AH-64 Apache

[Jester986]

And you think flying saucers from the third reich are a better addition to the current maps?

 

 

Fun aside, +1 for the Apache!

 

 

:megalol:

[Captain Orso]

WOW!!

 

I just ran across this. Not quite 2 years old, and in the last 2 years I don't recall hearing anything on the official side from ED, so this may just still be a valid statement. That being said, in 2 years, a lot can happen, but here it is (important stuff starts at 16:00):

 

 

[Kev2go]

I just ran across this. Not quite 2 years old, and in the last 2 years I don't recall hearing anything on the official side from ED, so this may just still be a valid statement. That being said, in 2 years, a lot can happen, but here it is (important stuff starts at 16:00):

 

 

 

so its basically Ah64 on ED radar so to speak, but their just busy with immediate modules, and the shorter term planned ones.

 

" more of a matter of when than if"

 

Thats good to know, personally i just hope that eventually when that day comes they ED do get resources and time to begin Apache development, they choose to do the AH64D longbow over a A model.

[DudleyAz]

I'll take and Alpha or a Delta... Or both! Yes... Both please.

[Kev2go]

the ideal sort of attack helo would be a Rotary equivalent of a modern-ish fixed wing aircraft.

 

IE HOCAS controls and Glass cockpit

 

This effectively means either AH64D longbow or AH1Z from american Helos.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Kev2go

[dchriest]

I guess ED will need to exhaust all the 2 digits numbers behind the F-xx before starting to work on a RW aircraft. Not holding my breath too much here.

 

 

Ooooh yes, F-111 please! :thumbup:

[Captain Orso]

The Apache was already on their list a long time ago. Then they took it off saying, they wouldn't comment on the decision nor allow any discussion on it. Then Mat dropped his statement that it was again on the table. I won't speculate any more than this, that ED's behaviour was consistent with having signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

 

Since then ED has introduced the F-16, F/A-18, and the AV-8B, all aircraft which are not currently in use by the US the ED version. Maybe ED has found a way around some of the legal obstacles of producing such modules.

 

Yes, I think if the AH-64 made it into ED's stable, its sales will skyrocket to unknown heights. Looking for a replacement for Jane's Longbow is how I landed in DCS World in the first place, and I've only ever heard enthusiastic voices talk about a possible DCS Apache. It would be a veritable pot of gold for ED -- ARE YOU LISTENING ED?! OODLES AND OODLES OF MONEY!! Before you google it, oodle = a-shit-load :smilewink:

[Kev2go]

The Apache was already on their list a long time ago. Then they took it off saying, they wouldn't comment on the decision nor allow any discussion on it. Then Mat dropped his statement that it was again on the table. I won't speculate any more than this, that ED's behaviour was consistent with having signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

 

Since then ED has introduced the F-16, F/A-18, and the AV-8B, all aircraft which are not currently in use by the US the ED version. Maybe ED has found a way around some of the legal obstacles of producing such modules.

 

Yes, I think if the AH-64 made it into ED's stable, its sales will skyrocket to unknown heights. Looking for a replacement for Jane's Longbow is how I landed in DCS World in the first place, and I've only ever heard enthusiastic voices talk about a possible DCS Apache. It would be a veritable pot of gold for ED -- ARE YOU LISTENING ED?! OODLES AND OODLES OF MONEY!! Before you google it, oodle = a-shit-load :smilewink:

 

If an aircraft is in service no where does it say you cant simulate it. For the most part what matters is how much non classified information is available to a accurately simulate the aircrafts functionality, without resorting to too much guestimation. And also to an extent if a private company will grant you a liscense ( or if your willing to pay for it) to use thier intellectual property. That's why for example most first person shooters use fake names and make some design changes in 3d model for a gun as opposed to having an exact replica of it. They just dont want to give$$$$ to ( insert famous name brand arms co). Similar story for when developing aircraft. Depending on companies IP is, even non simulator aviation games need to give a company $$$ for liscense to not get sued.

 

In any case That's probably why we don,t have modules of f35,s or f22,s for eg, at best only dated versions of gen 4 fighters. ( remember despite feeling modern due to being 21st century representations ed are nontheless simulating gen 4 aircraft based on capabilties from over a decade ago. ( virtually all aircraft are pre 2010) So said documentation are older publications and or revisions, relative to what's in circulation now.

 

Ed has said as much that they only rely on documentation that is legally and possible to publically access ( non classified material) . And that is almost certainly the case for anything that isnt,t a govt contract but purely for commercial gains.

 

Even for actuall govt contracts i highly doubt that they would being supplied classified information, as that would require a govt issued security clearance and I'm not seeing that happening with a private company located in Russia, and risk having such information intercepted or seized by foreign intelligence services.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Kev2go

[Snacko]

+++1 for the Apache 64!

[Captain Orso]

If an aircraft is in service no where does it say you cant simulate it.

 

Sorry if I gave the impression that I meant that, bc it was not my intention.

 

For the most part what matters is how much non classified information is available to a accurately simulate the aircrafts functionality, without resorting to too much guestimation. And also to an extent if a private company will grant you a liscense ( or if your willing to pay for it) to use thier intellectual property.

 

1. From my understanding, ED always gets the owner of intellectual property to sign off on ED simulating it, in as far as that is possible, and often they are given privilege to information to which they might otherwise never have access, even if they cannot publish it (put it into the game), they still gain insights to make systems work with the same intention as in the real-world, even when not identical. ED doesn't guestimate, but they do simulate concepts, sometimes without simulating the actual technology 100%, at least that's what I've read.

 

That's why for example most first person shooters use fake names and make some design changes in 3d model for a gun as opposed to having an exact replica of it. They just dont want to give$$$$ to ( insert famous name brand arms co). Similar story for when developing aircraft. Depending on companies IP is, even non simulator aviation games need to give a company $$$ for liscense to not get sued.

 

In any case That's probably why we don,t have modules of f35,s or f22,s for eg, at best only dated versions of gen 4 fighters. ( remember despite feeling modern due to being 21st century representations ed are nontheless simulating gen 4 aircraft based on capabilties from over a decade ago. ( virtually all aircraft are pre 2010) So said documentation are older publications and or revisions, relative to what's in circulation now.

 

Ed has said as much that they only rely on documentation that is legally and possible to publically access ( non classified material) . And that is almost certainly the case for anything that isnt,t a govt contract but purely for commercial gains.

 

Even for actuall govt contracts i highly doubt that they would being supplied classified information, as that would require a govt issued security clearance and I'm not seeing that happening with a private company located in Russia, and risk having such information intercepted or seized by foreign intelligence services.

 

The conjecture (based on the evidence on hand way-back-when), was

1. ED was working toward producing an AH-64 module,
   
2. They were in contact with Boing,
   
3. BMS announced some kind of official connection (press release was seen on the BMS hope page) (IIRC it actually said something about the Apache) to do some kind of work for Boing and/or the military, exactly at the same time ED dropped talking about the Apache. This is the behavior of someone gagged by an NDA (no talking about the in subject in and way, shape, or form, not to confirm nor deny any connection), basically AH-64 was suddenly a taboo subject, not to be mentioned by ED or affiliates.
   
4. The suddenly Wags throws in totally nonchalantly in a YT interview that ED is thinking about the Apache again.
   

Man, that's some sick-love devotion right there :D

 

I think with all the experience ED is gaining with the F/A-18, F-16, and everything Belsimtech has done, will put them in the position to not only create a heli-sim line none before, but also an online multi-player environment like never before. CA just need some TLC and then the games may begin :pilotfly: :D

[S. Low]

If the f18c and the a-10 systems can be modeled as accurately as they are, there shouldnt be any sort of restrictions to modeling most of the AH-64A. My assumption is they are trying to get experience modeling flir first, and then need some kind of contract with the intellectual property owner.

 

Also as a business my assumption is they know they can sell it well but they may place it in future planning to fill a product gap. Perhaps after Ed finishes the hind it'll move to the AH-1, then maybe the 64

[Captain Orso]

One thing is sure, the Apache without co-hosting the board-gunner would not be worth its salt. Already Gunship 2000 years and years and years ago had that possibility, way back before DLS or even ISDN.

 

Imagine a troop of 4 Apache, each with pilot and gunner, marauding across the map :D

[ngreenaway]

I suppose that could be fun, if MP was your thing. I'd like to see an early -A model, unmodernised. With or without any MP functions

[S. Low]

A Heatblur-Jester style AI should be able to fit the apache, with modifications. Though if you want to you could skip that and sit in the gunner's seat since both seats have flight controls but only the gunner's seat has the FLIR controls.

 

Wanted to say that when you guys make this module...... have heatblur do the trailer :D I love ED trailers but man, Heatblur's trailer game is Rank S+

[ngreenaway]

i almost mentioned HB , but the jester AI seems to get floated for every crew-served acft.

it may be polarizing, but i really dont mind the gazelle. its the most fun of the helos, and i dont mind flying by the copilot/gunner seat- i think that could work just fine for the apache- when in transit portion of the mission, fly from the pilot seat, when in combat do so from the gunner position...

 

who knows what ED is brewing up for the hind. maybe theyll have a mechanic better suited for attack helos than jesterAI

 

the only complaint i have of EDs trailers is the use of cover music...)shrug( i can watch in mute

[Kev2go]

Sorry if I gave the impression that I meant that, bc it was not my intention.

 

 

 

1. From my understanding, ED always gets the owner of intellectual property to sign off on ED simulating it, in as far as that is possible, and often they are given privilege to information to which they might otherwise never have access, even if they cannot publish it (put it into the game), they still gain insights to make systems work with the same intention as in the real-world, even when not identical. ED doesn't guestimate, but they do simulate concepts, sometimes without simulating the actual technology 100%, at least that's what I've read.

 

 

 

The conjecture (based on the evidence on hand way-back-when), was

1. ED was working toward producing an AH-64 module,
   
2. They were in contact with Boing,
   
3. BMS announced some kind of official connection (press release was seen on the BMS hope page) (IIRC it actually said something about the Apache) to do some kind of work for Boing and/or the military, exactly at the same time ED dropped talking about the Apache. This is the behavior of someone gagged by an NDA (no talking about the in subject in and way, shape, or form, not to confirm nor deny any connection), basically AH-64 was suddenly a taboo subject, not to be mentioned by ED or affiliates.
   
4. The suddenly Wags throws in totally nonchalantly in a YT interview that ED is thinking about the Apache again.
   

Man, that's some sick-love devotion right there :D

 

I think with all the experience ED is gaining with the F/A-18, F-16, and everything Belsimtech has done, will put them in the position to not only create a heli-sim line none before, but also an online multi-player environment like never before. CA just need some TLC and then the games may begin :pilotfly: :D

 

ED is alot more open and has improved in the communication now than in the past. ED has lots of old projects that were either delayed at some point or restarted. Recall the super early F/A18 3d cockpit model? The one of of an earlier production lot from the 90s before they decided to do a 21st century lot 20? OR perhaps the old F16c cockpit photos of a pre CCIP modernized block 50? Regardless whatever the community speculates, as someone had mentioned earlier in this thread, somewhere in an interview wags said that the Apache is more of a matter of when then IF, that its something theyd like to do at some point. If you haven't noticed ED just have a lot on thier plate right now. Finishing off F/A18 and F16C from EA, SuperCarrier, ka50 remodel, polishing off P47D30 for eventual release, early WIP Mi24, after that plans for AH1F. Not to mention possibly getting back on track on the F4E phantom development that was halted in favor devoting resources of the F16, never minding other non module stuff such consistently improving the game engine and making other maps etc.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Kev2go

[ngreenaway]

Finishing off F/A18 and F16C from EA, SuperCarrier, ka50 remodel, polishing off P47D30 for eventual release, early WIP Mi24, after that plans for AH1F. Not to mention possibly getting back on track on the F4E phantom development that was halted in favor devoting resources of the F16, never minding other non module stuff such consistently improving the game engine and making other maps etc.

 

Not to mention finishing two maps, some under-the-hood stuff, MAC, and finishing the yak-52 (although I have a feeling sales figures set the priority for finishing that)

[Captain Orso]

LOL I don't expect ED to even announce that they are starting any work on an Apache for at least 5 years; there are so many things already on the plate.

 

I try to view it from different perspectives, bc I cannot know what ED is thinking, but I can try to see what their perspective might be:

 

- On the one hand, the Apache could be a gold mine. Any time delaying getting it out to the public is time someone else has my money in their pocket :)

 

- On the other hand, to really make the Apache a flagship of the company, a lot of things have to fall into place first:

-- VR has to be better and less of a resource-blackhole

-- Apaches fly low, so the game engine has to allow for a map with far more detail, especially in the inevitable comparison with Microsoft Flight Doohickey

-- Apaches fight vehicles, so the user's experience will only be as good as the vehicle environment he's fighting in

-- Multi-player aircraft are a must; it's got to be near perfect first

-- Not everyone wants the MP experience, so AI gunner and pilot and the ability to cleanly swap between them has to work nearly perfectly

 

Probably their actually reasoning is completely different :D

 

There is one hell of a lot of things than can be greatly improved, which will integrally influence the player's experience. Besides, ED has plans. Module development takes years, so ED plans years in advance. How willing ED is to throw plans out the window for whims, even good whims, remains to be seen.