Raptor9

@Gunslinger52, the FCR is not affected by fog, but it is affected by trees (or urban structures). Pretty much anything with a collision model will block the radar. When I replayed your track, and the T-72's were within the FCR detection range for stationary targets (6 km), there was indeed a moment when George had found a single T-72 despite the tank not appearing on the FCR page. However, within a few seconds he then announced "I don't know where he went". This means that George lost sight of the target, which implies there was intermittent line-of-sight with that tank to begin with, which would be caused by the trees in that area. As you approached closer and there was less tree density between your helicopter and the targets, not only did the FCR start to more reliably detect the targets, but George began discovering more T-72's in the area. This is in line with what should be expected when using the FCR and TADS to detect targets amongst intermittent vegetation densities.

@Tom P, it is true that later software versions of the AH-64D permitted the manual entry of a frequency into the standby slot of a given radio. However, the DCS AH-64D is simulating an avionics version that did not have such a function, therefore you are requesting an unrealistic feature for the version of AH-64D being simulated. Further, such upgrades completely changed the logic and layout of the COM page; it wasn't just a few new options here and there. There is a lot of context missing in that video regarding "later software versions". The software version of AH-64 that Casmo flew was quite different than that which is simulated in DCS. As @Floyd1212 mentioned, manually entering two frequencies into the same radio is actually quite easy and quick.

It's the Spike NLOS missile, which has been used by Israeli AH-64's and has been recently acquired by the US Army.

As this topic has been addressed many times in the past, let me bring up some counterpoints in this debate that tend to be conveniently ignored within the online folklore. First and foremost, no one has supplied any evidence to support the claims that the ALR-56M behavior in DCS F-16C Viper is functioning in an inaccurate manner. As always, if anyone has any public unclassified information that supports these claims, feel free to message BigNewy or NineLine. Otherwise, if no one has actual evidence that the ALR-56M is modeled inaccurately, then such claims are purely speculative. Second, the fact that RWR systems measure signal strength of detected emitters does not imply that the signal strength affects how the symbols are displayed on the RWR display. In fact, many RWR systems measure signal strength, which may be used to detect a change in operating mode of the radar in preparation for firing a missile, among others. RWR systems use a variety of parametrics (depending on their sophistication) to process threat radar signals, such as frequency, pulse repetition frequency, pulse repetition interval, waveform, etc. But how a given RWR system presents these threats to the pilot is widely different between each system, and may even differ between different software versions or configuration within a given nation's military. It is also true that some RWR systems do in fact display symbology to the pilot that indicate relative signal strength. Many older RWR systems that lacked the processing power or radar threat "library" of modern RWR's displayed signal strength and bearing to a radar signal, and it was up to the pilot to interpret this information to determine what threat level the signal posed and whether the radar was potentially tracking the aircraft or guiding a missile toward it. However, as RWR systems became more sophisticated and the pilot's workload to interpret suck symbology to determine threat level could be reduced, many opted to display symbols in a more concise manner to indicate to the pilot the specific type of radar that was out there and when they were under attack, so the pilot could take appropriate defensive action. To that end, most RWR systems are not intended to provide overall situational awareness; rather they are relatively simple devices to provide a pilot the necessary cues to take defensive actions when being tracked or engaged by a radar threat, the nature of such actions may vary based on the type of threat (airborne, SAM, AAA) that is tracking the aircraft. The lack of a way to ascertain signal strength on the RWR display is not aspect of RWR sophistication or generation; it is a byproduct of how a given RWR model and software configuration is designed according to a military's intended requirements to support their pilots and the mission. On the US Air Force F-16 Block 50, a platform designed for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, the presence of the HARM Targeting System and the level of integration and situational awareness that the HTS and its related functions provides certainly supports the SEAD mission. Finally, there does indeed seem to be a bug that is present with the F-16 RWR as demonstrated in this video, in that a tracking radar is being displayed in the inner ring, rather than the middle ring as described in the DCS Early Access Guide. Thank you for bringing this to our attention so it can be reported and corrected. Once again, if anyone has any public unclassified evidence to support their claims that the RWR in the DCS F-16C is modelled inaccurately, please DM one of the community managers and we will gladly review it. Otherwise, such claims of inaccuracy are no different than any other claims made by community members that are heresay, speculation, or gameplay preferences.

What does the DCS AH-64D Early Access Guide say?

Air defense engagement zones are never perfectly sized cylinders. Even winds aloft at higher altitudes can affect a missile's kinematic performance, not to mention the other factors mentioned here. The point is that the SAM rings on the HSD are only a rough estimate of danger based on pre-mission intel, rather than a binary state of "safe" or "not safe". Understanding the nature of the threat system capabilities and how they function is much more critical in determining the degree of the danger a threat poses at any given moment.

As shown in the corresponding Wags video, sending an FCR Target Report does not permit direct engagement; it is simply a target report, similar to sending TSD target points. This allows other AH-64D's to gain situational awareness of targets in the area or their PFZ before unmasking. But you can CAQ on the TSD to make any of the FCR targets from the report your ACQ source. The FCR TGT Report does not transfer the entire FCR data, which includes an FCR-driven priority "shoot list", it just sends targets. Therefore there are no NTS or ANTS designations, stale timers, shoot list order, etc. Only RFHO may be used to handover a target directly to another aircraft's RF missile for engagement. Yes, it is often said that the AH-64D can transmit multiple targets to wingmen for rapid engagement, and that is true, but that doesn't mean it is only performed with one button push or that the non-FCR wingman can engage simply by repetitively pulling the trigger like the FCR-equipped aircraft. But that also doesn't mean the wingmen can't engage targets rapidly using RFHOs. Watch the video I linked above. You can send multiple RFHOs back to back, which can be engaged just as rapidly and is demonstrated in the video. I also recommend reviewing the latest AH-64D EA Guide on the DCS website, which describes all of this in detail. Each time an RFHO is transmitted, the NTS advances to the next target on the FCR shoot list just like if you fired an RF missile yourself (you don't need to cursor select each one like in the video, unless you want to send RFHOs in a different order than the shoot list). An RFHO is essentially firing a missile from a wingman's aircraft, which is why either method advances the NTS through the shoot list.

LOAL LO and HI trajectories really mostly applicable to "Remote" engagements in which another platform is lasing the target instead of the launching aircraft. When self-lasing in LOAL, DIR trajectory is sufficient. On that note, George currently does not have the ability to select a point in the database to cue the constraints box for a LOAL shot using LO or HI. Since DIR is sufficient for a self-lasing LOAL shot, I recommend just using DIR for the time being. However, if you do intend to fire on a target using LO or HI while someone else is lasing, you can do this all from the Pilot seat yourself.

There are some inconsistent handoff behaviors that we are working to improve internally.

Snowplow is available any time the FCR is set to GM, GMT, or SEA modes while not in VIP/VRP sighting modes, which includes NAV master mode or A-G master mode when in any pre-planned sub-mode like CCRP, LADD, EO-PRE, EO-BORE, or PRE. If the FCR is set to CRM, ACM, or AGR, or if VIP/VRP are enabled, Snowplow cannot be entered. So if you are in AAM, MSL, or DGFT master modes (which puts the FCR in CRM or ACM), in NAV with the FCR set to CRM or ACM modes, or in A-G master mode in CCIP, STRF, DTOS, EO-VIS, or VIS sub-modes (which puts the FCR in AGR mode), the Snowplow option is removed.

A detail that I believe may have been overlooked in this discussion is that there is no requirement to display the WPN format on either MFD when intending to perform an AUTO handoff from the TGP to the AGM-65D/G missiles. If the WPN format is not displayed on either MFD, the SOI will remain on TGP allowing you to engage the target using the AUTO handoff mode from the TGP format alone. Only if the WPN format is displayed will the SOI be moved when pressing TMS Forward to enter POINT track with the TGP, which would be necessary when using MAN handoff anyway, or if using the FCR for a handoff.

Of course not. Collective position within the axis has no bearing on the altitude hold engagement criteria, as described in the Early Access Guide location that I stated above.

Please reference the FMC section of the DCS AH-64D Early Access Guide starting on page 186.

This has been implemented since October. Please reference the Datalink chapter of the DCS AH-64D Early Access Guide or this video from Wags.

This command is outside of the George interface, just like Consent to Fire. You don't need to open the AI interface to command him to store his current target, nor is it required to command him to designate the target. He can store a target location any time he is tracking a target, and will automatically designate the target to get a laser range if he isn't already lasing. You can even command him to store multiple targets while the AI Target List is displayed. As he slews the TADS to each target as you scroll through the his Target List, wait for his TADS to settle onto his target and then command him to store that target. Then scroll to the next target, and so on.

There is. I've tested myself.

I meant precisely what I said. There is no CZ option on the HAD. TMS Aft is not a universal CZ command. This seems to be a misconception across many F-16 players. As I stated above, the only time CZ can be commanded with TMS Aft is if the TGP is SOI and it is not in POINT or AREA track.

There are 3 sensors in the F-16, the FCR, TGP, and HTS, with the latter two as optional sensors of course. In a pre-planned air-to-ground sub-mode like CCRP, the steerpoint marks the target location. If the FCR is in GM, GMT, or SEA modes and you move the FCR crosshairs to that location, the steerpoint will be slewed too. If you slew the TGP in A-G mode to a different location, the steerpoint will be slewed too. If you designate a threat radar location on the HAD Attack Display, the steerpoint will be slewed too. In any of these three instances, you must press Cursor Zero (CZ) on the FCR, TGP, or HSD pages to remove the steerpoint offset, (or as a hands-on shortcut), press TMS Aft while the TGP is SOI and the TGP is not in POINT or AREA track mode. TMS Aft is not a universal CZ command, it can only command CZ under these conditions, otherwise you must press CZ on an MFD.

The command "LASER ON" commands the JTAC to start lasing the target. "SPOT" just confirms that your sensors or missile seeker has successfully acquired the laser, and is simply a confirmation of target correlation between the JTAC and the aircrew. However, none of these terms have told the JTAC that you are prepared to engage the target. As NeedzWD40 mentioned, the term "IN" confirms that you are now in a position to engage the target as briefed and you are looking for final clearance to attack, which would be either "Cleared hot" or "Cleared to engage", depending on the type of control. Essentially, the flow would be: Receive the brief from the JTAC. Read the "mandatory readback" elements of the brief back to the JTAC to confirm. Inform the JTAC that you are inbound to the target (e.g., "IP inbound"), which prompts him to begin target correlation/marking, which could be smoke, IR pointer, laser designator, etc. (or nothing at all). Inform the JTAC that you have acquired the target and you are in a position to perform the attack as briefed (e.g., "In"), and requesting clearance to attack. Receive clearance to attack from the JTAC.

If they are dressed like this, maybe.

The flight model was not changed in this update. I would recommend double-checking that something has not changed in your hardware or control settings.

@Sn0wMan4, you keep claiming we simply copied the behavior over from the FCR, when in fact this is absolutely not true. I do not know what document to which you are referring, but the devs have seen more than one document that does specifically state the SOI will transition from TGP to WPN upon the TGP entering track. I can see you are quite new to the forums, so I assure you that the devs do not make changes without research into a topic. In the past there have been occasions when someone claimed this or that on a given aircraft, and dev time was expended making a change accordingly. Then later it was proven that this was not accurate at all, and yet more dev time was expended correcting it back the way it was. If you have any public, unclassified documents that state otherwise, you are free to send them via PM to one of our community managers, @BIGNEWY or @NineLine. Otherwise, such claims without evidence to back them up are not valid, and we cannot make a change on unsubstantiated claims.

To follow up with my comments to @Furiz on Discord (since not everyone may use it or monitor it religiously), I want to assure everyone that this is still underway and provide some clarity as to why it is taking so long. First off, the intent is not to simply correct the existing Early Access Guide, but to evolve it into the full DCS F-16C Flight Manual. When a module is early in development and a Quickstart Guide or an Early Access Guide is included, these are meant to ensure players can get into the module and start playing it, with the documents updated when able as the module evolves in early access. However, to fully appreciate the complexity of a modern aircraft such as the F-16, and to ensure players have access to a depth of knowledge equal to the complexity of the DCS simulation of this aircraft, a much more thorough document is required than an abbreviated guide. To that end, many elements of the F-16 Early Access Guide have been receiving new graphics and diagrams to explain the abstract concepts that many may find nebulous or confusing, which can be seen in the chapters that have already been revised or updated. As an example of such a concept, as alluded to in the discord image above, is the question of why a cursor slew in a pre-planned sub-mode such as CCRP slews all the steerpoints and offset aimpoints at the same time. It is important to not only illustrate what is truly happening when the CURSOR/ENABLE switch is used to slew the steerpoint location, but why it is happening and why such a function is even relevant in such a scenario. The intent with each update to the manual is to provide quality content and revisions. Unfortunately, it has taken longer than intended, as the F-16 manual is not the only document that has needed updates/revisions, but it is the main focus regarding manual updates at the moment. The Tactical Employment chapter will be the most important chapter to get right, since it explains the core of how the F-16 was designed to fight.

The weapon delivery sub-modes of EO-PRE, EO-BORE, and EO-VIS apply to all AGM-65 missiles of any variant. The IR-guided AGM-65's do not have their own unique weapon delivery sub-modes.

The SOI will automatically transition to the MFD WPN format any time the TGP or the FCR enters a track mode while in an EO sub-mode. This was a deliberate change in both regards, it wasn't an accident.