see roadmap Apache AH-64D Flight Model and further Development Status in 2024?

[Terrifier]

I know the flight model of the Apache 64d in DCS has been a matter of great debate/contention. The navigation systems /  Tech gadgetry playground within the MFD's /  Helmet controlled 30mm cannon / exciting CPG cockpit position / and glorious hellfire's with George Ai assistant are so top notch they clearly outpace the grossly flawed flight model by a galactic lightyear.  In fact, removal of TrackIR head movement and or VR from the equation and the experience then becomes subpar.  The inferior flight model is exposed if you remove the attractive colorful smokescreen(s) and weapons play.

Please let me explain:

Severely underpowered torque bandwidth/engine power.  The miniscule powerband range threshold from which the collective actually generates effective lift (weapon loaded or weapon unloaded doesn't' matter) before that annoying "motor RPM low" rears its vertical RPM elevation fun stealing Dracula fangs is maddening. No highly acclaimed in the tens of millions $$$$ per aircraft let alone one of the most feared technologically advanced Attack Choppers in the world would EVER be deployed under such a risky tiny and volatile weak operating window for lift/power. I have seen it mentioned in the forums and am in full agreement the entire Apache fleet would be grounded to prevent the deaths of its pilots even before combat was authorized.  The torque meter fluctuates all over the place in DCS with a VERY VERY VERY VERY small window of power range at the VERY VERY top of its "green/yellow" max position scale. It's impossible that this is legitimate in any way and none of the DCS module helicopters I have tested exhibit this snail operating at max constant condition.   Motor RPM low, Motor RPM low, Motor RPM low, where is the acceleration, where is the lift projection from ground effect in/out.  Where is the evasive thrust?  Where is the RPM overhead power, on controlled descent even a marginal overheard would be more believable?  But none?  Where is it?  This is a dual engine wartime hardcore attack vehicle with performance that in real life matches its deadly purpose, it is not intended to be flown like a civilian grandpa fixed wing Cessna with overspeed manual warnings and babied fragile delicate gloves on.  Or to operate like a channel 7 news helicopter covering a 7/11 bank robbery.  Come on. How did your team allow this to pass when you have such amaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazingly potent flight models built into your older legacy copters?  I love everything about this model you created except the most important component - The FLIGHT MODEL.

Despite the model's extreme lack of power at the main rotor somehow a completely exaggerated OVER powered tail yaw authority (nose L/R rotation axis) exists.  The Apache in DCS is sadly modeled as a "flying Tank" with severely underpowered RPM capability, yet it throws the tail rotor around with a weight profile of a Gazelle but the plastic RC version of a Gazelle purchased at Toys R Us.  So, in important axis envelopes it's a bloated big birtha tank barely able to hover or accelerate under its own weight profile (like dredging through pea soup), and in another axis direction (yaw twist) is completely weightless.  Come on, I simply can't understand why this flight model has not been corrected by now. Messing with curves and X/Y axis limits, of course you can dumb the controls down for more fake nose heading "precision", but craft induced oscillations on the yaw over rotation axis back and forth left and right are not pilot induced oscillations here.   It's not about sensitivity at the controls, the nose goes everywhere except where you originally want it to go. Forward flight with aggressive top speed is reasonable after fighting through the pea soup acceleration stage and painful underpowered elevation climb - however slower maneuvering pinpoint street sidewalk level NOE with low forward momentum w/tactical precision hovering/popups/quick evasion while maintaining a static heading is real jumbled mess and not how any helicopter reacts to yaw stability.   

Along that same line with excessively over powered wiggly "yaw rotation" (absurd weight on wheels taxiing behavior can be seen by unlocking the rear tail rotor tire while on the ground.  This a perfect example of this over reacting tail rotor yaw without even getting airborne! completely out of control taxi ground "over" steering occurs)  - The real helicopter would not and does not do that.  The problem further manifests itself with the nose teeter tottering back and forth when attempting to hold stable hovers sight locked on target with a static "fixed" gunsight facing forward (like rockets for example).  At first I thought its SAS correction on the tail rotor (bringing the craft back from a yaw oversteer), but disabling SAS completely, the same defect is present.  That goes against every principle of gyroscopic inertial forces from a giant spinning blade overhead.  Reactive forces in physics create opposition torque rotation between the rotor and the frame, in one direction, not this back and forth back and forth wobble.  Impossible.  Of course, it can be finagled, and I think all of us just learn to "fly around" this over 2 year old "WIP" modeling with micro peddle tap dancing or tiring precision stick wrist rotations to dampen/catch that centerpoint at the nose.  We kind of just grin and bear it, fighting the wobble, correcting with pitch nose downwards and aligning in forward flight.  We accept it so we can go boom boom with the colorful weapons of freedom and those sexy MFD's/TADS (which both are badass).  Granted I've mastered the controls and do some extreme precision grade flying down 5-8 feet AGL for fun, but in nooooooooooo way does an authentic Apache exhibit such nose steering yaw teetering conflicts in real life.  In fact, none of the other DCS helicopters present these excessive yaw teeter tendencies and it really irks me that the magical ingredients of code and calculations that already exist in DCS are not present in the 64 to stabilize it.  It's not an undiscovered attribute, ED has the magic sauce for Helos already.  In fact even the superhuman DCS Community Mod developers (those guys are INCREDIBLE) have the secret (U60 and OH6A).  The helicopters in DCS are all truly AMAZING and although I'm not a licensed "pilot" yet, I have been in a multitude of private civilian helicopters, including private training stick time, and am also a hardcore FPV full freestyle and FPV Quad racing competitor, for which DCS nails the flight principles of propellor-rotor dynamics with proper flight physics inertia, slide, attitude maneuvering control, drift, ascent, descent, propwash, air braking, auto rotation, ground effect taxi, and IGF/OGF static hovering to a T!!!!!!  It's actually unreal how good ED and the Community Modders are at this simulation today.  So what happened with the Apache 64d? Where is the FM attention ED?  

The last concern I have about the Apache, is the total lack of visual "SHAKE" animation feedback for effective sim immersion.  Turn off Track IR / Turn off VR then look again - Where is any at all rotor driven aircraft vibration, rotor wash, or blade slap visually represented in the 64d cockpit or airframe.  There is none!  Have the devs actually ever sat in a Chopper fully spun up?  Let me tell you, you feel that stuff and visibly see it in cockpit in real life.  Its guttural.  Just a simple look at any Apache Training footage online and you can see it is there in spades for those incredible pilots.  It's not just a tiny vibration you can feel/touch, its physically visceral.  Visually tangible aggressive shaking.  There is a GIANT SPINNING ROTOR OVER YOUR HEAD for petes sake.  It's not just the Apache I'm seeing you did this too, it looks like you have omitted it from the DCS CH47 Chinook as well, (If I'm wrong about that please correct me, no trial for me to test) that beautiful highly detailed masterful cockpit (knocked that out of the park btw - stunning) is as statically devoid of movement in flight as the one parked Cold on the ground deactivated.  Seriously what is that??  Why are you applying smooth static sim-plane flight attributes to helicopters?  Is it coding laziness?   Performance hit?  That gorgeous heavy lift dual rotor beast is a vibration thumping hurricane providing free butt/back massager for those pilots IRL.  

I see molecularly tiny bits of slight vibrations in the DCS Apache (and I mean TINY) movement in the two floating panels above the pilot dash and singular structure in the upper left facing downwards.  That's it.  Nearly invisible vibration to detect (super tiny).  The rest of the cockpit remains lifelessly dead and STATIC (other than those distracting helmet hooks dangling that completely defy roll gravity).  About as distracting as that giant water bottle in the Kiowa (seriously Polychop what were you thinking).  No matter what you do to the AH64d in flight (including craziness that would get you killed) ZERO cockpit shake is introduced in your Apache.  With head tracking immersion on, we kind of look past this sensory omission looking outside the cockpit - but its MISSING and makes a HUUUUUUUUUUGE difference.  I truly believe that is one of THE things folks are enjoying so much with the favored/acclaimed Kiowa flight model (not the inferior graphics or inferior sounds poke, poke....)- their vibration/shake in cockpit cue is so pleasantly connected with the flight experience.  Ala, "ye" old trusty UH1 Huey which has relatively universal praise for its immersive flight model amongst the DCS community is not only the variable blade slap sound of them hearty props and engine with them back gunner doors wide open (love that dam sound), but its the over the top cockpit dash and frame vibration/shake according to its flight path interaction with the outside world.  Coming in and out of translational lift, VRS, settling with power, forward momentum changes, elevation velocity changes, air braking, speed increases, you hear and SEE the craft coming alive.  Its freakin fantastic -Shake Shake Shake.  Those who may use VR that get sick from excessive vibrations have the option in special functions to lower and tame it in the Huey, and those that want it (like me) have the option to blast it upwards and increase its level to personal taste.  The level adjustment bar in the Apache 64 special functions does absolutely NOTHING for cockpit vibration other than slight weapons fire nudging.   And even that weapon vibration effect is so inadequately minimal it goes unnoticed.  Flying the Apache is literally like flying in a thick soup of atmospheric liquid dampening any movement/shake while wobblying around its yaw attitude axis.  Underpowered, Unstable, unrealistic, non conforming to logical aerodynamics or physics, zero vibrations in cockpit, dangerous, and no visual queues or stimuli coming in and out of ground effect.  Flying any other helicopter in DCS, while not always perfect - be that the decades old Huey, the overly squirrely Gazelle, the semi "new" Kiowa, MI-8, or the unbelievably SICK community mods like UH60 / OH6A they ALL simulate helicopters as helicopters, with helicopter tendencies, helicopter quirks, helicopter sounds, helicopter shake, helicopter weight, helicopter power, helicopter inertia, and the secret helicopter magic dust we obsess over as Rotorheads.  It's simply rotor physics.  ED, please stop releasing new stuff unfinished and half ready like the CH47 and Develop/Complete/Fix/Resolve what you have sold us already. 

With this module being out I believe for well over 2 years now, I'm wondering if any update/revision is even on your calendar at all which is disappointing to even have to question.  Such an amazing hand crafted beautifully rendered model with pain staking attention to textured high resolution overlays, powerful system feature sets, fantastic gun/weapon animations, extremely high-quality audio sound design, excellent UI, handy AI controls, neat damage modeling, devastating payloads and MASTERFUL dev coding all around, all EXCEPT for its lonely red headed step child flight model.  It's a helicopter fellas, and in my eyes its "THE" HELICOPTER, and should be THE flagship high performance standard for ED.  The flight model should be PRIORITY # 1 on any aircraft no matter what the model or type may be.  This comes well before the weapons, and well before the glass cockpit logic wizardry and livery skins.  And most importantly WELL BEFORE ANY PUBLIC RELEASE OF A PRODUCT  (UUUUUH HINT HINT CH47 impaired flight model anyone?).  Knowing what I've seen with the Apache it has absolutely prevented me from buying into the Chinook for this very reason and I think you folks are losing site of logical common sense order of operation priorities.  This Ah64 module is nowhere near proper flight model completion 2 years post production.

Please let me and others who may be likeminded know where things stand with the Apache 64 at this point - please resolve this flight model and give a guy some camera shake/vibration - saying its "reported" and "WIP" only to be resigned to the Eastern front blackhole where things go to never be heard of or seen/spoken of ever again is not acceptable anymore.  You guys have the intelligence, skills, artistic vision, raw masterful talent and industry ownership to turn things around over there.  You still have a hardcore fan here, an obsessive one at that, please do the right thing and take care of those who have taken care of you.

Thank you,

T

 

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Terrifier said:

Please let me and others who may be likeminded know where things stand with the Apache 64 at this point

snip

saying its "reported" and "WIP" only to be resigned to the Eastern front blackhole where things go to never be heard of or seen/spoken of ever again is not acceptable anymore.

While I am certainly impressed with your commitment in expressing your thoughts, I don't understand what you would expect we could say on this topic besides what we've already been saying repeatedly in our various community channels, which is the flight model is being revised and has been for some time now.

However, let me address a few misconceptions. First, the AH-64 is a very smooth-flying helicopter. Granted, it does shake a little when experiencing Transverse Flow Effect or when pulling hard out of a dive; but unless the rotor track needs refinement, it is a very smooth-flying helicopter.

Second, the power of the AH-64D is not "robust" as you claim. Most helicopters will lose rotor RPMs if you pull the collective lever as high as you can. And if you overload the gross weight for the given envrionmental conditions, you will not have sufficient power-to-weight ratio for aggressive maneuvers or even hovering out of ground effect. This is a reality for all helicopters as well, not just the AH-64D. The amount of excess power that you seem to be implying the AH-64D should have is not realistic.

Our roadmap has already stated that further refinements are being made. I don't think many understand the complexity of the task that our flight dynamics team is undertaking to accomplish this. It will take time and you will need to be patient. Thank you for your feedback.

[Glide]

I love that you are passionate about the Apache.  Do you have a buttkicker setup or force feedback?  I don't have these things, so I can't speak to how much depth they add to the experience. 

I spend a lot of time with this flight model, and I am still learning.  My approach is to fly the flight model they gave us, and not think too much about how it "should work".  I only just yesterday got the hang of my rolling takeoffs. 

If I were to make changes, it would be to add some more audible feedback to lift, especially at takeoff, so you get a better sense that you are airborne.  The model can be a bit subtle at times.

[admiki]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

While I am certainly impressed with your commitment in expressing your thoughts, I don't understand what you would expect we could say on this topic besides what we've already been saying repeatedly in our various community channels, which is the flight model is being revised and has been for some time now.

However, let me address a few misconceptions. First, the AH-64 is a very smooth-flying helicopter. Granted, it does shake a little when experiencing Transverse Flow Effect or when pulling hard out of a dive; but unless the rotor track needs refinement, it is a very smooth-flying helicopter.

Second, the power of the AH-64D is not "robust" as you claim. Most helicopters will lose rotor RPMs if you pull the collective lever as high as you can. And if you overload the gross weight for the given envrionmental conditions, you will not have sufficient power-to-weight ratio for aggressive maneuvers or even hovering out of ground effect. This is a reality for all helicopters as well, not just the AH-64D. The amount of excess power that you seem to be implying the AH-64D should have is not realistic.

Our roadmap has already stated that further refinements are being made. I don't think many understand the complexity of the task that our flight dynamics team is undertaking to accomplish this. It will take time and you will need to be patient. Thank you for your feedback.

How dare you to not agree with the how OP thinks it SHOULD BE?

On the other hand, he does have valid points on some other stuff.

[Raptor9]

48 minutes ago, admiki said:

On the other hand, he does have valid points on some other stuff.

I never said the flight model doesn't need improvements. Quite the opposite actually; if you see my comments on these forums or in the DCS discord, I have been very open and honest about what and where the flight model deficiencies are within the DCS AH-64D, since day one. I'm just not going to re-hash it all here since I've already written countless detailed posts about it elsewhere, and it really wouldn't make a difference anyway. But I do tend to dispel misconceptions when they are thrown out there because they tend to spread and create false impressions of how real helicopters fly.

In the end, I'll say what I know to be true and that is the flight model is being worked on in an in-depth manner and it is not something the devs are simply throwing together, rather it is about quality of work. I'm confident they'll provide a product that is equally as impressive as the other aspects of the module.

[Terrifier]

BTW - thanks for the response fellas - and I hope any conversation that this initiates on any level is only for the betterment of this bad ass module.  Agree with me, or disagree its cool.  Yes I'm passionate about DCS  - its awesome to have this experience at home and I thank ED for that.  

I wanted to add my "deeper dive" input to it for consideration that's all, and more importantly possibly be seen by ED itself to add to others community members input on the flight model over the last few years.  It's so close to core perfection, yet with that flight model so far far away.  BTW I don't purposefully ram the collective in flight to its max parameters, of course not, piloting outside what an assumed Apache could do takes away from my fantasy experience with it, I purposefully force myself to simulate reasonable tactical operations and maneuvers.   I'm forced to ride that max operating line because of the flawed FM.  

Please don't retire progress on this thing, I've seen it happen on some of your other awesome products, it deserves the push to the finish line.   - T

[LuseKofte]

Personally I can only relate to FM from outside view and YT videos. I can accept almost anything since I try to fly it as I see they do. In regard of the Apache I struggle keeping my dignity intact while affected of ground effect. I kind of find that a bit odd, but keep in mind I am not a pilot. 

[Hotel Tango]

As Raptor and others have stated here in this forum, yes, the FM needs fine tuning, specially with the rotor torque/anti-torque and SCAS. HOWEVER, the power available and engine torque margins are, as far as the feedbacks from people who used to fly it IRL, very close, if not on point. 

The AH-64D had a lot of weight added on in avionics (some 2000 pounds in empty weight alone, iirc), without much improvements on the engines/transmission end of it. As a result, it lost some performance compared to the A model. This, and other reasons, are why they developed the AH-64E Guardian now, with much better performance.

That being said, plan your mission acordingly and this issue is severely mitigated.

And I do agree, FM is a very important aspect of a good module, and I do have hopes of ED delivering a great one.

[Glide]

Yes, wind and weight are a big factor with this module.  The flight model is quite complex on this front.  Altitude, density, etc. all play a factor in how it performs.  Give yourself a nice crosswind and see.  There's a lot of depth here, and it takes time to get the feel of it.  Crashing is fun too!  I always ride it out even though I know I'm going to restart.  Fly the same weight and balance if you can, get to know your bird.

Edited August 24, 2024 by Glide

[LuseKofte]

I seen some videos of miscalculated flying ending with ah 64 crash putting my mistakes to shame. It is all to clear that in real life more power are wanted in some situations 

[Raptor9]

3 hours ago, Hotel Tango said:

That being said, plan your mission acordingly and this issue is severely mitigated.

My "heavy" loadout I go to often in DCS is FCR, no IAFS, 16x AGM-114 (mix of each type), 50% gun (600 rounds), and 80% fuel (~2000 lbs of gas). It gives you all the sensors and firepower you need to stomp a significant ground force while retaining a little power margin.

For example, with that configuration at 2000 feet altitude and 20 degrees C, if I burn off 700 lb of fuel while enroute to the objective area, my PERF page predicts it will require 93% torque to hover out of ground effect. If I'm smart about it, I can easily work with that power margin, and I'll still have enough station time to do what I need to do before I need to head back to the FARP.

If I need to spend additional time trying to hunt around for my intended target, then I can either drop a couple missiles or some of my ammo to take more fuel, or just top off on fuel in the first place, perform a rolling takeoff to get airborne, and assume that I will have burned off that additional fuel by the time I find my targets anyway and regain my power margin.

As you say, if you plan out what you need and what you don't need, and think about how and when your fuel and munitions are likely to be expended throughout the mission, you can easily get around a limited power margin. And if you are bringing some wingmen with you, it may be smart to distribute the required munitions across your team (plus a little extra for contingencies) instead of weighing everyone down with more munitions than may be necessary to accomplish the mission.

[Terrifier]

Very appreciative of the feedback, and I'm going to input some more here because that was the whole purpose of posting in the first place.  An open discussion, and I thank you for it. 

I'm very versed with this type of content and again have experience with real flight in multiple scenarios, (in real Helicopters) and applicable factors such as base weight of craft, weapon/device loadout, crew weight, fuel, Ambient Temperatures, Atmospheric pressures, Elevations, all of which could have negative impacts on any flight profile (yes, agreed).  As a custom race drone builder these same principles hold true more than you know on a smaller level.  Rotor dynamics, very in-tune with these factors.  However, none of those elements are at play here in my posting which is questioning the status of a flight model revision or UPDATE.  These items you bring up only serve to make worse the inherent flaws of this flight model on an otherwise amazing state of the art module ED created.  Even today I was astonished at the level of detail from outside the aircraft zooming in third person - just watching Ai mission editor running routines and being wowed about the level of detail in the cockpit from the view from the outside!  The modeling is sick.  Its freakin incredible and confirms my opinion that this module has set the bar in everything else BUT the Flight Model.  Which is why I'm so very disappointed in it, and very disappointed that no movement seems to be made to correct it in YEARS.

Just initiating a session for a quick start in Caucasus with zero armament (completely no weapons) - 30% gas - and ZERO ammo for the 30mm, flying under temps 18C, the craft takes off, projects forward, rolls, and wobbles like its underwater.  Like flying a submarine.  In a completely bare bones - naked aircraft.  I'm going to be honest here - this flawed flight model is not acceptable period - we all just choose to accept it because the rest is so banging off the chain awesome.  If weight was the factor that is limiting RPM effectiveness for properly modeled lift on the Apache 64, then that same "WEIGHT" should be reflected in inertia and it doesn't, this thing does not glide sideways or propel itself with forward momentum properly (huge part of the sluggish feel), and when sliding to the side left and right while skimming low on the ground from high speeds IGE or OGE, the overly exaggerated Yaw tail whipping literally ceases sideways momentum, even doing controlled side turns with NO whipping, the sideways momentum is completely muted/stiff and there is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much resistance.  It just wobbles and floats around and then sinks when it wants to.  A heavy object in forward motion, sideways or forward is going to stay in motion till the effects of wind resistance and gravity take over to bring it down.  Weight plays an important role not only in propulsive thrust lift limits, but in every axis inertial momentum direction.   This is the ONLY helicopter that feels as if its flying in thickened pea soup or a liquid solid atmosphere.  Your Flight Model is not right - not even close. 

It moves so slow, reacts so slow, stops so slow, propels so slow, and floats so slow yet FALLS SO FAST.  It's really incorrect, and to say otherwise is not genuine.  Your entire catalog of INCREDIBLE chopper Modules and the amazing community dev helicopter Modder teams HAVE IT CORRECT.  Pick any other helicopter and tell me that its flight characteristics are even remotely as slow/sluggish and operationally muted like the Apache is in DCS.  None of them do this, and ALL of them act proper.   I will follow with this - I personally believe that the lack of power I speak of, maybe is not lack of power in the model (maybe your right) - it is the thick soupy incorrect environmental physics calculations you have built around the model itself.  Address the physics part of this (remove the soup layer) and I believe your wobbliness/unstable floatiness and extreme underpowered thrust sluggishness will be resolved.  

I'd like to add this everyone's good buddy Casmo on youtube, who many on here, myself included sought his expertise as a source for this airframe.  He was instrumental in sales for both the Apache and most definitely the Kiowa, and should be recognized by ED for his huge influence on us simmers.  Anyhow take a look at this video link - in it, you will see at the time stamped start in the video the cockpit camera shake airframe vibration is there.  It's been wiped out in its current version 2024.  This movement in the cockpit would add SOOOO MUCH to the simulation and its clear that your developers found it important enough to have it included it at the time of release.  Even back then your crew understood the experience and immersion enhancement that it brings.   I don't want that element of my post to be forgotten (shake). It also should be programmed into the CH47!  This feature needs to be re-added or fixed if it was one of your revision patches that bugged it out of existence.   The are helicopters not airplanes.  Skip to 21:21 seconds in.

 

We have been told the flight model is "WIP" for years now - so when will we see results of this?  I've seen what you guys have done with Combined Arms, (I own that as well) and we sort of accepted you folks pretty much abandoning it, but the Apache 64 is on another level entirely, near perfection, and needs more work on that flight model to cross the finish line which is within reach.  I stand for all the Apache Module owners, this should be COMPLETED, and not forgotten.  That is the sole purpose of my thread, to keep this Amazing module progressing and ALIVE.  Don't forget about us.

 

Edited August 25, 2024 by Terrifier

[admiki]

1 hour ago, Terrifier said:

Anyhow take a look at this video link - in it, you will see at the time stamped start in the video the cockpit camera shake airframe vibration is there.  It's been wiped out in its current version 2024.  This movement in the cockpit would add SOOOO MUCH to the simulation and its clear that your developers found it important enough to have it included it at the time of release.

Check your cockpit camera shake settings in special options for the 64

Edited August 25, 2024 by admiki

[Raptor9]

@Terrifier, no one is saying the flight model is perfect or without its flaws. As I already said, the devs are working on it.

Further, ED has several AH-64D pilots that they have been communicating with to refine the flight model. Casmo is indeed a valuable community member and content creator, but there have been a few instances in which he has stated things about the AH-64 that are not accurate. I am not speaking ill of him because I have talked to him on numerous occassions and he is a respectable and well-meaning individual with many years of experience and hours of real-world helicopter flight time. However his experience in the AH-64 was quite limited compared to his time in the OH-58.

There are a couple of AH-64D SMEs that provide feedback to ED regarding the DCS AH-64D's flight model which have over 5000 hours of combined time flying the AH-64, one of which is myself. So believe me, the flight model is being addressed, which is a monumental task. The AH-64D flight model is not abandoned; it is being worked on as we speak. If you don't or won't believe that when it has already been made very clear, then there is nothing else that can be said on the matter. 

[Schlomo1933]

I have no problem flying Apache in the state as it is at the moment. (Because I get used to it).
BUT I hope on every patch/update that we will see a progress in the flight modeling. Because I love and enjoy the DCS Apache.
It’s just really a long time since we saw some improvements /changes. 
 

Or has it something todo with the flightmodel of the CH-47? Like newer methods/ techniques in programming for the flightmodels are now tested/ implemented? 

Edited August 25, 2024 by Schlomo1933

[Terrifier]

Thanks for keeping this positive fellas - input of getting to know this bird as a suggestion is appreciative but I have - believe me I know it well and have mastered the flight and controls working around the flawed FM.  Schlomo, I have versed the same input of "getting used to it" already and I believe ALL of us who respect this modules GREATNESS have.  That's a given.  Bending logical common sense balance and proper body weight leverage techniques to ride a track motorcycle with a wobbly flat tire is not a solution to a bad preforming race bike, a properly aligned fully PSI'd rear tire with proper warmed rubber tread is.  Just accepting it and moving on is not an answer, and is exactly what I'm hoping to communicate here.  Not just for me, but for ALL the simmers who love this module but dislike the FM.  I believe ED can deliver this - its so close if only prioritized resources can be placed upon that objective.   Raptor (btw - excellent callsign) - I REALLY appreciate you taking the time to actually engage with valid internal input on the subject and respect your thoughts on it, including the Kiowa.  I really do, If movement is being made on this FM, then I'm happy to hear it and will place my faith in your team as I have done with every single purchase I've made thus far.  I am a fan.

With regards to the immersion killing lack of cockpit shake - admiki, test that setting yourself, you will see the slider pinned to max has zero effect on any meaningful vibration or shake effect - which is why I included it here.  It is also why I included that Casmo video with the timestamp.  Visual validation that this fantastic immersion feature existed at one time.  There is no aircraft buffeting whatsoever in any responsive maneuverable state in the AH flight envelopes other than I believe VRS.  Raptor you did not address if that is a bug or a feature somehow removed (cockpit shake) and I would very much like that addressed in this communication thread if possible.  This entire conversation would not exist if I didn't have a passion for this whacky cool universe your absolutely genius coders created for us - as some hills are worth dying on for me, with the flawed flight model and camera shake deficiencies being those hills.  Also Raptor - my feedback on the flight model and camera shake have no connection to anything Casmo has ever offered out verbally, in fact I've only watched his content and many many other "tubers" to master the weapons and avionics control systems.  The input provided here is my own observation and my own input for possible causes/effects.  Not taken from any video external or someone else's opinion. 

If this is helpful in any way - please forward the information to Devs.  Again, if the parameters set forth for RPM thrust and lift are coded, and match community input you have received from real pilots, including yourself then I'm ok with that assertion, However its clear that the FM needs work, (not just my opinion) and the physics of resistance/momentum needs to be closely analyzed as it is currently flying in a liquid atmospheric overly muted wobbly bubble.  A true performance killer.  I sincerely believe that is where a possible resolution can be extrapolated from.  Thanks guys.

[Floyd1212]

@Terrifier You don’t mention in your posts anything about Force Trim and what mode you use for your cyclic trim.

You will have a more direct feel of the aircraft if you are holding FTR while you are maneuvering, and using the “Center” trim mode (instead of the “Instant” mode) also provides more immediate response from your cyclic inputs. 

[Terrifier]

2 minutes ago, Floyd1212 said:

@Terrifier You don’t mention in your posts anything about Force Trim and what mode you use for your cyclic trim.

You will have a more direct feel of the aircraft if you are holding FTR while you are maneuvering, and using the “Center” trim mode (instead of the “Instant” mode) also provides more immediate response from your cyclic inputs. 

Hello - Trim works just fine.  In fact the trim immediacy and accuracy in the 64 is actually one of the most accurate implementations in all the Rotor modules I have.  Center Stick control version to be exact.  The Gazelle however that's another story - trim inconsistency throughout that module but its workable as the excellent (although twitchy) free flowing flight model and cockpit shake with variable rotor blade slap make up for it.  Truly engaging.  Rotorhead through and through here.  The AH trim is not influencing the excess resistive dynamics of movement in the context of this AH post.    

[Glide]

14 hours ago, Terrifier said:

Like flying a submarine

That seems odd.  Are you getting rudder input from somewhere?  If you perform a slooow rolling takeoff, you should feel the tail come up, and then without any rudder input you should fly straight.  Try slower inputs during that phase because when I'm "quick about it", I tend to wobble a bit as the wheels disengage from the ground. 

Edited August 26, 2024 by Glide

[Terrifier]

@Raptor9  @BIGNEWY @Wags - So what of the omission of Camera Shake, Cockpit Vibration in the current 2024 release of the AH64 module.  I've brought this up multiple times in this thread with no insight from the team on this topic.  Please turn off head tracking, remove any VR immersion (for simple sake of this example), and fly in a reasonable peripheral static view facing forward.  Move around, maneuver in flight - proceed with aggressive angles fwd/bkwd/left/right/up/down, change your speeds, air brake, hover, taxi hover, drift around, come in and out of translational lift stages - come in and out of ground effect, zero collective autorotation descending, overspeed it by divebombing, nothing, simply nothing, its soooooooooo extremely lifeless.  Do the same thing in the Huey, or most any copters in your epic ED catalog,(including community Mod choppers) and that realistic immersion shake effect is night and day visibly present.  From what I can see of the CH47 as mentioned prior, such major oversight/neglect by presenting a completely statically frozen cockpit in flight is there too.  That is NOT what it's like in flight seated in any cockpit on any helicopter IRL - period.  And in a simulator sometimes over the top excess shake effect that can be customized is helpful.  Your two most recently launched prolific and graphically AMAZING ED inhouse built choppers have no variable flight envelope buffeting effects whatsoever. 

This is a very sad trend your following guys, and I surely hope that is not what your Devs plan on for further releases.  Lord did I really really really really really (yes x4) have high hopes for the new CH47 release, however without that core component on top of the missing flight model stability components at release, CH47 a no go for sure.  Priorities man, you folks are missing priorities, before releasing modules flight model is #1 especially in choppers, and no Helo is complete without simulation immersion airframe buffeting.  It's a Helicopter NOT a fixed wing plane.  We are over two years in with the AH64.

So what happened to the obvious implementation of a meaningful control in the special functions - that AH64 slider does nothing Raptor.   Is that a bug that needs to be reported?  Or did you guys remove that MUCH needed enhancement without acknowledging it to end users.  It was there before (see Casmo's vid).  Still awaiting feedback on that.  Really appreciate your attention, thanks.

Edited August 27, 2024 by Terrifier

[Hotel Tango]

Im gonna be honest with you, I didn't notice any diminushing in shaking since I bought the Apache. If they increase it, I would slide it down, because this is very much subjective to each player.

Edited August 27, 2024 by Hotel Tango

[Terrifier]

21 hours ago, Hotel Tango said:

Im gonna be honest with you, I didn't notice any diminushing in shaking since I bought the Apache. If they increase it, I would slide it down, because this is very much subjective to each player.

 

Hey Tango, yes indeed subjective, which is exactly why the slider exists in the first place.  I acknowledged that use case scenario above already with the level up or down slider within the UH-1 Huey.  The present-day slider in the AH64 special configurations did at one point provide this level of proper effect control however it's bugged or secretly removed by ED now (see Casmo video above at 21:21 made over 2 years ago).  Still awaiting an answer to this.

[MAXsenna]

Hey Tango, yes indeed subjective, which is exactly why the slider exists in the first place.  I acknowledged that use case scenario above already with the level up or down slider within the UH-1 Huey.  The present-day slider in the AH64 special configurations did at one point provide this level of proper effect control however it's bugged or secretly removed by ED now (see Casmo video above at 21:21 made over 2 years ago).  Still awaiting an answer to this.

Apologies! I must have misread or not paid attention. It totally passed me by that you are actually reporting a bug with the slider. Best way is to make a new thread. Post a screenshot of your special settings and provide a track.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Ramstein]

while I am not going to rip apart any flight models...while not a pilot I flew in enough Hueys to know they got it very close.. I got to experience some very wild rides too not just the cruises while on active duty... re: the Apache... not sure if it's me, but if it is not on cement or cement like ground, the thing wants to tip over while running... to me it is like it is on the side of unstable... I would think it would be more planted the thing weighs a lot... it is not just me, lots of people I know have issues with it once away from the cement landing pads...

[deloy]

Maybe if we can get clarification on further development of the FM during early access, as mentioned in the roadmap, it has been delivered.  Further FM updates are mentioned after early access.  So my question is, will we get a fix of excessive torque and hold modes during early access or after? I know it has been mentioned that the team is working on FM and I do respect the hard work being put into, and I am pretty sure that ED will deliver an outstanding product once its finished, it would be great if above question is clarified.

Cheers