FalcoGer

Can confirm. No Advisory on the EUFD nor boxed indicators in the helmet symbology for the opposite crewmember.

When fireing the gun, the bullets get deleted from existence after 3000m. While I understand that bullets in flight take away performance, they shouldn't be deleted. Even if the gun's effective range is not 3000m, the bullets should still not be deleted at that range. In real life a bullet wouldn't be deleted even if you shot it up into the air and it traveled 20km. It would still impact the ground since it doesn't have a timed fuze in it. It's very noticable that the bullets disappear and 3000m is still where I would employ the gun against groups of infantry. Consider putting the range up to ~6-8km instead. gun3krange.trk

When a Mig29S locks something up, everybody in front of it gets an RWR spike in a massive, ridiculous arc. I have here a track that shows a Mig29S locking up a tanker, bearing 270° from the mig and in my apache I still get the spike at 40° off axis at bearing 230 from the mig. Meaning the overspill area is a 80° arc! That's ridiculous. The lock stops because the mig29 target was destroyed, so i couldn't measure the full extent, but even so 40° is way too much for an STT lock overspill. The beam should be a lot narrower! Whenever there is a mig29 on the map and fighting someone, everybody just gets spiked by it, it's annoying and unrealistic. mig29s 38 degree overspill.trk

I have a german keyboard, but I'm a programmer. By default, windows doesn't come with a "No Dead Keys" layout for german keyboards. Certain keys, for example ^, ` or ´ need to be pressed twice for them to be typed because they're used in the creation of accented characters such as é or ô by first hitting the accent button an then hitting the key that you wish the accent applied to. I rarely to never need that feature and as a programmer I use those accent keys as symbols and typing them twice and then deleting the extra is just tedius. To that end I have created my own, custom windows keyboard layout file that has those keys "non dead", meaning they type immediately. However when that keyboard layout is selected, DCS defaults the layout to US English. Furthermore when the game is running, switching the keyboard layout in windows has no effect on the keyboard layout the game uses. So when I select my custom layout, I can't play properly because all the bindings are for a german keyboard. And then I have to shut the game off to change the layout. Here is the custom, german layout for testing. You will need the Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator (MSKLC) from Microsoft. I could attach the completed msi installer, but given that it is an executable, it would be unwise to execute it, since it is not trusted. Open the attached layout file with MSKLC, generate the installer script and you will get a new keyboard layout option in windows. In case you do wish to run the untrusted installer file, I have attached it as well and you don't need to bother with MSKLC and you can just install the layout. GermanKeyboard-NoDeadKeys.klc German_amd64.msi

Enemy hawk sam sites show up as SA3 targets on the TSD. The correct ID is "HK" hawk is sa3.trk

When in multicrew, with neither CPG or Pilot being host, there is an issue when going to TSD -> T6 Util -> R2 Time, it switches to Local and instantly back to Zulu. You have to press it a random number of times before it "sticks" Unable to provide track since it's a multiplayer issue.

When in multicrew on a multiplayer server and neither pilot is the host, then the CPG consistently doesn't get RWR or missile warnings, despite RLWR being activated in ASE Utilities and RLWR volume being up. Airborne radars seem to work while ground radars seem to give no indication to the CPG. Unable to provide track due to it being a multiplayer issue.

When clicking the windshield wiper knob with RMB without power applied it only goes up to LO and repeated RMB clicks don't make it move to HI. When LMB clicking it doesn't go back to off as one would expect but instead it goes to park and springs back to off from there. Once generator power is applied it behaves as expected. Track attached unpowered windshield knob weird.trk

Recently a bug has been fixed in that when returning from the ASE page after it was selected from the weapons page, it would return to the TSD. Now when selecting the ASE page from the TSD utility page it would also return to the weapons page. Not entirely sure if that's the correct behavior or not. It seems weird. Perhaps it's best if someone checked with an SME on this. To reproduce: 1. Quick TSD 2. T6 - UTIL 3. T2 - ASE 4. T2 - UnASE Expected page: TSD Actual page: WPN Track attached UnASE weird.trk

Recently there was a bugfix for when returning from the ASE menu it would come back to the TSD even if it was entered from the weapons page. The same behavior is still true when you open the ASE utility page as an aditional step. To reproduce: 1. Quick WPN 2. T2 - ASE 3. T6 - UTIL 4. T2 - UnASE Expected page: WPN Actual page: TSD Track attached UnASE weird.trk

Maybe I should make a video since track files only record when the simulation is actually running and don't capture the menu or anything like it. I shall edit this here post after that video is done. Edit: I didn't change a single thing, there was no updates... and suddenly it just starts at 0 as it's supposed to. I'm confused...

Yes, I can move my axis during the briefing and it will be 50% if i don't move it after fly. Playing online, there is no pause to move the axis in generally, and the problem happens again if I grab a new aircraft anyway. I don't see the collective reading 50% for no reason to be correct as is...

Again when I first jump into the cockpit, the game freezes for a second or three, during which time 50% collective is enough to throw the helicopter on it's side without me being able to do anything about it. And if leaving it on gives me 50% collective, then something is broken if the the physical axis is at 0%. I also do have a couple of hard switches that I like to be syncronized.

That device is "disabled". It shouldn't do anything.

Again, when I open that axis tune window it's stuck at 50% exactly until I move the axis slightly, at which point it jumps to the new value. You can see the value I set on the hardware (0%) in the background.

I understand that the forum rules are made by ED. But not only is the information already out there, ED developers clearly have the information from the manual, whether from it or from other sources, possibly derived from it, doesn't matter. The ED early access manual for the apache has the very same table as the technical manual, just with colored symbols instead of black and white. Heck, I could've drawn the same thing myself and nobody would be any wiser, saying I got the image from the game as it is. The manual isn't needed to come up with that picture. What makes a bunch of lines, 2 letters and 2 words illegal to post here when it's a screenshot from the manual, but legal when the very same set of lines, the same 2 letters and the same 2 words in the same table legal when it's in ED's own manual? This is ridiculous. And it's not like the nato symbols for military units are a secret, prohibited for export or restricted for that matter. you can look them all up here: https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/adp1_02.pdf In fact that document says: "Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited." Who is to say someone didn't edit that in? Who could know? Am I to check and second guess everything? Again, it says export is prohibited in the TM. I'm not exporting, it has already been exported to me. And millions of others. Are they gonna come down on the ED developers because they use an export restricted manual to develop the apache? Even if they didn't maybe the sources they do use were derived from that manual. Someone could've copied that table and released it as "public information", not state their source and suddenly you got a massive mess on your hands. Are you required to follow the bread crumb trail back? Who is to say whether it really was public and approved or not? The technical manual lists the length of the rotor blades on the apache. But you could also look that up on wikipedia. Are they going to sue wikipedia for having information from the manual? Who is to say where they got that from?! Of course the length of the rotor blades is a trivial thing to prove that you have public sources. But look at ED's simulation in it's entirety. Every little menu, font used, functionality, behavior, warning, screw position and anything else that resembles any kind of similiarity between ED's product and the real apache would have to be proven to be from public sources. And then you would have to prove that those public sources are not derived from restricted sources. And then you would have to prove that that is from public sources. And you would end up in a never ending legal nonsense. If someone really wanted they could probably shut ED down completely, at least until they have proven that every fleck of paint they put someplace is from public data. Yes, it's bad to steal, even if I don't think so. But somewhere you gotta draw the line. Is picking up a penny off the floor stealing? Is it stealing if the owner clearly noticed he dropped it and didn't pick it up because he was too lazy and now you picked it up? Is it stealing if everybody in the world already knows the penny is there but didn't bother to pick it up? And if it is still stealing, is that still bad? Then, is posting information from the manual, even pictures of it, still illegal if I can prove that I could've derived that same information through other means and compiled it in the same manner as the manual did, for example as a table? Say I found a public document (ED's manual for example) and then I post screenshots from the actual TM with the same information. Would that be bad? For example I could make a screenshot of the comm panel in the cockpit or a frame from a video on youtube showing it off. And then take a screenshot from the manual with a diagram of that very same panel. The information is already public. I could've easily come up with the same diagram from public sources. Is posting that diagram still bad? Why? What if I didn't make a screenshot but drew it myself and it ended up looking the same (because it is the same)? These laws just don't make sense to me.

I had the same failure happen to me again. I conclude that the engine might be stuck at max power, the other engine thus being near idle. Then I was messing about and something quite amazing happened as well. I was dumping the collective, and of course the rotor sped up. Then I was slamming the collective up again and the sudden force appeared to have snapped the drive train on that engine (supposedly at the design failure point). I heard an audible bang and suddenly the engine indication for engine 2, the one that was previously on full power, went to 0 and engine 1 torque went up to 130%, giving a proper single engine condition. So I suppose this is not a bug.

Where did you get that information from? I would wager so as well since it's a best guess of mine considering my understanding on how ranging and range sources work so far, but I couldn't say with 100% certainty.

If it's a publication, doesn't that mean that it's public? It's not classified. I don't get why it's a big deal. Heck you can download it from multiple sources, and they don't get sued out of their asses. Besides, why should I care about US laws? It says "export is prohibited", I'm not exporting from the us. It has already been exported. Heck, I bet everyone on the Apache staff in ED has a copy of that very document. How else would you explain the faulty symbol that is the very same faulty symbol in that document? Also I don't see how a correlation between some ID code and a symbol is any bad for anyone. It's not harmful at all even if the whole world knows about it. Again, it's not classified.

That's neither valid english, nor is it explained anywhere. What does that mean?

First. Since the latest update, when the laser is out of range (>9999m) or there is no return (for example you point it in the sky), the range indication on the TEDAC display stays the same. Is that correct or should it switch to 9999m? Secondly There are 4 range sources. Nav, Auto, Laser and Manual. I assume radar range is also a thing. When I'm the gunner and I lase a target, the range is obviously from the laser. When I then switch to HMD as sight and WAS the gun, the last laser range stays as the currently selected range. But this isn't indicated on the weapon page. This is really annoying if you want to do a quick shot at something close with your helmet and you set a manual range of about 800m during the start of the flight just in preparation for that. Then suddenly the helicopter thinks you want to shoot at something 6000m away because that's where you lased last. Is that correct or should the range reset to MAN when you deselect the TADS as sight? As a workaround I found that I can select GHS and just keep fireing the laser while being slaved and shoot.

Would appreciate this option too. My head tracking can be a little imprecise at times. It's good enough to look around and strafe a target with the gun or slave the tads near a target, but aligning requires rather precise movements, and the thing just keeps just slightly overadjusting It'd be nice to have an option where the boresighting step is not required.

A mission with a friendly air defense unit (for example a vulkan aaa unit) is loaded, the TSD shows it as a target/threat. Because of this, you can't distinguish between friendly and hostile units, because they're all just red. This is rather unhelpful since now not only do you get lots of clutter to filter through, you don't even know if a particular "threat" is actually a threat or a friendly. I propose to make friendly air defense units with friendly control measures (For example: Ident AD with a name abbreviation of the actual unit (for example VUL for a vulcan adu)) instead. Alternatively don't put them in at all.

I guess that could make sense. But shouldn't that generate a DECU failure message? I don't think we got something like that.