Request for Improved AI Radar Behavior: Enhancing Realism and Challenge

[AirSenpai]

I wanted to bring up a concern that I’ve seen discussed in the community and that many of us feel could benefit from some attention: the behavior of AI radar, specifically in relation to terrain masking and the detection of low-flying aircraft.

The Issue: Currently, the AI radar often seems to detect low-flying aircraft, such as helicopters at low speeds and altitudes near the radar clutter or low-altitude jets, through terrain like forests, valleys, and hills at ranges that human radar systems would typically struggle with. This can sometimes feel unrealistic, especially when trying to use terrain to avoid detection and gain an advantage for example.

Why This Matters: This issue impacts the experience of players who rely on realistic tactics—like flying low behind terrain to avoid detection. While I understand that AI is meant to provide a challenge, improving how AI radar accounts for terrain masking and applying more realistic radar limitations could significantly improve both the realism and the challenge for players, so they could follow their own strategies to deceive the ai. It would make AI 1v1s  feel more balanced and aligned with the physics of radar detection that we, as players, experience, it would be more appealing and we would praise these advancements and not be frustrated.

Possible Improvements:

• AI Radar & Terrain Masking: Perhaps AI radar could be adjusted to more realistically consider terrain and environmental factors (like forests and mountains) when detecting low-flying targets. This would reflect more realistic radar behavior.
  (specially for helicopters)

• Radar Attenuation: Incorporating more attenuation in the radar signal based on distance, terrain, and obstacles could help to bring AI detection ranges closer to human radar capabilities.
  (like HB did for the f4, the enemy ai would have to search for us in the "WORLD")

Why It’s Important: This adjustment would enhance the balance in the game, particularly when flying in environments where stealth and terrain masking are a vital strategy. Many players have expressed frustration when it feels like the AI can "see" through terrain,(specially one of my posts) making these strategies less effective. Addressing this could have a positive impact on our enjoyment and challenge of flying against AI opponents.

I know that the game development is an ongoing process, and I do appreciate the hard work that goes into every update.

Thank you for everything, and I wish the game continues to evolve!

[draconus]

On 4/5/2025 at 10:25 AM, AirSenpai said:

AI Radar & Terrain Masking

Have you reported these before? The terrain and tree masking is implemented in DCS. There may still be some "transparent" objects or map related bugs like here:

[AirSenpai]

18 hours ago, draconus said:

Have you reported these before? The terrain and tree masking is implemented in DCS. There may still be some "transparent" objects or map related bugs like here:

Nope, i don't have the syrian map but yes, the bots knows where we are. they just have to pretend.
Bmp 1-2-3 have better accuracy than a shilka with a radar, iglas can see you inside dense fog/clouds (lights always off). it is frustrating.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, AirSenpai said:

Nope, i don't have the syrian map but yes, the bots knows where we are. they just have to pretend.
Bmp 1-2-3 have better accuracy than a shilka with a radar, iglas can see you inside dense fog/clouds (lights always off). it is frustrating.

There are detection parameters (los, range, angles, light conditions, heat signature...) for different sensors, including visual without instruments, and when met they can "see" you, otherwise they don't. If it doesn't work like that it's a bug and you better spend your time on reporting. Same with accuracy, some of it is reported already.

Edited April 8 by draconus

[AirSenpai]

6 minutes ago, draconus said:

There are detection parameters (los, range, angles, light conditions, heat signature...) for different sensors, including visual without instruments, and when met they can "see" you, otherwise they don't. If it doesn't work like that it's a bug and you better spend your time on reporting. Same with accuracy, some of it is reported already.

i've reported already. twice.

We humans can't have that long range LOS. i don't have the time to report it, it's not my job, just pointing the problems out.  A person named Gracey on my comment literally took its time to analyze the los problem.

Back in my day you had 2d trees that you could clip.