Raptor9

I'm afraid I don't have any information on that. If that is what you want to do, you will need to have your friend join first if he intends to be in the pilot seat, as has been the case previously.

This is a temporary implementation as George AI is improved. For him to be able to search based off where you are looking, you will need to be set to TADS for the time being. In reality, the Pilot's ACQ selection has no bearing on the CPG being able to slave the TADS to the Pilot's Helmet (PHS). So this will be corrected in the future; but again, just temporary.

You can now change seats in multiplayer (as in an online multiplayer server), but not multicrew. If you are flying alone, you can swap seats with the AI, George. But if a second person joins that aircraft, the original person will be moved to the Pilot seat and seat swapping cannot occur.

The only steps required to arm the chaff for dispensing is 1) Be airborne 2) Set Chaff to ARM on the ASE page. The Armament panel SAFE/ARM and CMWS controls have no effect on the chaff. The only control outside the ASE page that affects chaff is the GND ORIDE, if you want to arm the chaff on the ground. But keep in mind that if you land or turn the GND ORIDE off while on the ground, the chaff will automatically safe itself, in the same manner that the weapons will be Safed and automatically de-actioned under the same condtions.

@TBone, excellent summary. I say "summary" because you managed to capture a lot of the most important points about operating helicopters over the battlefield on one page, which is not easy. In response to your final paragraph, all I will say is that despite the differences in airframe, the overall concept remains the same. The difference being that all the new fancy bells and whistles in the AH-64D and OH-58D just enhance the principles and fighting mentality you described. The sensors and large amounts of data provide the aircrew with more options or potential solutions for how to perform their tasks, but if the underlying principles aren't there all the technology in the world won't really help much. The gray matter behind the IHADSS monocle is what really matters. Thanks for this post. EDIT: I'll have to look into the extra flares capability. That should no longer be possible. Should only be possible to load 60 flares and 30 chaff, with no interchangeability.

A-models were indeed faster, but they had less drag and weighed less. If you load down an airplane with additional weight, it needs to increase it's angle-of-attack at a given airspeed to produce more lift to counter the additional weight. As a result, the higher AoA increases drag, requiring more thrust to maintain the same airspeed and lowering the overall top speed in level flight accordingly. Helicopters must also increase their angle-of-attack, using collective, to maintain level flight at a given speed at higher gross weights. This increases drag on the rotor system and reduces performance if more engine power and rotor lift is being used to maintain altitude instead of propulsion. (Mi-24 is able to offset this with substantial lift production from the wings, retaining more rotor power for propulsion in forward flight) So with the additional drag from the larger fuselage profile (even without the FCR installed) along with the increase in gross weight, the AH-64D is slightly slower than earlier A-models. More engine/rotor power must be utilized for lift versus propulsion, and the increase in frontal drag further impacts the speed as well; although not to the same magnitude as the increase in gross weight. In any case, the addition of the FCR has additional drag and weight impacts, as does going out with a full load of fuel and weapons. It's no different than trying to takeoff in an A-10 loaded like a B-52; reaching 200 knots and 5,000 feet will take an eternity, and your turning radius and maneuverability will be horrendous. Just because you can physically carry all of that, doesn't mean it is tactically sound to do so if you can't maneuver as needed.

The Anti-Ice and Ice Detection systems will be developed later in Early Access. Any indication you see now is just a placeholder.

It's not related to tail rotor VRS. It's simply a balance of forces. Expect the flight model to evolve throughout Early Access.

Yes, sometimes things are missed in the patch notes. It happens, and the question was answered.

The AH-64 is a helicopter; as such it is held in the air via a balance of opposing forces. As each of these forces are changed, the remainder must be adjusted to maintain that balance. Unlike a plane in which one input can be made with minimal to no impact on the other flight control inputs. What you are seeing is the onset of translating tendency and the thrust of the tail rotor, both inducing a rolling of the fuselage to the right around the pivot point of the landing gear contact with the ground. When you lift off without adjusting the flight controls to compensate for these forces, you will get the behavior you see.

The right external tanks feed the aft main fuel tank, which has a larger capacity than the forward main fuel tank fed by the left external tanks.

@FalcoGer, I know all too well the effects of weapons in real life, and I do not take such things lightly. However, graphic images and videos of real people being shot, killed or maimed is not appropriate for these forums, regardless of whether anyone complains about it. This is not up for debate, nor is it the topic of this thread.

When the SME team (myself included) were evaluating the flight model, the neutral pitch position of the tail rotor was always biased to the right of the yaw axis center. I remember visually confirming this myself while sitting on the ground on the APU and looking at the external view. But I believe with the adjustments to the flight model, the tail rotor thrust was adjusted, which reduced the amount of play in the pedals to achieve the same anti-torque force, and also affected the slight right lean on the ground with the yaw axis at 0. I'm not 100% sure of that, because there are a lot of factors and variables that are in play regarding the flight model and SCAS system, but that is my assessment of why it's more noticeable now when the trim is reset to 0 in the yaw axis.

Yes. Thanks for that additional information.

@bradmick is also a major flight sim player as well, and is a wizard at rotorcraft aerodynamics. I've been playing flight sims since the late 80's (5.25" floppy disks), and have also experienced precisely what you are saying regarding the differences between a real aircraft and it's professional simulator counterpart. Raw numbers aren't the whole story when it comes to simulation. Even the background sounds can make a difference in replicating how the aircraft feels in flight. Multi-sensory perception is important, so when you take away the "seat-of-the-pants" feeling (proprioceptive inputs, for you nerds), there is often a need to supplement the remainder of sensory inputs with something else. And what that solution ends up being can be a hard nut to crack, and may be different for any given simulator or game depending on the "feel" of it all.

Hi Varry007, the previous behavior was a bug, the current behavior is correct. The only time laser ranging should be shown in the Pilot's symbology is when both crewmember's are in COOP rocket mode, in which case whatever the range source of the CPG will be repeated in the pilot symbology. If you desire to view the range of a target when George is lasing, you will need to bring up his TADS video on one of your MPDs as you stated.

Reproduced and reported. Thanks.

Just to make sure I understand the precise conditions this occurs. If a single human is in multiplayer, but flying alone in either seat, the symbology select works as it should. But as soon as a second human joins in multiplayer, that's when it doesn't work correctly any more? And does it work incorrectly for both human players after the second human joins, or just one crewstation?

If you are loading external fuel tanks to only the outer pylons, the fuel cannot pump to the internal fuel tanks. The outboard external fuel tanks feed the inboard external fuel tanks, which in turn feed the internal fuel tanks. The only time outboard external tanks should be used is if you need more fuel than what the inboard external fuel tanks can provide, since they require the presence of inboard external fuel tanks to function properly.

It is not. As I said above, the two threads that were merged were regarding the removal of control bindings within the options menu, not multiplayer behavior. The person that posted those tracks did so of their own accord to one of these threads when the original topic was regarding something else entirely, and therefore when the entire threads were merged, his got moved with it. Portions of threads cannot be merged independently of each other, because that is how the forums work. When people add information to a bug report thread that is not relevant to that issue, that is out of our control. Since the original questions regarding the keybinds being deleted after the last update has been answered, I'm locking this thread for now to avoid any further confusion that may be caused. If someone would like to start a new thread regarding a different issue, we welcome the feedback for tracking purposes. Thank you.

There were two threads regarding the the keybinds themselves being removed. These were merged together. The tracks regarding a different bug were added to one of those threads, but the original thread topics were regarding the bindings being removed. This is why different bugs need different threads. When people add information regarding different behaviors, it can be confusing.

You misunderstand, the term "relative wind" means relative airflow direction, regardless of environmental winds or aircraft movement. Any aircraft moves through an airmass, therefore it makes no difference if the airflow is caused by aircraft movement or air movement, because the resultant airflow across a surface is the same.

Keep in mind that Swift's claims about the control system are assumptions, nothing more, despite stating them as if they were facts. Not everything in the code is open to users to view or edit.

I suspect that it is a combination of factors, with the biggest one I am willing to bet is understanding the force trim system. If the stickied Force Trim thread (31 pages) is any indication, the force trim concept seems to be a misunderstood item for some coming from DCS fixed wing modules and making their initial entry into DCS helos. Even with those that have experience with other DCS helos, the interactions and behaviors with the AH-64 force trim system is markedly different than other helos in DCS. Not to say that it stands by itself; because each helo has a slightly different control system. The Mi-8 control system is different from the Mi-24's, which are both different from the Ka-50, etc. So when people try to carry over their expectations of how it should feel from other helos, some misunderstandings can occur even within experienced players of DCS helicopters. There are some analogies that can be made for ease of explanations. I myself have made a lot of them in the past between the AH-64 and the Ka-50. Not because they behave the same as a whole, but certain aspects of the control systems do. The thing about the force trim in the AH-64, is that the interaction with it not only affects the cyclic and pedals, but also the various layers of FMC/SCAS logic which are further dependent on things such as ground speed, altitude or which sub-mode the hold modes are operating within or whether they are even engaged. The Ka-50 also has many layers of logic/complexity within it's PNK-800 control system, and for years following the release of DCS Black Shark there are still users that post questions to the forum asking for assistance in understanding it. So the DCS: AH-64D is not unique in this regard. It will take time to learn, especially as the flight controls are refined and improved throughout the early access period. But people need to understand that US Army aviators will receive around 5 months of helicopter flight training before even touching an AH-64, and then go through another 5 to 6 months in learning the AH-64. It's not something you can just pick up and master in a short time span. Granted, there is some more, better documentation that could be added into the flight maneuvers section of the manual, but this will need to happen over time as well since the manual writer is hard at work updating the F-16 manual for the time being.

Yes, the FMC Collective channel is probably what still needs the most work within the SCAS logic. Are you referring to with or without the Attitude Hold engaged? Because right now the heading hold seems very close with Attitude Hold engaged, but the breakout value seems to not be where it should be with it engaged. But I haven't done in-depth tests with the latest build in this regard, I've been occupied with other items. I've never used it, nor do I intend to. There are a lot more factors in play under the hood that needs to be worked on and tweaked any time the flight model is adjusted, so in my personal opinion it is not worth my time to provide feedback on a set of adjustments that don't adequately capture the entire gambit of physical factors in play or would be inserted into the game. I'm not making any judgements on it, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be an efficient use of my time or an effective feedback mechanism for the devs. The aggressiveness of any given SCAS channel under various conditions of attitude, airspeed, power applied, and hold sub-mode of course will be an ongoing thing as needed.