NeedzWD40

Is there any chance this could be reconsidered? I realize it's an unrealistic feature but it was useful in some very niche cases.

I agree, more variety can be fun and enjoyable. Black Shark 3 allowing us to roll back to a non-fiction variation is icing on the cake. However, I do have to ask what the bar is for fiction/what-if. Are we looking at the possibility of something like a F-23 done through theorizing what it might've been like had it been accepted into service? Or maybe we might see a variation of the Ka-52 through one of the envisioned prototypes? A Mi-28 or 28A prior to the N? I can think of a lot of modules that would be fun to have, along with fictional upgrades to existing ones, so it'd be nice to know where the bar is set so we can adjust our expectations accordingly.

Entirely situational, depending on the terrain and nature of it. If it's flat, then I try to get low and look under the trees; if it's rough and hilly, I try and come at high angles or different vectors if possible. Dense trees/urban tend to call for the M433 RC fused rockets to try and dislodge them.

LO mode seems to work better in most circumstances. The other thing to keep in mind is that if the missile can't see the laser due to obscurement like trees or buildings, it will either see the laser too late or not catch it at all. You can test this by lasing a target in an urban area versus an open area.

Hi BIGNEWY, in case you missed it, I posted a track and a sample mission in SP replicating the issue a few posts above: I ran the track again and the issue is still repeated there, so it should be good.

Are you looking for controls setup or just the general procedure? If procedure: - Front seat: if piloting while using TADS, press C to take controls. Adjust force trim as necessary. - When ready to operate weapons, use the sight select TADS function. IHADSS shifts to TADS feed. - If you wish for TADS to follow your helmet sight: make sure to set acquisition source on the WPN page to GHS. - If you have a different acquisition source you wish to use (waypoint, seeker, fixed, etc.) select this instead. - When ACQ source selected, utilize the TEDAC controller Slave function. TADS will slave to selected acquisition source. - When TADS is on target, press Slave again to unlock TADS from ACQ source. Manual tracker now becomes available. - Utilize manual tracker function 4-way to search/find a target. If space stabilization is needed, fire a laser pulse (first or second trigger detent on LHG controller) and then press the LMC/Linear Motion Controller button. Bars appear on TADS crosshair extents. - Manual tracker 4-way becomes a slew rate controller with LMC enabled, raw azimuth/elevation without. - Keep crosshairs on target, use second detent to continuously fire laser. - TEDAC LHG weapon selector for desired weapon: rocket, cannon, HELLFIRE. - If weapon within constraints: RHG trigger first detent to fire; second detent to override performance inhibits. - Release LHG trigger to turn off laser after engagement is complete.

The ballistic calculations and target state estimator are still WIP, so you'll have to manually correct for azimuth and elevation in certain regimes of flight. For the gun, just do an initial ranging pulse, see where the rounds hit, then correct by aiming left/right/up/down.

The TSD autofills all the control measures in complex scenarios, so you'll have to delete a few to add others. You can tell it's full if there's a solid green bar across the left of the CM option.

Quoted for truth. I don't even both with letting George fly, I take control and run things myself. It's about like operating a Ka-50. Since George won't use the LMC, it's also a lot better for shifting left or right when you're trying to maintain track while denying the enemy a shot. You can get around some of the markpoint issue by using the gunner's CAQ to set a point, either by showing cursor coordinates to get them close enough to a point or dropping them over the TADS point on the TSD.

Today's hotfix seems to have fixed this issue, at least in singleplayer.

This hinges on the type of unit you're working with. AI helicopters are notoriously skittish and limited, but ground units can be flexible. The level of scripting necessary depends on what you're looking to achieve. Like using the baseline JTAC functionality is definitely not a way to go for an automated FAC, so a scripted one is absolutely necessary (for singleplayer or multiplayer where no one may want to run the role).

It's really hard to get the helicopter AI to take on anything beyond the most basic of tasks with any form of survivability. All attack helicopter AI follows this general pattern: See target > choose missiles if available, then rockets if no missiles, then gun if no rockets > hover fire with missiles, climbing up to altitude to get LOS > when out of missiles, charge in with rockets > rocket fire til point blank, then turn away and repeat until rockets empty > use cannon wildly until empty > done. Some have a slight variation of this like the Mi-24V where they'll try to do running fire with missiles, but the remaining steps will be the same. Aerial combat cases will also alter the decisions somewhat, where they'll attempt to fly as high as possible and utilize missiles and gun at the same time. As one might guess, this usually results in the AI either getting blasted by SACLOS missiles, ADA, or 12.7/7.62mm fire. It also tends to result in a lot of collisions because they ignore obstacles during their evasion process, so they tend to fly into the nearest tree/building. You can circumvent some of this attack routine by avoiding the default CAS behaviors and individually assigning targets with a set weapon type, but then the use decisions (ie hover fire, running fire, or circling for a better shot) are still automated. It's also impossible to set the AI to fly NOE altitudes at lower than 98 feet unless one scripts their route. Doing so has some pitfalls as well, since they tend to speed up, pull up before hitting the ground, then dive again, usually until they hit the ground and take enough damage to RTB or explode. In essence, unless you're loading them down with all the ATGMs they can carry, skipping over rockets, and telling the crew to kill at any cost, they'll consistently fail to perform.

That comes up every time, you should be able to ignore it.

Unfortunately, the AI doesn't really have much of a technique. The only way would be a heavily scripted mission; the helicopter AI is very rudimentary right now. As a flight lead, the AI won't communicate and will do things like see targets and start sliding left or right, often brushing up against obstacles, then maybe fire one or two missiles without announcing anything.

Drag and drop the track file to the text box and it should upload automatically, as long as it's not larger than 5MB.

I can't replicate this. Is it a particular type of building?

I was able to replicate this in single player with a quick mission and explosion effect. To replicate: start the mission, occupy the blue AH-64D slot, wait on the ground for 10 seconds until the explosion occurs. Afterward the tailboom will be gone, but the rotor blur will remain and full control of the aircraft will be retained. AH-64 NOTAR.trk AH-64 NOTAR.miz

I can confirm witnessing this on three separate occasions. Once before the most recent patch on my own aircraft, then twice yesterday to two separate clients. On all occasions, the aircraft icon disappeared from the F10 map. For one client, I had left the server and came back in and the F10 icon for their aircraft came back for me, but not for them or any other clients. In all cases it was possible to repair the aircraft but the aircraft was "dead" according to the game.

Ballistic calculations for rockets are quite a bit off and the TSE is still not where it should be. Ballistic calculations only accurate at about 3km or less. Beyond 3km you'll have to manually elevate your sight to gain the necessary pylon elevation. Generally speaking, with M151 warheads, you should be able to hit targets with pylon elevation alone out to about 5km; beyond that you'll have to manually pitch up to get the necessary elevation.

If that's the case, no wonder there's a lot of problems. LOAL mode is supposed to scan a fairly wide box, with initial launch constraints being a max +-7.5 degrees offset.

Works just fine for me, multiplayer and singleplayer. Airfield or FARP?

I did a little bit of testing from the front seat: - You must be perfectly aligned in the yaw axis. Being even a couple degrees off will result in the missile failing to acquire. I believe there is a potential FOV issue with the seeker head as it seems narrower than the 30+- degrees my sources give. Acquisition source makes no difference here outside of giving you initial range and heading info. Unfortunately, due to the INU bug, sometimes your points will be off 50 to 150m, so this is a very, very, very generalized reference. - You must lase as soon as the cue tells you to. Failing to do so means the missile will likely not acquire. If it does acquire, it's likely to do so far too late to make a trajectory change. - The lasing cue is variable on the distance. 7-8km launches with a LO mode will give a cue about 12-14 seconds after launch, which means terminal lase for up to 22 seconds. DIR is most restrictive, but LOAL-DIR is intended to be used with LOS anyways. HI gives the most time but your minimum range climbs way up to the tune of 3500m. The shortest cue I saw was about 3 seconds after launch. Whether or not these behaviors are correct is outside of my knowledge, but the above is what we have to work with.

Right now, the HELLFIRE doesn't use the coordinates for anything, all that does is give you a reference point for time to impact and where to line up. It's incredibly picky about field of view and I've noticed it has a tendency to make last second acquisitions that usually miss because it can't change its trajectory that easily. I've only really gotten a LOAL self designate to work when things are perfectly timed in a perfect field of view.

Yup, they do. It takes a bit of extremes to see them in action, but they do work. Mostly noticeable on Syria with the tree groves.

The intent of the scenario wasn't to create the most realistic operation ever, but to have a complex problem with a multitude of potential solutions (that I can think of). Multiple radars, both track and search, to make up for the fact we don't have things like microwave ovens rigged to give errant signals, ground based jammers, etc. I also standardize 4-5 SHORAD pieces typically split between AAA and SAM for the appropriate era, so SA-10 gets SA-15 and SA-19, while older generation gets ZU-23, ZSU-23-4, SA-13, and SA-9. MANPADS and standard infantry round out the defense, though the red side is missing an appropriate LMG soldier. Sometimes the rules have to be bent to make a compelling scenario. I often pair up dissimilar search radars like P-19 to add some confusion and clutter to the otherwise ultra-reliable RWR systems. I've also had players simply fly close enough to SA-15s and launch a HARM to retain speed, so redundancy goes a ways toward encouraging hard kill vs suppression weaponry. I had thought that with multiple SA-19, SA-15, ZSU-23-4, ZU-23, MANPADS, and infantry present around the sites would be enough to discourage easily flying close, as it's typically quite effective in my experience. Unfortunately, while I had made the scenario in good faith, it apparently has not been received as such. My reason for sharing it was simply that I had already put the work into it and I felt that at a minimum it would be interesting to see a real professional put it through its paces. As it apparently is not up to your standards, then I'll set it aside for review/rebuilding. I think at this point it's time to put this one to bed. If I had any idea the vociferous response I got out of my remark, I'd have kept silent. My apologies to the OP and those present, as my original intent of sharing knowledge has been critically derailed, of which I shoulder a fair chunk of the blame. I will persevere to be more guarded with my remarks and knowledge from here on out. On this point, I heartily agree. Systems like the ZSU-23-4 should be far better than an average ZU-23, BRDM, HMG, or BMP-2, yet within the game they all employ identical aiming and detection capabilities. Even the mechanical accuracy of many weapons is well beyond real world performance, a trend I've noticed in many pieces of entertainment software.