Remco

I'm going to absolutely agree with @kgillers3 here. Hands down the best helicopter to prep on would be the Huey. A little background knowledge: in the real world at Rucker before ever sniffing the Apache we get send to train on TH-67's (Jetrangers) back in our days and nowadays they use Lakota's. On the same airfield the US Air force use(d) Huey's for the same purpose. You can not and will not learn helicopter fundamentals in a KA50 or Apache, you need something like a R22, Huey, Jetranger, MD500 etc, and the Huey is what we happen to have ingame. Everything you learn in a Huey will apply to the Apache to some extend. You also won't need to "unlearn" anything moving from the Huey to the Apache since they both have CCW rotors and tail rotor. Any procedure you learn in the Huey you can apply to the Apache either in general use or in case of an FMC/SCAS failure, adverse weather conditions, etc. On the other hand a lot of things in the Hind and KA50 will be very different and you're going to have to relearn procedures anyway. They're both fun and you should totally fly them, but I would not consider it training for the Apache in any way shape or form. If you want to practice attack helicopter tactics (for use in the Apache), you're better of doing that in the Apache itself. That said, this is DCS, it is a game, plenty of people absolutely enjoy helicopters without ever understanding helicopter fundamentals, and there's nothing wrong with just hopping into the Apache and learning to fly just that airframe, this isn't the real world where you have to earn your wings first.

Yeah you could swap the old ORT to whichever eye you preferred.

I prefer comparing it to civilian aviation and CRM. Just like in a jetliner you have a "Pilot" and a "Co-pilot", clue's in the name of the Apache's frontseater, it's not called a WSO or RIO, its called a CPG, Co-Pilot Gunner. Civilian CRM in an airbus is very similar to CRM in an Apache, you have two pilots flying the aircraft together and using CRM to manage their situation dependent tasks. We just get a lot more toys to play with, like guns... and rockets...

Correct, HEI was not considered reliable enough. We're not getting any anachronistic weapon systems like APKWS since the Apache represented in game is a 2005-2010 model, so I doubt we'd get any new post-2010 gun ammo. Reality is back in that we, and every other country I know off operating Apaches, only fielded M789 (and M788) so that's probably all we get. I also still hold my doubts about the Apache M230 being able to handle the apparent charge of the XM1211, but as I explained before, in a wartime emergcy on a foreign farp without GD ammunition we'll forcefeed it anything, it was specifically designed back in the day to be able to eat european made excisting 30mm for that reason, just less reliably.

Correct, M799 HEI was indeed intended for the Apache, while it was tested it was never fielded. At least not by the US, UK or Dutch, I don't know about other countries, but I doubt anybody uses them since GD doesn't produce them anymore. Also just because something is marketed to be used on the Apache doesn't mean it's used to the Apache, sales pitches for weapon systems are not reliable sources . For example people will swear up and down here on the forums that the gun ROF should be 650 rpm because that's how it's advertised by its producer, when in reality they are always ran at 550-570 rpm.

The ground based version of the M230 by OATK =/= the M230 on the Apache. All these ammo types you mentioned are designed for the ground based M230, or other 30mm guns. Now while the Apache 30mm can be fed other brands of 30mm (OATK, ADEN, DEFA), that's only for emergency use and it won't run that well, not to mention be a lot heavier. In reality Apache's only get stocked with General Dynamics HEDP and TP rounds (Which are a lot more expensive because of the ultralight casing material and they're specifically made the the Apache's M230). Can you take the 30mm DEFA rounds from a M2000 and feed them into the Apache and will they work? Yes. Is it a good idea? No, unless you're stuck on a French FARP in Europe and have a bunch of hostiles heading your way right now and it's all they have in stock.

Cursor Display Select just switches your cursor between the left and right MPD's

I for one will be using the button in DCS to check if my backseater is paying attention, very useful.

The Apache can lase any laser guided weapon. However, laser guided artillery would require a change on Combined Arms, not DCS: AH64D, so you might want to make this request in the appropriate forum.

Fire, yes. But you can't lase from the back seat, so only remote engagement with someone else lasing.

You've gotten that in this thread

Fair enough yeah, I can see that being an issue. Obviously the largest market for this game is single player, and people who believe ED should cater just to the multiplayer aspect need to understand they are the minority, or atleast a portion of the playerbase, albeit often the loudest.

Congratulations, you just volunteered yourself to be my dedicated backseater

While I agree there's a ton of toxic elitism in the sim community, I've mostly found it comes from the sim pilots and not the real pilots (we tend to see sims a lot more like a game and thus tend to take it a tad less serious than the hardcore simmers and just have fun). That said, a number of the people in this thread I know for a fact are also actual apache pilots, and they're simply informing people, especially the hardcore simmers that want the most realistic experience possible, that it's just not possible to get that experience with an AI. It will never happen, because the real aircraft that's being simulated is a two man crew operated machine. Nobody is telling anybody they should play with two people. What we Are saying is if you want to fly solo and expect to get the same experience as flying multicrew, you WILL be disappointed. That said, if you want to fly solo with AI and accept that there will be limitations and unrealistic workaround, you do you, I genuinely don't think I've seen anyone argue against that. If there has been someone that genuinely told you the only right way to play the game is multicrew than granted, sod those people, but don't mistake genuine advice and reality checks of limited AI capability with being told how to play. I'm sure ED is going to do a great job with the AI and flying solo is going to be an absolute blast!

Yes you can. In fact we'd often just turn the TEDAC screen off and project it in our HDU and just run off that. Also the backseater can sight select the TADS too but it will lack a lot of functionality and would just be for flying purposes as an alternative for the PNVS, but that's a different story altogether.

As a pilot of 301 sq I can confirm we have thoroughly tested the WSPS and it works very well...... Just some slight damage to the TADS, back in the air a week later. (Don't try this at home kids)

I think we're all hoping for the ASPI to be optional, but I may be biased

The best solo experience is probably just starting from the back (or letting ai start) and then just fly from the front. That said, between cyclic + collective + TEDAC you'll have a Lot of keys to bind, since I suspect most people who multicrew will bind the TEDAC controls to their hotas for when they are in the front seat.

Not entirely unrealistic...

Considering the radar mast isn't something you just easily add or remove on a farp like weapons and fuel, and requires the techs to climb on top the aircraft in a maintenance hanger, I imagine it'd be a mission editor thing and not an ingame ground crew selection.

What are you trying to argue? Nobody is denying it is an M-TADS. Kgiller said that there is an inherent difference in accuracy between a HDU engagement as shown in Wags' video and a Tads engagement as shown in the video you posted. Looking down the TEDAC to engage a target and using a thumb controller instead of using your HDU to ACQ and engage a target didn't suddenly start being referred to as an "M-TADS engagement" when the TADS got upgraded. You decided to correct Kgiller's words, when his phraseology was not incorrect whatsoever, and we would refer to that type of engagement style as a tads engagement, regardless of what era of sensor was installed, simple as that. Just like how in the last video you posted the CW5 calls it the M-TADS when introducing the system but 1 minute later when talking about its use reverts back to the shorthand "Tads", because that's how we talk.

Rewatch that video from 8:56 onwards and listen carefully

As for the video, yeah, dispersion looks pretty good, though it's hard to overlook the tracers, that's obviously inaccurate. Those'll be removed though.

You don't honestly think we say "M-Tads" in the cockpit when referring to the TADS in any way shape or form do you...? Pilot: "Hey, slew your tads to my line of sight." CPG: "ackshually..."