Whatever happened to DCS:Apache ?

Before the apache, what ever happened to the DCS Mi-24 Hind ? ;)

Before the apache, what ever happened to the DCS Mi-24 Hind ? ;)

Well thats supposedly happenin after the f16.

Agreed. The RFI and Longbow on a D amongst other bits could make the AH a little OP vs KA50.

It would be interesting to see how they model the FLIR flying on one eye on AH too.

 

I’d rather they turn round and say no we aren’t instead of something like Sqn 42.

Since when is balance a priority in a simulator? This isn't blunder of war

People make comparisons with fixed wing all. I get it.

But in contrast to fixed wing I particularly dislike it when people try to do it with helos, to justify that as a basis whats gets developed or not. Unlike fixed wing fighters They are not mean't to facing off against each other ( Ie air superiority) Such Helicopters types of purpose is for attack, even if some can carry IR missiles for self defense.

In this specific case, US Army based Apaches aren't even wired for A2A missiles. SO if a ED updated/revised Ka50 gets newpromised features get added ( like the Iglas) the Ka50 would shoot down Ah64D with its iglas before it got into effective guns range.

I'd rather have a DCS AH-1Z with SAC side stick modeled and being able to choose between dynamic rate-command/attitude-hold mode like we had in Janes Longbow series, hover mode where you command a temporary lateral velocity with the stick, and other modern flight law modes to choose from on-the-fly that helos that use joysticks and pressure sticks have. I think it would sell well because 1) the Z can hold its own against fixed-wing aircraft and 2) because most people have either normal joysticks or pressure sticks rather than FFB or specialty pole cyclics at home.

Only if it doesn't have unrealistic pylons for iglas :megalol:

:megalol: :thumbup:

Personally i think the AH-64 was put on hold due to legal reasons. To model such a unique and advanced airframe (even the AH-64A) to such standards that constitutes an ED module ED would need full compliance/documentation from the manufacturer and access to the real thing which would be difficult i think. A lot of secrecy around the Apache and it's avionics architecture.

She ain't no simple gunship.

:megalol: :thumbup:

 

 

 

Personally i think the AH-64 was put on hold due to legal reasons. To model such a unique and advanced airframe (even the AH-64A) to such standards that constitutes an ED module ED would need full compliance/documentation from the manufacturer and access to the real thing which would be difficult i think. A lot of secrecy around the Apache and it's avionics architecture.

 

She ain't no simple gunship.

I'm sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people say stuff like this.

A. They already stated they're going to do one eventually.

B. The F-16 was also talked about ages ago and yet only recently materialised. They only got so many resources to go around, yo.

C. You can't seriously think that a decades old AH-64A is somehow top secret don't touch, but 2000s versions of the A-10C and F/A-18C are hunky dory? Also, they aren't directly simulating avionics in any of this stuff anyway. They are ''emulating'', i.e. ''similar results different methodology''.

I'm sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people say stuff like this.

 

A. They already stated they're going to do one eventually.

 

B. The F-16 was also talked about ages ago and yet only recently materialised. They only got so many resources to go around, yo.

 

C. You can't seriously think that a decades old AH-64A is somehow top secret don't touch, but 2000s versions of the A-10C and F/A-18C are hunky dory? Also, they aren't directly simulating avionics in any of this stuff anyway. They are ''emulating'', i.e. ''similar results different methodology''.

All good we are all entitled to opinions :thumbup:

In response:

A: Eventually, yep when all the hoops have been jumped through, i didn't say it wound never be possible.

B: Seriously you can't compare F-16 to Apache, apples and oranges, way too many factors involved especially when no one is privy to ED's internal plan or how & when they choose to develop modules.

C: Again apples and oranges, A-10C, F/A-18C, F-16C, mostly well documented in the public arena & sanctioned legally. Just because these aircraft can be simulated to a reasonably high degree of fidelity does NOT mean any aircraft previous in manufacturing date can be simulated.

All good we are all entitled to opinions :thumbup:

In response:

 

 

A: Eventually, yep when all the hoops have been jumped through, i didn't say it wound never be possible.

 

 

B: Seriously you can't compare F-16 to Apache, apples and oranges, way too many factors involved especially when no one is privy to ED's internal plan or how & when they choose to develop modules.

 

 

 

C: Again apples and oranges, A-10C, F/A-18C, F-16C, mostly well documented in the public arena & sanctioned legally. Just because these aircraft can be simulated to a reasonably high degree of fidelity does NOT mean any aircraft previous in manufacturing date can be simulated.

It all depends on the amount of information ED or any third party has access to. Just like Deka being a Chinese third party were given access to JF17's pilot training simulator and many exclusive documents that made DCS-JF17 possible. It wouldn't be possible to do a high fidelity simulation otherwise.

A = possible

D = ahahhahahahahahaahahahahah

A = possible

 

D = ahahhahahahahahaahahahahah

why is that funny? Ah64D has been around in service since 1998.

AH64D is no longer in production since 2012 and being replaced by AH64E.

Just like we dont have the most modern F/A18 Hornet ( circa 2005) or how were getting a circa F16C 2007 Viper they could easily go for an US army based AH64D early block 2 circa 2003-2005, or if thats not still possible opt for a AH64D block 1 circa late 90s. no ones saying it has to be a current service AH64D block 2 or a block 3 (last batch from 2012) represented with the latest revision for a present day 2019 iteration.

All good we are all entitled to opinions :thumbup:

In response:

 

 

A: Eventually, yep when all the hoops have been jumped through, i didn't say it wound never be possible.

 

 

B: Seriously you can't compare F-16 to Apache, apples and oranges, way too many factors involved especially when no one is privy to ED's internal plan or how & when they choose to develop modules.

 

 

 

C: Again apples and oranges, A-10C, F/A-18C, F-16C, mostly well documented in the public arena & sanctioned legally. Just because these aircraft can be simulated to a reasonably high degree of fidelity does NOT mean any aircraft previous in manufacturing date can be simulated.

What makes you so certain the AH64D documentation isn't available publicly, or that at least the older publications/revisions cant be permitted compared to those fixed wing airplanes?

I just want to re-enact the greatest moment of US army aviation history and get shot down by some farmer with mosin nagant. Is that too much to ask for?

I thought the AH-1 Cobra was coming? That would be a great addition for that new Vietnam map...nudge nudge wink wink ED, thou personally I would rather fly a Loach - the 500 is an awesome chopper.

I thought the AH-1 Cobra was coming? That would be a great addition for that new Vietnam map...nudge nudge wink wink ED, thou personally I would rather fly a Loach - the 500 is an awesome chopper.

i think the above individual referencing not to Vietnam but an 'alleged" incident in IRaq 2003........ ( this is an Apache thread after all)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1425612/Iraqis-hail-peasant-who-shot-down-helicopter.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2969471.stm

https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Doch-nur-ein-irakisches-Maerchen-3429383.html

Although this is today debunked as an Iraqi attempt at propaganda.

Besides the AH1F isnt the version that would was present in Vietnam, since its a late 1980s iteration that didn't see its first combat usage until 89 invasion of Panama

LOL,

Well yes, it was the 2003 attempt. And not really debunked, the US army did loose at least one if not 2 apaches in that op, never mind the fact they actually combat lossed like 30 of them or something like that due to AAA fire even though they technically made it back.

LOL,

 

Well yes, it was the 2003 attempt. And not really debunked, the US army did loose at least one if not 2 apaches in that op, never mind the fact they actually combat lossed like 30 of them or something like that due to AAA fire even though they technically made it back.

Yes 2 apaches were brought down during the Karbala assault in 2003, but not by a lone farmer with a bolt action rifle in the outskirts of karbala as those articles reported. That specific incidentwas nothing more than iraqi bolstered propaganda.

They were lost due to AAA, HMG and or large concentrations of AK fire in an urban environment utilized by the Republican Guard. A a big difference.

Because I always annoy my squadron saying "As soon as the apache arrives, I won't fly a hornet or viper anymore...." they teased me yesterday and said "look into the DCS-Core-Manual on page 55".... I did.... I smiled....And now I really would like to hear, that this module is in development :D:helpsmilie:

Netflix has a documentary called Apache Warrior that is about the Karbala mission.

Netflix has a documentary called Apache Warrior that is about the Karbala mission.

Watched it, thanks!

Ok, now we are almost having a OH-58, can we already have a AH-64? Hunter killer missions!

Ok, now we are almost having a OH-58, can we already have a AH-64? Hunter killer missions!

Your getting way ahead to even be taking about this yet. ED has being talking about doing an Apache but it has yet to be confirmed officially. I am sure the Hunter killer missions will come in their due time after both helicopters have being in the game long enough to get the bugs fixed and for most systems updated and finished.

In the mean time that will give you plenty of time to learn to operate the OH-58 when it comes out.

The manuals for the D-model Block 1 and Block 2, as well as the E-model, are not approved for public release at the time I'm writing this post.

The manuals for the A-model are all approved for public release.

That seems to make it fairly obvious to me which version ED is likely to develop. Not saying that they can't make a D-model, I just find it far less likely.

in 2007 it was planned or in some phase of development to do AH-64A Blk 49A.

in 2007 it was planned or in some phase of development to do AH-64A Blk 49A.

Mr. Wags already said in several occasions that DCS Apache is not an if, but a when.

I'm very well aware of that.......