LooseSeal

Entirely subjective.

See, if that's true then maybe people should be using this time to learn how to do their own stable hover without AP. I genuinely don't mind it currently. I never use the attitude hold, or feel that I need to. I love the fact that the IHADSS symbology, like the pitch ladder and horizon line, doesn't change when you look around, the way it does in a Hornet for example. If you're looking down at the screens or zoomed in, you can still very effectively keep track of whether you're maintaining a good attitude in the hover.

No, I see what the OP is getting at, and he is right. He doesn't want to display the TADS as a video source because it eats his FPS. The issue seems to be that whenever you ask George to scan an area for targets, and there is only one target available - he will immediately lock and store that target without giving you a list - he'll just lock it, and you have no idea what it is from the pilot's perspective. I think this is tied with the well-recognised problem that George doesn't identify targets. So to the OP I would say you only have two solutions... either switch on the TADS video feed for a moment and identify the target, then switch it off again. Or, wait until ED have implemented an identification function for George. I can't see it happening soon though, given Petrovich still hasn't got it either.

So many people before release were wondering about an option to disable them - and yet you barely even notice they're there 95% of the time. And when you do notice them they just add to the immersion. Really nice touch.

I think there's an issue with Apache wingmen in general. They refuse to respond to almost any order I give them. I did the Red Flag mission recently - we were literally flying over the enemy targets at one point - Engage air defences? Negative. Engage ground targets? Negative. Mission and rejoin? 2 negatives and one positive. Which makes no sense! There's no consistency! And that one wingman engaged one target then rejoined. AI commands in DCS generally aren't great. But I'm finding the Apache to be so much worse, to the extent that it's just a burden to have AI wingmen at all.

I'm afraid there is no guaranteed way at present. In future George will supposedly have an IFF function. But at present, use situational awareness in combination with identifying the unit visually.

No, you have to fire the laser the whole time. It's the same in any other module, the difference being the Hornet or A-10C have systems which 'latch' the laser on, so you don't have to manually press it. Here, you do have to keep it held. Casmo did a good video on LOAL the other day.

I've been amazed how easy it is to fly with one engine. I did a mission the other day where a Zu-23 took out my left engine and removed the left wing stub just for the hell of it. I jettisoned the right weapons stores and managed to fly it back to the FARP for a rough-but-intact landing in an adjacent field. I think a lot of this thread is more to do with the unrealistic, inhuman accuracy of ground-to-air ballistic weapons in DCS than anything else. But it's been this way for so long. Zu-23's in particular are a much more lethal threat than they should be. I genuinely despise reading in a mission briefing that 23s are in the area, almost enough to make me not want to do it. I'm personally hoping the AI overhaul includes introducing an element of human error into AI aiming. Like with a 23, the first few shots should almost always be slightly off while the gunner calculates the right trajectory.

He didn't reference the manual, though. He referred the OP to a very long thread which is actually pinned right at the top of the forum for a reason. If he'd said 'go check the manual', the criticism would have been due. But he didn't.

What is this 'hover hold' everyone is talking about? As stated above - there are altitude and attitude holds. I'd be interested to find out from those in the know whether these two, when activated together in a pre-established hover, actually do hold the aircraft in a stable, stationary hover. And to what extent do we need to maneuver ourselves into a stationary hover prior to engaging them? Is it like the Ka-50 where we can get below a certain speed, activate them and the aircraft will stabilise itself down to 0kts? If not, I fear lots of people will come on here complaining about how they're still drifting around with the so-called "hover hold" enabled

Thank you @BIGNEWY!! I genuinely thought I might be going insane... I assume that might have been what was affecting the OP in his screenshot as well.

Just to be clear, automatic ranging isn't related to the laser designator. Not sure where your quote is from, but the 'Doppler' setting in TSD->UTIL isn't what needs to be turned on, it's the RAD ALT in FLT->SET.

I can no longer tell if you're being serious. ED have decide not to allow bullets to travel further than 2.9km for a gun with a technical maximum firing range of 4,000m +? Come on, man. It's probably best if you upload a short track, as it's not entirely clear what the issue is.

Emm.. I just made a quick mission with literally just me on the Caucuses map in order to replicate the OP's problem. Nobody is talking about multiplayer here. I also think you may have confused me with the OP. I'm not trying to engage things at 3km. I'm trying to replicate what he put in the screenshot in order to understand his issue. No idea where multiplayer is coming from here. And if ED is making bullets disappear at exactly 2.9km in singleplayer with one aircraft on the map... well, that would be weird.

No, no. It's fine. I don't think I made it clear what I'm talking about at all. Picture this - gun is lasing at 2.85km. I fire. All the rounds land pretty much around where I lased, with some nice splashes on the ground. So I move the cursor up 50 to 100 metres and lase at around 2.95km. I fire a burst. Nothing. No rounds land. It's not about the maximum range. The rounds just seem to be disappearing. They'd still hit the ground somewhere even if they maxed out. And I also don't think that is the maximum range of the gun. Because, as I said, at around 2.85km they are hitting almost exactly where I'm lasing. Anyway, the track file is there. I have no idea if this is linked to the OP's issue as he didn't really provide enough information. But due to the coincidental nature of the range, there might be something in it. Or there might not. But I've tried my best to work it out!

But I mean the actual impacts on the ground. They just don't happen after a certain distance. The track file shows it clearly. I can't get my head around it. Maybe it's just my potato PC, who knows? Hopefully someone can check it out and confirm if I'm just seeing things or not.

Alright, my first answer was wrong. So I tried to replicate it again. The weird thing is - when I fire the gun at over 2.9km (same as the OP's screenshot), I can't see my hits visually land. Anywhere, short or long. At up to about 2.85km or so, I can see them land, after that nothing. I wonder if this is because of my graphics settings maybe. But it seems odd that I'm experiencing the same thing around specifically the 2.9km mark. Track file included. gundisappearing.trk

Huh. Whenever I set the ACQ source to a waypoint as CPG, that's where the gun fires... I assumed that's how it works But cheers for making an attempt to either help the OP with his issue, or indeed correct me. Quite the contribution.

Your acquisition source is set to your Waypoint, so that's where the gun is firing. It should be set to GHS, for gunner head sight.

My issue with the ROE logic is not just that it's limited - it's that it all has to be entirely set and controlled by the user. There is no spontaneity or unpredictability. If I make a mission, I know exactly how the enemy is going to react and in what way. Hell, even in a quasi-dynamic DCS Liberation mission I know that if I attack a group of vehicles they'll drive about 50 metres in a random direction, then just stop and surrender their lives to me... as if to say "well, we drove in a straight line for 15 seconds - what more could we possibly do to save ourselves?" I assume they're going to tell us at some point this year how the AI re-work is going, and I truly hope it's going to be more impressive than a few more ME Advanced Options settings.

If stuff like this isn't implemented for the dynamic campaign, it would be brutally disappointing. I like the idea of an 'AI tactical commander' - perhaps the map could be divided into different zones, each with its own commander behaviour set. So units in a zone on the frontline might be set to an 'aggressive' or 'stand ground' tactical mindset, depending on how the battle is going. While units further back, such as artillery or logistics, might be in zones which are set to a 'disperse' tactic. There is so much scope for what they could do. Or... they could just stick with "Disperse Under Fire", where everything runs/drives around like a headless chicken and be done with it.

I won't be able to find you a quote (I think it may have been said in an interview a few years ago or something) but I'm pretty sure ED said they won't be doing this - risk of people playing out war crimes situations, etc. I think they could, and should, do civilian vehicles - airliners, cars, buses, etc. But human models may be too far for them. Who knows? They may change their minds.

And yet... the guys who have actually flown the Apache seem to think it's fairly accurate. Go figure. Honestly, what you've said here makes it seem like you haven't understood how trim is implemented in the sim. You're getting "uncontrollable inputs" because you're not centering the controls after trimming, which is the problem most of us were having in the days after release - but once you understand it, you can control it fairly easily. I'm sorry, but I don't believe it's the flight model on this occasion.

The gun can be tricky. Of course, it needs to be set up correctly - boresighted in a cold start, and set to auto ranging is usually the best solution. I assume you're using the HMD for targeting? In which case, it's just a matter of correcting for the projectile's lead. If you're doing a reasonable forward speed then of course the hits will land behind where the crosshair is pointing, you need to adjust for that. The best thing to do is fire a very short burst to see where they're landing, and then adjust appropriately. As for rockets, I think it's also a case of being set up correctly and having the appropriate acquisition source depending on whether you're aiming yourself as pilot, or using a target set by George. Also, the I beam doesn't need to be 'over' the cross - it only provides left/right indications, so the vertical axis doesn't matter. I suggest Casmo's videos on rocket use.

Oh I wouldn't want to say that you'd hate it. But when I transferred from my old Thrustmaster pedals to MFG Crosswinds last year, I noticed a huge difference in the ability to accurately control helicopters' torque. It's much less important for fixed-wing, of course. My point was... controlling the collective requires less sensitivity (in my opinion) than controlling the anti-torque. So if you're building a system specifically designed towards a helicopter module, then I'd value better pedals over a better throttle/collective. It depends how good the Logitech pedals are/how accurate they are. I've never used them, so I don't really know.