Feedback Thread - Tomcat Patch 24-12-24

[Jar72]

I was curious about this. I took the time to read. I understood that aim 54 A guidance was better than C, better than amraam.

Well. I don t know why people complain then. I love it. I m gonna fly pvp server with A variant from now on, fire at 60 Nm my 6 missiles, crank and wait for it. I m gonna be the king. Bye bye bugs and snakes.

Edited February 11 by Jar72

[Naquaii]

8 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

I found post from 2021, and that AIM-54A had better ECCM than Sparrow M, did you guys needed "help" from ED too for doing this? AIM-54A currently tracks perfecty, is near impossible to notch, like amraam, chaff have 0 effect, ecm have 0 effect. Do you guys "feel" it's realistic performance of 60's era missile? ECCM factor is in ED hands? I also dont care said missile is banned on some server for balance or not, it's 1 server, nobodoy cares, but this fact alone, triggered me to look closer, just as possible future user of Tomcat, and with high degree of certainity, doing tests vs AI with aim-54A, i can say that seekers of C and A behave in a same way, and as long, as we dont have hard coded documentation about missile guidance, and histories of kills, it's impossilbe to base our assumpations on anytihng else, but "feelings", and I doubt, you guys have data confirming IRL, what I see in tacview fighting against AIM-54A is real. IMHO it's just BS. I can flood forum with dozens of tacview files as confirmation, but at the end, it's your word, against mine, guess forum users can be curious about those tracks

Now you're just guessing what we're using as source for this stuff. It's very easy to find a lot of people on the net saying the exact opposite of what you're saying here. That the missile is way too ineffective as it is now. We're never ever going to put this up to the general opinion of the community on the net, we're basing it on the facts and information available to us, this is a sim, not War Thunder.

I'm sure you can find people willing to discuss this endlessly with you but I'm not going to, I have no interest in discussing your feelings with you.

2 hours ago, Sindar said:

 

Who's not telling the truth?

We discuss its interaction with targeting from AWACS. And we don't think there is one. We don't think RIO is a real person in the game. We don't think he's using AWACS data to piss us off.

Yeah, that's absolutely correct, Jester isn't a "real person".

[Naquaii]

19 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Discord….the In game chat app is now the official support site? Have you ever gotten google search results for Discord? And have you ever tried to search a discord stream of consciousness chat log?

 

One of them yeah. I didn't say you can't post stuff here or that they won't be tracked. But the format is in many ways better and easier to have direct communication. That's why we're more active there.

And yeah, there are search functions in Discord that work very well.

[RustBelt]

6 hours ago, Despayre said:

I, for one, will very definitely NOT be "curious about those tracks".

You've offered nothing but opinion and claims you can't back up.

Didn’t even link the “post” they supposedly found!  

49 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

One of them yeah. I didn't say you can't post stuff here or that they won't be tracked. But the format is in many ways better and easier to have direct communication. That's why we're more active there.

And yeah, there are search functions in Discord that work very well.

They don’t. It’s a bad forum. I barely tolerate it for multiplayer. And it’s even worse than seeing a Facebook group as a company “web page”.

When I go to Heatblur.com and click on Forum. It brings me here. Not a self hosted forum, and not a discord fan site. 
 

Here. 

Edited February 11 by RustBelt

[freehand]

I have no interest in discord. 

[Ramius007]

17 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Now you're just guessing what we're using as source for this stuff. It's very easy to find a lot of people on the net saying the exact opposite of what you're saying here. That the missile is way too ineffective as it is now. We're never ever going to put this up to the general opinion of the community on the net, we're basing it on the facts and information available to us, this is a sim, not War Thunder.

 

It's not just word vs word, We have data or evidence, about 60's or 70's missile technology deviciencies, especially radars struggling vs low alitidue contacts, current AIM-54A tracks perfectly on tree line, targets that are moving mach 1.2 or more, early Harpoon missiles were struggling with picking ship saized targets during pop up attacks, yet our AIM-54A can hit helicopter behind trees. You are right, there will be people who say, missile is underperforming, but it's nature of DCS community that see literally EVERY own weapon underperforming, and every AI asset/weapon overperforming, and AI being omnipotent, it's know psychological phenomena, but from video game of DCS status, I except a bit more than kneeeling to general population expectatinos, and buffing 60's era missiles to level amraam for ill timed balancing or just lack or just lack of dedicated A version moddeling. Currently AIM-54A is a missile only some nerds like Me care, as SP, PVE or modern PVP it's completely irrelevant, Aim-54A was out of stock for post Desert Storm Tomcat we have in DCS, so everybody just take C model, but AFAIK, you guys plan to make older Tomcat version, and A variant will not be availble, and having aim-54A behaving in appropriate to 70's tech level stds usefull, this would be also in HB interest to make missiel behave appropriate to allow servers to include said missile to Tomcat inventroy.
If aim-54A would perform IRL, like it's perfrming in DCS, there would be no need for US, to develop any more advanced missile, Aim-54A have it all, it's aim-120 in aim-54A body currently, seems like stats in game files never changed, so ECCM is better than 80's era Sparrows or 530d. And yes, I know that fox 3 works diffrent, but given simplified DCS moddeling of ECM/chaffs, it's on HB, and not on ED to make enviroment where missile performance is not of XXI centaury missiles std. In next posts I include like dozen of short tacview links as a proof how missile is performing for people to judge, just 1vs1 BVR situations against AI at lowish altidues

[BIGNEWY]

14 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

It's not just word vs word, We have data or evidence, about 60's or 70's missile technology deviciencies, especially radars struggling vs low alitidue contacts, current AIM-54A tracks perfectly on tree line, targets that are moving mach 1.2 or more, early Harpoon missiles were struggling with picking ship saized targets during pop up attacks, yet our AIM-54A can hit helicopter behind trees. You are right, there will be people who say, missile is underperforming, but it's nature of DCS community that see literally EVERY own weapon underperforming, and every AI asset/weapon overperforming, and AI being omnipotent, it's know psychological phenomena, but from video game of DCS status, I except a bit more than kneeeling to general population expectatinos, and buffing 60's era missiles to level amraam for ill timed balancing or just lack or just lack of dedicated A version moddeling. Currently AIM-54A is a missile only some nerds like Me care, as SP, PVE or modern PVP it's completely irrelevant, Aim-54A was out of stock for post Desert Storm Tomcat we have in DCS, so everybody just take C model, but AFAIK, you guys plan to make older Tomcat version, and A variant will not be availble, and having aim-54A behaving in appropriate to 70's tech level stds usefull, this would be also in HB interest to make missiel behave appropriate to allow servers to include said missile to Tomcat inventroy.
If aim-54A would perform IRL, like it's perfrming in DCS, there would be no need for US, to develop any more advanced missile, Aim-54A have it all, it's aim-120 in aim-54A body currently, seems like stats in game files never changed, so ECCM is better than 80's era Sparrows or 530d. And yes, I know that fox 3 works diffrent, but given simplified DCS moddeling of ECM/chaffs, it's on HB, and not on ED to make enviroment where missile performance is not of XXI centaury missiles std. In next posts I include like dozen of short tacview links as a proof how missile is performing for people to judge, just 1vs1 BVR situations against AI at lowish altidues

PM me your evidence 

thank you 

[RustBelt]

6 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

It's not just word vs word, We have data or evidence, about 60's or 70's missile technology deviciencies, especially radars struggling vs low alitidue contacts, current AIM-54A tracks perfectly on tree line, targets that are moving mach 1.2 or more, early Harpoon missiles were struggling with picking ship saized targets during pop up attacks, yet our AIM-54A can hit helicopter behind trees. You are right, there will be people who say, missile is underperforming, but it's nature of DCS community that see literally EVERY own weapon underperforming, and every AI asset/weapon overperforming, and AI being omnipotent, it's know psychological phenomena, but from video game of DCS status, I except a bit more than kneeeling to general population expectatinos, and buffing 60's era missiles to level amraam for ill timed balancing or just lack or just lack of dedicated A version moddeling. Currently AIM-54A is a missile only some nerds like Me care, as SP, PVE or modern PVP it's completely irrelevant, Aim-54A was out of stock for post Desert Storm Tomcat we have in DCS, so everybody just take C model, but AFAIK, you guys plan to make older Tomcat version, and A variant will not be availble, and having aim-54A behaving in appropriate to 70's tech level stds usefull, this would be also in HB interest to make missiel behave appropriate to allow servers to include said missile to Tomcat inventroy.
If aim-54A would perform IRL, like it's perfrming in DCS, there would be no need for US, to develop any more advanced missile, Aim-54A have it all, it's aim-120 in aim-54A body currently, seems like stats in game files never changed, so ECCM is better than 80's era Sparrows or 530d. And yes, I know that fox 3 works diffrent, but given simplified DCS moddeling of ECM/chaffs, it's on HB, and not on ED to make enviroment where missile performance is not of XXI centaury missiles std. In next posts I include like dozen of short tacview links as a proof how missile is performing for people to judge, just 1vs1 BVR situations against AI at lowish altidues

So couple things, the Phoenix had to go because it was too big, too heavy, and radars got better, that led to the AMRAAM which used what we learned from the Phoenix A and C in a lighter, compact package useable across many radar systems. 
 

Phoenix is good at look down shoot down because the AWG-9 is a big radar dish with A loud Emitter. Not a disposable harpoon. 
 

DCS Trees are DCS trees. Assume the worst at all times.

But beyond that, you think it’s word against word, but it’s lots of dedicated study and modeling and testing and First hand accounts from people who FLEW the tomcat vs your word. 
 

Do you see why your personal anecdotal educated wish isn’t getting traction here? 
 

PROVE you’re right, or stop rationalizing your feeling of how you think it should be.

[Ramius007]

17 hours ago, RustBelt said:

So couple things, the Phoenix had to go because it was too big, too heavy, and radars got better, that led to the AMRAAM which used what we learned from the Phoenix A and C in a lighter, compact package useable across many radar systems. 
 

Phoenix is good at look down shoot down because the AWG-9 is a big radar dish with A loud Emitter. Not a disposable harpoon. 
 

DCS Trees are DCS trees. Assume the worst at all times.

But beyond that, you think it’s word against word, but it’s lots of dedicated study and modeling and testing and First hand accounts from people who FLEW the tomcat vs your word. 
 

Do you see why your personal anecdotal educated wish isn’t getting traction here? 
 

PROVE you’re right, or stop rationalizing your feeling of how you think it should be.

I m not questioning here AWG-9 radar moddeling or AWG-9 mid course guidance, or AIM-54A kinematics, I m not even question missile reliability in situations it should hit, that is very hi ATM, but I m questioning AIM-54A terminal phase guidance using missile onboard radar. If nobody here is going to agree, that AIM-54A onboard radar shouldnt have better tracking capability against low flying objects, than airborne radars of 3rd gen fighters made by US, then we cant make any kind of agreement. Here are some small tacview links attached

Tacview-strange relock HOJ maybe-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-target below and hill inside radar cone,still tracking-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-tracking against below target DCS-aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-tracking outside gimbal limit1 DCS-aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-tracking within uncertain awg-9 gimbal DCS-aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-excellent CM resistance-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-no AWG-9 gimbal lock tracking lower target-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-no AWG-9 gimbal lock, but tracking-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-CM resistance-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-CM resistance-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi

There are 2 more that look like a fuze bug, and strange miss, of topic

Tacview-2nd aim-54A fuze bug-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-strange aim-54 miss-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi

[RustBelt]

8 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

I m not questioning here AWG-9 radar moddeling or AWG-9 mid course guidance, or AIM-54A kinematics, I m not even question missile reliability in situations it should hit, that is very hi ATM, but I m questioning AIM-54A terminal phase guidance using missile onboard radar. If nobody here is going to agree, that AIM-54A onboard radar shouldnt have better tracking capability against low flying objects, than airborne radars of 3rd gen fighters made by US, then we cant make any kind of agreement. Here are some small tacview links attached

Tacview-strange relock HOJ maybe-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi 298.18 kB · 1 download Tacview-target below and hill inside radar cone,still tracking-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi 137.86 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-tracking against below target DCS-aim-54a.zip.acmi 125.41 kB · 1 download Tacview-tracking outside gimbal limit1 DCS-aim-54a.zip.acmi 173.26 kB · 2 downloads Tacview-tracking within uncertain awg-9 gimbal DCS-aim-54a.zip.acmi 143.02 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-excellent CM resistance-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi 90.84 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-no AWG-9 gimbal lock tracking lower target-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi 246.14 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-no AWG-9 gimbal lock, but tracking-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi 149.43 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-CM resistance-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi 113.82 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-CM resistance-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi 113.82 kB · 2 downloads

There are 2 more that look like a fuze bug, and strange miss, of topic

Tacview-2nd aim-54A fuze bug-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi 152.85 kB · 0 downloads Tacview-strange aim-54 miss-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi 120.23 kB · 0 downloads

Well, hate to tell you, but terminal phase is all Eagle Dynamics, not Heatblur, good luck shifting that mountain.

[Ramius007]

I know there is diffrence betwean what you can model, and what can be modelled within current DCS engine, I remember ambitious plans for Viggen radios, or more in depth simulated IFF attempts from HB or RB, but at this point I dont even see comments from other members or HB team regarding those tacview links, that would admit or deny, that current terminal phase of Aim-54A is too good. I know from the past, that HB was going around DCS shortcomings to bring more realisytic battlefield performance, I remember Viggen ASM's warhead get buffed to overcome ship damage model, IMHO same should be applied to AIM-54A is some way, but I dont even know, if anybody from ED or HB agree about missile overperforming, and it's a starting point. Simply solution would be limiting ECCM value

Edited February 14 by Ramius007

[Jar72]

Just a question. You keep saying missile AIM 54 A should not perform that good against other fighters because...... the missile is old ? Is this the only basis upon which you build your argument? Because this is non sense.

Apollo is an old program. And yet nobody else has landed on the moon so far. The Phoenix, as the tomcat, were way ahead of their time. Maybe they were even better actually than what is in DCS.

So, as many people said before me, I recommand for you to bring evidence vs. real world data.

But maybe you are just make a trick, to see how long this sterile discussion can go... If so, congrats, but not cool.

[RustBelt]

8 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

I know there is diffrence betwean what you can model, and what can be modelled within current DCS engine, I remember ambitious plans for Viggen radios, or more in depth simulated IFF attempts from HB or RB, but at this point I dont even see comments from other members or HB team regarding those tacview links, that would admit or deny, that current terminal phase of Aim-54A is too good. I know from the past, that HB was going around DCS shortcomings to bring more realisytic battlefield performance, I remember Viggen ASM's warhead get buffed to overcome ship damage model, IMHO same should be applied to AIM-54A is some way, but I dont even know, if anybody from ED or HB agree about missile overperforming, and it's a starting point. Simply solution would be limiting ECCM value

Well one, they want Track files, not Tacview. 
 

And it's not limitations to the engine. Literally the missile model once it is in the air is Eagle Dynamics. So any in the air changes need to be brought to Eagle Dynamics NOT Heatblur. Heatblur can't touch the missile once it drops off the aircraft.

[Ramius007]

7 hours ago, Jar72 said:

Just a question. You keep saying missile AIM 54 A should not perform that good against other fighters because...... the missile is old ? Is this the only basis upon which you build your argument? Because this is non sense.

Apollo is an old program. And yet nobody else has landed on the moon so far. The Phoenix, as the tomcat, were way ahead of their time. Maybe they were even better actually than what is in DCS.

So, as many people said before me, I recommand for you to bring evidence vs. real world data.

But maybe you are just make a trick, to see how long this sterile discussion can go... If so, congrats, but not cool.

Can you bring evidence that Aim-9x track better than aim-9b?

[RustBelt]

33 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

Can you bring evidence that Aim-9x track better than aim-9b?

We aren’t the ones making the claim. You are, so the burden of proof is yours. You’ve been told the standards required for proof, and who to prove it to. Have at it.

Also don’t shift the goalposts. Nobody was talking about the AIM-9 so bringing it up is a deflection. Don’t do that.

Show ED and maybe Heatblur WHY your right. With Receipts and citations. Not feelings and shoulds.

Edited February 14 by RustBelt

[Jar72]

33 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

Can you bring evidence that Aim-9x track better than aim-9b?

I can. Based on official public data, saying 9B is rear aspect only, and 9X is all aspects. And in DCS I can easily demonstrate it on this specifics.

Can YOU provide evidence aim-54 A guidance is too good compared to another reference in DCS ? And can you provide evidence this is not reflecting reality ?

The basic point is : ED and HB have a scientif approach. They base their devs on data, facts, ... if you don't follow this approach, you won't get what you want, whatever you are trying to achieve.

I'm RTB.

[Ramius007]

4 hours ago, Jar72 said:

I can. Based on official public data, saying 9B is rear aspect only, and 9X is all aspects. And in DCS I can easily demonstrate it on this specifics.

Can YOU provide evidence aim-54 A guidance is too good compared to another reference in DCS ? And can you provide evidence this is not reflecting reality ?

The basic point is : ED and HB have a scientif approach. They base their devs on data, facts, ... if you don't follow this approach, you won't get what you want, whatever you are trying to achieve.

I'm RTB.

Regarding Am-9B vs aim-9X, I m not questionning engagment aspect, I m questionning efficiency, if you have only data about aim-9b, how you can proof that aim-9X is better... I can be ridicolous too if youl ike this way better. Now siriously, of course module devs are supposed to work on data and facts, but We both know, that there are plenty of "balancing"  taken into account. In grey area, when neither party can give evidence, and it's preety much with all new modern stuff, SD-10 is fine example. There is most likely no documenation about AIM-54A reliaibility in tracking hi speed low altidue threats, yet I m supprised, you want evidence from Me, and not from HB, given fact that DCS AIM-54A radar is more capable in this than DCS F-4 Phantom radar. If I  bring you history of AIM-54A kills, and none of them were against target at lower altidue, then would it be evidence for you, or still not? Logically. it wouldnt be proof, that missile cant track low flying objects, right.. btw, where is your PRROF for use of scientific approach by HB or ED, it's your belief, supported by statments, not proven data or fact, and definitely not by You. If really everything in DCS, would be based on data and facts, we would never had so many changesin performance in most modules over years, sometimes those changes were drastic, so talking about facts and data is... sorry, just childish

Edited February 15 by Ramius007

[WarthogOsl]

An AIM-54A hit a BQM-34 drone flying only 50 feet off the water in early testing, so there's that.

[RustBelt]

6 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Regarding Am-9B vs aim-9X, I m not questionning engagment aspect, I m questionning efficiency, if you have only data about aim-9b, how you can proof that aim-9X is better... I can be ridicolous too if youl ike this way better. Now siriously, of course module devs are supposed to work on data and facts, but We both know, that there are plenty of "balancing"  taken into account. In grey area, when neither party can give evidence, and it's preety much with all new modern stuff, SD-10 is fine example. There is most likely no documenation about AIM-54A reliaibility in tracking hi speed low altidue threats, yet I m supprised, you want evidence from Me, and not from HB, given fact that DCS AIM-54A radar is more capable in this than DCS F-4 Phantom radar. If I  bring you history of AIM-54A kills, and none of them were against target at lower altidue, then would it be evidence for you, or still not? Logically. it wouldnt be proof, that missile cant track low flying objects, right.. btw, where is your PRROF for use of scientific approach by HB or ED, it's your belief, supported by statments, not proven data or fact, and definitely not by You. If really everything in DCS, would be based on data and facts, we would never had so many changesin performance in most modules over years, sometimes those changes were drastic, so talking about facts and data is... sorry, just childish

WE don't want proof. ED and Heatblur want to see proof that they are wrong and you are right. Your problem is with them, and you have been told how to take it up with them. This isn't a player consensus developed game, If you have actual data, bring it to them. 

[Ramius007]

Ok then, so current 60's era AIM-54A seeker being on par with 120C is correct as it is. I have nothing more to add.

[Jar72]

1 hour ago, Ramius007 said:

Ok then, so current 60's era AIM-54A seeker being on par with 120C is correct as it is. I have nothing more to add.

My 1993 Daytona 900 cc accelerates faster, goes faster, and gives me more chill than my 2013 Sportster 1200 cc. And yet I love them both.

 

Sir, you will not achieve anything by sticking to this only point I'm afraid. You may be fully right, I don't know. People are not saying you are wrong. They are saying you have to build a case. I mean, many many many people have argued a lot about different behavior points of view. It all ended to this : providing data. And some achieved to change things. Otherwise, you are just one among many, and why would anyone listen ? Why would you be more legitimate than the devs themselves, who do have data. Maybe not the best, maybe inaccurate. But still, they have proven they have some and that they try to match it.

You CAN achieve something, but please listen to what many have said ealier. It can be challenging and actually very interesting for you. You will learn things in the process, as the scientific approach to this problem can be very hard. Or you can accept the way it is. Or you can be frustrated by thinking we are wrong and not listening to us at all about the method to follow to have your point.

DCS is an amazing simulator. Not perfect, but one of the best. I think having dozens of people answering you at all shows how great it and the community are. It's better than many jobs I have been in :-). So yeah, my advise for you would be to take some time to reflect and not be too arsh on what should or should not be.

Cheers. Hoping the best for you.

Edited February 15 by Jar72

[Sindar]

В 11.02.2025 в 23:15, Naquaii сказал:

Yeah, that's absolutely correct, Jester isn't a "real person".

Can you say something about the interaction between AWACS and RIO in the F-14 right now? The issue is not the man, but the poorly made AI module of RIO, which is useless or even harmful in most situations. I and many other users of the F-14 module would like to know the official position of the developer from his official representative.

[DD_Fenrir]

2 hours ago, Sindar said:

Can you say something about the interaction between AWACS and RIO in the F-14 right now? The issue is not the man, but the poorly made AI module of RIO, which is useless or even harmful in most situations. I and many other users of the F-14 module would like to know the official position of the developer from his official representative.

You assume a lot.

Sure, Jester is lacking some capability that a human RIO would bring but at this point are you surprised? This an AI developed by a flight sim developer, not a dedicated developer of AI; that it operates the basic RIO functions as well as it does is a credit to Heatblur.

And if you work with Jester and understand it’s limitations it is an eminently usable and useful system; is it fail safe? No, but 9 times out of ten it does the basic functions required by a RIO to perform intercepts.

Ultimately you expect too much; would Jester benefit from adjusting scan patterns to accommodate data link contacts, sure but if it where that simple don’t you think it would have been done by now? There’s a vast amount of abstraction, extrapolation and supposition being performed in the human brain of a RIO during an aerial engagement, and expecting an AI developed for a home PC entertainment software to even begin to replicate the deeper levels of actual human cognitive processes is frankly unrealistic.

The fact is Jester, when used properly is sufficient. I strongly suspect you are using it poorly and expecting it to have capabilities that mitigate for your suboptimal understanding of how to get the best from it.

Edited February 15 by DD_Fenrir

[Naquaii]

4 hours ago, Sindar said:

Can you say something about the interaction between AWACS and RIO in the F-14 right now? The issue is not the man, but the poorly made AI module of RIO, which is useless or even harmful in most situations. I and many other users of the F-14 module would like to know the official position of the developer from his official representative.

Firstly, you need to stop saying RIO in this regards because you're really talking about Jester. And if you're talking about the AWACS radio callouts then no, Jester does not interact with those and have never done so. Afaik that's a DCS function that we can't directly interact with like that. If you want to look for those radio reported contacts you need to point Jester to it as a pilot via the Jester interface.

[Sindar]

2 часа назад, Naquaii сказал:

Firstly, you need to stop saying RIO in this regards because you're really talking about Jester. And if you're talking about the AWACS radio callouts then no, Jester does not interact with those and have never done so. Afaik that's a DCS function that we can't directly interact with like that. If you want to look for those radio reported contacts you need to point Jester to it as a pilot via the Jester interface.

Thank you very much for your reply. It does not interact with AWACS data, does not assign targets received from AWACS, and does everything on its own. Instead of a thousand unnecessary lines, we finally have reliable information about how AI-RIO works.

P.S. The role selection menu says --> RIO. That is exactly how it is done in your game. This is not my fault.