Cytarabine

You are breaking off TWS long before the missiles go pitbull it seems so they are not getting mid course updates. Partly this is a bug as the elevation should auto track if automatic tracking is selected in TWS. With your number of AMRAAMs you could fire a long range AMRAAM at each which might hit but will at least give them something to think about, crank and then turn back when closer, fire a missile at each and then once they go pitbull disengage.

Just used it with the KC-130 so it does work (was in daytime as well)

This entirely - for OER is great but would be overwhelming for a newcomer. EF is fantastic though still reasonably tough (a reminder of why being in AAA and MANPAD range is so dangerous!), fortunately systems wise it is pretty simple and you quickly get to practise a lot of aspects of the Hornet. There is a Red Flag campaign as well which seems pretty good. The paid Aggressors BFM campaign is ok.

I often find I am in range according to my radar scope but not on until hud thus I often launch before getting a shoot cue and it seems to connect when attacking moving (and evading) targets at a nose hot aspect while at 35k feet Mach 1 which are 30nm away.

Sure thing. Here is a track file (just pulling some G's in the Viper) and here is an example screenshot (tried both Viper and Hornet for good measure and have repaired the installation and re-applied the mod just to check it wasn't something messed up in my files).

It could be that you haven’t got them on your own radar and it is a datalink target. Check they are within your azimuth and elevation for the scan.

Great mod. Makes the cockpit super easy to read and makes the F16 displays much nicer in VR. One issue I have noticed is sometimes the contrails look funny (almost like an old build engine sprite) with the mod on which can be quite distracting. Any clues what that could be? I did adjust down the amount of sharpening and luma to get a more subtle effect (kind of like touching up a photograph).

Found it here; https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=229077 Works great, doesn’t seem to have issues with IC for multiplayer.

I doubt a Super Hornet (particularly an early lot) would be 'instant win' compared to a legacy Hornet. The longer legs and added pylons are nice, but the features in A-A that make the Rhino shine over the Hornet (like AESA and IRST) will not be able to be implemented. I think to make it viable an F-18F (with a dedicated RIO pit rather than dual controls) would be a nice point of difference.

A long way behind. The F-16 is an empty shell with a few nice things, while the Hornet is very much mission capable.

Great campaign so far. Just did the second mission and it was such a blast. For VR users get the scratchpad script to copy down the coordinates, it makes it so much easier (first time I found myself completely lost with no coordinates). Really enjoyed that I had to use so many systems of the Hornet to get the job done (refuelling, new waypoints, LSS, JDAM in PP mode, Mavericks and to cap it off a trap just after dusk... with the air boss wanting a word afterwards *gulp*). The only problem I had was my wingman refused to refuel and in the end was circling the target point in full burner so he was not much use... gotta love DCS AI.

I think they should finish the Litening pod and then work on the ground radar, particularly for employing the Harpoon, JSOW and the yet to come SLAM. It would be great if they allowed cheek mounting even as a stand in until the ATFLIR arrives so that we can utilise the double ugly load outs for CAS and SEAD that are used and it would take the pressure off the ATFLIR.

Well the first is simple. The F-18 modeled here can only carry 4 Mav's in real life, it can carry more JSOWs, JDAMs or LGBs as there is a rack mount that allows for it. No such luck for the Maverick on the Hornet. So nothing here to 'fix'. The F-16C can (and will in DCS) carry 6 Mav's, good for it, it is a different aircraft. Don't get what you are trying to say. Yes TGP has no point on HUD... it doesn't make the TGP unusuable. As for the AGM-62 exploding killing you I suspect you are pulling negative G's (or at least <1g) at time of weapon release and colliding with your bomb.

Yep disengage TWS. Because the AN/APG-73 is generating track files even when in RWS you can quickly click over to TWS even you have a target to engage and it will have already defined the tracks. It is different to the Viper though I find the Hornet TWS to be better.

The displays aren’t that much of an issue. While the full colour displays of the Viper have their charm and look more ‘modern’ the displays on the Hornet are both more useful in content and clarity (remembering even in the real world LCD is not always better that CRT). The only time the display is a real weakness in with the TGP though even then after using the LANTIRN in the Tomcat it is much better. In terms of MFDs I would argue that only the Jeff currently beats the Hornet. Maybe if they do an early lot super Hornet they could include that down the track (make even more money).

While there are clearly some features which are needing polish (a whole tin of polish for some, TGP I am looking at you) and some missing features (A-G radar being the obvious one but some others) the Hornet is now very capable and complete enough that you won’t find yourself running into placeholders or things which are so partially implemented it is a show stopper. As it stands you can; - do air to air - while the A-A radar is not complete yet it is very good (and personally I find the TWS implementation to be superior to that in the Viper, particularly for multi-target engagements (where often in the Viper I end up having one target not being a system track and thus not being able to bug it the Hornet system is as smooth as silk). - perform SEAD - the HARM lacks pre-planned mode (though if you have a target location you have other options like the JSOW A), sadly it will never have a HTS, so your Viper buddies will have to play chicken with the SAMs to map them out (when it finally gets it) - CAS - TGP, Mavericks, LGBs, JDAMs, Rockets, iron bombs, gun, cluster munitions all there. - Interdiction - yep - Stand-off strike - JSOWs currently, hopefully we see the SLAM-ER early in the new year (this is going to lead to some really interesting possibilities particularly once datalink to other pilots missiles is implemented (see the description of one of the strikes in ‘Declared Hostile’) - Anti-shipping - while we have the Harpoon the lack of sea radar currently is a bit of a downer on that one While there are more complete modules they all have their limitations. The beautiful Tomcat (which Heatblur have done a fantastic job with) even complete is more limited in role (but very capable in the roles it can do), the Viggen and Warthog are really meant to be down in the mud (whether that be while flying slow in a tank or at Mach 1 tree top flying) and the Mirage (which is fantastic as well) is both more limited in air to air (no datalink, no active radar missiles) and air to ground (rockets, dumb bombs or LGBs with someone else lazing). The only comparator is Jeff though it can’t refuel in mid-air as yet, can’t operate on a carrier and has some bugs (which Deka are diligently dealing with by all reports). By the time you master all of that there will be more things to play with.

I think the HUD range queue might be the issue here as I have connected several shots (in SP) where the target has been in range according to the MFD but not according to the HUD which means no time to missile active or time to impact on the HUD.

So the radar can maintain 10 tracks; - 8 of these are just displayed on your radar with no information in the HUD - the DT2 target is in the HUD but has no other info displayed other than an X, it is your second target - the L&S is the target you are currently preparing to fire upon so has a target box and launch parameters so you are receiving launch (L) cues and steering (S) cues. So you can guide a missile to any track, but it has to be the L&S target to fire on it. The DT2 target is one you are keeping an eye on. Perhaps you have launched on it already and want to know where it is to look for the explosion to indicate a hit, or what they are doing so you can keep track while prosecuting one target.

I just noticed the same behavior so would be very interested in what the answer to this is.

Exactly this. You CAN fly without the rudder pedals on all of the FBW aircraft with the exception of taxi (which can be worked around with keybinds or binding buttons), however the Hornet really sings at high AoA and there you need a good rudder input. Having said that I would invest in some form of head tracking before getting rudder pedals. The full fidelity modules really demand that you are able to quickly look around the cockpit (and for me trying to do that with an axis on the joystick does not cut it).

Got to agree, the TWS in the Hornet is fantastic. I really like seeing my targets turn too late when the missile goes pitbull on them. I also find that it is much quicker at assigning track files than the Viper. Often in the Viper I won’t have the whole formation as tracks while in the Hornet no such issue. The information on the HUD and radar display is also much more useful than the Viper. Perhaps they have modelled a difference between the AN/APG-73 and the AN/APG-68v5?

Outside of attacking a close formation of bombers I don’t know how practical engaging ten targets at a time would be.

Have you looked to see whether the calibration is out on that axis?

Absolutely. Other than the SLAM-ER most of the weapons are there but need to be completed. Things like sea mines, fuel air explosives and the Paveway III should wait until we have complete versions of the existing weapons (including a fixed AMRAAM).

I suspect this will be more useful when (if) the dynamic campaign becomes a thing where you are going to want to be using them to take out high threat SAM targets and EW assets before you go in up close and personal.