Raptor9

There are some specific inaccuracies with the flight model. Brad and I have never posted a full review of the flight model anywhere, but both of us have been discussing the accurate/inaccurate aspects of it since release in various threads on the forums. The silence isn't agreement that it is "100% done", but posting an entire review of it on here isn't going to fix the FM. We have however passed along our feedback and the team has been already working on it as previously mentioned in recent months. The lack of rolling motion isn't due to the number of rotors, it's due to the type of rotor system; and it should be due to a low-G condition. The Huey (and Cobra) have teetering semi-rigid rotor systems, which means that during an aggressive, low-G pitch down movement they can experience a rolling motion due to the nature of their rotor system design. But it's not because they only have two blades.

@PaulSummer, the Ka-50 has two separate navigation systems, the PVI-800 and the ABRIS. The PVI is the calculator-looking keypad on the right panel in front of your autopilot buttons. The LCD moving map display to the left of the PVI is the ABRIS. The PVI-800 is your integrated navigation system in that the autopilot, HSI, and weapon systems can use the points stored in its database for flight or targeting. The ABRIS is sort of like an after-market addition that can receive inputs into the display, but cannot send any outputs to the other aircraft systems, like a computer monitor. The PVI can only store 6 waypoints and 2 airfield points, all on the same flight plan, and only one flight plan can be stored. When you place a route in the mission editor, these points are automatically imported into your PVI in the following ways: - If the first point is a "Takeoff" point, that will be set as "Airfield 1". - The first 6 points that are not "Takeoff" points will be set as waypoints 1-6 in the PVI. - If the final waypoint is set as "Landing", that will be set as "Airfield 2". - If there are any points beyond the 6th non-"Takeoff" point that are not a "Landing" point, those points are not imported into the PVI. The ABRIS can display dozens of waypoints on multiple flight plans, but only one flight plan is automatically created from the route made in the mission editor. In this flight plan, it will mirror the same flight plan that is automatically imported into the PVI-800, but only up to the first 6 waypoints after takeoff. If you have 12 waypoints in the mission editor, the ABRIS will have the entire flight plan entered, but only the first 6 waypoints will be entered into the PVI. If you intend to change any waypoints on your flight plan while in the cockpit, you will need to edit the waypoint in both the PVI and the ABRIS if you want to them to match, but keep in mind the limitations of how many points the PVI can actually store when making a flight plan in the mission editor (or the cockpit). Alternatively, the PVI-800 can also store up to 10 target points as well, so you could put some of your additional points into those locations if you chose. However, these points cannot be added to the PVI's flight plan, nor will the autopilot fly to them in sequence when Route mode is engaged. The autopilot can fly to Target points in Route mode, but they will need to be manually selected as you arrive at each point successive point. I hope this answered your question on what is possible, depending on how you were trying to edit your flight plan.

As has been mentioned many times, the dev team is aware of these issues. These include the flight model, the SCAS logic, and the associated SAS Saturate tone. It's not for lack of information or feedback, it's a matter of implementing these things correctly, which is quite complex. I feel a lot of people think these things are vastly more simplified than they are in reality. But they are not simple at all. Believe me when I say that yes, we are aware of it, and yes it is being worked on. Beyond that, I don't know what else I can say regarding this matter. On the topic of the video itself, I want to clarify that pressing the force trim is not the same thing as disabling the FMC channels in the real aircraft. There is a lot of interwoven logic that occurs within the FMC regardless of whether the force trim is being pressed or not. I'm not sure if the author was referring to the real aircraft or not; I did want to clarify that specific point.

This is a true statement. From my understanding this is a legacy DCS inconsistency from over ten years ago when the only playable fixed-wing module (excluding the Flaming Cliffs aircraft) was the A-10C. In the late 2000's decade when this was initially being developed, SADL was fairly new and intended to be proliferated and utilized across a lot more platforms than just the A-10C, to include ground forces using EPLRS-based wireless networks. However, as things often go, plans and funding changed and SADL was never adopted by the Army. The JTRS (Joint Tactical Radio System) and related EPLRS aspects of the larger, overarching program became defunct and went by the wayside. There were even plans to fully integrate the AH-64D fleet into the EPLRS concept, but this didn't go very far. And honestly I don't know if even that would have allowed the AH-64D to talk to A-10C's over SADL anyway. There are so many aspects to such things, and very few things are compatible out of the box as you stated, because they rarely need to be. This isn't based on any inside knowledge at ED (I've only been working with ED a few months), but I've been playing DCS since 2009 so I would venture to guess that it was originally implemented based on where the SADL program was expected to end up in a few years when fully fielded, which of course didn't end up happening.

The development of the DCS AH-64D has never stopped since release in March, and will continue for quite some time. The module is in early access, and every major patch has included bug fixes for the AH-64D and some have included additional features. Early access will be a marathon, not a sprint, so patience will be required. New features are also in progress, such as the Image Auto Tracker, among others. The C-130, F-100, and the recently announced A-1 are all being developed by 3rd party teams, not Eagle Dynamics, and therefore have no impact on ED's projects such as the AH-64D. Further, ED has many teams with their own responsibities, so when the F-16 gets new features, this does not mean that the AH-64D is collecting dust. There are many, many parallel lines of effort happening within ED for various modules and the core DCS World software. But there are also many, many 3rd parties developing aircraft, maps and DLC campaigns for DCS as well.

If you go to the folder location: Users > [your user name] > Saved Games > DCS > Kneeboard > AH-64D_BLK_II and then place the image in there, you will have the file permanently available as a kneeboard page in the game. If the folder "AH-64D_BLK_II" doesn't exist, you can create one, but ensure it is named precisely as I've typed it. If you are playing on Open Beta, you will be going into the "DCS.openbeta" folder instead of simply "DCS". Even when an update or repair is performed, these kneeboard folders will remain untouched and you should always have them available.

I'm not a heavy forum reader by any means, I tend to stick to the projects that I have immediate concern with regarding my work; nor am I active in the discords anymore. However, I haven't seen anything to suggest members of ED have actively discouraged people from expressing their desire for modules to come sooner rather than later. From what I've seen (again, limited in scope), where such frustration comes to head is when individuals actively trash development teams with false claims or hyperbole when they don't get what they want, or when they want it. I've seen a few occasions in some 3rd party dev discords when individuals have tried to incite flame wars or make outright false claims about the 3rd party over delays of product releases or bug fixes. It's all about the nuance that I think is lost on some readers of the forums, discord or such. Moderators often make statements that are regarding specific behavior that is occurring in a thread by specific individuals, not general statements of how all users of the community should feel regarding unreleased products. When that excitement or innocent impatience turns to toxic hostility, businesses have the right to protect themselves (and other customers) against slander and harassment, which is why such rules on the forum and discord exist. Once a user crosses the line of respectful or innocent impatience to aggressive or disrespectful language, they are not only in violation of the forum/discord rules, they are violating the basic fundamentals of civility and public forum. I say this in response to the quote and others that are similar to it in the thread, not to reply to you specifically or to say that you are guilty of such behavior.

Not in the least. He was using simple deflection, which hardly equates to a solid point. People are free to express themselves however they want, within the bounds of civility; however such a rationalization of child-like behavior is quite silly.

I would hope that the DCS community at large has a much greater maturity level and understanding than a 5 year old. I get it's just an analogy, but the premise of that statement to prove a point is flawed. Nobody here should have the maturity of a 5 year old, nor is making a complex simulation of any aircraft for a consumer level video game something that can be completed in one afternoon (obviously).

Most of the current PERF page data is either placeholder values or works-in-progress (WIP). The PERF page is currently undergoing major development and will receive updates in the future. This should provide accurate calculations as to how your aircraft will perform under various conditions and gross weights, to include the MAX and PLAN modes to allow you to predict your performance at different pressure altitudes and air temperatures. This will especially prove useful when trying to determine how much weight (fuel and weapons) you can load given the environmental conditions that currently exist in the mission.

@FalcoGer, as has been mentioned already, the attitude is not necessary. Any proper bug reports that we can glean from the community are helpful, even if we don't always have the time or ability to document exactly where the bug sits in the resolution process. I will say this. If a person wants respect, they should give respect. I always try to be respectful in every response that I post here. Some of those responses may be direct in nature, but I do not go out of my way to blatantly disrespect or throw attitude at people repeatedly. Such behavior tends to be counter-productive to any discussion. The Golden Rule always applies, regardless of the medium of communication that is taking place.

@Nealius, I'm afraid I don't have any information in this regard. This is outside my particular purview. EDIT: I just saw that I had replied to this topic in 2021. I want to clarify that I made that post as a DCS player, before I came onboard as a member of the ED team; and I'm not involved with the development of the F-16 module.

First off, I want to stress this is not a hit on you or any other person that has experience with real-world helicopters or helicopter components, either as a pilot or as a maintainer. However, I want to respectfully identify the fact that flight experience in civilian helicopters or experience maintaining them does not necessarily translate into practical application of a military attack helicopter's flight controls or flight control computers. Especially one that is produced by an entirely different manufacturer. Yes, there are some control principles that are universal across most rotorcraft types and designs, but that is a limited resource. Second (and I say this as someone that has experienced both sides of the coin as both a maintainer and a pilot), simulating a helicopter is not just about re-creating an identical set of data points and numbers, it's also about replicating the "feel" of the aircraft, which is often difficult to translate into a simulation game that lacks the physical force feedback into the body, and deals with a wide variety of input devices and hardware support. To that end, the value of pilot input should not be underestimated in making the sim feel believable. It doesn't mean that they are the golden standard for what goes and what doesn't, because they are all human with subjective assessments. But between just two members of the SME team are a combined count of approximately 4,700 flight hours across multiple decades in just the AH-64 alone, with intimate knowledge of the control logic. Finally, the dev team does have members with extensive aeronautical expertise, and are still working to improve the behavior of the AH-64D. I know not everyone reads every individual thread regarding the flight model; I can assure you that the current behavior of the DCS: AH-64D is not finalized, and improvements are already showing in internal builds. However, I cannot provide timelines on when such fixes will make it into Open Beta. Having said all that, community feedback is still considered a valuable resource. If a need arises that the dev team feels your expertise and input could be useful in the product, we will certainly keep that in mind.

The Mi-8 and Mi-24 are both much heavier than the AH-64D; and can be anywhere between 30% to 50% heavier than the AH-64D depending on relative payload loading. Of course, the AH-64D is much closer in gross weight to those helos than compared to something like the Gazelle, but the AH-64D is also much more nimble than the Mi-8 and Mi-24, and was built more for low-speed handling versus sustained high speed flight like the Mi-24.

Well if you're comparing things like speed and acceleration like an F-16, then of course that analogy would seem silly since NO helicopter can accelerate like such fighter planes. But yes, from an agility point of view, absolutely. The amount of stress the airframe is designed to handle during aggressive maneuvers is analogous to a fighter jet. But agility isn't just about stopping on a dime. It's the fact that despite it's heavy weight it is still able to perform the maneuvers it can that makes the fighter plane analogy hold true. But again, it is just an analogy, and as such is subjective. A Cessna 172 is much lighter and has a much tighter turning radius than an F-16, but no one in their right mind would say the F-16 is less of a fighter plane than a Cessna 172.

No specific news at this time. Work is still ongoing to add new sections, as well as update existing sections with more content and more accurate information.

These can only be used if the Target List is displayed, which is only generated when you command George to search an area using Up-Short. Or to repeat that search using Down-Long, which will bring the Target List back up of the previously detected targets.

It's not. The DCS AH-64 should hopefully behave closer to a lightly-loaded DCS Ka-50 when it comes to roll stability. But that is just a very loose analogy, don't quote me on that.

Well it's also possible that some users may be new to DCS, or have just joined the forums, or haven't seen the other posts yet.

It's a command labeled "CHAFF/FLARE Dispense Button" found in the Left Console control group.

You must command George to perform a search for targets at your current helmet LOS using Up-Short. If he detects targets, he'll generate a Target List.

You're not really missing anything per se. The AH-64 is a high performance aircraft, so it handles like a fighter plane, but the flight model of the DCS: AH-64D is still Work-In-Progress, to include its overall stability. I know that a lot of you are probably tired of hearing me say that, but it really is the truth. I can assure you the devs have never stopped working on the flight model since even before initial release. The complexities of what they are doing cannot be overstated. I will tell you there is noticeable progress, but nothing quantifiable to share at the moment. But based on the quality of other helos in DCS like the Ka-50 and Mi-24, I'm not worried. We'll get there.

Thanks @AvroLanc, although most of the time I feel like a rhino in a china shop. EDIT: In the interest of specificity, the flash rate of the crosshairs when encountering the limits has also been adjusted as part of these fixes. The current flash rate of the HMD LOS crosshairs is too fast, and the fixes will change the "on/off" cycles to a more accurate flash sequence for both the HMD and TADS crosshairs. These small, however seemingly inconsequential, details are not being overlooked.

That particular entry was referring to the physical slew limit of the TADS itself, which was more restrictive than it should have been. However, the fix didn't make it into the patch so that entry looks to have been erroneously added into the changelog. The flashing crosshairs and the presence of the LIMITS message has been fixed internally, but these didn't make it into the patch either.

From where I sit (which isn't on the dev team, mind you), the risk of conducting an official poll or being too forthcoming with features or solutions that are well off from any sort of finalization, is that often these are then held against ED down the road. Kind of the whole "anything you say will be held against you" type situation. As a result, I myself am very careful with what I say at the risk that it will be misconstrued as an official position, a promise, or any other sort of guarantee to the community at large. So, again speaking for myself, it's not you @Floyd1212 or any other posters in this thread that I shy away from having dialogue with regarding the module. It's the occasional unbeknownst-to-us forum-goer (that may not even own the AH-64 module or even be an active DCS player) that may take anything that is said on these forums, and then link or screenshot these comments down the line and claim it as a broken promise or official announcement that never came to fruition. I would love to have more dialogue, because on DCS patch day I get just as amped up to see all the fixes and features. But before I click the Submit Reply button, it's always that gnawing question of "What if they screenshot this and show it 6 months down the road" that I have to ask myself. It's unfortunate, but it is the nature of the times we live in.