Raptor9

I'm afraid I don't have any information to share in that regard.

Actually, this functionality already exists if the mission maker wishes to prevent the unit from auto-populating. However, this will also prevent air defense units from auto-populating in other aircraft such as the F-16's HSD page or the F/A-18's SA page. This understandably can create a dilemma for online multiplayer servers that support multiple aircraft types.

Thank you for those suggestions @NeedzWD40.

I play DCS often. So if something bothers you, it's probably bothering others, including me and other members of ED. If it matters to you, it matters to us as well. But I also see how much work the devs put into the product every day, and it really drives home the phrase of "battle of priorities vs time/resources". As such, I've gained an appreciation of priorities. We'll get there.

Personally, I'm a little disheartened at the mood of this thread. Although I do understand where the stance regarding auto-population of these points comes from, the generalizations being made in this thread that ED doesn't take feedback regarding gameplay issues is hyperbole. I understand it is born of frustration, but I don't understand this "us versus them" attitude. I say this as someone that has been a player of DCS for well over a decade, and community interaction to make the product better is something that I think is very important. But when it delves into resigned and sullen threads like this, it's just disappointing. Addressing the topic of this thread, this is being taken seriously and discussed internally. Despite that any solution rarely makes everyone completely happy, we are looking into potential courses of action to address this. Regarding some of the more specific comments in this thread, Target Points (TG) do in fact have threat rings displayed on them, of which the default radius is 3 km, so this is accurate to the real aircraft. The reason being that if you get within 3 km of a heavy armor or mechanized unit on the battlefield, they will no longer need to rely on their attached air defenses to protect them since every tank or IFV will be able to engage your helicopter with their organic weapon systems. Having said that, there is a bug (last time I tested it at least), in that enabling THREATS (R5) also enables the threat rings around Target points and Terrain points. In reality the rings should only be displayed around Terrain points if TRN PT (R3) is enabled and only displayed around Target points if TARGETS (R6) is enabled. So there is a way to display threat rings around air defense Threat points independently of Target points or Terrain points, but it isn't working correctly at the moment. I don't have a timeline on when this will be corrected (priorities vs time/resources and all), but that is how it should work when all is said and done; so you should be able to avoid a cluster of several tightly-packed 3 km rings when you start lasing and storing targets "out there" with the TADS. Resolved in subsequent updates.

These issues have been acknowledged in previous threads, and unfortunately I cannot provide any details as to when they will be resolved. I have brought up the issue of the long Saturation tone to the team in particular as that can obviously interfere with other audio happening during the mission, whether it be radios or RWR alerts. This is among a number of behaviors that is already being worked on by the dev team regarding the flight model. Since it all intertwines with one another (flight controls, Flight Management Computer, the rotor aerodynamics) this is a very complex task that the team has been working on for some time. As a DCS player myself, I eagerly anticipate these fixes right along with you. However, we need to be patient, as hard as that can be sometimes.

Because the AH-64 was originally designed to stop waves of tanks rolling across Europe, and to utilize stand-off outside the range of large caliber tank guns, ATGMs, and short-range air defenses like the ZSU-23-4. These longer stand-off ranges were intended to be the normal engagement method, whereas close-in engagements using the HMD were not, which are primarily defensive in nature. Not all rocket shots, especially during long-range engagements, are within the pylon articulation range to achieve the ballistic angle the rocket needs. This requires the pilot also adjust the aircraft pitch angle momentarily to achieve this alignment. Helicopters maintain their airspeed by maintaining their pitch attitude. This pitch attitude is not absolute for any given airspeed, based on environmental conditions such as winds, or power required to maintain flight. If the aircrew needs to maintain a specific airspeed range (either above a minimum or below a maximum), being able to de-couple the pitch attitude of the aircraft from the pitch attitude of the weapon systems is an advantage. This is why the pylons articulate. But again, the aircrew may not always be able to achieve the required rocket pod elevation through pylon articulation alone, which is why the Rocket Steering Cursor is in two dimensions, not just yaw. And the Rocket Steering Cursor is more sensitive than a 1-to-1 rotational movement, but this aspect in the DCS: AH-64D is still a WIP.

From the FAQ section of the manual:

When's the re-test? I hope this doesn't affect your final grade. [Runs out the door, ducking tomatoes being flung in his direction]

This is not true. AH-64 variants to this day behave the same way, in that if you manually type in a frequency to tune into the Keyboard Unit, or use the EUFD Preset button to select a frequency, it will place it into the Primary slot, and move the existing frequency from the Primary to the Standby. This has never changed. However, when tuning a Preset via the COM page, you do get the option to tune that frequency into the Primary slot as usual, or place it in the Standby slot. This includes the version that the DCS: AH-64D is simulating, but the COM page Preset format hasn't been implemented at this time to permit this option. In the civilian aviation realm, yes. There is no ubiquitous, proper, or "sane" strategies when it comes to aviation avionics or equipment, because aircraft are designed to operate in different environments and conduct different missions. The AH-64 avionics are designed differently due to the environment it is expected to operate in, which is a different world than civilian airspace. In fact, everything in the AH-64 avionics is designed with very specific reasons in mind. The idea is that if you need to rapidly push to another frequency in a hurry, it's going to put that into your primary frequency so you can talk immediately. But you may need to swap back to your previous frequency just as hastily, so that is pushed into standby. So it functions on the principle of the most recent frequencies demanded by the crew in a combat situation, rather than the "mainstream" process of placing the next expected frequency into standby for what has been planned on the next leg of a flight plan (as an example). The AH-64D avionics and human interface are solely designed around functioning as an airborne weapons platform, which is why it breaks from a lot of so-called "standard" aviation conventions for the necessities of combat situations it is expected to be in. As mentioned prior, with the Presets you will be able to tune a frequency into the standby slot if you desire; but again, the premise is that if you are tuning a frequency that you have already planned on using, it would probably be in your Preset list anyway. Manually tuning a frequency on the COM>MAN page is geared more toward "unplanned" events during your flight.

Yes, the INU simulation is still very much still WIP.

Hi @Fanki 17. The Mi-24 anti-torque pedals in real-life have micro-switches on the pedals themselves that are part of the pedal trimming system. This is separate from the trimmer button on the cyclic that controls the force trim in pitch and roll. The additional options that were added into the DCS: Mi-24P were implemented to provide a means to simulate this separate trimming method for the Mi-24. In contrast to the Mi-24, the AH-64D has no separate force trim release mechanism for the pedals. If the pilot wishes to adjust force trim of the anti-torque pedals, the force trim release switch on the cyclic must be pressed, which releases the force trim in all control axes (pitch, roll and yaw). However, as Wags has previously announced, there is a planned "Auto-Rudder" feature planned for later in development that is intended to provide additional assistance to such players with limited rudder control hardware. Hopefully this will prove useful for you, but please understand that the estimated timeframe for this feature is TBD (To Be Determined). The Early Access process is a marathon, so we hope that you'll stick with us until we can bring this feature to the community down the road along with other features that are planned.

The AGM-122 is not planned nor would it be a realistic weapon for the AH-64. The AGM-122 was never carried by the AH-64, and such munition stocks were depleted long before the variant of the AH-64D that is being modeled was fielded to the US Army. Regarding the Sidewinder, it was only ever test fired and was never fielded to the US Army neither.

@ADHS, the AGM-114K missile is a laser-guided missile, and as such is not fire-and-forget. Any claims as such are false. However, the AGM-114L is an active radar-guided variant that is planned for later in Early Access, and this does have fire-and-forget capability. Further, the premise that capabilities and performance are purposely exaggerated or hindered to maintain competitive balance is also false, despite many claims on the forums to the contrary. Regarding the DCS: AH-64D specifically, it is a simulation of the AH-64D from the mid-2000's era, with the help of real-world subject matter experts that have spent years flying the real aircraft. There are many aspects that remain as works-in-progress (such as the flight model), but I can assure you that an accurate simulation of the real aircraft is being created short of violating sensitivity restrictions on any equipment or weapons. However, I assure you, the AGM-114K is not a fire-and-forget weapon in real life any more than any other laser-guided munition.

The HAD threat list is only for air defense threats that have a radar system associated with it. Systems such as the SA-9, SA-18, SA-24, Stinger, or Chaparral are IR-guided systems, and therefore are not detected by the HTS, let alone capable of being shot with the AGM-88 HARM. The SA-13 is a bit of an outlier in that it is also an IR-guided missile, but the launching vehicle is equipped with a range-only radar that can be used to verify the target aircraft is within the missile's engagement range. This is why it is in threat tables for the HTS/HAD. However, the SA-13 is not a MANPADS, nor is it a predecessor of the SA-18/24. MANPADS stands for Man-Portable Air Defense System, which is what the SA-18/24 or Stinger are. In fact, the SA-13 was a follow-on enhancement of the SA-9 system.

It does have a separate intake and exhaust, just like an APU. Regarding the generator, it depends on how much space is available like Dragon 1-1 said, and how much power you need to output from the generator. Any generator that is powerful enough to run the various electronics, even if it was just the critical ones, might have been too bulky in the engine bay where the JFS is located to accommodate such a generator. Keep in mind that it's not just all the electronics in the flight control servos themselves that need to be powered, but also the flight computers to control it based on inputs from the stick and pedals. The warning lights next to the BATT/MAIN PWR switch are even set up this way to warn when the main generator, standby generator or the EPU isn't providing enough power to the FLCS.

Judging from your EUFD message of ATTITUDE HOLD on, I recommend turning off the hold modes before giving the controls to George. He doesn't seem to understand that he needs to hold force trim release while decelerating to prevent the Velocity Hold from fighting him. Being in one AI interface mode versus the other doesn't affect George's behavior in itself, just what the commands will tell him to do when pressed.

It can also come down to the intended operation of the aircraft during initial design. Often times, when aircraft are equipped with a robust APU setup, it's to allow them to sit on alert for extended periods of time with all of their systems initialized and ready to go, short of the main engines running. Not to say that's why the F-16 has a JFS versus an APU, just that the intended or expected employment of an aircraft can drive such decisions in any design.

I'm fairly certain it is just cosmetic, like the travel pod, in that you can load it for realism purposes, but it doesn't perform any real function in the sim aside from that. I could be wrong though.

Of course. I didn't think you were.

The GPS precision isn't the reason it isn't certified for GPS navigation in IMC, it's the lack of a navigational database certified for IFR from which to draw from.

Of course not. The module hasn't even been out for 5 months yet. Ths F-16 and F-18 have been out for years and are still getting flight model fixes to ensure their accuracy. I've read many forum posts over the years stating such things and they're simply not true. When people post such things, in my opinion they are generally just trying to cause drama because of some form of frustration or impatience. Not saying that's what you are doing here, but if you've read such claims in the past that is usually the reason.

The former is a compromise due to the fact that players have a wide variety of hardware input devices and a completely true simulation of force trim cannot be implemented because of it. The latter has nothing to do with the limitations of simulating a helicopter on a personal computer, and is in the same category of why APKWS and Stingers are not being modeled; because the version of AH-64D being simulated is of a US Army AH-64D in the mid-2000's era. The comparison is apples and oranges. One of the reasons that DCS aircraft are targeted to very specific variants and time periods is because "feature creep" will prolong an already lengthy early access process of developing complex aircraft within DCS World. The complexities of which are greater than most players realize (myself included up until recently).

The RCEF wasn't in the US Army inventory during the time period being modeled, and isn't planned.

This looks like some clever video editing on the part of the person that made the video. This isn't something that is possible in the game.