gatordev

It's going to depend on if you're referring to a tactical callsign or a MODEX. With ATC, you may have "SEAHAWK 702," but inter-section or inter-flight, that same aircraft may be "HAWK 11." To further confuse things, you'll then also have just JANAP callsigns for other non-flying units without numbers (like DAYTONA). That's on top of RED CROWN or GREEN CROWN, which are also ships, but carry the generic "CROWN" callsign. In a much more mellow AOR, I've also flown as just JANAP callsign and MODEX since there wasn't any local ATO. So when checking in, it was just "TIGER 602, this is EASYRIDER 57," for example. Short answer: it depends, but Tactical name + 2-digit number works just fine for the tactical portion of the flight.

Ah, okay, thanks for confirming someone else is seeing the issue too. I did launch from a carrier as well (GF Syria) when I had the issue.

I'm not making this as a bug report because I'm trying to see if I'm the one in error or if others have seen this pop up again... After one of the last major updates, the Hornet INS vs FLIR drift issue had finally been fixed. I didn't realize it was a bug until I saw the bug report and it finally explained why I would always see my targeting symbology no where near where the pod was pointing on the Hornet. After the update, it seemed to work great (all of this is on "modern" MP servers with GPS). Fast forward to several days ago and I was playing on the Grayflag server (Syria) and I started completely missing with JDAMs and LGBs (GBU-16s) as the flight progressed. Finally, after the last pass, I saw that my symbology (diamond in the HUD or HMCS) was once again not anywhere near where the Lightning was pointed (dead center on a tank). This was at a high altitude (25K') and inside 10 miles to the target, so the slant range and angle isn't particularly acute. Real EGIs don't drift like this, so I'm having a hard time believing it's behaving correctly unless there's some other alignment that's supposed to happen. Even if you did lose GPS, while the coordinates will be incorrect, a quick squirt of laser energy will give you a very good relative position to the aircraft for a short time, at least based on the systems I've flown with in the real world. Again, I had seen this problem disappear when the update fixed the issue the first time so am I missing anything or is it back?

Thank you all for the feedback. I totally get it was a beta, so I switched to ST. Unfortunately, the current version of the ST beta is pretty unstable for me, so I'll just have to be patient. Since I play on multiplayer 99% of the time, and the servers I play on are beta servers, I'll wait for the update.

Anyone else having issues when running the new MT beta and the MIP screens not working correctly? When I load up and start an aircraft (the F-18 in this case), the screens are really distorted and quickly stop updating compared to the game screens. The buttons on the MFD still work, but the screens do not. When I run the ST Beta (3/10 version), it works fine (although that beta crashes all the time, but that's a separate issue). I'm running this on a 10700K and 3070 at 1440p. The game and MIP system ran great before the update.

Well, crap. I swear I looked for something like that, but didn't see them. Thank you...got it working now.

Just bumping the question since it's been moved over to this section of the forums.

Whoops. Thanks.

I've got a dumb question about the English Winwing store that maybe someone can help me with. Hopefully the hardware section is the right place to ask... When I go to the "Store" section, and select an item that is in stock, I get two options: 1) Buy Now and 2) Add to Cart. If I "Buy Now," I get to a screen where I can add my shipping and payment information and then can buy. But if I add to cart and then try to "Proceed to Checkout" from the cart, it keeps telling me "Please select items you want to buy first" and I can't continue on, even when multiple items are in the cart. I've tried on Firefox, Chrome, and Edge and have the same problem on all three, and on two different computers, so I'm guessing it's a website problem. The issue prevents you from buying more than one item to combine shipping. Anyone know a fix or have this issue? I'm glad I checked out the site first, as I plan to grab the Iceman MIP when it becomes available and wanted to minimize the purchase time.

I think this idea gets lost among the recreational sim crowd often times. I've always found it significantly harder to hover a Level C or Level D sim than the real thing, be it due to artificial control feel or weird aerodynamic modeling that's "not quite right." Trying to do any SACT-T or dynamic maneuvering is usually a challenge as well as simulators tend to go south when you bank past a certain angle. All that said, it is amazing what can be modeled on a personal computer nowadays.

Unless the Apache has a drastically different system, SAS is an inner-loop system and doesn't prevent flight deviations, it only dampens inputs to a flight control (ie, rotor in a helicopter) system. Some sort of outer-loop system would be needed to prevent you from falling out of the sky. Typically this is in the form of an autopilot and/or trim system. Given the other thread with the video posted, it sounds like seeing the caution light isn't actually a normal occurrence in the real thing, which makes more sense.

The question I haven't heard answered is why do I, as the pilot, care if it's saturated? Or to ask the question more precisely, why does saturation require both a light and a tone? The helicopters I've flown in the real world with SAS only gives a warning if it degrades/fails (or is turned off), so I'm curious to hear from the Apache guys here if they know why Boeing thought saturation was such an urgent matter.

Gotcha. Thanks. Sounds similar, but with a little more ease in selecting. We had 8 channels, with four (? I think...I can't remember) of them pre-assigned (either in JMPS or in the aircraft system) for AUTO or REM, but we could also select any of the 8 channels as necessary. I never really put it together, but I'm wondering if it's 8 channels because the max number of missiles we could carry was 8 (and 16 for 16 on the Apache). Maybe it's just coincidence. Interesting that there's a separate entry for the LST. For the -60, it just uses whatever you currently have set for the designator and sees it (along with the missile egg being displayed if it sees it).

Do you guys have the ability to have A and B (and C and D and etc) codes? So you can have one set of codes for AUTO and one set of codes for REMOTE DES? Or if you knew there were going to be several locked in codes, like with APK. On the -60, once the codes were set in JMPS (or in the aircraft if you wanted to), it was a simple way to jump back and forth in the FLIR Attack Page.

I get the impression that there's also a misunderstanding between a JANAP callsign, an ATC call sign (which may or may not be a JANAP), and a tactical call sign. A tactical call sign could be just a section/division (or whatever the Army calls that) C/S, or as mentioned earlier, it could also be from an ATO. JANAPs are a more organized C/S structure that can go from high echelon all the way down to an individual asset, although it's typically used at the unit-level (ship, aircraft, etc). While the JANAP instruction is massive, it's never current, so there's lots of variations from what might just be written in there. Obviously this is more service specific and not Army related, but it's also possible to take off as JANAP 703, get to the range, and then use a tactical C/S (HAWK ONE-ONE) for either interplane and/or working with other playmates. As raptor and others have said, it can be very situation dependent. I've also seen it where Apaches will be tasked by someone other than a JTAC or FAC, and instead is controlled by someone who doesn't control the terminal phase of the weapons (SCAR). And the SCAR doesn't really care what the callsign is, but if controlling multiple sections, both callsign and "side number" (which could just be 1-1 or 1-2) is extremely helpful in sorting, because the SCAR is probably managing assets by some means other than visual, and across longer distances than a JTAC.

I was curious about that and figured that at least HH and TC would be automatic at some point in the flight profile. Good stuff. Thanks again.

Thanks for the replies. Some thoughts/replies... That's a great way to explain it...force trim overshoots. Again, I can see the "overshoots" being more refined with some stick sensitivity adjustments, but that can only go so far with the spring tension. The EC-135 (H135 now) is the little brother to the Lakota (-145, which is an updated BK117). I don't have time in the 145, but several hundred hours in the 135 (with a 2 1/2 axis autopilot) along with several thousand in the Navy versions of the -60 (which has a very robust 4-axis autopilot). All that said, learning the control inputs in DCS is no doubt the long-term solution, just like learning the control inputs in any sim versus real-life. I guess part of what I was asking/commenting on based on your description of how the Apache works (ie, apparently no coolie hat trim) was having to "relearn" the idea of force trim only from my -206 days in flight school. Basically, it's good to know going in that it won't be like what I'm used to with a FT/coolie hat combination. Negative, not what I was saying, but I think we may have what I meant sorted now. Correct, both the -60 and the -135 have beeper (coolie hat) trim as well as FT. FT is more of a reset and then you work around it with either tension or coolie hat (although the -135 also has A-TRIM, which will adjust force trim for you below a certain speed I can't remember so you don't even have to push the FT release, but that's a whole different discussion). But you sum it up well by mentioning the "big bump." That's what has been a frustration with playing around in the H-1, knowing it was only going to be a FT bird vs a beeper trim bird. Sounds like I just need to keep playing with sensitivity and a little null adjustment and see what I can make "fun."

I'm piggy-backing on this thread because it touches on a concern with the Apache module I'm hoping some of you might be able to help with, specifically about using Force Trim in a computer sim. I've always found computer game force trim to be problematic because the joystick doesn't move as much as a real helicopter cyclic does, so pushing the joystick forward some small amount forward becomes relatively imprecise when trimming in most games. I've been getting familiar with DCS by learning A-10C II, and I was hoping to move to the Apache for helicopter ops once it's released, but I'm worried about controllability making it less "fun" because it has the limitations of a computer game. Buying yet more hardware (ie, cyclic extension) isn't the answer for me at the moment. That's not necessarily true for a lot of helicopters. Many have trim that functions very much like fixed-wing. Which is why below was interesting to read and brings up some questions: I'm coming from a -60 (and EC-135), so it looks like the trim/autopilot/AFCS functions/modes are significantly different, but this helps me tailor my question a bit more... Is there some magic sweet sauce in making a game joystick (Warthog in my case) usable if your primary means of manipulating airspeed/controllability is via force trim versus using a dedicated coolie hat trim? Reducing spring tension is only an answer to a point, as you still need to be able to take your hands off the stick and have it hold position (centered in the case of a Warthog). Reducing null zone can help, but only to a point. Admittedly, I need to play with null zone and sensitivity some more, but flying the Huey wasn't as much fun as I was hoping (just flying, not engaging anything) because I found I was fighting the controls within the sim much more than I ever have in a real helicopter (well, except maybe first learning to hover). There's lots of fans of DCS helos, so there's got to be a way to make it more "fun," so curious for input from the group.

Disclaimer: My experience is with the -401C, but the basic function is the same as I understand it... The T700 does have an "override logic" as well, via Contingency Power, which is a DECU function. Depending on the ECU/DECU/EDCU/I-EDCU configuration, C-power happens either manually when the C-power switch is selected manually or with I-EDCUs, Auto-C-power turns on when one of the engines loses power (basically Ng decays below some number and Tq decays below some number...50% I think, but I'd have to go look that up). At the end of the day, activating C-Power keeps TGT limiting, but changes the limit from 839C to 891C (+/- 10...although that number has changed over the years). You can run at that temp for some length of time, but can STILL go higher (949 for the 401C) if demanded. Typically the only time you'll go above 891 is if there's a wiring harness/ECU/HMU malfunction (which I've seen pretty often in the past on Navy -60s) or if you go into LOCKOUT improperly. I'm not sure if the Army T700s had a C-power switch or even have it now with the -701 (I'm guessing not), but I'm pretty sure the function was still there. This is extra aviation nerdery, but the original Blackhawk transmission (and what is currently in the Navy Seahawks) had such a huge Tq life limit that the limit itself has gone up over time as the -401C equipped aircraft have become heavier. However, because of that transmission, you can't just put a -701 and new blades onto a legacy aircraft without also upgrading the transmission, unfortunately.