Raptor9

From my understanding, the Black Shark 3 module will actually include two separate Ka-50 aircraft: An updated 4-pylon Ka-50 version from BS2 with improved graphics/textures. Don't know if the more in-depth systems of it's existing equipment will be included or not. Modeled on an actual version of the Ka-50 that existed. The new 3x pylon Ka-50 version with new defensive equipment and features discussed previously. A "what-if" version of the Ka-50 if development had continued like it did with the Ka-52.

As the thread is tagged, ALL target/threat icons in the database are colored red.

I've never had issues with re-centering my TrackIR mid-mission. TrackIR just sets the in-game head position in rotation and translation axes, but the AH-64D IHADSS in game is tracking the simulated head position in-game, not your physical head. TrackIR is just an input to move a set of in-game axes around. The DCS AH-64D isn't tracking your head through your TrackIR sensor, it's only moving the in-game head position based on the inputs from the TrackIR.

If the WIP screenshots are any indication, it will be worth the wait. I'm looking forward to it.

The HMD crosshairs do indeed affect the boresight accuracy. You need to have the HMD crosshairs aimed at the bullseye for the HMD to properly boresight. The bullseye rings being drawn separately, creating the bullseye "depth", is an inaccuracy. In reality, the bullseye itself is a singular pattern projected inside the BRU like a rifle scope. You need to align your head at the right position behind the BRU to even see the bullseye in real-life. So really, the only positioning alignment that happens in real life is to center the BRU within the sight lens of the BRU itself. As for how ED has simulated the boresight accuracy between hot started aircraft versus cold started aircraft, I don't know. Maybe they have a slight bias built into the system during cold starts that isn't there when doing a hot start or air start.

I'm guessing that whoever made this mission didn't have the correct understanding on the capabilities of the AH-64D's ADF system. Not only is the ADF limited to frequencies 100-2299.5 kHz (well below the FM frequencies in the briefing), but it is also limited to just AM radio signals and cannot tune FM signals. And since none of the other radios can generate DF bearings, the other locations cannot be found using the ADF method.

Under very calm sea states, radar altimeters can sometimes indicate the altitude from a shallow ocean floor, a river bed, or a lake bottom; instead of altitude above the water. However I don't know if this effect is modelled in DCS, if that is what you are seeing, and even if it is intended or not. I'll have to test this out today when I get home to see if I can reproduce.

Most of the misconceptions are from people confusing accuracy with dispersion. I know often times people use accuracy when describing dispersion, but they are very distinct quantities when talking about effective ranges and area vs point weapon systems. The gun is very accurate when targeted with the TADS and an accurate ranging to the target, but not accurate when being aimed by the HMD, even with an accurate range to the target. Aircraft velocities, target velocities, and range corrections are applied when using the TADS, whereas only range correction is provided when using the HMD, not to mention the head is not gyro-stabilized, and the aiming reticle itself prevents precise enough targeting since it has no optical zoom. The TADS is like using a gyro-stabilized high-powered scope, but the HMD is like using a holographic sight with no magnification. The dispersion of the AH-64D gun is what makes it an area weapon system, not its accuracy. Having the ability to engage a point target with an area weapon system is a function of both it's accuracy and it's dispersion, but the dispersion is fairly authentic to real-life. The addition of the TSE addressed the accuracy problems of the gun when targeted using the TADS, but the accuracy when aiming the gun with the HMD has been pretty authentic since day one. It's essentially like aiming a door gun on a Huey. Granted, there are ways to ensure the ranging is working better for you based on what your range source is (Nav, Auto, or Manual), but it still comes down to firing, observing impacts, and walking the rounds onto target with manual corrections of your head/HMD reticle.

I couldn't tell you since I haven't done tests without GPS to see behavior. No, GPS alone cannot provide immediate nor precise inertial velocities. Even in your car or your cell phone, your immediate accelerations and orientations are provided by accelerometers since GPS position data can only provide a change in location after a second or two of movement to develop a trend. But even then, that's assuming your GPS had a level of precision that is not possible. Inertial measurements, coupled with other devices like pressure sensors, doppler, radar altimeter, and augmented by GPS signals to maintain their position accuracy, are what provide all this movement data and indications in the cockpit.

@Timster76, @5ephir0th PRGM 1> Chaff: BQ 4 - BI 1.000 - SQ 1 - SI 1.00 / No Flares PRGM 2> Chaff: BQ 4 - BI 0.500 - SQ 2 - SI 2.00 / No Flares PRGM 3> No Chaff / Flare: BQ 30 - BI 1.000 - SQ 1 - SI 1.00 (BQ corresponds with seconds of coverage. Change it higher or lower as needed) PRGM 4> No Chaff / Flare: BQ 15 - BI 0.500 - SQ 2 - SI 0.50 (BQ corresponds with seconds of coverage. Change it higher or lower as needed) PRGM 5> Chaff: BQ 2 - BI 0.100 - SQ 3 - SI 0.50 / Flare: BQ 2 - BI 0.100 - SQ 3 - SI 0.50 (Merges PRGM 2 with PRGM 6 and kicks out the chaff quicker) PRGM 6> No Chaff / Flare: BQ 2 - BI 0.100 - SQ 3 - SI 0.50 The chaff programs only work if you are beaming the radar, which is another reason I don't use Auto, since it releases (and wastes) chaff before I can turn the plane. The reason PRGMs 5 and 6 are so rapid is because with short missile flight times (such as IR missiles or ACM combat), you need to get those expendables out quickly to run through your multiple DCS dice rolls before the missile gets too close. I wish I could find a chaff program that had a reliable defeat rate of the SA-11, but I haven't been able to crack that nut above 50% defeat rate. Coupled with their multi-target engagement capability and rapid re-attack tendency, I just avoid SA-11's unless I have to attack the batteries themselves or something they are protecting. In which case I'm more deliberate about developing my attack plan for that objective. I used to have flare programs that used less flares, but since the flare type changed and became less effective, you need more in the programs to increase your chances of defeating the missile. I know a lot of people use the logic of simply reducing your expendable count to "get more programs", but if you don't survive the first couple missiles fired at you, what good are full countermeasure buckets when your plane is scattered across the ground below your swinging parachute? If a program takes half your chaff or flares to defeat whatever threats you are planning to go up against, so be it; adjust your attack plan and tactics accordingly.

1. If you're referring to the Flight Path Vector (Velocity Vector is the long line that grows from the LOS reticle), then yes. The FPV, Head Tracker diamond, and ACQ LOS reticle (broken cross) will disappear prior to intersecting with other symbology elements around the edges of the HDU. Strangely enough, the navigation direct-to homeplate doesn't adhere to this same logic (in both DCS and the real aircraft) for some reason. 2. The engine modeling and Collective SCAS channel are WIP 3 and 4. I'm pretty sure the George interface and his behavior as a CPG wasn't really designed to be launching Hellfires in rapid succession (multiple missiles in the air at a time). Having said that, he is also WIP. But when his currently tracked target is destroyed, he will stop lasing. During that time where there is no laser designation, even if George starts lasing a target in the same vicinity a few moments later, it is not a guarantee the missile will see the laser spot in time before it flies to a point the spot is outside the seeker's field-of-view. There are a lot of factors that come into play in such a situation, and "12 second spacing between missiles" is not anywhere near enough to say whether it should work. Bottom line, I would avoid multiple Hellfires in the air on the same designation spot unless you have a human CPG with you that knows what he is doing and proficient at it. 5, 8, 11 and 12. Again, this is an area that is WIP, but the INS (and the cockpit indications that are affected by it) shouldn't be drifting. The AH-64D has an EGI, which is a navigation system with a fully-integrated GPS receiver. 6. If roll angle is 3 degrees or less, when Attitude Hold is engaged it will auto-level the aircraft. The right drift is an aspect of the flight model that is still WIP. 7. If ground speed is <40 knots, the Altitude Hold should be in Radar Altitude Hold mode (assuming it's on and you are < 1,428 feet AGL), but currently it enters Barometric Altitude Hold. This is a brand new feature and is still WIP. 9. Hold modes are also WIP along with the flight model, so... 10. Again, George is WIP and sometimes his actions may not match his speech feedback (which is also WIP) when commands are given very rapidly. As before, not a lot to go on with this question. 13. Unknown. The INS is WIP as mentioned, as is the TSE system. Everything is WIP. But a lot of your questions are very broad and would require more information to identify them as a user error, a bug, or correct behavior.

Nope, only way is to turn it off on the UTIL page. Depressing the Stab control button only reverts the MAN STAB mode to AUTO STAB, meaning the FMC controls the stab position. NOE/A just tells the FMC to automatically control it using a different set of rules when in AUTO STAB mode.

Interesting...if I can get one of my friends to hop online with me today, I'll see if I can confirm.

50 feet is just a cookie cutter standard for task/conditions. There isn't any reason to keep the nose pointed in the direction of travel at 50 feet any more than 40 or 60. But it is situational, so if you are flying low enough or close enough to obstacles or hazards, you do need to be cognizant of where components of your aircraft are potentially going to be impacting if you aren't paying attention.

If you are talking about landing with zero relative airspeed to the deck, then yeah, of course the nose direction doesn't matter. I was responding to your earlier comment here: If landing or taking off with forward speed, you keep the nose pointed in the same direction as your flight path.

Sounds like the wheels in DCS are coated with oil or jelly then. Tires should have more friction than a skid, unless the skid has some sort of rubber boot installed on the underside itself. I've done roll-on landings in helicopters with skids and helicopters with tires, and when the nose is cocked off to one side when landing with tires, it's a much more traumatic event than one with skids.

You try that in real life and you will ball up your aircraft. If you are able to do that in DCS, there's probably something wrong.

It's not so much a load on the rotor so much as how hard the engines are working to keep the rotors at 101%, and even that is a simplified definition of it. Different conditions will result in torque variances without adjusting the collective, because the rotor loading changes during maneuvers. If you want to see where the collective position is at, the only indicator of it is the Controls Indicator overlay.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying don't provide feedback. Please do. I'm a DCS player too, so I want this module to be fun as well as authentic (within what is possible given sensitivity reasons of course).

You aren't boresighting the gun, you're boresighting your helmet. Like how you can boresight the JHMCS in the F-16. Nothing changes in the aircraft, you're just telling the aircraft how to calibrate your head position so it knows where your helmet is pointed so it can cue sensors/weapons and display symbology elements in their appropriate positions, like the Flight Path Vector. Keep in mind that if you are using the helmet sight to aim the gun, regardless of what seat you are in, it's like using a door gun on a helicopter. It's not going to lead targets, it's just going to provide range compensation for whatever range you are using. So if you are using a MANRG of 1,000 meters, but the target is at 1,500 meters, you need to aim above the target for it to reach the target. From there you need to adjust your helmet aim to walk the round impacts onto the target. If you are using the TADS, you need to ensure you have a good, stable track on the target and a good range for the rounds to land on the target.

If you are flying along, with the LMC off and the TADS not being slewed (meaning you aren't pressing the MAN TRK controller in any direction), let's say it is pointed at your left side at 10 o'clock. When you enable LMC, the TADS will not start slewing un-commanded, meaning that the TADS will still be looking at the same direction relative to the aircraft nose, regardless of what is physically beyond it within the video, the only thing that will change is the little tick marks will appear around the crosshairs indicating the LMC is now on. At this point, if you apply a little pressure to the left to start slewing the TADS to the left, it will respond as such and if you wanted it to keep tracking that tree that passed through your crosshairs, you would need to keep applying pressure left until the slew rate increased to the point it appeared stabilized over the piece of terrain you wanted to keep within the crosshairs as it passed by out the left side. That is what should happen when enabling the LMC while in forward flight. As for how the TSE is making calculations before or after the laser is being fired, this is something I'll have to do more testing with since I've been focused on other stuff recently. There is a lot of calculations and math that goes into this stuff, and the dev team have obviously been crunching a lot of numbers to get this to where it's at so far.

There is a misconception that the LMC is a ground stabilization mechanism. And while that is how the behavior certainly manifested up until recently, or even in the futire in certain situations, it's not. It's a slew rate stabilization function. The addition of the TSE simply assists the LMC in maintaining the slew rate for the current estimated target location/velocity, which is why the slew rate jumps when the range updates all of a sudden. (A vehicle traveling at 50 kmh at 4 km will require less slew rate to track than if it was at 2 km at the same speed) Of course, the LMC may need tuning as more situations and scenarios are tried and tested in the coming weeks and months, but I just wanted to ensure that the expectation of how it works isn't perpetuated on misconceptions. It works using magic. (Joking)

The reason you will probably have many different answers is because it depends heavily on a variety of factors such as: - Environmental conditions such as altitude and temperature - Gross weight - Munitions/equipment loadout; having an FCR and a full slab of 16 Hellfires adds considerable amounts to drag, not just gross weight - Engine health/condition Let's scratch the last one off the list and assume that the DCS AH-64D has engines fresh off the production line. Recently, someone posted a performance chart on here (against rule 1.16 I might add), and claimed that the aircraft could go X speed under Y conditions. Performance charts are just a snapshot of what the performance might be for planning purposes. Individual aircraft may even vary, depending on their own "personality" and how effectively the maintenance test pilots have dialed in the track and balance of the rotor system. Lastly, I'll just say the usual "DCS AH-64D flight model is still WIP" and I won't go into the real world numbers on here for reasons. But trust that the SME's involved with the project are trying to make it as authentic as possible within what can reasonably be shared. Also keep in mind that websites like wikipedia, fas.org, or globalsecurity.org tend to simply repeat what each other says in a circular-reporting fashion, so take information from such "sources" with a grain of salt.

Not quite. Dissymmetry of lift is indeed caused by directional airspeed, but this will not lead to left roll in forward flight. Rather, due to gyroscopic precession and the rotor system wanting to "up-flap" over the nose; this will result in the nose wanting to come up and is countered with forward cyclic. Applying forward cyclic causes the airfoil on the right (advancing side) to reduce its angle of incidence (reducing the amount of lift produced), and the left (retreating side) to increase its angle of incidence (increasing the amount of lift produced). This net effect equalizes the lift across the two halves of the rotor system, maintaining the rotor disk angle at the desired tilt relative to the airframe, and counters the associated attitude change. The aggressive left rolling motion that is occurring in the DCS AH-64D at high speed when forward cyclic is applied to pitch down is not because of dissymmetry of lift nor is it because of retreating blade stall, it's an inaccurate behavior within the flight model. Whether its from an inaccurate calculation of aerodynamic or mass effects in the DCS AH-64D, I have no idea, but it should not be happening, or at the very least, nowhere near the degree it is currently. On the topic of retreating blade stall...as the various stall regions develop in high speed flight (which happens much higher than 150 knots by the way), what should happen is the nose will pitch up along with left roll and vibrations. The primary cause of the pitch up motion is because of the dissymmetry of lift and gyroscopic precession as explained above. There's some additional factors at play as well, such as blade flapping, but I'm probably not smart enough to go into that level of detail on the topic. But due to the aircraft characteristics, you should have to work very hard to get into retreating blade stall in the AH-64.

You're not crazy, I believe it did originally before it was corrected.