shagrat

A quick solution would be to just set the Apache as "Singleplayer" in the mission editor by the mission designer. That way we could jump between seats similar to SP missions, but don't need to handle the complexity of switching seats in MP with human PLT and human CP/G, or do I miss something, that prevents using the same features that work in SP in a MP mission? I am aware it means you have separate SP and separate MultiCrew slots in a Multiplayer mission, but we could use the Apache from the front seat and rear seat by switching seats like we do now in SP.

Ich würde trotzdem Achsen empfehlen, da die Buttons ein "Verfolgen" oder manuelles stabilisieren kaum zulassen. Da das TADS kein echtes Ground Stabilize, sondern "nur" den LMC, bzw. hoffentlich bald den Image Auto Track (IAT) kennt, musst du meist von Hand und z.T. sehr feinfühlig, steuern. Ich würde das zumindest mal ausprobieren. Bei mir war das mit einem 4-Wege Hat gruselig, auch weil du das TADS nicht so wirklich gut "schräg" bewegen kannst.

Same here. Keep in mind, AAR in a simulation where the radios and your voice are operated through a keyboard menu, you don't have peripheral vision, no feeling for acceleration/slip movement and can't chat with the boom operator or get at least a heads up to an upcoming turn etc. is way more difficult than IRL. And IRL it is one of the hardest thing a military pilot needs to learn. Out only real advantagess are a comfy chair, a pause option and the fact we won't die if we mess up. I made a little formation training mission for the F/A-18C that helps to train station keeping, and it seems to do a pretty good job in the limits of the DCS mission editor (used aerobatics to have less aggressive turns etc. instead of the crazy turns the AI usually does). You may try switching the F/A-18C for another aircraft, as long as the speeds match and you don't change anything other, than the aircraft. I guess an A-10 may struggle with the speed, but the F-16, M2000C etc. should be ok. I still struggle with the tanker, but it definitely helped me to improve my station keeping in formation. Link to the user files: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3317763/

I didn't just say "RTFM", neither was it meant in a condescending way. Matter of fact, it is part of llthe learning process, but it is not enough on its own, to only glance at the manual, do a couple training missions and expect to fly a study sim level DCS module (especially the modern ones) mission ready. We already have the advantage, that we can shave off about a third of the stuff a pilot needs to learn, as it is not really required for a "game". Still there is a lot of complexity to a modern combat aircraft, that requires more than just a set of training missions. I have the same problem with real life, a job and a family. The only thing you can do is to see the "learning process" as part of the game. If you see the learning as a "requirement to grind through" to get to play the game, you will get frustrated. If you find joy in the learning process and elation, when you successfully got through learning a new system, managed to do a navigation training and arrive near your intended airbase, employ a weapon system without going through the written notes for the first time, or simply when it "clicks" when flying a new airframe and your muscle memory does its job. If that is only a nuisance, it's not fun to learn a DCS module and gets you frustrated quickly (done that, been there). That does not mean you can't just take a module for a ride and just try to make sh.t go boom, once in a while... But from my experience over most of the last two decades it is as much about finding joy in learning these things, as in using them in a simulated combat mission. The biggest problem is, neither RTFM, nor training missions, or YouTube videos will get you there on their own. It is a combination of reading/understanding how it works, watching others implementing it and then practicing it, if possible with others, so you can share knowledge and tips. Just my 2 cents.

Das war wieder ein sehr netter Abend am Samstag, mit lecker Essen und tollem Schnack. Tat sehr gut, nach dem ganzen "Isolieren". Freue mich schon auf das nächste Mal.

The thing is, people expect to get a basic helicopter/aircraft flight training and a type specific conversion course, amounting to maybe a year of full time (!) training condensed into a couple of training missions, so they can do what a real life pilot takes a year or more to accomplish. Even if we consider we need only half of the procedural details a pilot needs to know by heart, we still face quite some stuff to learn. And by learning, we talk about RTFM (not just glancing at it) going through the checklists/procedures provided in the manual(s) and maybe write down some stuff you want to remember. Then train(!) that stuff and rehearse it, best in Multiplayer. A bunch of training missions can only be a part of that process, if you ask me.

This is my biggest gripe with George and Petrovich. I get why they can't "magically" determine the coalition of a vehicle or soldier, but honestly the difference between a HUMVEE and a BTR-80 is pretty much a no brainer. The use of the category instead of type is hilarious, considering, that a SAM 1, SAM 2, SAM 3, SAM 4, etc. leaves you guessing which is the radar, which are just launchers and ultimately it may be a bunch of MANPAD! This little change would be the most important fix to help the AI really support us in the cockpit. A simple "BTR" instead of "APC", "T-72" instead of "Tank" or "Search Radar" instead of "SAM 3" is desperately needed.

Naaah, DCS is all about realism. Last conflict in that area was 1940ies...

If the digital ball irritates you, you may want to look at the "classic" oil dampened ball on the right, where the auxiliary instruments are? Maybe it helps to think about the way a helicopter moves into a direction. You tilt the rotor disc in any direction you want. You could tilt the disc aft left the FPV would "point" to the aft left and the ball to the right... and that is definitely not "straight". The amount it does not match the actual flight path is determined, by the amount of thrust from the tail rotor and/or torque turning the helicopter clockwise...

DTC wäre super, am liebsten die Option sich selber mit einem Planner alles zurechtzustellen und dann als Datei abspeichern, die man dann für die Map laden kann. Besonders mehrere verschiedene(!) DTCs wären wichtig. So könnte man sie verteilen, als "default" in eine Mission integrieren.

Der Apache hat ADF Navigation mit dem Radio. Ist im QuickStart Manual drin. Video dazu hab ich noch keins gesehen, ist aber Recht ähnlich dem VOR. Halt nur Direction. Ab Seite 218.

Is ED aware of the current issues with the Viewports? Because this would be the very first step, fixing the default exports and conflicts, then we can do a setup and discuss the best way of doing it. At the moment there are only hacks, to deactivate the normal Viewports, configs for Viewports that go into the game install etc. I personally would prefer not to mess with the game folder to make this work, as testing stuff is difficult if your game isn't vanilla.

I guess there is no gyro involved in the digital slip ball. Anyway, you can use a simple string or the standard "oil tube ball" in the Huey. The result is the same. When a helicopter with counter-clockwise spinning blades flies forward, the cockpit dangling under the rotor points to the left from where you're actually flying the faster you go. That's how it is. Reason is the vector is a result of the different force vectors of the advancing and retreating blades, different lift produced in the disc, torque acting on the mast, tail rotor thrust and tilted rotor discs lift vector. Whereas a plane usually is either pulled by a propeller or pushed by a jet engine along its fuselage towards where the nose is pointing and with no wind the flight path and where that nose points coincide. That's why the ball in a helicopter flying "in trim" (ball centered) is different from "nose/tail trimmed" (when the nose/tail points to where you are going).

Found it linked above in this thread:

Do you have any useful(!) information on your setup, software used, logs, what settings you fly in DCS? Did you try reducing the DCS settings to minimum and crank them up from there to identify possible ressource issues? Just ranting will neither fix anything, nor is it a good base for identification of issues. Just saying.

The exaggeration of the effect seems to have been confirmed by some real world Apache jockey, if I am not mistaken. Wasn't there a link to the post and details earlier in this thread? But the effect itself is there and pretty normal.

Not necessarily as the torque from the rotor is pushing the nose to the right, while the tail rotor pushes against the tail boom adding a bit of drift. You compensate this with tilt of the rotor disc, but to my understanding the equilibrium of all forces results in a vector that's off center. Of course wind influences this and can either enhance it or even negate it. Also any changes to the controls will change it a tiny bit.

That's the misconception. Centering the ball in an helicopter, unlike an airplane does not mean straight. It shows the torque/yaw is in equilibrium with the actual flight vector, but most of the time they are two different headings. Get into the Huey, speed up to 110+ kts, center the ball, and go F3 view. You will notice how the direction of flight is to the right from where the nose is pointing. Now ignore the ball and eyeball the flight path and get the nose pointing to your actual course... You may need to reduce speed to make it work and counter with left cyclic vs. left pedal. That's the same behavior/effect as in the Apache. If the aircraft is "in trim" (ball centered) it actually flys a little to the right (FPV), but is in "aerodynamic trim", as in optimum airflow and equilibrium of forces (hope I make sense). On take-off, landing, firing rockets, you want the nose pointing to where the helicopter is going, so you align the nose with the FPV and ignore the ball. That is called "nose to tail trim".

Im Prinzip ist es das EGI (Embedded GPS/INS) und davon dann zwei Stück, wegen Redundanz. Das EGI ist ein GPS das in ein INS integriert ist. Tatsächlich benötigt aber das GPS einige Zeit die Satelliten zu erfassen. 6 Sekunden mag die Vorgabe zum einlesen des Datums und der Keys sein, aber selbst mit ungefährer, bekannter Position dauert es einen Moment, bis genug Satelliten erfasst sind um die Position exakt zu haben. Das INS hat ja von sich aus keine Ahnung wo es sich befindet, sondern misst den Weg und Richtung vom Initialen Ausgangspunkt. Der kommt vom GPS und wird regelmäßig zur Korrektur des INS Drift abgefragt. Die meiste Zeit wartest du aber in der Tat auf den/die Gyro(s).

Aileron (Querruder) und Rudder (Seitenruder)... Elevator (Höhenruder).

Wrong thread, wrong aircraft. IIRC the D-model does only have Datalink between Apaches not Link16 or the like where you get joint data. The D-model got modern Datalink integration and better connectivity. At least that was the plan... So with our AH-64D we should get the Apache network, similar to what the Ka-50 has and more. That will be very cool with the FCR and create and transmit fire zones between an Apache Team.

Achtet auf eure Triebwerksanzeige. Ich weiß nicht wie viel Engine Damage Model schon simuliert ist, aber wenn das Overlay auf dem Screen erscheint und etwas gelb, oder gar rot, angezeigt wird (i.d.R. der Torque) will der Apache uns mitteilen, das es ihm wehtut und wir das bitte zeitnah lassen sollen... Wie bereits erwähnt, je nach Flughöhe MSL, Umgebungstemperatur, Wind, Zuladung (Luftwiderstand) und Gewicht, hast du andere Limits. Hoch und heiß (Hot & High) frisst Leistung! Zuladung bremst. 120-130 kts ist eine recht hohe Geschwindigkeit, für einen Helikopter. Cruise speed für den Apachen müsste so bei 90-110 kts liegen und je niedriger und näher am Einsatzort (Bedrohungslage) desto langsamer wird geflogen. Daran musste ich mich auch wieder gewöhnen. Man möchte nicht wirklich mit 90-100 kts über eine Hügelgruppe hüpfen und dann feststellen, dass man in 4km Entfernung voraus eine gegnerische Fahrzeugansammlung mit AAA, IR-SAMs etc. steht und man in offenem Gelände darauf zurast. Cruise mit 100-110 auf 500m oder höher, darunter 80-90. Sobald mir Feindkontakt zu rechnen ist, lieber 60kts anpeilen. Gibt einem mehr Reaktionszeit und die Möglichkeit zu stoppen oder umzudrehen, wenn es nötig ist, ohne direkt in die Waffenreichweite des Gegners zu rasen. WIe gesagt, das ist die Theorie aus dem Lehrbuch, ich tue mich da auch noch schwer das alles auf einmal im Blick zu behalten...

Es würde reichen den Type statt der Category der Unit anzuzeigen. Das sind beides Attribute am Unit Object. Statt "APC 1, APC 2, etc." stünde in der Liste dann einfach "BTR-82A, Tigr, etc." und ich könnte selber entscheiden, den "Tigr" zuerst auszuschalten, in dem das Primäre Ziel, laut Missionsbeschreibung sitzt.

Das ist doch bereits für "Later in Early Access" geplant, wenn ich mich nicht verlesen habe. Wie gesagt, mein größeres Problem (was alle AI Kollegen betrifft) ist die Verwendung von Category statt Type. Besonders, wenn der MANPAD Funker(!) genauso ein SAM ist, wie eine SA-15 Tor, oder ein Such- oder Feuerleitradar... Da ist echt "Room for improvement".

Mostly it would enable people to do Hammerhead turns and bop ups using the higher approach speed, without the need to trim two times from a forward pitch trim. Because as many people pointed out, already, you can only pull your stick back half the axis complete travel. I usually try to "pick up" the trim from the forward position by pressing and holding the trim release, but the trim reset keybind (that ED already announced will come, btw.) is implemented in all the other helicopter modules for a good reason.