Raptor9

I would try uninstalling all mods and then see if the behavior remains.

No ETA yet. The individual that's been hired for manual writing is in the process of assembling/reviewing all the required information for the past year of updates to the module. It's a lengthy process of not only adding new sections for new features of the module, but reviewing existing sections of the manual to ensure they accurately reflect current functions and behaviors that may have evolved over time.

The damage modeling of ships is still composed of overall "health points", versus individual systems like propulsion, steering, weapons, etc. Having said that, Hellfires aren't anti-ship missiles with huge warheads like Harpoons. The only variants planned are the K and L models.

I couldn't tell you at this time, I haven't had a chance to thoroughly play with them.

The M282 is a different type of penetration warhead for hardened targets like bunkers/buildings, but is not in common use by the regular US Army. There are no anti-helicopter munitions for the DCS: AH-64D.

It's not. It's a timed-delay fuse based on the WPN page settings.

@corbu1 I didn't take it as criticism. My reply was meant as something along the lines of: "as a fellow player, what's something that I would appreciate hearing in a reply". But of course, that needs to be balanced with what can or cannot be said for various reasons. As for what un-named improvements I was referring to, these weren't regarding flight model or anything identified in the Bugs sub-section. Rather they are minute behaviors that are present in the real aircraft that most wouldn't know about or notice. For example, in a previous patch the FLT SET page was updated so that the HI and LO bug options are physically removed from the page if the radar altimeter is powered off. Not something that anybody would have been looking for, but that level of accuracy and attention to detail is there, since that's what occurs in the real aircraft as well.

The dev team have been receiving a lot of feedback from the SME team about specific areas of improvement regarding both the flight model as well as the FMC/SCAS logic and behavior. However, with such complex behaviors and logic at play, it can be a lot more difficult to implement such things compared to other functions that should occur at the flip of a switch or the push of a button. As always, patience is required but is (understandably) difficult to maintain sometimes. I've been there. I also want to say that there are a lot more improvements than what has been identified in the patch notes that they've been making under the hood that probably aren't seen or even known about. Things that would require someone (such as an SME) to have a keen eye for and often be specifically looking for them to notice. I bring this up because as someone that has been a passionate DCS player for a long time, it makes me very impressed with the level of detail they are putting into this module. I'm not saying that to blow smoke at anybody or to change the topic of this thread, just merely re-assuring whoever that may read this that there is a lot of work being done on a daily basis to improve the DCS: AH-64D, both in gameplay quality as well as reasonable authenticity (within what is possible based on public data of course).

The simulation "game-isms" aside, you are essentially trying to hit a fence post on the horizon at almost 8 km away. I think the expectations of what would or should be possible in this case are unrealistic. And frankly, optical cameras like the A-10 or F-16's TGP in CCD mode and the TADS DTV are actually over-powered in DCS compared to real-life because atmospheric distortion isn't simulated.

@Mistermann If you are using an aircraft that only accepts 6 digits, you can just drop one digit from the easting and northing groups. In your example, to enter MC 9270 1203 as a 6-digit format, you would enter "MC927120". Conversely, if you are in precise mode, and you want to enter it as a 10-digit format, you would simply add zeros to each easting and northing groups. To enter MC 9270 1203 as a 10-digit, you would enter "MC9270012030". There was recent change to the JTAC system that allowed them to provide 8-digit grid accuracy.

There could be one or two things at play here, depending on where the WIP state of the SCAS is. When you move the pedals but don't exceed the "breakout" value of 3%, the Yaw channel attempts to counter the input because it is recognized as a non-deliberate input. When you violate the breakout value this countering input is removed. There is also a command augmentation input made to the controls at various airspeeds to create uniform control response, so you might be seeing this, possibly in addition to the effect described above. The biggest takeaway is that when the aircraft "let's go" and lets the aircraft yaw instead of holding the heading, it is because it's recognizing the input as deliberate and stops fighting the pilot input when the 3% breakout value is exceeded.

When you place the engines in lockout, you are "locking out" the DEC from managing the engine RPM, which manages the rotor RPM like bradmick mentioned above; you also lose Np overspeed protection and TGT limiting functions that are otherwise normally provided by the DEC. Additionally, the engine throttle is opened to max because the power lever is now maxed out. So what you're doing is removing a critical function from your engine and telling it go full throttle without any regard to the rotor RPM. So either you lower the collective to maintain level flight and your rotor speed goes to plaid, or you pull in collective to add drag to keep the rotor within proper RPMs but that also means you're gonna climb. The point is this. The engines are better at managing themselves than you are, because your hands are full flying the aircraft. If they don't give you any more power it's because they can't; at least not without melting turbine blades or over-speeding the engine, which results in catastrophic failure (hence the two black stripes on the engine nacelles; that's where the turbine blades will shoot outward).

That is certainly within your prerogative.

In real life you have linked controls and power levers, so it is impossible to move them in different directions or have them set at different values; which is the case with multiplayer when you have two sets of controls that are physically displaced in real life, yet no response is being given. Further, by changing input magnitudes to represent force, now you're interfering with how the force trim and Flight Management Computer works, and then you would have to handle the two users that might have different trimmer settings for their hardware. I know full well what simulation is about, and I understand the intent behind DCS, which is a simulation game. In the pursuit of absolute "realism" for a dual-control cockpit you are diluting the rest of the entire experience, and creating more issues than it all is worth.

1) The aircraft isn't meant to be flown in lockout. 2) The aircraft isn't powerful enough to fly at those altitudes with such a loadout. Essentially you are asking the aircraft to operate beyond it's flight envelope. Helicopters aren't jets. You can't simply max out the collective nor the power levers to make it go faster or higher.

Yes. In the real aircraft the pedals will remain where they are when you let go of the force trim, just like the cyclic. If you are using pedals that are spring-loaded back to center, and using the "Pedals without springs/FFB" option, that means that the in-game pedals are going to follow your real pedals regardless of where the force trim reference is, thereby negating the criteria for Heading Hold to engage. Likewise, if you use "Instant Trim" setting for the pedals, as soon as you let get of the force trim, your input is applied beyond the force trim reference position, which again negates the criteria for Heading Hold to engage. Depending on how quickly you let the pedals spring back to center and the magnitude of your initial input from the previous force trim reference, you may get the Heading Hold to engage, but it may require you to force trim twice. Big input to set the trim and get your physical pedals spring-loaded back to center, get the aircraft stable on heading close to your new force trim reference, and then make a smaller trim that doesnt violate the engagement criteria. This is why "Central Position" works better for the purposes of engaging Heading Hold if you have spring-centered pedals. As for the cyclic, I usually end up killing myself if I don't use Instant Trim.

The ATT hold being on or off has no effect on the Heading Hold below 40 knots ground speed. Heading Hold is always enabled in this speed region. Heading hold will disengage from the flight controls if you displace the pedals 3% in the yaw axis or if you press the force trim release, and it won't re-engage again until the the FTR is no longer pressed, the pedals are within 3% of the force trim location, and the yaw rates are less than 3 degrees per second. As a result, if you are using spring-centered pedals with "Instant Trim" option selected for the pedals, it can be difficult to meet this criteria. I use "Instant Trim" on the cyclic but "Central Position" on the pedals, and it works better for me (I have Saitek Rudder Pedals, so take that for what it is worth). In the next manual update there will be an entire section dedicated to explaining the logic of the FMC, so hopefully that clears things up regarding the various hold modes and force trim interaction with them.

I understand what you're saying, and I know all too well the challenges you speak of. But in my experience, the existing functions and displays in the AH-64D are more than enough in assisting the crew in maintaining situational awareness of the surrounding battlespace. As for various azimuths, there is only one that is necessary, which is magnetic azimuth. Grid azimuth and true azimuth have no bearing (no pun intended) on the operation or employment of the AH-64D as a weapon system. As stated previously, you have all the pieces of information that you need that already exist in the avionics. It's not in the format that you prefer, I get that, but that's what it is about when learning how to operate an aircraft such as the AH-64. It's about understanding how it fights, which drives how the avionics are designed for the human factors within that fight.

The difference between the wheel brakes and the power levers are that the wheel brakes can be applied independently of the other crewstation, so that one or both crewmembers can apply brakes with the same result. The power levers are physically linked between crewstations, just like the flight controls. As Mr_sukebe pointed out, this would create a conflict just as it would if both crewmembers were applying opposite inputs with the cyclic.

Aren't we all.

It's certainly manageable in my view, but I've been flying DCS helos for over ten years, so I'm used to the trimming system and how it simulates real-world force trim behavior. The two biggest things to understand is that: 1) Most times you need to press the force trim release switch at least twice; once to set the new trim position, and then one more to fine tune it ever so slightly. This is pretty much how it is in real life as well. 2) Hold modes are not autopilot. They are designed to hold your trimmed state. So if you want them to be effective, you need to be able to force trim the aircraft to a stable flight condition, whatever that may be, and then engage the hold mode. I'm not a member of the dev team and don't speak for them, but I will say the flight model and Flight Management computer are still WIP, and I imagine they will continue to evolve during early access. However, in the next update to the manual, there should be a new section that goes into detail about how the FMC and hold modes work and their associated control logic.

Not if you consider the intent behind it. If the pilot needs to call out a target direction to the CPG, he simply tells him to slave to the pilot helmet line-of-sight with the TADS. If the CPG tells the pilot he sees a target, the pilot can simply set the TADS as the ACQ source, if not already. Even then, the CPG has a TADS azimuth indicator in the TADS video that tells him where the the TADS is looking. So it's not about being able to see what azimuth you are looking per se, because that piece of information in itself isn't really useful. However, being able to associate target/sensor data to a relative direction from the nose is useful, but these functions are already provided by virtual symbology elements and ACQ cueing/slaving functions that not only provide azimuth, but relative elevation as well and show you where something truly is. Granted, elevation isn't as important when operating at very low altitudes, but the methods of gaining situational awareness or handing off locations/targets between sensors or crewmembers is already there. It just doesn't rely on a basic compass azimuth indication of where the helmet is pointed, since the avionics has the ability to display such information in a more detailed and automated manner. The ACQ source and associated cueing indications and slaving functions is where it's at.

The HDU itself can physically interfere with being able to wear the night-vision goggles properly. More importantly, using the NVG’s and the HDU simultaneously can present circumstances where the two devices aren't properly aligned, which can incur aiming errors when directing the sensors or weapon systems. This is why using the two devices in this way is a prohibited practice for US Army aviators.

There is no such option.

Judging from the screenshots, your view did in fact shift down and right between those screenshots, which is reflected by the FOV box shifting down and right. But it's difficult to judge using screenshots that are cropped. I've yet to encounter such an issue.