NeedzWD40

if it's not Distribution A, then it is restricted information. Says right there on the tin: The assumption folks make is that unclassified == unrestricted, free for all, open source. That isn't the way it works, even though we'd like it to. For example, "UNCLASSIFIED, FOUO" means it's unclassified, but the document is for official use only and thus restricted. More info: https://www.contractsconsultingservices.com/distribution-statements/ http://www.wingovernmentcontracts.com/distribution-codes.htm

It's distro C thus not open source. I'd kill that link ASAP. Also, the NATOPS -1 isn't the issue for the D.

Outside of changing modes, no. Your most decluttered mode will be hover mode.

Re: BVR Hunting the Jeff Marianas mission I'm noticing a lot of peculiarities on this one, not just with the AIM-54. Firstly, it seems that the SD-10s launched by the JF-17s go active at about 16-18nmi and will continue to ping my RWR for ~6 minutes, including actively trying to track my aircraft. On top of this, if I get within their launch range, quite often the SD-10s will grab onto AIM-54s in the air, including those of my wingman. This makes things a bit more difficult since they pack 16 SD-10s altogether, so they'll almost instantly sling another missile out if parameters are good. The default payload seems only good for causing the initial run to break off and maybe waste one or two of their missiles. The A models really get trashed easily, but even the C models cannot keep up with the JF-17's acceleration, even if you wait until the last possible moment to launch. The wingman is real gung ho and I've repeatedly watch him fly right into SD-10s coming right at him, so he's only been good for a quick suppression. After that, he easily gets knocked down. The AIM-7Ms by default are total trash. I've been in perfect shot parameters and all the JF-17s have to do is a small turn and the missile goes dumb. Same for the AIM-9Ms, as it seems even with an afterburner tail shot the JF-17's flares will cause an instant miss. I've frequently just ran away til the JF-17s are out of gas, then turn back and try to hit them while they're stalling out and they still manage to lose both my 9s and my 7s. The only sure success I've been able to have is using an STT AIM-54, but that only wipes out one with certainty, leaving 3 left that have no problems running you down. AI JF-17s can easily top out at 900KTAS, even with the double racks! The other thing is I've noticed some real bizarre behavioral changes when I change the JF-17s to simply perform the CAP tasking and not engage group. As in they quit flying high and instead get down low with more extreme separation. They can still easily dodge in this way, but they lose some aggressiveness for whatever reason. I've also tried moving them all to Ace level, but all that did was make them eat all 4 AIM-54s from 70nmi out (?!). I also removed all their countermeasures for testing purposes and they're pretty much just turning cold and leveraging their excellent acceleration to lose any AIM-54 shots. Lastly, the F-14A seems to be better than the F-14B for this one. The lighter weight seems to help when you need to evade quickly to drag an SD-10 out. It's peculiar because outside of this mission, the AIM-54s have been working incredibly well for me. It seems more like the JF-17/SD-10 combo is simply a much more modern threat and probably pushing the limits of what the F-14 can tackle in a disadvantageous situation.

For singleplayer: Make sure "Permit Crash Recovery" is turned on in your difficulty options. Also, some missions may force this option off. For multiplayer: Depends on the server. Some servers turn it off, requiring you to go to spectators and re-slot. As above, it can be a mission setting as well, it may be forced off for that mission.

Uh... In a video game forum? I think you might be in the wrong place. Try Math Forums instead: https://mathforums.com/

Gotta say, there's some serious knowledge being dropped in this thread. Holy cow guys, just impressive! But for OP, what's the big deal? Like, why is this so important to you? Did you lose a bet?

I just found out you can simply change "Tones/flt-ctrl" to "" on the 5th tone line and you don't even have to comment out any other lines.

The Mi-24 is the squadron.

If all the slots are used, you'll have to delete some and manually add the ones necessary for your sortie. The mechanism employed seems to be friendlies > range > neutrals > range > enemies > range.

The auto populate function can use up all the available slots (IIRC ~49 max) so you'll sometimes have to manually delete control measures to manually input custom ones.

The bindings should already be present on the pilot's mission grip, with FCR sight select and various scan options.

Both crewmembers can use the FCR. Same capability in both seats.

MIST and MOOSE don't have the ability to set the hidden variables on group creation? I can use addGroup and so as long as I set "hiddenOnPlanner" and "hiddenOnMFD" on group creation, it will treat them as such.

On a related note, will the AH-64 get the same Target Points field as with the Ka-50, F-14 and other modules?

Some fuel to the fire: - Mission editor options allowing a field to auto populate based on distance or at all; Auto populate up to X number of fields; Kneeboard options for users (if mission allows it) to auto populate; extend these to waypoints as well. Figure this is all a placeholder until DTC becomes functional regardless, but adds some flexibility until then.

At the risk of adding more keybinds for the AI, at a minimum I'd like to see two more bindings: filter and range. These would be always on with the interface so they could be adjusted without needing to have the target menu up. I would also like to see the consent to fire button modified so that if we hit it while the target menu is up, it will skip over the "designation" requirement and in essence tell George to target and launch at the currently highlighted target in the list as soon as targeting conditions are met. Further, a mechanic similar to Petrovich in the Mi-24 would be nice: consent to fire bound with the HMD, cuing George to look at your viewpoint, find the first and most threatening target (if there) and acquire it. Proposed changes: in addition to the target list, which is very hard to figure contextually, I'd like to see a little "radar" display that could be used to give rough ideas of heading, what else is out there, what was previously known, and so on. This display would replace the target text list. Theory of operation: By default, George searches a ~45 degree azimuth from where the search was requested; as he sees things, the display is populated with an icon of the approximate type. As it works currently, adjusting his FOV will narrow down the search azimuth. Target keys up/down work as currently, with the exception that now the icon is highlighted, boxed, and "elevated" above any nearby icons/contacts. Using the filter key will cycle through a generic list of types and will not disallow selecting a target outside of the filter, it will simply bring the filtered types to the top of the list. Pressing the filter key again will reset the list, ie if AAA is the current filter and the next would be TANK, then the next target will be the closest first tank George knows about. As requested previously, pressing the consent to fire button would result in George acknowledging and attempting to slave sensors to the target, lase, and fire. Solid target icons would represent targets not moving and holes in the center would indicate moving. Red would be confirmed hostile, green/blue confirmed friendly, yellow unknown, and an opacity reduction would mean no current line of sight to the target. Gray icons would indicate targets that are outside of vision and would be a generic reference in a "I saw a tank there before we turned" or similar. George would prioritize the visible targets first, but he could be told to target obscured targets based on their last known position (I would like to see him eventually guess where the target might be, but that's a different discussion). In this scheme, the filtering and range bindings don't become mandatory bindings and can be relegated to more administrative keybinds, as not much changes from the existing schematic. Further changes: I would also like to see functionality similar to Jester from the F-14, particularly in control of laser designation. Right now, if you use up all your HELLFIRE and rockets, George will not constantly lase, preventing you from serving as a designation platform for other units. Either a separate dedicated "laser" option in the weapon interface would be nice, or simply always allow all weapon options to be cycled regardless of ammunition or quantity so we can get designation back. Further, the ability to tell George to look at an area and lase it would be extremely useful, especially when needing to acquire things such as map objects. In addition, leveraging George with target points would be an incredibly useful growth function: in the filter list, an option for a TG point set up by the pilot could be used to direct George to search the radius and filter fields based upon that target point rather than from the helicopter's position. This could potentially be expanded with PFZs when/if we get them.

Debates over the Polychop SA342's flight model have been done to death at this point. You cannot get past the fundamental inaccuracy of the FM. Full stop. It doesn't hit known data points and only sorta resembles a helicopter feeling. Axis tuning no doubt helps (even I use Casmo's settings to good effect), but at the end of the day you are in essence going a vague likeness of a helicopter. That doesn't make it bad, it only makes it inaccurate. The SA342 can be a lot of fun to play around with and now that there have been inroads on items such as multicrew it has greatly expanded the fun factor. Having said that, I have to vehemently disagree with the idea that civilian derivatives of military helicopters are somehow using a completely different SAS or SCAS setup. This is totally incorrect and reeks of misunderstanding basic helicopter flight systems. The comparison made is toward uniquely different aircraft: a UH-1H with a stabilizer bar versus a AH-64 is apples and oranges. The main reason you see aircraft like the Bell 204 in widespread civilian usage is simply that such aircraft are far cheaper to buy and more economical to operate than a modern EC145. You'll find that a lot of the more big, expensive civilian helis like the Bell 214 will use a SCAS out of necessity, due to the use cases of the helicopter. The 214's SCAS is fundamentally identical to the SCAS on the AH-1 series of helicopters, up to the Z model.

As the altitude hold doesn't work well right now, my go-to interim fix has been to kill the collective SCAS channel before every flight. You'll get an FMC caution when doing so, but no longer be fighting the system over the collective.

Is there any possibility this could be expanded? Primarily for earlier missiles like the F or potentially the C?

Some illustrations: Setting up a target point via CPG TADS designation. At 4.5km, using both TADS and HMD designation via target point, we take our shots. Our hits at this range. Not perfect, but within acceptable margins of error. Now, ~6.5km using HMD designation. Note that even though we're looking right at the target point, pylon elevation hasn't changed much from 4.5km. Our rockets fall short! Out of range? Nope... By looking above the target point and elevating the nose we can get closer to the target and beyond it! The rockets are more than capable of hitting quite some distance out. However, the ballistic calculations seemingly stop at 4.5km, so any time you try to use COOP or aim directly at a target point beyond that range, they'll fall short. What should happen is a pylon elevation inhibit, which can be corrected by either elevating the nose to give sufficient space for the pylon actuators or by getting closer. The only "stop" should be at 7.5km.

In the sim, if you use either coop rockets or a fixed target point, aiming at the target point only gets you decent accuracy within 4.5km. As you get further away, rockets always fall short, as it seems the ballistic calculations only go out to 4500m. If you manually aim the rockets at a fixed point by using your head to aim above the target, the rockets will connect (although dispersion will be greater of course). This is in contrary to the real thing, which is supposed to calculate out to 7.5km for the Mk66 motor and 9km for the CRV-7 motor. That is to say, if your target is within 7.5km and you either have good laser ranging for coop or a good target position, the computers should properly elevate the pylons to hit the target out to that distance without you having to elevate your head or modify your aim point.

Currently, it seems the ballistic calculations only go out to ~4.5km, even though they should go out to 7.5km for Mk66 and >9km for CRV-7. My solution has been to create a target point and manually aim at that target point rather than rely on coop rockets, that way I can elevate the pylons more appropriately. It's like playing battleship at first but eventually you can make some sweet long range hits. Illumination are supposed to burst at about 3.5km downrange by default, so I would use the above manual strategy to aim above the target area and when within 4km, fire rockets.

Hot starts default to the hover mode; select the transition mode and you'll get the fly-to path back.

Regular US Army units have done it and long before the RAF ever did. There was at least one case in Desert Storm and multiple cases in the past 20 years during OIF and OEF. https://www.myplainview.com/news/article/Apache-pilot-recommended-for-medal-after-rescuing-8921053.php https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article-View/Article/573012/apache-pilots-save-critically-wounded-soldier-with-unorthodox-evacuation/