Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AvroLanc

  1. 1 hour ago, pii said:

    Did you have problems getting Jane's Longbow to run? I think I have the cd around here someplace.


    I use DOS BOX. LB GOLD runs like a charm. You need the 1.04F patch though. With 2 x 40 mission SP campaigns and multiple single missions, and AI that just simply works, it's probably a better experience than DCS Apache will be at launch.

  2. 9 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

    This is a good question. A lot of stuff that's tagged as N/I in the manual makes sense to be that way when it comes to maintenance procedures, detailed comms ECCM stuff etc. But some of these missing TSD functions would be nice to have eventually. With that being said, these features aren't tagged as 'coming later', like the FCR or some datalink related stuff. I'm thinking that there's a chance this disctinction is made to showcase which features are planned and which aren't. Hope to be wrong.

    Yeah, it’s hard to make sense of the ‘coming later’ and ‘N/A‘ labels. In some places the FCR and RFI are labelled as NI, but those are clearly coming at some point.

    There are also vast chunks of the COMM pages labelled as NI. At least some of that should be coming later, IDM text messages etc. 

    The TSD stuff is important because it’s not sensitive (unlike some COMM stuff and some ASE stuff) and will add to the feeling of completeness. Some of it will be also easy-ish to add. 

  3. 1 minute ago, LooseSeal said:

    The ideal system for me, would be one in which George had a 'detection probability' kind of thing. So, he's not guaranteed to detect and call out threats as soon as they're within a certain range. The probability of him seeing them would be affected both by chance and by various other factors: range, weather, lighting, terrain, size of the enemy unit, skill level of the enemy unit perhaps, etc etc.

    A true artificial 'intelligence' like that would be a fantastic addition.

    Yeah I’m sure some of those factors all ready work with the current very formal ‘look there’ mechanic. 

    What he needs is the ability to search independently (at logically locations such as waypoints and target points) and somehow naturally inform the player. Without any kind of voice acting it’s going to be difficult. We’re still waiting for Petrovich voice 9 months on. Calling out threats would be a bonus too.  

  4. The biggest takeaway from the early access guide is just how disappointing George is going to be. 

    He’s going to work exactly like petrovich. You need to command him to specifically search a limited area along your line of sight. He won’t independently scan the TADS and report targets nor keep a record of targets that you can cycle though. He can’t be commanded to search in any other way than your LOS. I would have liked him to scan at a WP or Target point. Or scan 30 degrees left and right as we move along etc. 

    If you look at the older sims like Longbow games etc. The CPG in those would call out threats, keep a target list with a way of selecting closest/most threatening/best targets, verbally identify etc. The Janes CPG knocks Petrovich out the window.

    Petrovich worked ok with Hind but it doesn’t convert well to the Apache. Hopefully it’ll get more work. 

  5. Are the Lines and Areas features planned? Only when DTC implemented as DCS wide feature?

    Likewise, maybe sooner, SHOT file and Shot TSD symbols? Easier to add since it’s just a target location and symbol when a Hellfire is fired. 


    • Like 1
  6. 19 hours ago, vctpil said:

    I have read on the manual that the range of the display is 30° vertically and 40° horizontally, so, at a certain point, the symbol will not be displayed anymore. If I understand correctly, I think that is easy to lose the nose-reference anyway. That's sound not really clear for me (as real civil pilot).

    I suppose that will be more understandable when the module will be available.

    Thanks a lot for the answer and thanks to the team for this fantastic module.

    The 30 x 40 display range is kinda enough because the display is on your head. You know roughly which way your head is orientated with respect of your seating position and the body of the aircraft.....roughly until you get within those limits. If you're looking 90 degrees left it's obvious. Once you're only 20 degrees or so away from centre, it's much harder to judge head position, especially at night. 

  7. 42 minutes ago, Kilo said:

    Nope. The GBU-12 is, in real life, configured on the ground and nothing about it can be changed in flight.

    GBU-12 can't ever have airburst either. The laser seeker section can't accept a DSU-33 (radar fuze) airburst fuze for obvious reasons. 

    • Like 2
  8. 1 hour ago, Lurker said:

    Looks like some of the George AI menu symbology is out of the bag. Looks a lot like the Petrovich symbology. Not sure how I feel about that, but it's not great. You need to direct George to "look" and then press a button for him to acquire a target. Which seems to work fine for rocket attacks in Coop mode I guess. I really hope he doesn't get turned into a barely automated targeting pod (and one where "I" have to be the one directing "him" onto targets, instead of the other way around. 

    I am ranting a bit. I guess I shouldn't be, the Apache is meant to be flown with another person. With the Hind I can manage, as Petrovich really doesn't do that much, but I don't think this will be possible with anything other than really simple tasks for George in the Apache. 

    Sorry for the rant, it's just that a RL friend of mine who I used to fly with in the Hind had to take an aeronautical tech job in France and won't be able to fly in the foreseeable future. 

    Asked a similar question here: 


    For the amount of interest/answers it's gathered....good luck......

    It seems the only way to operate realistically, is going to be multi-crew. It's a good job 90% of the player base is SP.....

  9. 3 hours ago, LastRifleRound said:

    The part I don't understand is you say NAV sets the range, but also where you're looking sets the range. These both can't be true.

    Where you’re looking sets the Line of Sight; up and down / left and right. But this is only in 2D dimensions. The P-HMD los cross doesn’t know how high you are or what altitude the target is. The range source sets/solves this third bit which is the elevation of the target at the point the LOS intersects the ground. The system then knows the true slant range.  

  10. 3 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

    The more I learn about the Apache, the more sense it makes to kind of think about it as a flying MBT/MLRS as opposed to approaching it as a fighter jet that can hover and fly really slow.

    This. An Apache isn’t the equivalent of a hovering Hornet or very slow Viper. Think of a flight of Apaches as equivalent to a company of M1 Abrams, similar both in capability and doctrinal employment. 

  11. 54 minutes ago, Wychmaster said:

    Well, that seems to be the case for "coop mode", but not the "nav range mode" that was shown in the first two attack runs and that I was referring to.

    Also Wags mentions the headtracker being the azimuth reference for nav range mode at the beginning. Watch the video from 6:16.

    At 6:46 he says:

    "... we are gonna be using that as our primary reference for aiming in azimuth..."

    Additionally, if you look at the symbols the moment he shoots (~12:53), the I beam and headtracker are aligned, while the LOS cross is right of them. The missiles impact point is still more or less where the LOS cross was when he fired.

    I am not a real Apache Pilot and can't tell how it works in the real thing. I can just repeat what was shown in the video and how it seems to be implemented in DCS right now.


    Maybe @Wags could enlighten our confused minds. Also I am pretty sure we will get an explanatory video from Casmo soon 🙃

    Yeah, I've watched the video multiple times, and I have a good understanding of how it works.

    When Wag's says 

    ''... we are gonna be using that as our primary reference for aiming in azimuth...",

    he was making a comment on his technique, one of a few techniques to get you heading in the correct direction. It's worth noting that Wags made a mistake in not keeping the LOS cross (his head!) on the desired impact point.

    There is no 'nav range mode'. You need a SIGHT, in this case P-HMD and you need a Ranging method, in this case Nav Range. But the ranging could come from MANUAL range, AUTO range, DEFAULT range, and later FCR range. (COOP can use LASER as well, but ignore that for now). For sight as P-HMD, it doesn't matter what the range source is....The LOS Cross always defines the target location. The rockets will fall at the LOS cross position, as they did, and as you point out. Obviously the range has to be more or less correct as well, which it was in the video.

    Again the Headtracker shows the fixed forward nose position (see my post above), and quite logically the 3 symbols are all pretty much lined up for a forward firing rocket shot at that range. But the Headtracker symbology itself plays no part in the computed aiming calculation.

  12. 1 hour ago, Wychmaster said:

    Since the I-beams alignment reference in this mode is the aircrafts nose direction, you have to align it with the head tracker. But I am not sure if you have to place it directly over the diamond. I guess you can also place it below or above as long as the I-beam is solid and aligned with the aircrafts nose. It's just easier to see if it is directly over the diamond.

    As I said, thats how I understand it. Please correct me if I am wrong.


    No. Not quite. The Headtracker diamond symbology is completely irrelevant to the weapon calculation itself. It plays no direct part. If the Headtracker diamond wasn’t there at all you could still do the attack using the I beam and LOS cross. It’s all you need. 

    The Headtracker is a fixed reference though, like a Artificial Horizon. A bit like instrument flying, if your AH is not working, then you can still fly straight and level using the compass, altimeter and VSI, but you’d end up chasing the needles and you’d oscillate around until settled down. It’s the same with the I beam and LOS cross, the Headtracker provides a fixed nose position to include in your scan. The nose position is important - with rockets, you obviously need to point the nose at the target as a starting point. And then refine with LOS cross and Ibeam commands.

    The confusion stems from having no fixed HUD, but once we have the Apache ourselves it’ll all make much more sense. 

  13. I appreciate George will get detailed later, but can ED shed any light on the commands we might get?

    In Wag's latest Rockets video, we got a sneak look at CPG George, it appears we can tell him to at the very least;

    1) Select/WAS a particular weapon and define config - Type of Rocket + Salvo Size, and I saw Gun burst length too.

    2) Look in a particular direction to begin a target search.

    Upon commanded to search the CPG slaved the TADS to the PHS, but once a target was found he deslaved. How flexible is this going to be? Can we tell CPG George which Acquisition Source I want him to use? I.e tell him to search around a Waypoint or Target point, can I ask him to look at my Terrain point, tell him to search/scan at his own will? Can I tell him to remain slaved to my PHS and report targets he sees, and deslave on command (more flexible then always deslaving once TADS is on commanded point) etc.

    The big one: For Hellfire which options can I configure for him? MAN, NORM, RIPPLE options? DIR, LO, HI Trajectory options? Can we interact and tell him which codes to use? When to lase, i.e whether you want a LOBL or LOAL launch (important!)? How many Ripple missiles to fire.... Hellfire is a complicated one.

    Will George independently engage targets (when commanded) for example with the Gun, while I pull off from a rocket attack? Tell him 'Please WAS the Gun and Fire at Will, I'll use rockets', and other combinations etc.

    Thanks, I appreciate I might need to wait, but the interaction with George is going to be critical and I wonder how it's all been done.

    • Like 2
  14. 54 minutes ago, flo57100 said:

    I'm confused as well with this I-beam thing, that looks a LOT different from what I am used with KA or the Hind, which is straight-forward for firing rockets. But I guess that will be more evident and easy to do with practice 👍

    From what I understood, to use rockets you MUST have something locked with sensors, you can not "CCIPing" them like the KA ?



    It's still like the Ka-50 and the Hind, the rockets still fire straight forward (ish). The only difference is that the pylons can independently articulate up and down to compensate for errors in aircraft pitch, which means you can be more flexible with the pitch angle you fly.

    The pylons adjust vertically up and down based on the point of aim (The Line Of Sight, LOS) and the Range. The horizontal aspect of LOS is obviously achieved by turning/pointing the helicopter. The LOS can be defined in a number of ways; P-HMD, C-HMD, TADS, or FCR. Wag's used P-HMD and TADS in his video. 

    You don't always need to 'lock with sensors', you mean the TADS (but please use 'Sights', as in Apache 'Sensors' means something else). As in the video, Wags was using the P-HMD to physically look, or place the LOS cross on the target. (The hard and important bit is keeping your head/cross on the target, Wags didn't really do this). This defines the point of aim. The I-Beam then tells you where to fly in the horizontal plane to align the rockets with target. I-beam left, fly left, I-beam right, fly right etc. The vertical alignment is not as strict, due to pylons articulating +4.9 to - 15 degrees. But you still need to pitch the helicopter within the limits. (Note the 'Pylons Limits' and 'Limits' messages in the HAD when Wags was aiming at a point outside the articulating range of the pylons).

    When the LOS Cross and the I-Beam and the Target are all lined up, you fire.

    So yes, it's not CCIP, but you can attack quick targets without relying on the CPG/TADS. But note that the COOP mode is going to be more accurate and you don't have to worry about your pilots head movement messing up the solution. (You can do COOP with C-HMD, but why would you?, let's not go there).

    Wag's mentions the Headtracker diamond as a way of it providing a fixed reference point to align the aircraft around. Think of the fixed reticle in the Hind or KA-50, it's the same principle. It's the datum line of the nose. As with any rocket firing, pointing the nose at the target is a good starting point, so point the Headtracker diamond on the target and then refine the aim with LOS cross and I-beam symbology. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  15. 1 hour ago, Razor18 said:

    Sorry if missing something, but if it is a "contrast lock point track" kinda thing, why would the sensor need any motion compensation looking at any relative direction? I can rather see it justified for "area tracking", but how could it drift if it is following a point?

    The LMC is for manual slewing not auto tracking.  

  16. Yeah it has MTT. Multi Target tracker, which is basically a ‘point track’ contrast lock in TGP speak. 

    The cool thing is you can select a primary track and up to 2 secondary tracks to memory and use a TEDAC switch to switch back and forth between targets without manually slewing. 

    Not so cool is that ED have left that system for later in EA. So we don’t know exactly when it might get added. It’s got to be pretty useful so hopefully it gets high priority. 

    It’s a shame that even a simple legacy IAT (simple Image Auto Track) with tracking gates etc won’t be included from the start. But the manual slew looks pretty useable. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
  17. 2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

    Some aircraft actually do have recorders for their gunsights that can be set to play in tracks, perhaps they could do something similar. The F-5E-3, L-39 and MiG-15bis at least have this.

    Though it really would be good if we could export the recording.


    Yeah, I've always found those mini-gunsight playbacks to be a bit gimmicky. But having the recording message would be important.

    If we could export that would be nice, or just save for later post-game playback. Ideal solution would be to record and actually playback the footage on the VID MFD 'in-game' in real time, as in the real thing. I imagine that's technically challenging though. I'm happy with the message for now.

    • Like 1
  18. It would be nice if we could trigger a 'RECORDING' indication in the Sight Status readout on the TADS/Weapons symbology format.

    This 'RECORDING' is always seen in real life TADS videos and indicates that the VCR system is recording the engagement. Even if it doesn't actually record anything, it would add a lot to authenticity when comparing to real TADS tapes.

    The VCR is started and stopped by the 'Record' button on the left TEDAC grip and could act as a simple on/off for the message. 

    A current precedent is set for example with the camera  film length indicator on the Mosquito, when runs as you fire. Pointless but adds to immersion. Same true here. Unless of course ED could implement actual recording and playback using the VCR feature. That would be amazing.

    Having said that, maybe it's already in? 

    tads recording.png

    • Like 4
  19. 10 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

    LB2 is a bit more involved as it's a Win95/98 app, pretty much takes a VM to get that one going. Longbow Gold on the other hand can be run via DOSBox since it's a DOS app.

    Yeah, Longbow 1/Gold is easy because it runs nicely in Dosbox.

    Longbow 2 on the other hand is a real pain on modern systems. I’ve had real success this week (first time in years), running Longbow 2 on a PC Emulator called PCEm. You install win 98 SE in that and you’re off….. I’ve yet to find best graphics configuration but absolutely no crashes or freezes. 

    Mind you, Longbow Gold still has a few advantages over its ‘slightly’ younger brother, it’s worth playing Gold too. 

  20. Good news... Wag's has made it back into the field, got the warm handshake from his CO and DCS Apache development continues.

    You may laugh, but point me towards another Apache sim to fly in the last 20 years...... An update is sorely needed, yes.


    LB GOLD Success.png

    LB GOLD promote.png

    LB GOLD promote vid.png

    • Like 8
  21. I've found him!

    Last seen at the wrong end of an AK....seems he took his testing task too literally or maybe he decided to play a bit of Longbow Gold for inspiration!

    Wag's was promoted to CW2 just before his untimely crash in the Iraqi Desert. He was debugging the TADS symbology in the final push for Feb release....MIA....


    Seriously though, for those needing an Apache fix before DCS Apache, fire up your lost copy of Longbow GOLD. It works flawlessly on DOSBox, and it still provides a fantastic, atmospheric Apache experience all these years later. You have to look past the graphics, but the fun factor, game-play and surprisingly avionics simulation are all there. Somewhat simplified, but there. I've been playing non-stop for days and my DCS is neglected until DCS Apache comes. Why has it taken 25 years (!!) to get another viable Apache sim?

    Janes LBG Capture.png

    Janes LBG Crash.png

    Janes LBG.png

    Janes LBG TADS.png

    • Like 7
  • Create New...