FalcoGer

I don't see a huge problem here. In the A10C I just use the default keybindings of left ctrl + windows and I get all the letters. Since I use head tracking I typically put the numbers on the numpad for easy access.

Could you possibly choose a more vague title for your wish? Also can we keep this clean of jokes? I'd rather have the staff read serious suggestions than to filter through trash like this.

It is not just my opinion. I have talked to an ATC guy and he said that GA doesn't appreciate helicopters taking off from the ramp and that he makes them take off from the taxiway at least. Real large helicopters are required to take the runway. Of course it is situation depended but at the end of the day aircraft, including helicopters, are supposed to take the runway generally. Exceptions may apply. Literally the first search result for "should helicopters take the runway": https://pilotteacher.com/why-do-helicopters-takeoff-land-on-runways/ It then provides a list of reasons why a runway should be preferred. Or in short, yes you can take off vertically, but at the end of the day it's at ATC discretion and generally speaking you should use the runway if there is no good reason against that. In DCS it doesn't matter, and in fact may be preferable to just take off because you want to get on with it and not hinder other people.

Whatever for?

In certain weather conditions the canopy windows and displays can fog or ice over. I wish for the ECS to be modeled. Furthermore the TADS/PNVS can be damaged if started up in low or high temperature conditions improperly. I wish this to be modeled as well.

Well it doesn't say anywhere that it's classified in the document, everywhere I checked it says it's not. Besides that I don't think that mentioning that a system exists or that the DTC hold the data for that system is any issue. Anyone can read on wikipedia that mode 4 uses a crypto algorithm and a digital key or that ECM is designed to mess with electronics like radar. The issue comes when it goes into the details. I can't go into the details because I don't have access to classified materials in the first place. All ED needs to do is simulate the effects of such systems, not actually implement them in detail.

That list is unclassified in TM 1-1520-251-10, page 173, 2.127 DATA TRANSFER MANAGEMENT.

As ever, we want this, we'll never get this. But since you already made a list... IDM settings (net assignments, configuration (such as baud rate), auto reply flag, etc) and free texts (such as mission briefing, reports) COMM presets and COMM net setup, radio selections Call sign frequencies Authentication and reply codes (SOI and IFF, all modes, and IFF timetable plan) Waypoints Hazard points (towers, power lines, etc) Target and threat points, threat ranges control measures (friend and enemy) routes nav mode present position for EGI alignment engagement areas laser codes ADF settings weapon selections FCR settings Tail # ASE settings Priority/No fire zones GPS keys/ECCM HF setup + ECCM A few others I think that's about all there is on the cartridge.

Well maybe you ought to name your topics something that makes sense. Like "Rename CPL AI" instead of something that says nothing about what you want. Also -1. It's not like you get to say the name often, I'm more worried about the functionality and interactivity. Jester is great, but from what I have seen from the Hind it's really a lot more simple and more importantly one way. Jester reacts to things and tells you. All the videos I have seen of the hind is you telling the AI what to do in a very general kind of way.

Oooh yeah! Bring out the $80 farp module! Ground staff would be nice. But nobody wants to wait around for realistic rearm/refuel times, let alone repair times, in fact you can probably take a nap to get even minor damaged fixed and probably have a meal for rearming and refueling.

Even with skids you would take off from a runway or taxiway on airports. You can get a running start with ground effect and you still avoid flinging rocks at nearby people and parked aircraft.

I'd like to see working IFF throughout DCS where possible (ie. FC3 aircraft will need to have magic IFF, etc), naturally this includes the apache. Meaning if set up incorrectly, turned off, zeroed or damaged the aircraft will show unknown/no response on the corresponding modes and provide an IFF warning advisory if it detected but can not answer a mode 4 interrogation (mismatched keys for example). There is no need to implement a classified protocol, implementing the function (ie. the result) should be good enough like they did with the JF17. Mode 2 should be set in the mission editor or perhaps the special options page if the APX-118 is not installed (ie. APX-100 only), otherwise through the MFD by setting mode 3 as 2222 and within 15 seconds setting the mode 2 code by setting mode 3 again. (Edit: This was moved from the apache wishlist, so this paragraph is for the apache) While IFF is mostly automatic and doing a detailed simulation of it's effects shouldn't differ much from magic IFF it does add some realism, cockpit functionality and tactical options to the game. For example you can do a mode 2/3 interrogation to find a specific aircraft. On top of that third party software like Lot ATC can use the data as well, so at least entering the codes and exporting them would be nice.

I was talking in general, including civ traffic. Of course if there is no runway you can't take off from one.

So if unclassified, it's okay, even with "Distribution by DOD and DOD contractors only"? I don't understand this distribution nonsense anyway. If it's unclassified then it should be free information. I'm not an US citizen, I'm not exporting anything. It's on the internet and not in some dark corners of the tor network offered by chineese hackers or something. It's like "Everybody is free to read it. But don't give it to people to read." It makes no sense. Also you have not answered my question. The document is unclassified. How can I be sure it is? The website, mind you a .mil domain, says it is. The document I downloaded from 2 different sites says nothing about a classification. I downloaded the document with a google search and didn't have special forces didn't blow up my door and jumped through my windows this morning. From what I can see it is unclassified, otherwise how would I get my hands on it in the first place? But how can I be certain? What is the standard of proof you require? The rule is muddy, I would like a very clear description of what is and is not allowed based on the information provided on the title page of the document. As I said I am not an US citizen, I'm not exporting anything from the US. I don't know what ITAR is, what an ITAR restriction is, how to recognize an ITAR restriction. I read "unclassified" and it tells me "anyone can read it anyway so It should be fine". I don't get all that bureaucratic nonsense, restrictions of unclassified documents and what have you. Aside from all that I am not even dumping the whole document here. I just wish to point out things that I want in the new Apache module or later point out things that are wrong with it. And to prove my point or to illustrate the problem/feature I wish to use the manual as a reference.

The document itself states it's unclassified. I assumed a .mil domain would be official. Anyone could alter the document to say it's unclassified. Where would I get the information given only the manual name (TM 1-1520-251-10 from 2002)? And, if indeed it were unclassified, where does this leave me with the distribution notice? Can I post or not?

Yes, I watched that one. But they were underway and couldn't check easily what was or wasn't officially unclassified so they decided to play it safe, which is fine. What I'm asking is can I post stuff from the manual here if it's officially unclassified, which it is. I'd prefer the answer from someone like @BIGNEWY so it's definitive. I'm sure ED would use the very same manual for developing the aircraft anyhow. Or at least I very much hope they do.

I don't know exactly where to post this, this seemed the best place but feel free to move it if appropriate. I wish to post pictures and information from TM 1-1520-251-10. The document is unclassified but distribution is restricted DOD and DOD contractors. However it is freely and publicly available for download and you can find it in multiple places if you use your favorite search engine. https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?PUB_ID=1008958 So can I post those files or not? I don't understand the whole idea of unclassified but do not distribute. As far as I understand it it's legal to distribute FOUO documents. Especially since it's publicly available anyway. According to this: https://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/InformationOperations/LogisticsInformationServices/Customer Outreach/Subscriptions/J6_ForOfficialUseOnly_160113.pdf it seems like "It's not classified but you needn't release it publicly." But since it has already been released it doesn't matter anymore. Then again that's different from distribution by DOD only. Rule 1.16 states that the information must be unclassfied (which it is) and not ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations?) restricted. I don't see how it is or how to check. It seems free of such restrictions. So in short: Can I post stuff from the operator's manual here or not?

If the DTC is loaded with procedures, the ENG emergency page format is displaying them when warnings or cautions appear. I would like to have that feature implemented for all warnings and cautions that can appear in DCS.

According to the manual, the block II AH-64D is equipped with a removable ELT (emergency locator beacon) situated in the CPG cockpit that, when activated either manually or by gravity switches (aka when you crash), unless deactivated with a shorting plug. When activated it should transmit a signal on both emergency frequencies 121.5 and 243.0 I would like to have this implemented, including other aircraft using radio navigation equipment to be able to find the thing.

Actually helicopters are supposed to take off from the runway, or at least a taxiway. Not only do you get more lift and you can convert the forward movement into altitude, it also prevents debris on the tarmac flying everywhere when setting takeoff power, potentially injuring ground personnel and flinging stuff at parked aircraft.

Would love, especially if it can act as a translator between the different datalink formats for the different aircraft that don't have the same system. Getting ground target data link tracks like we get air target data link tracks right now seems really handy, too. Please give us an E-8.

Sure, I use vikhrs as well on air defenses, including manpads, but in a real life application the vikhr is about 4 times cheaper than a hellfire and you can carry 12 on 2 pylons.

I would like to request to be able to swap between the seats in multiplayer if there is only one person in the helicopter. Right now using multicrew aircraft in multiplayer with no one to fly together is a bit of an issue because you can only rely on the AI, which has it's limitations. You can't take manual control of the other stations. Of course if you have two people it would be optimal, provided both know what they're doing, but sometimes that's just not an option for a lack of people or lack of communication or just bad synergy or whatever else might prevent you from having a second human crew member. Or maybe you just want to fly alone, but in a multiplayer environment and you want the full range of options you have in single player (ie. swap seats). It could work something like this: In the role selection screen you can pick either position to fly the helicopter and swapping seats will not change the slot. When another person then joins the crew you will get moved to the slot you originally picked if you accept.

I did buy it, and I hope for a good product of course. But I think you should reserve your happiness when you finally get to blow stuff up in the thing.

I wonder why they weren't used much. As opposed to the laser guided variants they're fire and forget, aren't they? Seems like you'd want that capability to fire over a ridge/building and then dive instead of waiting for impact. Sure you can't get a radar lock on infantry, but a hellfire is a waste for that anyhow.