NeedzWD40

TSD > UTIL > INU1/2 reset. It takes ~4 minutes to reset an INU, so keep that in mind. Reset one INU so it'll be ready for action, then after it's back up, reset the other one. I just generally cycle them in 10 minute intervals to keep drift in check, which is about 5m a minute.

Try resetting your INUs a few minutes before you're in place to engage. There's currently an excessive INU drift glitch that isn't being corrected by GPS (and it's very hard to document with a short track), which is feeding bad data to the missile. Easiest way to see this is to use the STORE function with TADS and observe how far off the generated point is from the actual crosshairs.

RFHO is sending targets via datalink to other aircraft. It allows the FCR equipped aircraft to find targets and send them back without exposing the other flight members. This would be the true masked capability for the aircraft, as it would be possible for one aircraft to scan, prioritize, amortize, and assign targets to the other flight members, then execute a rapid engagement from concealment and/or cover. Without that, you could unmask, scan, then mask and fire as a single ship, provided ideal circumstances.

2500m isn't a limit, it just means it's too close for the missile to do DBS. You can get LOBL further out, but the target has to be moving. LOBL Inhibit would be used if you wanted the missile to always use DBS (where possible) and projected target position. Ie you have one static target and multiple moving targets nearby and you want the static target to take priority (with the understanding the missile still may acquire one of the moving targets). Long, complicated subject short: the missile itself has several ways of acquiring targets and the information passed from the aircraft to the missile is same/similar data, whether it comes from the FCR, TADS, or RFHO. Main use case for TADS with a 114L is being able to reach out further for static targets, plus VID of the chosen target. We'll have the ability to link TADS to the FCR (and vice versa) in the future, but if your TADS is already there then you can just laze and fire.

Currently, if you equip the TARPS, you can't put anything other than the ECA and ALQ-167 on the pallets in front. However, there's documentation of loading and utilization of dropped ordnance with the pod: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-the-us-navy-tarps-equipped-f-14-tomcat-that-took-a-photo-of-its-own-gbu-12-heading-for-its-target/ I'm not certain if this means a basic A or B should have the capability or if it was restricted to the B(U) and D, but I wanted to bring this up to see if anyone had more information on the subject. If it's not a restriction that should be imposed with bombs, then perhaps we could have it changed?

You can also press the right pedal inward and move the cyclic around, which seems to cure the problem for me.

Reload or repair? If you shut off after initially starting up, you can lose the FCR; this is an acknowledged issue:

There's a few tips and tricks you can do to make them less bad, but it heavily relies on scripting to lead them around by the nose. I made a thread a couple years back that got moved to the core wishlist:

Thanks, NineLine. As noted, the purpose of the thread isn't to cast shade on the current state of the WIP FM and SCAS, but to have a dialogue on what we should focus on learning now and what we can expect in the future.

Make sure to document and get a track so it can be reported, that's definitely a bug.

You should be able to select Grayscale again and it should return to the normal flight symbology, if it's in the pilot seat.

Note: I'm going to work from the AH-64A -10 (TM 1-1520-238-10) which is listed as Distribution A (https://www.abebooks.com/Operators-Manual-Helicopter-Attack-AH-64A-Apache/30838982215/bd); the present document I have is dated August 31, 1994. I understand that the AH-64D likely has many changes from the A model, but this is only as a general reference in an attempt to understand the DCS AH-64D SCAS/SAS/FMC system. Presently, the SCAS/SAS/FMC on the DCS AH-64D provides SAS, CAS, and various active and passive hold modes. For example, heading hold applied at low speeds/hover when pedal and/or force trim release is not pressed. This system is ostensibly to allow for reduced pilot workload throughout the flight regime, given the overall complexity of the aircraft, employing weapons, operating sensors, and the massive array of other potential taskings. However, within the module, the capabilities of the SCAS/SAS seem to be diminished; that is to say, when the FMC functions regarding the various channels are shut off (pitch, roll, yaw, and collective), the aircraft's handling is not noticeably altered. The experiment conducted was a hot start on a pad at Kobuleti airfield, 20C with no wind. An FCR was equipped, 50% fuel, two rocket pods with M274, two empty M299 racks, and an empty gun magazine. The aircraft was taken off into a hover with force trim utilized to stabilize within ground effect. The controls were then released to observe behavior, whereupon the aircraft began to oscillate and pendulum a small amount, then a large amount. Controls were arrested and the aircraft was again pushed into a hover, then the A/C UTIL page was brought up and the FMC YAW, PITCH, ROLL, and COLL channels were commanded off. A stable hover was again commanded, followed by a controls release to observe. As with the test with FMC engaged, the aircraft began to oscillate and more rapidly fall out of control. The aircraft was arrested and then landed. According to the AH-64A -10, the Digital Automatic Stabilization Equipment (DASE) is described as: "The DASE augments stability and enhances maneuverability of the helicopter. DASE includes and/ or controls the following: stability and command augmentation in pitch, roll, and yaw; attitude hold; heading hold; hover augmentation; turn coordination; and the BUCS." This is controlled via a panel in the pilot's cockpit with 5 switches and a BUCS test switch. Paragraph C describes "Automatic Stabilization" in the following: Given this information, I have the following questions: - Does shutting off FMC channels in the DCS AH-64D have any present effect beyond disabling various hold modes? That is to say, are there any SAS or CAS operations being performed when the FMC channels are shut off? - Does the SAS attempt to keep the aircraft on a particular heading, bank, or pitch, or does it only act as a damper for various external influences up to a certain percentage? - How much stability should be expected from the SAS outside of any hold modes? ie in level flight, there is no perceptible difference from FMC channels on and FMC channels off. Should any stabilization occur in forward flight by the FMC, or is it strictly in the hover regime? Is it only for commanded holds such as attitude or altitude? Continued: A second experiment was conducted with the Mi-24P module, for lack of a comparable platform within the game. There is of course a marked contrast between the aircraft in a variety of ways, from the weight to design purpose, to capabilities. For our purposes, it is only to contrast a SAS on a somewhat similar helicopter. As with the AH-64D, the yaw, pitch, and roll SAS channels were ensured on in the same environmental conditions, with the exception of the collective/altitude channel. The aircraft was lifted off into a hover and stabilized with the force trim release. Once the controls were released, the aircraft maintained a generally accurate pitch, bank, and heading, while the aircraft slowly drifted in one direction. A correction was applied and the aircraft stabilized, followed by shutting off the pitch, roll, and yaw SAS channels, then the controls were again released. The airframe remains stable for a few seconds, then begins to oscillate and pitch up, followed by a retaking of the controls and stabilizing again. From this experience, the SAS system on the Mi-24 appears intended to keep the aircraft at a commanded heading, bank, and pitch, and of course in various flight regimes. Given this, these are my questions: - The Mi-24 in general seems to be a far more stable gun platform in the game, with a decidedly powerful SAS that keeps the aircraft well in constraints requested by the crew. Is the more unstable SAS of the AH-64D intended to open up more maneuverability than the more rigid one on the Mi-24? - As with the AH-64D, does shutting off all the SAS channels remove all damping and potentially CAS? A control test was done with the UH-1H, which while lacking a true SAS, does have at least some damping and resistance thanks to the control bar (as intended). The UH-1H, when performing a similar test as with the AH-64D, does not exhibit the same violent oscillations, though it obviously eventually will oscillate out of control. This was merely done to have an aircraft tested in a similar state as the previous two while lacking the same control system. An attempt was made with the SA342L module, but there are idiosyncrasies with the track that prevent it from working as desired. Final notes: This is not to establish whether or not the DCS AH-64D's FM, SAS, and/or SCAS are flawed, inaccurate, improper, or poorly modeled; this is to better understand the underlying aircraft design and intent, so as to properly convey what needs to be learned and taught with the module itself. Tracks have been attached for review per the above testing. Mi-24P SAS vs NO SAS.trkAH-64D FMC vs NO FMC.trkUH-1H CONTROL.trk

Compare with the Present Position indication on the TSD. The cutouts are from the external infobar and are accurate; the TSD PP however is off on the MGRS, while the truncated LL is about right.

I believe this might be a small coordinate conversion error, because LL is usually about right, while MGRS is typically a hair off: The external view info bar, if available, gives a more accurate reading of your position, so be sure to compare it where possible.

Grayscale selected where? On the WPN page?

We've had a pretty good past year with the AH-64D. We got the AGM-114L, 1200 round magazine, datalink (a big one!), and the initial implementation of the FCR. As the recent newsletter indicates, additional FCR functionality is on the way, along with George and a campaign. However, I've yet to see where additional rocket warheads and the rocket management system are in this plan. In the past, it has been indicated that warheads like the M255 and M261 will be coming later, though I'm uncertain if the plan is during or after early access. This leads to a series of questions as to whether or not we will see the M255, M261, and M264 warheads and how they might be implemented. In addition, my sources are ambiguous as to whether or not the M156 is utilized by the AH-64, as my understanding is that it operates identically to the M151, but any official confirmation on that would be nice to know as well. This is topped by the rocket management system, which would be a very handy addition to flexibility with rockets. I've no idea how such a system would work, but I'm assuming it might be similar to the fuzing panel for bombs. Are there any indications as to where this falls in the implementation timeline? Further, might we see an expansion to this system to pick M299 rail loadings outside of the current automatically set stores? As an additional note, a large complaint I've noticed for a lot regarding the M230 (outside of the rounds disappearing at ~2900m) has to do with the tendency of the gun having a seeming parallax error from TADS relative to the aircraft's centerline. That is to say, in a hover, if the target is almost directly on the nose, the rounds hit per the crosshairs, whereas if the target is to the left, the rounds tend to go right of the crosshair; while if to the right, the rounds prefer to go to the left. Holdovers can be used to correct for some of this, but I was curious as to whether or not the ability to dynamically harmonize the gun might be implemented? Thank you and let's have a great year for the AH-64D!

It's entirely contextual. Sometimes that's enough, sometimes it's not. Move around, scan from a different angle, or if you can see them, engage with TADS. It's not intended to replace your own awareness and judgment, only assist it.

I don't think anyone has done the FCR and datalink specifically for kneeboards, so go for it! Even if someone else has done some, you can always make your own twist.

I ejected as CPG in the air, curled into a ball, landed and stood up as a parachute appeared behind me, then hit the 1 key and was back in the pilot's seat. I then rescued "myself" with the trusty M230. Unfortunately, I died midair as physics caught up to me, then promptly forgot. All in good fun!

Well, there are some improvements: he didn't call out "2, bingo fuel."

Correct. The missile must be actively tracking in order to use SKR as an ACQ source. Works with either RF or SAL currently (though RF will indicate invalid condition even though it works).

More like the ADA is added to make it a bit more than a turkey shoot. A lot of the ADA in the game can be dealt with/exploited in certain ways, which is what I'm sure a lot of designers are keeping in mind. For example: the SA-19 can be engaged from beyond its max missile range with SAL missiles by stretching out to 8.7-9km for a launch, while SA-8 and SA-15 are vulnerable to close in attacks. Over-saturation of these various systems does tend to be a problem with a lot of single missions, as Soviet doctrine had ADA as a regimental level asset. That gets into a whole other can of worms, but the old FM 100-60 is a pretty decent guide to get a good figure of ADA-vehicle ballpark. ie, out of 30 vehicles in the division, you've got 1 dedicated ADA unit - though there's often a higher density of MANPADS to go with that. @baksie what's your preference? COIN or Fulda Gap? Have you checked the user files already? @NIGHTHAWK1 has already given some good suggestions, particularly Stolen Content.

Check your flight frequency in the briefing and ensure you're using the right radio. The AI only use the group default radio, which is quite often the UHF radio at 225MHz.

I agree, but the AI helicopter logic in general needs a massive overhaul. Given the complexity of the undertaking, I'm not sure if we can expect a specific overhaul of AI AH-64 logic any time in the near future.