Attack Helicopters and Tanks...

[Hunt3r]

When CAS stops being lazy pos...

Right now I'm just 1.5ifying CA. I believe we're on 0.998 so far. But frankly University has priority. And all CA people are in University so... you get the idea.

Aha. Well, that's alright. Just wanting to see how CA would play. Of course, University always has priority.

YouTube - DCS Black Shark - Basic Startup[HD]

This kind of detail in PR 2 would make helicoptering.... simply stunning. The sheer amount of buttons would keep people who don't know what they're doing from ever taking off.

Of course, the AH-64D wouldn't be able to be modeled, since the flight manual is classified...

But seeing the AH-64A, the Mi-28 (if there's an English flight manual for it..), and the AH-1Z Cobra (Again, if you can find a flight manual...), and having this level of detail would make PR2...

Well study sims would be pointless. PR2 would have a study sim and you have human players shooting at you.

I'm somewhat hoping the C4 engine can achieve this sort of thing. Preferably with Havok or another physics engine that can do real time physics calculations for things like flight.

My take on PR2 is that the infantry aspect should stay like it is in PR, except maybe with better models, possibly very limited free aim, and more realistic weapon handling.

But PR2 should be a complete revamp for vehicles. Sure, you can jump right into the helicopter without ever learning the weapons systems or how to actually start the engines, but after 5 minutes your co-pilot will get pissed when you can't even locate the master arm for the weapons.

Basically, PR2 would have the training servers be used far more. Train on whatever you intend to fly until you can memorise all the functions and buttons of the aircraft, train on armor until you can lase and fire on a target within seconds. Train in a Cobra until you can start it up within 30 seconds and your gunner can start shooting as soon as you take off.

Basically, training would be a must to operate effectively in the more advanced vehicles. A HMMW wouldn't be hard at all, operating something like a 50 cal or M19 wouldn't be either.

But back to PR. For now, I think that porting the CA code for attack helicopter gunning would be ideal for now. For PR1 improvements to that system would be more then enough.

As a self admitted flyboy, I'd like to see that the aircraft be more of a simulator then an arcade type deal. The people who fly tend to be the kind of people who like to press buttons and whatnot. Also, flight physics in BF2 are almost comical, which I hope is to be changed in PR2.

But PR2 I'm hoping, focuses on getting the infantry and armor aspects working first, before moving up to aircraft, since as far as I understand, the flight aspect in PR2 will most likely require major coding and modification, since proper flight requires some special features in the engine which aren't in the C4 engine, which means that the devs will have to code this alone for find a phys engine that will do it for them.

Yes, that was a wall of text. For those who don't want to read it, basically I want the lock on system for now in PR, and PR2 to have tanks and aircraft to be almost completely simulated.

So the devs may or may not be discussing this, but I'd just like to know if it's even possible to do accurate flight dynamics for PR2 with Middleware or from scratch.

[Hunt3r]

Speaking of which, a hit that disables the rudder should make the plane spin out of control.

The tail rotor adjusts blade pitch to act as a rudder.

Speaking of which it would be quite cool to see a helo spin out of control. I know it can be done, but it's only happened to me once, ever.

[CAS_117]

Spinning only works on local.

[Hunt3r]

Spinning only works on local.

No way to say that if a hit disables rudder, you spin out?

Or if you're at the point where you no longer have control of your rudder, you also spin out?

Or we could say that the explosion destroyed the linkage for the anti-torque pedals, but the tail rotor is still working, but about to seize up like the rest of the plane.

[Sparatan117]

The AH-64D on PR for some reason has a longbow on with with a full weapons load which IMO should be removed off the model, Which is not very frequent as the US Apache does not have the power to operate for a length of time and have both a full weapon load and the longbow where as the British Apache's power pack can handle both.

ROFL omg where do you get that? We sell the Apache to the british. Please if you feel the need to doubt me, look up the General Electric 701-C.

Oh and for the record, those engines the apache has share the power ratio at 50/50. If one goes down (0/100) then it still can get back to base with no problem.

It can carry 1200 rounds if and only if it has the ammunition box installed instead of the robby tank. If the robby tank is installed then its only 900, which is still more than enough because the shells are HE. In RL each one of those bullets hitting the ground is like a small RPG, thus the Hydras (as you call them, 75mm as we call them) are not used often. The hellfire missiles are fire and forget. The FCR locks on to the targets automatically and rates them on threat level. The only thing that it prompts you for (missile wise) is [Fire?]. The 30mm is another story, that is controlled by where the pilot is looking. 90% of the time that's the only weapon we really need.

Fixed air takes out all anti air in the area and then the apache comes in to mop up.

Another thing on Anti Air. unless you are a complete video game nut and believe everything that goes into the video game, you will have realized that iraqi's ARE A 3RD WORLD COUNTRY. They only have stingers and those never hit their target thanks to the fact that the apache launches flares as soon as it detects the missile launch. The only thing you should have to go after it is an unguided missile launch or a wire guided RPG which took down 3 apaches in Iraq after resistance was hiding outside the wire of the FOB. Since then patrols go out before birds take off.

IMO I completely agree that you should be able to lock on with a hellfire and have a definite kill, with how much AA there is at the moment it would help out, but seeing as most maps focus on mostly boots on ground and not massive tank wars, this wouldn't be that much of a problem.

No way to say that if a hit disables rudder, you spin out?

Or if you're at the point where you no longer have control of your rudder, you also spin out?

Or we could say that the explosion destroyed the linkage for the anti-torque pedals, but the tail rotor is still working, but about to seize up like the rest of the plane.

if you maintain 23 knots forward, you will be able to sustain perfect forward flight without a T/R

[Sparatan117]

Of course, the AH-64D wouldn't be able to be modeled, since the flight manual is classified...

I'll give you a hint, theres 3 main buttons and two switches (one is for battery the other i cant tell you ). APU, ENG01 & ENG02 ...figure out what order to press them in

this is a great video of what start up is like for the apache and my seal of approval that its accurate, although they didn't apply the rotor break while the engines were coming online so the rotors begin to idle spin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-BaWHav ... re=related

[Masaq]

ROFL omg where do you get that? We sell the Apache to the british. Please if you feel the need to doubt me, look up the General Electric 701-C.

Surely any one with genuine bona fides as working with the AH-64 would know that the Apaches flown by the British Army are the Augusta Westland version; license-built by AW?

What's more, surely they'd know that the AW Apaches are powered by Rolls-Royce engines (the RTM332) that output 2,100hp each - whereas even the 64D Block III Apache only outputs 2,000hp per engine; the 701-C on the Block II produces 1,890.

So yes, the WAH-64 has a more powerful powerplant than the AH-64. Fact

[Sparatan117]

Masaq;1137618']Surely any one with genuine bona fides as working with the AH-64 would know that the Apaches flown by the British Army are the Augusta Westland version; license-built by AW?

What's more, surely they'd know that the AW Apaches are powered by Rolls-Royce engines (the RTM332) that output 2,100hp each - whereas even the 64D Block III Apache only outputs 2,000hp per engine; the 701-C on the Block II produces 1,890.

So yes, the WAH-64 has a more powerful powerplant than the AH-64. Fact

have a cookie, and tell me just what do you plan on doing with that extra power? we have plenty and can still carry a full load of armament, the frame isn't built to tow so its like the guy that says oh my computers better, well it may be but theres still the limitations of the software that runs on that computer. Ffor your information, No I didn't know that, but (keeping on topic) what he stated was that it didn't have enough power to carry a full load and that was very much incorrect. Boeing makes the AH 64 and they wont be giving up the copyrights anytime soon. Now Augusta Westland may be a branch of Boeing but no one to my knowledge has the ability to build a different version helicopter (other than in this case putting in a different powerplant due to the fact that the RR engine is more abundant over there). The 701-C runs most things in the military (ex. Blackhawks, Apaches, M1A2 Abrams, etc..) and thus they like it more when they can train one guy to fix all forms of that engine so I highly doubt we'll be changing anytime soon. But case in point if Boeing is an American company, and AW is still under them, then isn't Britain still buying them from the US? hmmm

oh and that link it states that the turbo shaft produces: maximum continuous and 1,447 kW (1,940 shp) ...thats shaft horse power for all you non engine people. Basically saying it has 160 more horse power....oh geez lets open the champagne [rolls eyes]

[Eddie Baker]

Surely any one with genuine bona fides as working with the AH-64 would know that the Apaches flown by the British Army are the Augusta Westland version; license-built by AW?

Not quite license built, Mas. They come to AW in a kit and are assembled there along with the non US spec parts. So, it's more like "license assembled" or "custom tuned."

[Scot]

Not quite license built, Mas. They come to AW in a kit and are assembled there along with the non US spec parts. So, it's more like "license assembled" or "custom tuned."

So the Brit Apache is the Chavvy version of the US one

[Hitman.2.5]

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Masaq;1137618']Surely any one with genuine bona fides as working with the AH-64 would know that the Apaches flown by the British Army are the Augusta Westland version; license-built by AW?

What's more, surely they'd know that the AW Apaches are powered by Rolls-Royce engines (the RTM332) that output 2,100hp each - whereas even the 64D Block III Apache only outputs 2,000hp per engine; the 701-C on the Block II produces 1,890.

So yes, the WAH-64 has a more powerful powerplant than the AH-64. Fact [/quote]

Thank you

[quote="Sparatan117""]ROFL omg where do you get that? We sell the Apache to the british. Please if you feel the need to doubt me, look up the General Electric 701-C.

[/quote]

Well we bought the the Apache ripped all the the stuff out of it then put in the "good" Westlands iirc stuff and two Rolls Royce engines for good measure thanks very much.

We may of kept some of the things that came with it but the British Apache outclasses the US one or it did but the defensive aid suite outclasses any thing all over the world and not one British Apache down where as the US lost eight in the opening stages of Iraq IIRC.

And i thought it was the AFGHANISTAN conflict where they had Stingers and not iraq as iraqi units used russian "SA-..." missile systems?

[CAS_117]

Are you guys seriously going to turn this into a Brit vs US debate? A rather important question being discussed here.

[Tirak]

OI! YOU LOT

No Sources, No Posting.
No Verses Threads.
And for the love of god stay on topic.

This obviously doesn't apply to those giving proper sources so far.

[size=-5]Stupid forum members, always trying to start something :grumble: :grumble:[/size]

[Hunt3r]

Are you guys seriously going to turn this into a Brit vs US debate? A rather important question being discussed here.

True.

The Attack helos are working quite badly if I say so myself. The daylight optics suite doesn't give enough contrast between the background and armored vehicles.

Even in Kashan Training, trying to deal with pesky AA tanks, the Apache has to spam off missiles into where the AA tanks spawn to hope that they nail one, and then after the hellfires bleed off you spam cannon and hope to take something out.

This is what my gunner tells me, and I'm holding the helo in an almost perfect hover.

DCS will only release the AH-64A sim, so the classified parts of the AH-64D (Which is all that cool stuff, I might add) won't ever be in a sim, unless you want to wait 30 years from now.

[War-Saw-M249]

I dont like this idea. It could be realistic, but they are also trying to keep gameplay fair. If apaches had to just look and click, that would be all, would not be fair.

[Sniperdog]

Cas Alex an I all had a nice long coordination session earlier today and I'm happy to say we are all getting back to work and should have 1.0 released within a reasonable amount of time. We just want to make sure we completely rid the addon of all crashing problems and get things presentable. After that we will go into stress testing and we hope to get a lot of people on to test a lot of these very experimental ideas in a full server. We've already had quite a few devs tell us they'd be watching for the results / partaking in the testing so keep your hopes up guys. If these things do prove to work I'm sure you'll see more of it in your future .

[Hunt3r]

I dont like this idea. It could be realistic, but they are also trying to keep gameplay fair. If apaches had to just look and click, that would be all, would not be fair.

Well as it is, tanks can actually handily deal with attack helicopters, and AAVs also get a big green box and it's just point and click.

Tanks as it is are already stupidly good at taking out helicopters. Tanks are somewhat hidden by the ground, helicopters stick out like a sore thumb.

Why not make sure that once you find a tank and shoot at it, you should have a good chance of a hit?

The Attack Helicopter in this game is by far the most nerfed and watered down thing there is in the game. The laser targeted mode is broken and you're better off shooting a laser guided missile in salvos.

Laser guided still requires you to stay still and be a huge sitting duck while you're guiding it onto the target.

It would be nice to see that attack helicopters become more useful and not just target practice for fifty cals, HAT, and tank guns.

The fact that attack helicopters absolutely must close with the enemy in order to even be able to have a chance of hitting them at all instead of staying at standoff distance to deploy weapons there means that something is wrong. A Hellfire is supposed to be a standoff weapon, and it should be much easier to take out targets with ATGMs then it is now.

At least once you see them you should be able to lock on and take them out.

And the AH-64D being fully simmed within the next decade is a pipe dream. Much of what makes the Longbow a Longbow is still classified.

[Sparatan117]

I completely agree, The fact that it takes so much effort to kill a tank is crazy not to mention that the rockets (PR Hydras) are attached to the pilot which makes it so the pilot has to move the entire bird to kill something. The CPG should have complete control of all the weapons so that they can work as a team.

The advantage of the Radar system is that it highlights everything on the battlefield for you. Thats kinda the point of radar *not air based radar, FCR Radar*. So yes I think tanks should get a big green box over them because its not easy to pick them out. What about if the green box was placed over top of them, but as soon as they got out of the visual sight of the helicopter the box was lost. That way tanks could still run for cover.

Hellfires lock onto their target and follow it in via radar. Obviously if the radar lock is gone, then so is the shot...does that sound fair?

The point is that someone should always have the ability for anti-air, but in the case that it is now, you've taken the helicopters entire power away by not letting it do what its supposed to for fear of it being "noobed" or spamed, and then slapped it in the face by making it so its 2x as easy to knock it out of the sky. I forget who said it earlier but I had to agree, make it better or remove it.

But not letting it do its job just because you want the security of killing people in a tank without having to worry about being blown to pieces by a helicopter is stupid.

[Hunt3r]

I completely agree, The fact that it takes so much effort to kill a tank is crazy not to mention that the rockets (PR Hydras) are attached to the pilot which makes it so the pilot has to move the entire bird to kill something. The CPG should have complete control of all the weapons so that they can work as a team.

The advantage of the Radar system is that it highlights everything on the battlefield for you. Thats kinda the point of radar *not air based radar, FCR Radar*. So yes I think tanks should get a big green box over them because its not easy to pick them out. What about if the green box was placed over top of them, but as soon as they got out of the visual sight of the helicopter the box was lost. That way tanks could still run for cover.

Hellfires lock onto their target and follow it in via radar. Obviously if the radar lock is gone, then so is the shot...does that sound fair?

The point is that someone should always have the ability for anti-air, but in the case that it is now, you've taken the helicopters entire power away by not letting it do what its supposed to for fear of it being "noobed" or spamed, and then slapped it in the face by making it so its 2x as easy to knock it out of the sky. I forget who said it earlier but I had to agree, make it better or remove it.

But not letting it do its job just because you want the security of killing people in a tank without having to worry about being blown to pieces by a helicopter is stupid.

The problem is getting blown to pieces by a lone fifty cal or a 20mm cannon in the case of the Apache.

Only Apaches should have the ability to have the green boxes over EVERY live tank. The other attack helos should have the green box appear after maybe 2 seconds for lock. It does in fact take time to lock on to something with the helo's fire control system.

Yes, the attack helos should be powerful. It's made up for by a huge respawn time that is long enough for me to read a good portion of a book. So it should be something feared by tanks and APCs, but AAVs should be able to take it out if the gunner isn't dumb as rocks.

[Masaq]

Not quite license built, Mas. They come to AW in a kit and are assembled there along with the non US spec parts. So, it's more like "license assembled" or "custom tuned."

Okay okay, so the AAC fly the Pimp-My-Longbow version

Sparatan - AW aren't owned by Boeing. They're the company made from Augusta (an Italian aerospace firm) and Westland - a British firm - when they merged a few years ago. AW are the people behind the A129, the Lynx and the Merlin