NeedzWD40

On a hunch, I did a quick run through of the mission and ~4 minutes from W05 I commanded an INU reset. All 6 of the 114Ls I brought along hit their designated targets. So this could either be an issue with INU not staying aligned, an issue with the INU and the Syria map, or any number of associated issues.

Did you try an INU reset prior to target engagement?

In my testing, the most significant impact is whether or not the missile has to climb up to hit the target. As little as 500ft of altitude above the launch point can result in either a miss or going for a different target. This was tested in several locations on the Caucasus around mountains, trees, and villages. As long as the aircraft is in a shoot-down position, the hit rate (and exact target hit rate) is almost perfect.

I tried playing your track and George fired the first missile but wouldn't shoot a second, so I'm not sure if it recorded right or not. Out of curiosity, I took control from the start and tried it myself, first using George (1 out of 2 hits), then jumped in the front seat and tried myself. Both my shots missed, so I took a look through the systems and the INU position was completely out of whack. I restarted the track and took control again, then double checked INU a second time, checking out this time. Unfortunately, the missiles still went haywire; in particular, they weren't climbing to an appropriate altitude. So I did an inflight reset of the INUs and the missiles finally started hitting, both with me and George. This might be more related to INU errors and drift bugs than the missile itself.

I've been trying to wrap my brain around what might be happening and thanks to @Floyd1212's excellent videos a month or so ago, have a couple theories: First is that targets that are significantly above the aircraft don't cooperate very well with the way the missile works. All AGM-114 models outside of the P/R (and probably some other variants I'm forgetting) will climb to altitude based upon altitude at launch. That is to say, they don't know what altitude the target is at and will not climb up to meet it; there's a certain basket they look for and it's assuming a generally level altitude. I remember reading about this problem with AGM-114s utilized in Afghanistan early on, where extreme look-down angles would result in SAL missiles not catching the laser. This was more of a problem with missiles launched from fixed wing aircraft, but it was reported to have also impacted rotary wing. The AGM-114L climbs to a fixed altitude based on distance with this same logic, expecting a target below itself and not above. As a result, if it catches a target level or above, it will make an extreme maneuver and bleed off energy as it tries to correct its ballistic trajectory, often ending up in the ground or next to an intended target. This is not a 100% always the case; in my testing, the missiles would pull off some pretty wild hits depending on target, launch angles, etc. There is a kind of sweet spot that can sometimes happen mid-range where the missile gets close enough at the peak of its climb to catch the target and hit without major ballistic changes, but this is hard to achieve with the typical LOAL launch. LOBL, on the other hand, has no such issues. Second is that targets that are obscured all or partway from the missiles perspective can seemingly mask the seeker. This theory comes from a couple weeks ago where I fired off a missile with the wrong bias, where a forest obscured a significant portion of the missile's view. By the time it cleared the trees, it was already close enough to be terminal and hadn't acquired a target, resulting in a miss. I'd previously noticed this when targets were often in villages on Syria, where shots with the 114L could be flaky depending on aspect, range, and launch altitude. This may or may not be the explanation for some of the performance issues being reported, but it may be something to consider when diagnosing the problem(s). I've attached some tracks demonstrating some of the behaviors I believe might be happening. AGM-114L High Altitude 1.trk AGM-114L High Altitude 3.trk AGM-114L High Altitude 5.trk

I get the ED bug report/send dialog but here's my second most recent crash. I continued after this for a later session and managed to avoid crashing until much further along, but no clean log for it.dcs.log-20230730-174144.zip

Can confirm that HRM is flaky for me. Sometimes HRM is fine, sometimes it crashes after processing.

This is a simple track with AI A-10A, one equipped with Mk20 and one with CBU-87. They each make two passes, dropping one bomb each time from an altitude of 2000ft. The targets consist of unarmored radars and light to medium armored units. The Mk20 with Mk118 submunitions consistently destroys and damages more targets than the CBU-87 and BLU-97 do. Of particular note, the BLU-97s fail to even damage the lightly armored BRDM-2, which should be quite vulnerable to the submunitions. Meanwhile, the Mk118s destroy a BMD-1 and damages a T-55, leaving only one radar damaged and two armored targets intact. It is possible the Mk20/Mk118 is overperforming and the CBU-87/BLU-97 are more realistic in their damage probabilities, in which case the Mk118 may need a review instead. For me, up til the June update, I felt confident in the CBU-87/103/JSOW-A's potential to destroy light targets like ADA, but now I am not and would not recommend them over Mk80 series weapons. Mk20 vs CBU-87.trk

Do you know which update? I can find no references to it over the past 3 months of updates and I remember the BLU-97s working decently in May.

CBU-103 would be the choice nowadays, but my understanding is from ODS > OIF the CBU-87 was the preferred weapon for DEAD. It may not be related to the current thread but as of the June OB patch I've noticed that the BLU-97s have regressed. I previously utilized CBU-87/103 and JSOW-A to good effect against unarmored ADA like SA-2/3/5, Hawk, and similar. AI F/A-18C with JSOW-A were my go-to for DEAD against these kinds of targets, but now they rarely damage a site, with lots of fireworks but virtually undamaged radar systems. If a separate thread with tracks detailing these problems is necessary, then I will be happy to do so as it's pretty simple to setup.

What were the conditions? Flight time to target area? Mountains or flat? Trees, villages, or plains? Moving targets or static? Multiplayer or singleplayer? I haven't seen any real changes for the most recent patch with the 114Ls. They're still pretty much the same, picky with how they're used but generally I'm getting about 90% hit rate with them. I rarely use George, but both up front and with multicrew (including a green CPG) they've hit dead-on. A quick test in singleplayer with George and he's hit both moving and static targets, both while hovering and moving.

Display mode knob looks like a bug. For the other part, you didn't have TADS as the selected sight (WPN page says HMD is your sight).

It looks like the CPG was set to NVS FIXED, making TADS unavailable as an acquisition source.

I've been using the attitude hold for quite a while and haven't noticed any major issues after this past winter.

I'd pin it on the fact that many DCS scenarios often put players in situations that would be strictly avoided in real life. Not that that can't or shouldn't be done, but you find out real quick why things aren't done that way. Man, if only we could've had an AH-1W, then we would have access to both AGM-122 and AIM-9. Of course, we'd also get mostly analog avionics, laser AGM-114 only (and with a maximum of 8!), and a much more convoluted front and backseat workflow, but gosh darn it, at least AIM-9 would be there!

Ironically enough, it's one of the more vulnerable ones because they have a limited firing arc in the forward hemisphere, plus a kick in the shin will blow them up.

This subject just will not die. The AH-64 was never in its service life ever qualified for AIM-9 Sidewinder or AGM-122 Sidearm. Period. End of story. Any pictures you see are mockups for sales brochures or extremely limited test shots done with modified test airframes. The only air-to-air missile ever qualified and currently employed on some AH-64 models is the FIM-92. The US Army only did limited testing for potential employment on their airframes; everyone else that got them has variants made to a different specification. There is the potential that the US Army might modify their AH-64E models to carry ATAS on the primary weapon stations, but thus far this has not come to fruition to the best of my knowledge. To my knowledge, there are no real world occurrences of AAMs being employed from a helicopter against another aircraft. Only ATGMs, rockets, cannons, and guns have been recorded, most of which are claims.

The only thing more lethal than a BMP-2 is a SA-19. Currently, dedicated ADA systems seem to frequently get outclassed by straight up IFVs. On top of this, the AI's engagement matrix is quite odd, like I can slowly edge closer to a ZU-23 pit and as long as I'm more than ~2500m away and not moving too quickly toward them, they won't shoot at me til I hit that range. Same's true of ZSU-23. Older systems that have largely been replaced due to lack of effectiveness (S-60, ZSU-57) are often more lethal than modern systems, strictly because their weapons are defined as having greater range. There are ways to script around these problems but it's a bit inconvenient and then becomes scenario specific as well as processing intensive.

Check your trim setting in the special options menu. If using a sprung stick, you want instant or return to center. If these are set, ensure your SAS channels are turned on.

No, and I'll tell you why: 12 batteries of MIM-104 PAC-3 (assume all from 5-7 ADA BDE, additional brigades likely later shipped from stateside) ~Buttload of M1097 and FIM-92 211 x F-15C 218 x F-15E 936 x F-16C/D 186 x F-22A 272 x F-35A *2021 USAF inventory numbers, may differ from 2023 numbers. US Army ADA numbers may vary upwards. Factor in other NATO forces for an additional boost of F-16s, F-35s, Typhoons, Gripens, air defenses, et al. Only testbed AH-64s have ever used AIM-9. ATAS integration was slated for the latest AH-64Es on the primary weapon stations, but to date I've yet to see any actual testing or application of this, so I'd bet it was put on the back burner for funding reasons. And, y'know, the fact that everybody and his brother is slinging AIM-120, AIM-9, Meteor, IRIS-T, cannons of all calibers, arrows, rocks, and harsh language at anything in the sky that's remotely suspected of being unfriendly. Not much of a reason to give up gas or A/G weaponry for an A/A capability that nobody trains to use or in the case of the US Army, even has. Same thing with the F-15E: why throw HARMs at something that you can just kill with all those wonderful toys instead? More than enough HARM shooters around. Even nastier weapons in NATO arsenals keep those radars off. And those weapons might knock out a radar; an F-15E or two can blow up the whole damn site.

According to the creator, yes with some caveats:

My understanding is that it should be this way and that the current mechanism is either an oversight, WIP, or the developers have access better data than my recollections and research. One side effect of the current behavior I recently noticed was that it is extremely easy to knock out targets in revetments, as the missile has a tendency to circle around to the rear of the vehicle rather than the front.

Correction to my previous post: there is an offset in single player as well. One picture from multiplayer, one from single player.

The only way is to do an INU reset on both units. Land and go to the TSD UTIL menu and the options should be available there. Note that if you're doing this in multiplayer, there is a permanent offset from INU position to real position; I am uncertain the reasoning for this. Rough rule of thumb is ~150m off latitude and ~350m off longitude. The direction varies from map and time of year, ie summer Syria offsets are north and west. The ability to manually enter position coordinates is not implemented yet.

What's the starting altitude and temperature?