implemented Integrate MMA and IAFS into rearm screen

[Luft Waffel]

Having played on quite a few public servers there is disappointingly a complete lack of the longbow radomes. This is because by default the "remove radome" option is checked automatically meaning mission creators would have to go out of their way to specifically change the option themselves to have any apaches carrying radomes in the mission.

Especially for countries like the UK that do not use the apache without the longbow radar equipped it takes away one of the main unique features the helicopter is known for.

I can think of 4 possible solutions:

1) Longbow Radomes are equipped by default and have to instead be manually removed by the mission creator

2) Radar can be equipped and removed in the rearm/refuel window

3) Radar can be equipped and removed with a kneeboard page when cold and dark (like customising the flare program)

4) Longbow radar is forced onto the aircraft when UK apache skin is applied (When apache unit belongs to CJTF Blue faction)

The option to remove the longbow radar when the apache belongs to the UK faction should be deleted entirely as its not accurate for the Apache AH1

[adirtynurse]

I think it would be good to have the FCR mounting on/off function in either the rearmament menu or the F10 ground crew menu. 

[adirtynurse]

5) Radome on/off in the F10 menu like wheel chocks and NVG/HMD for some a/c

[Luft Waffel]

5 hours ago, adirtynurse said:

5) Radome on/off in the F10 menu like wheel chocks and NVG/HMD for some a/c

I think this would be the best option, along with it being equipped by default

[Silver_Dragon]

On 3/18/2022 at 3:46 PM, Luft Waffel said:

Having played on quite a few public servers there is disappointingly a complete lack of the longbow radomes. This is because by default the "remove radome" option is checked automatically meaning mission creators would have to go out of their way to specifically change the option themselves to have any apaches carrying radomes in the mission.

Especially for countries like the UK that do not use the apache without the longbow radar equipped it takes away one of the main unique features the helicopter is known for.

I can think of 4 possible solutions:

1) Longbow Radomes are equipped by default and have to instead be manually removed by the mission creator

2) Radar can be equipped and removed in the rearm/refuel window

3) Radar can be equipped and removed with a kneeboard page when cold and dark (like customising the flare program)

4) Longbow radar is forced onto the aircraft when UK apache skin is applied (When apache unit belongs to CJTF Blue faction)

The option to remove the longbow radar when the apache belongs to the UK faction should be deleted entirely as its not accurate for the Apache AH1

Remember ED has building AH-64D Blk 2 Us Army, no a UK WAH version. Lonwbow has none implement on the EA, that coming after. The actual radome has none funtionality yet.

[Luft Waffel]

I think everyone is aware of this and don't get how this changes anything regarding the desired feature explained in the OP; for clients to be able to customise the aircraft configuration

[Jester2138]

I could see this either way.

1) The Longbow radar is expensive and not equipped on every (or even most) US Army aircraft. It's not even necessary to do so because of the sophisticated data-linking. Therefore, the status of an AH-64 being radar-equipped or not is somewhat of a strategic/tactical choice that should be set by the mission, not by a random client.

2) This is already true of things like targeting pods and heavy weaponry and yet DCS allows all of that to be changed via the Ground Crew by a random client. Therefore, it should be true of the radar, as well. Furthermore, the tactical situation that enables the US Army to simply not need every aircraft to have its own radar (never flying alone) does not apply to DCS, and clients should be able to make it work even across varying player counts and dynamic missions.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Jester2138

[FalcoGer]

I'd like if you could change the FCR/RFI removal into a special loadout slot, so it could be changed in the mission with the radio menu. When you get around to adding the extra ammo, it would also be nice if that was added to the loadout. You could add an extra slot or two on the left of the interfaces similar how the smoke is done for other aircraft, for example on the F18 there is a special SMK slot.

I am also not sure if you can fly completely without any auxiliary tank or ammo. It would be nice to have that option, since fuel endurance is pretty good as it is and you could save some weight that way.

I'd also be nice if rearming hot could be done normally, but installing/removing the tank/ammo/FCR would require a cold aircraft.

[FalcoGer]

Later people will want to fly with or without the radar. And people will not want to rely on the mission editor to check that tickmark to include the MMA.

I propose against the move to make special cases and adding bloat to interfaces where it is not required and instead integrate the MMA and IAFS/Extra ammo into the loadout of the apache into special slots, such as present in the F18C hornet for smoke.

Instead of adding special checkmarks, the MMA and IAFS/Extra ammo can be included into such special slots in the loadout screen. This wouldn't just remove an extra checkbox from the mission editor. This makes the ME less complex and confusing and the mission designer can't forget to check/uncheck the box. This would also allow more flexibility for everybody involved.

For instance such an approach would tie into the stockpile system already in the game. Having a limited amount of radars available. It would also tie into the existing system of prohibiting the equipment if the mission designer really doesn't want the apaches to have a radar he can just forbid it. Most of all it would automatically allow anyone who flies to change their configuration on the apron/farp as the situation demands without the need to change the mission file or to provide identical aircraft with the only difference to be the internal configuration. To top it all of it would also immediately integrate into the weight and balance system in the rearm screen, showing updated weights.

Don't force people into what the mission designer has to pick. If he wants to lock down the options, then he's free to do so with the existing prohibited equipment system. But if he wants to provide all options to the pilots, then the current system just doesn't work.

The other approach to solve this that I see is to add special cases to the ground crew menu to install/remove the MMA and/or IAFS. But special cases are bad because it takes time to develop, things go wrong and it's inflexible if you want to expand later on. Use the existing infrastructure, don't invent new UI where it isn't needed, give options.

Of course adding the MMA is a special case. It shouldn't be done while the engines are running while other armaments may be loaded or exchanged with spinning blades. I still think it's better to be able to tag different slots to be hot loadable while others require a cold aircraft and expand the capability of the reload screen rather than invent new wheels.

[FalcoGer]

I would like that the robbie tank or extra ammo capacity is not a mission editor option, but rather a loadout option in the rearm screen. This has multiple advantages:

1. It's more flexible, mission designers can use the loadout restrictions to force one way or another if they want, but it also allows users who fly the mission to choose what they want if they permit it. Making it a checkbox in the mission editor will prohibit any changes dynamically and users couldn't change things after the fact, even if the mission designer would like that.
2. It's preventing ui clutter. Putting it as yet another checkbox just invites it being forgotten to be set to the correct value and adds complexity to an interface that doesn't need to be there. Less is more and a clean interface goes a long way to user experience. Adding it as an extra option in the ground crew comms menu also is out of place, and it doesn't allow mission editors to prohibit the options if they desire so, unless an extra checkbox is added (please, no more checkboxes for super specific things that can be added into existing systems!) It also requires a special case for programming, and special cases are bad for maintainability and expansion. Unless it's something really, really special, it shouldn't be a special case.
3. It can't be easily overlooked during mission design. Putting it in loadout is more visible to the designer of the mission than some checkbox in an unrelated, easily overlooked place, like the FCR checkbox is now (please also move that to loadout for the same reason). Pylon and weapon configuration is something routinely done during the mission design process for any airframe. Including gun ammo in that workflow prevents it being forgotten about.
4. It's integrating with an already existing system. Weight calculations are already in the loadout screen, as are the options and (software) systems for extra tanks from the loadout screen. It can be treated just like any other external fuel tank on the software side. The only code changes would be to change the maximum amount of gun ammo as per selection, but that has to be done anyway. Perhaps some stations could be marked as cold rearm only, requiring the aircraft to shut down, while others are hot rearmable. Some aircraft already can only be rearmed while shut down, this system could incorporate them into one system simply by marking all their pylons as cold rearm only. This consolidates functionality into a more general form. Generalization is good software design as it's more flexible and allows expansion more easily.
5. It makes sense from a UX perspective. Users would expect the loadout screen to be where to change the configuration of the aircraft. Anywhere else feels out of place and would have to be looked for.

Generally special options in the mission editor should be avoided if it can be helped. FCR, Robie Tank (both are loadout options that concern the configuration of the aircraft) and pilot priority (that's a user preference, not an aircraft or mission thing) are examples of misplaced options that should really be somewhere else.

[FalcoGer]

Is it being considered? Is it being done? Is it not being done? If not, why not, because I think i raised some good points on why it should be done. Has someone even read this?

Sometimes, or rather most often, it feels like writing in this forum is completely pointless and a waste of time. Why have a wish list forum if nobody cares to read the wishes. It's like talking to a wall. I mean this was asked for a year ago and not a single official reply or even a tag. And so are 95% of the other wish list items on here.

The reason this was asked early is because we could see where this was going with the FCR option in the ME as a checkbox. It would be a really big middle finger to us if the next thing we see is the gun ammo option in the same place with no explanation on why that is the right decision after it has been requested specifically to not be there a year earlier for some good reasons. Or at least that what it would feel like to me anyhow.

[Rotordisc_jockey]

4 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Is it being considered? Is it being done? Is it not being done? If not, why not, because I think i raised some good points on why it should be done. Has someone even read this?

Sometimes, or rather most often, it feels like writing in this forum is completely pointless and a waste of time. Why have a wish list forum if nobody cares to read the wishes. It's like talking to a wall. I mean this was asked for a year ago and not a single official reply or even a tag. And so are 95% of the other wish list items on here.

The reason this was asked early is because we could see where this was going with the FCR option in the ME as a checkbox. It would be a really big middle finger to us if the next thing we see is the gun ammo option in the same place with no explanation on why that is the right decision after it has been requested specifically to not be there a year earlier for some good reasons. Or at least that what it would feel like to me anyhow.

You have said it yourself - it's a 'wish' list.

Have you tried blowing some candles out and thinking hard about these things? I reckon that'll bolster your chances

[FalcoGer]

1 hour ago, Rotordisc_jockey said:

Have you tried blowing some candles out and thinking hard about these things? I reckon that'll bolster your chances

Certainly feels like that's better chances than asking ED for anything on these forums.

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Certainly feels like that's better chances than asking ED for anything on these forums.

Especially with that type of comment. When we have news to share we will share it, right now its in the wishlist section and thats where it is at right now. I am closing this because nothing needs to be added at this point, especially sarcastic digs. Thanks

[FalcoGer]

No problem. Thanks for answering at least, even if there is no info.

[Tom P]

I know it's possible for devs to change some stuff in the rearm option panel. Can you please make it so players can toggle if they want a FCR on their aircraft through the rearm menu. Or have the option set so a mission editor can allow players to decide.null

[TheGhostOfDefi]

As far as I know this was planned and may or may not find its way in the game with the next updates 

[Tom P]

That would be awesome

[Fropa]

The FCR for the AH-64D can only be equipped by selecting a special option via the mission editor. This makes the FCR inaccessible in multiplayer, and requires server owners to go through each AH-64D slot individually in order to enable FCR usage. This requires a hotfix ASAP so that the client can equip the FCR through the rearm/refuel window. 

 

*I posted this in the multiplayer bugs section, but that post appears to have been ignored. Therefore, I am posting it here. 

[BIGNEWY]

Hi, 

the FCR on the rearm menu is coming, just did not make it into this patch. 

you will need to be patient, this is early access and active development. 

thank you