Raptor9

@itn, this is the difference between MAN and AUTO modes. In AUTO, the Maverick will automatically lock the target when handoff occurs. In MAN, the Maverick will receive a handoff from the TGP, but you need to manually initiate a track by selecting the WPN format and press TMS Up.

Hi @Proteuswave, the country assignment has already been corrected internally. Thank you for the report.
The intended livery is the desert camo Israeli AH-64D, with 113th Hornet Squadron, which has also been fixed internally.

Incorrect, the radar energy is focused along the azimuth and elevation that the radar is being transmitted from the source. Just because some of the radar waves are reflected back to the radar source, there is still plenty of radar energy that continues to travel along that original transmission direction. Yes, different radar systems have different characteristics in regard to how narrowly they can focus their radar energy (and I won't even bring up main lobes, sidelobes, etc), but even if all the radar energy could be focused as tightly as a laser beam, there would still be radar energy that would miss the target unless the target was very close to the source.
Therefore, if you are along the same azimuth and elevation of the outgoing radar transmission, and the radar energy is strong enough that your RWR is able to ascertain its characteristics among the background EM noise, it will give you the associated warning. The RWR has no idea whether the source of the radar is actually locked onto you, or an aircraft that is between you and the radar source, or an aircraft that is further away with you between the radar and its target. That is a fact and a reality of such systems.
Everything in my original comment is absolutely true; nothing random about it. A passive radar warning system is nothing but a series of antennas on an aircraft that use approximate direction finding mechanics to determine a relative bearing to a radar signal, what the characteristics of that signal are, and then compares those characteristics to a library of characteristics to determine what it is. No more no less.
As for whether client aircraft are receiving RWR indications on multiplayer servers under unrealistic conditions, that I cannot comment on. The intent of my original comment was to dispel any misconceptions over how passive radar warning systems function or the information they provide.

I would try uninstalling all mods and then see if the behavior remains.

The gun burst limit setting is supposed to be separate between cockpits as well. This is a known issue, just haven't gotten to it yet.
But overall, some weapon settings are common between crew stations (like the backseater can change the LRFD settings for the frontseater), others are independent from each other, such as the rocket settings. COOP rocket mode is the only instance where the common/independent logic actually changes when COOP mode is entered/exited.

This functionality is not implemented. Unfortunately, I don't have any information on when or if this will be implemented.

This functionality is not implemented. Unfortunately, I don't have any information on when or if this will be implemented.

Hello StrykeZ99, unfortunately websites like Wikipedia, fas.org, globalsecurity.org often post identical information (in some cases it leads to circular reporting), and it can propagate a lot of internet myths about topics regarding military aircraft or weapons.
But to summarize, the U.S. Army AH-64D (which is the variant the DCS: AH-64D is simulating), has never been capable of employing any air-to-air missiles of any type. It was not simply a choice to not mount the weapons themselves, as is often stated on social media and other sites, but the aircraft physically lacked the hardware and software to employ such weapons. The U.S. AH-64D's could no more employ those air-to-air missiles than they could employ an AIM-54 Phoenix. Japanese AH-64D's were modified with such capability (as is often cited); but U.S. AH-64D's could not.
There were weapon trials performed to various extents decades ago on the AH-64A, with the Stinger and Sidewinder missiles; you can even find photos of a Sidewinder missile being fired from an AH-64A's outboard underwing pylon, or images of Sidewinders mounted on the wingtips of very early production AH-64As as mock-ups. There were even legitimate plans to field the Stinger to the U.S. Army AH-64A fleet if I remember correctly, but that never materialized.
As such, there is no plans to simulate air-to-air missiles on the DCS: AH-64D.

The liveries were updated to bring their labels into a standardized title format, and their assigned countries were correctly assigned as well.
The livery you are looking for is now assigned to the USA country, and labeled "2-6 CAV, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade".

This has been reported internally. Thanks.

I would like to clarify that to directly select a point on the TSD as ACQ using the cursor, you need to press CAQ (R5) "Cursor Acquisition" prior to cursor-selecting the point, or select it from the COORD page like @kgillers3 said.

The Jet Fuel Starter (JFS) is a small turbine engine that spools up the main F110 engine. Hydraulic pressure is routed through a hydraulic starter motor on the Jet Fuel Starter to get the JFS spooled up to speed, which in turn spools the main engine for the start sequence. The hydraulic pressure for starting the JFS is stored in a pair of hydraulic accumulators. When you press the switch to Start 1, you are using one of the accumulators to dump the contained hydraulic pressure into the JFS hydraulic starter to start it. If you use the Start 2 position, you are dumping both of the accumulators to start the JFS.
The difference being, if the start sequence fails or is aborted for some reason, you will have the second accumulator to attempt a second start if you use Start 1. If you use Start 2, in theory you only have one attempt to start.
Given these facts, as for why you would use Start 2, I'm sure there is a reason. I would imagine it would be determined on the environmental factors or maybe the type of fuel being used, but I don't have any real-world F-16 experience.

Yes, this is intentional.
The two flare dispensers that are mid-ways down the tail boom are only ever loaded with flares, and the chaff dispenser at the base of the vertical tail is only ever loaded with chaff. These are never used to mix quantities other than the standard 60 flares and 30 chaff. Further, an aircraft would never be loaded with partial quantities of expendable countermeasures in any of the dispensers, certainly not for weight reduction (which would be negligible anyway).

It wasn't, which is why I asked for the clarification as I did. Thank you.
As stated, these items are not implemented yet, but will be tested at the appropriate time of implementation.

The EGI behavior is still WIP, and the update procedure is not implemented at this time.
Having said that, the EGI in the AH-64D is highly automated so that it is rare the crew ever needs to interact with it.

The most important reason to carry NVG's at night is in case the PNVS (or TADS) fails or is shot off. This way the NVG's are used to recover the aircraft back to the home base or FARP.
Another reason (as Swift suggested) is to cover more portions of the spectrum, specifically to see IR pointers and strobes, but that is more for the CPG since the CPG is the one coordinating with ground forces, and is more of a COIN type thing. When you aren't working in close proximty to ground forces, I personally dislike NVGs because 1) it's not integrated into the other sensors and weapons, 2) it can't zoom in like the TADS, 3) it is subject to illumination limitations like light pollution and moonless/overcast nights, and 4) it forces me to drive up my cockpit display brightness.
With PNVS or TADS over only one eye, I can eventually get my cockpit so dark that my left eye is extremely night adapted while my right is not. It can be a distraction for the pilot when the CPG has the front cockpit turned up too high.
And as @Floyd1212suggested, it helps to have an unobstructed view through the cockpit with PNVS when flying in the trees.
The NVGs provide binocular vision, so they have an advantage of better depth perception. But the difference in depth perception is only really significant at close range anyway, like during low altitudes near terrain.
But even so, there are things called monocular cues that aid in depth perception, you just learn to apply them a lot more with NVS versus NVGs.
Overall, the advantages of NVS outweigh those of NVGs in my opinion, but like so many other things, you use the appropriate tool for the situation. The trick is to learn what the pros and cons are to each tool so you can identify which tool is needed at any given time.

Yes you can operate D or E models from ships. There is a single button that is pressed to change the alignment mode between land or seaborne operations. Everything else is completely automatic. Doesn't require datalink or anything.

Hi @drsoran, I hope I can be of help. When a markpoint is generated, it can only be generated by designating a location using the HUD in VIS mode, the TGP in Point track mode, the FCR in FTT mode, or designating the aircraft's current position (as in the case of the OFLY option). If you are in CCRP or DTOS air-to-ground sub-modes or NAV master mode, the TGP can designate a location in Point track mode without issue. This is why it is necessary to press TMS Forward twice to generate a markpoint when using the HUD, TGP or FCR sensor MARK options. The first TMS Forward command enters TGP Point track, FCR FTT, or ground stabilizes the HUD VIS pipper, the second TMS Forward designates the location for the markpoint.
When in CCIP air-to-ground sub-mode, the TGP is normally slaved to the CCIP pipper, which allows TGP-laser ranging to be performed in conjunction with CCIP weapons employment. As a result, the TGP cannot enter Point track mode, which means the TGP cannot designate a location to generate a markpoint. In the case of having no air-to-ground weapons loaded (and as a result no corresponding air-to-ground SMS weapon profile to generate the CCIP computations), the TGP doesn't have any CCIP pipper to slave to, and the TGP can be slewed about if necessary for ground reconnaissance and such, even without air-to-ground weapons loaded. However, I suspect that this very specific circumstance (CCIP mode without an air-to-ground SMS profile) is why it is not possible to generate a markpoint with the TGP, even though the TGP can be commanded to enter Point track mode under these conditions.
As to whether this reflects the actual USAF F-16C Block 50 avionics logic, I do not know (I'm neither an F-16 pilot, nor a member of the F-16 dev team). I've determined this is how the logic currently exists within DCS: F-16C, based on my research and testing as part of the process of updating the DCS F-16C manual .
For now, you can still accomplish what you desire (using the HTS to cue the TGP to a location and then designating a markpoint from the TGP, with just air-to-air weapons loaded), but you will need to be in NAV mode.
Regarding this question, any time the CCIP or STRF air-to-ground sub-modes are entered, the FCR is switched to AGR mode for accurate ranging and the HUD is automatically selected as the SOI. If HUD is toggled as the sensor option on the MARK DED page, a similar process occurs: HUD VIS sub-mode is entered, the FCR is switched to AGR mode and the HUD is automatically selected as the SOI.
After this occurs, the first DMS Aft press exits VIS mode and returns to the previous master mode/sub-mode (so that having MARK on the DED with HUD as the sensor option doesn't inadvertently lock-out other master modes, it allows the pilot to abort the markpoint process without needing to take his hands off the HOTAS to press the ICP DCS to SEQ or RTN). In the same specific circumstance that you've described above of having no air-to-ground weapons loaded but in A-G master mode, the only two air-to-ground sub-modes that could be entered are CCIP and STRF. So what you are seeing is the VIS mode switching back to CCIP mode when DMS Aft is pressed, which is why the SOI instantly switches back to the HUD. To re-enter HUD VIS mode, you will need to use the DCS SEQ position to cycle back to MARK *HUD* sensor option to re-enable HUD VIS mode.
This doesn't occur with the other sensor options since 1) there is no mode switching required when these MARK sensor options are selected and 2) the SOI must be switched to TGP or FCR to command them enter Point track or FTT in order to designate the location for a markpoint.
I hope this helps, along with the future update to the F-16 manual (still WIP) that will include in-depth explanations into MARK logic/functionality.

Symbology Select Up
Symbology Select Down
Both are on the Cyclic stick

As has been mentioned many times, the dev team is aware of these issues. These include the flight model, the SCAS logic, and the associated SAS Saturate tone.
It's not for lack of information or feedback, it's a matter of implementing these things correctly, which is quite complex. I feel a lot of people think these things are vastly more simplified than they are in reality. But they are not simple at all.
Believe me when I say that yes, we are aware of it, and yes it is being worked on. Beyond that, I don't know what else I can say regarding this matter.
On the topic of the video itself, I want to clarify that pressing the force trim is not the same thing as disabling the FMC channels in the real aircraft. There is a lot of interwoven logic that occurs within the FMC regardless of whether the force trim is being pressed or not. I'm not sure if the author was referring to the real aircraft or not; I did want to clarify that specific point.

No ETA yet. The individual that's been hired for manual writing is in the process of assembling/reviewing all the required information for the past year of updates to the module.
It's a lengthy process of not only adding new sections for new features of the module, but reviewing existing sections of the manual to ensure they accurately reflect current functions and behaviors that may have evolved over time.

In this post: I show an image of how the reticle should appear:
As BigNewy stated, there are improvements coming. Namely, the "projection effect" within the BRU tube itself. The reticle itself is correct, however, in that it is displayed as a singular reticle image. 

Nope. This is one of the challenges of close combat.
It all comes down to situational awareness, crew coordination, and good communication to avoid fratricide. The "IFF functionality" of George (or Petrovich in the Mi-24) isn't like an IFF transponder in fighters that relies on technology, but it simulates the "situational awareness" of the AI crewmember. FYI, George and Petrovich are not fool-proof either. They can make mistakes like a real person.

This is a temporary implementation as George AI is improved. For him to be able to search based off where you are looking, you will need to be set to TADS for the time being.
In reality, the Pilot's ACQ selection has no bearing on the CPG being able to slave the TADS to the Pilot's Helmet (PHS). So this will be corrected in the future; but again, just temporary.

A-models were indeed faster, but they had less drag and weighed less.
If you load down an airplane with additional weight, it needs to increase it's angle-of-attack at a given airspeed to produce more lift to counter the additional weight. As a result, the higher AoA increases drag, requiring more thrust to maintain the same airspeed and lowering the overall top speed in level flight accordingly.
Helicopters must also increase their angle-of-attack, using collective, to maintain level flight at a given speed at higher gross weights. This increases drag on the rotor system and reduces performance if more engine power and rotor lift is being used to maintain altitude instead of propulsion. (Mi-24 is able to offset this with substantial lift production from the wings, retaining more rotor power for propulsion in forward flight)
So with the additional drag from the larger fuselage profile (even without the FCR installed) along with the increase in gross weight, the AH-64D is slightly slower than earlier A-models. More engine/rotor power must be utilized for lift versus propulsion, and the increase in frontal drag further impacts the speed as well; although not to the same magnitude as the increase in gross weight.
In any case, the addition of the FCR has additional drag and weight impacts, as does going out with a full load of fuel and weapons. It's no different than trying to takeoff in an A-10 loaded like a B-52; reaching 200 knots and 5,000 feet will take an eternity, and your turning radius and maneuverability will be horrendous. Just because you can physically carry all of that, doesn't mean it is tactically sound to do so if you can't maneuver as needed.