need track replay Petrovich still unable to find targets

[karasinicoff]

Since the new updates as AI Petrovich...

He is unable to lock a target just infront of it.

It seems ok initially but later on I select a target but the floating reticle does not on the target, somewhere else.

Not working !!! He could not find and lock enemy just right infront.

Hope just get it back like original.

I dont think it is realistic, just stupid.

[admiki]

1 hour ago, karasinicoff said:

Since the new updates as AI Petrovich...

He is unable to lock a target just infront of it.

It seems ok initially but later on I select a target but the floating reticle does not on the target, somewhere else.

Not working !!! He could not find and lock enemy just right infront.

Hope just get it back like original.

I dont think it is realistic, just stupid.

Are you sure you did not topple the gyros?

 

Edited January 27 by admiki

[KoN]

Shouldn't Petro close the scope when you start to bank away Automatically. 

[LuseKofte]

12 hours ago, KoN said:

Shouldn't Petro close the scope when you start to bank away Automatically. 

He shut it down when you turn and that can be too late. I always order him to close before turning or right after missile hit

[KoN]

9 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

He shut it down when you turn and that can be too late. I always order him to close before turning or right after missile hit

ill have to bind a key for him . Mind you he needs a kick in the  Arse . lol    ..................Cant lock targets right in front of us .. lol

 

Edited March 27 by KoN

[zerO_crash]

If you turn in a coordinated and smooth matter, you don't need to close the optics, Petrovich will automatically slew Raduga to last position before you turned away (that is when you turn back on the target within 30* left/right of the sight). If you, however, will maneuver abruptly or at a higher rate, then obviously, you wish to close the sight before starting the maneuver. It comes down to practice, and finesse.

 

On 1/27/2024 at 11:07 AM, karasinicoff said:

Since the new updates as AI Petrovich...

He is unable to lock a target just infront of it.

It seems ok initially but later on I select a target but the floating reticle does not on the target, somewhere else.

Not working !!! He could not find and lock enemy just right infront.

Hope just get it back like original.

I dont think it is realistic, just stupid.

 

Due to the complexity of DCS, don't just run a rant thread. Instead, explain the issue, and post a trk.-file. There are too many variables to consider, in order for such a thread to be relevant.

 

EDIT: Correction.

Edited March 29 by zerO_crash

[LuseKofte]

13 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

you turn in a coordinated and smooth matter

This is What I normally do. But if fired at Or being to close one need to tell him. I have petro on a four way switch on my collective

I have no problems getting petro to aim at targets in Singleplayer at all. But flying coop with mates he can sometimes , meaning not too often be hopeless. I find him to be very reliable off servers. And no worse than George. I would like to have a track from one that do have problems. Because I can’t say my experience is the same

compared to other choppers this beast take a lot of punishments. I wish KA 50 could take a bit more

Edited March 28 by LuseKofte

[zerO_crash]

It is the same in SP as well as MP. It is simply different when you have to focus on giving Petrovich commands, while staying formation, or such.

 

Mi-24P is in development. Don't get too used to its damage model, it is very much off, I am afraid. I already pointed to this in another thread. In Afghanistan, Mujaheedins had at most KORDs (very seldom that something like ZU-23 appeared), and that was enough for Soviet pilots to start flying high. This is also the main issue with early access products, people get accustomed to incomplete aircraft, and believe that everything is as it should. Again, Mi-24P will get toned down on the damage modelling. I am suspecting though, that ED wants to implement the advanced damage model with both the Mi-24P and AH-64D, as the first helicopters. That's why it takes so long to get the damage model tuned. Time will show.

[LuseKofte]

On 3/28/2024 at 1:22 PM, zerO_crash said:

24P is in development. Don't get too used to its damage model, it is very much off

Probably is. Just hope it’s not getting to ka 50 standards. Ak 47 should not affekt a chopper too much unless you are in a Huey down low. Huey is pretty much as you would expect

[zerO_crash]

1 hour ago, LuseKofte said:

Probably is. Just hope it’s not getting to ka 50 standards. Ak 47 should not affekt a chopper too much unless you are in a Huey down low. Huey is pretty much as you would expect

 

Ka-50 has a good damage model, although better detailing will come when advanced damage model gets applied to helicopters. Expectations are do form any objective assessment, neither does comparing modules with each other. It is a very simplistic way of looking at things, which doesn't get you anywhere. This discussion has been settled many times, here for one (albeit from the point of view of Ka-50):

 

 

Very easily put; most people, who do not understand the aspect of objective opinion/evaluation, tend to orbit around their own percieved "truth". When most manufacturers state that an aircraft "can" withstand the "fire" or "fragments" of a 23mm calibre weapon system, those people will assume that it "will" sustain that damage. The building of a helicopter (any vehicle for that matter), is a balancing act. One protects the most vital and probable areas to be hit. Even then, there is a limit to what a design can bear, especially in aeronautics. The aspect of damage, is not linear either. There are too many factors fo list in a forum. I suggest reading throughly up on the topic, before making claims as to what is right or wrong.

 

http://www.skywar.ru/afghanistanen.html

 

http://www.skywar.ru/oldussr.html

 

 

The main difference between DCS and real life, is that humans possess an instinct of self preservation. A bot does not! There are very few soldiers who would even think about pointing their 7.62mm (NATO - mostly 5.56mm) at a 11+ tonne gunship flying at 300+ km/h (armies don't teach that, as probability of hit (let alone shoot-down) vs. amount of spent bullets, is simply too inefficient). Bots in DCS have too good aim, especially the target lead. Additionally, units which statistically, should almost never see a aircraft flying (the angles from optics are too shallow), do see and fire at you in DCS. APCs, Tanks, SPGs, etc... Those would not, and should not respond as fast, and as accurately as they do. They shouldn't even know that an aircraft is in the air unless relayed from command/troops. Anything else, is purely situational.

 

Those are just examples of what gives a wrong perception on warfare in DCS. 

Edited March 29 by zerO_crash

[AeriaGloria]

You limits are 30 degrees bank and about 20 degrees/s rotation, avoid those and close the periscope before you reach those and you’ll be fine 

[LuseKofte]

I never claim unrealistic. I have spent far too much time in forums like this. I only talk about my preferences. I agree hind is over the top. But I genuinely feel more safe in a Gazelle , Huey and MI 8 than in a KA 50. 
It might be I am too careless in a KA 50 thinking it is a tank. I hide from missiles in it. But in the others I hide from everything. So you are right my feel of things are based on a lot more than the fragility of the KA 50. I just lost too much tails when using it to totally be convinced its dm is good. 

[zerO_crash]

3 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

I never claim unrealistic. I have spent far too much time in forums like this. I only talk about my preferences. I agree hind is over the top. But I genuinely feel more safe in a Gazelle , Huey and MI 8 than in a KA 50. 
It might be I am too careless in a KA 50 thinking it is a tank. I hide from missiles in it. But in the others I hide from everything. So you are right my feel of things are based on a lot more than the fragility of the KA 50. I just lost too much tails when using it to totally be convinced its dm is good. 

Indirectly, you did:

 

8 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Ak 47 should not affekt a chopper too much unless you are in a Huey down low. Huey is pretty much as you would expect

 

Regardless, I explained where the problem lies. While advanced damage model will do good, updated and properly modelled AI, will do even better. Let's not derail the thread further.

Edited March 29 by zerO_crash

[StreakerSix]

On 3/29/2024 at 8:46 AM, zerO_crash said:

 

Ka-50 has a good damage model, although better detailing will come when advanced damage model gets applied to helicopters. Expectations are do form any objective assessment, neither does comparing modules with each other. It is a very simplistic way of looking at things, which doesn't get you anywhere. This discussion has been settled many times, here for one (albeit from the point of view of Ka-50):

 

 

Very easily put; most people, who do not understand the aspect of objective opinion/evaluation, tend to orbit around their own percieved "truth". When most manufacturers state that an aircraft "can" withstand the "fire" or "fragments" of a 23mm calibre weapon system, those people will assume that it "will" sustain that damage. The building of a helicopter (any vehicle for that matter), is a balancing act. One protects the most vital and probable areas to be hit. Even then, there is a limit to what a design can bear, especially in aeronautics. The aspect of damage, is not linear either. There are too many factors fo list in a forum. I suggest reading throughly up on the topic, before making claims as to what is right or wrong.

 

http://www.skywar.ru/afghanistanen.html

 

http://www.skywar.ru/oldussr.html

 

 

The main difference between DCS and real life, is that humans possess an instinct of self preservation. A bot does not! There are very few soldiers who would even think about pointing their 7.62mm (NATO - mostly 5.56mm) at a 11+ tonne gunship flying at 300+ km/h (armies don't teach that, as probability of hit (let alone shoot-down) vs. amount of spent bullets, is simply too inefficient). Bots in DCS have too good aim, especially the target lead. Additionally, units which statistically, should almost never see a aircraft flying (the angles from optics are too shallow), do see and fire at you in DCS. APCs, Tanks, SPGs, etc... Those would not, and should not respond as fast, and as accurately as they do. They shouldn't even know that an aircraft is in the air unless relayed from command/troops. Anything else, is purely situational.

 

Those are just examples of what gives a wrong perception on warfare in DCS. 

 

Yes those things do happen, however, I watched this entire documentary a while ago, if memory serves, none of the airframes went down. If this had been a DCS re-enactment ALL of the airframes would go down to engine failure and/or tail rotors being shot off.

 

Seeing as it is an AI issue and not a damage model issue (in your words) then the damage model needs to reflect as such until the AI can be corrected or else the game gives a less "realistic feel".