already present George (CPG) improvements

[450Devil]

With the introduction of the AGM-114L it would be beneficial to include some additional capabilities in George as follows:

1. Ability for the pilot to direct George to use the AGM-114L when carrying both AGM-114Ks and AGM-114Ls. Similar to the F-14 Jester interface, it would be good if the pilot could select what weapon is to be employed.

2. When using the AGM-114L, for George to lase the target for sufficient time for the target location to be given to the missile and then both cease lasing and report that lasing has ceased. 

[corbu1]

You can order George already via AI helper menu when the AC is loaded with both Hellfire missile types.

In George AI helper menu choose hellfire as actual weapon. Then long left press for changing between SAL2 and RF hellfire. If this is what you mean.

Yes, some manual control over George  lasing the target could be useful. As actually he does it all on it‘s own automatically and will endlessly repeat the lasing/delaying process endlessly until the missiles fired.

 

[Raptor9]

7 hours ago, 450Devil said:

With the introduction of the AGM-114L it would be beneficial to include some additional capabilities in George as follows:

1. Ability for the pilot to direct George to use the AGM-114L when carrying both AGM-114Ks and AGM-114Ls. Similar to the F-14 Jester interface, it would be good if the pilot could select what weapon is to be employed.

2. When using the AGM-114L, for George to lase the target for sufficient time for the target location to be given to the missile and then both cease lasing and report that lasing has ceased. 

These behaviors are already present in the game.

6 hours ago, corbu1 said:

Yes, some manual control over George  lasing the target could be useful. As actually he does it all on it‘s own automatically and will endlessly repeat the lasing/delaying process endlessly until the missiles fired.

If George lases a target and the AGM-114L missile attempts to acquire the target in LOBL mode but fails to acquire anything, George will de-action the missiles to cancel the target handover, action the missiles again, and lase again to attempt a subsequent lock-on. This is correct and intended behavior.

If you direct George to action a weapon system while he is tracking a target, it is implied that you want him to engage the target. Alternatively, if you direct George to track a target while he already has a weapon system actioned, it is likewise implied that you want him to engage that target (as is the case when rapidly engaging multiple targets). In either instance if George is 1) tracking a target and 2) has a weapon system actioned, he will perform all the steps necessary to engage that target with his assigned weapon right up to the point of actually pulling the trigger. At this stage he will wait for Consent to Fire if his ROE is set to Weapons Hold, or he will pull the trigger at will if his ROE is set to Weapons Free.

In other words, if you don't want George to engage a target with a weapon system, direct him to de-action weapons.

_________________________________________________

Using George should not be thought of as a command-based AI crewmember (which requires significant micromanagement and many keypresses to accomplish a given task), but rather a task-based AI crewmember. When he is given a directive, the directive is in the format of an directed task, and he may accomplish multiple individual steps to perform the directed task.

For example, if the aircraft is SAFE when George is directed to slave the TADS to the Pilot's helmet sight, the implied task is that the Player sees something from the Pilot's seat that he wants George to track with the TADS. As part of this process, George will set the aircraft to an ARM state in preparation of using the laser rangefinder/designator, which cannot be fired while the aircraft is SAFE.

An appropriate flow would look like this:
Step 1: Player directs George to track a target.
Step 2: When a target is being tracked, the Player may direct George to lase/stop lasing the target if no weapon is assigned, in order to a) measure range, b) designate to hand over the target via a laser spot tracker being used by another aircraft, or c) designate for a laser-guided munition released by another aircraft.
Step 3: If desired to engage the target with your own weapons, direct George to action the intended weapon system and configure the weapon accordingly for firing.
Step 4: Ensure the aircraft is maneuvered appropriately to satisfy weapon release constraints and (if necessary) give Consent to Fire.

[corbu1]

Thanks for detailed clarifying this. Much appreciated @Raptor9

[Raptor9]

10 minutes ago, corbu1 said:

Thanks for detailed clarifying this.

In the next revision of the DCS AH-64D manual, the George AI chapter will have more thorough explanations of what precisely the Player is ordering George to do with each AI command/key press that is used, and why the AI is implemented in the manner it is.

[Floyd1212]

26 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

If George lases a target and the AGM-114L missile attempts to acquire the target in LOBL mode but fails to acquire anything, George will de-action the missiles to cancel the target handover, action the missiles again, and lase again to attempt a subsequent lock-on. This is correct and intended behavior.

I'm not sure if this is working quite as intended; at least in my experience.

For example, if I'm flying and spot a target off to my 10 o'clock, and I have George find it and lase it with an RF missile ready to go, if I don't get nose-on and command him to engage the target within a few seconds of him stopping his lase, he goes into a routine of trying to reacquire the same target again with the laser, but often he is drifting off the target at this point as I have maneuvered the aircraft too much for him to handle.

If I don't command him to engage the target, and then go cold and fly in the opposite direction, he still goes through the routine of periodically "laser on" and "laser off" despite not being able to even get the TADS on the target anymore.

[Raptor9]

3 minutes ago, Floyd1212 said:

I'm not sure if this is working quite as intended; at least in my experience.

In the scenario you described, the Hellfire seeker cannot lock onto a target that is not in front of the aircraft, which will cause him to attempt another lock-on.

The point I was making was in response to the earlier posts about why he keeps trying to lase, in that it is related to how the missiles function. George behavior may certainly need some adjustments to cover the numerous possible scenarios that may prevent him from performing the intended task, especially when he needs to recognize when the player is directing him to do something illogical.

[450Devil]

Raptor9 thank you for your responses. I think I should have put more information in my original post to explain what I was trying to achieve - which is the ability to use "indirect" fire with the AGM-114L. Perhaps a scenario would help to outline what I am trying to achieve. Imagine a sortie where an AH-64D is tasked with destroying a SA-15 which is located in a small valley. The AH-64H approaches the target location masked by the ridge on one side of the valley. When within Hellfire range of the SA-15's location the AH-64D pops up to a height where the CPG can lase the SA-15 and then the AD-64D pops back down below the ridge line to avoid being fired on by the SA-15. The AD-64H then fires its AGM-114L which goes over the ridge and takes out the SA-15. 

Currently, if I take the CPG seat I can achieve such an attack as above. However, when I take the Pilot seat I cannot achieve a similar attack because as soon as the CPG loses laser sight on the target (due to the target becoming masked by the ridge line as the AH-64D descends to safe firing position) the CPG de-actions the AGM-114L - thus dumping the target location. 

While I understand the logic underpinning current CPG actions it is not that I "don't want George to engage a target with a weapon system", rather it is that I don't want to engage the target until the aircraft is once again masked behind the ridge. A command that stops the CPG de-actioning the AGM-114L when direct lase sight of the target is lost would allow for an indirect attack using the AGM-114L.

While I love taking the CPG seat, I have found Pilot George somewhat iffy when asked to maintain a hover over broken ground. Hence my desire to take the Pilot seat and prosecute an indirect attack using the AGM-114L when going up against targets such as the SA-15. A real life CPG would be unlikely to de-action the AGM-114L on losing direct sight as the aircraft descends to re-mask knowing the intention to use indirect fire against the target.

On a final note, the AH-64D is one of my favourite modules and I cannot wait for the FCR which should make it the deadliest helicopter in DCS. Well done ED Team.

Edited June 8, 2023 by 450Devil

[Raptor9]

6 hours ago, 450Devil said:

Perhaps a scenario would help to outline what I am trying to achieve. Imagine a sortie where an AH-64D is tasked with destroying a SA-15 which is located in a small valley. The AH-64H approaches the target location masked by the ridge on one side of the valley. When within Hellfire range of the SA-15's location the AH-64D pops up to a height where the CPG can lase the SA-15 and then the AD-64D pops back down below the ridge line to avoid being fired on by the SA-15. The AD-64H then fires its AGM-114L which goes over the ridge and takes out the SA-15. 

I've seen this scenario being used and discussed quite often, about handing off a target location to the missile and then not firing immediately. So the question I have is: why?

Such a scenario is something that is illogical because if you have line of sight on the target to lase for 3 seconds, why would you not simply take 1 additional second to fire the missile immediately after the target location is received? I understand the desire to mask to avoid getting shot at, but the intent is to fire the missile immediately upon sending the target data to the missile. To put it another way, if the difference between death and survival was down to 1 second, the engagement strategy in such a scenario would probably be re-evaluated.

The procedure you are describing is akin to using ADF to locate ground troops requesting CAS. It is something that I see used quite often in DCS but it is not something that would ever be performed in real life.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Raptor9

[450Devil]

There are a number of tactical reasons for firing from a masked position. One involves minimizing exposure and the other involves deception.   By popping up - lasing the target - then popping back down the attacker minimizes its exposure to engagement by the target. To further confuse the target's ability to counter an attack, the attacker can shift position and employ indirect fire to destroy the target. Even a small sideways move of 50 to 100 meters will significantly decrease the target's ability to counter the attack as it will most likely be concentrating on the position where it last saw the attacker when it popped up to lase. The fact that the AGM-114L in LOAL first flies towards the previously lased position of the target and then uses its onboard radar to acquire the target makes it an ideal weapon system for undertaking indirect attacks.

My scenario was an attack on a SA-15. In DCS the SA-15 has an "acquire time" of 9 seconds - this is an unfortunate DCS'ism  as in real life a dormant SA-15 is likely to be operating its FRC unless there is a known air threat - to do otherwise would expose the SA-15 to standoff attack by HARMs etc. In DCS it seems that the AI is on constant 360 degree alert and the weapons system comes into instant action as soon as a target comes into its LOS. While the George CPG is quick on lasing a target there are inbuilt (and I suspect unavoidable) delays - firstly getting George CPG to slave to the Pilot LOS; then selecting the target (which may be one amongst a number of targets that the CPG identifies (lists) - then lasing the target long enough for the location to be put into the AGM-114L. All of these means that when it comes to taking out a target such as a SA-15 it comes down to a "quick draw gunfight" with the odds in favor of the SA-15 as it is under computer control and not human control.  My tactic of pop up / lase / pop down / move if necessary / employ indirect fire just evens out the gun fight a little. 

If both the Pilot and CPG were human then this would be less of an issue / risk as they could discuss and decide on how they were going to undertake the attack - unfortunately the George CPG (while functional within limited parameters) is not in a position to act as a fully contributing team member of the AH-64D. 

In regard to having LOS to lase for 3 seconds - as I explained above it takes more than 3 seconds since George CPG has to first be vectored (slaved) to the target area / then directed to select the relevant target / then give consent to engage. One second is the difference between success and a flaming AH-64D. The engagement range of a SA-15 is greater than the effective range of a AGM-114 so when tasked to eliminate a SA-15 (or most of the other DCS SAM threats) the AH-64D will always be at a disadvantage - both range wise and reaction time wise - unless it can employ indirect fire effectively (or have the luxury of having both a human Pilot and a human CPG who can act as a team). Anyhow I have enjoyed the discussion and I will continue to work to maximizing my tactics to achieve a successful attack within the game / AI limitations.

[Raptor9]

@450Devil I am very familiar with the tactical reasons for maximizing the use of terrain masking. But in the context of employing the AGM-114L missile, there is no tactical advantage to holding on to a missile and firing it at a later time and from a different location when it could have been fired immediately following target handover. If anything, the missile could be coming off the rail as the collective is reduced to initiate the descent back into the masked location.

However, if you wish to use the AGM-114L in such a manner, I would recommend waiting until the FCR is released later in Early Access. The AGM-114L was not intended to be employed as an indirect fire weapon when the TADS is being used for target designation.

[Floyd1212]

Another scenario might be a coordinated attack with a wingman from a different direction.  I can lase and transfer the target data to the missile, then wait for my wingman to do the same, then we can coordinate the launches at the same time.