Coole28

Dear God somebody lock this thread already.

After you destroy a target and lose the lock on said target, your radar antenna elevation doesn’t reset to neutral, but will rather stay at the elevation it was in when you had the target locked. As Harker pointed out, once you ‘bug’ or lock a target, your plane will automatically adjust the antenna elevation to keep your target in the center of the scan area. What almost certainly happened here was you locked up the bomber, but the bomber was above you in elevation so your FCR moved the antenna up in elevation to center it. Once you destroyed the bomber, the radar lost lock and stayed in that elevated position. Also, when you are as close to the enemies as in the picture I would suggest switching to one of the ACM radar modes (aka dogfight modes). All of the radar queuing will be on your HUD/HMD, and the radar will automatically lock the first thing it sees w/o having to mess around with your DDI.

I see what you mean, you’re talking about flying WITHOUT the CFTs. Since (as discussed in depth earlier) E models only operate with CFTs attached, I thought you meant attaching AAMs to the fuselage while the CFTs are attached.

Thats what I thought, there are only the centerline/pod stations on the fuselage and the lower CFT stations take the place of the neutered fuselage “cheek” stations. So AIM-120s can only be put on the CFTs or wing stations.

I must be losing my mind then, I can’t find anything that suggests there are useable fuselage stations on the E model. Everything suggests that those stations were moved to the CFTs. Can you show me where the fuselage stations are on the E model? All the pictures I found suggest they have been moved to the CFTs and no longer exist.

I might be losing my mind, but the E model only has 1 fuselage station (apart from the NAVFLIR/TPOD stations) which is the centerline, I don’t know how it would put AMRAAMs on the fuselage. The “Eagle Claws” are part of the CFT. It’s likely that in ‘93 the CFTs didn’t have the right configuration for AMRAAMs yet. Unlike the wing stations, A/A missiles on the CFTs require an ejection system of some kind. It’s possible the intent was to use the same system as the AIM-7 but was found to be incompatible so they kept it delegated to wing-stations for the time being. The pneumatic store ejection system wouldn’t be invented for another 6 or so years, and pyrotechnic ejection systems are quite finicky . Remember that the AMRAAM didn’t enter service until two years prior in late ‘91, so compatibility issues were still getting worked out. I imagine integration on the CFTs was a pretty low priority since A/A is not the primary mission for the E model.

Per the July 21, 2022 Open Beta changelog: I apologize if this has been answered elsewhere, but does anyone know what exactly changed here? I.e. is the radar more/less powerful now? I very, very rarely do any A/A in the F-18 (or any other module for that matter) so I can’t quite tell if the radar has been improved or degraded with this update.

Drag Index is lower with the AIM-9 on 3 and 7 rather than 2 and 8. Don’t know if this is actually modeled or not in DCS though, but might as well load it this way just in case.

Damage calculations against tanks in this game take into account differential armor. Most tanks have very strong armor in their front and sides, moderate armor on their rear, and very weak armor on their tops. It also takes into account how modern the tank is; T-90s and Abrams have higher armor values than T-72s and M-60s. From your video, it looks like all your rockets hit the front/side of the tank. This combined with it being a very modern tank means the rockets did no damage. Against such vehicles you need to attack the rear of the vehicle to maximize chance of kill. This is true for the APKWS as well.

I’m no expert on the matter, but I’ve read that having the AIM-9s on station 3 and 7 has a lower drag index than on stations 2 and 8. My (un)educated guess is that since stations 3 and 7 are more forward, it keeps the shorter AIM-9 in line with the longer AIM-120s. I’ve also read elsewhere on the forum that irl in a 4x2 loadout the AIM-9s have been loaded on stations 2 and 8 before. Reason being you can load up stations 1, 2, 8, and 9 with 2xAIM-120s and 2xAIM-9s when the plane is on standby, since regardless of whatever mission that plane will fly next it will use those stations for A/A missiles. This allows a single plane to be on standby for both A/G and A/A sorties; if they need to quickly load up for a strike they can slap A/G ordinance on 3 and 7 and be good to go, or if whatever A/A mission pops up they can put AMRAAMs on there instead. I have no idea if this is actually the case and happened irl or if it was all made up by some forum troll, but the reasoning makes sense. I imagine massive Airforces like the USAF can afford to have separate planes on standby dedicated to specific tasks, but maybe smaller air forces like the Polish Air Force do this.

My guess is the mission you are flying was originally designed and tested using an AI aircraft, then they simply switched the plane from AI controlled to player controlled. It’s the quickest way to trouble shoot all the AI units for a mission since you can run it at 2x or faster in-game speeds. You are seeing the vestigial remnants of when the flight was originally supposed to be AI flown. So as others have pointed out: just ignore it. The F-18s HSI and HUD waypoint cueing are more useful and intuitive than those F10 lines anyway, and the waypoints preplanned in your plane *should* match those F10 lines, though the in-plane waypoint number might be different than the F10 number. If you go into the mission editor and switch your plane back to being AI controlled, you should see the plane follow that path seen on F10. Thats about the extent of the usefulness of those F10 lines.

I’d like to echo some of the points Shinobi61 said. AV-8 is definitely the best ground pounder in DCS in my opinion, it’s really the most versatile guy out there. The FLIR with it’s hot spot detector is an absolute godsend playing on multiplayer servers where enemy unit labels are disabled, especially in my low resolution VR headset. Saves an awful lot of time in target acquisition, which in turn lowers the amount of time I have to loiter in dangerous territory. The FLIR HUD repeater also makes night ops a breeze. DMT is a criminally underrated tool. Going into engagements where I know there is a JTAC, I can replace my TPOD with a jamming pod, increasing my survivability without sacrificing a weapon station. In a pinch you can also use it for JDAM targeting too (though it is much less accurate than the TPOD). Sidearms are another criminally underrated tool as well. I can’t speak for other pilots out here, but for me surprise SHORADs are a far bigger threat than enemy aircraft when doing CAS. I’d take sidearms any day over sidewinders. More than a few hours of my life were wasted flying an A-10 50+ miles to a target area just to have to turn around because it turns out an SA-15 is guarding said target area. Not a problem with the AV-8. VTOL is both effective and loads of fun to do. Being able to operate out of LHAs and FARPS is way more entertaining than airports, and can often get you on target faster as well. Plus you never have to worry about crashing into anybody when landing on congested airfields, you can just land directly in the parking spot! Perhaps most importantly, the FM makes the plane actually fun to fly. F-18/16/Jeff are incredibly boring to fly, they basically just fly themselves apart from takeoff and landing. Even the A-10 to a degree seems rather monotonous to fly. Not in the AV-8 though, you can really feel the weight change as you drop munitions, and maintaining RPM and H2O during S/VTOL poses an enjoyable challenge.

Isn’t the laser only able to be armed from the CPG Seat? I swear I’ve tried to do it before and laser doesn’t show up in the WPN>UTIL page as pilot. This would make Hellfires unuseable in multiplayer w/o a human CPG.

I’m shocked, every post in this thread is dead wrong. The REAL solution to having taxi problems is to not taxi in the first place. You’re in a helicopter for Christ’ sake, just takeoff from where you spawn in! I jest, the marked solution is definitely the easiest way to taxi. Bind the wheel lock button to something you can press w/o having to look down for super EZ taxi mode.

FLIR is definitely a plus for night ops, but Shkval has ground stabilization and can “lock” a moving target, both of which the TADS can’t do (idk if these are going to be a future feature or not). Combined with a lack of hold modes for the pilot, TADS is an absolute b*tch to use for anything other than stationary targets with George doing his magic hover mode. Also, I don’t know if my game is biffed or what, but FLIR doesn’t seem to work the majority of the time. Hay bales will light up like a solar flare in the FLIR, but the column of T-80s that have been idling for an hour in the dead of winter have no thermal signature whatsoever.

For now, Ka-50 for sure. Transitioning from forward flight to a hover is cake in the coaxial Black Shark. Transitioning to a hover in the Apache is an absolute battle to not simply fall out of the sky. We’ll see how that changes once we get the other trim modes implemented. Plus the Black Shark is sleek and better looking imo. Doesn’t have fixed landing gear or chin mounted cannon tumors sticking out of it.

Just my two cents on the matter: It’s doable in singleplayer, if you really want to fly the Apache and are worried about not having a second crew member. Everything is in place for you to be able to fly and engage targets (if you don’t mind breaking immersion by switching seats), but if you are just looking for an attack helicopter for dedicated singleplayer use there is a better option. There really isn’t any reason to pick the AH-64 over the Ka-50 for dedicated singleplayer use, unless you have some special attachment to the Apache (or have some special aversion to Russian aircraft). The Ka-50 is designed specifically for single pilot operations and has a lot of integrated systems to reduce pilot workload. The weapons and systems are comparable between the two modules, but you’ll get a more “full” experience flying the Ka-50 in singleplayer, being able to do everything by yourself that would require the help from the AI to do in the Apache. It’s also a faster and far more stable bird to fly. The main advantages of the AH-64 as a module come from it’s multicrew capability and ability to interact with other aircraft, both of which are null if you are only going to do singleplayer. The IHADSS is a pretty cool system (if you have VR or TrackIR to fully utilize it) and the CMWS has definitely saved my hide more than once, but it’s not enough to overcome the advantages of the Ka-50 for singleplayer use in my opinion.

Apache brings that juicy multi-crew into fruition for me. F-14 is inferior to the F-18 (fight me) which myself and my friend already own, so don’t have an incentive for that. The other multi-crew modules are really just the “Pilot and his side-kick” show, really boring if you aren’t the one flying. Apache is that module for me that I fly with my buddy and just have a good time while also being extremely lethal. If I’m playing without my friend, it’s the Ka-50 for me without a doubt. I only play on multiplayer servers which locks me in the pilot seat. While the George AI is passable once you get to learn in him, you really can’t beat having full control of both flight and weaponry. Plus I find the coaxial configuration is significantly more stable in a hover

Hellfires are expensive, Hydras are cheap. If/when a true dynamic campaign with resource management is implemented in DCS, it would be worthwhile to save your hellfires for armor and use rockets/guns for soft targets. As it stands currently, only real use for taking rockets in the AH-64 is area suppression against spread out infantry formations. Fuel tanks are worthwhile if you do extreme long range attacks; I believe one of the Sunday supplemental letters mentioned Apaches with an asymmetrical load-out of hellfires and fuel tanks were used in a long range night raid to neutralize Iraqi EWRs in the opening of the Gulf War. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before somebody recreates that raid as a DCS mission.

This isn’t the opinion I hold, but if you’ll allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment: Let’s assume that the majority of the people who are interested in buying this module will gladly purchase this at minimum release functionality (we have seen CCIP bombing, AIM-9, and basic radar functionality so far, we are likely close to such a state if not already there). Given the hype for this module, I think this is a fair assumption to make. What would I, as the CEO or whatever of RAZBAM do with this new found funding from releasing the F-15E into early access? Would I double down and dedicate more staff (and in turn, more money) towards a module that has already cashed in on the majority of buyers, or would I instead dedicate staff previously on the F-15E towards unreleased modules (MiG-23, A-29, etc.) to make more money there? Purely from a business standpoint, it would make more sense to slow down work on the F-15E after it has been released to increase work on other modules yet to be released. Following this logic, releasing at minimum functionality early access would take longer to reach full completion, as opposed to withholding the module until it is complete. It all boils down to if you believe whether RAZBAM works for profit or for passion. And I personally believe RAZBAM is of the latter. They already charge less for their modern FF modules (AV-8 and Mirage) than ED and other developers, and yet they still voluntarily participate in every DCS sale anyway. They have also put in a large amount of work towards these modules post release (especially the Mirage).

This has definitely changed then, if everyone is experiencing this. You can watch the old Grim Reapers video on the 802 AKG from 2 years ago which shows the original behavior, where the missile does pitch down towards the target prior to going active. This is how I remember the missile functioning as well. Guess this is either intended behavior or a bug.

Yes, this is what I’m talking about. Way back when I first flew the Jeff, maybe back in 2020, the 802AKG would point down at the designated target just before it went active, but at some point something changed and now it continues to fly in a horizontal trajectory after I gain control of the missile. It makes it exceptionally difficult to locate my designated target, even if that target is an entire airfield. I’m trying to figure out if i’m missing some step that has been added to the procedure, or if this is working as intended.

I’ve had this problem for ~1 year now, before then I had no problems with it. Following the procedure in Chucks guide: When using the 802AKG in any of the three modes, the missile does not perform any of the terminal maneuvering expected when the missile goes “active” (i.e. when the seeker head turns on and I have manual control of the missile). Because of this, the seeker head is essentially looking at the horizon when it goes active, making it nigh impossible to acquire my designated target. Is there a particular setting or system that needs to be turned on in order for the 802AKG to do terminal maneuvers? I use the full GC alignment and GPS+INS turned on. Doesn’t matter what mode I use or what terminal settings I have selected, it always does the same thing. I don’t have any issues using other GPS weapons or the 802AK. Wondering if something was changed way back when and Chuck’s guide never updated to reflect this. I can attach a track file if this is a suspected bug, but I’d figure there would be other posts by now if that was the case.

Can’t speak for the other stuff, but there is a reason for the fuel gauge always being set at max. When devs are testing systems and weapons of their aircraft in DCS, they almost always turn on infinite fuel and ammo. This allows them to test whatever it is they are testing for as long as they want without having to land and refuel/rearm.

Isn’t the Jf-17 cleared to use the PL-10E? Besides, its not like you need a HOBS missile to get functionality out of an HMD. Look at the A-10 for example.