ShuRugal

Unfortunately, I do not. I can only tell you that, prior to MT release, i had to hold about 25% left stick and ~33% aft stick to hover, and now those numbers are roughly halved. What it feels like to me is that the SCAS was over-reacting prior to MT release (possibly due to longer compute cycles?) and that I have to fight it a lot less now. A good way to demonstrate this without the variability of human skill is to use the hover-hold mode. Since MT release, the helicopter takes significantly less time to stabilize itself into a precision hover after engaging HH. Prior to MT patch, it could take as long two minutes for the helicopter to stop "stirring" itself in a circle after engaging HH. Now it takes as little as 30 seconds for HH to achieve a point hover.

Maybe nothing in the FM changed, but something in the behavior is different. Picking up to a hover required roughly half the displacement of cyclic after the MT split was released as compared to a matter of hours previously. My guess is performance optimization making the SAS operate more efficiently? This isn't a case of "I got better" between the night before the patch was released and the next afternoon when i was able to play it. My hover pickup technique in the apache calls for slowly picking up the collective while feeding in aft and left cyclic to keep level, and doing so since MT patch has required considerably less deflection of the cyclic to achieve a vertical pickup.

somehow i managed to miss this addition in the patch notes, thanks!

In real life, your hearing sensitivity is on a logarithmic scale. when you hear a sufficiently loud sound, it will "drown out" the quieter sound, even though the quieter sound is still reaching your ear at the same intensity it was before. But because of the log-scale of your hearing, something which sounds "twice as as loud" actually has ten times as much sound power. To 'drown out' the sound of two 1,100 HP gas turbine engines running 10 feet away from you requires an absolutely stupendous amount of sound power. Most people do not have a speaker/amplifier system for their computer which is powerful enough to play the cannon sound at a high enough volume to drown out the engine sound. So, in order to make it sound the way it would if you were actually in the cockpit firing the gun, the simulation reduces/cuts the engine sound while the gun sound is playing.

how are you accomplishing this with no weapon commanded?

that explains why was having so much trouble playing with AFAC guided missiles the other day.... I was wondering why i was getting "backscatter" warning when the laser was coming straight down...

Unfortunately, George does not bother to adjust the gain/level of the FLIR, it will always be at either the default setting, or the last used setting. If the default setting isn't right for current conditions, i will usually jump into the front seat and adjust it for a clear image at full zoom then jump back to pilot seat.

I also experience the reported problem on a clean install of Mi24 (I did not own it prior to MT release). As a workaround, I have made a copy of the english liveries for the MI-24 and used them to overwrite the Russian ones, but this has not been 100% successful.

I get that, I'm just surprised that the Mi-24 is so susceptible to it, given the engine inlet position. I would have expected it to take a much larger salvo to get enough smoke above the disc for the engines to ingest it.

Fooling around with the Hind yesterday, I had some difficulty getting my rockets to arm (issue was invalid payload combination, i think?) so i was doing a lot of land, rearm, hover, test fire, repeat. When i finally got it to fire with S5 rockets loaded, one "short" mode salvo from a hover with 4 S5 pods killed my engines. Restarted the engines, lifted back to a hover to try again, and reproduced the failure. Is this realistic? I feel like 16 rockets should not produce anywhere near enough fumes to choke the engines, especially with the engines tucked up tight to the center of the rotor where they can get lots of fresh air from above the bird?

Or just look forward. If the pilot is not using the PNVS, it will be parked. Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

Not much to be gained in a helicopter. Note that the difference between 100 KCAS at sea level and 20k ft DA are not far apart. There's a lot more to gain at 600 kts ant 40k ft than 100 kts and 20k. the DCS apache gets really unhappy when flying over ~115 KIAS. My E6B says that should be around 158 kts at 20k ft DA. The power/cruise charts i am able to find online for the AH-64D appear to indicate that at sea level, maximum range airspeed (no stores) is 125 KTAS with a fuel flow of around 1200 lbs/hr, and that at 16k ft, the max range cruise speed is also 125 KTAS and a fuel flow of around 800 lbs/hr, but the maximum gross weight permissible at this altitude is only 15k lbs. So, you might gain some range by cruising at 20k ft vs NoE, but it's going to come at the expense of being able to carry things with you (like fuel or weapons), and you've going to burn a lot of that range just climbing to 20k ft. I can't find a time to climb chart for the -64D, but I wouldn't be surprised if 20k ft took 40 minutes to reach climbing at 90 kts. When you only have 2-2.5 hours of fuel, that's a lot of your range spend climbing when it could have been spent cruising lower.

If you're trimmed for anything faster than ETL and you hit the trim reset, you better be fast shoving the stick forward to catch it. Only thing i've ever found trim reset useful for in any DCS helicopter is performing a figure-9. To each his own indeed.

sure you do. fly the helicopter into a hover. that's the center.

Dispersion of the M230 is disappointing. I've been spoiled by the 2A42. I got used to being able to put 5 rds from a 10 rd burst into a vehicle at 4 km.....

'doh. RTFM moment.

Just wanted to follow up on some of the comments noting that when George does fire, he vastly overshoots the target. I observed the same thing in MP flying as a CPG for someone the other day. Tracking a non-moving target with LMC and lasing the range, all of my shots were long, by roughly 10% of the range to target. This happened flying towards the target and flying laterally past the target. I do not have this problem employing the gun in single player.

Just had an opportunity to do some night-attack with JTAC support, and i noticed that while the JTAC laser is perfectly visible using NVGs, it does not show up in FLIR. Is this the intended behavior? It seems to me that an IR laser should be quite visible to an imaging IR sensor?

That's not even the width of my hand across the knuckles. That's a fuckload further back from the panel than the default head position in half the fighter modules. In the F-14 default position, i can look down and see the FRONT of the stick.

That's an absolutely hilarious assertion. Every pilot flies with their necks hunched forward like a ninety year old typist? You wouldn't last long pulling Gs with your head that far out of line with your spine. exactly like that, yes.

In VR, I find that the default head position in most aircraft is way too far forward, like i'm trying to do a line on the glareshield. Unfortunately, when I adjust the position to something more comfortable/realistic (head against the headrest anyone???), the mirrors are all too far inward, and all i can see in the is my pilot's face. nullit would be nice if we could get an option to adjust the inward/outward angle of the mirrors to accommodate different seating positions, or at least a couple extra baked-in angles. I understand that the current positions are chosen to work with the default head position, which is as far forward as it is to make life better for players on a flat screen, but it makes the mirrors entirely useless in VR.

This same thing happened to me in multiplayer yesterday, though I didn't realize that's what it was. Took an ATGM that knocked out my No1 engine, limped back to the farp, but my attitude when landed was wrong so i looked at F2 view and saw i had no tail... I assumed I had just landed too roughly, but I didn't make contact tail-first...

And if I were able to do the same, I'd probably agree with your assessment. the sensors, even only the ones currently implemented, ARE better than Ka-50. But for those of us stuck using George (who is a complete egg in a hostile environment), the ability to aim the missiles AND fly at the same time make the Ka-50 a completely different animal. To say nothing of the fact that a Vikhr can reach and kill those annoying SACLOS SAM units faster than the SAM missile reaches the helicopter. In the AH-64 without someone flying high cover to buddy lase for me, I'm helpless against most SAMs, because even the lowest difficulty DCS AI has instant reflexes and absurd aim. The best i'm able to manage is hover out of range at a high enough altitude to get LoS, which is just begging to get splatted by an AI Flanker with their god-like powers of detecting aircraft above 1,000' AGL.

I think a better way to phrase it would be that the FCR is what gives the Apache the greatest advantage over the Ka-50, in DCS. without the FCR, the Ka-50 is an objectively better platform for killing things in DCS. It's easier to learn to fly, its very rapid to engage targets with, and the pilot automation systems are very simple and easy to learn. When I used to fly the DCS Ka-50 every day, it was not uncommon for me to rack up kills twice as fast as the guys in A-10s, and the A-10 is an undisputed beast at killing tanks. the AH-64 IRL is way better than the Ka-50, because crew coordination with trained pilots who fly together every day is always going to be better than using your thumbs to give an AI gunner or pilot orders, but in DCS that's not a feature most people get to take advantage of, simply due to the fact that most of us have real lives and can't coordinate to fly with the same people day in and day out in multiplayer. The FCR will give the solo-pilot with an AI gunner a dramatic edge over the solo Ka-50 pilot, none of the other systems as implemented offer that. (maybe that will change when we get a "george, kill anything you see, don't wait for me to tell you about it" button.)

Another important distinction here, just to complicate things further... a LITENING pod am board a jet 10km above the target is shooting through considerably less atmosphere than one on a helicopters 10km laterally from a target at 100m altitude... The average density of the air between surface and 10km is less than half the density of air at sea level. Thicker air means more atmospheric scattering which means less energy reaches the target and less of the reflected energy makes it back. it may well be realistic for a Hornet at 30km altitude and 30 km lateral range to pick up a laser fired by a Predator orbiting at a 5k radius and 10km altitude, just because there is so much less AIR in the way of the laser. That doesn't mean that an Apache at 100m altitude would be able to pick up that same laser from 30km range, even with a perfectly clean LoS