Fromthedeep

This is actually a great topic for SMEs to address. In the Ka-50, moving the stick and then pressing the trimmer will cause you to have issues because of the autopilot channels and you can only avoid that if you either hold trim and move the stick and then release or use FD mode. Otherwise, the AP will fight you at the newly trimmed position. Is the trim in the real Apache (the SCAS and FM of the in game one is still WIP, so let's have a baseline understanding of how it should work once complete) work like that, or does it make any difference? Assuming that your attitude and/or altitude hold modes are not engaged.

Not true in the slightest. Not releasing the docs have absolutely nothing to do with IRST and sensitive tech and everything to do with ITAR, which doesn't care about sensitivity at all. NAVAIR will deny any FOIA request for virtually any platform newer than WW 2. Even the Vietnam era A-4 documents were denied due to ITAR. The IRST is still classified, so that doesn't influence the FOIA process at all, they can just redact that part of the manual. The real issue is that due to the incredibly strict enforcment of ITAR by the DoD, you cannot get your hands on aircraft related technical manuals with FOIA requests. The only legal way is museums like the NHHC but even that loophole will likely close soon. As the political climate shifts, the US DoD will have the same stance on military equipment as the Russian MoD.

This also boils down to theoretical capabilities and actual capabilities. While we don't have detailed information on how well the FCR works, Casmo often said that the FCR doesn't exactly work as well in practice as it's advertised. Whether that means low reliability and high maintenance, high rate of false positive targets, unreliable detection, tracking and sorting capabilities or something else entirely is not something we know. It could mean any and all of these. The DCS FCR (just like the Hornet air to ground radar) will very likely emulate the idea, the intention behind the sensor and not its actual real world capabilities.

Is this actually working as it's intended in the current build? Apache pilots unaffiliated with the product on Hoggit said that the SCAS as a whole is not working as it should in their personal opinion. Same thing is said for the attitude hold. As for me, I've never noticed the effect of any kind of heading hold or automatic turn coordination and the attitude hold mode is so inconsistent and prone to inducing issues that I find it better to not touch it at all.

Generic features: 1.) Adjusted INS only drift rates and fully simulated update functions. 2.) BITs that actually finish and pass. 3.) M4 OK advisory and associated Betty call out. 4.) Missing HOTAS functions 5.) The ability for the aircraft to automatically capture and display wind data on the A/C data page. 6.) Weapon release tone function 7.) RWR correct threat ranking logic and filter options 8.) PVU radar mode 9.) Simulated degraded control modes (DEL and MECH) 10.) Missing cautions and advistories 11.) MDATA subpage Air to ground features: 1.) AUTO loft bombing cues 2.) Azimuth stabilized bricks on the AG radar display 3.) Having EXP 3 work like an actual SAR 4.) Terrain awareness mode 5.) Simulated and/or boxable functions in the ATFLIR setup page Air to air features: 1.) Simulated speed gate function 2.) Properly simulated TWS AUTO mode with centroid tracking 3.) Proper trackfile ranking logic 4.) Velocity search radar mode 5.) The ability to slave the ATFLIR seeker to the HMD LOS

A couple of other suggestions I have are modelled OBCs, some modelled circuit breakers, added interrogator panel and oxygen quantity panel, simulation of environmental effects on the crew and cockpit, more advanced radar modelling as seen in the Mirage (pD based radar modelling, modelling of the currently unimplemented features such as the parametric amplifier or more clutter types, atmospheric effects on the radar, established relationship between aspect and RCS of the target), perhaps actually simulated IFF systems as seen in the JF-17, fully simulated CAP functions, more advanced simulation of the laser interactions (not just the burnout but spot jitter, spot size, scattering, overspill/underspill etc.) Some of the simulated CBs could be selected to be the ones that are commonly used for certain EPs. What I feel should be addressed during the post EA phase is not things that increase the scope of the module (like extra updates, features from later software tapes) but rather adding and simulating things that in reality would already be a factor with the versions that we currently have.

CCIP is kinda rare from that timeframe but some kind of CCRP-esque bombing computer with a designated target on the HUD (like the A-4 or the upcoming F-4) is possible I guess. Would be nice to hear from someone who's familiar with the aircraft.

SME input made it seem to me that rockets were made for aerial artillery and it was often emphasized that pinpoint accuracy isn't something that can realistically be achieved. If you're correct it seems that there may be some issues with the implementation.

As far as I'm aware (and this is old info) full fidelity Sikorsky products are impossible because they don't sell licenses to sim developers at all. The best we can hope for the mod being upgraded, that is if they don't get a C&D from the license holder.

Sorry, I didn't phrase it well enough (ESL). I understood that you were replying to the comment of the Blackhawk mechanic but I wanted to clarify that my comment approaches the question from the perspective of DCS players. That's my bad, I assumed that the SCAS implementation and the flight model is more or less complete and the only thing missing is the altitude hold mode.

This is the first time I've seen a real pilot say that autopilots are a "cheat". Using George as the pilot is also not a cheat, IRL the gunner wouldn't be the one taking off or flying the aircraft.

IRL if the gunner is using the TADS as the sight he or she would always see the TADS image in the HDU in the right eye, wouldn't they? What I mean is that removing the HDU IRL is never done, right? You could just close your right eye if you need to focus with the left.

In any single player mission the number "2" key on the upper row of the keyboard switches to the CPG station, number "1" switches to the pilot station. This can be remapped if desired. In multiplayer seat swapping is not modelled currently.

Up trim is the force trim button, not some kind of stabilization. The SCAS is always on during normal operations whether dynamic tactical situations or in cruise.

I think it's just a case of different expectations, and I'd approach this from the perspective of the DCS audience. The Apache was always considered to be more advanced than the Ka-50 (and of course it is) so when people learned about how incredibly easy the Shark is to fly and how well the SAS and the hold modes work, people expected the Apache to be just as good in this regard. Since the actual flying aspect of the Apache is by far the most difficult in DCS barring the Gazelle, people are obviously surprised by this. Wags in the past also said that it was very easy to fly, even easier than the Ka-50. I don't know about that, maybe he just doesn't like the smooth and seamless hands off operation of the Shark compared to the very traditional style of the Apache.

The Apache's TADS is closer to the sighting system of a Bradley or Abrams. It's not a direct counterpart of fighter jet targeting pods, the entire aircraft's interface and design decisions reflect this distinction. There will be a contrast lock with the IAT feature but it's not a TGP that's meant to stare at the ground at a general area, it's a sight meant to be actively used against suitable targets.

That's not what I said. I said that if someone can't enjoy DCS without GR tutorials, it may not be the game for them. It's not like Casmo, or Wags or Redkite or Spudknocker go super in depth in their tutorials full of real life data that doesn't pertain to DCS in any way. There are some people like that out there (Krause, CWV-11, Karon from FlyAndWire, Mike Solyom) but that's really the exception and not the norm. Because Cap knows how to play the algorithm well enough. I simply don't understand what sort of super in depth tutorials you guys are talking about. Wags' and Casmo's tutorials are short, to the point and skip over any kind of in depth or cosmic theoretical explanation.

So let me get this straight, you think my input on the quality of their tutorials isn't relevant because I have few posts in the forum, so I assume you mean that this makes me unqualified to judge the validity of their content. This doesn't make sense on any level though, because what do forum posts have to do with Youtube tutorials? You don't even know who I am, for all you know, I could be a successful Youtuber on an anonymous account with more views and subscribers than them. I am not, but just the number of posts in a forum can't be used to determine that, so in theory, I could have been. Of course, being a successful Youtuber is also not required to judge the quality of existing content. I don't need to be a chef to know that you shouldn't cook using 2 week old rotten meat that was left out in the New Mexico desert before it got to the kitchen. And if I had 2000 forum posts would I be a credible source regarding the quality of their tutorials? That's one of the big reasons why their tutorials are bad. Because they rush them out as fast as possible without having enough experience with the topic at hand and this leads to them being very inaccurate fairly often. Back in the day, Cap didn't even prepare a script at all, he was just messing around asking Sherman and other people what certain things did or how to do this or that. Which is not even a tutorial. Ultimately what this boils down to is that there are content creators with much better tutorials than the GR. Cap won't stop making other kinds of videos either, so GR fans still get content. And now people who make high quality tutorials have the chance to reach a wider audience without the GRs littering up the search page and the ercommendations. Even if you think that GR's tutorials are excellent, there are other people whose tutorials are just as good at the very least. Unless of course, you're arguing that GR make the best tutorials out of all content creators and without them we won't have any credible or useful resources left on Youtube, which would be a pretty bold statement. Good, then you'll still get to watch their other videos and have at least just as good tutorials by other content creators. Win-win. The issue is that people who are specifically interested in blowing up Napoleon era soldiers in A-10s don't necessarily going to find the type of gameplay that DCS inherently offers entertaining. It's not that these people are wrong or that there's anything wrong with their preferences, it's that there's a high chance that DCS is not the game for them. In turn, of course, this will lead to constant begging and complaints when things get more realistic, which is in the way of simcade fun that the GR caters to. You can use a realistic simulator as unrealistically as you want but that cannot lead to endangering the fidelity to cater to these groups, becase the goal of DCS is to be as realistic as legally and technically possible. Optional settings are of course fine but the same thing happened with the Maverick alignment in the Viper, the fact that contrast and gain has to be manually managed in modern TGPs and that structural damage modelling is simulated in some degree in most modules.

What kind of point is that? Their tutorial quality has consistently been worse than virtually any other DCS content creator. The low quality, nonsensical tutorials they made reached a high enough audience because Cap was a master at playing the Youtube algorithm in his favour, with uplaoding 3 minute long tutorials to flood the search page, adding tags that have nothing to do with the video and other similar measures. The fact that his videos are more popular than some excellent content creators with much higher quality videos isn't a testament to his skills regarding creating tutorials, it only demonstrates his skills to promote his content well enough. Which is of course part of the whole package as a content creator, but i'd much rather have high quality content that isn't promoted in a professional way than complete garbage that's using all the tricks in the book to flood everyone's Youtube recommendations and search results. And if someone can't enjoy DCS without a specific content creator, is DCS the right game for them? They are a resource, even if you find their tutorials useful and high quality, there are many other tutorials like theirs, often made by people with much better technical knowledge, so at the very least, you'll still have access to just as good tutorials. As for their "entertaining" videos, they won't stop making them, so I'm sure that there will be enough people who get to see how the Battle of Hastings would change if the Norman forces had F-16s. Again, if someone needs a tutorial to start playing DCS, there are many other channels to choose from. If someone needs to see how medieval battles would change if one side had fighter jets, they won't stop making those videos. It's an interesting question to ask though that if someone is attracted to DCS by seeing these types of videos, are they actually interested in the high fidelity aspect of the simulation or will they constantly complain when things get more realistic?

There is absolutely no secret here. Casmo is a former pilot with access to classified information about the aircraft, so he has to be careful as to what he can talk about. And I assume he doesn't want his channel to be a place where people share export restricted data from illegally obtained documents so things that reference the real world -10 instead of the in game manual would get deleted. Which is a very smart thing to do. Cap is not a real pilot, he has no access to classified data and he clearly stated that there is no real secret, he's just tired of not getting the recognition and treatment from ED that he thinks he deserves. Whatever anyone thinks about the GR as a group is a different topic, the question at hand is that tutorial are not top secret, the Apache is not a more sensitive product than anything else and Cap isn't under any kind of official or legal responsibility to "keep things for the layman". As a personal note, I'm incredibly glad that Cap's videos will be gone and high quality and well produced tutorials will get more recognition from now on. If someone can't enjoy DCS without the GR videos, maybe this isn't the appropriate game for them.

It's obvious that by MIDS he was referring to MSI. Wags said that in open source, legally available documentation, there's only vague references to these functions which aren't enough to model them. Therefore it's safe to assume that they consider the 742 not an open source document and the data in it is unusable. Whether or not this is actually true or a justification because they don't want to admit that they lack the resources to finish it is everyone's guess. No offense to Wags or anyone at ED, but to me it seems that there is some kind of fundamental misunderstanding regarding the difference between MSI (which is the name of air to air sensor fusion) and MIDS-Link 16. You know that but many don't, so to sum it up: While MSI uses Link 16 data, MSI itself it's not a datalink function. It's also not a datalink-ownship data correlation, as seen in the F-16 or F-15E. It's a system that's designed to integrate all sensor data that can contribute to air to air trackfiles and display that on the MSI displays. In theory, it could function even if you don't use datalink/MIDS at all because you still have many other contributing sensors to air to air trackfile generation such as the radar, FLIR, OCS or HARM seeker. With that being said, even if they never add MSI, there are many other issues with the Hornet regarding a plethora of different systems that require substantial extra work. It's kind of disappointing that we never know what ED are planning and what they aren't planning. We do know that VS and TA for the radar are not coming, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Communication is key and clearly explaining which of the missing or incorrectly implemented features get reworked or added would be vital. As a sidenote, I'd like to add that it would be nice if ED could justify as to why these features get pruned out. For example, we know that they consider MSI and EOM mode of the HARM as a sensitive aspect or there's not enough documentation. Regardless of how true that is, let's accept it for now. However, what's the justification of not adding the missing radar modes, the full fidelity INS simulation (at the very least, realistic drift and update modes), the missing IAM functions, the functionality of the static pages like the TGT DATA page, the missing functions of the navigation system and more. I think ED should hold themselves to the same standard that every other developer is held to, and if so many systems cannot be added to the module, there should be at least some kind of explanation as to why. I understand that developing such a module is hard and there may not be enough resources to model all the features and that's perfectly fair. I'd rather have the current Hornet than no Hornet at all. But if the lack of available resources are indeed the case, there should be clear communication on that and they shouldn't state that the Hornet is only missing a few functions. It is missing a lot more that may or may not end up in the game and that shouldn't be covered up in my opinion. I also think that due to the nature of the product (it's not really an artistic product like a conventional video game but the stated goal is to reproduce the functions of an existing aircraft) there should be more community involvement when it comes to these decisions. If resource contraints are so severe at ED, they should utilize the community polls and votes more often. They should state how many different systems they can add based on the amount of resources allocated for the project and at what level of fidelity, and the community should vote about the priority of these systems. I know for a fact that I'd much rather have access to map slew and AUTO bombing loft cues than the FUEL BIT function or the static pages that they never intend on finishing, for example.

So, assuming that there's good enough and accurate wind data and the release solution itself is computed accurately, the PW2 is released at the ballistic release point. In theory, even if you don't lase, the weapon should impact the target. If the jet has accurate wind data, the release point should compensate for the wind. The issue with not having a properly compensate drelease point is that during the guidance phase, the bomb wouldn't have enough energy to compensate for a headwind or it would have too much energy in a tailwind and it would blow past the seeker field of regard and wouldn't pick up the spot. To ensure even better accuracy, depending on the wind component, the lase spot should be shifted. There are calculations that shows how much you have to shift depending on the wind component (so think like 2 feet per knots of headwind or something along those lines) but you should never move the spot off of the target. If the bomb picks up the spot and simply refuses to compensate for the wind, the issue is with the guidance logic itself. If it tries to compensate but it doesn't have enough energy, the culprit is the lack of wind compensated release point. Now the devil is in the details because accurate data about the peculiarities of PW2 guidance logic is not available publically. There are a lot of nuanced interactions with the flight path, the guidance scheme, the field or regard of the seeker and the release parameters, especially in challenging conditions.

As far as I'm aware, this is a very complicated topic. IRL there are certain calculations that have to be done to compensate for the wind and it also relies on the host aircraft having a proper wind model and that it compensates during the designation.

You win some and you lose some. Anything with contrast lock, TGPs, coordinate generations, lasers and ground radars are much better than in real life.

The avionics are not necessarily going to 100% reflect how fleet jets operate or what their TTPs are. There can be a lot of superfluous features or things that may sound nice to an engineer but it doesn't actually work out in practice. With that being said, TOO can be used but realistically speaking it has very limited use. If you're going up against any kind of moving targets, conventional JDAMs are not going to be useful. If you're going up against any kind of static target, a factory, a radar site, a fuel depot, a bunker or whatever else, you'll know where it is in advance. You can get much better coordinates through the intel apparatus than you'd get with ownship sensors. The only situation in which you'd probably use this feature is CAS. The issue however is when using onboard sensors to designate for a JDAM, the coordinates will only be accurate in certain conditions. No matter the jet, you can't willy nilly designate something and expect to get useful coordinates. If you're using the TGP, you'll have to adhere to specific guidelines and you'd only designate at a certain range, altitude and with a specified angle looking at the target. If you're outside of these parameters and you designate an apartment complex at 40 nautical miles at 30k feet with a few degrees of look down angle, I can guarantee you that you won't get accurate coordinates for the object you want to hit. In a CAS wheel, close in with an autotrack and laser ranging, I can see it working out. But if the coordinates given by the JTAC are more accurate, even in this situation it'd be better to punch them in and drop it in PP. Even guessing at classified systems can be very problematic because the people who would investigate the issue do have the ability to check out how the real system is supposed to work. And then it's on you to prove that you didn't use illegally obtained material when modelling the system. How do you prove a negative? That's the issue and that's exactly why ED refuses to even guess at sensitive systems, like the IFF or electronic warfare capabilities. Things change really quickly if you're just Joe Schmoe talking about things on Reddit and if you're an international military contractor with hundreds of employees selling actual products. The other big issue is that info on the JDAM in the Hornet is in fact available and if you model it in an accurate way, it's very simple to assume that illegal material was used to model the system.