FalcoGer

Even then you should get a laser warning. The A10-C (shows up as L on rwr) and the ka-50 have laser warning receivers, not sure about other airframes.

it's probably noscript but this is really funny. Also if it is noscript then why the heck do you need javascript to put a number there?! Buy this thing and waste 30 minutes of your life (presumably unpacking not included) to get 0 extra fuel!

Couldn't they use some kind of contrast lock to steer the missile without radar? Why would you manually guide the missile with optics when you can have automation be more reliable and accurate? Especially in this day and age. Manpads in DCS are really easily spoofed by the flares. They always seem to go out for those in 95% of the cases and their range really sucks, too. You can snipe them with guns from 4km away in the kamov and not get shot at. of course your accuracy sucks and you have to put 20-50 rounds downrange, but it's still better than wasting a missile that is better served for a real threat (like a tunguska) or even a tank or ifv with guided missiles. We need some more modern stuff for manpads.

any updates on this? the new A-4 kneeboard has colored tabs on the side that help you know which section you are in, they're the same on all images with the section you are in highlighted. Also page numbers and an index page. There is a cockpit layout page with references to the pages that the systems are explained in. It's really handy.

I don't mind delays. But really, no one expected it to release in december, or january. And yet they STILL said they would. That is the problem I'm having with this whole thing. Again my issue isn't with the apache development, the apache module, the thing being delayed or even the development team, because I'm sure they do the best they can. My issue is with the policies and politics of ED and their marketing. Of course I can wait, and again, this was expected. I never once wavered in my belief that the apache would be delayed at least trice. Of course I had the vague hope of it being done this month and I would've liked it very much. But I'm not loosing my sleep over it. All I ask is reasonable estimates and no PR nonsense. And of course if you're gonna give people <insert name of imaginary money substitute here> as an apology for the delay, then give it to everyone.

Disappointing: Yes Expected: Yes Acceptable: No, because it was expected Release dates have never been met. Why don't they just take their "release dates" and add half a year and then everybody will be happy with only a few weeks of delays instead of months. I don't expect this till the end of march when they are legally bound to release due to their stunt on steam, putting their release date in December. The delay was expected by everyone here, nobody believed that the release date would be met. And that is the unacceptable part. People who aren't even involved are fully confident in your failure to deliver on time. I don't mind complications coming up and things being delayed, everybody has been there, I'm sure. But by now everybody knows, and that includes the developers, that none of the release dates you promised have held up so far. So why do you keep saying them without a healthy margin based on previous setbacks and delays? You push it back by a few weeks, then again, then again, then again. Why not just tell us when you are actually ready? What would be real nice is if you said releases in june, and then you release... in june. Is this all some kind of big marketing stunt to reel in the cash by pretending that things are almost done or what? Because clearly it wasn't unexpected that things would take longer. Also thank you for increasing the miles for the module because of the delay. And then not giving any to those who used miles for the purchase. Because not only makes that total sense, it's also very fair. (sarcasm)

When looking at the destroyed model of the ZU-23 Ural truck black squares appear around certain areas.

Rearming complete. Also can not repair. Ground crew replies with "Copy", but timer does not appear.

@BIGNEWYCan you clarify what "working" means? We have "working" wipers in the ka50, in that the models move. but rain is not actually removed from the canopy. Do we get the same "working" or will they actually work? Will this feature then be extended to the other models that have anti rain/ice for their canopies? Be it wipers or bleed air?

head tracking is even synced in external model. Also rotating the model of a head isn't much wasted resources. The resources are used actually drawing those things and calculating shadows and such. And something needs to be drawn there anyway (I imagine you don't want a black/purple box). it might as well be what is supposed to be there. Also I'm pretty sure (i very much hope) that DCS's graphics engine uses culling. Culling is a method of not drawing things that are not in view. Such as objects hidden behind other objects or out of the field of view entirely. I wouldn't worry about performance because of syncing displays. That's practically free in the scheme of things.

I don't know why everybody is bitching about my suggestion and making fun of it. It's in the manual, it's in the real world and it's not impossible to implement without a major performance impact (unlike ray tracing light refracted off insect splatters). The jeff has it already. I want the apache to have it too, if appropriate. But everybody is like "Sure, let's postpone launch to 2060" or "I also want to write little messages and images with my finger on the fogged up canopy that persist because let's model the fat on the window." You're just toxic. If you think this is a bad idea then make some real arguments. Otherwise this is a wish list. Unlike you lot, I actually put some thought into what I want. And it's neither unrealistic nor impossible.

I think we get 2x30 chaff + 1x30 flare dispensers. that seems really low. In the kamov and it's 120 flares I can dodge manpads for days, shoot some out preventively, have some spare for signalling and then come back to base with 30 left. I can spam 30 or even 60 in a couple of seconds if I need/want to and know I have enough left to do the GTFO maneuver. 30 in the apache would be gone really quickly I think. Why didn't they add bigger banks? Even so I'd rather have 30 chaff and 60 flares. radar missiles are typically for higher altitudes and speeds. even something close range for down low like the SA-15 would be easier to dodge than an IR missile, mostly because you can just break LOS, which is easier in a helicopter because you're low anyway. Also how effective is chaff in a helicopter anyway? I feel like it'd just be scattered and blown away by the rotor wash. I know some radar basics, but not how helicopters would show up as raw data and how chaff would affect the signal. the rotor blades would create something rather distinctive on a doppler pulse radar, I imagine.

I did. I don't know what that has to do with terrible titles on forum threads though.

Apparently they plan release in "december" (hopefully this year) according to bignewy on facebook in a comment on the latest newsletter post there (Nov 5th, 2021). Couldn't really find much on the forum to confirm this from something more official than a comment on facebook though.

Could you steer the laser by using TADS as HMU source? Or will it turn off the laser automagically? I guess it doesn't really matter since the front seat has to turn the laser on in the first place and it can't just be on continuously.

So lockout when DECU fails, otherwise don't touch because bad things will happen, which may include but are not limited to: equipment damage, injury, death, humiliation, being yelled at, soiling your underwear, collateral damage as you land on a cow (apparently the USAF accidentally dropped a nuke on a cow once during transport for maintenance), engine failure, power train failure and/or generating a $20 million heap of scrap which may or may not contain hazardous materials.

No I don't. Because I don't use facebook. It still is not a newsletter. And when you say newsletter of course I look at the official sources, especially with such claims like "It'll release in december", when I haven't read anything about it anywhere on the forums. Anyhow since it's bignewy I guess that makes it official.

In DCS i don't. Because I can outrange the manpads with guns. The KA50 has a sniper rifle for a cannon. Even if in 50 shots I hit one at 4km range (seems about what I get on average), that's still more effective than wasting a missile. I understand the M320 AWS is much less of a sniper and more of an hit everything in the football field kind of gun, especially at longer ranges. So maybe I'll have to come up with a new strategy. Even then their flare rejection is so bad that you can dupe them with flares 99% of the time. On the other hand I don't want to waste 30 minutes flying back to base just because I spent all my missiles on infantry and then don't have enough for an actual threat (read SA15, SA19, ATGM capable ruskies, etc) that needs long range or high firepower (tank and... well mostly tank). Of course if I have missiles to spare I use them against manpads, even before I use them against APCs. It depends on the situation.

Is the missile smart enough that if you fire it say on an air defense target LOAL that it will distinguish it from a tank that's standing next to it or is it more like a harpoon that you fire in a general direction and it goes for whatever it deems a target mostly at random?

What the hell is that? That looks like some funky chat program, not a newsletter. If you're gonna provide a source then send a link or at worst a quote, not an image. https://idownvotedbecau.se/imageofcode Not code, but same principle applies. Images are not searchable. Can't copy and paste from images.

I just have an amazing idea. You equip all the insurgents in the world with cardboard replicas of manpads. Then the opposing airforce will waste billions of dollars in missiles on all those "manpads" without realizing that they're wasting resources. I'm a genius. Actually I think this actually has precedence.

bug fixes. then long standing, non fulfilled promises like proper comms ladder and atc that does more than yell at everyone to hold position for no reason. Then more long standing promises like proper in game radio comms for multiplayer. Then more long standing promises like DTC. And maybe then some QoL stuff and UX improvements.

I don't see anything mentioned about the apache here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/ This doesn't give any dates or estimates either: So what are you talking about?

I think it does. If you have a choice to safely engage an enemy position with the gun or a missile and can expect the end result to be the same, then the obvious choice would be the gun. A bullet costs a few bucks. A missile costs a few hundred thousand bucks and your base likely only has a limited amount. The second reason why it matters is that you have a limited number of missiles. You blow up 8 people with 8 hellfires and then you need to blow up a tank, you're out of luck. Of course in real life other things matter, too. For example a missile is a lot more terrifying than a spray of bullet. If the enemy is coming to the scene and they get to either pick up bloody swiss cheese or can scrape of the goo from the walls and pick up mangled limbs, it's gonna be a hit on morale either way. There is also the consideration of collateral damage. You spray that gun into a building trying to hit some infantry on the road it's gonna need a fix. You fire a missile into the guy on the road, the building might collapse or have the wall blown out completely. Another consideration might be a failure of the system. A bullet really can't fail after it has left the barrel. A missile might not explode and then you have a mess on your hands, or at least the local EOD team does. I don't know how reliable hellfires are but I don't doubt that every once in a while they don't go off (expect at least 1 in 500 not to explode, but I pulled that number out of my ass). The more complicated something gets, the more likely it is to fail.