tweet

I've off and on had issues with seeing things on the TGP and/or visually in VR, G2. Playing with settings has helped some. Gamma makes a big difference but surprisingly so has smoke density and secondary shadows. Depending on the mission and whether it is multi or single player also seems to matter. ATM everything seems to be working well enough but it was working before the last patch then wasn't afterwards. In general, a problem in VR has, I think, many moving parts that won't be solved, if then, until VR get a lot more love. For now the VR experience when it is working is as good as it gets flying a desktop sim. IMHO, of course.

Hi Turok. The issue with new controls is almost always the default settings. Often there is at least one axis double mapped or a button that is mapped to the same function mapped on another controller. Rudder pedals are a common one. (Edit: As just remembered after seeing Frederf's post, an axis in the defaults will be mapped for almost every controller.) I'm not familiar with the TPR but I'm willing to bet that more than the rudder axis and two wheel brake axes is mapped on another controller. Your other controls also probably have an axis mapped to either the rudder or brakes. In any event unusual behavior is almost always the result of double (or more) mapping. The only solution is to go through all of your controls and deleting any mapping of the other controls to a function you want on your pedals. I always delete a mapping on a controller I don't want on that controller or for a function I don't want a controller mapping on. For instance, I only fly in VR so I delete all mappings to controllers for the "VIEW" or "VIEW xxxxxx" categories. I recently converted to Winwing controls from my very old and trusty Warthog. Yeah, it's a PITA to setup and relearn 5-10 airplanes but it was an opportunity to improve my HOTAS workflow and greatly improve control function in general. I had double mappings and axis issues but slowly and methodically going through the process sorted everything out. It isn't a fast process to set up controls but once you do a few and learn some of the handy features you'll come to appreciate the control mapping section. It's quite powerful and flexible which introduces some complexity to get our heads around. The frustration will subside with use. One feature to get familiar with is "Axis Tuning". That's where reversed controls are fixed. There's a check box to reverse an axis. It also has powerful features to tame overly- or under- sensitive controls. I always map while sitting in an aircraft in a training or self generated mission on active pause. This way I can test as I go along and find problems quicker instead of finding something after spending time doing a cold start and getting half way across the map and having an unrecoverable issue. The other thing I learned the hard way is to ALWAYS remember to hit "Save and Apply" before leaving the control app or even selecting something different like AH-64Pilot" to AH-64CPG". If you don't, you lose all of your work but do get an opportunity to become more familiar with mapping when you redo the work you lost. Isn't pain a great teacher? Just try to temper the frustration by realizing this is essential work and will greatly improve your experience once you find something that works. You'll figure it out with patience. Good luck.

Moxica, those symptoms are almost certainly indications of two axes bound to a control or two buttons bound to trim. Been there. Just go on a hunt for double bindings. Depending on the controllers you have DCS has default bindings that are often on a second or third controller. It can even be a controller you only have plugged in but don't use in DCS. I have all of my controllers on USB hubs with individual buttons for each connector/controller. Look closely because it's easy to miss something simply because you don't expect to see it. Good luck. It can be a headache to track these down.

Searching this forum topic you'll find similar questions and similar experiences from almost everyone. First, remember that the control system is a work in progress but there are, IMO, some control design flaws in how DCS models the trimmer. That too is a common opinion. I stopped flying KA50 2 because of the wonky trimmer. It is alive and well on the Apache. To be honest I haven't a clue how to improve on the design. The differences between the flight controls available for a desktop sim and in the real world are likely too great to find a satisfactory or easy to train compromise. An old FFB stick seems to be the closest fix but they are hard to get and sacrifice too much other functionality to be a viable consideration to me. Those are the issues as I see them. Fortunately, the workarounds, lots of practice and training, plus the continued work on the FCS should produce a product most of us will learn to fly well enough. My breakthrough in learning to fly the AH-64 was a recommendation for what I thought was an extreme axis tune. I've been using one of the first Warthogs available in the US and, while in excellent shape for its age, isn't the best choice for a helo. I have the new F-16EX stick and throttle from Winwing and CH Pro pedals (to replace ones at least 15 years old) that, when I get them setup, I think will improve my ability fly the AH-64 and other helos. The axis tune that I applied was 0 deadzone, 35 curvature, and 90 Y Saturation. That alone instantly improved everything. It is a counterintuitive solution require by a FCS that is very, very sensitive to pedal pressures. I now use a 38 curvature which is fine but the trimmer still sucks. I hope the much softer center and more accurate stick position sensing offered by the new stick will overcome some of the trimmer issues. We'll see. A few other recommendations and some insight helped too. The AH-64 isn't a nimble race car. It's a truck that can be adequately maneuverable but is best flown deliberately and avoiding situations where you have to do things very quickly. If you expect to buzz around like a bee you'll be disappointed, get a Gazelle. Lots of practice on hovering, transitions to a hover, and landing are essential. I love a trimmed up airplane. I hate holding control pressures but attempting to keep this thing trimmed is a path to Flustercluck City. Following a recommendation to not trim very often and to carefully pick when to trim have helped a lot. I try to minimizes collective movements and to only trim one axis at a time if possible. I am much more likely to hold control pressures for transient maneuvers like maneuvering and temporary altitude and airspeed changes. I had pretty good trimming techniques until SCAS (a FCS and stability augmentation system) changes were made the update from last month. I was back to occasional near losses of control. I hope the most recent update has added improvements to SCAS and that the Attitude and Hover Modes are more refined. A combination of our personal control setup refinements, further updates to the SCAS and Hold Modes, and lots of practice are the key I think. Personally, I think it's worth the work and the challenge.

Dozer has a good point but the Apache has very sensitive controls. Once I adjusted all three axis to zero dead zone and set a curvature of 35 on the rudder and cyclic X and Y, the Apache became more controllable. Some people suggest slight reductions in saturation too. Play with the your controls until you find settings that work for you. I'd start about where I found the best for me. Most seem to find the sweet spot in that neighborhood. Then practice a lot. Forget weapons until you can fly the thing somewhat precisely. Then do the same at night.

I think most of us who don't fly helos a lot have fought learning to fly this module. The Eureka! moment for me was setting the cyclic curves to 35, zero dead zone, and 90% saturation on the roll. I have one of the first available Warthogs that is still pretty tight, except throttles that are slightly spiky, and a 20+ year old set of CH pedals. They're spiky too but a curve of 35 and zero dead zone made a huge difference. The zero dead zone seemed crazy but works perfectly with the big curve. The other issue is the KA-50 module style kludge (not that I have a better idea how to make trim on our HOTASs work like a helo control system) added to the trim system that takes a long time to sort out and still goes stupid. The piece of advice that helped me with most was to not use the trim excessively. With proper curves and not trying to trim it out until I've accelerated past 40+ (usually later for me) has made a huge difference. Almost as important is to realize I have to do things slowly and deliberately. Decelerating to a hover is particularly prone to bad things when I rush. I do trim more often when slowing too. Finally, practice, practice, practice, and when you think you've got it licked practice more. Blowing stuff up comes well after you can fly the thing. Trying to run marathons before being able to sit up has never worked.

Who is this George of whom you speak? Stevie Wonder sits in my front seat. I wish there was room for a seeing eye dog. Kidding aside, when he works he does well enough once you become proficient using the commands. The issue everyone I know has is that at some point he stops functioning. He'll say "engaging" and "firing", TADS shows the laser firing with a valid in range, in parameters, and a clear LOS, but that's it. Nothing happens. This usually after several well placed shots. Other times he indicates "slaved", "deslaved" and has the crosshairs on a valid target but nothing else happens. Sometimes it's possible to get him back in the game, sometimes not. I'd love to have a virtual yardstick to bang on his helmet or a virtual dog to bite him when he zones out. It's strange but the sort of thing I expect in an early release module.

I see you've solved your problem Eldur. I had similar issues plus frame rate nastiness getting my G2 sorted out in DCS. The solution was getting WMR and SteamVR resolution right, setting gamma at the start of the mission (map, cloud cover, time of day require changes on occasion), and Reshade. The first two had to come first but Reshade made DCS what I expected from the new box (I9-11900/3080Ti) and the G2. NO FPS DROP! Make DCS Look Great! - YouTube convinced me to try. The best settings on my machine match closely those suggested in the video. They would have been fine but I had to prove it to myself. Gamma, though, has been the key to appropriate light levels for me. The no FPS drop claim has been spot on in my experience.

You aren't doing anything wrong sobe. As mentioned above, the radio altimeter is on following a hot start. In the FLT/SET page the radio altimeter button will be hollow indicating it is off and the button is inop. It is, however, actually on. It's a reported bug I hear. The best way you can tell the RA is off is if IHADSS has an altitude display. There is no altitude displayed in the IHADSS if the RA is actually off. (Don't ask how I know that or how long it took to sort it out.) You need to look other places for why you're not able to set the gun (or rockets) to Auto. I strongly suspect what is happening is that it is in Auto but your results are not what you are expecting. Casmo recently had a good YT video demonstrating a suspected bug in the module with an excellent explanation but Auto is only an aid, bug or not. It was never designed to be laser accurate. Feature, not bug, as is often said. Also as far as I know there is no indicator or display showing the gun status. There may be but I've never seen one. Watch the Casmo TV video. That may help with your procedures and give you some ways to minimize the effects of the system's limitations.

Strange or not that's how it is. As I understand, DCS says that's how it is in the jet modeled. It's not too big of a deal in practice, even VR, just different.

If I remember correctly CCIP is considered a visual mode with respect to the HMCS. That doesn't help much if you're carrying CBU-103/105, GBUs, JDAMS, or JASM but is fine for iron bombs/CBUs, Mavs, and the gun. I tend to carry CBU-97 in CCIP or Mavs in VIS with the helmet as SOI when I'm hunting Wabbits...er TOOs. It's still awkward using the helmet. I still don't have a flow down cold.

You almost certainly have TMS UP bound twice in your key bindings. It's most likely another USP device that you have plugged in that DCS recognizes. That causes conflicting commands that result in odd behavior. Another possibility is that you have "Synchronize Cockpit Controls with HOTAS Controls at Mission Start" is checked on the MISC tab in Settings. That one has been know to cause odd behaviors too. It's a good idea to be sure that only the controllers you use and have key bindings for are plugged in when you run DCS.

There are two possibilities, other than the potential for a bug/error introduced with the recent fix, that I can see. The most likely is that, unlike the -105/-103, these CBUs are purely ballistic and there is no correction for wind in CCRP (and possibly CCIP) in the sim. Windage is the pilot's responsibility. Release altitude and wind can have a significant effect on impact point in relation to aim point. Higher release altitudes and higher wind velocity will experience greater divergence than low altitude releases and low/no wind. The bomblets/pucks experience drift too. Basically, the longer the time between release and each individual bomblet/puck's impact, the greater the divergence and dispersion. The second possibility is how CCRP is implemented in the game. I can only offer a WAG since what I know about the workings of the sim is a close approximation of zero. I've read that radar ranging is not implemented in CCRP and, possibly, CCIP. Without radar ranging to refine the computed release solution, it is subject to positioning, velocity, and altitude errors in the data provided by Viper's INS/GPS. Add errors in how you fly the run in with wind and system errors and the weapon can be way off target.

On the contrary warford, ideally you should start to lase 10-12 seconds prior to impact. Even 15 seconds isn't too long but if you begin lasing immediately after release the weapon will begin maneuvering right then to capture the spot. Usually the result is a weapon that depletes it's energy or power to the seeker resulting in a bomb that can't make appropriate final adjustments in the endgame. Another possible problem can be that the laser switch is not enabled or the TGP is not in area or spot tracking mode. The other possibility is an incorrect laser code. I hate to admit that I have on occasion overlooked or missed one or more of these items which results in a miss. I've not used LGBs much lately, so I don't know if there are still inaccuracies in the sim. Depending on the aircraft used that has been so in the past. Dropping at altitudes above 20-25,000' or below about 8,000' can also be less than reliable or consistent.

You're dead right Holbeach. People should fly in DCS as they wish. I'm not unlike you in desiring realism. Up to a point. Things are like the latch which can be operated along with the gear lever using one hand approach meaningless. In a crew airplane like the Mossie, I suspect the nav raised the gear on command. If so, wouldn't it be more realistic to have an intercom voice command? Regardless, the latch is a nice touch but in function is also what I put into a special category: Practice bleeding. You and others may like to bleed just for realism but most of us don't. At some point a lifetime of "been there, done that" makes the feature little more than a curiosity. There are enough important features that are harder to do in DCS due to the limitations of the sim and our controls than IRL. I'd much rather focus on making them function realistical from a functionality standpoint rather than OCD like attention to minute detail or cartoonish simplicity. Achieving a balance that approaches realistic levels while compensating for the simulation of simulation and control is possible. The neat thing about DCS is that these features are put into the sim leaving it up to us to choose which are practice bleeding and which are important to our experience. We can decide the work arounds and adaptations. It's none of our business which is which to the point where an unfair advantage is reached. Which are important and which aren't is up to individual interpretation of course. Binding the latch and a gear lever function to a HOTAS is unrealistic. On balance it's no different that unlatching prior to beginning the takeoff. So is using a keyboard. The pedantic purist might demand an instrument panel with the gear lever and latch to be truly realistic. Too often discussions like this become a means of claiming superiority to boost ones ego or soothe feelings of insecurity. I'm not suggesting that is your motivation. I don't know anything about you. It's just that a long life of seeing these kind of posts and personality quirks is a bit tedious.