Raptor9

If changes are made to the actual flight model, we do. However, we have no control over subjective impressions posted by players. Following almost every update since release some have claimed something changed, and we have no control over that or what people choose to believe. This is common in other areas of discussion too. Even when an SME states something factual about the AH-64 to help in understanding, there are those that choose to believe something else. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

In addition to what BigNewy said, the flight model and SCAS behavior is not finished. Just because we have commented on what has or has not changed in a given patch does not mean that we are saying the flight model is 100% realistic or complete.

Is a threat radar that is guiding a missile on toward your aircraft not a more dangerous threat than a radar that is in search mode?

Why is it all or nothing? The way an RWR detects threats does not directly equate to how information is displayed on the RWR display itself. Why would one assume all RWR's work the same way? Btw, sites like Wikipedia, Globalsecurity.org, FAS.org, Deagel.com, etc, they all essentially circular report the same info that are rarely from credible sources.

In the first Top Gun movie, the radar in the backseat of the F-14 was shown to have 360 degree coverage, like an airport radar. In Top Gun Maverick, the F-18 radar was shown in a forward arc, but it pulsed outward like a sonar. I've seen a lot of movies, TV shows, and video games that show radars in similar fashion, in a 360 degree sweep as well as that sonar-like pulse; sometimes both. Years ago, I had a young man try to convince me that the RWR antennas placed around an aircraft was its radar. In his explanation, he explained that an aircraft needed multiple antennas so that it could see in all directions since it couldn't mount a rotating radar like ground-based systems. To him, it seemed to be common sense based on what he had seen in an arcade video game (that I will not name) and the fact the antennas had "RADAR" in their labels painted on their base mounts. Obviously those antennas were not the fire control radar in the nose, but in his mind it was a perfectly logical and sensical explanation based on what he "knew" on the topic. The reason I bring these things up is the fact that there are a lot of assumptions being thrown around in here about real-world RWR systems; in how they function, what information they provide, the format that information is displayed, and how that information is used. Obviously these systems are sensitive in nature, everyone knows that, and I am not commenting on the realism of the RWR in DCS. But it seems that many individuals are so confidently sure in their logic and personal common sense that they haven't asked themselves: "Could I be wrong? Could the information that drives my opinion be wrong?" I'm not saying this from any position of righteousness, but as someone that has seen first hand (both with other people and myself) how off the mark a person can be when they don't know what they don't know. If a person's frame of reference is something like Top Gun, and they don't know anything else that would challenge that frame of reference, it is quite possible that anyone saying something otherwise would sound absurd and outside of common sense. And to be clear, I'm not saying anyone in this thread is using Top Gun as their reference, it was just an analogy. Regarding the F-16 manual. The manual is written to support the use of the module in DCS. When new features come out, or behaviors of existing features change, the manuals require updating. This doesn't happen immediately, but just because the DCS F-16 manual does not reflect an update to Open Beta that came out last week, it does not constitute evidence that anything is wrong. As it stands, the current logic of the DCS F-16 RWR after the latest Open Beta update is as follows: 1) Outer area of the display: radar threats in search mode. 2) Inner/middle area of the display: radar threats in track mode. 3) Center area of the display: radar threats in missile guidance mode/active radar missiles.

I don't know what specific commands you are referring to; however, if you are referring to the Collective-Flight Grip BS/PLRT switch, the BS position has been rendered non-functional. The BS position of this switch was rendered non-functional in the avionics configuration represented in DCS AH-64D. As a result, the MPD cursor logic was changed so that it is automatically placed over the B/S NOW command on the WPN page when performing an IHADSS boresight, so that the Cursor-Enter control on the Collective may be pressed to perform the function that was removed from the BS/PLRT switch. This behavior is modeled in DCS AH-64D, and the simulation is now a more accurate representation of the real aircraft as a result.

A radar that is locked onto the aircraft represents a more lethal threat than any radar that is only in a search mode, regardless of range or signal strength. This isn't a MiG-29. If you have any reference data that is publically available to support your claims, please PM BigNewy or NineLine.

You are probably seeing translating tendency. The combination of the main rotor torque and the tail rotor thrust will cause the AH-64 to translate right in a hover. Below is an image from the upcoming manual revisions, which will include better explanations of these concepts, among others. When stationary on the ground, as you apply left pedal you should notice the aircraft starts to roll to the right from the thrust acting upon the top part of the vertical tail from the increase in tail rotor thrust. With the aircraft on the ground, the fuselage pivots around the landing gear, which has the aircraft weight and friction keeping it in place. As you come off the ground, you will need to apply left cyclic to bank ever so slightly to counter it. Other helicopters experience this as well, but they counter it in different ways. The Mi-24 for instance has it's main transmission mounted at an angle, allowing the fuselage to remain level at a hover.

He wasn't being dismissive; he was stating facts in response to claims by users, as I had earlier in this very same thread over the previous weeks. If a person states something that is incorrect, the listener has no way of knowing that the speaker meant something else. Therefore, if the person hearing the original claim refutes it, they are not being dismissive; they are responding to the original statement as framed by the person stating it.

It is more than just semantics. If a player simply says "Something is broke." in a bug report, that gives us zero information to go on. If a player says the "(insert function) isn't working as it should." we are going to assume they mean that specific function. Words and terms do matter, since we have no way of determining what a player actually means in lieu of actual data such as track files and such. If I tell a restaurant their steak isn't cooked enough, but I really meant their hamburgers, that doesn't convey the proper feedback for the appropriate corrections to be made. No, I don't think you do. I'm trying to ascertain the root cause of what people are describing as "broke" or "not behaving as it should." because I have zero data to go on. But I'm asking these questions in an open-ended way so as to not imply leading answers. Assumptions and innuendo is not useful when diagnosing the root causes. The issue isn't the trimming mode used in the special optioms, it is the overall strategy of when the force trim is being interacted with altogether that I am trying to determine.

I would like to ask two open-ended questions to anyone: 1) When flying with Attitude Hold enabled (regardless of sub-mode), how many use the force trim? 2) When flying without Attitude Hold enabled, how many use the force trim?

With the exception of the center-of-mass, those parameters are regarding the FMC's Collective channel, not the core flight model. And the center-of-mass adjustment was very small, not significant enough to alter the handling of the helicopter. I know this because I do flight model comparisons all the time across multiple DCS installs. I think what is happening here is some people are using inaccurate terms to describe what they are seeing. "Flight Model" = the core behavior of the aircraft itself, excluding behaviors exhibited by the FMC's SCAS and/or hold mode logic. "SCAS" = the behavior of the FMC's logic in affecting the flight control servos such as damping effects, turn coordination, etc. "Hold modes" = the assistance provided by the FMC to allow limited hands-off flying. If people are saying "Flight model" to describe all three aspects, then they are technically "correct" in stating something has changed, but they are incorrect in stating what has been changed. The SCAS and hold mode behavior was indeed modified in the recent update (as was listed in the changelog), as well as almost every recent update in the past several months (with the exception of January I believe). If a player relies on the hold modes to keep their aircraft under control in a hover, then yes, they may interpret changes within these logics as changes to the "Flight model", but this is not the case. If you were to fly the DCS AH-64D without hold modes in the Stable version of DCS World from December, and then fly the Open Beta version, the behavior is identical when performing a hover (Assuming the control profiles, environmental conditions within the mission, and the physical configuration of the aircraft with regards to fuel and weapons load are EXACTLY the same). The changes you would see is the Collective channel behavior as you started performing forward flight with changes to the collective input. I've done this comparison myself today. People tend to see what they want to see, and no amount of clarification from myself or other members of ED will likely change anyone's assessment, but if someone is saying "Flight Model" to describe the SCAS/hold mode changes, that is like saying the F/A-18 flight model changed after an adjustment to the Autopilot.

Hello @nighteyes2017, this is not intended behavior and has been reported. Thanks.

I am not able to watch the track at the moment due to my computer being tied up with other processes. However, just to rule it out, did you have SEARCH mode enabled on the THREAT WARNING AUX panel?

The CPG's job is to target with the aircraft sensors, not to fly. The UI is designed with this in mind as a dedicated gunner. Having the sensor video on the helmet display allows them to do this more efficiently when it is desired to remain "heads-out" of the cockpit, versus constantly needing to look down at the TDU. Keep in mind that in real-life the CPG sees with both eyes, which is why a "blended" view is simulated. I suspect many players see the IHADSS in the AH-64 within the same context of the JHMCS in the F-16/F-18 or the HMCS in the A-10. This is not the case. Although the IHADSS shares many functional concepts for how it works to project information into the crewmembers' eyes, the IHADSS and JHMCS/HMCS are conceptually different. JHMCS/HMCS systems were follow-on upgrades to single-pilot, fixed-wing aircraft that augments their primary cockpit displays in such a way that allows them to remain focused outside the cockpit for a higher ratio of time compared to focused inside the cockpit. As such, these devices are intended to supplement their ability to perform targeting and weapons employment without impeding their ability to fly the aircraft. They primarily provide critical flight data so the pilot doesn't need to return their focus inside the cockpit or to the forward-facing HUD as often as necessary, but they are still only supplemental devices. The IHADSS in the AH-64 is a fully-integrated display and targeting system in much the same way as the F-35's helmet is an integral part of the cockpit. This is why neither aircraft have a fixed HUD mounted to the forward instrument panel. The difference of the IHADSS is it was designed from the start to be a key element of the AH-64's fire control system, not as an optional upgrade to augment existing systems. Further, as a two-person crew, each crewmember has a distinct role, in that the Pilot is shown Flight symbology (and night-flying sensor video when necessary) for the purposes of flying, and the Gunner is shown Weapons symbology and sensor targeting video when using the TADS as a sight.

The Auto-rudder option was listed on a pre-release FAQ post last year that has since been replaced by a proper roadmap thread. Please note that roadmaps are not an all-encompassing list of tasks for a DCS module's development, but rather a way to keep the community informed on the current state of development of the major features that are planned. For example, some of the items in the roadmap thread are the IDM or the Data Transfer Cartridge, but it doesn't list every single task that is being performed as part of these features. As far as I know, this feature is still planned; but I have no information regarding the timeline.

Please reference the FAQ thread here: As for your claims, they are incorrect. Neither Fixed rockets mode nor pilot HMD store existed until later avionics versions of the AH-64D.

You should see adjustments to the Collective channel soon.

Within the realm of rotary-winged aircraft, there isn't any real difference. A helicopter gunship is simply a nickname or synonym for an armed helicopter equipped for an attack role (ie, offensive weaponry, more than just defensive door guns). They aren't necessarily distinct terms, however "attack helicopter" is a more precise term to describe the doctrinal role that aircraft like the Mi-28 or AH-64 perform since there are also fixed-wing gunships like the AC-130, or multi-role helicopters that can perform attacks as a helicopter gunship like the UH-1 or Mi-8. Think of it like this: an AH-1 and a UH-1 armed with rocket pods/machine guns are both helicopter gunships. However, the AH-1 is an attack helicopter, but the UH-1 is not. So all attack helicopters are gunships, but not all gunships are attack helicopters. But even then, it is really arguing semantics. If a country purchases a helicopter from the civilian market and then equips them with weapons specifically to fulfill the attack helicopter role within their military, then those could be considered attack helicopters as well, even if they were intended for a civilian purpose. So if you want to drive down to the literal definition, a helicopter "gunship" describes a helicopter equipped for offensive attacks against enemy forces, but "attack helicopter" is a doctrinal role within a military that a helicopter could be assigned or originally designed to perform.

Just to prevent any misunderstanding as to the reason for my comments about what has or has not changed in DCS AH-64D, my intent was to keep everyone informed as to the nature of the development; what has occurred in the last several updates, and what has not occurred. My intent was not to directly refute anyone's experiences, but to keep everyone apprised of the steps that have been taken in the development process. I try to be as forthcoming as I can be regarding these things so that the community remains informed and aware of what is happening.

The only method that a target may be stored in the Pilot cockpit is to manually add it on the Point page using the ADD or STO functions. There is no HMD store capability in the avionics version being simulated in DCS AH-64D.

On the contrary, there were quite a few tweaks performed to the hold modes in the December patch which resulted in that bug to which you are referring. There were several items in that changelog that even mentioned it.

No changes have been made to the AH-64D flight model.

Have you tried the latest OpenBeta? Or are you on Stable?

This has been reported and fixed internally. But thank you for the report.