NeedzWD40

If you really want to get into the weeds of it, a similar argument could by made for the IAFS/full cannon mag. It's all a compromise for gameplay, same as the crew of invisible gnomes that magically rearm-refuel in a minute.

TM 1-1520-248-10, Chapter 7 has what you're looking for. Might have to sift through about 150 pages to find relevant data and charts. Last I checked, we had greater performance at altitude that exceeded a 407's capabilities in certain conditions, but began to line up when high temperatures were introduced. I haven't done any detailed testing since, but a quick test of 2000ft MSL, 0C with 100% fuel, M3P/500, and 2xAGM-114 allows me a max hover at ~28ft AGL, with a few times exceeding the mast torque limits. Also, exceeding MTOW doesn't mean you can't take off or that the aircraft will instantly be crippled and fall to pieces, Half-Life extreme gravity style. Certain configurations are in fact allowed for specific missions (like the AH-64 ferry configuration) which significantly exceed MTOW.

Without any context, it's hard to speculate what the problem could be. It could be a simple object error like a bad collision box. Any screenshots or track maybe?

Currently, if an AI AV-8B is set to takeoff from ground or takes off from a FARP, they will vertically climb to ~1000ft and then stop, immediately nose over, and crash. In the past, they used to takeoff vertically (if within limits) and slowly transition to forward flight. AV-8BNA AI Vertical Takeoff Crash.trk

If you're talking about point track, then you can utilize the offset functionality to refine your point as your perspective changes to keep the target in constraints. Just tap point track again, move the crosshairs to where you want the new point to be, then hit it once more to designate the offset. Pressing it again will return to the baseline point if you need to refine it again.

I think there's a misunderstanding in what the UH-1H/V manual entails. The details there are not that every aircraft absolutely had every upgrade or system as described, but that one may encounter aircraft with various combinations of those systems. I talked to a few people about this and this was true within a lot of units, where some UH-1Hs were still running old Vietnam era radio heads alongside newer aircraft with newer radio heads. Thus, the manuals needed to reflect operation of both types to cover what aircrew might've encountered in their careers. I had a quick gander at my copy of the manual and I can definitely say the vast majority of systems (especially GPS/nav related) are post 2000s done to UH-1Vs, not UH-1Hs. There were ~150 remaining in service in various Guard units for quite a few years and these were upgraded for domestic purposes, not for frontline use. Now, such wouldn't be impossible, but extremely unlikely. Army Aviation had also intended to phase out all of the UH-1s in active, reserve, and Guard fleets by '04, but this didn't happen for a variety of reasons. In addition, a number were also retained in Army service, but were not in active, reserve, or Guard units, ie White Sands Missile Range retained a number of UH-1Hs that were upgraded in various ways, including those detailed in the manual. A few things to take a look at: https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Bell-UH-1V-Iroquois-205/658918/L On this aircraft, an HF radio was added, but it also has the telltale GPS antenna installation near the upper wire cutter. https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Bell-UH-1V-Iroquois-205/559964/L This is another example but lacks the GPS upgrade, yet it has the sugar scoop exhaust. Another example with the GPS mount near the top wire cutter, this example has of course been retired. https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Bell-UH-1V-Iroquois-205/1386330/L Here's a cockpit example from the WIARNG, where you can see a lot of the newer equipment as described in the manual. Note that the placement of equipment like the radar altimeter is also different, having been moved to the right side of the dash, as well as the copilot's side having a radar altimeter head. There were not many aircraft in this configuration (remember that the original number of UH-1Vs converted were 200 examples). https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Bell-UH-1V-Iroquois-205/1148799/L Another example, but this time with a different navigation system in the center console, but one you'll also see described in the manual. Note that the radar altimeter is in the same spot as on the previous aircraft, but there is no APR-39 display. This aircraft belonged to the ARARNG and now is on a post near the ARARNG HQ. https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Bell-UH-1H-Iroquois-205/1566135/L Another example because it shows a winch setup as well as the GPS antenna. This aircraft belonged to the RIARNG. White Sands test aircraft. Note the GPS antenna again. This is of course not a line aircraft. So these are some good examples of aircraft that may have been upgraded specifically for that unit, purpose, or deployment. It could just be that particular company had radar altimeters installed (or just the aircraft in the video!), perhaps the battalion; it's hard to speculate because again, the UH-1H didn't have a radar altimeter spec'd as standard. This doesn't mean it couldn't, just that if you took a typical line aircraft, you weren't likely to find one. Take for example this UH-1H in US Army service in El Salvador in the 90s: Note the disco ball at the tailboom, the sugar scoop exhaust, and heat diffusing plates by the engine and below the base of the tail. Supposedly these aircraft were also configured with a radar altimeter, but I've never seen confirmation of such. Note also the HF radio antenna. None of this is to say it's impossible to have a UH-1H with GPS, doppler nav, radar altimeter, HF antenna, gunpods, etc., just that for US Army service, it'd be very rare. The bulk of your UH-1Hs are going to be a standard config lacking any of this equipment. The only real standard I've seen and heard from those who've been there and done that has been the APR-39, which was also considered a mixed bag (the description given to me was something along the lines of a massive injury to one's donkey). If you're asking me, I'd like the UH-1H configured as in the El Salvador deployment, since it offers the most flexibility. But as long as we're wishing, might as well as for a UH-60 of some make -- even a UH-60A upgraded to 2015 standards.

I was trying to come up with an interim fix for this issue myself and the way that seems to work for now is scheduling an addItem call every 5 minutes. In my case, I'm not trying to accurately track inventory, only replicate the previous infinite munition behavior, so I doubt this will work if one is trying to properly track inventory. It may be possible instead to getItemCount, then removeItem for every piece of equipment (as well as associated liquids), then schedule a function to add the items back seconds later so as to allow/encourage propagation of values. This could be run on an update cycle every so often to try and brute force the problem, but that's kind of intense to do depending on how many warehouses need updating. Whether or not it's worth pursuing an interim fix until the next patch is another matter.

Most of that was done for foreign military sales rather than US DOD use. The composite blades tend to be a lot more efficient (beyond the advantages given in RCS) as well as saving weight. Most of the guys I've talked to never saw anything more advanced than a paper map and a compass for US Army UH-1s, including those still operating in the 90s. As you know, a handful that were kept around into the 2000s got some unique upgrades, but these wouldn't be common in the fleet. The only common piece of equipment would've been the APR-39, and from what I've been told that was due to the immense concern regarding the ZSU-23-4. For foreign users, I can't speak in that regard because most information I've seen indicates a whole mishmash of equipment beyond DOD spec. Sometimes they'd opt for DOD upgrades and sometimes not; the best example I can give there is the Pakistani AH-1Fs which got AN/AVR-2, something the US Army fleet were never equipped with. You can find references to this in the distro A AH-1F manual, which was likely modified specifically for FMS. My feeling is that Belsimtek likely wanted to do a UH-1M of Vietnam vintage over a UH-1H, but perhaps had difficulty in obtaining the necessary documentation for that specific variant.

Unfortunately, wsType codes are unreliable as noted, so making a list and keeping it updated it will be fairly rough. Part of the codes can be found in Quaggles datamine along with the friendly code (nominally defined as "_unique_resource_name") but not all the friendly codes work, particularly with aircraft equipment like gunpods. Generally speaking, fuel tanks, missiles, rockets, and bombs are OK with a few exceptions, but TGPs, guns and mounts, and related equipment don't have reliable codes. To get the current wsType code for these problematic parts, I set a mission with an airfield or warehouse with limited ordnance, then add a unique quantity value to the item in question. I then reclass the mission to a zip file, extract warehouses from it, then open with text editor/code editor and search for ["initialAmount"] = #, where # is the unique quantity previously defined. I can then grab the wsType from the warehouse file and directly add the item. This is unfortunately time consuming, so I mostly only apply it to equipment used by FARPs. Using the above image, we can see that the series of M3P gunpods for the OH-58D(R) are currently {4,15,46,2604}, {4,15,46,2605}, {4,15,46,2606}, {4,15,46,2607}, and {4,15,46,2608}. These items likely changed due to updates to the OH-58D(R) a patch or two ago, which is why the previous codes don't work. So as to make it easier to sort out which is added straight from a warehouse vs wsType, I made a script to add 25 of the wsType, then 50 of the derived warehouse items, resulting in this: We can see that our traditional bombs like FAB-100 are added from the source warehouse, but equipment like the KMGU-2 dispenser, gun mounts, and gunpods are added from our wsType that we had to clumsily grab due to lack of effective friendly strings/codes. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer to the whole ordeal, so the best I can offer is a test mission with the script code I used for the demonstration above. local wareitems = Airbase.getByName("Batumi"):getWarehouse():getInventory() local wareadd = Airbase.getByName("Static FARP-1"):getWarehouse() mywarehouselist = { {4,15,46,2608}, {4,15,46,2607}, {4,15,46,2606}, {4,15,46,2605}, {4,15,46,2604}, {4,15,46,1771}, {4,15,46,1770}, {4,15,46,1769}, {4,15,46,1764}, {4,15,46,1765}, {4,15,46,1766}, {4,15,46,1767}, {4,15,46,1768}, {4,15,46,170}, {4,15,46,171}, {4,15,46,183}, {4,15,46,1294}, {4,15,46,1295}, {4,15,46,824}, {4,15,46,825}, {4,15,46,300}, {4,15,47,1100}, {4,15,47,680}, {4,15,47,679}, {4,15,46,2476}, {4,15,46,2477}, {4,15,46,2478}, {4,15,46,2479}, {4,15,46,2480}, {4,15,46,2481}, {4,15,46,2482}, {4,15,46,2483}, {4,15,46,2484}, {4,15,46,2579}, {4,15,46,2580}, {4,15,46,2581}, {4,15,46,1057}, {4,15,46,160}, {4,15,46,161}, {4,15,46,184}, {4,15,46,174}, {4,15,46,175}, {4,15,46,176}, {4,15,46,177}, {4,15,46,20}, {4,5,32,94}, {4,5,32,95}, } --add equipment from the list first for i, d in pairs(mywarehouselist) do wareadd:addItem(d,25) trigger.action.outText("Adding: " .. tostring(d) .. " to FARP!", 5, false) end for i, d in pairs(wareitems.weapon) do wareadd:addItem(i,50) table.insert(mywarehouselist,i) trigger.action.outText("Adding: " .. tostring(i) .. " to FARP and global munitions list!", 5, false) end trigger.action.outText("Total items added to list: " .. tostring(#mywarehouselist), 10, true) Note that the wsTypes are not current and were only changed for the M3P on the OH-58D; otherwise it's grabbed from a list I had previously made which seems to work for some equipment. wareaddstuff.miz

Can't speak for other experiences, but I know a guy who flew UH-1Vs and UH-1Hs in the late 70s-late 80s (also IP for UH-1Hs) and the bulk of them didn't have doppler navigation systems. The DCS H has a lot of equipment normally utilized on the V models as well, like the radar altimeter, which was not often seen on H models in US Army service. On the ASE suite side, the only common piece was the APR-39; not even the sugar scoop and infrared suppression plates were seen that often. Bear in mind that the UH-60 was taking over the bulk of transport/logistic duties in this time frame and UH-1s were being relegated to second line units, so the limitations (as we see them) weren't considered a massive deal. From what I know, the DCS UH-1H is closest to the configuration utilized in El Salvador, as I've seen references that those aircraft were equipped with radar altimeters, IR suppression, and ALQ-144s. I can only guess the flare packs were included in an effort to abstract the protection given by the disco ball.

Currently, APKWS is defined as {4,4,8,292} for the AGR-20A and {4,4,8,293} for the AGR-20A with M282. These can also be accessed/added/modified with the friendly codes of "weapons.missiles.AGR_20A" and "weapons.missiles.AGR_20_M282" respectively. I strongly recommend using the friendly codes where possible since the wsType isn't reliable.

I did some brief tests with the following conditions: - 75% fuel, 100% cannon, 8xAGM-114K, 38xM151RC - Standard day, 15C, no wind, sea level - Standard day, no wind, ~6,000ft - Hot day, 32C, ~15kt wind, sea level - Hot day, 32C, ~15kt wind, ~6,000ft In all conditions it was possible to hover IGE and OGE, but power limits were thin and limited, with careful handling required to avoid exceeding those limits. A few times I also overtorqued due to rough handling. Hot and high in particular required a lot more meticulous flying and planning to keep it within limits. These conditions tended to result in the aircraft taking a while to settle into an OGE hover, with a decent amount of altitude loss until stabilization (torque was pushed to max limits and engine temp was in the 30min limits). This doesn't seem to be any different from past experiences I've had in the module. I'll be the first to say that the SCAS and FM are in dire need of work, but when it comes to what to expect from a loaded aircraft, I think folks are being a bit more optimistic than they should be. Track files attached so you can point and laugh at my sloppy handling. AH-64D Standard Day SL.trkAH-64D Standard Day 6kft.trkAH-64D Hot Day Wind SL.trkAH-64D Hot Day Wind 6kft.trk

Standard day, 15C, calm wind, sea level? M151 rockets or M229? Full or partial gun?

Without knowing the conditions (temp, altitude, wind, gross weight, etc.) it's hard to speculate. I rarely have problems with it dropping in the described manner unless the conditions are very harsh and I'm heavily loaded.

Should be listed here:

Define "25". As in distance or waypoint number?

Unfortunately, it's been brought up many times and is a limitation of the current AI. From a mission design perspective, it's also annoying because fighters will prioritize helicopters over more threatening aircraft, but does lead to an advantage for the helicopters in that they can play bait and get those threats low and slow. It'd be a bit easier to deal with if we had access to M255 rockets, but suspect those won't be coming any time soon -- if at all.

Just the way the AI works. Depending on the mission, if they have GCI/AWACS, then their awareness is almost infallible, and if anything else sees you (ground, air, or naval), assume that means everything knows about you. As scenarios can be highly variable, how you deal with this problem can range from operating with friendly helicopters like OH-58D loaded with ATAS, to utilizing your own ordnance in unconventional ways, coordinating with friendly fixed wing assets, and a mix of other solutions. With the ATM available to the FCR now, you at least have a better surveillance capability that, when linked with AGM-114L, can cause a temporary disruption of the AI's OODA loop. But it's not a guarantee and I'd recommend a mix of coordination with friendly assets to knock out the threat. My preferred way to dealing with this problem is to hide in urban areas where possible. The AI always takes a slow, low altitude approach, which denies them good shot opportunities when you have tall buildings surrounding you. When coupled with AA capable helicopters, this can make for a deadly ambush situation.

In what way? I agree they can be a threat, but the degree of that threat varies depending on the situation. If there's no heavy SHORAD present like Gecko or Grison, then you should be well set by moving around at range and altitude, then tagging them while moving, as they can't track you easily if you're going faster than ~70 knots. On the other hand, in the presence of heavier ADA, then the terrain, conditions, your own flight, etc. dictate your options.

I haven't had a lot of problems with the MMS beyond the known box effect that happens when zooming in, where part of the view seems to get cut off at certain angles. Thermals work as well, but it's contextual as not everything has a great heat map currently. Unless you mean NVG, in which case it should be the same old "green tube of sight". APKWS takes a certain technique to use them, plus using the MFD symbology to aim. Going by the grease mark or the PDU doesn't give accurate enough info to put the weapon in the ball park. For close ranges, you need that crosshair to be dead on with the aimpoint, while for longer ranges you have to give a decent loft and wait a few seconds before lasing.

I think there might be a bit too much power or lift that is enabling much greater performance than possible. At certain conditions we might be able to do 100% and 4xAGM-114, but that's an incredibly limited envelope. I can get the aircraft to hover IGE at a gross weight of about 6200lbs from an altitude of ~7200ft at FAT +4C. That exceeds even the 407's capabilities in the same conditions. On the other hand, bump up the FAT to +30C and you'll rapidly run into a wall with 100% + 4xAGM-114, settling in at about 3ft AGL. So some curves probably need to be tweaked in the parameters, if they haven't already and we're just waiting for an update. Better to just cut gas in half because 4xAGM-114 was/is a valid loadout. It wasn't widely used for a variety of reasons, like not enough M272s available or Apaches were around to handle that heavy tasking, but it was certainly possible to do and was an authorized config. The M296 with a full load of ammo was heavier than a pair of 114s, so you could be overweight with 100% + 296 and 2xAGM-114. The M3 gets close but is a couple pounds lighter.

As we've all gathered, the nature of the PC's 58D as it stands is very much subject to opinion. I can see both sides of the issue, especially when we come off of modules like the AH-64D and the CH-47F. For me, personally, the detail is "good enough," though for the resources utilized (as noted several pages back regarding the UV maps) it is lackluster. The small things like poorly mapped parts, lack of detail where we might expect it, some variable color palettes that don't make much sense, the lack of damage modeling, and other issues add up. I can't blame anyone for feeling underwhelmed due to these issues. Likewise, from a playability standpoint, they don't impact my experience much when the rubber meets the road. Number 1 issue: Aircrew. I feel that these are the most lackluster part of the module and could really use a second pass, at least on the faces. This is even more important for an aircraft like the OH-58D, because they're incredibly visible from a variety of angles. A comparison with the AH-64D aircrew makes them look poor, to say the least. At a minimum, the faces could definitely use a lift. Number 2 issue: Damage model. We have a generic bullet hole texture for most of the aircraft, but we're missing things like panels blown off, rotor blades fragmented, tail boom twisted away, and so on. I'm assuming this has been a priority since release as it's the most incomplete part of the module. Compared to many other helicopter modules with items like slumped pilots, twisted and destroyed rotor blades, tailbooms that pop off, etc. it is incredibly lackluster. The UH-1H has all of these and it's more than 10 years old, plus things like panels that hang on by a thread after damage, etc. After being hit by 23mm fire, I'd expect a bit more than small arms bullet holes, since my tail rotor is out, a weapon pylon has been blasted off, and the crew is dead! Number 3, all the other small details. Things like avionics wiring, panel coloring, flare launcher being a black hole, etc. add up, and while not totally immersion breaking, I do understand why those adjusted to the flare packs having actual flares that get expended in other modules to be an annoyance. Of these issues, I'd say the dash colors being too dark is probably the largest one, as all the ones I remember seeing were more of a gray color with dust and abuse. The wiring could be improved by darkening and adding various amounts of shade as well as grime (I've worked with the stuff before, it attracts grime like nobody's business). Not functional issues, more aesthetic, but they do add up. The AH-64D's colors are about right for a service aircraft. It's important to note that I don't consider these functional issues, merely as examples of understanding why some folks are disappointed with the detail level as a whole. The flare launcher, for example: I actually use the pre-CMWS aircraft quite often, as the sweet spot for my scenarios is prior to mass integration of that system. From a purely functional standpoint, I find the PC 58D pretty dang good. It offers a lot of flexibility in a small package and the handling is one of the best and easiest for new players who may want to dive into helicopters with a bit more flexibility than existing modules without getting into the complexity of the AH-64D (and associated functional issues like the FM + SAS). The only minor changes I'd like to see in that regard is introduction of the M296 gunpod and an aesthetic removal of the toilet seat intakes, but the lack of such don't detract from the module as it is. I can understand that for the price point, a few buyers might feel a bit jaded by what they received, even if others are absolutely overjoyed with what they got. You can't please everyone and since most of the real Kiowa guys are pretty satisfied, I'd say that speaks volumes. There's enough info out there for everyone to make an educated choice by now to decide if the module is worth their time and money.

Once the missile is launched, a sequence of events is triggered that arms the missile if it meets a set of criteria -- none of which involve seeker acquisition. At any point past this, the warhead is live and will go off if the missile contacts something. So if you launch on a buddy laze and then safe up your aircraft, the missile will hit and make boom. Conversely, if buddy laze goes off (or your own), missile will make boom somewhere else.

Pressing the FCR button on a MPD will bring up the FCR page; if you don't see anything on this page when doing this, then something else is wrong. Without an FCR, this should display "FCR NOT INSTALLED"; with, it should either show a pie slice or "FCR NOT INITIALIZED". If the latter, select UTIL from the top and select the option on the lower right where it says "PINNED" so it reads "NORM". It will take a few minutes to spin up. Once it has initialized, you'll see a pie slice and you should be able to sight select the FCR from there. If you cannot, then check your bindings and make sure you have sight select FCR bound.

Sometimes, depends on whether the 3rd party wants to partake. Use the free trial on some of the existing helicopters or try the OH-6 and UH-60L mods to get a feel for things. The OH-6 mod in particular is excellent.