AH-64 variant which is meant to be modeled in DCS and differences between A and D gameplay-wise

[Rogue Trooper]

38 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

 

Counterpoint: AH-64D demonstration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzKYogDjagw

 

 

Not really. The ASE suite on the AH-64D is faster at alerting to (and responding to) threats than on the older AH-64A. Data linking also makes it far easier to get a picture of the whole field, which includes both what friendly ground units have observed and what other aerial units have observed.

 

 

Your primary flight instrument will remain IHADSS. As a pilot, your MPDs will be used to cross reference what you IHADSS is telling you, the same as the steam gauges do on the AH-64A. For example, you might set your right MPD up to the engine page while your left MPD is set to the flight page. Or you might put a repeater of the PNVS camera on one MPD and cross reference it with the flight page. It's all entirely up to the crew and their preferences, along with the situation at hand.

 

 

Most AH-64D functions are on the collective and stick, not the MPD bezel buttons. You won't be messing with the MPDs in critical situations.

 

 

The CPG's primary purpose is to operate the sensors and weapons, with secondary navigation and communication (note that the AH-64A's EGI/GPS is located in the CPG's right console). The AH-64D allows more task trading between the two crew, so it's possible for the pilot to hand off control to the CPG to do something and vice versa. Presently, the closest analog is the F-14A/B, though it doesn't have the ability for the RIO to fly the aircraft, but much of the tasking in the AH-64 is similar. The only reason the front seat is the CPG rather than the back seat was routing the TADS feed (particularly the DVO) to the back seat would've been unnecessarily complicated.

It all sounds good to me.

I should be able to focus the radar to a specific field of view to limit air superiority detection, the smaller field of view will allow a faster refresh rate and better image of the specific area of the battle field that I am interested in.... this is correct?

 

Edited December 25, 2020 by Rogue Trooper

[NeedzWD40]

3 minutes ago, Rogue Trooper said:

I should be able to focus the radar to a specific field of view to limit air superiority detection, the smaller field of view will allow a faster refresh rate.... this is correct?

 

Yes, you can configure the radar to scan a narrow arc repeatedly or once, twice, etc. depending on requirements. Most of the settings are related to existing settings for the TADS as they overlap (FCR selected will use TADS FOV to adjust scan zones, etc.) There's a lot of complexity behind it and the things it can do would make it the most advanced radar in DCS; it's for this reason that I wouldn't blame ED for simply doing a NR/WO version alone (although do note that we should get that version either as a mission option or separate airframe for a variety of reasons). At the basic level, you get a wide 90 degree arc that can be narrowed down and scanned within that 90 degree forward arc. The radar can also be linked with TADS and IHADSS to display what it sees as icons in 3D space.

[Harker]

5 hours ago, Rogue Trooper said:

You can click a few physical steam switches blind as you know where they occupy a specific space within reality.

I do this all the time in my Sim pit for VR as all critical weapon choices are made Via toggle switches. They are simply on or off and they always occupy a space that does not change.

 

It is like actuating the left/right turn indicator in a car, the physical indicator is always there but an MFD replacement with sub menus would be dreadful don't you think?

MFDs require pressing OSBs to enter sub menus and human interaction to verify the screens have changed and are ready for the next OSB to be pressed? MFDs require attention.

That's all well and nice for IRL scenarios, but in DCS, you need to go heads down and visually confirm everything anyway, because, well, we lack tactile feedback. And I'd argue that it's much easier to buy a set of 2 TM MFDs than buy or build a switch box or build a full scale cockpit. Becomes even more complicated if you consider any physical changes between two front and back cockpits. Using MFDs makes everything universal and easy. I can do most everything in the Hornet without looking at my physical MFDs.

And as GGTharos says, MFDs allows to share different workloads between the two cockpits.

[Rogue Trooper]

16 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

 

Yes, you can configure the radar to scan a narrow arc repeatedly or once, twice, etc. depending on requirements. Most of the settings are related to existing settings for the TADS as they overlap (FCR selected will use TADS FOV to adjust scan zones, etc.) There's a lot of complexity behind it and the things it can do would make it the most advanced radar in DCS; it's for this reason that I wouldn't blame ED for simply doing a NR/WO version alone (although do note that we should get that version either as a mission option or separate airframe for a variety of reasons). At the basic level, you get a wide 90 degree arc that can be narrowed down and scanned within that 90 degree forward arc. The radar can also be linked with TADS and IHADSS to display what it sees as icons in 3D space.

The baby Jesus built me to love this weapon.

I think I will find my home with this girl..... it all sounds just about right to me.

I think I have finally come home. 

 

I can configure the X,Y and Z scan planes of the radar?

no not the depth....... silly me I am giddy, I can configure the height of the scan as well as the width?

 

Edited December 25, 2020 by Rogue Trooper

[NeedzWD40]

13 minutes ago, Rogue Trooper said:

I can configure the X,Y and Z scan planes of the radar?

 

You can set the azimuth, range, and elevation, yes. Generally speaking, you'll only need to adjust the range and azimuth, leaving elevation automatic. The logic can vary depending on what you're doing, the terrain, aircraft altitude, etc. but it's more like what we already have with the F-16 and F-18, just tailored for an A/G mission. The JF-17 might be a better picture in terms of functionality.

 

A practical example might be to scan a 30 degree arc at the leftmost scan zone at 4km with a single sweep.

[Rogue Trooper]

Does the onboard computer system process the radar scan and pick potential targets or is that a human requirement?

[NeedzWD40]

Yes, it's all automatically processed by the aircraft computers. It's comparable to the NCTR capability on the F-18.

[Rogue Trooper]

I think I can work with this heavy Attack chopper.

Thanks for your input.

 

Whether you are quoting stats for a later D and not 2002 D which we will get..... I can work with the basics.

 

Merry Christmas by the way.

Edited December 25, 2020 by Rogue Trooper

[NeedzWD40]

The FCR has been well established since the '90s; the only difference from 2002 to 2012 is going to be how the MPDs display the information, which mostly comes down to monochromatic or color. The modes and capabilities, for our purposes, are virtually identical.

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, Rogue Trooper said:

However.

What is CP/G and how does the pilot use it to negate the laborious set programmes of the software programmer when need be?

 

That's your Copilot/Gunner.  The pilot uses the CPG to do everything the pilot doesn't, as others have mentioned

[Glimmer]

@NeedzWD40

 

I think this topic has been already transformed to FAQ So, maybe you know, does TADS have "POINT TRACK" mode, or something similar (optical tracking the movable object)? On the different videos I saw only manual mode (can it track the area? interesting).

Thanks

[NeedzWD40]

10 hours ago, Glimmer said:

does TADS have "POINT TRACK" mode, or something similar

 

Yes, it has logic for doing so via similar mechanisms that we have with the LITENING pod. In a lot of videos you generally see manual tracking as there's not much reason to utilize auto tracking. TADS can be slaved in several different ways, to a waypoint, area track, HMD source, FCR target, a laser source, and other mechanics depending on block. Remember that it's basically a targeting pod itself and an evolution of the TSU used on the AH-1, which were actually utilized on the prototypes before the TADS was selected.

[Rogue Trooper]

Is this girl going to carry stingers?

I would say those would put this weapon well and truly into the DCS engine like a block of concrete...... after 2002 of course.

She was certainly cleared to use such a weapon.

Whether she actually flew in real life with stingers is worth nothing as an argument in Peer to Peer combat that DCS offers as standard. 

 

do I smell the fragile arses of air superiority?

Edited January 1, 2021 by Rogue Trooper

[NeedzWD40]

4 hours ago, Rogue Trooper said:

Is this girl going to carry stingers?

 

By strictest definition, the US Army never utilized ATAS with the AH-64, even though it was tested on both the A and D models. I'm fairly certain that once CMWS became a thing, ATAS was no longer an option for the wingtips and I never saw anything about putting them on stations 1-4. On a pure technical basis, it would be possible as the AH-64DJP version is equipped with ATAS, but for late Block II/III/E the CMWS system would have to be modified or removed to have them.

Edited January 1, 2021 by NeedzWD40

[Kev2go]

On 12/24/2020 at 8:36 PM, NeedzWD40 said:

The FCR has been well established since the '90s; the only difference from 2002 to 2012 is going to be how the MPDs display the information, which mostly comes down to monochromatic or color. The modes and capabilities, for our purposes, are virtually identical.

 

thought thats the difference between the block 1 and block 2's. From what i read block 2's , which had color displays came into operation 2003. coupled with some changes for the radio display, moving map suite, and some other  things that would likely minor or irrelevant for the purposes of DCS world which i cannot recall from the top of my head .But its not substantially different. Wonder whats stopping them from doing a block 2 ( even if its a early service model block 2 model from circa 2003 ) 

 

If for one thing it would be preferable to have block 2 it makes navigation easier since the colour MPD's made it possible for it have a moving map suite to be overlayed over nav page as opposed to just having a Mapless HSD type display.

 

Perhaps Ah64D (2002) simply means they are using the most commonly available manual  as a starting point that one can find on the top  results of 1st page of  a given google search which is a 2002 publication ( though it has revised pages from up to 2005), which in fact does cover aforementioned added features at that particular time frame.

 

When it comes to comparing a later life AH64D circa 2008-2010 with CMWS and the TEDAC display  plus M-TADS/PVNS sensor, granted i haven't seen a AH64D publication for this timeframe,  there is ( or at least was) a AH64D block 3 ( at this time was not yet branded as AH64E)  2012 pub circulating, to sort of compare notes between the two in a more precise manner, and would help fill in some blanks assuming ED can't get thier hands on a 2008-2010 documentation.

 

Going from memory here, apart from the upgraded turbine engine and level 4 unmanned drone integration capabilities when compared to a late block 2 , the block 3 would be very similar the same in its suites but the CMWS is integrated in a more sophisticated manner. in block 2 the CMWS has phyiscal panels  right hand side above the dashboard within the pilots cockpit.A block 3/E it doesn't.

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Kev2go

[NeedzWD40]

On 1/5/2021 at 4:57 PM, Kev2go said:

thought thats the difference between the block 1 and block 2's. From what i read block 2's , which had color displays came into operation 2003. coupled with some changes for the radio display, moving map suite, and some other  things that would likely minor or irrelevant for the purposes of DCS world which i cannot recall from the top of my head .But its not substantially different. Wonder whats stopping them from doing a block 2 ( even if its a early service model block 2 model from circa 2003 ) 

 

It's a lot like the old AH-1s, determining between the MOD-S, PROD-S, E, F, P, Q, etc. depends on what year, who was operating it, where it was, and so on. Block II's were introduced around the '03 timeframe, but weren't widely seen until '05, and then afterward you start seeing slow adoption of CMWS, upturned exhausts, electronic improvements, etc. A late Block II around 2010 will have a lot of similarities with the Block III introduced just a year later. A baseline Block II should primarily have color MPDs with all the fixings, EUFD, TEDAC, and some other electronics upgrades. There did exist a number that didn't have all of those features (in particular, TEDAC), especially early on.

 

On 1/5/2021 at 4:57 PM, Kev2go said:

Perhaps Ah64D (2002) simply means they are using the most commonly available manual  as a starting point that one can find on the top  results of 1st page of  a given google search which is a 2002 publication ( though it has revised pages from up to 2005), which in fact does cover aforementioned added features at that particular time frame.

 

I would hazard a guess that something is being lost in translation since the teaser images clearly illustrate the M-PNVS, which is a very late feature. Also, a huge advantage as it has a much higher resolution FLIR coupled with LLTV. Given this, it's also a near-certainty that M-TADS comes with it, which discards DVO and also has a higher resolution FLIR.

 

On 1/5/2021 at 4:57 PM, Kev2go said:

When it comes to comparing a later life AH64D circa 2008-2010 with CMWS and the TEDAC display  plus M-TADS/PVNS sensor, granted i haven't seen a AH64D publication for this timeframe,  there is ( or at least was) a AH64D block 3 ( at this time was not yet branded as AH64E)  2012 pub circulating, to sort of compare notes between the two in a more precise manner, and would help fill in some blanks assuming ED can't get thier hands on a 2008-2010 documentation.

 

Going from memory here, apart from the upgraded turbine engine and level 4 unmanned drone integration capabilities when compared to a late block 2 , the block 3 would be very similar the same in its suites but the CMWS is integrated in a more sophisticated manner. in block 2 the CMWS has phyiscal panels  right hand side above the dashboard within the pilots cockpit.A block 3/E it doesn't.

 

Late Block II to III/E configuration aren't a lot of changes. There's some better data link capability, uprated engines and transmission, unmanned drone control capabilities (late Block II had receive only unless equipped with VUIT-2), replacement of backup gauges with digital variations, better integration of CMWS with the ASE, and a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head. For DCS, most of this is pointless, especially for what most players will be using it for.

 

Needless to say, there's quite a minefield of ways this could go, depending on how it's executed. A 2005-2007 era US Army AH-64D could be either Block I or II, equipped with CMWS, lack TEDAC, have the upturned exhaust, PNVS and TADS, or come without. There's a lot of evidence for either way, depending on unit, deployment, and location.

[Kev2go]

On 1/6/2021 at 8:41 PM, NeedzWD40 said:

 

It's a lot like the old AH-1s, determining between the MOD-S, PROD-S, E, F, P, Q, etc. depends on what year, who was operating it, where it was, and so on. Block II's were introduced around the '03 timeframe, but weren't widely seen until '05, and then afterward you start seeing slow adoption of CMWS, upturned exhausts, electronic improvements, etc. A late Block II around 2010 will have a lot of similarities with the Block III introduced just a year later. A baseline Block II should primarily have color MPDs with all the fixings, EUFD, TEDAC, and some other electronics upgrades. There did exist a number that didn't have all of those features (in particular, TEDAC), especially early on.

 

 

I would hazard a guess that something is being lost in translation since the teaser images clearly illustrate the M-PNVS, which is a very late feature. Also, a huge advantage as it has a much higher resolution FLIR coupled with LLTV. Given this, it's also a near-certainty that M-TADS comes with it, which discards DVO and also has a higher resolution FLIR.

 

 

Late Block II to III/E configuration aren't a lot of changes. There's some better data link capability, uprated engines and transmission, unmanned drone control capabilities (late Block II had receive only unless equipped with VUIT-2), replacement of backup gauges with digital variations, better integration of CMWS with the ASE, and a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head. For DCS, most of this is pointless, especially for what most players will be using it for.

 

Needless to say, there's quite a minefield of ways this could go, depending on how it's executed. A 2005-2007 era US Army AH-64D could be either Block I or II, equipped with CMWS, lack TEDAC, have the upturned exhaust, PNVS and TADS, or come without. There's a lot of evidence for either way, depending on unit, deployment, and location.

 

 

The official roadmap says it will be based on a Circa 2002 Block 2 Ah64D

 

 

Maybe based on the features you noted from the teaser the Apache will be a " Hybrid/franken" model

 

Kinda how the A10C v1.0  was technically supposed to be a Suite 3.0 jet circa 2005, but ED module had features not introduced until suite 5.0 ( which was like 2008-2009ish)  like the SADL va TAD, and the MAWS integrated, which suite 3.0 never had but in turn lacking some other suite 5.0 features like Laser mavericks or AN/ARC210 digital radio which was introduced in suite 5.0.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Kev2go

[NeedzWD40]

22 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Maybe based on the features you noted from the teaser the Apache will be a " Hybrid/franken" model

 

The good news is that depending on year, unit, and deployment, just about anything goes. So it'll be possible to get M-TADS, M-PNVS, TEDAC, all the nice Block II features, but not ASPI or CMWS. Of course, that might make more than a few people irritated, but that's the way it goes.

[Kev2go]

looks like we in fact are getting something a bit later than a 2002 AH64D.   

 

 

 

official list of features plus new screenshots

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2021-02-26/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Kev2go