New AI aircraft.

The ai aircraft haven't been updated in years, so new aircraft in the world are missing. Such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, F-22, F-35, Saab Gripen amongst others.

Totally. Su-35...

More euro-jets, including but far form exclusively the euro-canards.

And there's a big gap in the timeline, immediate post-war period, Korea, Vietnam have little to no representation

The AI aircraft has been update slowly during the last years, but has a titanic work with require a big team outside the module / feature buildings and 3rd parties teams. ED has a external team with build AI object, and have some in progress).

Check here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

And here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=104115

Agreed, I think this is one of my personal grumbles (among a few) with DCS that I think deserves more attention is bringing everything up to the same high standards. I know stuff is getting worked on, but it seems super slow, I just wish I wasn't so incompetent at 3D modelling because otherwise I'd chime in.

Don't get me wrong, I'm immensely grateful for the new stuff, it brings a smile to my face when I see something new, and ED has been working on updating some old stuff and their work so far words cannot describe, they're works of art, they really are, they're absolutely fantastic to look at, their details are amazing, (I mean the AIM-7, AGM-62 and all the new Mavericks even have their control surfaces animated in the model viewer, and the Mk-20 has the turbine on it's nose animated). And some new GBUs actually shocked me with how fantastic they look, going above and beyond in quality.

But, there is still a lot of work to be done, there are lots of assets long overdue for a 3D rework, and to bring everything up to the same standard.

Numerous aircraft such as the B-1B, B-52H, CH-53E, SH-60B, Su-17M4, Su-30, Tornado, Tu-95MS, Tu-160 among others.

With exceptions to a few, near enough every ground vehicle in some way or a (though this should wait until vehicles become more involved so to speak, with better physics for tracks, realistic suspension modelling along numerous other improvements). Some particular examples that really are in need of an overhaul include the M60A3, 1L13, 55G6, Roland EWR, M818, 2K12/SA-6 & S-300/SA-10 among others.

As for ships again, near enough all of them are in need of some work, there are some properly ancient looking ones and even some of the new ones/better looking ones have work that needs doing.

As for adding new, I'd welcome pretty much anything, though personally I'd rather have aircraft from say the late -60s to the late -80s/early -90s as the other one of my grumbles is that we pick any one era the list of available aircraft available is hardly comprehensive with the exception of mid 80s and above American and Russian aircraft.

Build that assets to the same standard require mounts of work on only one of them, more on big aircraft, ships, etc. Remember check the update models on the last years are builded at same standard of quality of a module aircraft (300000-400000 polygons as F-15E, Su-24, etc) and not only require build a funny 3D model, need build animations and arguments, LODs, damages, textures and a long etc.

Build that assets to the same standard require mounts of work on only one of them, more on big aircraft, ships, etc. Remember check the update models on the last years are builded at same standard of quality of a module aircraft (300000-400000 polygons as F-15E, Su-24, etc) and not only require build a funny 3D model, need build animations and arguments, LODs, damages, textures and a long etc.

Oh yeah, I know(-ish) what the workload entails, it's definitely a big plus that some weapons have had major reworks as well as legacy aircraft such as the MiG-29 and Su-34, they're all fantastic and exactly what I'd like to see. However, it's just I think it best as far as assets are concerned are for the current ones to be upgraded for ED to the same high standard, starting with weapons, then move onto things like outdated aircraft, and the older vehicles, then ships, static objects etc.

I realise ED have a heck of a lot on their plate, but I'm just saying.

I mean this image of an updated P-500 Bazalt for the Slava class surfaced in the 25th March 2016 newsletter, but so far nothing has been made of it.

Su-27SM3, MiG-29SM, Typhoon, Rafale, I'd love to see all these in DCS- for AI would still cut it, really.

Oh yeah, I know(-ish) what the workload entails, it's definitely a big plus that some weapons have had major reworks as well as legacy aircraft such as the MiG-29 and Su-34, I think it best for ED to rework all weapons to the same high standard first then move onto things like outdated aircraft, and the older vehicles, then ships etc.

 

 

 

I realise ED have a heck of a lot on their plate, but I'm just saying.

 

 

 

I mean this image of an updated P-500 Bazalt for the Slava class surfaced in the 25th March 2016 newsletter, but so far nothing has been made of it.

 

 

 

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

Acknowledged, it takes a lot of work to do even just AI systems for DCS. We appreciate all the work that is done, Thank you guys!

I’m personally ok with lower poly AI aircraft, something that looks decent at, say, ~100 meters is fine with me. (Flyables need to look amazing of course.) There are still a few glaring exceptions like the C-17, where you can count the triangles from a half mile away.

I’d rather have ugly AI aircraft with good, uh, AI than brand new million-poly planes with the absolutely worthless ‘intelligence’ currently implemented.

Since carrier ops are now groiwing up in DCS thanks to F-14 and F/A-18 and relative ships, I suggest to implement Embark Delivery Aircraft like the Grumman C-1 Trader or C-2 Greyhound, finally, our C-130 can't park in most of the PersianGulf Airport, so, It's really hard to build up a beliaveble mission!

I’m personally ok with lower poly AI aircraft, something that looks decent at, say, ~100 meters is fine with me. (Flyables need to look amazing of course.) There are still a few glaring exceptions like the C-17, where you can count the triangles from a half mile away.

I’d rather have ugly AI aircraft with good, uh, AI than brand new million-poly planes with the absolutely worthless ‘intelligence’ currently implemented.

For me it's when you see things like the E-2D, F-15E, MiG-31, Su-24M/MR, Su-34 and even technically the Hawk now past 2.5.4 and then look at the B-52H, Tu-95MS, Tu-142, Tu-160 etc and you'll see the issue, if these were updated to say the standard of the Tu-22M3 which has ~50,000 polys less than that of the F-15E at ~130000 polys that would be absolutely perfect.

As for weapons if they were all up to the standard of the Kh-22/AS-4 (5000 polys) that would be ideal, but even newer upgrades of the Mavericks that have their control surfaces animated (as well as the more recent AIM-7 and AGM-62) have polys between 6-7000 and the new GBUs that we now have have something in the region of ~13,000 (GBU-10, GBU-12) you can see where I'm going...

I'm not saying make everything have the same number of polygons, what I'm saying is where it's feasible to do so, is rework every applicable asset to the same high standard, ED are slowly doing so, I mean I wasn't expecting those new GBUs to look that good, but they've done an amazing job, it's just about repeating that for the weapons that haven't been recently updated.

I'm not saying make everything have the same number of polygons, what I'm saying is where it's feasible to do so, is rework every applicable asset to the same high standard, ED are slowly doing so, I mean I wasn't expecting those new GBUs to look that good, but they've done an amazing job, it's just about repeating that for the weapons that haven't been recently updated.

All has feasible to make (if has "free time") and sure in the future, the weapons can be all get rework, but actually, the weapons updated has connected with the pilot-able modules, great quantity of models to the F/A-18C in the last times (some not implemented yet) and coming updates to the A-10C and K-50 (I think can be "rework" some of "common" weapons centred on them).

All has feasible to make (if has "free time") and sure in the future, the weapons can be all get rework, but actually, the weapons updated has connected with the pilot-able modules, great quantity of models to the F/A-18C in the last times (some not implemented yet) and coming updates to the A-10C and K-50 (I think can be "rework" some of "common" weapons centred on them).

Oh yeah sure I understand that, but we still have things like the Kh-22, ETHER and the P-270/3M80/Kh-41 whatever it's called, which both look fantastic, despite all of that equipment being accessible to AI units only, the Kh-22/AS-4 for the Tu-22M3, ETHER for the Su-24MR and the latter being a ship-launched AShM.

But certainly I understand improving weapons on player aircraft first, I never said there shouldn't be a priority.

Kh-22 was updated on 2017 with the Tu-22M3. Ether on 2016 (Shpil-2 and Tangazh recod pod maintain old FC-2 quality) and and the P-270 (the Kh-41 never enter on service) was updated on 2016 and used on Tarantul Missile boat.

The problem have the "old" weapons / pods has a steep behind on quality compared with the new weapons. With the F/A-18C, the new weapons (GBUs, Mks, missiles, etc) has make a detail and quality jump.

Kh-22 was updated on 2017 with the Tu-22M3. Ether on 2016 (Shpil-2 and Tangazh recod pod maintain old FC-2 quality) and and the P-270 (the Kh-41 never enter on service) was updated on 2016 and used on Tarantul Missile boat.

 

The problem have the "old" weapons / pods has a steep behind on quality compared with the new weapons. With the F/A-18C, the new weapons (GBUs, Mks, missiles, etc) has make a detail and quality jump.

Understood, and yes the Shpil-2 and Tangazh look awful, they're appalling to look at when Su-24MRs are also carrying ETHER which looks leaps and bounds ahead by comparison. Having the disparity between one store looking very good and another that looks awful on the same aircraft that has a very good looking 3D model is what presents itself as an issue to me

For me it's when you see things like the E-2D, F-15E, MiG-31, Su-24M/MR, Su-34 and even technically the Hawk now past 2.5.4 and then look at the B-52H, Tu-95MS, Tu-142, Tu-160 etc and you'll see the issue, if these were updated to say the standard of the Tu-22M3 which has ~50,000 polys less than that of the F-15E at ~130000 polys that would be absolutely perfect.

That’s true. I gave the C-17 as an example but you’re right, there are definitely quite a few more in dire need of attention.

(I just really want an AI worth a damn regarding behavior. In the last three hours of gameplay my Ka-50 wingman hovered down into trees, an F-16 SEAD flight flew straight and level into terrain, F-18 wingman refused to engage bandits and immediately got eliminated, all adversaries go into loop mode during BFM...I mean, DCS is ten effing years old, twenty if you count it’s heritage. IMPROVE THE AI!!)

That’s true. I gave the C-17 as an example but you’re right, there are definitely quite a few more in dire need of attention.

 

(I just really want an AI worth a damn regarding behavior. In the last three hours of gameplay my Ka-50 wingman hovered down into trees, an F-16 SEAD flight flew straight and level into terrain, F-18 wingman refused to engage bandits and immediately got eliminated, all adversaries go into loop mode during BFM...I mean, DCS is ten effing years old, twenty if you count it’s heritage. IMPROVE THE AI!!)

That's true, getting fundamental things reworked definitely gets my vote (such as A-A missile behaviour (

I bet this stuff is being worked on, just ED have higher priorities at the moment.

C-17 on "develop" with others aircraft to be reworked, no dates.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3807915&postcount=184