AI could be developed in a way where infantry could actually become scared of approaching aircraft and attempt to find cover or even run away if morale is too low? I know Total War has morale statistics, but why not DCS as well! Also, it was found that during the Afghanistan-Soviet war, extra rounds of rocket ammunition were often carried internally in Mi-24's so that the crew could land and self-reload in the field. Will this be a possibility in the future?
-
I have an AI aircraft waiting on the runway, ready to take off. However, it should wait until a unit is in its zone before it's allowed to actually take off. Is there something in the Advanced Waypoint Options to do this? I could delay its take off time, but there's no real way of knowing when the unit will arrive. Failing any other options, I guess I could do the ol' switcharoo and get rid of the first plane that's waiting and spawn a new one when the unit is in the zone. -
When I load up Mi-24 Caucasus firing range in Instant Action I am unable to use Petrovich at all except for simple "activate weapon controls" keybind. It works in multiplayer no problem but it just does not activate in singleplayer, and neither does he take over pilot controls from me when I swap to co-pilot's seat. Anyone know how I can fix this?
-
Hi Everyone, I disabled the auto-handoff for Petrovich in the miscellaneous settings for the Mi-24P. I did this because I found he likes plunging the helicopter into the ground, whenever I'm flying low, either by dumping the collective and not recovering but also by putting the helicopter into VRS - he doesn't seem to be particularly graceful with the controls. The problem is that now he's completely inaccessible from the front seat, though he is still accessible in the rear seat. How I thought it would've worked is instead of Petrovich taking over immediately and automatically when you jump into the front seat, the controls would be in your hands until you bring up and set-up the Petrovich HSI/menu, at which point he takes over (though gets interrupted if you move the controls yourself). However, now I can't bring the menu up at all. -
Since we now have a very beautiful and great sounding P Hind and the old unit is the same helicopter I would've liked it to sound the same. It have always been generic and boring and unauthentic, and there is no reason why you shouldn't update it. Hope ED sees this Also for some reason it's startup sequence audi is very broken atm, cuts off when engines are starting
-
- 2
-
-
- mission editor
- ai
- (and 2 more)
-
Hi everyone, Found a bug with the ships in DCS that I couldn't see reported before. Very simply, when firing anti-ship missiles, ships don't obey release quantities nor do they obey max attack quantities. In the track below I've got a La Combattante IIa that is set-up to attack a Krivak II. I want the La Combattante IIa to fire a single missile at the Krivak II. To do this I've set the release quantity of anti-ship missiles to 1, and the max attack quantity 1, i.e; make 1 attack, firing a single missile. Instead it keeps firing missiles until the Krivak II has sunk/been destroyed. Firing 2 salvos of 2 missiles each (with 25 seconds between each missile, and the 2nd salvo firing after the missiles of the first salvo have hit). It gets especially bad when you have a ship with lots of missiles firing against a smaller ship, or when firing against a ship that can't really defend itself, that doesn't require lots of missiles to sink - in both cases it leads to them being pretty wasteful with the missiles. AShM_Max_Fire.trk
-
Hi developers, Is it possible to add the 'visible before activation' to late activated planes/AI on the ground ? See it there for all ground vehicles. This will be great while editing a mission to see the supporting planes already parked instead of popping up suddenly. Thanks in advance RWC
-
AI with KMGU-2 always miss their target, the bomblets always land past the target as if the AI is releasing the bomblets too late. I'm gonna guess this issue is due to the AI not accounting for the door opening animation causing a delay? I have attached a .miz and .trk AI with KMGU bug.trk AI with KMGU bug.miz -
Su-30's not getting hit by R-27ET's, missiles not even tracking them as in the image. I tried launching at other aircrafts at the same conditions and result was successful.
-
My squadron has been doing lots and lots of aerial refueling practice of late. In fact, many of us have now gotten much more more comfortable refueling. A few of us have even done multiple refueling in the Tomcat. (A human RIO make it a much easier process) Okay, enough preamble. There have been lots of tankers on or missions of late, and the S3 is something of a problem. First, the S3 dosent carry much fuel. For those that don't know, a s3 at full fuel cannot fully refuel even a single tomcat. So I'd like to make 2 requests. First, under the comms options for the tanker, can we have a tab for quality? For example something like "Uzi 1-1 looking for 2000 pounds" Then when you contact the tanker, can they give the player their fuel state? For example "Texaco 1-1 with 4000 pounds to give" Further more, when doing tanker practice, an S3 dosent last long. With that in mind would it be possible to give jets a triggered action, or task, or option of "Refuel and return to station" ? Thanks for considering this, that's all I got for now.
-
Hi everyone, I'm trying to replicate the tanker tracks as found in this document (unrestricted distribution, pages 88-90) on the Marianas map. In order to set up the orbit, I'm using the switch waypoint command, where upon completion of the current racetrack, they'll switch back to the first waypoint of the racetrack. Once on station, I want the tankers to keep performing the racetrack for 2 hours before returning to base. The set-up is fairly simple: Tankers will takeoff and fly their route Upon reaching their respective ARIP waypoints a flag is enabled (*TANKER NAME*_ANCHOR) This first flag is used as a condition for a 'switch waypoint' command at the last waypoint of the racetrack, which will switch their waypoint back to the first waypoint of racetrack. After 7200 seconds have passed since *TANKER NAME*_ANCHOR turned on, the flag turns off and a *TANKER_NAME*_RTB flag turns on. The *TANKER NAME*_RTB flags are used to trigger a separate switch waypoint command, which will switch their waypoint to the follow the proper exit route (typically back to the ARIP waypoint and then to the AREX waypoint, and then follow their initial route backwards). Everything works perfectly, up to stage 4, because instead of returning to base after 7200 seconds, they return to base after completing 2 racetracks, as if they decide to not obey the switch waypoint action. I've double and triple checked the flags for each action (waypoint actions are given unique names and it's absolutely brilliant now that we can give flags custom names). I've tried disabling the 'RTB on bingo fuel' option - no effect. I've tried making a separate trigger zone at each anchor point and using a triggered switch waypoint (using AI SET TASK/PUSH TASK) - no effect. Any ideas? tanker_tracks.trk New Mission (Tankers) #01 (30-07-2005, 09-00-00, Hist. Weather).miz
-
Dear team, In the above vanilla training mission; when taxiing at desginated Zulu time you end up in a long queue well past push time. Track shows it's because an F-15 crashes onto a another stationary F-15 which is still on the runway. I suspect it's something to do with the new AI behaviour on the ground. Sorry tract few minutes as wasn't clear when it happened (https://ufile.io/onu698x0) . Happy 2022 everyone! -
This issue was first observed multiple times in a multiplayer mission on Syria, Lebanon locale, after which I replicated it in a single player situation, as similar to the multiplayer situation as viable. Version: Latest Open Beta at this time - 2.7.14.23966 The gist of it: HAWK site sees a target (in this case a Havoc) and, if a firing solution is available, fires. Target evades by means of terrain masking HAWK loses target, and goes back to idle search Target unmasks and is reacquired by the SR TR starts tracking target, but the Launchers don't react Target sees no need to further evade, and proceeds to do Havoc stuff, like murdering the HAWK site and everything nearby (Unsure what the conditions for this are, maybe a few cycles of lost targets) - HAWK fails to engage any target until packed and redeployed, or ROE are cycled. In my replication I set the Havocs to do a weapon hold course, to try and achieve point 7, though I suspect it may need multiple cycles over the course of a few hours to rear its ugly head in this situation. Reloading of launchers might be related, though I couldn't conclusively confirm or rule it out with this relatively brief testing. In the multiplayer server, the HAWK sites are built up with CTLD, but are otherwise completely vanilla units. In my single player test I tested it with both my normal mod complement, as well as without any mods active, and it occurred in both situations. Additionally, I highly doubt it was altitude related, as the AI Havocs in their unchallenged attack state want to be above the targets, which is in this case the HAWK site. This is an image taken from the 'SP - without mods' track file, where the launchers did not engage the Havoc (top left of image, 6.3nm, flying at 5k ASL), despite having fully loaded launchers. I confirmed in a different run with 8 or 9 launchers that the HAWK can engage for the entire stretch, up until it's masked by the ridge-line it's positioned on, off-screen to the left of this image, so this situation is well within its capabilities to engage and hit. And this was for the next Havoc that showed up. The previously inactive launchers engaged as normal. Launcher layout in the MP server: HAWK 1 HAWK 2 Area situation in the Multiplayer server, Syria map, Lebanon - HAWK 1 is Northern red circle, HAWK 2 is Southern red circle. The Havocs spawn at Beirut and head South/East, towards the combat area. Orange indicates another HAWK site which I've observed exhibited the same issue: it detected a Havoc entering the valley, opened fire, and lost track. When it next re-acquired the same Havoc, it failed to actually re-engage, and it took a while until the Havoc was shot down by other air defences. The HAWK itself never fired another missile after picking that Havoc up again, despite it being well in range the entire time. I've attached multiple tracks, two of which were shot with mods active, though none directly affect the units and they can be viewed with an unmodded client. The third one is shot without mods. Additionally, I've attached the basic mission I made to test the situation. It's not consistent with how quickly it happens, so I ran it a few times to confirm. It's also possible to increase the amount of havoc spawns (along with the scripting), in order to increase the odds of it occurring in one mission. It probably comes as no surprise that this bug is very annoying here: A SAM site that works for a while, and then casually watches as an attack helo butchers it, isn't much of a use in a dynamic persistent scenario, where the SAM engaging something isn't a 'one wave and it's done'-deal, but an hour upon hour upon hour upon hour endurance thing. SP - With mods - HAWK fail 2.trk SP - Without mods - HAWK fail 1.trk SP - With mods - HAWK fail 1.trk HAWK-Havoc test Beirut.miz -
AI aircraft are still refusing to utilize BVR missiles for me as of 5-20-2022. Set up a Mig-29S and F/A-18C to test the new BVR AI; they fail to employ AIM-120C, AIM-120B, AIM-7, R-77, and R-27R(tested them all). Instead, they close to the merge and then use their AIM-9X or R-73 missiles. Track file is attached, thanks in advance. 5-20-2022_2147.trk -
Currently the possible AI tasks depend on a fixed mission type (e.g. CAS, CAP, Runway bombing, etc.), but I would like to see a mission type that includes all AI tasks for multipurpose missions. It was a great idea adding the blue/red combined arms coalitions to unlock all units for a side, so if something similar could be done for AI tasks, it would allow mission designers and scripters to add more complexity to their missions. Another restriction that should be removed is that ground units cannot be assigned to attack designated aerial targets. This would be very helpful especially for Lua script designers, who could tell AI SAM units to engage only specific targets (like e.g. only attack bombers with a Sa-2 group, or attack only aircraft above a certain altitude, or attack only HARM missiles with a Sa-10 site, etc.). Currently ground units can only be assigned to attack other ground units. I hope ED considers to add these simple changes. Imo it would open up a lot of opportunities.
-
Hi, I've been having issues where AI aircrafts do not fly at the altitude I gave them through the task mission in scripting. I have a mission with two fighter groups (Rafale C), an AWACS (E-3A) and a Tanker (KC-135MPRS). At first, I make them start from parking. I then give them this task : local on_the_way = { id = 'Mission', params = { airborne = true, route = { points = { [1] = { type = "Turning Point", action = "Fly Over Point", x = coordinates_plane.x, y = coordinates_plane.y, alt = args.altitude, alt_type = "RADIO", }, [2] = { type = "Turning Point", action = "Fly Over Point", x = coordinates_racetrack_start.x, y = coordinates_racetrack_start.y, alt = args.altitude, alt_type = "RADIO", } } }, } } local orbit = { id = 'Orbit', params = { pattern = "Race-Track", point = coordinates_racetrack_start, point2 = convertCoords(args.point2), speed = args.speed, altitude = args.altitude, } } local controller = Group.getByName(args.group_name):getController() controller:resetTask() controller:pushTask(on_the_way) controller:pushTask(orbit) The aircrafts all go to their zones and perform their race track orbit so I know that it works. The issue I have is that my AWACS flies close to ground level despite the altitude of 20000 feet I give them (I checked this altitude by printing it). When I change the AWACS plane to any other plane it then works and the AWACS flies at the right level. Things get weirder with the fighters, when starting from parking, my Rafales fly at the right level. But when they start from the runway, they fly at ground level as well. And when I change their type to Mirage 2000C, they work again and fly at the right level, even when starting on the runway. So what I thought to be a plane issue seems to also be an issue with their starting zone. But I tried changing the start of the AWACS and none of my changes made it work. I'm also thinking the issue could come from mission scripting as the altitude works when I set the planes routes from the mission editor and not from scripting. I was wondering if anyone had encountered the same issue in the past. And if so, is there a solution to these issues. Thanks a lot for your help.
-
While I was building a mission I noticed AI helicopters have this odd behavior. For some reason they fly off into no where, I made a small mission to test it and place it near Kobuleti which is to the right of the helicopter. For some reason it flies to the left out to sea. This behavior only happens when you set the AI helo set to have a race track orbit. A circle orbit works just fine. I've attached the .miz I used to test as well as a track file. Helo orbit bug.miz Helo Orbit bug.trk
-
Hi Leute, ich würde gerne eine reine KI-Staffel einen Kunstflug machen lassen. Dazu habe ich ein Flugzeug genommen, ihm die Kunststück-Sequenz verpasst und dann das Flugzeug vier mal in Raute-Formation kopiert. Ich habe sogar mit Papier eine Schablone geschnitten, die ich im Editor bei Vergrösserung auf 100 Fuss auf dem Monitor anlege, um auch die Wegpunkte immer im selben Abstand zu halten. Ein einzelnes Flugzeug zu nehmen und es als eine Gruppe mit drei anderen fliegen zu lassen bringt nicht den gewünschten Erfolg, da sich die Flugzeuge dann absondern und ich ggf. verschiedene gleichzeitig auszuführende Manöver ja der ganzen Gruppe zuteilen würde. Nun gibt es ja genug Kunststücke, die zur Auswahl stehen, aber ich weiss nicht, wie ich die Brüder zusammenhalten kann. Die Original-Videos der Blue Angels zeigen ja eine ziemlich enge Formation aber so eng bekomme ich es ohne Crashs nicht hin, deswegen habe ich den Abstand auch auf 100Fuss gesetzt. Jetzt zu dem Problem: Meine KI-Piloten sind teilweise nach Kunststücken ziemlich weit verstreut, alles was nicht mit geradeaus zu fliegenden Kunststücken zu tun hat, führt zu unschönem Versatz nach einigen Kunststücken (also z.B. Looping für die mittleren Flugzeuge/schräger Looping li. und re. für die äusseren Flugzeuge > keine Ursprungs-Formation mehr), somit würde ich sowas ans Ende der Kunstflug-Sequenz setzen. Ist es evtl. doch besser nach jedem Kunststück einen WP zu setzen, der das nächste Kunststück aufruft? Habe schon mal etwas rumprobiert, aber selbst mit fixer Zeit kommen die KI-Piloten da nicht wirklich wieder so zusammen, dass die anfängliche Formation wieder erreicht wird. Ich probiere jetzt seit vier Tagen rum, Probleme zu lösen, teils durch "Geradeaus-Flug" Teilstrecken, die einzelnen Nachzüglern in der Sequenz eingefügt werden, o.ä., aber ich komme zu keiner vernünftigen Lösung. Falls also jemand gute brauchbare Tipps für mich hat, wäre das fein! Gruss Purzel PS: Kann ich irgendwie Flares werfen lassen? Gibt es ggf. Scripte/Mods zum Thema? KunstflugTest1_H.amsp KunstflugTest1-R.amsp KunstflugTest1-L.amsp KunstflugTest1_V.amsp
-
I´m learning how to make campaigns and I miss many aircrafts, vehicles, ships, helos, buildings, infantry for AI. We know they use real info to make DCS but I think there are enough data to make aproximate figures and performance in a new pack. Its a hard work and I propose a new pack or module. (no more 20€). I think they have to expand combined arms but at least they should add new land units as well. If they make a balance of performance they could make it with missiles performance. I think we need the 5th gen, new models and "remakes". - The 5th gen, TU160, Eurofighter, Rafale, F4, F14D, Gripen, recon planes, F111, Mig 23, Mig27, Mig29 versions, Su 22, Su30, Su 35, Su27 versions, etc, Growler, Super Hornet, F16 Blocks, A6, EA6, B2, F117, etc. -Eurocopter Tiger, Mangusta, BO series, Blackhawk versions, Nh90, Lynx, Mi8 versions, etc. -Stryker, Marder, vamtac, Centauro, GTK Boxer, Pizarro/Ulan, trucks, T14 Armata, etc. -Cold War planes and units, SAM S-series(S400), ships, transport and cargo, armored cars, Toyota Hilux with machine gun for insurgency, some drones, etc. This is my wishlist for Christmas. Ps: Dont destroy our graphic cards, please.
-
Hi Everyone, I was doing some tests with the Rapier and it seems that when firing at low altitude targets, the Rapier missile will do an extreme yoyo, going high, and then rapidly diving, only barely managing to pull-up and avoid a collision with the ground. In the first track I have a Mi-24V flying near enough perpendicular (but not notching), a launcher and an optical tracker, with no blindfire. The Mi-24V is @200m AGL (ΔH ~ 195m), flying at 200kph - well within the engagement parameters for Rapier (according to the Rapier_FSA_Launcher.lua the minimum altitude is 50m). The first missile climbs, then performs a steep dive, only barely managing to pull-up to avoid a collision with the sea, and eventually hits the target. The target descends, another Rapier is fired, this time crashing into the sea. The third missile repeats what the first missile did, and barely manages to avoid colliding with the sea. In the second track I have everything set-up exactly the same, only now the helicopter is set to an altitude of 100m (ΔH ~95m), which should still be inside the Rapiers engagement altitude; this time every missile ends up flying into the water. It should be noted that the missile behaves the same when paired with Blindfire or not. Now this could be caused by probably 1 of 4 factors: The missiles are initially elevated too high - unlikely, the missiles should elevate based on range and altitude. The missiles are too aggressive in trying to centre themselves in the operators reticule (this is broadly what an optical SACLOS guidance scheme tries to do) - unlikely as this might play a part into reducing the minimum range, which is probably a good thing for a short ranged system. The missiles aren't responsive/manoeuvrable enough - not sure, I can only base on my expectations (which may well be off). If you draw a line between the optical tracker and the target I'd expect the missile to follow that line more closely (like the Tunguska), not loft way high above it and then make an excessive dive past it. The AI operator - here I think lies the issue, the AI operator most likely keeps the reticule as centred as possible on the target, this makes sense, however it is most likely (from my reckoning at least) causing this issue, if not for the above 3; a possible remedy is to have the operator aim high (at a similar elevation to the one the missiles are fired at), and then slowly bring the reticule down (so that it is on the target after about 2 seconds). Hopefully, this will result in a more gradual descend and the missile won't perform such an aggressive dive that it can barely climb away from. This should also increase the amount of energy the missile has, which is beneficial for achieving a hit. There is this video of a Rapier launch failure (here the system is the much more modern FSC variant, but AFAIK the command-guidance scheme is the same, just instead target tracking is done automatically via EO/IR and/or RADAR). In DCS it seems to do something similar every time it's launched at a low-altitude target. Can anyone confirm what's going on here, and how Rapier should behave? I've done some digging but can't find much, other than basics. [sidenote: @Tippis contrary to your excellent reference wiki Rapier in DCS will in fact launch with just the optical tracker and without Blindfire, under an optical SACLOS guidance scheme, as it should IRL]. Rapier_FSA_Guidance_(200m_AGL).trk Rapier_FSA_Guidance_(100m_AGL).trk
-
The F14AI taxied to a position that was significantly offset by the CVN74, and before fixing, the aircraft moved strangely to the side and was fixed to the catapult. Also, the F14's aircraft and catapult are not properly connected on all aircraft carriers.
-
Hi. I'd like to just pop in and air my grievances and ask if anyone else is having the same issue. So background: I play 107th primarily PVE and usually as CP/G. My experience is that in actuality, radar guided threats (SA-8, etc.) Are less dangerous than ironsighted infantry weapons. While it seems to me that lots of aspects of the damage model of the apache are WIP or not implemented, I worry that when they are eventually added the bird is going to get roasted by light infantry fire that seems extremely and unrealistically accurate. I have been repeatedly killed while moving at distances <1000 by RPGs and have been absolutely shredded at 800+ by pinpoint accurate rifle and machine gun fire by infantrymen. While this latter case doesn't seem to do much if any damage (maybe realistic, can't say) I worry that it's warping the balance of power so to speak of this range. It seems like once you start taking rifle or machine gun fire <3000~ the fire (despite not being ranged or aided by anything that measures velocity) is as or more accurate than the apache's own gun. From my understanding hitting a moving helicopter with any sort of weapon that doesn't have an FCS should be pretty difficult unless maybe it's flying right over you. Using rockets or cannon (without just hovering far beyond the range of anything not radar-guided) is unduly risky (IME) I think that the aircraft once it receives more updates to the damage model might be at an unrealistic disadvantage vs. it's primary threats and I'd like to see if anyone else has seen / experienced this and thinks it should be looked at. Thanks.
-
Hi Does anybody know what options should be set to reliably use AI to throw TALDS in a general direction of a threat? Be it enemy fighters or SAM sites? So far it worked once for me - Attack map object, then I changed clouds type and it stopped dropping them. Changed back to what it was and it does not work anymore either.
