Dagobert666

Patchday! So there is a new version to download. That should solve the M01 Convoy problem for now. But that's not my fault. We (my group) flew the mission the most of all others. And we never had any problems. Suddenly the convoy always hangs in the firebase. ED must have messed that up. In any of the last paches. No idea maybe a hitbox changed or something in the Convoy logic. The patch also includes bug fixes for other missions. Tip: whenever it doesn't go any further, check Comunication F10 "other" tab. Often there is a command to continue. Thank you so much for your enthusiasm

1)First of all I would like to say thank you very much! I'm honestly happy to hear that you're really enjoying my campaign. As a mission builder there is nothing better to hear. Thanks 2) On the subject of R language: I was in the military myself. And without such language it would be absolutely away from any realism. When you're on a mission, every second word is a swear word of the worst kind. XD 3)At the moment DCS has little priority in my life so I'm not working on the campaign right now..... But it also runs quite well, as far as I can tell. 4)Once the Longbow Radar is out, I plan a campaign on the Syria map.

I think the video clearly shows why it's taking so long. It's really super complex. Datalink, firing zones, 4 Apache but only one longbow radar, the ability to attack up to 16 targets at once, etc etc. And George has to be able to deal with it too... The whole thing is clearly more complex than a "normal" aircraft radar.

Thank you very much for the Awser

Speaking of info. Anyone know a good source on the Longbow Radar? That's NOT going to work with the Doppler effect, is it? I once saw an old commercial that it can uncover and even identify vehicles (even stationary ones) in seconds. What technique does it use to distinguish between a large boulder/Rock and a jeep? What range does it have? I would like to have answered such questions.

I have to ask that stupid question....SORRY What's the point of ED doing the work to add the Option to remove the part? -Ok, the helicopter looks a bit different then. What is perceived purely subjectively as more beautiful or ugly. -If you remove the part then the helicopter is much more vulnerable to FOX-2 type infrared-seeking missiles such as Manpads and various others. Do it have any advantages? Significantly less weight? More engine torque? Anything why remove this at all besides appearance? You remove a piece of protective gear and you get what?

I can only confirm that. I have a super fast M.2 SSD Before the 2.8 update, it only took a second or two after being seated in the helicopter for all textures of the cockpit and world to be loaded. Now I can watch how each individual element gets its texture.

The problem is, if Eagle Dynamics doesn't say exactly what they're touching and changing, then the statement "Apache flies better, worse, or something else after the patch" is entirely subjective. In many cases, the brain pretends a change even though nothing has changed. Unless it's something absolutely definite, like the anti-torque change, then the statement, "The bird flies better now," even if it comes from dozens of people, doesn't matter at all. There are so many psychological effects that distort one's perception. For example the Mandela Effect. What I'm saying is, it annoys me that Eagle Dynamics keeps the FM changes so secret. Don't get me wrong, I think ED does a great job with the AH64, SERIOUSLY Awesome!!! But this special communicative deficit just annoys me ^^

Oh, that would be nice...... "Aaaaaaand lasing" "lasing" "Laser on" "Laser is on" "target acquired" "target acquired Lasing" "target acquired Laser on" "lasing Ready to Fire" "Laser on Ready to Fire" "Laser is on Ready to Fire" "I'm ready to fire, Laser is on" "Ready to fire, Laser on" "Ready to fire, Lasing" "Target locked, Laser on" "Target locked, Lasing" "Aaaaaaand Laser is On" "And Laser is...... On" "Aaaaaaand Laser On" "And Laser.... On" By the way, this also applies to SLAVING *sniff

I think you throw too much together and twist what I say. That's why I'm trying to preziesen again. 1) Zsu-23, or more sophisticated anti-air: YES absolutely right, the aiming accuracy of a "Shilka" in DCS is absolutely fine in DCS. So Shilka, 2K22 Tunguska, etc. Radar-assisted anti-aircraft guns are basically the Kryptonite for helicopters. Absolute madness to want to fight with the Gun or Hydra70. I Agree 2) It's about the ridiculous accuracy of: A) eg BRT80... Do they have a laser range finder? Yes. you're right! BUT have you seen how it's used? Me yes... The Russian Tech is absolutely not suitable for targeting and shooting at something in flight. It's not like the main gun on the M1A1 Abrams or the Leopard 2 where you just aim, then laser and the cannon will auto-align with lead.... No, the Rusian-Laser just gives you the range..... And hitting something that flies and therefore moves in three dimensions only becomes marginally easier. B) Even more ridiculous is the accuracy of the HMG 12.7mm that is mounted on the T55, T72 etc. on top of it. That's the original thing I had with the Bundeswehr with the 2XMG3 training... Just a manual Iron-Air-Defense-Vesier. So that to hit a helicopter that: 1. NOT moving straight ahead 2. Climps and falls 3. at distances over 300m is pure luck. But in DCS it's almost inevitable. If you don't believe me, I'll show you videos where I was hit by an "AI-EASY" T55 at a distance of more than a kilometer from this fire, although I dodged like a berserker... The problem here is again: the AI is set to "EASY/Recrut, Newbie" not "Very Hard, Veteran, ACE" I expect someone who has just left basic training as a tank crew to have been theoretically briefed on the anti-aircraft capabilities of the HMG 12.7mm once. But not dealing with it as if he hasn't done anything else every day for 20 years. Add to that the adrenaline rush. You tremble so much that you can no longer speak of exact Aiming at distances of more than 100m...

Yes, normally one SR and one TR. Often even just one SR in a whole network that is spread over several kilometers. In addition, each position usually has infantry, a two vehicles with HMG or autocannons, and 1-2 manpads. But of course these are all things that make using Hydra70 rockets extremely dangerous. You would have to get so close that you would get caught in a bullet storm. By the way, there comes the next problem that breaks the rockets in DCS. HMG and autocannons are ABSOLUTELY ridiculously accurate against flying targets. During my time in the German Bundeswehr I had anti-aircraft shooting. With our 2x MG3 Lafette. And it's incredibly difficult even in a training scenario with no real pressure, no adrenaline rush and a drone slowly flying straight ahead. In DCS all Gunners are just Divine Archers with awesome Aimbots, even on Easy/Average.

I'm sorry to say that but -in DCS, vehicles don't have drivers that can be hit, -Houses are empty cubes of polygons that are either "alive" 1 or "destroyed" 0. Even in the infamous ZU-23-2 emplacement, the two exposed soldiers operating the turret are purely visual and do not exist in DCS CODE. That's exactly the problem why rockets are so garbage. In reality, if a Hydra 70 FRAG explode 10m from a truck, you would damage the tires, gas tank and engine parts. Also kill or injure the driver, passenger and the 12 soldiers on the truck bed, so they probably have to go home again.. to the hospital or to the cemetery... In DCS the truck gets 5-10% damage... that's it XD

"Peanut Gallery.": Someone who has squirrel brains. Anything they say should and will be ignored..... Really now? It's nice to let go of a condescending insult just because there are many other opinions here, so YOU... There's really no place for that here...

Do you have any background information for this? I can't find anything informative about the Flechettes right now. -the warhead is probably smaller than that of the M229? -the Flechetes probably don't fly much further than the Spitters from FRAG? -I can imagine that the Flechettes go better through body armor but make no difference to REAL armor of armored vehicles? The question is also how this is to be implemented in DCS, since vehicles do not have a real armoring system and no components that can fail. The damage model of DCS vehicles is totally binary. Either fully Combat capable or broken and out of Order...

FalcoGer is absolutely right on every point. I also wanted to write a whole book about Rockets being gabage..... It's all about rockets vs missiles.... and that in DCS... -In the end, the APACHE that fired 16 Hellfire is always ahead with destroyed tonage. More destruction = more team help. YES, they are special cases, but smoke rockets are just that... a special case. -The gun can do everything that the rockets can do, just a little more precisely and therefore at a greater distance and because it can be swiveled in more flight attitudes. -8 Hellfire are lighter than a fully loaded rocked pod (that's the death knell for me) Annotation: -In real life, the purchase price plays a role. -In real life, badly damaging a vehicle is enough to disable it for weeks. -In real life, the destructive power of a Hydra 70 is probably greater than in DCS But that's just DCS and as it is at the moment, I'd rather have 8 Apaches with 16 Hellfires each on my side than 8 Apaches with 76 Hydras! In a normal attrition scenario, I'm 100% sure the Apaches will help me a lot more with Hellfire.... And in the event that the smoke from Apache Hydras should have been THE decisive advantage, I would prefer a tank exploded by a Hellfire with the resulting cloud of smoke... as a marker Markt by: Fire and Black Smoke

Oh man the pedals! I previously had the "Thrustmaster TFRP - Rudder Pedals for PC" and it was an ABSOLUTE nightmare. It was simply not possible to make the small adjustments that Apache requires to fly straight. Even if I oiled the part before each flight, it still wasn't smooth and frictionless enough to control the bird. I've already started to doubt my abilities. Then I switched to "VKB-SIM T-RUDDER PEDALS MK.IV" and it was like someone gave me a whole new module. Suddenly the helicopter did what I wanted and e.g. hovering was really easy compared to before..... Long story short, I firmly believe that the rudder pedals are the most important input device for the Apache at the moment. Stick and throttle also go in the low or medium price range. But with rudder it has to be premium... Unfortunately... Because that still hurts my wallet a bit...

I've always been told that the cruising speed of an Apache is 120Kt and the top speed is somewhere around 160Kt.... But if you google it, the top speed of an AH64D is around 143Kt.... The Apache is real not a sprinter... More a comfortable jogger^^

Yes, it has been officially confirmed that the anti-torque pedals in the real Apache are set as they are currently set. So neutral pedal position is NOT 0 thrust at the tail rotor. It takes some getting used to, but it's actually really cool to take off and land once you get used to it. Just click on "go to solution" and you will get the exact answer that Raptor9 gave.

Swifty, I think the problem is that you're talking about loud buttons and we're talking about sound feedback in general. The volume of the button presses is a single small detail. That has nothing to do with the feedback the plane gives you. -Yes, they are too loud for you ok. -And I can follow the argument you bring too. So, buttons that are louder than the afterburner. Personally, this one detail doesn't bother me. But YES YOU ARE RIGHT they are unrealistically loud. -Although I have to admit I've never been in a real F14 so I don't know how loud these buttons really are compared to the afterburner which is outside the cockpit and further away at the end of the plane and the sound has to be upwind and come through the cockpit insulation. Swifty it was never about the buttons. It was about the sound feedback when flying.

I absolutely agree with Hiob. At home in front of a computer screen, we lacked important sensory feedback that a real pilot has. In Germany we call this the "popometer". Translated, that means something like "Buttocks-Display". You just feel what the machine is doing... The vibration, the pressure, the changes in direction of movement. Since we don't have that in a sim we need a spare and the F14 module is great at simulating that. You can hear the AoE, you can hear the stall coming, you can hear the airframe overloading. And Jester also helps a lot by announcing speeds etc. I wish all of this for the AH64 and George as well.

Personally, I think Apache is pretty easy to control (now). Is a helicopter, never forget that. Mastering a helicopter takes SIGNIFICANTLY longer than a jet. The entire Apache training takes years in the US Army. That's why it doesn't surprise me that I don't buy a module, turn it on and fly. At least not with the Apache. About the SAS: If you switch that off completely, you notice that it clearly helps to fly the helicopter. Now, of course, the legitimate question is, isn't the flight model a bit unstable without SAS? Or rather, is the real Apache absolutely uncontrollable without the SAS as well? In any case, I'm excited to see what else ED will do on FM in the coming weeks and months. As it is now, no one will be happy with it. ATT hold mode does not work properly. ALT hold mode only works in hover. At speeds over 90 knots the Bird is still grossly unstable.

I want to thank you for the really accurate and detailed answer! So it's an intended change. All right, then I'll probably have to relearn my muscle memory. You are doing a great job, keep it up! I do have one small note though: You guys really need to write things like this in the patch notes, PLEASE! Otherwise (We) always think it must be a bug.

Hello Raptor9 I'm happy to read from you. Only so that I understand that correctly: 1- Its not a bug, but is as it should be? 2- Have you flown the AH64 in the current OB patch? 3- Hast you started and landed? If you can answer all the answers with "Yes", then ok I will just relearn how to fly the Apache. Thank you very much for your answer

Yes, on the surface, at least it makes starting easier. However, it is most likely a bug. It makes landing on a FARP/FOB on soft ground like sand almost impossible. The power of the tail rotor now, even with the pedals at 0, brings the helicopter to a halt just before dynamic rollover. Any minor inaccuracy when landing now makes you lose the rotor blades. Also, if you're standing idle somewhere at the airport, then the helicopter just turns in circles by itself, as you can see in my video, although I don't make any rudder or collective inputs...

That's semantics: "He is saying its like nothing he had flown before. That's miles off to my ears." In my eyes it is not....*shrug 1. He's not the only REAL Apache pilot flying the DCS-AH64D. 2. Even here in the forum there are various REAL AH64 pilots. If what he writes would all confirm, then it would no longer be a subjective individual Opinion. 3. That's not the case. There are even counter-depictions of them. Again, he's definitely not wrong. Apache's FM still needs a lot of work. The last OB patch actually made it worse. But I oppose the representation that FM from Apache is "miles off the mark" that is simply exaggerated.