Honestly, dcs fanboys are the worst. They watch some youtubers trying it out and think they know best. Whenever they see the word 'flight sim', they instantly dismiss others and make ridiculous claims like 'its a military simulator' or something.
I've been around since the early LOMAC days and couldn't agree more. I still play and love DCS (since it's overall the best sim in most regards, let alone the multiplayer) but these fanboys and enthusiastic newcomers are THE worst. All they care about is the "meta this, meta that" as if they were playing LoL, Fifa, or some crap along these lines, they brought the "yea competitive gaming bro" mentality to DCS. All they do is watching the same cringe content creators, binge on stupid Discord channels and watch some idiotic tutorials about spamming AIM-120's. To top it off, DCS is usually their first experience when it comes to flying or aviation in general.
@@quackgarage9551 i too hate it when comp players get into sim and/or realistic games. same thing happened to a ton of shooter games meant to be realistic, the comp soyboys got in and the developers made a ton of "Meta" changes. i always enjoy playing the underdog in games but when there's not much choice between bad things, makes it really hard to have fun that way. and if you like using another thing that is lightly too powerful, good luck trying to use it after the next patch. it's also annoying seeing the youtuber normies make a bunch of videos where they give every single one of their autismo fans the best hyper efficient strategies and whatever. ruins the fun of trying to learn what is good and what is not good whenever you can tell what is best already due to the fact everyone is using the same thing. this is very generalized but i'm sure you get what i am saying. glad to see someone understands that games don't always have to be pure arcade and comp. and fuck the new tom clancy ip fans in general, fuck these assholes. tom clancy is rolling is his grave.
It is amazing how these old 90's golden age sims have way better content, missions, campaigns, and AI than DCS in 2024. We've traded high fidelity cockpits for sims that were actually playable.
Same thing applies to IL2 1946 vs IL2 BOS/DCS WW2 The AI in 1946 is crazy in scissoring and takes the nastiest snap shots. Crazy thing is the AI even recognizes your type of aircraft and fights you accordingly (Energy fighting or turn fighting)
I used to play 1946 for 8 hours at a time and that AI is DISGUSTING when set to max. Also with that AI the difficulty setting matters because it can be absolute potato that cannot hit the broad side of a barn (missing by apparently a precise miss distance) to apparently nailing you with impossible shots and perfect maneuvers on max difficulty. It even affects gunner accuracy (too bad for players all player aircraft have default AI gunners).
@@Squee7e there is a very credible argument to be made that many LLMs are not AI in the way the world was used for most of its existence, though language changes and AI is becoming a term that has broader and broader usage. For example somewhere between the early 2000s and 2010s the term "NPC" largely became synonymous with AI despite both terms prior having very distinct meanings, and almost no games having anything remotely close to what would then be called "AI" (as almost all of them were either algorithms with heavy limitations or fully scripted, and nearly none of them were capable of analyzing inputs in real time and "learning" from them). All of that said, LLMs are closer to the "traditional" understanding of AI than NPCs in videogames like IL-2 1946. 1946's AI could not autonomously adapt or learn. It was purely reactive with no proactive elements that weren't programmed in.
But when you put a ECM (it doesn’t need to be turn on btw) on the A-10 a SA-11 will lock you but don’t shot even if you are on top of them. My friend show me that, DCS is just stupid, try this later. (It only works with the A-10 for some reason)
Not at this point. the ground ai looks to see if a relief intercepts the line between it and its target. on the other hand, tree are not taken into account.
@@TaFusaroI think it is specifically for the A10, so people actually play it. Otherwise, no one would use it because they would just get shot down constantly.
@@NoBrainSilent didn't have to hahaha. Gilman Louie is a genius, anyone that knows falcon history knows DCS can't hold a candle to their experience. Pete bonnani directly consulted in both 3 and 4. Actually I bet falcon 3 has better AI.
@@andrewa837 As someone who played both EXTENSIVELY (to the point of my grades suffering) I can tell you that Falcon 4 definitely has the better AI compared to Falcon 3. It handles you doing out of plane maneuvers much better which was one of the first things I noticed. A lot of my "tricks" that worked against Falcon 3's AI simply did not work in Falcon 4.
I played Falcon all the way to falcon 4 then allied Forces and I have both Falcon 4 BMS and DCS and sorry but DCS for me is a fair bit better. Falcon BMS has come a long way but the only hingvi miss is the Dynamic Campaign.
@@montrose699good for you then. Why are you watching this? Just to say you like DCS better? Like your opinion is gonna make anyone go "hmm.. well if HE thinks it's better, it must be!"...
DCS AI is Light-Years ahead of where it was just a few years ago. Still needs work, but there's also the added impact "here" of not knowing the ME setup. Most things about DCS take work. I know that's a difficult concept for modern gamers but... it is what it is.
@@807800 I'd rather have horrible ai and multiplayer than no multiplayer but i assume you don't play multiplayer cuz u don't have friends or is there another reason I'm missing
@@margelatul2001 Sure, good for you, but you're the ignoring the issue here. The developer have been promising about fixing the AI, but nothing. And as you can read, how on earth could a game from 25 years ago, freaking 1998, have better AI than DCS? I mean, in 1997, the fastest super computer in the world was 1.06 TFLOPS, your mainstream CPU today is way faster than that!
i always said that, ED team are 5 or 6 guys in a very small room so no one can join and help, its their baby like they say, so...no more coders here because we want that money and we are very jealous of our "bay-bay"
I call DCS a technical sim. It's all about the buttons, but there is little about war and tactical employment in there. It is a dead world with barely the hints of an AI.
@@TaFusaro True. But I was referring to Technical as in focused on the task of operating the equipment, rather than on the actual battlefield employment during a tactical operation.
@@CptFugu Operating as well, they implemented the CAT I and CAT III storage config not that long ago, I never got a FLCS bit fail, never got any fault to be true. DCS don't have the EPU safety pin as well
In DCS, there isn't much to do in single-player to be honest, ED has totally forgotten the solo community, but in the multi-player world, you can find nice dynamic servers, like DDCS hardcore, with logisitics missile stock piles, air frames, ground operations, heli slings. Everything is human driven, with no AI, and it changes everything The problem... is not really feasible in DCS, you need to know programming to be able to create such a dynamic world, but with DCS native tools, the best you can get is a noob server like GS servers lol So technically, not even that is DCS TM
bms ai is hands down better in every aspect, the ai will shoot you if you fly though the hud at high aspect, the dcs ai wont shoot in that situation. the bms ai will do active missile defence apart from flares, it will maintain a high rate turn which makes it impossible to tighten down and shoot a missile, the dcs ai just reverses in front of you, literally hands you the kill. the dcs ai just dumps all its flares as soon as it gets within a certain range of you.
DCS Ai also heartily loses to the indie game Tiny Combat Arena's AI. It's weird. I've seen F-14's and Mig29's run away from the frogfoot after a merge in DCS.
TCA AI still needs work. When they dont have guns, yet do have missiles they will run away, I have seen lots of instances where the AI just crashes their plane for some unknown reason and the AI dont do evasive manoeuvres to counter missiles.
@@Bobamelius eh not really, if you look at the credits there are a small amount of people working/helping on the development of TCA. While TCA is good, its not perfect, there's still a lot that needs to be done and considering its still WiP I have faith in the dev on improving the game.
however, Falcon came out in 87 yet evolved into what it is today and you mean SU-27 flanker for DOS in 95, flanker 2.0 was a paid update with 3dfx glide support released in 99
@@andrewa837 they barely hit on the first burst anymore, except if your stationary/near stationary or within 300m.. which ultimatly makes it a issue of doctrine and usage of aircraft and lack of situational awareness.. you wouldnt fight a sam system with hydras, diving from 30k ft- you wouldnt fight stuff that can hit you up close where it can hit you. Theyre also working on accuracy since the dcs algorythms originally are made to calculate fast aircraft, which does lead to increased accuracy on slow moving helis, but theyre on it and already reduced detection by a decent amount.
ahead of its time ? Or simply, what came later or became bigger, did not reach its standards. It does look gamey, the graphics are seriously dated, but somehow those coders were able to do things other lazier ones never managed or never bothered to fix. It would seem the coders are either difficult to get or coders education and ability went seriously downward. Most games arent made by coders right, only use generalized 'languages'. Not only coding, but the whole air thing is also a parallel depth that The coder needs good understanding of. One can code but if he is a dummy, good luck with that :) Guess DCS devs are dummies. :D
@@FlyingWithSpurtsI mean in terms of being able to, say, be used for actual instruction. I'm pretty sure a PMDG airliner is about as close as uou can get as a hobbyist to the type of simulation they'll use in typerating courses (minus the lvl d hardware)
@@ElShogoso then check out the VRS Superbug for P3D. I'd say it's comparable to the PMDG level of detail, so it's the closest I know to a fighter jet version of that..
I love when I’m fighting a ai pilot on the highest difficulty setting and like 2/10 times he ends up either just diving his aircraft into the ground for some reason or running away. Especially love how the WW2 ai just doesn’t adhere to the laws of physics that my aircraft adheres to
@@Rayjacker why wouldnt you want to fight other humans? Bad internet service? Or, is it a skill issue? The ai is there, and it is serviceable. Growling sidewinder just uploaded a single player mission featuring ed's ai, and it performed as well as anyone could expect the ai to perform.
I remember a few years ago I was running a BMS campaign with a buddy. We were running a tacview track of our last CAP sortie and we watched in silence as a chinese flanker outran and outmaneuvered 2 amraams by dragging the missiles and split s-ing out of the way. "DCS, eat your heart out" were the words that broke the silence.
I completely discredited DCS when I see a video of an A-10 unloading a full burst on a WW2 fighter and it barely scratching it's paint. DCS, over time, became a complex simulator, but never an accurate one. It's "popular" just because if someone want a good modern aircraft realistic game the only two options, that are DCS and Warthunder (I don't think that an explanation about how good simulator this game isn't is required)
If dcs is so terrible, why does the air force use it for the a10 pilot training pipeline???? We are literally known for having the best pilots on the planet...
It is sad that there is no Falcon 5.0 , if micropose picks that up with a new dynamic campaign and a easy to use mission editor , I bet it will be the best F16 combat sim for PC .
Look up the bms mod for falcon 4.0, you prolly already know about it already but after finding that out i didnt wanna spend another second on dcs, 7 bucks for the og game and the mods free as opposed to 70 dollar unfinished dlc on dcs
@andrewa837 Plus, from my experience, all infantry (manpad teams included) are completely invisible, unlike DCS. Though I still prefer BMS AI. The SAM crew AI's can be insanely sneaky, waiting for an actually good shot. The SA-15's and 10's can be especially dangerous. I remember being able to (in DCS) fly up and strafe an active SA-2 site and fly away perfectly fine. To be fair it didn't have any shorad, which made it possible in the first place, but I doubt I should be able to do that so easily. That and, again, the pilot AI's are atrociously bad
@@GenericName1084 min engagement distance depending on variant goes from 6 to 3.7 miles and min altitude went from 1,600 feet with the V-750VK/VN to 1,000ft with the V-755 20DP and 300ft with the V-755U DSU. The biggest success of the SA-2 in Vietnam was increasing the number of AAA kills by forcing the US to fly lower. Without SHORAD the SA-2 is vulnerable to being snuck on.
Remember that DCS is an evolution of Lock On: Modern Air Combat, which was released in 2003. That was based on Flanker 2.0/2.5, which released in 1999. That is the DCS AI. It is almost as old as Falcon 4.0. You were very kind not to compare the Falcon 4.0 AI's group BVR tactics against the DCS AI in BVR.
@@johnpancoast3236 I'm just not sure if that code survived to Flanker 2.0. You can pretty clearly see stuff in Flanker 2.0 that is in (or was in) DCS.
DCS is an evolution of Flanker 2, which released the same year as Falcon 4. 25 years of development, aircraft AI is still terrible and I've even seen helicopters getting stuck on buildings.
Is it not obvious that the ai isnt a selling point of the game? If you want a challenge go online and fight human opponents, those will blow the pants off ANY AI in ANY SIMULATOR.
@@FrankStallone42 A human is better at quick decision-making than lines of code, color me surprised. Why do ED offer AI, and insist they're working on improving it then if it's not a selling point?
The thing is most of us are either playing online against real people or against each other or ground missions. My buddy and I for example spent a lot of time doing long range bombing missions and CAS.
@@Blind_Hawk Is most correct? Enigma who ran the Cold War Server said 20% of people play multiplayer. Which seems low, are 80% really playing without a dynamic campaign and this AI.
In Flanker 2, you could cheese every fight by flying really low. The AI would constantly switch between maneuvering and terrain avoidance. As dumb as it was, maybe ED needs to bring this back, even though it's probably going to break helicopters completely, which then takes 3 months to fix.
that imfamous turn @ 3:11 is the infinite rate turn that is due to the fact of every DCS AI flys a SFM or standard flight model where they do not lose energy, maintain airspeed and G indefinitely. which i think is ridiculous i believe this was changed around maybe a year ago for some aircraft but still affects a majority of the aircraft in dcs world especially in instant action missions for the hornet and mustang.
Ace combat also has horribly unrealistic flight characteristics... you could fly completely vertical in an a10... who cares about ai when the flight models are completely fictional. No energy fighting, no turn fighting, just spam your 100 missiles... ace combat is an arcade shooter, it isnt a flight/combat sim at all. Completely unrealistic and inauthentic to aerial combat by all measurable metrics. Foh.
I didn't play the original Falcon 4.0, but I spent a lot of time in Allied force. I studied the manual for months, overcoming the language barrier and the difficulty of understanding things, I watched Pete Bonanni's video tutorials to understand how to fight migs, and gathered my strength to test myself in a fight with migs or su. Each fight was like a dance with death, and I was doing my best to avoid being left in the crosshairs, let alone win the fight. And when I managed to shoot down a mig, it was a real celebration, I almost never enjoyed the game as much as I did at such moments. And when I was ready for the campaign, I never got into a dogfight, not even with the 29, let alone the 21, the falcon's AI taught me an important lesson, you better not mess with it, otherwise you will understand why NATO respected the 29 and how you should handle these guys in the air, otherwise you will get a nice opportunity to eject from your sockeye in the DPRK. Remembering this experience and playing DCS, the artificial intelligence there is just a joke
DCS's engine is very very old, it was originally called SU-27, released for DOS in 95 and could run on a 486 ( because that's all the Russians could have at the time, yes ED was a Russian dev team, not sure about current though. ) it evolved from that to Flanker 2.0/2.5, Lock On modern combat, Flaming Cliffs 1/2/3, then DCS. You can see the limitations in the damage modeling, it's still the same as it was since Flanker and Flight physics relies on LUA files ( if plane at this speed, then this is your turn rate plus other factors ) instead of the the planes obeying world physics. Comparing the Falcon F-16's flight model vs DCS's F-16, DCS's flies like a brick. Clean, nothing on it, starting altitude 2,000ft perform a split S at a controlled 400 kts, you will come close to smacking the ground. While in BMS you can perform a split S within 1000 feet. Hell DCS even sucks in the training department, here buy this plane for 80 bucks and not get any training content to teach you how to utilize this aircraft effectively, just read the manuals, no video, no special training mode, just manual. But yet Falcon had videos, and a properly done step by step manual to go along with it to train you. While others like Jane's USAF had in sim training for each step and would nag you until you performed said actions in training. I played every iteration that Preceded DCS and I full on agree, ED needs to create a completely new engine from the ground up and have accurate flight models, better more realistic damage modeling, and better AI, the old engine just can't do it.
I used to play with 1.0 editor a lot ince afaik that was the only way getting something going, saw the same in 2.0, lomac. Never DCS-ed apart from 40 min BS1, left it there. Still same menus, same mission editor, a bit prettier. It always tried to fry GPU on release or the stutter was serious anyway.
This is why i've stopped playing DCS. I'm slowly getting into BMS, but i've never used the F-16 and am a bit busy. But DCS is just too frustrating ATM, ground AI is literally non existent beyond the aiming script(which is fucking shit, it has perfect aim and always sees you) and the 'move when nearby friendly is hit' script. Half of the experience was learning the aircraft, that is fun. But i've been playing DCS for about 2 years, the problems were still apparent from the beginning, but no development of core ground AI and marginal development of BVR only AI over a several year period is just atrocious. You can only go so far on a MP only experience. Especially if ground attack is what you enjoy.
To add insult to injury. When you try to watch back the track where the AI has done the same thing over and over like clockwork it will change when you try to replay it.
Trust me, you flying a Mig-23 -> you also would not turnfight a F-16, you'd extend for miles and turn back for a frontal attack again. You'd also not start vertical maneuvers because of the hard time you'd have to set the wing sweep for climb and dive. There is almost nothing that can beat the mig-23's acceleration in straigt flight, so he tries that instead. That mig-23 in Falcon 4.0 flew like a guy in a Mig-21 and lost all his energy within seconds. You were even able to shoot at him with the gun.
Anything is better than literally flying straight. It's funny despite how primitive the flight models and aircraft are in Falcon 4.0 you still see the wings sweep realistically. I have lots of other footage of the mig23s doing it.
On point. I tried to take on a Mig-29, guns only in BMS. Flew circles around my F-16 and eventually shot me down. Same thing repeated 10 times. In DCS, it's relatively easier as the AI sort of 'gives up' after some time.
I remember when I used to play DCS, I would beat an F-14A with the A-4E community mod, on average 50% of the time, with the other 50% me losing too much energy and literally crashing into the ground (pilot error)
I play DCS for the flight model and Fidelity and focus on ground combat. If never were to want to do dog fighting it’s always multiplayer. I played Falcon AF/BMS for years. But switched to DCS because it more accurate for what I wish to use it for. If you want to play solo dogfighting and don’t feel DCS AI is up to par then play Falcon/BMS. But I find these simulators far more enjoyable playing with actual people. Who really want to play alone?
@@majorborngusfluunduch8694 Why do people suck. That are fore more unpredictable than a computer simulation. And I have spent countless hours flying on a team, from prebriefs and mission planning to full debriefs. There's nothing else like it.
@@stormjet814 I've never seen them fire missiles, but they can definitely dogfight, especially the plain name ones that pad player counts at certain BR ranges.
@@evandoerofthings6538 if i remember they have advantage on the player with some physic effect set to null like G and stuff maybe they corrected that but idk been a month or 2 i stopped playing this shit
What would be interesting is comparing DCS to its earliest direct predecessor, Flanker. I get the impression DCS is more PVP than PVE oriented when it comes to air-to-air.
Dcs' cpu opponents are serviceable for everything outside of bfm/dogfighting. Of course it could always be improved but its not ever going to get anywhere near as good as real human opponents. You can not program human error, luck, or situational awareness in cpu opponents... at least, not with current technology. The more dynamic the experience, the more the flaws start to show.
@@FrankStallone42 Heron Systems developed "Falco", a very formidable AI dogfighter that was tested both in a simulated environment and installed into the X-62 VISTA (modified F-16) and was able to fight on equal grounds against one of the most experienced F-16 pilots we have with a real jet! There are some absolutely terrifying AIs out there now, but I doubt the USAF would allow "Falco" to be used in something like DCS.
@@NuclearFalcon146 its formidable because it cheats, and knows things that it or any other pilot wouldnt know. Its like arma cpu opponents headshotting you from a kilometer away with a standard infantry rifle using iron sights because it can get line of sight on you despite camoflage or concealement. Falco knows your airspeed, aoa, and basically everything about your _state_ in the air. In a real setting, it wouldnt know all that but in a simulation, it can abuse the "game knowledge" and programming to almost always maintain an edge over its opponent. If you had to fight against falco in dcs you would complain that its horribly broken and completely unrealistic. Its also ridiculous that its called ai, because that simply doesnt exist. A dcs "pilot" managed to beat falco, likely by abusing the game and cheesing it while the f16 weapons instructor tried to beat it "fair and square." That being said, falco could very well end up in dcs, as the developers of it are essentially begging eagle dynamics to let them put a falco module in the game.
Contentious statement sir. I agree. Falcon 4 and follow ons is a great game. For me, the main points is the fact that it takes place in a dynamic environment. Try the "going for a rate fight on the deck", in falcon and dont be surprised when a zsu or manpad ruins your day. Go for full-on bvr at full afterburner and end up walking home.
It’s a shame DCS AI is bad. It was bad in LockOn and in Flaming Cliffs. The dynamic campaign in Falcon is cool and all from a technical standpoint, but never had much interest in it. I never could get past the opening day BARCAPS or the inevitable shoot-down on some suicide mission to crater a runway before losing interest. Does the US not have cruise missiles for that task? Why are we sending fighters to photograph the damage? Satellites are a thing. What I enjoyed most was the sandbox element of Flaming Cliffs, setting up my own scenarios based on real-world limited conflicts. The issue was always the AI. Always. It was a coin flip if it would work. AI wingmen were useless, basically decoys and nothing more.
Thanks for this video. The Falcon franchise was awesome from day 1. I love this comparison. I recently returned to Falcon 1 on the Commodore Amiga and loved it. Awesome sim. I was doing link up PvP.
As I started with DCS, I was always annoyed by the buggy campaigns and mostly useless AI when I played redfor. One mission where we needed to take off, my wingman consistenlty crashed at the IL-76 and ejected. I know he was following waypoints, but as if it wasn't possible to programm the AI avoiding obstacles on their path.
I didn't get a single thing that was going on during this video (basically), since I am not familiar with advanced fighter jet combat lol, but I can TOTALLY understand that having the DCS AI CRASH INTO THE TERRAIN is completely outrageously bad. I could also tell the 1998 AI was surviving far longer than the 2024 AI, and it seemed like you were having a difficult time with the 1998 one. Being beat by a 1998 sim is extremely embarrassing 😅😅You've actually convinced me to check out that 1998 game and learn how to do combat in fighter jets lol
Neither is the uploader... he thinks using the vertical means fighting from higher altitude... using the vertical is literally just a 2 circle rate fight perpendicular to the ground as opposed to a standard 2 circle rate fight going parallel with the ground (2 circle rate fight is a "nose to tail" fight, with fighters traveling in the same direction, think dog chasing its own tail) a 1 circle fight is nose to nose fighting, each aircraft is going around a circle in different directions (one clockwise,vthe other counter clockwise). He doesnt even understand the basic language for aerial combat and cheesed the dcs cpu. Sure, it looks bad but honestly, the instant retreat for an f16 that spawns magically, directly in front of the mig is the correct call, as it can not compete in the vertical or the turn fight, it very likely wasnt equipped with missiles either because if it had been, it wouldve fired one directly into the f16s nose before the merge.
DCS enemy AIs units are over-cheated monkeys and Ally AIs are stupid as a rock, period. Said that, I have been enjoying DCS gameplay a lot during 4-5 years, and I play EXCLUSIVELY SP. I'm not saing that DCS is the culmination of human technology and knowledge, quite the opposite. I hate the frame drops, the constant CTD, the overprized stuff, the way ED ignores every request to fix core problems or easy suggestions from players, the GET US MORE REALISM mantra, the general bugs everywhere because all is EA, the broken core functionalities every update, etc. But, How come I enjoy it? because I understand what is the strong point for single player in DCS. With all due respect, I don't say this as a critic to your point (that is completely accurate and understandable), but another way to enjoy it. DCS is a great sandbox, with a powerfull Mission Editor and a great scripting engine, that allows us to play and create highly inmersive missions, with a lot of voiceovers and in-mission triggers. I don't care if the AI is not a match for a 1vs1 fight, because I don't play that way. I have 2 o 3 times a week where I have enought time to play a DCS mission, so I try to make it count: I play missions where I taxi, takeoff, fly to the AO, launch AI packages to open a gap in the enemy defenses, bomb/escort/take pictures of/support/explore/hunt something, AAR returning to base and land. All surounded by random events, voiceovers, in-mission events and in VR. For me the joy is the ride during the mission and, if DCS do not ruin it with a bug (missiles refuse to be launched, triggers fail because reasons, CTD in the worst moment, etc), I can call it a day. for single players like me, I think that BMS is about dinamic campaign (strategic) and air combat (a way to play "Multiplayer" in single player). DCS is about history driven missions. Anyway, DCS should have an AI improvement for sure. Because even history driven missions are ruined when your support package decides to drop all the payload and return home instead of doing their asigned SEAD mission :(
this video came into mind after i watched growling sidewinder playing BMS and mentioning multiple times how the graphics werent that great, meanwhile the entire f4 campaign is so fleshed out its like multiple games in one
One of the problems with the comparison is that the AI dogfight logic is plane based. You can see that the MiG-29 behaves much better than the MiG-23: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mbyiGdGMTIw.html This is, I think, related to the GFM updates, which appear to be per aircraft based like the AFM updates to missiles a few years ago. DCS absolutely has AI problems, but this video isn't universally representative of DCS AI. Still it's good to point out the problems that still exist and to remind ED that we really want them fixed.
@@andrewa837 Yes I saw it, though mine put up a pretty good fight. I also did a quick comparison between the 23 and 29 before commenting and the 23 behaved as your did while the 29 acted like the one in my video. I'm not totally sure why your 29 did what it did. My best guess is that the mountainous terrain threw it off. Terrain has been a good way to confuse the AI in DCS in the past. If the discussion is on dogfight logic though, the 29 is appears to be a better opponent. Perhaps try at higher altitude?
@@angelsforty5361 it's just telling a 25 year old game has none of these problems. I didn't bother to include the footage but I baited the falcon 4.0 AI into mountains and it'd rather give up a little potential advantage than suicide.
@@andrewa837 There is no denying that DCS fails to do some very basic things. I remember Falcon and to this day it has DCS in beat in areas outside the AI as well. And this isn't even getting into BMS. On the other hand, I don't want to overlook when ED puts effort into addressing DCS shortcomings. There have been AI improvements. We still need a lot more, from the terrain handling that you highlighted to the perfect aim of ground AI. I'm not arguing against your video. I think it's something that needs to be pointed out, but it's not showing everything the current AI is capable of.
Great video. I never realized how smart the Falcon BMS AI was. Weird too, since I distinctly remember having one hell of a time in DCS trying to get guns on any bandit in almost every BMS mission for the F/A-18C hornet. The AI would never use the vertical as much as it should, but was very slippery with it's reversals and attempts at flat or rolling scissors if it got the chance. I'd easily bleed speed, overshoot, or get put into another rate fight, burning up precious seconds of afterburner. Might have to re-set up the gear and test it again, though I'll admit I'm not _the best_ pilot around.
Well, Falcon was one of the most realistic ones. I loved the Microprose and Janes sims, I don't really know how advanced the AI was regarding dogfighting. What the sims did usually have where realistic and motivating campaigns ... storylines. Strike Commander was also awesome, there was some dogfighting there. And a wonderful storyline with cinematic sequences.
DCS ai I believe is based on similar algorytm as IL2 1946 was. Enemies are dumb. But their jets have unlimited amount of flares and engines produce thrust comparable with Millenium Falcon only lol
"... DCS has secured a $77m contract to offer certain support services to the US Air Force's (USAF) Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Centre Fighter Test …" "Some air forces have used DCS World as a training aid. A professional version called Mission Combat Simulator (MCS) is available for organizational use."
man i remember playing DID f-22 sim as a kid. it was all frustration until i got my head around on how to actually lock targets and fire some aim9 and am120. i wish more sims reproduced the 90s campaing style of those back in the day games and not be barren empty worlds outside of a cockpit. Might even give BMS a try!
Actually I've found out that the Hornet (playable one) has the best dogfighting AI currently and sometimes the Su30, whenever it decides to work. The rest are bugged out to the point that they decide to run away at the merge.
For WW2 content DCS AI is noticeably worse than IL2 BOX and that is saying somthing. Also the flight model in DCS WW2 aircraft is just not right for most of the aircraft (hyper sensitively). DCS is good for one thing - in depth cocpit simulator. If you like learning when to flip switches go for it. Otherwise not so much.
@@hresvelgr7193 I wasn't talking just about Falcon 4.0. I have been playing flight sims since the 1980's and DCS has not brought anything new or groundbreaking to the genre except better-looking graphics and high-fidelity cockpits.
@@hresvelgr7193 I'd fly a viper and an F15C constantly in a campaign where I get medals and actively repel the enemy rather than have multiple aircraft fly in a dead ass environment
What sucks is I feel a lot of DCS players when it comes to the AI will just say "Oh just play multiplayer and fight real people" and like that's not the point. I'm not into multiplayer anything except on rare occasions with my friends, I just want to boot up DCS and play SP campaigns.
If you're already playing Falcon, you should check out the BMS mods for it, really helps to modernize the visuals and allows you to add whole new maps, planes, functionalities, etc...
it's not just DCS: i wanted to play the Ka-50 campaign, but my wingmen would simply fly into mountainsides or nosedive when i told them to use their A2G missiles. I got so sick of it I decided to fly an IL-2 BoS campaign: the campaign itself has interesting attrition-mechanics, but the AI will simply take every head-on and crash into the enemy XD And should they miraculously miss they will both enter a lazy turn in which the AI will magdump every bullet without pulling lead, so firing a perfect bullethose JUST behind the bandit^^ its baffling honestly.. I'm just glad i'm a multiplayer, but it was pretty scarring wanting to fly PvE for once and not being able :D
Ah, yes. I forgot that there's a wholly cheaper, much more rich and full, equally if not moreso capable combat flight sim available. Thank you for this video popping up in my recommendations to remind me that Falcon 4.0 exists.
No offense, but the DCS 1on1 seemed staged; the AI in DCS really isn't great, esp. with IR missiles, but dogfighting got a lot better with... idk, 2.8? And an AI flying straight while you shoot at it? Maybe at the lowest AI difficulty, but even then, it doesn't seem likely. I can't say anything to the Falcon/BMS AI, as I haven't played that game yet though.
Great job man! Another 90's sim player here. Miss the challenge of beating the pc (yes, the pc, AI is far more complex and today anything is called that way, when is not). The main point of every game is to be fun, alone or multiplayer, then you can add whatever you want: endless manuals, insane cockpit details, etc. Eagle Dynamics are becoming a snowball: poor pc (ai lol) behaviour, 3d models of lock on era, endless (again) own and third party products (rip F-15E) and so on. I think they will stop for two years to put in order the mess that the sim is.
DCS server player here, first of all i'm not gonna argue that DCS AI is borked, but gotta say I see quite some different behaviour from what is displayed in the video. BVR wise, the AI seems to always tunnel vision and does horribly when facing multiple incoming hostiles. When fighting BVR against a single aircraft (or say as long as every player is kept busy by 1 AI aircraft), they perform acceptably ok, but not good for sure. They tend to over focus on a single hostile aircraft while neglecting another 10nm away and inbound hot. Dogfight wise, not sure why singleplayer AI is so borked in this video, but based on my experience on certain servers, they either goes full on ESP and chase you down without ever breaking line of sight, which makes me wonder if they cheated aero too, or they just flat out reject dogfight and attempt to do nothing more than break away and resume mission, this is especially common on AI aircraft with ground strike missions assigned to them. Speaking of flares, my personal experience is that: if you lock AI within BVR range and point at him, he will 100% chaff flare, no matter whether you fire a fox 1 or is using guns. Dont start on ground AI or SAM AI, they are equally horrible. Heli players know this
DCS may have ultra-realistic aircraft but those same aircraft flown by AI are UFO's. Fly an F-16, set an F-4 AI to follow you. Go into a climb on mil power, then go to the F-4 view. He is hanging with you and the engine are only at 85% Then, try a 9G max rate turn on the deck. It will stay with you through everything. All the planes are broken when AI fly them. That needs to be fixed, then they can work on the AI skill. Right now it seems like they try to fix the lack of dogfighting skill with aircraft performing 2-4x better than real life.
It really isn't that difficult to make a proper AI these days for a military simulator. You only need to observe real military, take notes of the logics and write the AI to copy it. I am talking about ground units, as in what kind units there are (division -> brigade -> battalion -> company -> platoon -> squad -> team -> pair -> fighter) and then what type of (air defense, MBT, transportation/logistics etc) units there are. Understanding that there are human soldiers as basic mechanic for each unit, example MBT has 3/4 soldiers in it. Driver / Gunner / Commander / Loader. Each has their own sensors, that are "vision, hearing, voice and feeling) and functions as duty and performance, and capabilities. You use old RTS games implemented mechanics, as in Close Combat had for each soldier: Moral (Fear vs Courage) Awareness and physical (Fatigued vs Rested) Healt (Normal / Injured / Wounded / Incapacitated / Unconscious / Killed). And you build a individual AI based those small factors, that affect its sensors, its speed, its communication capability (precision, accuracy, memory) etc. In very simple manner with example 0-10 scale. And sum all up to overall value for larger unit. Every such AI is designed to be put on process status. It doesn't need to run all the time consuming real CPU etc. Lot of things are simulated by assuming that unit will perform its duty when in normal condition. So example if you send a few soldiers to walk 5 km one direction and come back, you give them a expected time schedule when they need to be there and then when to be back. So Estimated Time of Arrival. The ETA is not exact. It is estimation. So when no one is looking, you just know that X number of soldiers were sent from A to B and back, through route Y or X. And you expect them to be back in 90 minutes. You put that unit as zombie that will be simulated and checked only when estimated to be back. As nothing odd will happen in there. Nothing is calculated etc. But if there comes something on their path, in their location, that zombie unit is recalled and some CPU is used to check do they detect something, do they do something (make a radio call, engage etc) about it, and where they really were estimated to be. As AI location that is zombie doesn't need to be known exactly where they are, just like you don't know exactly where someone else is when you send them to do something. So you can have thousands of zombies just somewhere, guarding a bridge, observing from a hill, patrolling the road etc. And nothing will happen to them unless some other unit gets close to them. When you do some estimation etc and simulate things. Lot of soldering is really about waiting, doing something irrelevant. 6-8 hours goes to sleeping when only few are awake for guarding. Transportation is just moving stuff or men from A to B. Maintenance for vehicles etc. Nothing that is really requiring anything else than roleplaying that it would be done with schedule. And only when someone gets close to it, needs it to be simualted in more detailed manner and it starts taking some CPU time. A real combat is slow. It is hours work to assault a small town. Not seconds or minutes like now in in DCS. Because everyone is afraid for their life. So combat is slow. And most of the time in combat, you move slowly, carefully, hold position and observe and shoot and pin other down. There is no much of a combat all the time, it is slow hours or days lasting process. And there is no need to simulate everything all the time. What players don't see, we do it with simulation in simple form like paper-rock-scissors. Unit on hill has opportunity over one coming at it. Unit in foxhole has benefit over assaulting. Unit inside building as advantage etc. There is reason why then artillery, air support etc are used to break the locks and take away the advantage and opportunity for own troops to advance and proceed. DCS could very well have hundreds of thousands AI units formed by single soldiers with each having a own capabilities and duties, as > 90% of those would be zombie/sleep while player is cruising 200 miles from carrier. Only when the player gets close to something, they get waken for checking every few seconds to roll dices etc. When player has targeting pod on something, those units gets rendered and animated etc. Only then does the units get more "alive" with more detailed simulation. And that is slow process. Not real-time processing with extreme simulation, but careful military operation.
