MRTX

Like the title says, a problem which i've noticed is that the M230 in conjunction with the TSE is simply not leading enough in front of the target to compensate for the velocity of the aircraft. At first i thought that the problem existed maybe due to me employing the gun under suboptimal conditions, but even when flying in a straight line at 70kts. engaging a stationary target between 1600 and 1400 meters about 45 degrees of the nose, the rounds reliably impacted about 5-10 meters behind the target. Yes i know you can easily just lead a bit more to get reliable hits, but thats what the TSE is there for in the first place. And of course i also considered the possibility that this behaviour is simply realistic for the apache, but after watching some guntapes of engagements under simmilar conditions i noticed that this simply was not the case. From what i could tell the rounds seen in these videos we're normally right on target. (obviously excluding the spread of the M230) This problem in the end is nothing gamebreaking or dramatic, nevertheless it would be nice if it could get adressed.

I could definitely be mistaken, but doesn't the SU-25T have a towable IR decoy with the nescessary physics?

Like the title says i just want to note that the projectiles of the M230 completely lack the sound of breaking the soundbarrier. Therefore i wanted to ask if at some point in the future this will be fixed.

I just wanted to suggest adding visible vibration to the TADS which irl. is quite noticable when firing the gun. (best source of refference obviously would be one of the hundreds of guntapes out there) This suggestion is anything but high priority, nevertheless i think we all can agree that great immersion comes from all the small details adding up to one big picture.

Well, you're still dealing with ED and not a normal dev.

If we go back to the Eurofighter conversation and leave jamming aside (lets see how long ED will take to make their "Improvments" to it) i can't put a finger on any feature/system of the DASS, Datalink and Radar that is publically known that couldn't be simulated in DCS with an early German Eurofighter comprised of tranche 1 and 2 systems. The General capabilities and performance approximations are out there, and with Heatblur having ex Eurofighter pilots as their SME's i hardly believe that these features can't be achieved in a realistic/believable manner.

A lot of these inaccuracies exist throughout all eras of DCS not just with the modern day environment. For example SIGINT and other parts of EW even in the late 60's and 70 played a huge role in air warfare, with the difference asside from performance and capability being that the required technologies were not integrated into every aircraft and vehicle you could find. Yet the environment pilots had to operate in often posed simmilar challanges as todays battlefields. The fact is that DCS when it comes to the simulation of most sensors is rather superficial. Even something as well documented and studied as radar in DCS barely goes beyond what is needed to give the player a believable interaction with his aircraft and its surroundings. (In 2022 DCS is still using non-directional RCS estimates) Even the so beloved 80's cold war era can hardly be represented by DCS in a fashion that would truely do justice to the expectations of a realistic warfare simulation. The only reason why we suddenly see a handfull of people complaining about it being pointless to try and simulate modern day aicraft in DCS, is the realisation that an aspect that was already missing throughout DCS is suddenly turning into a specific part of an airframe you can point at.

The thing is that you would have to try and terrain mask from pretty much any radar that could share your position via datalink and that for a substantial ammount of time since METEOR can just reaqcuire you the moment you pop up again.

What you have to understand is that visual detection and IR detection in DCS are modeled completely seperate and literally have nothing to do with one another. DCS handles IR detection by seekers and sensors pretty much like radar, on the other hand targeting pods and missiles with optical guidance work with simple image contrasting to lock objects. When it comes to IR detection, each object trackable by an IR sensor in DCS has a set maximum IR emission coefficient value which works the same as the RCS simulation in DCS (with the caviat of being variable in conjuction with the engine rpm for vehicles/aircraft). IR seekers/sensors in DCS are mostly based on two values, first its maximum detection range and secondly its sensitivity. So for an IR seeker/sensor to detect an object in DCS primarily two conditions have to be met: First the object has to be within the max range of the seeker, second the IR emission coefficient value of the object has to be high enough for the seeker/sensor to see it at its current distance.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that the Meteor has a 2 way datalink, and therefore can also be guided based on target data provided by pretty much any compatible donour which is being received by the Eurofighter firing the missile, so breaking direct line of sight and hiding behind terrain won't work as long as somebody else is still seeing you with their radar and sending your position via DL. And with the Eurofighter having such a small RCS and not even having to turn on its radar to engage, you are almost always going to loose the fight (if you even know that you're in one) This all of course is only valid if Heatblur properly implements this rather important feature of the Meteor, since some of it is still very much classified.

The thing is that the only decoys currently integrated into the Eurofighter are the "Cartridge Countermeasure 55 mm Typhoon IR Decoy" (basically a big flare with a programmable IR signature) and "BriteCloud" by Selex (your modern equivalent to GEN-X). Keep in mind that BriteCloud is very modern (it came to market in 2014) and therefore classified when it comes to most of its performance numbers and operating principles. Another important thing to consider is the fact that it hasn't been adopted by any Eurofighter user nation. Overall this will most likely mean that BriteCloud won't be integrated into the DCS Eurofighter for a long time. So the only thing that realistically can be integrated into the DCS Eurofighter will be the mentioned IR decoys.

My conclusion might be a bit harsh, but i would pretty much tell anyone with that problem to get better in using the Apache and its abilities. You have a stand off range of 7+ kilometers, so use that to your advantage. And if we're already at the point of you being shot down by autocannon or smallarms fire, you either did not perform a good threat assesment, or you've been suprised by it and did not evade it fast enough.

As the title states i would really love to see the TADS being influenced by the vibration of the aircraft created through weapons (most notably the gun) and other factors as seen in many guntapes. This could be achieved by a simple vibration animation as seen with the player camera (just not as bugged). Yes i know that this is a very low priority and benefit feature, but surely it would add to make the Apache as immersive as possible down the road.

Yes they did use snapviews. (and yes the standard screen export feature that DCS has is also working with the Apache, but its a bit of a pain to set up compared to just pressing a simple button)

This might sound like a dumb question, but whats the point of having the gun if what eventually makes it reliable isn't implemented yet? (hopefully ED does their magic ASAP)

I guess the global map would act as a merger between the more detailed terrains in DCS. Therefore the platform would finally become more viable for long range aircraft to enable DCS to represent for example cargo or bomber missions in a realistic fashion. They would most likely also include high fidelity versions of bigger airbases around the world to aid such missions. Yes the overall fidelity of this global map surely won't be up to our normal DCS terrains but if we take a look at other sim's and their autogenerated terrains i'm fairly certain that the global map will still be decent.

Yeah, hopefully ED takes another look at this.

Coming back to this I'm wondering if this statement is really true. I could definitely mix things up, but the manual states qoute: "The LMC provides target state estimation in the form of lead angle calculations when the CPG is using the TADS for targeting for gun or rocket engagements against moving targets." Yes this doesn't directly mention anything about stationary targets, but nevertheless having basic lead and superelevation being calculated at every state of the LMC being active would obviously be a requirement for the system compensating for a moving target and therefore also be used when engaging stationary targets. What i somewhat suspect is that maybe the LMC in the way ED modeled it, could either over or under compensate for lead and elevation since the overall spread of the M230 as seen in DCS seems completely fine to me.

I was just wondering if the rather high lead you have to give as a CPG when using the M230 with the TADS is intended? I don't know if its just me or the way the helicopter is simulating it, but in almost all conditions even at lower speeds (<90kts.) my rounds always seem to be at least 10+ meters of target. I don't know if I'm doing anything wrong (LMC on, keeping the target lased and engaging well below 1500 meters) but i haven't seen this much lead being required in any guntapes.

A big improvment to george in my opinion would be a loiter function. This would work by designating the center of your orbit with the TADS or IHADSS, after which George would set up an orbit around the center at your selected speed, altitude and orbit range. The orbit range would be controlled with the george menu left and right long. As a special function George could be given the command for a run in towards the center for the CPG to engage targets with a Hellfire, after which George would return to the set up orbit. Overall this could really help singleplayer CPG's when trying to observe and engage an area for a prolonged period, and it would allow for easy gun employment.

Snapview's surely are usefull in many situations, but for content creators it can turn out to be quite the pain compared to what a dedicated F-14 style video export could offer. The most notable problem that you come across when using snapviews is the obvious fact that you're filming the MFD itself and don't get a direct video feed, hence why you'll encouter sunglare and the different looks of day and night mode of the mfd itself (if not even grime and dirt textures on the screen). Sure these issues are somewhat managable in post production but obviously it will hindre the potential compared to what a dedicated video export could offer for content creators. Overall this sadly is not of real importance for most users, which makes me believe that ED simply doesn't care to much about it. (I already made the same suggestion at the beginning of last year, with no real response at all)

It definitely is possible to be observed. I would suggest checking out some Apache guntapes, it depends on the zoom but in some clips you can clearly see the traveling rounds.

Does the AH-64D have a simmilar ground datalink feature as the A-10C to identify friendly units?

Lul, why do people even stress themselves out with how "hard" it is to fly a helo in DCS. Just practice a little bit, and you'll see that its like riding a bike. The only thing that makes it harder than flying a fixed wing, is that you have to rely more on rudder input, and minding your engine rpm in older helicopters. Sure, your first takeoffs and landings will probably be a mess, but think about how it went when you first tried to fly fixed wings.

Just a quick question of mine. As we've seen in the sneak peak of the Hellfire the FLIR colour displayed on the TEDAC was green simmilar to the Hornet. On the other hand on the many guntapes i've seen that the FLIR colour is a standard black and white. So i figured that either the recordings are displayed in black and white, and that the green colour we've seen is correct, or that maybe it just comes down to software versions of the Apache which determines what colour is shown, or that its a setting which can be changed by the gunner since the TEDAC afterall is a colour display. Nevertheless this is just speculation, so i hope that maybe some of you guys know the answer to this mistery.