Jump to content

metzger

Members
  • Posts

    933
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by metzger

  1. May be he is blind as bat without sensors and just as smart. He is armed with 4 MK-84, no TGP. He has Search than engage in zone and orbit so he will just overfly the target area. I give him hold position command, then fly over and mark the targets with "visual reckon mode" , tell him engage primary, he says "enagaing targets" and I can see in DL redline that he is engaging the correct targets but instead he just fly north away from the targets for about 20 miles. Gave him "rejoin command" wait him to get close and tried "engage ground targets" Again, could see the red line and he calls engaging and flew away... After a third try and attempt with marking another targets, he started saying "unable" "negative" and the usual crap. Track you can download from: https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZHh0OXZasMwtT6oWPmRj2xgzkFRPJQ7KMy0 However, track doesn't seem to be correct as when I replay it, WM just stays in formation the whole time. Could be due to cammands are passed via VAICOM. I don't know. In general, I did other tests with him and without sensors, he is completely incapable of attacking anything, even tho if you don't disable "radio usage on contact" he will flood and stuck in "contact target bla bla". I am trying to find a scenario where the AI will actually work at least partially for ground attack with unguided munitions and no sensors, but I am unable to make it so far. It's just a big pile of sh.... bugs.
  2. Track A2G_BMP - Simple mission flight of two F-16 with 4*MK84 -> Advanced waypoint action -> Perform task -> attack group , while the group is a bunch of BMP2s The flight starts to fly in random circles around the map in full burner before #2 RTB, then #1 go drop a bomb on the target and RTB. Same behavior if I change the BMPs with BTR80s Track A2G1 -> Absolutely the same mission but instead of BMPs, The target group is MBT T72. The AI flight behaves correctly and attack the group with mulitple passes then continues the flight plan. Same with T55s. Tried with "react to tread" on no reaction with no difference in behavior. Not sure if related only to F-16 but tried with different unguided bombs with the same result. A2G_BMP.trk A2G1.trk
  3. Just made SP A2A refuel with 4-ship F-16 me as 1. -> issue still there 2 and 3 went for the tanker simultaneously, 2 hit the tanker rudder and established on top of it while 3 was refueling, when 3 finished, two hit the tanker again while going precontact and then refueled. Luckilly tanker could fly without rudder, and f-16 DM was forgiving enough for 2 not to have major damage. Also while tanker is turning, they still don't refuel always but just hover 20cm from the boom, so it took about 30 minutes for all 3 to refuel. Unfortunately, I clicked directly "quit to desktop" and did not save the track EDIT: I can confirm that 2-ship AI now refuel without hitting the tanker, so there is something fixed at least. I will replay the above scenario again and save the track later. EDIT: Track attached, AI hits the tanker As a side note, they do change formation a lot better now, not perfect but accetable. Still lights burner from time to time and still terrible in turns, but at least it is some progress in terms of formation flying. AAR1.trk
  4. As title says, Mission and Track attached. Refuel starts at about 31 minutes racetrack, with stop condition for the race track at 30th minute. EDIT: Refuel starts at about 45th minute, and WM actually collides with the tanker. May be same as AAR.trk AI_refuel_test.miz
  5. Hello, Is it possible to generate FARPs dynamically based on the Frontline, so you can spawn helicopters closer to FLOT ?
  6. +1, may be 30% performance lost with 2.7. All BS like repairs, drivers, fxo folder, delete saved games and so on have been tested with no difference. As stated by @Cabri, it's not the clouds. Probably the new reflections or shadows or lightning but I wish they made those with on/off function.
  7. I believe the issue is the way mouse is implemented in DCS VR, it's basically a 2D plane which defines mouse area and that 2d plane aparently moves with your head and the mouse cursor. And this plane is very limited in size and somehow related to the monitor resolution and aspect. It not only brings the problem of mouse moving with your head but also limits the mouse usable area and making it much smaller than the actual FOV of the headset(in some cases depends on the monitor). @Ducksen this option did not prevent mouse from moving with your head, just makes possible to move the mouse cursor away from the center of the 2D plane defining the mouse area, but the cursor still moves when you move your head e.g. if you want to click a button you can place the cursor over it but avoid moving your head otherwise the cursor will move away from that button. It's okis if you need to click a single button but try to type coordinates or frequency for example and it get's annoying as f*ck.
  8. Mig-15 should be no match for any 3rd or 4th gen fighter in 2-circle or vertical, it's some kind of a bad joke to match it with the Viper, even the F-5. For 1 circle slow speed might gain a few degrees after the first turn but it should loose so much speed that will never have the energy to continue the fight or to maintain the closure rate to get into a gun shot. On top of that, irl mig-15 pilots were also not able to pull more than 4-4.5g due to two reasons - you need to be a weight lifting champion to be able to pull the stick so hard and 2nd, they do not have a g-suite so they will simply black out. There were very rare reports on so called "honchos" who could keep up with the sabres in a 5G turn but just briefly as they could not maintain it. Mig-15 pulling 6G is totally unrealistic, 7-8 is equal to startrek sci-fi. AI in DCS does not respect physic laws at all this is pretty clear to everybody already. They always manuever the same way in any difficulty, if you are in the control zone they go into a infinite loop, the higher the difficulty the more cheaty "flight model" they have, in ace difficulty you can never catch them in vertical unless in DACT with extremely better aircraft (like Mig-15 vs F-16). Go Mig-15 vs Mig-15 in ACE and achieve control zone -> gun range -> tracking shot, good luck. Or F-5 vs F-5.
  9. A tank platoon is afraid not to get fined by a police patrol
  10. And when ATC is being reworked, to be able to add AI controller to a defined Airspace and select it's role(range, radar erc..) e.g. define a range or MOA and assign AI range control. In ME and Mission planner, be able to assign alt blocks to different flights, mostly for human controlled flights. AI controller to watch and warn in case of breach in Airspace or alt block.
  11. There is no automatic needle movement. You tune the target altitude and then the release altitude manually, then watch the altitude needle aligning with the release altitude needle and pickle if all other parameters are matched. The bombing altimeter is up there so you can easily keep track of it while seeing the sight and the target and decrease your workload of manually adding and calculating everything. The MPC box on the left is not related to the bombing altimeter at all, it's there again to make it easier for you to choose and select bombing parameters, I find how F-86 has it very handy. F-5 for example you need to pre-plan it and/or have the tables on a kneeboard.
  12. 2 times today, wasted my evening ED this is ridiculous, how many years ?!
  13. No UPK pods for the Mi-24 sounds like a joke... so disappointing considering both ka-50 and mi-8 can carry it and the weapon is already modelled
  14. No no no, sorry I am stupid, just tested again. It goes down the grey line which is wrong I suppose. With -12 I pull back and left to make it go the black line...
  15. I dunno really, not that it matters tho. Might be that I am using TM warthog grip so the software is slightly different ?
  16. In the picture I have it set to +12 and I have to pull slightly left (towards me) to get pitch. If I set it -12 then it rotates the opposite and I have to pull back and right, so it seems to be the opposite. For the BFA I didn't know that, will try it out
  17. Do I miss something about the rotation, in my case -12 rotates it counter clockwise and 12 rotates it clockwise ?
  18. Why we don't have more training oriented campaigns like Kursant or Maple flag ones ? For example for each module include a default Training campaign simulating a irl Basic Course (B-Course) this is the first thing I want to play when I buy a new module, instead I have to set up my own training setups to properly learn the module before jumping for more combat oriented ones. I love the MF A-10 series especially BFT and TTQ they are not perfect but really close enough and what every module should include by default. A simulated IFF ( Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals) campaign for F-5 would also fit it very well (yeah I know it's not T-38 but close enough). It can even give some kind of DCS career and structured learning curve and also usage for some not so popular modules: 1. Sort of PPL campaign for Yak-52 or/and TF-51 2. IFF for F-5 (would be great if we ever get T-38) and Russian equivalent for L-39 (Kursant is somewhat ok) 3. B-course campaigns for the more advanced modules.
  19. I have been testing this with accordance to the F-16C dash 34-1: According to -34: RF switch status should be displayed on the MFD pages ----> Currently Not working as it should - no status on the MFD is shown According to -34: - RF switch to quiet - FCR, AIFF, IECM, TACAN do not transmit --> Currently Not working as per -34 as TACAN keeps transmitting, IECM is not yet implemented, I Have not tested IFF - RF switch to silent - FCR, AIFF, IECM, TACAN and CARA do not transmit --> Currently Not working - TACAN and CARA keeps transmitting
×
×
  • Create New...