w.i.p Yaw very unstable on the Apache

[stonewall197922]

10 часов назад, LorenLuke сказал:

Firstly: while I don't think it's the case that Boeing would want this, I ultimately don't know what is actually the case in real life. That said, the point of the flight model is to make it realistic, not necessarily what's 'easier'. If the more difficult, regressive, twitchier yaw channel is more true to life in the real aircraft than what we had before, that's the one that should be implemented in the simulator.

I very much remember when the LMC ground stabilized when you turned it on and now it doesn't; it's not as easy to use anymore, but it is more realistic. This is how it should be.

Now, yes, everyone (including the experts!) agree that the flight model needs improvement, but just because 'They think it needs to be better too' doesn't necessarily mean the areas they think it needs improvement in (e.g., crabbing) are the same areas you do (unstable yaw channel).

My point is, I'm sure that they're trying to make the flight model as real to life as they can regardless of how 'easy' that ends up being. Because this game is ultimately meant to be a simulator as close as they can reasonably get, not some arcade airquake with simplified controls.

No one said that it must be unrealistic and easier. Back in first post is said that users noticed problems with FM. And users (including me) said that BY THEIR experience, before last AH-64 update, there was no such problems. No one said that this is must be arcade or something. But you must take into account, that DCS is the avia simulation GAME. And not an military grade sim for RL pilot training. Users PLAYING this game have different equipment, different PC specs. Majority of users even doesn`t have experience flying real plane/helicopter. Not every user have top tier flight sim equipment.  Even top tier flight sim equipment is far from devices and systems used in RL planes/helicopters. Compare your feelings in RL car and in car sim for example. Some "simplifications" or "assists" or adaptations is that small evil that is must (again taking into account, that we talk about avia sim GAME). Some users CAN not notice problems described here due several reasons. And opposite to that some users can notice that other cant. Talks like "Im not noticing, everything and OK", is useless. Problem users experiencing will not go just because of talks. You can adapt to implemented fixes,can tune equipment(if your equipment is allows that). Can train more. But if there is problems with FM, that is temporary solution and may not work for others. Some users noticed problems described it here and ED agreed that it need more work and fixes. In the end we all want that everything to work properly.

P.S. Example. Some time ago (don`t remember time) when F/A-18, F-16 radar got huge update i (like other several users, some other users not noticed anything) began experiencing lags and freezes. Those  freezes occurs only when AA radar was enabled and before that patch everything was OK. Even after that patch other modules worked without issues. Guess what was the problem? Increased read rate from drive storage during working AA radar. Switching HDD to SSD fixes problem. I don`t have any problems running DCS from HDD before that. Different users different problems with different circumstances.

Edited April 2 by stonewall197922

[DaveTC]

17 hours ago, Floyd1212 said:

I don't think I am out of place to say the reason this specific thread was created 10 days ago by DaveTC is that after the last patch there was a noticeable change in the behavior of the tail rotor or SCAS that seemed like a step in the wrong direction.  Instead of an improvement to the FM, this feels like a regression.  And because there was a patch around Christmas time that specifically improved the behavior of the tail rotor and SCAS in low-speed flight, and while in a hover, there was concern that whatever changes that were made for that patch got "undone" with this one.

That was indeed why I started this thread!

Kind regards,

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

As a point of comparison, take off in a Kiowa with SCASS turned off, then turn it back on again and notice the difference. Now compare that to how the Apache currently behaves.
Yes they are completely different helicopters but this little exercise is still sufficient to get the point across.

[Amarok_73]

It’s deeply frustrating to be caught in a constant cycle of dealing with bugs that seem resolved, only to return again and again. It’s reached a point where I genuinely miss the previous version of the module - one that, while not groundbreaking, offered stability, reliable avionics, and a sense of consistency. I find myself wishing the developers would simply stop altering it. Frankly, I’d gladly trade features like RFI and others still in the pipeline for a system that just works.

What makes it even more disheartening is that, in cases as clear-cut as the current one, we don’t see an immediate rollback of problematic changes. Instead, we’re left waiting - often for weeks - for the next patch, uncertain whether it will fix the issues, create new ones, or simply reshuffle the same problems. The pattern is dismayingly familiar: fleeting improvements, recurring frustrations, and an ever-growing sense of user dissatisfaction.
 

And I still have in memory the "old, good times" of the Ka-50 developement, where it was as satysfying as it is right now from the very first day of the deployment...

[Trigger]

@Amarok_73  Good one. Agree wholeheartedly.

[Blaine Stars]

 

---

Criticism to ED regarding the AH-64D yaw instability after the latest update

It’s extremely frustrating to see the AH-64D — one of the most complex and expensive modules in DCS — affected by such a significant regression in flight behavior, especially in yaw, right after an update.

What’s most concerning isn’t just the bug itself, but the apparent lack of proper testing prior to the patch release. The yaw behavior is clearly off and directly impacts the basic handling of the aircraft. This should have been caught in any reasonably thorough QA cycle.

On top of that, the lack of clear communication from ED about what’s going on and what’s being done to fix it only reinforces the feeling that, despite being a premium product, the Apache isn’t receiving the level of attention and ongoing support it deserves.

As a long-time customer and flight sim enthusiast, I expect more responsibility, transparency, and commitment to quality — especially in modules that require such a high level of investment from the community.

---

 

[Floyd1212]

1 hour ago, Blaine Stars said:

What’s most concerning isn’t just the bug itself, but the apparent lack of proper testing prior to the patch release.

And the even more obvious (and less subjective) bugs, like George's poor target tracking, and the ACQ not working when FCR is active, points to a clear problem.

Not sure what the threshold is for deserving a hot fix after a bungled update like this, but I guess we didn't quite get there.  I'm looking forward to these issues being resolved in the next patch... Right?

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 4/6/2025 at 12:37 PM, Amarok_73 said:

I find myself wishing the developers would simply stop altering it.

That's not an option though, as the FM still requires a LOT of work (including a rework of the rotor model). But I agree it's frustrating. I simply don't fly the Apache at the moment, and I'm very much looking forward to it being in a good state. I simply fly the Kiowa until then  

[Mausar]

Only problem now is when will ED will bless us with new FM. I really hope that they will not left us waiting few months...

[SwitchIntoGLIDE]

Which is why, for the Apache, I don't update right away.

[TZeer]

19 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

That's not an option though, as the FM still requires a LOT of work (including a rework of the rotor model). But I agree it's frustrating. I simply don't fly the Apache at the moment, and I'm very much looking forward to it being in a good state. I simply fly the Kiowa until then  

But I don't understand why they push unfinished FM changes to the live build, if it's a regression in overall FM quality.

If the change improves the HOLD function, but the overall feeling and quality of the FM is worse. Then the FM change is not suitable to be pushed to live build. Quite simple really.

 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 minute ago, TZeer said:

But I don't understand

ED does what ED does

I think small iterations of FM changes being pushed to the clients likely makes troubleshooting easier, so that might be part of the reason. The userbase at large comprises of far more people than the team of testers ED has access to, so issues that might fall through the cracks will be easier to pick up that way.

Is it the optimal way of doing things? From a user point of view probably not, but ED obviously disagrees …

In the end, EA development is often one step back two steps forward, one step forward two steps back, … 

It's not fun for us users, but the end result should make up for it - we hope…

[=475FG= Dawger]

I still don't get what all the drama is about.

The Apache is certainly flyable and functional in its current state. Its a bit sensitive in the low speed or hover but certainly nothing that cannot be overcome with a small bit of practice.

And the change from the prior iteration to this was hardly noticeable for me.

[Floyd1212]

40 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

The Apache is certainly flyable and functional in its current state.

It's flyable, for sure.  I would not say that the change in yaw behavior is likely to cause anyone to crash into the ground.  But it does impact slow speed hover taxing, aligning for rockets, heading changes while in a hover to engage a new target, trying to land on a small FARP pad, etc.

And the sad part is that engaging ATT Hold isn't that much better as a result of the change that was made.

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 hour ago, Floyd1212 said:

It's flyable, for sure.  I would not say that the change in yaw behavior is likely to cause anyone to crash into the ground.  But it does impact slow speed hover taxing, aligning for rockets, heading changes while in a hover to engage a new target, trying to land on a small FARP pad, etc.

And the sad part is that engaging ATT Hold isn't that much better as a result of the change that was made.

I don't hover taxi so I can't comment but I do land in tight spaces and I can use the force trim release to bring it to a stable attitude and engage ATT Hold for slow flight or ATT and ALT for rock solid hover.

I don't hover much in combat in the server I fly in as it gets you dead more often than not so mostly my flight less than 80 knots is confined to the FARP.

 

Could it be easier? Sure., Should it be easier? I don't have a clue. I dance on the pedals like I used to do flying big taildraggers full of freight so it seems reasonable and not something to get excited about.

Real flying is about constant error correction (thus constant control manipulation) and helicopters should be the epitome of that. 

My only question is what would be most faithful to the actual Apache.

[Ignition]

5 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I don't hover taxi so I can't comment but I do land in tight spaces and I can use the force trim release to bring it to a stable attitude and engage ATT Hold for slow flight or ATT and ALT for rock solid hover.

I don't hover much in combat in the server I fly in as it gets you dead more often than not so mostly my flight less than 80 knots is confined to the FARP.

 

Could it be easier? Sure., Should it be easier? I don't have a clue. I dance on the pedals like I used to do flying big taildraggers full of freight so it seems reasonable and not something to get excited about.

Real flying is about constant error correction (thus constant control manipulation) and helicopters should be the epitome of that. 

My only question is what would be most faithful to the actual Apache.

Try to not use the ATT hold, fly the aircraft yourself then you'll see the twitchiness.  Its really annoying. 

The AH-64 has an advanced system to compensate those errors, its not a taildragger.

"The AH-64D incorporates a Flight Management Computer (FMC) that can electronically command movement to the flight control servo-actuators for reduced pilot workload and accurate weapons delivery"

Right now looks like the yaw channel in the SCAS is not working or doesn't have enough authority.

[Mausar]

I just reroll to previous version and I'm happy now. I can live without Save option not to mention Multiplayer.

[=475FG= Dawger]

12 hours ago, Ignition said:

Try to not use the ATT hold, fly the aircraft yourself then you'll see the twitchiness.  Its really annoying. 

The AH-64 has an advanced system to compensate those errors, its not a taildragger.

"The AH-64D incorporates a Flight Management Computer (FMC) that can electronically command movement to the flight control servo-actuators for reduced pilot workload and accurate weapons delivery"

Right now looks like the yaw channel in the SCAS is not working or doesn't have enough authority.

I flew two sorties yesterday in and out of a confined FARP space specifically looking for this yaw instability. 
 

No ATT hold. 
 

The only time I could induce any sort of yaw ‘instability’ was by trying to use force trim release below 5 knots while holding a boot full of anti-torque in. 
 

Otherwise, it was very stable and easy to control. 
 

And I am not a good helicopter pilot by any standard. 
 

I think there are other issues at play here. Unrealistic expectations, bad hardware, lack of understanding or alien space lasers. 
 

Nothing I would call a ‘bug’

[Ignition]

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I flew two sorties yesterday in and out of a confined FARP space specifically looking for this yaw instability. 
 

No ATT hold. 
 

The only time I could induce any sort of yaw ‘instability’ was by trying to use force trim release below 5 knots while holding a boot full of anti-torque in. 
 

Otherwise, it was very stable and easy to control. 
 

And I am not a good helicopter pilot by any standard. 
 

I think there are other issues at play here. Unrealistic expectations, bad hardware, lack of understanding or alien space lasers. 
 

Nothing I would call a ‘bug’

The helicopter is relatively stable until it isn't. When trying to hover OGE it yaws erratically like if the SAS couldn't damper it (not saturated) and gets difficult to control.

Now its WAY more difficult to move laterally than before with a lot of yaw corrections needed below 25knots, it wasn't so erratic before.

Edited April 13 by Ignition

[Ignition]

8 hours ago, Mausar said:

I just reroll to previous version and I'm happy now. I can live without Save option not to mention Multiplayer.

I'm considering flying other aircraft.

[=475FG= Dawger]

34 minutes ago, Ignition said:

The helicopter is relatively stable until it isn't. When trying to hover OGE it yaws erratically like if the SAS couldn't damper it (not saturated) and gets difficult to control.

Now its WAY more difficult to move laterally than before with a lot of yaw corrections needed below 25knots, it wasn't so erratic before.

Fair enough. I don't hover OGE so I have no clue if the behavior in that regime has changed. 

[jnr4817]

The FM is borked. Specifically OGE hover without and with modes on. Hands off once settled, it just yaws back and forth by itself, not stable at all. I have noticed wind makes it worse.

[Qnnrad]

Thank you for making this post, as I was starting to lose trust in myself. Hover and especially hover-taxi with turning is horrible - starting to wobble randomly without my inputs, throws off the ship from stable position, even few seconds of looking away and not correcting constant FCM erratic moves throws the ship off quite far. Very dangerous in confined areas.

Turning off the yaw FCM is the way currently.

[Nealius]

Stable hover, with some wind (3-6kts), is achievable if you get into a stable hover first, engage ATT hold then ALT hold in that order. I used to say "eh close enough" and hit the ALT hold and things were steady, but now doing so will take you on an unwanted rollercoaster ride (usually forward and left for me).

In forward flight the hold modes are useless. The nose constantly yaws right or left and refuses to maintain a heading track. They used to be steady. 

And of course the finnicky yaw, and an extreme sensitivity to tail winds causing LTE situations.

The "WIP" tag on this thread doesn't make sense when the "WIP" FM was in a much better state in the previous update. This is an accidental regression to a previous FM build.

[Bigity]

Guess this wasn't on the fix list for the patch today.