Bunny Clark

Really, he didn't have any problems with the way the aircraft worked or responded, that's all pretty solid. His primary issues were just with the training mission, which is clearly old and hasn't been updated since the INS system was refined ages ago.

I also don't think that IR COOL has any function for the AIM-9X anyway.

It could be a weapon ready delay. You can force this by setting their alarm state to red in the mission editor, with it set to auto (the default) they will have their weapon systems stowed until a target is detected. It may also be a sensor issue, as a non-radar equipped aircraft will need to detect you visually before engaging. This will be effected by time of day and, at night, moon state. Both of these systems are also effected by AI skill level, with higher skill level units able to better detect targets and ready weapons faster.

There is, you'll find it in Controls under the UI Layer category, by default it's mapped to the pause button on your keyboard. This is a change in 2.7, previously it was listed as a separate control under every module.

Wags mentions several times in the SLAM-ER video that it can function in a "fire and forget" mode which to me suggests ATA capability.

Two different types of jamming technology. The jammers in FC3 aircraft represent a type of "barrage" jamming, where a jammer emits a wide range of confusing noise to all radar systems that see it. This type of jamming can be effective at reducing lock-on range, but will almost always fail at short ranges and in terminal attack modes where the correct signal from the radar return off the aircraft will be strong enough to easily separate from the jamming noise. It can be effective at degrading the track quality of an incoming weapon, but is not itself able to defeat weapon systems. It can also effect friendly systems as well as the enemy. The Hornet currently models a gate-pull-off type of attack, which focuses on attacking the range or speed ambiguity inherent in radar systems to break the lock of a radar targeting the aircraft. This is useful for defeating weapons tracks and systems in terminal guidance but much less useful at defeating every radar system illuminating the aircraft, as jamming signals must be tailored to each specific radar source. For a self protection jammer, it makes more sense to focus on an attack mode which can actually defeat weapon systems rather than simply denying an attacker lock-on range. It's possible the Hornet's ASPJ does have a wide-band barrage jamming mode that isn't modeled yet, I don't know. I don't know the exact capabilities of the jamming systems for every aircraft in DCS, and I doubt much of that info is even publicly available, but it's highly unlikely that the F-15C, MiG-29S, and Su-27 in real life all use an identical barrage jamming technique. The FC3 aircraft are greatly simplified for DCS, and barrage jamming is simple and easy to approximate so that's probably why it was chosen. The Hornet is modeling a jammer system in greater detail and fidelity. Some aircraft with built-in self protection jamming systems use the radar antenna as the jammer transmitter - it's a high power directional antenna which is already optimized for use on radar frequencies so it's an obvious choice. I'm not sure if that's why the Hornet radar shuts down when jamming or not, but it's a possibility. This system isn't finished yet, so I expect more options and complexity is yet to be added.

Agreed! After pouring countless hours into Falcon 4.0, LOMAC, Jane's F/A-18, and the standalone A-10C module, I had taken a break from flight sims for a few years. The Hornet pulled me into DCS World and got me hooked all over again.

I'm pretty sure I remember Wags mentioning that this is planned, though I can't remember exactly where ...

I don't think the ripple fire mechanic is fully implemented yet, but IRL the Viper cannot ripple fire more than 2 Mavericks at a time - one from each pylon. The avionics are not able to talk to more than one missile on a pylon at a time.

AFAIK, real pilots don't adjust their goggles to view the instrument panel. They leave them focused at infinity and glace under them to view the instruments with their bare eyes.

Correct. Simulators are not about fun, they're about training. The purpose of DCS is not to practice skills so we can better fly a real Hornet. It's something we play for fun. A game. DCS is not 100% realistic, it never will be 100% realistic, and you will never, ever, find a 100% realistic simulator for $80, not even for a Cessna 172.

DCS is a game, it's something we play, for fun. It is not a "simulator" by any technical definition. If it was, I would need to do some serious editing of my pilot's logbook. If you want an actual flight simulator, you'll need to pay a whole lot more money for something like this: https://www.virtual-fly.com/en/shop/certified-products/solo-pro-g1-faa-approved-training-device-g1000-cockpit

It doesn't really matter. Even if you could select the proper channel, it wouldn't work. The Hornet does not have ILS equipment, the ICLS system is not interoperable with land-based ILS.

Off the top of my head from memory, so I may not be entirely correct here: there's a way, in the FCS page, to "bit interrogate" a value held in the FCS computer memory. One of these stored bits is the commanded AoA value. You go into the Bit Interrogate sub-page, enter the memory address for the specific bit, and you'll end up with a number that represents the current commanded AoA displayed on the DDI. It won't be in degrees, so Hornet pilots figured out what the value needs to be for the FCS to be set to on-speed and would adjust trim until the bit value was correct. This became common enough practice in the fleet it was added as an official function in a software update, which is where the commanded AoA value in the HUD came from. I don't believe this system is modeled at all in DCS.

Here's my checklist for starting the Viper. Follow this and see if you can get it to work correctly.

I really shouldn't bother, but, ugh. The A-10C II is a DCS module. There is no such plane as an A-10C II. That's not a real thing, it's not a real designation, no one outside the DCS community would even have a clue what you were talking about. The A-10C II module does model a newer airframe and software suite than the original A-10C module, but there is no I and II distinction in the real world, at all. No, it doesn't. You are completely wrong. OK, this is something you clearly don't understand. These kinds of features are not innate to the helmet itself. A helmet system is an orientation sensor, a display, and some interfacing systems. The ability to display runway outlines, buildings, trees, waypoints, sensor locations, datalink contacts, and anything else has almost nothing to do with the helmet system itself. These things are all driven by the aircraft computer systems the helmet is attached to. Because the helmet itself doesn't have sensor, navigation, or communication systems it is literally impossible for it to single-handedly bring these features to an aircraft. It gets all that from the aircraft's mission computer. All it does is display data the airplane already has. If the A-10C doesn't have the software ability to display something, plugging in a new helmet display system won't change that. It doesn't work that way. If a helmet display on a Hornet can show aircraft carrier specific approach info that doesn't mean that the same helmet on an A-10 can also show aircraft carrier approach into if they "just turn it on" - the computer in the A-10 driving the display doesn't know anything about aircraft carriers, why would it? This is why the Hornet and Viper JHMCS displays show data differently, have some different features, and look very much like each aircraft's own HUD symbology, even though they use the same helmets. The helmet is being driven by the aircraft's symbology computers, as far as the plane is concerned it's just another display system like a HUD, only it can move around independently from the airframe. Why would I want a runway outline in the HMD in an A-10 anyway? The HMD blanks when I look at the HUD, would you override that for the runway? So when you're landing you'd be seeing a runway outline in the HMD and try to line it up with a flight path marker on the HUD? That sounds like a mess. And if the A-10 could do that, why not just display it on the HUD and not involve the HMD at all? Or display it on both? The logic of the whole concept doesn't make a lot of sense.

Then it's something you're doing wrong at startup. Mostly commonly the problem is not doing the INS alignment correctly.

It's certainly DCS, either on the AMPCD (which is unrealistic) or a mod (which is unrealistic).

I think both the A-10C and F-16 can use the "long" ALQ-184?

I'm glad to see things moving this way. Honestly, I've learned more about flying on-speed approaches using AoA in DCS than I did in any of my PPL flight training or ground school. I don't fly anything fancier than a Skyhawk IRL, but it would be super cool to have an AoA indicator in it.

I've wondered this too. I think a lot of it is directly related to a overall lack of AoA probes on civilian aircraft, something that is just starting to be corrected. The staple single engine prop trainers don't have them and pilots don't learn to land by AoA, then things just progress from there - we never used it so we don't need it. We've even seen this recently on the 737 Max, a "new" aircraft with AoA sensitive flight systems but a backup AoA sensor was an upcharge at purchase.

Something changed with night lighting in 2.7 and now NVG performance is significantly effected by moon light level. You can see some examples here: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/268832-cockpit-reflections-and-nvgs/?do=findComment&comment=4639953

Yah, DLZs definitely don't seem quite right. For a while the DLZ display on the Radar page didn't match the NIRD on the HUD either, but I think that got fixed? I don't usually pay much attention to the Radar DLZ when I'm doing an intercept.

This is categorically wrong. CCRP and DTOS were both added to the Viper before it was PGM capable, probably before the Paveway program even existed. They were absolutely designed to be used primarily with dumb bombs. The ability to pick an impact point with the FCR, or slew the TD Box onto a target on the HUD while in a dive and then have the computer calculate a release point was considered to be superior to purely visual CCIP bombing. If you're attacking a big solid object that doesn't move, why would you need to manually put the bombs on the target visually? Tell your computer where you want them to land, and let it do the math and the release for you. Here's an example of CCRP delivery of dumb bombs from one of the very first tactical HUD systems fitted to a fighter: @Warmbrak CZ (Cursor Zero) is the function you're looking for. There should be a CZ button on the HSD page, but I don't think it's been implemented yet in DCS and is only found on the TGP page. You might have luck making HUD SOI and hitting TMS Down. There are quite a few SPI functions that simply aren't implemented yet (including the entire DTOS delivery mode), so things can get a little weird.

Yah, ATFLIR Auto mode against sea targets seems to be pretty spotty right now, some kinks need to get worked out. You should be able to attack them with a slaved track in Radar SEA mode though.