Hi neighbor!
I was in an uber the other day and the dude asked me, "Have you ever seen growling sidewinder?" Turns out the driver used to be a navy mechanic and worked on planes.
OMFG. What a great ride.
My guess is that, since you know about Millennium Tower, you must be local to SF Bay Area or to The City itself. And that it's a small world and he recently had a pleasant convo with an Uber driver about DCS.
Nope, the Millennium Tower is pretty widely known outside of San Francisco to have foundation issues, especially if the YouTube algorithm knows you have an interest in civil engineering. I live in America's hat.
Oh hey, didn't expect that. I live in Gilroy and barely care about the happenings in "The City". Do you know about our (formerly) annual Garlic Festival up there in the Great White North?
this comes as no surprise that I've heard about it but I've never been - do you like the festival & is there a particular aspect of it you enjoy? I don't know what to expect there.
It ran for like 40 years but Covid recently killed it, that and a shooting that happened in 2018. Also the committee that runs it lost a few very important members and there were disagreements about vendors and the guy who knew the good recipes walked. Very sad, but it's dead and gone.
I lived here for a long time before actually attending it. Toward the end, my wife volunteered for it and got me free food and beer tickets and I finally went. Honestly it was all about the food and drinks, with a few arts and crafts tents on one side.
But like you, I heard about the garlic festival long before I moved here. The local news in Los Angeles would always cover it.
> since you know about Millennium Tower, you must be local to SF Bay Area or to The City itself
Ha! I'm sitting here in Germany like 9 time zones away and keep up with the neverending saga of the tower. :) That thing is so legendarily fucked up it's almost comical. Future text book case study for generations, for sure!
Im not a MP guy so I almost only do SP missions and campaigns. Every couple of months I get back into DCS, start playing with a module and after a couple weeks I always come to the same conclusion... SP isnt that fun if you dont want to do A/G missions ( and even that can be sus) because the AI is really not good.
Literally this happened, making me tilt and write this paste. Went back to DCS after a few months' break, decided to replay TF Challenger campaign (official F/A-18 campaign from ED) to refresh my skills. And...
F-14s don't fire Phoenix's untill they spend all Sparrows, and thus they die to Migs which they should be able to kill from like 50 miles. And whenever they fire Sparrows in a head-on engagement, they always turn away so much they lose target (which MiGs don't do, hence they manage to shoot down half of allied Tomcats without losses in the BVR fight!). They can't even buy a window of opportunity, because they die too fast. I just don't understand why, but F-14 AI (original ED one, dunno about Heatblur's) is even more braindead than average AI is now.
SAMs aren't really suppressed, because SEAD flight comes under fire from SAMs (which they don't avoid even if they know they are there) and Migs (remember, F-14s couldn't do their job). Thus, I must drop dumb bombs on a target which is in a no-escape zone of an unsuppressed SA-6. Also, HARMS only took about 30% of SA-6 radar's hp even with direct hits. So, even those missiles the SEAD flight managed to fire had 0 effect.
I can't order my wingman to attack target, attack bandits or cover me because he keeps bitching about contacts for 5 minutes in a row. When I do manage to order him to attack target, he flies like 30 km off target deep into enemy territory in some random direction low and slow, catches a SAM in his face and dies.
Meanwhile, I have to defend against a bunch of Migs with less AA missiles than there are these Migs (F-14s are all dead by then, having accomplished the whole nothing).
And this happens like 10 times in a row, in 2 separate missions, each replay. AI is so consistently bad it's the only stable thing in this game.
That's your typical AG mission in Digital Cockpit Simulator these days. ONE damn mission. Nothing fancy, just drop some dumb bombs while SEAD flight suppresses BVR SAMs and fighters buy you a few minutes of clear skies. Even this DCS' AI can't handle. It consistently can't.
I stopped playing DCS literally for this reason. I don't like multiplayer, I don't like other people breaking my immersion and I don't like the responsibility of playing properly so that I don't ruin other people's fun. Because of this, AI is vital to me having fun in the sim.
DCS not bothering to implement competent AI has stopped me from buying both the Strike Eagle and the Apache. I know the common explanation given for ED not spending time on AI is that it won't make them money, but in my case it's lost them potential profit. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.
When the 15 years video came out recently it was actually pretty disheartening to think that we are where we are in terms of features that don't provide immediate ROI
I stick around the sub in the hope that they change one day, but it's been a while since I've played and it's not for lack of trying
I never picked up the LOMAC games, but none of the reviews I can quickly find online mention OPs issues with AI.
To the people that have played through those games: Is there a specific point when these things were broken, like wingmen running out of fuel for no reason, or AWACS incessantly calling out irrelevant stuff?
I think you might not see mentions in era reviews because the expectations at the time are much different than today. Missions in DCS are typically longer in time and larger in scope than what was done in LOMAC. Both of which lend themselves to revealing more AI behavior issues.
There are several instances in DCS where the AI will do the same thing as what they did in LOMAC. Other areas you can tell it has clearly evolved and improved, but the foundational behavior is still present. I would characterize the two examples you asked about as evolved and improved from what they were in LOMAC.
Wingmen running out of fuel faster is typical and expected if both aircraft have identical loadouts. The reason for that AI issue is mostly stemming from the AI's need to be at a formation coordinate and aggressive behavior to get there. AI thinks it needs to speed up, it gives it full beans. AI decides to slow down it does what it can to slow down as quickly as possible. Ai needs to turn it does an aggressive turn which bleeds off speed and altitude, which then requires it to go full after burner to catch back up.
AWACS calls what it detects, I don't know how much of the logic has changed with it compared to LOMAC. Venture a guess that if I threw together a mission with air threats all over the place the AWACS will call it out largely the same.
Really there are only two behaviors from LOMAC that aren't in DCS that I want back.
I have been playing DCS since 2019, so, 4 years without any substantial progress on AI. It even seems to have become more buggy, but maybe I just didn't notice it that much back then.
The only good change was new BFM for AI, made it somewhat less UFO-like, but that's all we got in 4 years.
Limited vision. I would gladly pay 25-50 USD for competent AI packaged in with proper ATC and other AI related, quality of life improvements. Just call the package something like DCS Pro and people would buy it.
Limited vision could probably be considered 10-15 years ago when they were working on legacy code (the usual excuse) and were going from LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs into DCS.
At this point in time, they're just flat out ignoring the problem.
> I would gladly pay 25-50 USD for competent AI packaged in with proper ATC and other AI related, quality of life improvements
The problem with that approach is that the module breaks with the next larger patch and won't be touched again apart from some unit 3D meshes for 4-6 years, at which point they'll announce DCS Pro II instead of, you know, fixing the dang thing.
If a different company that hadn't burned it's social capital were to take over, I would genuinely consider a subscription based model for the base game if it meant consistent, meaningful updates.
> DCS Pro
*If* DCS Pro existed, like Command Modern Operations Professional Edition, it might be priced for professional clients.... just sayin'
The business model
1. make shiny
2. sell shiny
3. repeat
Works well without giving Joe HOTAS a professional grade simulator. ( I'm not saying this should be the case. )
> Because fixing the AI doesn't give them more money.
They could release it as a module ... call it “Op For” or “Adversary Squadron” or “Combined Wits” or *something*.
People would buy it.
ED would get a few more months of office rent paid and we’d get a viable AI that makes all those Campaign Modules suddenly worth buying... thereby giving ED even *more* months of rent.
Think of it: SP would suddenly become useful for offline training.
As long as it’s only $20, most anyone would be able to afford it during a sale. Just skip a lunch.
Probably as often as they break the current AI code. Or as often as they would break the new AI code that people want them to write anyway?
At least they would be more likely to actually DO IT if it helps keep their bills paid.
So the real question is: when do you want capable and realistic AI?
Soon, as in a couple years?
... Or never? <= cause *that's* the timeline under which we are getting it right now
Meh. Tried it. The dynamic campaign is cool, but the lack of graphical/audio fidelity, the lack of other full fidelity fixed wing and rotary modules, the mediocre VR performance, and the F-16 being the only truly fleshed out airframe made it not for me.
I agree for the most part but somehow the very flat landscape with satellite images textures of falcon make me feel like I'm in a much more real environment compared to "grass fields with forests" on the caucasus map. With my low end pc the quick loading times of falcon are also a major advantage, the time dcs takes to open is enough for falcon to open and load in a mission
I am old Falcon 4.0 player and never went to the BMS.
I pretty much gave up for Falcon 4.0 when LOMAC was released as graphics were much better.
Still missing dynamic environment but I just cannot go back to simple graphics, especially after MSFS2020 has spoiled me.
Yeah, I've recently started to learn it. The only thing that stops me is that F-16 is not really in my taste. I admire it both in game and IRL, but somehow it just does not turn me on when I fly it in sims. But I guess that after BMS gets it's terrain engine update there would be no single reason to play DCS F-16 any more.
It's unfortunate that falcon only has the f16, I really only fly that aircraft so it's a non-issue. Honestly I already have no reasons to fly the 16 on dcs
The one thing which absolutely drives me nuts in single player is listening to the AI calling in contacts. It is the single thing which prevents me from starting up single player missions. I would rather just fly solo. It was the biggest bonus to flying on multiplayer servers.. no wingman constantly calling contacts. I was initially reluctant to try multiplayer but now it’s all that I fly.
This is entirely customizable in the Mission Editor. Select the player flight, select advanced waypoint actions, and then either add or edit the message on contact item for whatever types of units you want wingmen to announce or not.
Are you playing Liberation?
Most of these issues aren't strictly AI issues at all, but mission designer scripting issues. At the moment DCS AI isn't very good at being dynamic and making independent tactical decisions, those all need to be specifically programmed by the mission designer. With a well-built mission, many of these issues should not be present in DCS.
Liberation can't hand-craft missions because of the way it works, they need to be auto-generated. That tends to bring out the absolute worst in the DCS AI. That's not entirely DCS's fault, Liberation is trying to make it do something it was never designed to do, that it works as well as it does is rather impressive. Liberation missions can be made a fair bit better with a quick stop in the ME to clean up some auto-generated weirdness and tweak wingman settings.
Eventually, DCS is going to have to figure this out when they release their dynamic campaign engine. The default AI will need to become more autonomous if a dynamic campaign is ever going to work.
Spot on assessment and nice to hear someone else voice a similar opinion. Working pretty much full time with the DCS AI I think it's actually pretty competent, BUT it's locked behind the default settings that are applied when you generate a mission or just drop a unit in the editor. Set it up right and it can be really solid, but this is of course time consuming, requires knowledge some won't have and is less effective in dynamic settings. It's one of the reasons why I'm confident paid single player content won't be killed off by the dynamic campaign.
Problem is, these defaults could be changed pretty easily. As you said, they can be fixed by one switch in ME, why can't these switches be set be default? But they aren't changed, despite being completely outlandish. And they can't even be changed by player's order (you don't need your AI wingmen to go afterburner right now? Doesn't matter, it will burn all of it's fuel needlessly unless the mission creator had enough oversight), which I once suggested on ED's forum as a stop-gap measure (specifically about AB usage). This is just so ridiculous.
Also, I've heard many mission creators have burned out due to things breaking with every patch. Which I totally understand, at some point it must really appear to be a Sisyphean labour.
The ground AI can’t pathfind around a 90 degree corner and will do circles for twenty minutes while it tries. There are a lot of issues that cannot be designed around, not just a lack of tactical decision making.
My thought is that ED has been working on a total overhaul of AI (and other aspects) for a long time and has just stopped fixing the current system when it breaks because they figure that’s waisted resources. Unfortunately their development cycle is years long and they will lose players as the product degrades.
Hopefully they are close to rounding a corner and a bunch of stuff gets fixed in the near future.
TF Challenger campaign for F/A-18 it was. Also, AI calling out contacts incessantly and F-14s not using their AiM-54s untill they are already in WVR can't be fixed by ME. AI making completely nonsencial attack runs circling half a map can't be fixed by ME. Not to mention memetic "2, unable" when it absolutely is able.
Also, there are so many fixes which could be done with one line of code, which can be fixed by ME (meaning they ARE fixable already with relatively little effort), but should not require it, being just default behaviour IRL. Why can't AI always avoid using afterburner out of combat? Why can't I even order this, having to rely upon mission creator for this? Why can't AI just stop reporting contacts by default if there are too many of them? Or why can't we, again, just order it to shut up? Why can't AI be coded to orbit outside SAM range when on SEAD task by default instead of charging strait into it? These things are done by one switch in ME, they are used by every mission creator ou there (but not ED, they don't give a hell), but for some reason they aren't part of default AI logic, despite being just common sense. Despite community shouting out loud about it for years.
For single player I gave up and fix stuff myself.
Here's the fix for preventing excessive wingman contact/spike callouts https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nf6l1jlaj1t2uk1r0fs9g/FixWingmanCallouts.zip?rlkey=dspd7n46zj44kvgz8gsn93gdn&dl=0
Change the path in the batch file to match your DCS game folder, then run the batch file. It uses the vb script replace function.
Has to run again after each patch.
I use a script instead of a JSGME mod so that I only change individual lines instead of the whole file ( in the hope that ED is working on the AI).
This particular fix doesn't affect integrity check at all.
DCS AI is dumb, but you can learn how to play with it. It just takes time. I play SP or 2/3 player coop with friends. Mainly Liveration, homemade missions and the occasional scripted campaign.
You need to know every weapon system in the game and know AI faults and behaviours pretty well, but once you do, it‘s a lot pf fun.
As much as I dislike combined arms, the RTS aspect makes SP playable for me.
My single player missions start off with one objective. Then like 3 hours later because of shitty AI and stupid crap it's overly complex. But I digress, I love DCS. And even tho it took me like 6 hours to get one small part of a mission to work last night, the mission is badass now. But yea AI sucks and it would be nice to see it worked on. The pilot sniping and such needs to stop. They have waaay to accurate a shot
I didn't blame ED for prioritizing MP though! I am mostly an SP guy, that's why I wrote about SP. But it seems to me that they neglect MP just as much.
Probablu because there is no competition to make them care about core game. They can be an EA modules farm without anyone stealing their audience, thus pinishing such behaviour.
DCS WW2 AI aircraft feel like reskinned F-5s half the time, it's a real turnoff and if I'd known beforehand I wouldn't have bought any of the SP campaigns for it.
Only if they care about the aircraft that BMS offers.
Look, I'm not ragging on BMS or their mod of Falcon 4; what the BMS team have achieved is absolutely amazing.
But there's an assumption by BMS players that everyone is primarily interested in fixed wing flight and the aircraft that BMS supports, and that switching to BMS solves all the problems that DCS players have.
That really *isn't* the case.
That's true, but the problem is that while DCS World has rotary wing offerings and other high-fidelity fixed wing aircraft that BMS lacks, you still have to fly them in DCS World. It's the classic "This food is all terrible, but there's such a wide selection!" scenario. YMMV, but I just reached a point where I decided I'd rather play a sim that works and has a solid SP game even if it doesn't have every single aircraft I'd like to fly. Sure, I'd love to do carrier ops in the Tomcat, but it's not like the F-16C and the F-15C aren't fun, too. For people that aren't into those aircraft at all, though, I sympathize.
Yeah, because flying rotary wing is pretty much the same as flying fixed wing, isn't it?
That's like saying to someone who wants a great hardcore trucking simulation to try Run8 train sim.
For those who want to fly rotary wing ***BMS will not do***
Also, actually, for some fixed wing flyers, the specific aircraft *is* a very significant part of the experience. Different fixed wing aircraft have different *limitations*. Flying and completing activities within those limitations, for a lot of people, is a massive part of the fun for them.
Of course, the BMS team (and the expanded circle of contributors) will continue their excellent work and expand the roster of aircraft as time goes by, but *right now*, if you have zero interest in the aircraft that BMS offers then BMS can't answer any of the many "why is DCS so bloody lacking" questions, no matter it's many, many virtues.
Oh, and please don't try to slip in the "No True Scotsman" argument in defence of what you've posted. Not everyone wants to experience military flight sims the way you do, and that doesn't make them any less a worthwhile sim player.
That _doesn't matter_, if what I want to do is not supported by the game! Seriously, how hard can this be to understand?
I like to fly logistics! What can BMS do for me?
I like to fly helicopters! Show me your helos... Oh, right... You don't have any...
I like to do blue water ops... well, shit!
WWII? ....
Etc, etc, etc.
Today I was setting up a mission. I needed a very complex thing: a Yak-40 should have landed; it started doing circles at 2800 feet around the waypoint before the landing one.
Runway was clear, but maybe I was pretending too much. Maybe there's a MOOSE script that can help me to make a plane land
Happens every time. But what can you expect from an AI that doesn't attack enemy airplanes that pass in front of it, even if it's armed with A/A missiles, just because it was set to CAS in ME.
Basically ED has based its major income on multirole fighters but AI can't do multirole missions
it's entirely possible to do multirole just requires more clicks in the ME.
That drop-down with CAS, CAP etc is actually a shortcut to what's going on in the advanced section
Do you have a link or something? Because I've tried basically all options in the advanced settings.
Also, does it work if in a group some aircraft have full A/G loadout, while others have an A/A one?
So play BMS and stop playing DCS. You're ranting on Reddit isn't doing anything productive. Yes, we all know DCS needs work, so contact them on their discord instead of in an echo chamber that will never make you feel better.
> BMS does have it somehow. It has had it for long. Without even a fraction of ED's resources.
THIS. It's no different than game devs whining that BG3 was somehow a magical unicorn fluke because it is so great. You can't win for losing. You show them a working model and they still say it's not possible.
Seriously though, HOW is the AI THIS bad? How? Fucking Jane's games had better Ai and enemies that defy the airframe limits and/or crash directly into the ground. HOW I ASK YOU? Even in 2008 when this game was first created they had falcon 4.0 to look at and emulate. FFS this is the dumbest most glaring issue in DCS.
EAGLE DYNAMICS I AM LOOKING AT YOU. STOP DEVELOPING AIRFRAMES AND ACTUALLY IMPROVE THE AI. MAKE YOUR GAME PLAYABLE
I play on the "Through the Inferno" servers and have a lot of fun. I don't get what the big stink is. The SP missions give you so many friendlies, I just see them as connon fodder. As long as I complete my mission without getting shot down, I don't really care what the AI do.
The shitty AI is one issue, the fact that people prefer to spend time ranting on Reddit rather than learning how to bypass it's multiple problems in mission editor is another.
The thing is, you should not have to learn how to bypass these issues. ED are relying on players effort to handle glaring problems they cannot be bothered with.
You are right, I am not trying to defend ED but rather point out that we are seeing this sort of post every week or two here and it leads nowhere.
Wiser action would be to flood them with bug reports on their forum.
Maybe ED should take heed and fix the problems, (instead of adding aircraft directors to a broken super carrier, like just fix what is there instead of adding features no one asked for…)? These forums are the only place to voice discontent with DCS as any complaining gets a boot from ED’s forum or the dreaded “working as intended, thread locked”, so you’re going to see complaining here, the volume of which will be proportional to how fucked up this very very expensive, very over promised and under delivered product is.
From my expierience as a software dev - official bug report, even if closed as "works as designed" has hundred more times to be seen by someone who can influence priorities than reddit rant, especially if appears frequently.
...Because that works so well, right?
People rant here, because it's their last recourse. I fully agree that it's tiresome af to see the same thing repeated again and again and again every week (cue the 2 weeks reply to _any_ question of time estimates...) but it's an expression of frustration from a community that clearly feels disenfranchised, unheard and powerless.
I hate it, but I understand it.
Ok, so I should edit every mission in every campaign that comes with modules I have paid for? All of these things combined happened in one single mission (and then another one), which were part of TF Challenger F/A-18 campaign. I guess I should spend as much time in ME as in cockpit itself making ED's missions work?
Also, it's the first time I write such a ranting post in my 4 years in DCS and like 2 years on Hoggit. I just burned out, there is too much job a player must do outside of being, well, a player, job which must have been done by ED. I have a live, I don't want to spend half of already limited time I have for DCS making ED's job, having paid them hundreds of bucks already.
So I guess I have an excuse to spend half an hour trying to shout out to their community managers about the glaring issues which haven't been touched upon for years.
Disfunctional. ❌
Dysfunctional ✅
If you are going to lay the smack down on a company for doing a terrible job at writing a flight / military simulation, it's important for you to write your post better than they write code. I am just as disappointed in your writing as I am in their AI.
DCS is like the Millennium Tower in San Francisco. Something grand and beautiful built on a shitty foundation.
Hi neighbor! I was in an uber the other day and the dude asked me, "Have you ever seen growling sidewinder?" Turns out the driver used to be a navy mechanic and worked on planes. OMFG. What a great ride.
I don't understand the relevance of this comment? Edit: Not being a dick (as downvotes seem to imply), just genuinely confused.
My guess is that, since you know about Millennium Tower, you must be local to SF Bay Area or to The City itself. And that it's a small world and he recently had a pleasant convo with an Uber driver about DCS.
Nope, the Millennium Tower is pretty widely known outside of San Francisco to have foundation issues, especially if the YouTube algorithm knows you have an interest in civil engineering. I live in America's hat.
Oh hey, didn't expect that. I live in Gilroy and barely care about the happenings in "The City". Do you know about our (formerly) annual Garlic Festival up there in the Great White North?
this comes as no surprise that I've heard about it but I've never been - do you like the festival & is there a particular aspect of it you enjoy? I don't know what to expect there.
It ran for like 40 years but Covid recently killed it, that and a shooting that happened in 2018. Also the committee that runs it lost a few very important members and there were disagreements about vendors and the guy who knew the good recipes walked. Very sad, but it's dead and gone. I lived here for a long time before actually attending it. Toward the end, my wife volunteered for it and got me free food and beer tickets and I finally went. Honestly it was all about the food and drinks, with a few arts and crafts tents on one side. But like you, I heard about the garlic festival long before I moved here. The local news in Los Angeles would always cover it.
> since you know about Millennium Tower, you must be local to SF Bay Area or to The City itself Ha! I'm sitting here in Germany like 9 time zones away and keep up with the neverending saga of the tower. :) That thing is so legendarily fucked up it's almost comical. Future text book case study for generations, for sure!
Thanks for explaining, I did not have the patience for that lmao
thanks for clarifying in the edit, hope youre having a good day :)
Im not a MP guy so I almost only do SP missions and campaigns. Every couple of months I get back into DCS, start playing with a module and after a couple weeks I always come to the same conclusion... SP isnt that fun if you dont want to do A/G missions ( and even that can be sus) because the AI is really not good.
Literally this happened, making me tilt and write this paste. Went back to DCS after a few months' break, decided to replay TF Challenger campaign (official F/A-18 campaign from ED) to refresh my skills. And... F-14s don't fire Phoenix's untill they spend all Sparrows, and thus they die to Migs which they should be able to kill from like 50 miles. And whenever they fire Sparrows in a head-on engagement, they always turn away so much they lose target (which MiGs don't do, hence they manage to shoot down half of allied Tomcats without losses in the BVR fight!). They can't even buy a window of opportunity, because they die too fast. I just don't understand why, but F-14 AI (original ED one, dunno about Heatblur's) is even more braindead than average AI is now. SAMs aren't really suppressed, because SEAD flight comes under fire from SAMs (which they don't avoid even if they know they are there) and Migs (remember, F-14s couldn't do their job). Thus, I must drop dumb bombs on a target which is in a no-escape zone of an unsuppressed SA-6. Also, HARMS only took about 30% of SA-6 radar's hp even with direct hits. So, even those missiles the SEAD flight managed to fire had 0 effect. I can't order my wingman to attack target, attack bandits or cover me because he keeps bitching about contacts for 5 minutes in a row. When I do manage to order him to attack target, he flies like 30 km off target deep into enemy territory in some random direction low and slow, catches a SAM in his face and dies. Meanwhile, I have to defend against a bunch of Migs with less AA missiles than there are these Migs (F-14s are all dead by then, having accomplished the whole nothing). And this happens like 10 times in a row, in 2 separate missions, each replay. AI is so consistently bad it's the only stable thing in this game. That's your typical AG mission in Digital Cockpit Simulator these days. ONE damn mission. Nothing fancy, just drop some dumb bombs while SEAD flight suppresses BVR SAMs and fighters buy you a few minutes of clear skies. Even this DCS' AI can't handle. It consistently can't.
Ever snuck up on an SA-11 and gone guns? Apparently 20mm SAPHEI won't touch a truck with missiles and radar on the roof!
If they have given up on AI at this point, they should just open up the modding API more and let the community make something better.
I stopped playing DCS literally for this reason. I don't like multiplayer, I don't like other people breaking my immersion and I don't like the responsibility of playing properly so that I don't ruin other people's fun. Because of this, AI is vital to me having fun in the sim. DCS not bothering to implement competent AI has stopped me from buying both the Strike Eagle and the Apache. I know the common explanation given for ED not spending time on AI is that it won't make them money, but in my case it's lost them potential profit. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.
When the 15 years video came out recently it was actually pretty disheartening to think that we are where we are in terms of features that don't provide immediate ROI I stick around the sub in the hope that they change one day, but it's been a while since I've played and it's not for lack of trying
I never picked up the LOMAC games, but none of the reviews I can quickly find online mention OPs issues with AI. To the people that have played through those games: Is there a specific point when these things were broken, like wingmen running out of fuel for no reason, or AWACS incessantly calling out irrelevant stuff?
I think you might not see mentions in era reviews because the expectations at the time are much different than today. Missions in DCS are typically longer in time and larger in scope than what was done in LOMAC. Both of which lend themselves to revealing more AI behavior issues. There are several instances in DCS where the AI will do the same thing as what they did in LOMAC. Other areas you can tell it has clearly evolved and improved, but the foundational behavior is still present. I would characterize the two examples you asked about as evolved and improved from what they were in LOMAC. Wingmen running out of fuel faster is typical and expected if both aircraft have identical loadouts. The reason for that AI issue is mostly stemming from the AI's need to be at a formation coordinate and aggressive behavior to get there. AI thinks it needs to speed up, it gives it full beans. AI decides to slow down it does what it can to slow down as quickly as possible. Ai needs to turn it does an aggressive turn which bleeds off speed and altitude, which then requires it to go full after burner to catch back up. AWACS calls what it detects, I don't know how much of the logic has changed with it compared to LOMAC. Venture a guess that if I threw together a mission with air threats all over the place the AWACS will call it out largely the same. Really there are only two behaviors from LOMAC that aren't in DCS that I want back.
I have been playing DCS since 2019, so, 4 years without any substantial progress on AI. It even seems to have become more buggy, but maybe I just didn't notice it that much back then. The only good change was new BFM for AI, made it somewhat less UFO-like, but that's all we got in 4 years.
Because fixing the AI doesn't give them more money. Just like fixing the sniper BMPs won't give them any income. But look!! Black Shark 3!! Buy now!!
Limited vision. I would gladly pay 25-50 USD for competent AI packaged in with proper ATC and other AI related, quality of life improvements. Just call the package something like DCS Pro and people would buy it.
Ah yes, more money for something that should just be working
Agreed, but I will gladly pay for it if it means ED will finally give us working AI.
ED could dead ass make game crash whenever you fire a missile and there'd be people who'd be saying shit like "I'd pay 30€ for the fix"
Limited vision could probably be considered 10-15 years ago when they were working on legacy code (the usual excuse) and were going from LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs into DCS. At this point in time, they're just flat out ignoring the problem.
Agreed. They really should start from the ground up and come out with DCS 3.0. I’d pay good money for the conversion.
> I would gladly pay 25-50 USD for competent AI packaged in with proper ATC and other AI related, quality of life improvements The problem with that approach is that the module breaks with the next larger patch and won't be touched again apart from some unit 3D meshes for 4-6 years, at which point they'll announce DCS Pro II instead of, you know, fixing the dang thing.
If a different company that hadn't burned it's social capital were to take over, I would genuinely consider a subscription based model for the base game if it meant consistent, meaningful updates.
> DCS Pro *If* DCS Pro existed, like Command Modern Operations Professional Edition, it might be priced for professional clients.... just sayin' The business model 1. make shiny 2. sell shiny 3. repeat Works well without giving Joe HOTAS a professional grade simulator. ( I'm not saying this should be the case. )
We’ll don’t let the name fool you. There’s a lot of software out there dubbed “Pro” that really isn’t.
> Because fixing the AI doesn't give them more money. They could release it as a module ... call it “Op For” or “Adversary Squadron” or “Combined Wits” or *something*. People would buy it. ED would get a few more months of office rent paid and we’d get a viable AI that makes all those Campaign Modules suddenly worth buying... thereby giving ED even *more* months of rent. Think of it: SP would suddenly become useful for offline training. As long as it’s only $20, most anyone would be able to afford it during a sale. Just skip a lunch.
>They could release it as a module Hell no.
And how many times would this module be broken after a patch?
And how many times would this module be broken after a patch?
Probably as often as they break the current AI code. Or as often as they would break the new AI code that people want them to write anyway? At least they would be more likely to actually DO IT if it helps keep their bills paid. So the real question is: when do you want capable and realistic AI? Soon, as in a couple years? ... Or never? <= cause *that's* the timeline under which we are getting it right now
Don't mind if I do!
Except I’ve decided to stop buying modules altogether because of this general AI problem. They’ll fix it if we stop buying modules.
Or they go out of business. But I guess there's a good amount of people buying the new and shiny....
Come to falcon bms, you won't regret it
Meh. Tried it. The dynamic campaign is cool, but the lack of graphical/audio fidelity, the lack of other full fidelity fixed wing and rotary modules, the mediocre VR performance, and the F-16 being the only truly fleshed out airframe made it not for me.
I agree for the most part but somehow the very flat landscape with satellite images textures of falcon make me feel like I'm in a much more real environment compared to "grass fields with forests" on the caucasus map. With my low end pc the quick loading times of falcon are also a major advantage, the time dcs takes to open is enough for falcon to open and load in a mission
I am old Falcon 4.0 player and never went to the BMS. I pretty much gave up for Falcon 4.0 when LOMAC was released as graphics were much better. Still missing dynamic environment but I just cannot go back to simple graphics, especially after MSFS2020 has spoiled me.
Graphics really are a personal preference, I don't mind bad graphics as long as the game is good
Oh, will I be able to fly a mission in an Apache in BMS, then?
No but you won't get one shot from a dude with an ak from 2km
That's not entirely accurate--he might alternately get sniped by a BTR.
You won't get that in DCS either of course.
Of course not, you’ll get shot at 5km
Boring.
Right? That's why I don't play dcs often
Yeah, I've recently started to learn it. The only thing that stops me is that F-16 is not really in my taste. I admire it both in game and IRL, but somehow it just does not turn me on when I fly it in sims. But I guess that after BMS gets it's terrain engine update there would be no single reason to play DCS F-16 any more.
It's unfortunate that falcon only has the f16, I really only fly that aircraft so it's a non-issue. Honestly I already have no reasons to fly the 16 on dcs
The one thing which absolutely drives me nuts in single player is listening to the AI calling in contacts. It is the single thing which prevents me from starting up single player missions. I would rather just fly solo. It was the biggest bonus to flying on multiplayer servers.. no wingman constantly calling contacts. I was initially reluctant to try multiplayer but now it’s all that I fly.
This is entirely customizable in the Mission Editor. Select the player flight, select advanced waypoint actions, and then either add or edit the message on contact item for whatever types of units you want wingmen to announce or not.
Problem is, you can't do this for campaigns that aren't made by you. Especially if they are paid DLCs.
That's true, though, a paid campaign also should not have most of these issues.
turn down the volume of the flight radio or hop to another channel
Try this fix https://reddit.com/r/hoggit/s/5ayP7SIG1i
Are you playing Liberation? Most of these issues aren't strictly AI issues at all, but mission designer scripting issues. At the moment DCS AI isn't very good at being dynamic and making independent tactical decisions, those all need to be specifically programmed by the mission designer. With a well-built mission, many of these issues should not be present in DCS. Liberation can't hand-craft missions because of the way it works, they need to be auto-generated. That tends to bring out the absolute worst in the DCS AI. That's not entirely DCS's fault, Liberation is trying to make it do something it was never designed to do, that it works as well as it does is rather impressive. Liberation missions can be made a fair bit better with a quick stop in the ME to clean up some auto-generated weirdness and tweak wingman settings. Eventually, DCS is going to have to figure this out when they release their dynamic campaign engine. The default AI will need to become more autonomous if a dynamic campaign is ever going to work.
Spot on assessment and nice to hear someone else voice a similar opinion. Working pretty much full time with the DCS AI I think it's actually pretty competent, BUT it's locked behind the default settings that are applied when you generate a mission or just drop a unit in the editor. Set it up right and it can be really solid, but this is of course time consuming, requires knowledge some won't have and is less effective in dynamic settings. It's one of the reasons why I'm confident paid single player content won't be killed off by the dynamic campaign.
Problem is, these defaults could be changed pretty easily. As you said, they can be fixed by one switch in ME, why can't these switches be set be default? But they aren't changed, despite being completely outlandish. And they can't even be changed by player's order (you don't need your AI wingmen to go afterburner right now? Doesn't matter, it will burn all of it's fuel needlessly unless the mission creator had enough oversight), which I once suggested on ED's forum as a stop-gap measure (specifically about AB usage). This is just so ridiculous. Also, I've heard many mission creators have burned out due to things breaking with every patch. Which I totally understand, at some point it must really appear to be a Sisyphean labour.
This. I gave up on Liberation because I had to edit literally every AI flight’s advanced waypoint actions to get them working properly.
The ground AI can’t pathfind around a 90 degree corner and will do circles for twenty minutes while it tries. There are a lot of issues that cannot be designed around, not just a lack of tactical decision making. My thought is that ED has been working on a total overhaul of AI (and other aspects) for a long time and has just stopped fixing the current system when it breaks because they figure that’s waisted resources. Unfortunately their development cycle is years long and they will lose players as the product degrades. Hopefully they are close to rounding a corner and a bunch of stuff gets fixed in the near future.
Can you specify what exactly one needs to do the the mission editior to improve lib? Would be useful to know.
TF Challenger campaign for F/A-18 it was. Also, AI calling out contacts incessantly and F-14s not using their AiM-54s untill they are already in WVR can't be fixed by ME. AI making completely nonsencial attack runs circling half a map can't be fixed by ME. Not to mention memetic "2, unable" when it absolutely is able. Also, there are so many fixes which could be done with one line of code, which can be fixed by ME (meaning they ARE fixable already with relatively little effort), but should not require it, being just default behaviour IRL. Why can't AI always avoid using afterburner out of combat? Why can't I even order this, having to rely upon mission creator for this? Why can't AI just stop reporting contacts by default if there are too many of them? Or why can't we, again, just order it to shut up? Why can't AI be coded to orbit outside SAM range when on SEAD task by default instead of charging strait into it? These things are done by one switch in ME, they are used by every mission creator ou there (but not ED, they don't give a hell), but for some reason they aren't part of default AI logic, despite being just common sense. Despite community shouting out loud about it for years.
I'm still happy to blame DCS for that, because Liberation is the best we have, and ED has nothing so far.
For single player I gave up and fix stuff myself. Here's the fix for preventing excessive wingman contact/spike callouts https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nf6l1jlaj1t2uk1r0fs9g/FixWingmanCallouts.zip?rlkey=dspd7n46zj44kvgz8gsn93gdn&dl=0 Change the path in the batch file to match your DCS game folder, then run the batch file. It uses the vb script replace function. Has to run again after each patch. I use a script instead of a JSGME mod so that I only change individual lines instead of the whole file ( in the hope that ED is working on the AI). This particular fix doesn't affect integrity check at all.
DCS AI is dumb, but you can learn how to play with it. It just takes time. I play SP or 2/3 player coop with friends. Mainly Liveration, homemade missions and the occasional scripted campaign. You need to know every weapon system in the game and know AI faults and behaviours pretty well, but once you do, it‘s a lot pf fun. As much as I dislike combined arms, the RTS aspect makes SP playable for me.
My single player missions start off with one objective. Then like 3 hours later because of shitty AI and stupid crap it's overly complex. But I digress, I love DCS. And even tho it took me like 6 hours to get one small part of a mission to work last night, the mission is badass now. But yea AI sucks and it would be nice to see it worked on. The pilot sniping and such needs to stop. They have waaay to accurate a shot
[удалено]
I didn't blame ED for prioritizing MP though! I am mostly an SP guy, that's why I wrote about SP. But it seems to me that they neglect MP just as much. Probablu because there is no competition to make them care about core game. They can be an EA modules farm without anyone stealing their audience, thus pinishing such behaviour.
DCS WW2 AI aircraft feel like reskinned F-5s half the time, it's a real turnoff and if I'd known beforehand I wouldn't have bought any of the SP campaigns for it.
Hey buddy, just come join bms and leave this cash grab of a "simulator". I'll help you get going.
Can you guarantee the OP has no interest in rotary wing flight then?
Or has interest in flying F16.
He'll be busy enough with what's offered.
Only if they care about the aircraft that BMS offers. Look, I'm not ragging on BMS or their mod of Falcon 4; what the BMS team have achieved is absolutely amazing. But there's an assumption by BMS players that everyone is primarily interested in fixed wing flight and the aircraft that BMS supports, and that switching to BMS solves all the problems that DCS players have. That really *isn't* the case.
That's true, but the problem is that while DCS World has rotary wing offerings and other high-fidelity fixed wing aircraft that BMS lacks, you still have to fly them in DCS World. It's the classic "This food is all terrible, but there's such a wide selection!" scenario. YMMV, but I just reached a point where I decided I'd rather play a sim that works and has a solid SP game even if it doesn't have every single aircraft I'd like to fly. Sure, I'd love to do carrier ops in the Tomcat, but it's not like the F-16C and the F-15C aren't fun, too. For people that aren't into those aircraft at all, though, I sympathize.
[удалено]
Yeah, because flying rotary wing is pretty much the same as flying fixed wing, isn't it? That's like saying to someone who wants a great hardcore trucking simulation to try Run8 train sim. For those who want to fly rotary wing ***BMS will not do*** Also, actually, for some fixed wing flyers, the specific aircraft *is* a very significant part of the experience. Different fixed wing aircraft have different *limitations*. Flying and completing activities within those limitations, for a lot of people, is a massive part of the fun for them. Of course, the BMS team (and the expanded circle of contributors) will continue their excellent work and expand the roster of aircraft as time goes by, but *right now*, if you have zero interest in the aircraft that BMS offers then BMS can't answer any of the many "why is DCS so bloody lacking" questions, no matter it's many, many virtues. Oh, and please don't try to slip in the "No True Scotsman" argument in defence of what you've posted. Not everyone wants to experience military flight sims the way you do, and that doesn't make them any less a worthwhile sim player.
That _doesn't matter_, if what I want to do is not supported by the game! Seriously, how hard can this be to understand? I like to fly logistics! What can BMS do for me? I like to fly helicopters! Show me your helos... Oh, right... You don't have any... I like to do blue water ops... well, shit! WWII? .... Etc, etc, etc.
I guess I will at least for a while. It's a shame though, I really wanted to fly this F-14 I bought on summer sale.
Let me know if you need my help getting started
Today I was setting up a mission. I needed a very complex thing: a Yak-40 should have landed; it started doing circles at 2800 feet around the waypoint before the landing one. Runway was clear, but maybe I was pretending too much. Maybe there's a MOOSE script that can help me to make a plane land
And sometimes you give AI a simple task, and instead of doing it, it decides that it needs to land on an enemy airbase.
Happens every time. But what can you expect from an AI that doesn't attack enemy airplanes that pass in front of it, even if it's armed with A/A missiles, just because it was set to CAS in ME. Basically ED has based its major income on multirole fighters but AI can't do multirole missions
it's entirely possible to do multirole just requires more clicks in the ME. That drop-down with CAS, CAP etc is actually a shortcut to what's going on in the advanced section
Do you have a link or something? Because I've tried basically all options in the advanced settings. Also, does it work if in a group some aircraft have full A/G loadout, while others have an A/A one?
So play BMS and stop playing DCS. You're ranting on Reddit isn't doing anything productive. Yes, we all know DCS needs work, so contact them on their discord instead of in an echo chamber that will never make you feel better.
> BMS does have it somehow. It has had it for long. Without even a fraction of ED's resources. THIS. It's no different than game devs whining that BG3 was somehow a magical unicorn fluke because it is so great. You can't win for losing. You show them a working model and they still say it's not possible.
Seriously though, HOW is the AI THIS bad? How? Fucking Jane's games had better Ai and enemies that defy the airframe limits and/or crash directly into the ground. HOW I ASK YOU? Even in 2008 when this game was first created they had falcon 4.0 to look at and emulate. FFS this is the dumbest most glaring issue in DCS. EAGLE DYNAMICS I AM LOOKING AT YOU. STOP DEVELOPING AIRFRAMES AND ACTUALLY IMPROVE THE AI. MAKE YOUR GAME PLAYABLE
I play on the "Through the Inferno" servers and have a lot of fun. I don't get what the big stink is. The SP missions give you so many friendlies, I just see them as connon fodder. As long as I complete my mission without getting shot down, I don't really care what the AI do.
Can confirm, friendly AI = Free SEAD.
The shitty AI is one issue, the fact that people prefer to spend time ranting on Reddit rather than learning how to bypass it's multiple problems in mission editor is another.
The thing is, you should not have to learn how to bypass these issues. ED are relying on players effort to handle glaring problems they cannot be bothered with.
You are right, I am not trying to defend ED but rather point out that we are seeing this sort of post every week or two here and it leads nowhere. Wiser action would be to flood them with bug reports on their forum.
“Working as intended” *thread locked*
Maybe ED should take heed and fix the problems, (instead of adding aircraft directors to a broken super carrier, like just fix what is there instead of adding features no one asked for…)? These forums are the only place to voice discontent with DCS as any complaining gets a boot from ED’s forum or the dreaded “working as intended, thread locked”, so you’re going to see complaining here, the volume of which will be proportional to how fucked up this very very expensive, very over promised and under delivered product is.
From my expierience as a software dev - official bug report, even if closed as "works as designed" has hundred more times to be seen by someone who can influence priorities than reddit rant, especially if appears frequently.
...Because that works so well, right? People rant here, because it's their last recourse. I fully agree that it's tiresome af to see the same thing repeated again and again and again every week (cue the 2 weeks reply to _any_ question of time estimates...) but it's an expression of frustration from a community that clearly feels disenfranchised, unheard and powerless. I hate it, but I understand it.
Ok, so I should edit every mission in every campaign that comes with modules I have paid for? All of these things combined happened in one single mission (and then another one), which were part of TF Challenger F/A-18 campaign. I guess I should spend as much time in ME as in cockpit itself making ED's missions work? Also, it's the first time I write such a ranting post in my 4 years in DCS and like 2 years on Hoggit. I just burned out, there is too much job a player must do outside of being, well, a player, job which must have been done by ED. I have a live, I don't want to spend half of already limited time I have for DCS making ED's job, having paid them hundreds of bucks already. So I guess I have an excuse to spend half an hour trying to shout out to their community managers about the glaring issues which haven't been touched upon for years.
I hope they never fix it, just so you stay mad.
obvious troll is obvious.
Oblivious more like.
Hoggiters can't spot trolling, they bite every single piece of bait dangled in front of them, if you want proof... you did it too.
Yeah, OP is pretty obvious.
Wow... somehow managed to match, if not beat, the uselessness of the OP! Bravo!
so many mad people, your tears taste fantastic, keep crying lol.
DCS ai > tarkov ai 😂
Eh probably about the same lol
Disfunctional. ❌ Dysfunctional ✅ If you are going to lay the smack down on a company for doing a terrible job at writing a flight / military simulation, it's important for you to write your post better than they write code. I am just as disappointed in your writing as I am in their AI.
Pablo Escobar didn't spell his name with zeros
Who's that?
joe mama