Raptor9

First of all, the bug that produced the appearance of the FCR not emitting from the radome has nothing to do with the TADS, with LINK, or anything else than what I specified. The information I provided in other threads regarding this issue came from the ED devs and my own testing using internal debug tools, not the Hoggit rumor mill. Second, the actual issue that was causing this effect was resolved months ago, so if there are still some individuals in the social media channels making these claims, I would wonder if they have even played DCS: AH-64D in several months, or if they are simply repeating things that someone else said to drive a narrative for whatever reason. The image below was just taken from the same DCS version that anyone in the DCS community can play and try out for themselves. Clearly the FCR can see the target while the TADS is still obscured by the ridgeline ahead. And as you can see, the FCR is performing a continuous scan to show that the target was just detected at the current altitude. To provide some context, if the FCR does not see enough of the target, it may not be able to determine whether it is a target of military interest or simply ground clutter, even if it does register the radar reflection from the vehicle. Case in point, in the images below (again, from the same DCS build that everyone else can play) you can see that the raw radar information displays a radar target out there as a bright white reflection, but it is only partially visible to the FCR. The TADS doesn't need to see the whole target to establish an image auto-track on it, but the FCR does not have enough information to determine what it is, so it rejects it as ground clutter. As opposed to a tracked target in the foreground of which it does see enough to classify. Finally, the aircraft altitude is increased until the FCR can gather enough radar information to determine what the target is. As you can see, there is no issue with how the FCR is behaving, there hasn't been for months, despite what people keep claiming. However, one must keep in mind some practical limitations of radar as a sensor. Just as a radar cannot determine whether a tank is operational or destroyed by a missile, the radar cannot classify a vehicle if it only sees a portion of the vehicle. Threads merged.

As explained multiple times elsewhere, there was a bug in the elevation control logic that was fixed over the summer. The FCR was never transmitting from anywhere but the radome. The problem is that when we have explained the issue in the past, a few select community members have deliberately promulgated false narratives, for whatever reason. And after we explained what the actual issue was, many choose not to believe us. Which is rather amusing, but it is still wrong and not based in facts. Please do not turn this into a "he said/she said on Hoggit" debate when ED staff, which know what actually is happening in the code, have already clarified, yet again, what the issue was. Especially since it was resolved months ago anyway.

The issues originally identified in this thread were included in the patch notes several updates prior. This thread is marked as "fixed" for this reason. We have no pending issues regarding datalink issues in multiplayer in general, meaning that if one player sends messages to another player, we have not reproduced any issues. There is always the possibility of high server loads causing data loss or de-sync; or missions that include custom scripts that may be causing issues. As for datalink issues with multi-crew, there are some reports that have already been reported that can be seen in AH-64D bugs section. When configured properly in multiplayer sessions that do not include custom scripts or mods, we have not experienced any issues in testing aside from a few reports regarding specifically multi-crew de-sync. If you receive a datalink message across an FM radio while both FM radios are tuned to the same frequency and both FM radios are set up to receive datalink traffic, the avionics will treat this as receiving two messages. If you disable datalink on one FM radio or tune the FM radios to different frequencies, this will not occur. Having said that, there is an internal report to address the FM radios being able to tune frequencies in 5 kHz (.005 MHz) increments. In reality, the FM radios can only be tuned in 25 KHz (.025 MHz) increments; so if the radio frequencies are close enough, the messages are bleeding through even though the frequencies are technically slightly different. If the frequencies on each FM radio are separated by 25 kHz, receiving two identical datalink messages from a single transmission will not occur. As for the NAK, we have not been able to replicate any issues with this either. However, it is worth noting that if any of the intended message recipients have their AUTO ACK on the MODEM page disabled, or any of the intended message recipients otherwise do not receive the message, a NAK notification will still occur. This will often occur if a message is transmitted to multiple recipients at low altitude. The more recipients you are trying to send a message to, the more chances it may not reach someone. Further, as a reminder, TEAM messages go out to all TEAM members in a network, so it is important to understand to whom a message is being sent on a given network, and who is selected as a TEAM or a PRI member. As the originally reported issues in this thread have been resolved, I am closing this thread. If anyone finds additional issues, as usual please start a new thread with a track file to avoid turning these bug report threads into perpetual "catch all" threads that will become confusing to track and understand.

Only FCR targets generated by the ownship's onboard FCR will be displayed on the FCR page. Any FCR targets received via the datalink will only be displayed on the TSD for orientation and situational awareness. FCR TGT Reports do indeed overwrite any existing FCR data in the receiving aircraft, but FCR targets received via an FCR TGT Report cannot be used in the same manner as FCR targets generated by the ownship's onboard FCR. FCR targets received through the datalink cannot be directly engaged unless they are received by an RFHO message. This is even specified during the video. Keep in mind that many of the feature preview videos that Wags releases may include small details that were identified as bugs after the video was produced and were subsequently corrected.

The FCR was never scanning from the TADS. This rumor has been addressed and debunked multiple times, even before the update this week.

This is not a bug. If neither the FCR or TGP are in a track mode, when the MARK page is initially displayed it defaults to HUD. When HUD is selected as the sensor option, the FCR will switch to AGR mode to provide accurate ranging to the HUD Mark Cue so the HUD markpoint method can be accurate. If you select FCR as the sensor, it will exit AGR back to GM. However, if you are already in GM, GMT, or SEA and have entered Fixed Target Track (FTT) or Moving Target Track (MTT) before you display the MARK DED page, the FCR sensor option will be automatically selected. Likewise, if the TGP is in POINT track before you display the MARK DED page, the TGP sensor option will be automatically selected. Please reference page 118 and the subsequent pages of the DCS F-16C Early Access Guide for this information.

Assuming the rotor system has a good track and balance, the AH-64D cockpit components rarely vibrate noticeably in flight unless passing through Transverse Flow Effect or performing aggressive maneuvers with an increased G-load.

I recommend reading the FAQ appendix in the Early Access Guide, specifically the question "Why does the horizon line in the IHADSS symbology not coincide with the real horizon?", and the corresponding hyperlink describing the IHADSS symbology as a whole, to understand the differences between a helmet-mounting cueing system in a jet versus the IHADSS in the AH-64. There are distinct differences in their purpose and how they are employed by the pilots, and viewing the IHADSS through the lens of a jet's HMCS is not an adequate comparison.

@GNCRamBo, the engine core (compressor and gas generator rotors aft of the combustor) mechanically drives the accessory section of the engine, which has all of the various other engine-driven components mounted to it such as the alternator, hydromechanical unit (the fuel control), IPS blower, fuel pump, oil pump, lubrication filters, etc. The PTO shaft is what mechanically transfers the engine power to the accessory section so all of the accessory components can function. The rotational speed of the engine, referred to as NG, is measured by the alternator itself, and the alternator provides backup power to the engine electronics so that the engine can still operate in case of a power failure of the aircraft electrical system. During the start sequence, the engine starter device known as the Air Turbine Starter (ATS) drives the accessory section which back-drives the engine core to spool the compressor during the engine start sequence. The ATS is powered by expelling high-pressure air across an impeller within the ATS itself, and this pneumatic pressure is normally provided by bleed air from the APU; but it can also be provided by bleed air from the opposite engine or from an external pneumatic power source. The engine is started by pneumatic air from the APU, the opposite engine, or an external air supply. It is not started by the PTO because the PTO is just an internal component of the engine that links one section of the engine to the other, much like how the central engine shaft links the compressor and the gas generator stages. If you do not have pneumatic air to spin the engine, the engine will not start.

@GNCRamBo, as Tholozor stated, the engine starters are pneumatically powered and can indeed be powered by external air supply. ChatGPT or similar AI aggregation programs should not be considered a reliable source for anything, as they are unable to ascertain what sources and information on the internet are accurate or not, and are prone to simply repeat rumors, misinformation, misconceptions, or folklore.

Hello @ETBSmorgan, the APG-78 FCR was not designed to engage maritime targets. However, the FCR can in fact detect them, but you will need to use RMAP mode to see the raw radar information as the FCR will not process "ship" targets. The AGM-114L can also detect and even track these targets, as shown in the images below, but you will need to use the TADS to provide the target location to the missile, rather than the FCR.

Keep this in mind, from the DCS AH-64D Early Access Guide.

Let's apply some critical thinking about this. In the video, whoever this gentlemen is and whoever is target audience is, he is clearly providing a very general "surface-level" overview about the nature of electronic warfare and some of its aspects such as ELINT/SIGINT, some examples of aircraft that have dedicated EW roles, and how aircraft use expendable countermeasures, radar warning devices, and jamming systems to protect themselves against air defenses. He claims that "RWRs work like this", which is very clearly a broad statement since many RWRs do NOT work like this. There are many different types of RWRs, and their functions vary greatly, as do their way of presenting threat information to the pilot; and in many of his slides both before and after the included timestamp he has a silhouette of an F-22 to demonstrate "how RWRs work". By this logic, if we are assuming he meant it literally that all RWRs work this way, then that means that he was also describing how it works on the F-22, given the nature of his presentation and how literally this video is being used to claim this is how it should be for the ALR-56M in the F-16C. This is not how all RWRs work, and a reasonable amount of research on the internet could find plenty of examples in the public realm of RWR devices that do not present indications of signal strength or estimated range to the pilot, and classify lethality of threats by only search/acquisition, track, and missile launch. This video could certainly be used as evidence to support the claim the ALR-56M should display threats based on signal strength or estimated range, but only if one were to apply the conclusion to all RWRs collectively and ignore all of the OTHER publicly available information out there that counters such a broad statement. It is very easy to steer a narrative in the interest of confirmation bias if one is only looking for information that supports one's own conclusions, rather than also looking for any information that counters it. But even this video only tangentially supports the narrative that the ALR-56M is not implemented correctly in DCS F-16C. We will base our work on facts and data rather than conjecture. Thank you.

The M136 AT4 is indeed an unguided munition, but they are referring to the 9K111 missile (NATO reporting name of AT-4), which is a guided anti-tank missile.

@BongPow3r, I just tried it myself and had no issues. If you continue to experience issues with ATC, please remove any and all mods, run a repair and try again. If there are still issues, please post a track file in the bug report section for our review. The SENS knob affects the voice sensitivity threshold at which the microphone will transmit across the intercom to the other crewmember when the ICS switch is set to VOX. It has no effect on radio transmissions.

@v2tec, as already answered to you twice before in the previous comments, there has never been such a capability on the US Army AH-64D. The ATA weapon controls and wingtip jettison buttons are growth options in case air-to-air weapons were ever integrated, but this never occurred and they were never functional.

The panels within some of the helicopters may have been rearranged over time or when the ARC-220 was added. But as I said, the ARC-220 is not a UHF radio nor did it replace the ARC-164. The ARC-210 has no bearing on this conversation. It was about the ARC-220, which cannot replace any VHF or UHF radio as the 220 cannot be used on those frequencies. The 220 is HF only and serves an entirely different purpose than any VHF or UHF radio. AH-64D's use the ARC-164 to this day, along with many other aircraft in the armed forces. As for the rest of your comments about years and timeframes, I don't understand your point. In response to your earlier statement about being surprised that an "old" radio could be integrated into digital avionics, I was providing some examples of the ARC-164 being integrated into digital avionics going back to the 1990's, and that it is not as uncommon as you might think. The only difference is the electrical controls to the radio "box" are sent from the avionics, rather than a physical radio switch or knob.

@Kev2go, the ARC-164 is a reliable radio that is still in service to this day across multiple branches of the armed services. Just because it is "old", does not mean it needs to be replaced. If it isn't broke, don't fix it, and reliability and maintainability sometimes outweighs sophistication. The ARC-220 did not replace any ARC-164 radios. The 220 is an HF radio intended for non-LOS/over-the-horizon communications. It's not a UHF radio nor does it operate anywhere close to the same frequencies. These types of radios have been integrated into the digital controls of many different aircraft for decades. The F-16C and AH-64D also include the ARC-164 as their UHF radio, which are integrated into their digital avionics. Like the CH-47F, the ARC-164 is only accessible through the AH-64D avionics and does not include a physical control panel. The F-16C does include a backup control panel for it in the cockpit, but the radio is otherwise controlled through the upfront controls like the AH-64D.

No updates to the flight model or hold modes have occurred.

All of the CH-47F communications are fully integrated into the avionics, and controlled through the CDUs and MFDs. The single radio control panel on the center console is a backup control head that allows the crew to control the ARC-186 VHF radio if there is some sort of failure in which the CDUs and MFDs are not functional. When the ARC-164 UHF radio was added, its functionality was added to the avionics (referred to as U2, since it is the 2nd radio in the stack), but there is no physical radio control panel for it. You can interact with it through the CDU by pressing the CNI button, and cycle through the various radios on the main MFD using the Radio Freq switch Left/Right on the Thrust Control grip.

Please post UH-1 bug reports in the UH-1 forum section. Thanks. As this issue has been confirmed to be resolved, closing the thread to avoid confusion.

It was another ED employee in a multiplayer session helping record the videos is all. It wasn't a voice-activated AI wingman.

They do indeed remove rain from the windshields in the AH-64D and Mi-24P. The windshield wipers themselves don't appear to be implemented yet in the CH-47F. EDIT: And of course the next logical question being What about the other DCS helicopters?, there are reports for adding similar visual wiper effects to the others (Ka-50, Mi-8, and UH-1). In fact, BigNewy inquired about this on users' behalf just a few days ago, so it is certainly on the radar.

This was already included in the update released on August 9. The thread is tagged as "fixed" as well. If you have encountered a new bug with regard to datalink, please submit a new bug report with a short track demonstrating the problem.