CrashMcGhee

I'm getting this issue from a cold start, I'll see if it repeats from a hot start. I know that I've fired hellfires at targets before, but that might have been before I started doing cold starts. When it happens the symbology is just the little broken box doing nothing. I'll go ahead and make a quick mission to grab a track file though.

I believe the cause to be the cleaner base aerodynamics and lighter standard weight of the F-16, so any drag and weight added has a larger effect. Ultimately this is why the Navy preferred the YF-17, which was later developed into the F-18, it relied more on engine power and less on aerodynamics to achieve it's performance and therefor was less efficient lightly loaded, but more efficient fully loaded.

Forces on rotor blades are experienced approx. 90 degrees behind the rotation of the rotors due to gyroscopic precession, so in every helicopter design RBS should be experienced with some degree of nose up without input. It's a semi-self correcting situation. If as simulated the nose dives, gyroscopic effects might be bugged in reverse. I found the Hind experiences significant roll as well, but the nose also typically pops up for me, so I'm thinking this may be something else.

Is the trim locking up a bug or a simulated feature? The KA-50 does it too, and at speed resetting can be just as dangerous as whatever you're going to hit if you don't maneuver.

It'll get here when it gets here, this could well be their most ambitious in house project yet. On the bright side, it's officially announced, which means it will happen. ED has a proven track record of delivering on products they announce. They may be late, but that's the nature of game development.

Try leaving the airspeed to DISS switch in the down position, it activates a backup mode which either reverses the sensing or is bugged. I'll let ED make the call on that.

Exactly what I was here to look for before posting, appears the issue is a misunderstanding of a switch's function. Testing (or, more accurately, crashing) can now resume.

This wasn't an AH-64D weapons system in 2002, it was first deployed on the type in 2015, so it won't appear in the 2002 declassified manual. However, it is public knowledge that this aircraft can carry and guide APKWS rockets at this time, and the weapon side of the system is already modeled in DCS, so my question is, will it be added in development at some point, or is this being treated as an AH-64E capability that came after the type to be simulated was in service? I think this is the type of weapon that'd be deployed frequently, and the tens of thousands produced in a short amount of time suggests that it is. There's also an argument that the weapon type should be available on the F-18C and F-16C, as the USMC used the weapon from F-18s in 2019, and the USAF added the type in 2016 to both the A-10 and F-16. Basically, for a number of high fidelity modules it is a genuine recent addition, and would be beneficial to the CAS role, particularly in lower intensity, urban scenarios. The fact that this helicopter can be simulated at all at this time is pretty incredible, the aircraft has had such a long service life because the airframe was already adequate, and it's really only needed weapons and systems upgrade to remain relevant over the years. I may be asking for a very recent addition to it's arsenal, but given how DCS is, it'd also be cool to have access to older weapons as well to at least be era accurate for cold war scenarios.

Of all sims on the market, I do think DCS has the best RW flight model, so this should be interesting. Please make a comprehensive gunner AI though, I'm sure we'll see a features list when it goes to preorder, but it's going to be a deal breaker for me if we have to hop seats or fly multi crew. MC as an option is great, as a requirement to fully operate a module is not.

I had to go into the LUA file and adjust the tanker type, at least on my install it was set to the drogue chute style of tanker. (Was set to "2", should be "1") The fuel display issue is minimized as long as you're tracking air time and hitting the tanker regularly. Attached is the LUA with the tanker type correction if anyone is having the issue of being unable to contact a KC-135 for refueling. F-22A.lua

I'm going to disagree with offering the SDK to all, but it'd be nice if they'd create a "Speculative" set of standards which allows for development without hard numbers, so long as the developer is using actual tools to develop a reasonable speculative flight model. I.E. what CubanAce has done with the Su-57, and the F-35A/B/C project appears to be doing. Now take that to a professional level, with access to the SDK, and the other high standards, we could see 5th gen modules formally supported with the caveat "may not fully represent real world performance". We already have the low fidelity FC3 set, I don't see why we can't have speculative aircraft that are within the realm of reality, just with stealth. Heck, it'd actually not be that far off to take the F-18C and A-10C II HMD programing, mash it together, and slap it in an F-35. Then add the see-through system (this has been done on P3D, and we have port over models from Razbam already, if it can be done there, it can be done here with greater existing support). There's nothing legally wrong with selling a product that doesn't exactly match what it's claiming to mimic, as long as you inform the customer that this particular product meets a different set of standards that doesn't require a manual to prove the capabilities and performance. Heck, I've seen many a sim over the years selling itself as a sim, and not even clarifying that it's accuracy can't be verified, so I don't think a speculative series would ruin anything legally. It might hurt sales of other modules, but I can't exactly refund my modules, and even if I could, I wouldn't because I've gotten hundreds of hours out of them. That'd be unethical.

I think the F-35 pack would be great to port over as at least a community mod, or perhaps as a new 3rd party partner with this perhaps you're in the position to propose a new line of DCS products. I'd call it "Speculative Simulation" where we don't have all the details, but can make substantially educated guesses on the next generation as the community is already doing. Under the "Speculative" label it'd enable the sim's full feature set, they'd cash in on fan favorites, and customers seeing the label would know not to have the same accuracy expectations. Appreciate all the work over the years in the FSX/P3D communities.