shagrat

In den Hörungen im EU-Parlament wurde eine Studie genannt die die Fehlerquote mit ca. 10% angibt, was die Befürworter im Parlament als für den EU-Raum "akzeptabel" bezeichnet haben... Nach etwas rechnen, kommt man auf grob 446 Millionen Menschen in der EU. Davon 10% sind 44 Millionen fälschlich Verdächtigte... also die halbe Bevölkerung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Halte ich persönlich für absolut inakzeptabel...

Die Frage ist wie so häufig nicht "wie häufig kommt das denn vor", sondern "möchtest Du jetzt der Eine von 80 Millionen sein" den es trifft und der versuchen kann mit der Microsoft Telefonhotline zu klären, dass ihr System einen Fehler gemacht hat? Solange ich das komplett vermeiden kann, indem ich weiter ein lokales Account nutze... für mich ne einfache Entscheidung.

Siehe einfach einen weiter oben den Post von Yurgon. Lies die verlinkten Vorkommnisse und welche konkreten Probleme dadurch entstehen und entscheide halt für dich selber aber informiert. Ist halt blöd, wenn der Algorithmus in deinem Onedrive ein Foto fälschlich als "Nicht den Nutzungsbestimmungen entsprechend" registriert und daraufhin dein MS Account gesperrt wird. Extrem ärgerlich wenn auch alle verknüpften Services wie Outlook/O365, Teams, Onedrive etc. gesperrt sind incl. der Möglichkeit dich an deinem Rechner einzuloggen und wenigstens mit MS Kontakt zu suchen, um das zu klären... Extremst dumm, wenn du niemanden überzeugen kannst, dass das ein Fehler bei denen war und du nur unter extremen Schwierigkeiten an die Daten auf deinem Rechner kommst. Zu verbergen hab ich auch jede Menge. Zum Beispiel Kontoverbindung, Sozialversicherungsnummer, Personalausweisnr , eigentlich alles was man zum Identitätsdiebstahl nutzen kann, Details zu Krankengeschichte, Finanzunterlagen, private Daten meines Freundeskreises (Adressbuch) die ich grundsätzlich nicht an Fremde weitergegeben darf, Passwörter und zig andere Sachen, die nicht unbedingt in falsche Hände geraten sollten, wie bspw. geschehen beim Playstation Network Hack, dem Hack bei Visacard, dem Hack letztens bei MoveIT oder unserem regionalen ÖPNV Anbieter der gerade versucht rauszufinden welche meiner Daten bei ihm "abgezogen" wurden... P.S. ich war auch noch nie Opfer eines Datenleaks durch eine gehackte Firma... bis Anfang des Jahres, dann kam der Brief der mich darüber informierte, dass ich jetzt in den nächsten Monaten/Jahren bitte beobachten soll "ob es ungewohnte Transaktion" gibt, weil sie noch nichtmal genau wissen, welche Daten abgezogen wurden. Letztens habe ich auf Discord versucht ein Foto meiner Ferse (Fuss) bei Discord hochzuladen und der Pornofilter hat meinen Hacken vermutlich für eine "weibliche Brust" gehalten! (Weil rundlich und Hautfarbe?!). Keine Ahnung auf welchen Fahndungslisten ich jetzt, als potentiell Auffällig geführt werde. Aber das hätte evtl. schon reichen können, um mit dem Account stress zu bekommen... wegen einem Foto von einer wundgelaufenen Ferse, weil ich mir auf ner Flugshow ne Blase gelaufen hab?

Die "Einrichtung" ist ein Workaround der eigentlich nicht vorgesehen ist (eigentlich explizit für die Enterprise Version gedacht). Bei Windows 10 ist ein Account nicht zwingend notwendig gewesen, man konnte es bei der Installation einfach übergehen und ausschließlich per Lizenzschlüssel aktivieren. Somit fand bei mir nie eine Verknüpfung zwischen Lizenz und Account statt. Der Punkt ist auch nicht, dass registry Hacks, oder Commandline Eingaben zur Umgehung des Account-Zwangs schwierig sind. Es geht darum, dass Microsoft mich (egal wie sanft) dazu zwingt den Zugriffschlüssel auf meinen PC an sie zu geben. Nichtmal wegen der Datensammelei, aber die Tatsache, das der Zugriff auf meinen (Eigentum) PC von der Zustimmung und Verfügbarkeit eines Microsoft Services abhängig ist, finde ich bedenklich. Ich müsste die Win11 EULA mal detailliert durchgehen, aber ich kann mir vorstellen, dass der Account-Zwang dort auch festgeschrieben wurde. Ich denke auch vielen regulären Verbrauchern ist diese "Abhängigkeit" beim Anlegen eines Accounts gar nicht bewusst. Da mittlerweile auch die ersten Fälle solcher versehentlichen "Account-Sperrungen" bekannt geworden sind, bin ich heilfroh, dass ich meine Windows Rechner immer noch mit local Account betreibe, wie eh und je. Wer bewusst sagt, ihm sind die Vorteile bei der Nutzung der Microsoft Services über mehrere Rechner und die Integration durch das Account, diese Nachteile wert, hat keine großen Unterschiede zwischen Windows 10 und Windows 11, außer der neuen Oberfläche und ein paar Kleinigkeiten.

From what I understood there are quite considerable updates/changes coming for the core engine. So thorough testing and making sure, things run smooth, especially with merging all patches and fixes of recent modules is paramount. I think it is better to wait a little bit and then be able to enjoy a decent build, rather than a rushed release with modules broken or other issues that severely impact gameplay. Appreciate the updates and Infos, though.

Doch der MS-Account-Zwang, den man mit Tricks und Kniffen umgehen muss. Ist dein Windows an einen MS Account geknüpft, kann es jederzeit durch ein "Missverständnis" oder "Missbrauch" auf einem der MS Services zu einer Deaktivierung deines Accounts kommen ("Verstoß gegen die Onedrive/Teams/Office 365/Outlook/Website/Store Nutzungsbedingungen") und dann wird der Zugriff auf deinen Rechner mit deaktiviertem Account, sagen wir mal schwierig.

"Maximum range" is always a mix of multiple factors, not a point to point distance. Battery lifetime, ballistic trajectory, wind, moving vs. static target, all has influence. The L has a curved flight path to enhance its radar performance, which reduces the range. Shooting from 2000 ft adds a bit of range, if the battery lasts long enough, etc. George often has his own mind, where a human CP/G can make the missile perform at the edge of its performance envelope... or misjudge completely and make it fall short.

The most pressing issue, still is mic clicks, beeps or any sound to have a feedback for PushToTalk button pressed and release, as well as incoming transmissions. This basic audible info, if you correctly press and hold the PTT button is a key component to make a simplex transmission based radio simulation work. Press PTT - click - talk - release PTT - click. Hear a click - listen and don't press PTT - hear a click - channel free...

Hello everyone. Is there anyone who has the Komodo TEDAC? Could you please PM me. Thanks in advance.

You may want to fly MiG-21, then?

Well, it does work for everyone else, but you, it seems. I posted above with some pointers where to find details and training aid. Did you have time to go through the training mission and learn how to operate the rockets, or are you just trying to wing it quick and dirty and wondering why things don't work out? If it is the latter, nobody will be able to help you. If you are trying to learn the procedures and actually struggle with the training, or bores sighting, someone may be able to help. As posted by razo+r there are keybinds to move your virtual head in the cockpit, if you don't have a head tracker (default RSHFT+RCTRL+ Keypad 2, 4, 6, 8).

Hi, Dimitry. First an important question: did you uncheck the "Weapon Trigger Guard active" in the AH-64D special options, or bind a key to the trigger guard in the controls, so it isn't a simple issue of the safeguard preventing you from firing? The "WEAPON?" message in the IHADSS shows, you have not selected (WASed) a weapon, but it doesn't hurt to double check the trigger guard. Also, the procedures for rocket employment were not changed, since the EA release of the Apache and all three employment modes (direct, indirect and coop) work as described in the manual and explained/demonstrated in the training. With that out of the way, did you do the Training Mission No. 5 "Unguided Rockets"? I highly recommend to first read the section "Aerial Rocket Sub-System (ARS)" page 343 ff of the chapter "Weapons Employment" in the "Early Access guide" (Program files/Eagle Dynamics/DCS World/Mods/aircraft/AH-64D/Doc/DCS AH-64D Quick Start Manual EN.pdf) and if you have the time, the chapter "Tactical Employment", as well. This will familiarize you with the operation of the rockets, especially as with George AI, you need to understand both the PILOT tasks and the tasks normally done by the CP/G, that you need to command(!) George AI in addition. Flying an aircraft that requires two a person crew IRL alone in DCS means an even higher workload and complexity. IRL Apache crews are trained for quite some time, full time, every day, so each pilot and CP/G can operate both seats, it isn't a simple "hop in, point at enemy and press fire" kind of thing. Take it slow. Do the training step-by-step, listen to the instructions(!) do not rush through. Then train one method (direct fire PLT with MAN RANGE), until you are comfortable and can remember the steps. A checklist does help, as well. From what I've read, crews will go through a checklist, before a weapon engagement whenever possible. -PLT - rockets WASed -C/PG - rockets deWASed -Verify HAD - RKT NORM -Verify WPN Page - QTY and TYPE selected -Verify A/S (Master Arm) - set to ARM -Range Source - select MAN (enter distance) or AUTO Then you need to look at the intended impact area (hold the LOS reticle over the target) and maneuver the helicopter so the nose points in that direction and the "I" (Rocket Steering Cursor) aligns with the LOS reticle. If you have manual distance set fire when in range, if you have Auto-ranging set, when the Rocket Steering Cursor is solid and you are closer than 3.500m to get a minimum of precision. The theoretical range should be about 7.5 km, but the dispersion of the rockets is insane at that distance. So if you don't plan on an rocket artillery strike with all 38 rockets as a barrage, get close and align carefully. For direct fire in Coop mode, have George WAS rockets as well. Verify HAD shows COOP and George will put the dashed target marker (ACQ source TADS) on the target you made him track from his list. Now simply align the "I" (Rocket Steering Cursor) with your(!!!) LOS reticle (not the dashed ACQ source) and if the Rocket Steering Cursor is solid and no "Inhibit messages" on the HAD, pull the trigger. It takes some practice to understand and get good with the rockets, but they are quite fun.

In the Flight Manual coming with the module on page 91 and 94 are two colored tables, that I did print and laminated, when I started learning the HOTAS years ago. Memorize the switches, buttons, hats names (DMS, TMS, MasterModeControlButton, etc.) and if you employ say AGM-65 Mavericks, reference the column on the top. Now every function of the respective switches/hats are listed in that column. But as Yurgon pointed out, you need to understand the HOTAS concept of short and long presses and how the same buttons do different things with different sensors, or weapons, first.

Again, blast damage is the only thing simulated in DCS explosions. There is no fragmentation, thus no splash damage. The problem with killing any ground unit is that blast is calculated as a damage value. So in a way too small radius everything takes damage. Armored stuff takes more damage, but at the same time unarmored vehicles and before the damage model adjustment even infantry could take quite some hits without even flinching. What the script does, it ensures, that at least in that small radius unarmored stuff dies (it would be enough to incapacitate, but DCS can only do healthy, critical hit, or dead). The drawback is a dozen rockets will kill a tank, where IRL the tank would likely "just" have been shredded and the tracks damaged, periscope, mirrors and targeting equipment damaged, but it would be able to limp around and fire blindly. That said, the thing is, for me at least, to decide on the mission in the design phase and depending on opposition to use, or not use the script. A helicopter only scenario with lots (more than you would tackle with 2-4 helicopters IRL) of light armor and vehicles, I prefer the script over the frustration of needing to rearm for 30-40 minutes, simply because the 26-38 rockets' blast damage wasn't enough to eliminate 3 trucks and a Grad-launcher on a clearing in a wood, because the rockets did not have direct hits. For a counter insurgency with lots of infantry and a couple technicals and AAA with the occasional BTR it's fine without the script, since the rockets can take out infantry.

If you read the code, you will notice how it works and that it doesn't change the "splash"-damage (specifically because it doesn't/cannot change, any Lua files where the weapon parameters reside). If you would test it, in addition to looking at the code and compare the results with stock DCS, you will notice the actual effects are marginal (e.g. you still can't kill main battle tanks with a handful of HE rockets, but the infantry in the middle of a 4-8 rocket attack will no longer magically survive. Basically, after ED fixed the armor/damage for the infantry units a while ago, the infantry is dead, either with and without the script, but the area covered by the explosion is still the same, with or without the script. The thing is, that ED does not model fragmentation of explosive weapons, at all. You have blast damage only calculated from the explosive weight in the weapon definition, which is totally unrealistic, as a major lethality factor of any fragmentation weapon is the little pieces of metall shredding a certain area around the explosion (bomb, HE-shell, HE-rocket, even an RPG or handgranade). ED adjusted some weapons (by tweaking the explosives blast), but this still isn't remotely modeling actual weapon effects. E.g. blast damage does less damage to trucks than even a handful of shrapnel through the motor block would, let's not talk about infantry (try dropping a CBU-87 - blast damage never adjusted - on a battalion infantry in parade formation), or unarmored, totally exposed SAM radars and launchers. If a bomblet has a direct hit, you're fine, but no fragmentation that IRL would utterly shred the SAM site. In the end you don't need to "use" the script to simulate at least half-heartedly realistic modeling of what fragmentation damage would do. I personally don't use it in most missions I create, since ED fixed the infantry damage and rockets and 30mm HR shells can finally kill infantry. On the other hand the blast damage from ED's implementation magically kills infantry behind buildings, behind tanks etc. because it has a damage radius and everything inside a blast radius is damaged no matter what. That means danger close implementation of guided 500lbs bombs is nothing like a real bomb. Infantry standing in the blast gets killed even if shielded by a building, but at the same time the actual fragmentation radius in reality is at least 5 times higher than the blast damage modeled in DCS. If we only assume the RED 10 (Risk Estimate Distance where 1 in 10 people will be incapacitated) used to define "safe distances", we should have damage effects in 200-250m distance from the impact of a 500lbs bomb... Last I tested the damage effects to infantry end at about 40-50m. So I personally wouldn't call simulating at least a small amount of the actual damage effects of real weapons "extreme hand holding". If you need a tough challenge and hone precise employment of weapons, we can use stock DCS, to make killing stuff harder than in real life. On the opposite we need to be aware the current stock blast damage model, does kill everything in a certain (too small) radius, with no fragmentation and thus no shielding effects of vehicles and buildings. If someone's interested, the "Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining" has some interesting study on weapons effects in populated areas. https://www.gichd.org/our-response/policy/explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas/ The report can be downloaded here: https://www.gichd.org/publications-resources/publications/explosive-weapon-effects/

Small, deliberate movements. Slow, rather than fast. Put an Apache on an airport, with an empty ramp and space around you. No weapons, 60% fuel. No enemies and a slight breeze of no more than 5kts. Remember to hit the pedal brakes once to unlock the parking brake(!) and then pick up the helicopter into a hover. Try to accelerate forward slowly(!) and keep the altitude at 100-200ft. Speed up to 60-70kts and decelerate again to 20-30kts. Slow and deliberate movements of the stick. Practice this transition from hover/slow forward flight through translational lift and back to a hover again. Add gentle turns and try to keep your altitude from oscillating. Slow and gentle, don't try to rush. If you get more and more comfortable with the coordination of cyclic, collective and pedal inputs, you will notice muscle memory building. Movement and coordination just happens and you will be able to pay more attention to things beside the instruments and your immediate surroundings. Don't worry if you have moments in between, where you feel like you are all over the place like in the beginning, that's totally normal. For me muscle memory usually "clicks" after a couple days to a week and a half of training every other day. If you don't use an extension on the cyclic set curves so the center has more granular control. You rarely use full deflection on a helicopter. Curves are not ideal, but it helps with fine control you need to counter the small drift movements. Things to keep in mind, the Apache is heavy, so despite being pretty agile and maneuverable it has mass and declaration/stopping takes time! If you want to stop into a hover, plan ahead. Rushing at tree top height with 130 kts and trying to get into a hover behind a tree line some 1800m in front of you won't work. If you get close to a battle position or a cover you should have decelerated, already. At 40-60 kts it is way easier to slow to a hover, than 90-120 kts. Slow and deliberate.

That's actually the best workaround for now. Grimm's fork does a good balance between enhancing the weapons effects and just adding more explosives. I tested the 2.0 version before he released it and the damage radius for the rockets is pretty much the same, but the damage dealt is increased. So it's still close to the real thing, but counters the resilience of the DCS ground vehicles. Grimm did a great job there with tweaking damage, but not overpowering individual weapons. Only drawback is, you get used to it and joining a server without or playing a campaign can put you in an "involuntary hardcore mode"...

That's what they were designed for... A rocket is not an anti-armor weapon unless you have APKWS and those are only really effective against light armor. Anti-Tank Helicopters use stealth, standoff weapons and short time of exposure to enemy fire to fight tank platoons. Apaches in Afghanistan were shot down by RPG and 7.62mm ...no AAA, no MANPADS, no IFVs with 20mm autocannons. We need to learn tactics and optimized weapons employment. Unfortunately that still won't solve the AI shortcomings and lack of detailed damage modeling. Though, ED already started working on the AI stuff. Most prominently infantry is now no longer armored like a tank on two feet, in rank formation they actually use fire and maneuver when in contact with an enemy, Mk-20 bomblets have been fixed/enhanced... Unfortunately ONLY the Mk-20, and critical damage seems to have been at least partially implemented as I have seen mobility damage, suppression effects(?) to some vehicles at least.

That's a long standing issue with the AI and ED seems reluctant to rework all the damage models for ground forces. In another thread, it was brought up again and IIRC Nineline said he will press the issue. The thing is, it seems the root cause is the AI targeting algorithm. To me it looks like they treat aircraft similar to stationary or slow moving vehicles for lead calculations.

Depends highly on your tactics and mission design. Trying to hover inside the weapons envelope of armor and AAA is a bad idea ( in DCS and in real life). If you can't sneak up on the flank or rear, you need to be mobile and use evasion, preferred with your wingman knowing what he's doing and flying cover for one another. The AI is incredibly (unrealisticly) good in calculating lead on the fly and eyeballing your flight profile, even at lowest skill setting, which is my default for ground forces for this exact reason. But despite the overperforming AI it is still possible and a lot of fun, to use all the Apache's weapons to good effects. Use rockets against their intended targets, only! Infantry and unarmored/very lightly armored vehicles. Since ED fixed the "armor" of the infantry/insurgents rockets and HEDP work pretty well, against an advancing platoon of grunts or a bunch of insurgents and a volley of 4 M229 close to an unarmored truck, a technical works pretty good. Or if you manage a direct hit on a M113 or BTR-80 it will take it out or at least cause considerable damage. The performance of the rockets should be better, sure, but they are designed as an airborne artillery weapon, intended to allow for rapid, mobile fire support against advancing motorized infantry. More modern IFVs and Tanks are typical targets for Hellfires or buddy lasing for a GBU-12 from a jet or bomber. Still we definitely need adjustment to the damage dealt to unarmored vehicles like SAM radar, launchers etc. that said, the Cluster Munitions have the same problem, though ED adjusted the Mk-20, but only the Mk-20, unfortunately. On the other hand, the US had multiple AH-64 shot down... and the enemy had small arms, the occasional DSHK, but managed to skillfully use RPG with timed detonation (airburst) to great effect. I know from experience this works pretty well, for the DCS insurgents, as well. One RPG can ruin your day. AAA and APC machine guns is something you need to anticipate. If you can't remove those from a safe distance the Pilot needs to focus on the target area and watch for tracers. If you get shot at, evade, not an aggressive break turn, a smooth deliberate change in two dimensions (speed, vertical, horizontal) as the gunner aimed at the point you should be in the future. If you can't get a good shot, abort and evade, coordinate with your wingman so he's in a position to fire at the enemy while you evade and reposition. There's a reason aircraft come in flights of minimum two. Despite the popular belief, the Apache isn't a dedicated SEAD/DEAD asset.

There's a lot of the generic declassified stuff available (even from Amazon) and for "mission" planning (in DCS) I actually prefer the trusty CR-3 most of the time. With multicrew it's even viable to hand over controls and grab paper charts and recalculate some legs, but why would you not consider to simplify those tasks when designing the system? At least the option to enter both volume and weight... Well, in the end it is how it is. Guess, today the developers of the Apache systems would do a lot of things differently, anyway.

That's not what I meant, or was remotely implying, but from most if not all accounts I came across, after let's say 3-4 months into deployment fatigue and constant stress all take their toll. What puzzles me, is these simple things, that under high stress levels and urgency, combined with fatigue isn't this little detail something the designer of an aircraft want to omit? I mean, yes you can do the math, but why add this risk, instead of consolidating measures. Just because you can simply do some arithmetic to get things going, it does not have to be a good idea. I always thought, especially in military aviation the goal is to minimize the risk and give the guys the best chance to achieve the mission goal. No offense meant, just my personal thought on "on-the-fly" conversion under high pressure.

Just looked at a "conversion table" for aviation fuel... You imperial guys do take a lot of drugs, don't you? Are we talking US gallons or Imperial, I guess US? Then 50 lbs is 7 Gallons, but 100 lbs is 16 Gallons and 200 of course is 30 Gallons not 32 and 300 lbs is 46 Gallons? Why is even the fuel handled in different measurements in the same(!) aircraft? Doesn't that beg for mistakes endangering service members? And even if nobody cares about the monkeys operating the controls, the aircraft isn't exactly cheap, either.

Setting inventory - actually being able to fill storages and fuel tanks by script commands - is a huuuuge step! Finally we can create real "convoys" that directly impact available ressources. Thank you sooo much, for finally adding this feature. Total game changer!

It is totally worth it. Btw. to easily populate a 80ies/90ies war scenario, there is the "Generator" in the Mission Editor. There is the Option to select a "Node" and drag it around, select templates to suite your scenario (there is a separate template editor in the Generator Menu, if you want to fine tune forces). In the "Node" menu, select any of the Red Templates and Blue Templates you like (rectangles show force organisation and placement, these can be dragged to match your desired "front layout". Finally hit "Generate" and add Client/Player slots as required... Not a full immersive story campaign, but a quick way to setup larger engagements. Btw. you can of course add your own templates etc.