MRTX

I'm really glad to see that they managed to integrate striker.

On my recent flights with the A-10C, I noticed that the sonic boom sound of the GAU-8 projectiles can be heared before they even pass by. This can be easily observed when switching over to 3rd person view of a gun run target, and positioning yourself perpendicular to the attacking aircraft. When doing so, the first thing you'll normally hear is the sonic boom "crackling" noise of the projectiles, and normally after half a second delay you can see the projectiles impacting the target. I'm surely no expert in phisics, but this obviously shouldn't be the case.

Yes i know that the 2A42 is not a GSch-30 and therefore probably sounds different, but nevertheless it could really need a sound overhaul. (and yes with 2.7 they replaced it with a more bassy sound, but still i can't stop thinking that the Mi-24P gun sound for the Ka-50 would be a dream)

After flying for a while today with petrovich as my pilot in the Hind and thinking about how our American equivalent could be, I imeadiatly noticed that it would be very handy to have a loiter command for him. I imagined it being a seperate flight mode for the pilot, as with the Mi-24s 2 different AI flight modes. So you would choose the loiter mode, and designate the center of your orbit either as with selecting targets as a pilot in the hind, or maybe just with your TADS. After that you can select your IAS, altitude and loiter radius simmilar as with the AI flight mode in the hind. Since lots of us are going to solo the Apache, i see such a feature probably used quite a lot and it could be the key to utilize the Apache to its full potential when flying alone.

First of all, Taz you've created a very awesome mod which i really enjoy and learned to love! And i have a very specific question: Would it in theory be possible to simulate the "blanket like" dust layer that often developes and lingers on gun run impacts on dry ground? (i'm especially refering to GAU-8 and vulcan impacts) What we currently have in both DCS vanilla and the better smoke mod, is sort of a single overly tall smoke collum that forms after each impact that disapears extremely quick. Little edit: a toned down version of your cluster bomb epxplosion and smoke effect could work very well for this. Here are just some small examples to maybe give you a better idea of what i mean:

Its sadly not a problem of doctrine, the US Army AH-64D both phisically and software wise can't carry ATAS.

tbh. i don't see what this argument is about, the US-Army AH-64D is not technically capable of carrying ATAS. It is not like it just wasn't certified to use it like with the APKWS, it can't carry it phisically, nor does it have the needed software integration. And lets be honest here, just carry some AGM-114L with you, and you'll be good with pretty much any slow flying threat out there.

I see the flechett rockets being more of a problem when it comes to implementing them into DCS. You could either simulate each dart of the rocket, which would obviously kill performance. Or you could make the rocket go invisible at the point when it should release the flechettes, and let it be a simple HE rocket with a modified blast radius that mimmics the spread of the darts + a special impact effect, that looks like the flechettes hitting the ground. In the end, none of these solutions are perfect.

As some of you might know, the F-14B in the RIO seat has a feature called "video export toggle", which is a key bind that gives you a fullscreen picture of the Lantirn pod video output, the same would be awesome to have for the TADS. I know that at first glance this option seems rather unnecessary or right out useless. But keep in mind that this feature would give us the oportunity to replicate that legendary Apache guntape footage we all love! To sum it up: Its awesome for content creators and looks really cool, i might imagine it also being very usefull when flying in VR where you could get a higher resolution picture of the TADS which would combat the struggle many people have with reading MFDs in VR.

Are you implying that the community is responsible for the development hold of the BS3 simply by requesting features to be added?

Seems like somebody already had their daily dose of salt.

To be honest i still try to get what this discussion is even about. If you think that the APKWS is unrealistic for the block of Apache you're flying, just don't use it and stop acting like its shere existence does you any harm or reduce your immersion. And for those who like APKWS, great have some fun with it. In theory you could walk up to any working AH-64D in this world, and slap some APKWS in its hydra pods and let it rip. I'm just talking about the technical possbility of doing so regardles of air worthyness or other safety aspects.

Thanks!

I know this question doesn't really have anything to do with the control setup, rather with the autopilot. So far i've been looking for the answer if you could engage the altitude hold while in a bank to set up an orbit above your target area (which would be awesome, since i'm probably going to solo the apache for a while) but even in an operators manual i couldn't find that answer. So would you have to use an attitude hold for doing this, or would this work just fine with the altitude hold?

Currently only aircraft shelters are modeled as parking spots on H4 Air Base, which greatly limits your options when it comes to what aircraft can fly from the base in a mission. And when it comes to helicopters you currently have to place them manually onto the ramp, which can get tedious.

Its a very simple wish, a custom M230 sound. Yes i know, most of you will think that this should be expectable, but I'm a bit worried that ED will just cheap out on it and use the new 30mm gun sound from the KA-50, which would be a shame since the M230 sounds very distinctive. Maybe a treat for some:

(smiles in 2 seated AH-64 simpit)

I would guess that its definitely possible but it'll be tricky, since to ensure that your head movement and the IHADSS projection are in excact sync DCS would need to know the excact width, curvature-angle and distance of the head to the screen, and even then i'm pretty sure that it wont be the most accurate solution.

I think almost every DCS A10 pilot knows what i'm talking about, and for those who don't, i mean the 50cm big fire ball with every 30mm impact and the following 3 meter big smoke collum that shoots into the air. To be honest the GAU-8 impacts effects look like they were coming from a 40mm grenade launcher with incendiary ammo, and this sadly goes for most smaller calliber cannon impacts, no matter if HE or AP rounds. All i want for my GAU-8 impacts is, to lay out a nice carpet of dust and smoke with some nice little flashes from the HE rounds when you use combat mix. ED this is just a immersion killer and impairs target visibility.

Since the Apache hotas is a pure button flood and includes lots of multiple position toggle switches it would be really useful if we would get some shortcuts for them. For example: Instead of having to map all 4 positions of the symbology select switch, it would be great having a simple "up one position" and "down one position" bind which would save a lot of hotas real estate. The same applies for lots of other switches on the apache hotas, and it could make the difference between comfortably flying the apache in DCS or not.

I know this is a very late reply to this discussion. To recap my thoughts about calling in firemissions via datalink, I'm certain that the datalink method is the way more immersive and realistic approach to do it within the limitations that DCS offers. Without being able to call in firemissions via datalink we would be stuck to combined arms and the F10 map, which when it comes to immersion and realism is a pure dealbreaker. Datalink would also give mission makers the ability to assign specific artillery batteries to specific apaches and maybe later on Kiowa's and therefore prohibiting the player to use every artillery asset available to them, this would later on also greatly bennefit the multiplayer user experience . ED pls. don't be stupid and cheap out on the Apache and its features!

I think there is a very big difference between asking for a whole system to be integrated, and doing something as simple as using your bomb rack to its fullest and most important possible extent.

Yes i know that ED has only given us the option for 2 GBU-12 on the TER9A, due to clearence issues on some loadouts. But it definitely should be technically possible to install 3 GBU-12 on that rack, and this configuration shouldnt interfere with all loadouts. In the end its the same discussion as with the tripple mavericks, not recommended doesn't mean not technically possible. So please ED, let it come to the discretion of the user on what they want to do with their aircraft, no matter if it would be done irl. or not!

Im guessing that already a dozen people haves suggested this, but can we just get an afterburner detent setting in the axis controls. (it makes it a lot more hustle free than to fiddle around with your axis curve settings) ED we all know you hate easy to implement quality of life features, but come on, just do it!

I know it definitely isnt something we would've seen back in 2007, but you could easily take a 2007 block.50 F-16C and install PAWS with very minor tweaks. This is obviously not a accurate depiction of the 2007 USAF F-16C block.50 (but its not like ED already has integrated "unrealistic" features that arent accurate to the 2007 F-16) , but i think we should see the 2007 model more as a baseline to expand upon in a "unaccurate" but technically possible way. In my opinion it should be up to the end user to decide what specific version they would like to use of the F-16C, either the "realistic" 2007 USAF version or the "what technically could be possible" version. (in the end everybody would be happy, and to what i've experienced the "2007 Viper gang" is in the clear minority)