NeedzWD40

A hamster is on a wheel made up of mirrors. When you turn it on, a feeder tube comes out and force feeds the hamster radioactive mountain dew. This in turn causes the hamster to run, spinning the mirrors, while simultaneously giving off flashes of radioactive energy across the IR spectrum. This then causes the missile to see a repeating image of a radioactive hamster in its field of view, causing it to miss the aircraft's hot exhaust. Or it's magic, which we don't have to explain.

If it doesn't see laser energy before launch, it's LOAL. Point nose in direction of target, WAS missiles, hold trigger til missile launches. If that doesn't work, make sure you have your HMD as your selected sight and that you have AGM-114K loaded.

So can I, but I've had better luck with the Ks over the Ls. The Ls really tend to get attention over the Ks though.

The M134 subject has come up before and post-US Army service Tunisian aircraft do have the capability to use the weapon, but it was never used in US Army OH-58Ds. It was only rarely used on A/C models. Given the current status of .30cal weapons (outside of Yvengi out the back of the Mi-8's rear end, dude is a killer with that PKM), unless you're looking to make a pretty light show, the .50 really can't be beat. I'd rather have the option for the older M296 to capture the 90s and 00s configuration prior to the M3P (same core weapon) as well as the ability to remove pylons to capture the 80s era. Asking for removal of the toilet bowl (aka intake fairing) would probably be too much.

Did you get an indication of LOBL before you fired? Because your team mate is almost directly in front of you and it looks like the missile might've acquired him during your lasing. As an aside, this is also a good example of knowing your target and what's beyond it. In this case, knowing what's between your target would be pretty important, too.

Make sure you don't have NVS set to NORM.

This makes me wonder: did he check the WPN utility menu and cycle the MSL option?

Take a gander at some presentations for the 30x113mm and 30x173mm rounds. It's pretty interesting. Kind of like .45ACP and .45-70 are the same caliber, but with vastly different performance.

Depends on the scenario. You can have an inactive pad in place, then move ammo + fuel trucks to provide service later in the mission. On your can dynamically generate pads and provide services via scripting.

You need a helipad of some form to rearm (invisible, pad single, or full on heliport) and be within 100m of that object to rearm.

Hope we also get the wheel chock functionality that the AI already get:

If we're picking nits, then both TOW and AT-5 are wire guided with a strobe out the back. They're still SACLOS missiles involving some effort on the part of the operator to keep the target in constraints.

Scootin' Steve/Jamsheed is an anomaly. He is not of this world. He sees before and after. His eyes are filled with hatred and death. ---- Wire guided/radio guided/beam riding are just different ways of getting to the same thing. You can have a MCLOS radio guided missile (AT-2/9M17) or a SACLOS one (AT-6/AT-9). A BMP-2's AT-5 is SACLOS but also wire guided, same as the BGM-71 TOW. The difference between the two is that SACLOS is typically automated in some form, with a system to keep the missile on target (ie the center of the crosshairs) while MCLOS requires the operator to manually steer the missile themselves.

The problem is that the SAS/SCAS is inducing the sway at speed, not that the helicopter's physics are inducing it. When you press the force trim release, you're telling the SAS/SCAS "hands off, I'm in control" and it no longer tries to hold a heading, pitch, and bank. Thus the issue right now is if you're at cruise speed straight and level, the SCAS will slowly oscillate the yaw channel back and forth. If you press the force trim release, SCAS lets go and the aircraft stabilizes. You can also observe this by killing the yaw SCAS channel in particular. I'd recommend trying the module without any of the SCAS channels engaged at all and you'll quickly see where some of the problems lie. There's no autopilot for automatic cross-couple, but the yaw SCAS most definitely will try to maintain a heading without input. The manually commanded attitude modes as well as the automatic heading hold modes are described in the manual. You can see one work when you get light on wheels and gently bring the collective up, as the SCAS attempts to maintain a heading within its authority. This is true for most helicopter SCAS configurations and it isn't unique to the Hind. Technically speaking, the AH-64D would be better described as having an AFCS instead of SAS or SCAS.

Unfortunately, the K and L will be all we get: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/293325-additional-variants-of-agm-114-missile/

Yes, the vast majority use SACLOS missile systems of the beam riding variety. Some have MCLOS like the BMP-1, but the difference in DCS' AI world is moot. As long as they can see you and keep their sights on you, the missile has a high probability of hitting. There are no countermeasures except movement, cover, and distance. You see this quite frequently in DCS when BMP-1s will absolutely pummel AI helicopters that try to do hovering fire within their engagement envelopes.

The only way to dodge most of these is by evasive action and even then, the AI has magic guidance for them (such as the BMP-1 will never lose track of your aircraft with the manually guided AT-3). If you suspect it's a ground launched MCLOS/SACLOS missile, assume the AI will maintain a forever track of you and immediately attempt to run the missile out of energy and/or get behind cover. Also, if you're going fast enough, they won't launch missiles at you, as there's a threshold from which they "believe" they can hit. My experience says this is about 70 knots or so. I as a player will never be able to keep an AT-6/AT-9 from the Mi-24P on a fast maneuvering target while simultaneously turning cold, but the AI always will. Keep this in mind when comparing real world data vs DCS performance.

BMP-2, T-72, T-90, T-80, M1, M2 -- virtually all armored vehicles from 1970 onward have laser rangefinders. It'd take some research and a bit of memorization to know which tanks can fire missiles at you. Bear in mind, even vehicles like BMP-1s without lasers can launch missiles at you. Generally speaking, all T-72s and derivatives (including T-90), T-80, and BMP-3 will be the most common threats where you have to assume a laser indicates a missile is close behind. Even without missiles, they'll range for their main guns if you're close enough. In addition, you'll get this from certain aircraft as well, like Ka-50, MiG-27K, Su-17, Su-25, aircraft with TGP, etc. so it's not always a sure assumption that ground vehicles are lasing you.

I've been working on/off on something like this, but as I spend about 99% of my time in the front seat as it is, I'd like a little more info as to what you might consider relevant/necessary. Like techniques and tips? Or just get down into the "press X to do Y"?

A quick way to test would be to set a CAQ point and slave to that, then see if that works.

Mine are making it past Mach 3 depending on the loft altitude. Lower altitudes without a loft is usually a Mach 2.5 cap. The Mach 4 figures are from a NASA testbed missile. It's been discussed in this thread before, but I've no idea what page it's on.

Right now it only works if a FARP is inserted in the editor prior, linking it to the mission warehouse file. In theory you could have a list of FARPs already defined and recreate those as required in order to link to the warehouse, but the "pad" will still be present on the map. All depends on the workarounds desired (and whether my speculations are accurate).

Well yes, but actually no, yet actually it depends. An F-5? Probably not. MiG-29? Maybe. MiG-31? High probability. It also depends on the rotor blades being made from traditional reflective materials, which is pretty common in a lot of helicopters for durability/longevity reasons, but ~20 years ago there was an upgrade program for the AH-64's blades that shifted to an even more composite construction compared to the past. I don't have all the details, but suffice to say that the radar reflecting material has been grossly reduced and that it's not a solid assumption that a radar will easily pick up an AH-64 based upon the blade returns alone. This dates back even further to the AH-1's K747 blades, where radar signature reduction was a design goal. Older types with traditional metal blades, ie UH-1H, Mi-8, Mi-24, are where the effect really comes into play, provided the radar is a modern-ish set.

They don't even need radar to see you. Assume that everything AI knows about you at all times and plan appropriately. At least in the case of jets, they come in low and slow, so it's very easy to ambush them with ADA or friendly fighters. Alternatively, someone with a Gazelle and Mistral might be up for helo escort. Sucks, but that's what we have to work with right now.

We actually can already do this, just that it's inflexible in the units that we can use to make a valid FARP as well as define any limitations of ordnance from the FARP itself (they have unlimited munitions). If we could adjust created FARP munitions and fuel, plus define resource providers, we could be well on our way to having even more flexibility.