Harker

The Tomcat wouldn't be my first choice for SP, since Jester requires micromanagement and this often ruins the experience, at least for me. A RIO should be way more independent. Between the F-18 and A-10C_2, both have excellent paid and free campaigns (you might need to convert some free ones to the A-10C_2 from the original A-10C by simply changing the player aircraft). The F-18 also has carrier ops in most of its content, which can be an added bonus.

Not a cheat, it's just that we had NVG + JHMCS at the same time and that was unrealistic, so now we have to choose which device to mount on the helmet, via the ground crew menu.

JEM is modeled and working. I just tested with a hostile MiG-29 flying away from me. Before that, I tested with a hostile F-16 Blk50 (the module) both from the front and the back, but although NCTR contributed to the ROE matrix from both sides (HAFU became hostile after NCTR+IFF), the SA page still read Unknown. I guess it's an issue with some aircraft not added to the NCTR database yet.

The frequencies that are problematic correspond to the aforementioned TACAN channels. Take a look here, each channel corresponds to a certain frequency. Use the attached pic as a guide.

I can only recommend that you lower the HUD brightness as low as you can go and still see the HUD elements and minimize interior cockpit lighting. For what it's worth, I also can't see well through the HUD in the dark, but having looked through a real HUD IRL, I think it's normal. If it's that dark, I'd use another sensor to do the targeting for me, honestly. If you don't have NVGs, use the TPOD or radar to generate a designation and then just attack that designation.

At least in DCS, pressing ERASE in RWS deletes all trackfile data. But considering that raw hit bricks haven't worked correctly since the beginning, I guess it might get reworked. As for re-ranking, I only mentioned it because I remember reading that the pilot can affect ranking by manually promoting bricks (only applicable if all HAFU display slots are already filled). But back to the topic at hand, I've never read of RSET severing missile guidance, only clearing the L&S and DT2. And the only mention of RSET I found in the manual in regards to the air-to-air radar modes, talks about just resetting the range automatically around the L&S. Nothing about missile support whatsoever.

Both the TACAN and the datalink run on the MIDS system in your jet. Some TACAN frequencies interfere with datalink frequencies, sometimes causing issues with the datalink and sometimes degrading the TACAN range. These frequencies (TACAN channels) should be avoided.

Look for the Day/Night switch at the bottom of the UFC. You can also manually adjust HUD brightness for day and night modes using the BRT knob there.

ERASE deletes all track files. RESET is only supposed to clear any designations made (remove L&S and DT2) and re-apply ranks, but the track themselves remain. I don't know if it's also supposed to sever the missile datalink though.

I saw, thanks! I was using RESET to clear the L&S and now I understand that it also severs the datalink to outgoing missiles. No idea if it's supposed to do that, but good to know that the radar supports launches correctly. Still is, I was just testing wrong. See above

You're right! I was testing by launching and pressing RESET to clear the L&S and DT2 and that apparently also severed the datalink to the missile. No idea if it's supposed to work like that. But at least the radar supports missiles correctly, if RESET is not pressed. Thanks for taking the time to post this, I wouldn't have realized otherwise.

EDIT: Only happens if RESET is used to clear the L&S. Unclear if RESET is supposed to sever the datalink of outgoing missiles, but apart from that, no bug. Please see my answer below Gripes' post. From some tests I run in the F-18, the AMRAAM does not receive support unless the track file is currently designated as L&S or DT2. That happens even if the track is not lost, but simply undesignated post launch, like you would do if you wanted to fire on multiple targets by stepping the L&S through them.

EDIT: Seems to only occur when RESET is pressed, otherwise it works correctly. It should, but right now, it only supports the L&S and DT2, even if the trackfiles remain but are undesignated (like stepping the L&S between targets).

Just tested, it's working fine for me in both TWS and LTWS. Can you supply a track?

What BN said. You'll notice that this is not a full-size HAFU, but a smaller one. This means that it's a SURV-only track. It goes: Ownship only: Full size, top part only Donated + Ownship: Full size, top + bottom parts F/F donated: Full size, bottom part only SURV donated: small size, top + bottom parts (although SURV-only tracks are just one thing, they don't have top or bottom parts, it's just the small symbol)

There are missions using the Supercarrier under the Missions menu. You can buy the Raven One campaign, which uses the Supercarrier already, so you won't have to fiddle with anything on your own. Alternatively, these are two free, user-made campaigns: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3308483/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3309923/ They are well made, in my opinion. They both use the Supercarrier. From the first link: You can then access them from the Campaign menu in the game, under My Campaigns list.

It's a reported bug. For now, try to use it for close distances only, I find it helps.

That's all well and nice for IRL scenarios, but in DCS, you need to go heads down and visually confirm everything anyway, because, well, we lack tactile feedback. And I'd argue that it's much easier to buy a set of 2 TM MFDs than buy or build a switch box or build a full scale cockpit. Becomes even more complicated if you consider any physical changes between two front and back cockpits. Using MFDs makes everything universal and easy. I can do most everything in the Hornet without looking at my physical MFDs. And as GGTharos says, MFDs allows to share different workloads between the two cockpits.

Happy I could help!

Right now, the codes don't do anything. And only mode 4 is used for actual coalition IFF. The rest of the codes are only used for identification purposes, but not for friendly/hostile IFF. Mode 4 works with encrypted keys, so there isn't a way to give them to the other team in DCS.

In Open Beta, terminal parameters are added for the JDAMs on the F-18 (the HSI DLZ does not yet change to reflect changes), but not the JSOWs yet.

I assume you tried to open the miz file in Windows. You need to run DCS, go in the Mission Editor, select Load mission, then navigate to the directory of the miz file and finally select it. If it is a mission of the default game files, you probably won't be able to save the changes, so just select File->Save As and select the My Missions option from the top of the side list. I can't help much more because I'm not on my pc right now and won't be for a few days, but you get the idea, I hope.

I haven't followed much, but didn't they add stop/idle switches, same as the Warthog? Is it still just a physical detent that doesn't do anything in-game?

^^ This. The default keybind is RShift+R.

They do apply to every era of air combat. I'm just saying that analyzing information and managing assets becomes an even bigger part of the game now, because you have more information available. The more you have, the better you need to manage it and the more decisions you have to make. I understand this is not everyone's cup of tea and that a lot of people prefer a more hands-on approach, but it is a very real part of air combat and one I am personally very interested in. The way I see it, you always have the option of playing simpler missions with modern fighters. We sometimes do, with my squadron. More straightforward missions that yet remain within the realm of realism, where you don't need to spend your time heads down, looking at your displays. I meant this as a generic statement about modern air combat, not in the context of DCS. I agree with you that modern REDFOR is not as nearly as developed (or developed at all) as modern BLUEFOR. It's part of my statement that the sim isn't there yet, both from the perspective of AI units and modules. I really do hope that if we cannot get access to Russian modules, we can get access to Chinese ones, at least. Agreed. I see DCS as a long term project though and investments starting today will pay dividends in a few years. To me, it's about steering the sim's development towards this direction, knowing that they'll have something to show for it down the line. As I said before, it depends on what you consider difficult and/or rewarding. I do find enjoyment into the management and coordination aspect of things and it can get quite challenging, if you're facing opponents that can also think for themselves, namely other players. In the context of SP, it's not difficult to outsmart the AI. I'm talking from the perspective of a guy who spent 6 years playing 99% SP and transitioned to playing almost exclusively MP in the last year. We fly both the F/A-18C and the F-14B in my group. I primarily fly the F-18, but sometimes switch to the F-14 as well. I'll choose the F/A-18C 9 times out of 10, simply because it makes my life so much easier and allows me to focus on things that matter, namely coordination, SA, target management etc. Especially when I assume wing or flight leadership roles, the increased SA, DL contacts on the JHMCS etc, automatic IFF etc become invaluable. And even with all of these helpers, I have my hands full. Just in a different way than in the F-14B. And I find it very satisfying to be able to analyze all this info in real time and make correct decisions etc. At the end of the day though, considering that DCS has a lot of 3rd party devs, there is room for both eras, I believe. It's just a matter of making a coordinated push towards consistency in both. We already have a lot of Cold War assets that require a model rework, at least. And the two eras do overlap, with several countries using Cold War equipment well into the 2000s, so late Cold War assets would serve both of us. At the same time, adding new modern AI units shouldn't be that difficult, since they do not require the same level of sophistication as modules do, not even close. It's just a matter of getting some correct data and building the 3D model and textures. I honestly do not understand why some units are delayed the way they are, but that's a conversation for another time.