Raptor9

The original bug reported in this thread is marked as fixed. Further, I am not able to reproduce it either. Since the original topic appears to have been resolved, I am locking this thread to prevent any further confusion regarding the issue at hand. If anyone has any bugs or wishlist threads to post, please make a unique thread for it.

The "datalink signal" is not a continuous, singular signal; like when your phone indicates signal reception from a cellphone tower. The datalink is composed of discreet radio microbursts of data that are periodically transmitted from various units in the battlespace, which are then processed and displayed in the cockpit based on the data contained within those radio microbursts. There is no indication in the cockpit when the radio signal from Air Traffic Control is lost because there is no continuous signal being broadcast from a single ATC tower. In similar fashion, there is no indication in the cockpit when datalink is lost because there is no continuous datalink radio signal being broadcast from a single unit in the battlespace. If line of sight is lost between your aircraft and a unit transmitting information across the datalink channel, the information received from that particular unit is simply no longer received, just as if you can no longer hear the voice radio transmissions from that unit while still hearing all others on the same frequency.

The AH-64D and OH-58D have never had any sort of ADS-B or TCAS equipment installed, and neither did the F-16C variant modeled in DCS. No idea if modern-day versions of the F-16 do, and I am highly skeptical that the F-14 had any either.

1) Select a different point as a Direct destination. 2) Select a route on the RTE>RTM sub-page. 3) Delete the point that you've set as the Direct destination.

As stated previously many many times, APKWS are not planned for the DCS AH-64D because the AH-64D variant featured in DCS was never equipped with them. Simply repeating the same posts from the other locked thread will not change this fact. Thank you.

From the DCS F-16 Early Access Guide.

Any time George, as the AI CPG, is using the TADS (meaning it is not slaved to fixed forward), he will arm the aircraft which allows him to fire the laser. If you safe the aircraft, this conflicts with his assigned task, which is to use the TADS to acquire and/or engage targets. Therefore he will set the aircraft back to arm so he can continue to perform his assigned task. If you want to safe the aircraft, you must command him to stop using the TADS by pressing Down-Short with the AI interface displayed.

This is correct behavior. Specified on page 95 of the Early Access Guide.

From page 528 of the DCS AH-64D Early Access Guide: "Laser ranging" means someone is measuring the range to your helicopter, like an armored vehicle about to engage you. "Laser designating" means someone is designating your helicopter for measuring range or to guide a semi-active laser-homing munition, like a GBU-12 bomb or AGM-114K missile. "Laser beaming" means someone is guiding a laser beam-riding missile toward you, like the AT-16 Vikhr missile from the Ka-50 or the tank-fired AT-11 Sniper missile. Regardless of which message you are getting, you should interpret this as a hostile attack since someone is clearly intending to engage you imminently or has already fired on you.

Recommend this thread, by a real-life AH-64 instructor pilot.

There is no need to press Up a second time. George will automatically de-slave from your line of sight and begin searching. Pressing Up when the George interface is simply saying "Gunner, Target, Pilot Helmet Sight." Which is a common and standard target handover technique used by real AH-64D crews to cue the gunner to a target the pilot has visually acquired. No, it is not any more complex than any other modern aircraft. It is just designed for a different mission, in a different combat environment, and to fight in a different manner than a fixed-wing aircraft.

The AH-64D is indeed designed to operate during hours of darkness, but it wasn't intended to be operated at low altitudes near terrain or obstacles in an "unaided" manner without the use of the PNVS or TADS FLIR sensors (or night vision goggles as an alternative). And the CPG is certainly not going to be trying to detect targets at night using the unaided eye. If you are intending to fly at night without the use of the PNVS, TADS, or night vision goggles, higher altitudes should be utilized at which terrain or man-made obstructions will not be encountered. If the lowest setting of the IHADSS is still too bright for use, I would recommend removing the IHADSS monocle entirely.

Threads merged. Please refer to the post marked as the Solution above for more information.

@AndrewDCS2005, if you go into your track replay that you provided above and turn the MIDS LVT knob to OFF before performing the same steps, you will see that it takes several moments after initial detection of the aircraft for the FCR to establish radar tracks, which can then be upgraded to radar-derived system tracks using TMS Right, or individually using TMS Forward. The exact same time to bug a TOI in TWS happens regardless of whether TNDL is enabled or not. The only difference is the symbology shown on the MFD. As I stated above, when an aircraft detected by an FCR is correlated with an existing TNDL track, it inherits the datalink information from the offboard datalink track within the system track file to change the symbology, but the datalink information does not make it capable of being engaged if it has not established sufficient radar track information. As I described in my first post yesterday, the symbol characteristics of when this TNDL correlation occurs does not indicate that the track has sufficient radar track data to bug the aircraft as the target of interest for engagement. If the F-16 could utilize offboard datalink information to engage a target, the FCR would not be needed in the first place. So again, there is no demonstrated difference in how long it takes the FCR to establish a radar track in TWS with or without TNDL datalink correlation, the only difference is how the symbology is presented.

@AndrewDCS2005, I took control of your track and indeed the targets cannot be bugged when they are initially illuminated by the ownship FCR. However, when I narrowed the scan volume in azimuth and bars, I was able to bug the targets sooner. Further, if I deliberately slewed the FCR scan volume away from the incoming aircraft until the radar tracks were dropped, and then slewed it back, as distance to the aircraft was reduced, I was able to bug the targets more rapidly after initial detection on each attempt. This corresponds with the implemented radar limitations of distance, target size, and number of actual detections against a given aircraft (probability of detection). Let me emphasize one of my final statements from my previous post: "If the pilot wished to bug the far right target for an engagement, it must be one of the 10 system tracks that have been established from a radar track. Once the cursor is slewed to that datalink track to steer the FCR scan volume to re-detect the target, it will still take a few moments before the target can be bugged as TOI, so that the FCR can establish that track as one of the 10 system tracks based on reliable radar track information." The point being, is that the system track file may contain both radar tracks as well as offboard datalink tracks. However, only system tracks with sufficient radar track data can be bugged as a TOI for engagement. When an FCR detects an aircraft that is correlated with a datalink track within the system track file, it may not yet have sufficient radar track information for an engagement. This isn't related to TWS mechanization in itself but rather how the changes in the DCS F-16's radar physics have altered how the radar detects and processes targets under various conditions. There have been changes this past year in the DCS F-16 and DCS F/A-18 radar simulations to improve their functionality with regards to radar aspect, probability of detection, false target rate, etc. You were using MiG-27's in this example. If using a larger target, such as an Il-76, the radar tracks in my tests were achieved faster, even at a greater range, allowing a relatively rapid TOI designation following initial detection.