streakeagle

2 separate P-51Ds starting in a "formation" (spaced 600 feet apart) does the trick. I get two aggressive opponents. But, they don't fight as a coordinated pair. They don't do tactical splits. Initially, they follow parallel attack approaches, but over time, their slight offset leads to different responses to my actions. So they inadvertently split up over time. I end up getting shot down if I try to focus on shooting either one of them... as it should be.

That is a very nice solution. Almost perfect for SF other than not blacking out the area outside of the reticle. How accurate is it from 6-8 km of altitude?

The FC2 AI has been adequate for my casual dogfighting. If it gets too easy... just add another aircraft. From what I can see, FC3 is mostly a direct port of FC2's AI, but it somehow developed a bug in the wingman logic. It is the 2nd aircraft in the same flight that behaves erratically. I changed the stock P-51D dogfight mission to have a flight of 2 and saw exactly the same type of behavior. Another test would be to provide two separate flights of 1 and see how they behave. In the SF series, I modeled Fluid 4 tactics by creating a lead flight of 1 with the mission of CAP, SWEEP, or INTERCEPT, then creating second and third flights of 1 to ESCORT the lead, and finally a fourth flight of 1 to ESCORT the third flight. This was my way of getting around some of the limitations caused by creating a single flight of 4, particularly for historical missions where the player might not be the flight leader. So breaking up a single flight into singles might provide a useful workaround.

She wakes up if I even move around in my chair too much and she goes to bed early, circa 9 PM. If she doesn't get 9+ hours sleep, I pay for it. The last time I played multiplayer with any regularity was when I was still in my last job and traveling. She didn't wake up when I was playing in a hotel in Atlanta or Miami. On weekends, she gets up even earlier to train for running marathons, so I don't normally have an option to play then. I played Aces High for a bit without using a mic... no fun for me or my team, cancelled my account. So, for the foreseeable future, I "quietly" play games uninterrupted from about 9:30 PM to about 11:30 PM depending on how much time I waste doing bills, checking email, and browsing. When I feel well rested or am having a really good time, I stay up as late as 3 AM, then pay for it in the morning when I go to work (where I troubleshoot and program water and waste water plant control systems). Back to the topic: I have concurrence from others on the ED forums that they see the air-to-air AI having gone dumb with the FC3 beta. It would be nice to have scalable AI, as this "dumb" AI is good for learning how to use weapons, sensors, and maneuvering. The FC2 AI is fairly challenging, especially when armed with missiles, which doesn't give you much time to learn the ropes if you don't already know exactly what buttons you need to push and when to push them. On a tangent: My solution to the button complexity is to try as much as possible to make the same buttons do more or less the same function no matter what aircraft I am flying, using the A-10C as the base template since my stick is a Warthog. I had an existing FC2 F-15 profile that I abandoned in favor of not using target at all since DCS:World inherently supports different profiles for different aircraft. All of the modern aircraft fit the A-10C template fairly well. The P-51D is in class by itself not really needing a whole lot of stick buttons. I wonder if the dogfight AI problems are unique to the FC3 fast jets? I need to set up a 1 vs. 2 fight with the P-51D vs P-51D dogfight and maybe the same with the Su-25T vs A-10A dogfight.

As the ED tester requested tracks, I have provided them. I provided an FC2 track showing how the two Flankers split and one aggressively engages me while I pursue the other. I provided an FC3 track showing how one wanders off aimlessly while i kill the aggressive one. I get results very similar to these every time I play this mission. Give the FC3 Flankers the FC2 aggressiveness while keeping the FC3 gunnery skill, and this could be a much more difficult fight. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1620681#post1620681

I was pretty happy with SF2 up until the visual spotting range got chopped when TK started messing with terrain/ground object rendering distances. That pretty clearly marks the version I would need to be with air-to-air, but at the loss of everything added since. I didn't buy EXP2, SF2NA, and a bunch of DLC to shelf them, but nor did I buy them just for nice screenshots. SF2 has already changed to the point that I get frustrated after only one or two fights. Consistently getting 75%-100% missile PK in the Vietnam era isn't fun/immersive for me at all, even real life test range shots didn't score better than 50%. DCS isn't quite where I want it yet, but is very promising. The flight modeling of the A-10C, Ka-50, and P-51D is exceptional if not perfect. I expected FC3 to be the same as FC2 with better graphics and better missile FM. I didn't expect the AI to lose any effectiveness. The tester's response on their forums indicate that ED is aware, just a matter of when and what they will do about it.

It was either 1989 or 1990 when I went to my first Miramar airshow and saw an F-14 with both the TCS and IRST under the chin. The aircraft was parked as a static display for the duration of the airshow and you could walk up and touch anything you wanted. It wasn't the first time I had seen and touched an F-14, but it was most certainly the first time I had seen an F-14D.

Now forget the guns-only DACT. When I play FC2 F-15 DACT with IRMs vs 2 MiG-23/29/Su-27, I have to evade and flare to survive the merge, then struggle to kill one without letting the other get within missile parameters and/or throttle back/flare. When I play the FC3 F-15 Intercept quick mission, the Su-27s are slow to engage me and rarely fire even with a full loadout of SARH and IRH missiles. In the less maneuverable F-15, I can at my leisure convert to a stern chase or use AIM-120/AIM-9s as necessary from frontal arcs. It is like playing two completely different games. The differences are on the order of SFP1 Sp2a vs WoV/WoE when the AI lost the ability to dogfight, which was recovered with WoI and SF2. I could produce tracks showing specific behavior differences, but why waste the time? It is boring to win every time with little effort. If the DCS AI fails to improve, I will have to return to the online only gameplay that I practiced for WoV/WoE back in the day. As the only time I can play multiplayer is after my wife and kid go to bed AND my wife stopped my multiplayer activity ages ago because I wake her up when I voice programs, that isn't a good option for me right now either. I find SF2NA air combat too easy as well with the stock missile set up... so it seems if I want decent single player dogfighting, I will be forced to mod the current revision of SF2 or revert to whatever pre SF2NA version gives me the results I prefer. Hopefully, DCS improves so I can have the best of both single player and multiplayer worlds in one sim without using any mods. I have long been at the point where I only want games that work they way I like out of the box, I want to spend my time flying, not tweaking/testing/downloading. I have zero use for sims downgraded to Free2Play mobile apps.

I have been flying FC2 F-15 DACT missions against MiG-23, MiG-29, and Su-27 for months now. I copied those same missions over to FC3 Beta. When I fly against 2 Su-27s with guns only, one Su-27 leaves the fight while the other falls prey to my guns. Only if I chase the fleeing Su-27 do I get attacked by the other Su-27. In FC2, I had to learn to beat the AI (since I don't use labels and have to try to find them using TrackIR after the merge). In FC3, I can smoke them almost effortlessly... though if you give them a shot, they have laser accurate aim, so all I have to do to beat them is get past the merge then reverse and kill the nearest Flanker, then use radar to find the other one, then close him. When I kill the aggressive one first, it reminds me of SF once a bandit goes home and flies ignorant of what you are doing. I still have FC2 installed and can blatantly see the difference. It looks like maybe they are reacting to me as if we both had missiles... one trying to push me around while the other one opens the range for a missile shot? They certainly are popping flares the whole time when I am chasing them.

In my never-ending quest to find the perfect combat flight sim (or at least the one that best suits my needs), I have had little choice but to put all my eggs in the DCS basket. But with the release of the FC3 beta, I see a pretty big hole in DCS. The air-to-air combat AI in DCS World is inferior to FC2 to a degree that it is very difficult for me to lose even when outnumbered 2 to 1 by superior aircraft. This obviously isn't a problem in online multiplayer if all the aircraft are flown by players, but makes both the single player and co-op games far less interesting/challenging. Even if the AI flew like an ace, I would still be unhappy since it also appears that the AI is not scalable. For the most part, no matter what skill level is specified in a mission, the AI still uses the same tactics and flies with the same skill. Apparently, skill level only affects the AI's awareness of the enemy. An important part of creating a historically accurate mission is being able to give all the AI pilots the appropriate skill level and tactics. i.e. novice pilots should mostly stay well within performance limits and/or be more likely to depart controlled flight when pushing the limits and fly simple horizontal turns. SF2 appears to have much better AI for the purposes of dogfighting and skill levels. It will be interesting to if DCS AI improves by the time FC3 comes out of beta status.

That Saturn V model was awesome. I can't imagine where you would build it, how you would transport it, or how to safely make and store its engines (which I presume were still the typical solid propellant type used in hobby rockets, just on a much larger scale). I would like to know more about this model! The steam engines are nice, too. Just not quite as impressive.

External 3d model doesn't make me want to fly anything. Give me a decent flight model and a proper 6dof cockpit!

Still enjoying DCS. FC3 is nice, but I don't care for the scripted effects at stall speeds and takeoffs/landings. SF2 is far superior in flying qualities/ground handling to FC3. But when I go back and play SF2, I am still thoroughly annoyed by the over-effective Vietnam era missiles since the release and patching of SF2NA. So, until the UH-1H, MiG-21bis or F-104G becomes available, I am enjoying the P-51D and Ka-50. The flight model of the P-51D is challenging in a dogfight with the AI. The Ka-50 flight model is so smooth and fun that I haven't fired one shot. Just takeoff, pick a landing spot, hover, and try to land on the desired spot, rinse, wash, repeat. I can't imagine what it will be like to fly a UH-1H with no computer stabilization. I was recently flying the UH-1 in ArmA 2 and having a blast, but I can't wait to get a taste of the DCS flight model. I find the DCS level of detail far more fun and interesting than any other sim I have. It could take me years to get proficient with the limited plane set already available.

You can reset the key settings to default by deleting the controls ini which forces the game to create a new one. Then you can try making the modifications you want through the game interface or manually editing the controls.ini file using notepad.

I currenty the use Thrustmaster Warthog stick with SF2 and don't have any issues.

What kind of keyboard are you using? I had a Saitek Eclipse USB keyboard that worked great for years... then one day it didn't work correctly at all with the SF2 series (and only SF2). I don't know what changed? Windows patch? SF2 patch? But from that moment on, I had to switch back to my old MS Internet Pro USB keyboards, which solved the problem.

Are you sure you are hearing a radar warning receiver and not a stall warning horn? RWR's are specified in the cockpit ini and/or avionics in files of each specific aircraft. KAW jets won't have the entries, so unless you are using incorrect cockpit files, you aren't hearing RWR beeps. The default game uses wind noise to indicate stall warnings, but it is possible that your install has been modded to use a stall horn rather than wind noise. The stall horn could even be assigned the same sound as a RWR, though I find that highly unlikely. Good luck on figuring out the problem. Check the cockpit.ini and avionics.ini files for the aircraft in question if you are certain you are hearing RWR sounds.

All I had time to do was play the F-15C instant action mission, but that played fairly well. Modern look and feel of DCS mixed with fun and simplicity of SF2 or Falcon 4.0 instant action. The enemy AI is not very aggressive at all in this mission, so unlike FC2's F-15 ACM missions, you have plenty of time to fiddle with buttons and easily live and kill the enemy, Using that mission to tune how I want the Warthog stick set up. I still don't care too much for the way advanced missiles. I much prefer struggling with old missiles to get into firing parameters and still having a fairly high chance of missing. But this clearly will do the trick for now.

What game is ever released finished with no further patches? I pay now I get to play now, finished or not. Already have FC3 downloaded, waiting for DCS auto updater to finish. In the mean time, I have to work on Kindergarten homework with my son. By then, I should be able to fly an F-15C in DCS:World. If it works as well as it appears in previews, that should hold me until the MiG-21bis and UH-1H are available. The combination of all three should keep me happy until the F-104G is available. Of course, the timeline for addon releases may be in the "years" ballpark, so maybe I get bored in between releases. Of course, paying to get to play a decent beta is quite a bit different to those that have (continue to have?) paid forum accounts for Fighter Ops ;)

If I had to choose between FC3 and the UH-1H + P-51D, I would take the latter. I have had Lockon/FC/FC2 for years and haven't played it much, simply because I have no interest in 90's air combat. I can fly the F-15 and A-10 or contemporary F-16 and F/A-18 in numerous sims, some of them to a DCS level of detail: Jane's F-15, Jane's F/A-18, Falcon 4. There has never been a true UH-1 sim (OFP/ArmA2 is almost the only immersive one). The P-51D represents one of the most famous/popular aircraft of all time. To have the Mustang modeled to a DCS level where it has comparable systems and flight modeling to the A2A P-51D for FSX and fully functional combat is a real treat. I prefer the spread of aircraft being tackled by all of the 3rd parties to a few of '90s to 21st century fighters I already have and hardly ever fly. So, I guess it is good to be me... and those wanting the FC3 stuff will still have their day too. F-15E, F/A-18 is multiple flavors, etc. The only area coming up short is Soviet/Russian aircraft, and I get a big win there with the MiG-21bis, presumably followed by a MiG-23 :) Still waiting to see what modern US aircraft ED is providing (presumably F/A-18 ?).

Having worked and lived on a nuclear submarine, I fail to see the problem with leaving the spent reactors on board, In fact, I would be willing to bet that it would be a superior solution to burying the spent fuel in steel drums in some unknown salt mine in Utah. As it stands, If the ships can be refueled without catastrophic damage to the hull, they can certainly be defueled without such damage, as you have to defuel to refuel ;) Money spent saving this ship wouldn't entirely be wasted. I am sure among the 8% unemployed in this country are many shipyard workers qualified to do the work. This is a "shovel-ready" job if I ever saw one. Privatize the project and turn it into a luxury cruise liner where you can fly to/from the ship mid-cruise. If the government can afford to build and operate a nuclear merchant ship, I think it can afford to turn Enterprise into a museum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

Based on that argument, no other USN aircraft carriers are ever going to be preserved since they are all nuclear. There are two USN nuclear submarines lying on the bottom of the ocean that are considered "safe" despite not having been properly defueled and scrapped. If they really wanted to save her, they could, even if it involved leaving the reactors in place. Just like the last Enterprise CV-6, the Navy will eventually regret not turning this ship into a museum.

To be fair, Falcon 4.0 has two maps and Jane's F/A-18 has two maps. I guess when you focus on systems fidelity of modern combat aircraft, there is little left for terrain. I can enjoy well-modeled aircraft regardless of the terrain, especially in air-to-air combat, but historically accurate WoV and WoI were far more appealing to me than the fictional SFP1 terrain/campaigns. ED appears to be maintaining more of a WoE approach: historical terrain with fictional campaigns. I suspect their grab for FSX business will fail if they don't ever provide a complete "world". Perhaps the product should have been named "DCS:Georgia". As long as aircraft I really, really want are well-modeled like never before, the developer(s) providing them will get my money. But at a minimum, I would like dedicated maps like SF2:Vietnam, SF2:Europe, and SF2:Israel. However, I am much more interested in having a complete globe like FSX, especially one that varies with time to match major combat periods. All I can do is wait and see what ED and its partners offer over time.

Mention of the X-31 takes me back to the opening sequence of Jane's Fighters Anthology.

I always liked the original air superiority blue with white lettering. I assume that the ghost gray scheme quickly replaced it because it was not only more effective visually, but also incorporated some IR supression/defusion technology in the paint. p.s. note the color of the canopy frames: some sort of metallic red.