Raptor9

This is consistent with behavior of the real aircraft. Think of it like this: The Route (RTE) page is about setting a route, whether it be a route of several points in a sequence or a direct route from your current position to a point. When you set a Direct route, you creating a Route independent of the Route Menu (RTM) list, from your present position at the time the DIR is set to the selected point. Like the other routes that contain a sequence of points, the Direct route will not move its starting point as the aircraft flies the route.

Attitude Hold won't help you since it will switch to Velocity Hold once you are below 30 knots.

Hard to tell if they are spinning or if it is just the flicker effect from the rotor shadows. In real life those vanes don't spin because the first stage of the compressor is deeper inside the engine. What you are seeing are the swirl vanes of the intake. These vanes redirect the airflow in a way to help separate dust and debris through the swirl frame and into the inlet particle separator instead of going into the compressor itself.

First off, ED's forum, ED's rules. Second, just because you think something is ok and harmless, doesn't mean it is. If someone thinks stealing is ok and harmless, does that mean it is? Of course not. That's an extreme example, but I'm using it to prove a point. The "it's harmless" statement is one of the most foolish and abused rationalizations for a lot of shady, illegal or immoral behavior in this world. Having said that, is posting a benign symbol from a manual harmless? That depends. If you can post that, why can't someone post something else from the manual? Then post some more, then post the entire manual, then post other manuals that are also restricted that may not be out in the internet. Where does it stop? It's not about you. It's about the action and what that action leads to when you look at it through the lens of long-term consequences and enforcing rules set forth on this forum for good reasons. Those reasons may not be apparent to you, or you may not agree with them, but they are there nonetheless. Now to be clear, I'm not accusing you of shady, illegal or immoral behavior, nor is this a personal attack on you. This is just an explanation of why people in general need to step outside of their own interests in their little piece of the world and realize that just because they want, think, or believe something, that does not make it ok, accurate, or even right.

Because that isn't what the symbol is supposed to look like. This is yet another error in the real-world publication, a publication mind you that shouldn't be excerpted here per rule 1.16. The symbol that you've shown is in the DCS AH-64D, but that symbol is wrong because the publication is wrong.

It means the icon that is currently in the game when that point is displayed on the TSD isn't correct.

The radios will power up in whatever state they were in when the aircraft was previously shut down. Having said that, for the purposes of DCS, I personally think the squelch could be left on.

Its lethality wasn't being questioned, it's sustainment costs were. And the sustainment and maintenance costs were a significant reason cited by the Australian government as a reason to divest the type in favor of the AH-64. The very nature of the Apache being in use across a much broader community also serves to drive its maintenance costs down. Often the case for aircraft selection among nations with smaller defense budgets are long-term cost commitments, not simply what capability it has. Not saying the Tiger is a bad helicopter, but buying or leasing them as any interim solution to a role that can easily be fulfilled to the same extent as the Apache makes no fiscal sense.

Just because a platform is lighter, smaller, or advertised as cheap to procure, does not mean it's cheap to operate. Look at the Tiger. That thing is very expensive to operate and maintain, which is one of the reasons Australia is getting rid of it in favor of the Apache. The AH-1? That isn't much different than the Apache when it comes to its mission capabilities, but the cost of adding an entirely new airframe built for a different mission than FARA would be a money pit for low pay-off. Any of these "interim options" would incur more costs to the Army than just using AH-64's as they are already.

Im willing to bet ACM is still WIP since the entire FLIR system in DCS is still WIP.

In real life, it won't.

ACM is a button press in the front seat, on the TDU bezel under ACM. If ACM is turned on in the front seat, ACM will be boxed on the TDU screen.

The DCS Ka-50's B8V20A fires 2, 5, and 10 rockets from each pair of pods. However, I can't speak to the accuracy of that for the Ka-50 any more than I could for the Mi-24P or Mi-8MTV2. So that leads me to believe there is at least something to be looked at in that regard.

As mentioned in the posts above, there's a dedicated pilot because just flying through or just above the trees (especially at night) is a full time job. The second crewmember focuses on targeting and running the fight. Having said that, there is a lot more to it than just wiggling the sticks and shooting the weapons. But that's also why the AH-64 is the longest helicopter course in the US Army Aviation flight training. It's a complex job. You have student pilots that spend around 5 months of flight training before they even start flying the Apache. So it's not something that people get skilled at overnight.

It shouldn't be absolute. It should be based on how many missiles are in the air at a time. I haven't tested this myself in DCS recently, nor do I know if it was intentional or not.

Ok, I'll respond to this thread given the nature of the topic, but I want to stress two very important things before I do. The first is the most important, which is that I am not on the dev team, nor do I speak for them, I'm only speaking as someone with real-world experience with this SCAS behavior. The second is the usual reminder to those that may not be familiar with the Early Access process of complex DCS modules, that this module is still in a relative infancy compared to other modules that have been in Early Access for substantially longer periods of time and are still getting fine tuning and tweaks done to their flight controls. Modeling helicopter flight controls in a flight sim is hard enough, now add in something as complex as the F-16's FLCS system that also interacts with the flight controls on top of that. Anyway, with disclaimers out of the way... I really don't like to use absolutes when talking about aviation practices any more than I do when discussing military theoreticals and "what ifs". I am personally of the preference where I press the FTR until I finish moving the controls, and then I let go of it. This practice proved to be particularly helpful when learning to play the DCS Ka-50, since the Shark's autopilot without the flight director turned on will fight you, unless you press the trimmer button when maneuvering. However, sometimes you can't press the Force Trim Release while maneuvering, such as if you need to use your thumb to make a radio call, or action/de-action a weapon, change symbology modes, etc. Not really, and this is where the discussion diverges between real-world behavior and current DCS AH-64D behavior, which is as I said, still WIP (this has been mentioned multiple times on the forums by actual members of ED by the way, this isn't coming from me). Further, I haven't flown the new updated flight model yet, so I can't speak to how it is behaving right now. When the FTR button is held down, the real-life SCAS isn't disabled, but it's logic is altered somewhat; and how it is altered is dependent on airspeed, attitude, and whether or not there is an attitude hold sub-mode engaged at the time or not. Again, speaking to how it behaves in real-life: no it does not, with a few exceptions. With attitude hold engaged, once the controls are moved beyond a certain threshold without FTR being pressed, referred to as "breakout values", attitude hold will stop attempting to hold the attitude and will let the pilot maneuver the aircraft as desired, until the controls are back within the original control positions and the pitch/roll and/or yaw rates are back within certain limits, depending on what axis/axes went through the breakout values. Once this criteria has been met, the attitude hold will re-engage and set the new attitude values as the reference it will hold. In the same scenario, if the FTR is held down, when the FTR is no longer pressed and it meets the rates criteria, then the new reference will be established. Holding FTR suspends any engaged hold modes within the pitch/roll/yaw axes (ie, Attitude/Velocity/Position sub-modes or Heading hold), which means the aircraft will not fight you, but because of the breakout values, it wouldn't anyway if the controls are moved deliberately. So if you bump the controls or make very very small movements to them while a hold mode is engaged, so small that it won't violate the breakout values, then yes it will attempt to null out the movement, because it assumes it was an inadvertent control input. The breakout values themselves also change based on airspeed and what hold sub-modes are engaged...again, very complex. The best example of when it will actively fight you is in Position hold. You've told the aircraft to maintain a hover here, and then you move the cyclic without pressing the FTR, and the aircraft will actively fight you until it becomes saturated. So this is a prime example of when you need to press and hold the FTR until you get established and stable at your new hover position, and then let go of the FTR button. __________________________________________________ So now that the sea of words has been typed out, here's the TL;DR, the meat and potatoes, the bottom line...The SCAS system is a lot more complex than most people realize, and I do not envy the dev team one bit in trying to get this all laid out and accurate. I imagine this will take time, just like the flight controls on the F-18 or F-16. Here's a recent photo from the office of the dev members that are in charge of coding the SCAS system in DCS AH-64D: (it's a joke, but a joke to make a point, and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't far off)

AGM-65s have never been capable of being fired from AH-64s. Never. Wikipedia says a lot of things that are downright laughable and probably written on there by someone that played too much Gunship 2000 on an arcade console.

No, it is bug if reproducible, just sometimes not every ping or question is going to be answered. Coincidentally I saw this just 20 mins after your most recent post.

I havent flown the CPG seat in the past week, so maybe there was something that broke that I haven't seen. But there are no missing controls. The rockers on the TDU control the symbology/brightness/contrast settings of the HDU when HMD is the selected sight. That's how the aircraft actually works.

It's not missing. Look at page 70 of the manual.

I know the book, almost every aviator in US Army aviation does. But not all rotary equals another. For example, engine failure in a single-engine helicopter = autorotation. Engine failure in a multi-engine helicopter = substantial power loss, but not an immediate landing within autorotational glide distance. But comparing a single-engine Vietnam-era helicopter to a modern day multi-engine helicopter is very different in a discussion about being on guard for engine trouble and always being on the lookout for places to autorotate to. Especially when you consider how much more reliable turbine engines in the modern helicopters are to their older counterparts. This can also be seen in some of the fallacies related to the F-35 debates. One of the common clichés we see thrown out there is that the F-35C for the Navy is dangerous due to the fact it has only one engine, with no redundancy for over-water operations. Well, historically the Navy has operated single-engine aircraft off of carriers for much more of it's existence than not. Only in the past several decades has the US Navy operated exclusively multi-engine aircraft. Further, the reliability of engines in today's aviation technology is leaps and bounds what it was in the Cold War. Even further, a number of multi-engine aircraft that suffered catastrophic engine failures actually lost both engines due to the engine placement side-by-side (cough F-4 Phantom). This is all off topic, but the point I'm trying to make is that often people make comparisons based on singular variables to prove a point, but often such comparisons are very one-dimensional and inaccurate, and don't adequately examine all the variables that affect the discussion. On the topic of wind, the best indicators of wind is by comparing the airspeed with the ground speed in the HDU symbology, and looking at the Velocity Vector for your ground track. Wind is less an issue for engine malfunction, and more a consideration for power management. If you can stay above 30 knots airspeed the rotor system is much more efficient due to Effective Translational Lift, and this requires less power to maintain altitude. If you are flying at 35 knots ground speed across the treetops with a 20 knot tail wind, you are essentially hovering out-of-ground-effect (OGE) within the air mass because your airspeed is 15 knots. This requires substantially more power and fuel burn, and can impact your maneuverability and options when reacting to a threat. Or you can be in a low-speed orbit at low altitude, and as you turn with the wind direction that tail wind will sap your airspeed and you will encounter an unexpected descent rate if you aren't ready for it, not to mention the weathervane effects on the vertical tail can cause a spike in torque when you stomp on the left rudder to counter a right yaw. Those aren't safety rope attachments, those are just the handholds that are installed on all Apaches for personnel to climb around on the exterior for maintenance or pre-flight checks. It just provides a convenient place to hook a carabiner and lanyard for emergency extraction of personnel. But some of those handholds aren't rated to hold a person's entire body weight, which is why it's an emergency procedure. Many countries have this procedure, not just Israel and UK.

It doesn't shut down the engines, but it does reduce the fuel flow to minimum required to IDLE the engines. There is no actual "disconnecting the rotor from the gearbox" that is even possible in the AH-64. Overrunning clutches on the main transmission allow the powertrain to spin faster than the input drives coming from the engines, so if one or both of the engines are idling it won't necessarily bring down the rotor RPMs provided there is some other form of drive keeping them at speed (ie the other engine or an autorotation). Also keep in mind that a lot of what you quoted was in reference to single-engine helicopters, and the considerations of such airframe types. Regardless of how many engines or how much power margins you may have, a good aviator is always cognizant of the winds, especially when operating low and over the terrain. See my post here:

Already requested by someone else. I'm against it. This goes too far in "cheating" the helicopter to death. The Ka-50 and UH-1 have never had such functionality over the past decade of their existence, and players have been extremely capable in those helicopters without such cheat options.

It's not that the A-10C is too good, so much as that DCS as a simulation program can only replicate so much from the real world. It's the same with any flight simulation software, whether it be individual gaming or professional military simulators. There are so many variables in the real-world that affect how aircraft, sensors and even people behave or perceive things, that you can only replicate a fraction of it in computer code.