Raptor9

The anti-icing system is not implemented yet, and the indications are just a placeholder for now.

There's not really a "preferred method", it depends on the specific situation and what is necessary. If you are trying to maintain the flight direction but rotate (yaw) the fuselage into the flight direction, simply apply a little pedal in that direction and let the weathervane effects of the airflow on the vertical tail spin you into forward flight, but you will need to counter it as the aircraft starts to spin, especially if spinning to the right with the torque. If you are trying to change direction, it is probably easier to just bank in the opposite direction of the lateral flight direction to slow your lateral flight and then change the flight direction. A combination of both of these can be performed, just as with any complex maneuver that is flown in multiple dimensions of attitude and linear translation, but it comes down to understanding how to maneuver the aircraft as a whole. There isn't a written procedure for every complex maneuver that can be performed.

Keep in mind the AH-64D is limited to 45 knots airspeed when performing sideways and backwards flight. It's not meant to perform high-speed flight in any direction except forward; so if you do, you're actually exceeding the flight envelope and loss of control may result. Remember the TADS and the gun have a wide range of travel, so the tactical application of sideways, high-speed flight isn't necessary like the Ka-50. This isn't stated anywhere in the DCS: AH-64D manual (I don't think), but I'm sure it will be in the future.

There is no unitary time when a military aircraft is Armed for munitions release. It depends heavily on the tactical situation, the mission, and may even come down to individual unit-dictated procedures or aircrew preference. Like so many aspects of military operations and procedures, it is always "it depends."

I forgot to mention that once the main engine is started, the hydraulic accumulators are re-charged (which is important because my understanding is these also power the brakes), so if you shut down the engine following a full and successful engine start, you can still re-start it; even if you used Start 2.

The Jet Fuel Starter (JFS) is a small turbine engine that spools up the main F110 engine. Hydraulic pressure is routed through a hydraulic starter motor on the Jet Fuel Starter to get the JFS spooled up to speed, which in turn spools the main engine for the start sequence. The hydraulic pressure for starting the JFS is stored in a pair of hydraulic accumulators. When you press the switch to Start 1, you are using one of the accumulators to dump the contained hydraulic pressure into the JFS hydraulic starter to start it. If you use the Start 2 position, you are dumping both of the accumulators to start the JFS. The difference being, if the start sequence fails or is aborted for some reason, you will have the second accumulator to attempt a second start if you use Start 1. If you use Start 2, in theory you only have one attempt to start. Given these facts, as for why you would use Start 2, I'm sure there is a reason. I would imagine it would be determined on the environmental factors or maybe the type of fuel being used, but I don't have any real-world F-16 experience.

Just to be clear, that was not an official "ED statement" as too whether or not the effect is correct or not. That was me (as someone with real-world helicopter experience), responding to Volk's comment in clarifying that Transverse Flow Effect, rather than Effective Translational Lift, is the aerodynamic effect that generates a shudder effect in rotorcraft at lower airspeeds. I am not on the Black Shark dev team, or any dev team actually, nor have I ever flown a real Ka-50. I was simply provided aerodynamic context, so please don't misconstrue or use my comments as official statements regarding the DCS Black Shark.

Yeah, it certainly gives the player a little more control of precisely when to lase, which can be very useful for all sorts of situations. When it comes down to it, there really isn't much physical difference between pressing a button to tell George to fire a missile or pulling the trigger yourself. But in my opinion, there is a subtle but very distinct difference between the two, even in a simulation game. It gives the player a sense of ownership of that weapon, which (in my personal opinion) is somewhat lost when you are asking an AI crewmember to do it for you.

As of the most recent Open Beta patch, this is no longer necessary. There is a 4th AI weapon assignment now in the AI Interface: "NO WPN", and when set to this George CPG will de-action all weapons. If he is tracking a target, you can use AI Interface command Right-Short, which will toggle between commanding him to designate the target with his LRFD or stop designating. This allows you to direct him to simply lase for your missiles without going through the "trickery" as before. You won't get the correct time-of-flight countdowns since you can't use the laser as a range source in the backseat (except for COOP rockets), but it gives the player more direct control over missile shots.

Yes, this is intentional. The two flare dispensers that are mid-ways down the tail boom are only ever loaded with flares, and the chaff dispenser at the base of the vertical tail is only ever loaded with chaff. These are never used to mix quantities other than the standard 60 flares and 30 chaff. Further, an aircraft would never be loaded with partial quantities of expendable countermeasures in any of the dispensers, certainly not for weight reduction (which would be negligible anyway).

There was nothing in that video that is attributable to the flight model of DCS: AH-64D. If I were to perform the exact same actions and control inputs in the real AH-64D that I observed in the video 10 posts above mine at the top of the page, I would expect the same behavior. As @bradmick stated, it seems to be a matter of false expectations of how helicopters function.

The ADF is intended for radio navigation under low-visibility conditions (ie, adverse weather) using Non-Directional Beacons (NDB). These NDB navaids transmit in the 100-2199.5 kHz range, AM only. The concept of using ADF to locate troops is mostly a DCS thing (just like having rescue helicopters permanently hover next to aircraft carriers) and isn't grounded in reality. Using such methods to coordinate aerial fires or close air support is not only inefficient, it is also dangerous for both friendly forces as well as the aircrews. Not saying it is forbidden to incorporate such scenarios in a DCS mission, since mission designers are free to design missions however they choose, of course. But that is why it is not possible to use ADF for frequencies or modulations outside of those necessary for NDB navaids in the AH-64D, nor is it used for the purposes of close air support in modern fixed wing aircraft.

And to reiterate, this is what I said: The underlined portions are what drove my very first reply in this thread about the automated nature of the EGI not including an option for the aircrew to do a fix whenever they want, and the reason it isn't in the manual is because it isn't implemented yet. This discussion is going far beyond the scope of what the intent was behind my first response. You guys are reading too much into what I am saying.

If you are referring to the "Unrestricted SATNAV" option, that simply allows GNSS-capable aircraft on the Red coalition to use the GPS satellite network. If this option is enforced as unavailable in a mission, and you put an AH-64D, F-16, or A-10 on the Red side, they will not have access to GPS signals. If you place an aircraft on Blue side, they'll always have GPS access unless you move the date to the early 1980's or prior (I don't remember the date threshold in DCS). This is turning into a discussion on the discussion, and it needn't be. If you re-read what my initial comments were, all I stated in response to the OP was that when the EGI is fully implemented (if it is implemented to be accurate to real-life), the task of needing to update the AH-64D's EGI would not be necessary due to its automated and integrated nature; even though there is a procedure, you shouldn't need it or even get an option for it. However, yes, if the mission editor date is set to a year prior to GPS existing, or the AH-64D's were given to the Red coalition and GPS was restricted from the Red coalition in the mission editor, then sure, you could say that there is a "GPS denied environment". I never said anything to the contrary; I was providing real-world context to the OP's question as to why there isn't an option in the AH-64D to perform INS position fixes by aircrew demand.

I wasn't directing my previous statement at anything you said; I already replied that if you set the mission editor to a date prior to GPS existing, then yes, of course the GPS data would not be available. However, the point is, that if people are expecting to perform alignments or occassional nav fixes in the DCS AH-64D after the EGI behavior is finalized, they shouldn't. As I originally stated, the system is automated so that crews rarely need to interact with it. They literally just verify it has finished aligning before taking off. No updating, no initiating an alignment; except for the occassional malfunction, which is rare but possible with anything in real life. There were comparisons made to various other DCS aircraft, some of which do not have EGIs, which is what my previous statement was addressing. The topic of GPS jamming was also brought up, but seeing as how GPS jamming doesn't exist in DCS, that falls into the "what if" category as I also stated, just as the case of using an AH-64D at a date prior to GPS existing. And before anyone tries to sharpshoot this statement. Yes, I am well aware of the possible future real-life scenarios in which adversaries could use GPS denial systems. However, I am not going to engage in discussions on how those types of scenarios will impact AH-64 functions or how they would be countered, because 1) such conversations fall into the sensitive topic category, and 2) it isn't relevant for DCS anyway.

It seems that you all are mixing a lot of different types of nav systems in here and expecting them all to behave the same. (And I mean that in a very generic sense) Different nav systems experience different types of drift. For example, some aircraft that have been named here incorporate EGI (like the AH-64D or A-10C), others incorporate INS with various outside inputs (one of which may be GPS augmentation). There is a difference, depending on how each specific navigation system processes external inputs through various algorithms and filters, and which inputs are designed into that aircraft. Having said that, I don't know which DCS aircraft have INS drift modeled vs not. But just because an aircraft INS doesn't drift in DCS doesn't mean that it isn't properly modeled.

Yes, of course...but again, this falls into the "what if" category. My statement of the EGI's being highly automated and rarely needing crew interaction was regarding their use in real-life.

Yes it is, and it's called binocular rivalry. In those cases, sometimes you just gotta close the left eye for a few moments like you and @sirrah stated.

Sure, but that would fall into the "what if" category. GPS has existed for the entirety of the AH-64D's existence. If you move the date to pre-GPS timeframe, you're simulating a time when AH-64Ds and EGIs themselves didn't even exist yet.

The EGI behavior is still WIP, and the update procedure is not implemented at this time. Having said that, the EGI in the AH-64D is highly automated so that it is rare the crew ever needs to interact with it.

The most important reason to carry NVG's at night is in case the PNVS (or TADS) fails or is shot off. This way the NVG's are used to recover the aircraft back to the home base or FARP. Another reason (as Swift suggested) is to cover more portions of the spectrum, specifically to see IR pointers and strobes, but that is more for the CPG since the CPG is the one coordinating with ground forces, and is more of a COIN type thing. When you aren't working in close proximty to ground forces, I personally dislike NVGs because 1) it's not integrated into the other sensors and weapons, 2) it can't zoom in like the TADS, 3) it is subject to illumination limitations like light pollution and moonless/overcast nights, and 4) it forces me to drive up my cockpit display brightness. With PNVS or TADS over only one eye, I can eventually get my cockpit so dark that my left eye is extremely night adapted while my right is not. It can be a distraction for the pilot when the CPG has the front cockpit turned up too high. And as @Floyd1212suggested, it helps to have an unobstructed view through the cockpit with PNVS when flying in the trees. The NVGs provide binocular vision, so they have an advantage of better depth perception. But the difference in depth perception is only really significant at close range anyway, like during low altitudes near terrain. But even so, there are things called monocular cues that aid in depth perception, you just learn to apply them a lot more with NVS versus NVGs. Overall, the advantages of NVS outweigh those of NVGs in my opinion, but like so many other things, you use the appropriate tool for the situation. The trick is to learn what the pros and cons are to each tool so you can identify which tool is needed at any given time.

Technically, the low-speed shudder isn't caused by ETL (Effective Translational Lift), it's caused by TFE (Transverse Flow Effect). It is a common misconception, reinforced by the phrase "ETL shudder" that is often used when discussing the phenomenon. Not going to go into either of these effects (ETL, TFE) since they can just as easily be googled to read all about them in detail, but the shudder itself is caused by a difference in induced drag between the front and rear portions of the rotor disc. What causes many people to confuse the source of the shudder is because the airspeed regions at which each aerodynamic effect occurs overlap with each other, which is what reinforces the misconception that the shudder is being caused by ETL (since it occurs at the same time), but is actually a result of TFE. The shudder occurs at a much higher airspeed in the DCS Ka-50 than what would happen in say a UH-1 or AH-64 for instance (by the time a UH-1 or AH-64 reach 50 kmh they are already well through TFE), but that may be due to the fact that the Ka-50 is a coaxial rotor system and the upper rotor system is causing induced drag on the aft portion of the lower rotor system, causing the lower rotor system to experience TFE for an extended period during an acceleration. I'm not an expert on coaxial rotor systems, just making an estimated guess.

This comment got me curious, so I did some testing to see if I could replicate. I've been flying the Ka-50 since 2009 when it initially released, and I never touched the Heading Data selector switch myself since I'm fairly certain it was never modeled. I flew on the Stable 2.7 and then flew on the Open Beta 2.8, and in both cases the switch defaults to the up position, which selects Magnetic Heading. For those curious why heading data derived from a gyrocompass is more desirable and accurate than a magnetic compass, you can watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvhooB--P2s. But in a nutshell, acceleration forces affect magnetic compasses in such a way that they will temporarily drift under certain conditions of changes in speed and banking turns (all of which incur acceleration forces on the aircraft). The amount that they will drift is subject to the latitude of your location, the current heading orientation of your aircraft, and the magnitude of your maneuver; and the direction they will drift is determined by the hemisphere (north vs south) within which you are flying. It appears that this switch functionality does indeed matter now in 2.8, and you will want to set it to the middle position (Gyrocompass) for precise and reliable heading data. I test flew the Ka-50 in Caucasus, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Normandy, and the Marianas. In the cases of Caucasus, Nevada, Syria, and Normandy, the heading drift was quite noticeable with the switch set to the top (Magnetic Heading) position, but rock solid when set to the middle (Gyrocompass) position. There was a little drift in Persian Gulf, and practically none in Marianas; but while the other maps were higher in latitude, the Persian Gulf was probably a result of it's lower latitude, and even more so in the case of Marianas, which is fairly close to the magnetic equator. (You can even compare the heading tape in the HUD to the backup magnetic compass in the center of the overhead panel) In two of the instances, upon immediate loading, the magnetic drift didn't occur until I moved the switch to the middle (Gyrocompass) position and then back to the top (Magnetic Compass). I'm not speaking for the Ka-50 devs, since it is the weekend and they are part of a different team, but I personally suspect this feature is still work-in-progress; the bottom line is that placing this switch to the middle position to enable the Gyrocompass to drive your heading data will result in the best heading accuracy and reliability.

This has already been reported and is still WIP.

I always return to the analogy of an attack helicopter as an infantryman or a sniper to explain the concept. As such, if you are in a firefight, you only hold still if you are in a secure position behind cover; you would never just stand still if you were out in the open with a risk of getting shot. The same thing applies to helicopters over the battlefield. Likewise, you never want to get into a close-range fight with armor forces, even if they don't have air defenses protecting them. It would be like clearing rooms inside a building with a sniper rifle. If you can snipe from a distance outside the range of everyone's pistols and short-range SMGs, that is always preferable. It makes no sense to turn it into a fair fight. Fair fights are for movies and 19th century duels. Anyone that has played first-person shooter games knows what I'm talking about. Now just apply that methodology to helicopters.