SCPanda

You could add the HSD page to MSL override and DGFT mode before takeoff. That's what I do every time.

Yeah all the WIP functions and "incorrect" HOTAS commands are not helping, and even worse they make you form up bad habits.

And you cannot do that with dogfight mode because once you switch it on you are in ACM radar mode, which means you do not have full control of the radar. Therefore, unless you have visual of the bandit or you are lucky enough that ACM mode picks up the bandit for you, you are blind. F-16 designers wouldn't put that HOTAS function there if it is useless.

You guys are understanding MSL override mode incorrectly. Yes, I also never use MSL override in close-range engagements, because it's NOT meant for dogfight!!! That's why there is a mode called dogfight mode!!! MSL override is for situations like when you are doing air to ground, and suddenly a bandit pops up and engages you in BVR. You can just switch to MSL override and engage the bandit in BVR using HOTAS without having to press A-A on the UCP. Using this single switch on the throttle you can immediately start a BVR engagement.

:)

If you are in AA mode, changing it to MSL override will make the hud looks almost exactly the same. Maybe you didn't notice the difference? Try to start with NAV mode.

I realized the same thing when i entered a new waypoint as waypoint 1. Also for me it was not just the distance, the bearing was also wrong. But switching to waypoint 2 and switching it back to waypoint 1 fixed the issue.

From what I have read about the tinted canopy, it was designed to protect the pilot from radiation caused by nuclear bombs, which explains why it was widely used during the cold war. However, after the cold war, the air force realized nuclear warfare might not really happen so they stopped using the tinted canopy. Of course, there are still some left that are still in service. There is not need to replace the tinted canopy since it basically has no negative effect. IDK if the canopy can diminishes RCS, if it does it should be very minimum effect and doesn't really matter since ground and air to air radar can still detact the Viper, because the Viper doesn't use a stealth design.

Actually you do not need a 3 way switch. You can bind a key to DGFT override, and another key to MSL override. For example, if you press the key for DFGT override, it will switch to that mode, and if you press it again, it will go back to normal mode (NAV, AA, AG, whatever mode you were using before pressing the button). Same for MSL override.

I feel the same deadpool. The Viper still needs a lot of work, and I understand ED needs time to get everything right, but obvious problems should be recognized right away. I mean anyone who flies the Viper should know that what is working on the jet and what is not.

They said TV mode in TGP is internally fixed. I am going to open the game and test it now.

We are talking about NWS and rudder issues here. The problem is not with the flight stick... IDK what were you thinking by posting this comment, did you mean without hardly touching the rudder? Well you do not need to touch the rudder if there is no crosswinds, asymmetrical loadouts, and you lined your jet perfectly... Try takeoff with massive crosswinds and asymmetrical loadouts in both stable and beta, you will see the problem what we are talking about... Maybe they did some work with NWS and made it "better" (although they didn't mention anything about improving NWS handling in all the patch notes), but it is still very very hard to use at the moment. Like I said, much more difficult to use compare to all other jets in DCS. And they listed improving NWS handling when takeoff in the roadmap of the Viper they just announced not long ago. If you are happy with how it is now, then fine. Most ppl are not...

Because you use NVG at night? ED did it because in the previous builds, the AOA light and NWS light are too bright and they blind your eyes under night vision. You can argue that you do not like it or you do not like using NVG at night. But the light dimmer switches are functioning the way they should work, they didn't before because you cannot turn them off even with dimmer switches all the way down. Nothing is really broken here.

Also, if your target is bugged, which means you can fire missiles to engage it, your hud or JHMCS should show a square around it, just like any NATO aircraft, regardless the datalink is on or not.

With datalink on, if your FCR acquires the contact you can actually see a white dot in the middle of the triangle just like how you will see a white dot when you do not have datalink on. If your FCR was unable to acquire the target the triangle will be hollow because that is datalink telling you where it is instead of your radar, and you cannot lock the target. If you lock your target in RWS mode the triangle will become a solid red triangle with a small red circle around it (the white dot will disappear because now it's a solid red triangle, not hollow anymore), as in TWS mode, you need to "mark" the target first using TMS up (cursor on target) or TMS right (commands radar to mark all correlated contacts), and the contact becomes a solid red triangle (still not bugged because no small red circle around it). Then you can bug the marked targets using TMS up (cursor on target) or TMS right (bug the cloestest marked target, and you can switch bugged targets using TMS right). Bugged targets in TWS is the same as they are in RWS, solid red triangle with circle around it. I suggest you read page 137-140 of the manual. It should explain this better than me. WITHOUT datalink, yes the contacts should be white squares.

I never said a word about realism in my comments. IDK where did you get that from... If it's a volunteer system I don't think most ppl will use it. Just ask any WT or WOWs player if they have the option to have a top level crew or captain for free, they will never spend the time to grind from the bottom. And keep in mind if you die in WT or WOWs you do not lose all the skills on your character. The concept of leveling up your character is because game developers want to make more money from players. Also role playing does not equal to realism, the system you suggest is nothing like the real pilot training except for the fact that you can die and lose your "training" in the game. So basically all you are suggesting is a one life system that adds the concept of dying in DCS. Sounds pretty worthless to me. In DCS, if players wants to do dogfights, they jump in the jet, merge and fight, then eject and respawn. Yes this is not realistic at all but you learn the aircraft and BFM skills from this. This is also why some real fighter pilots love playing DCS, because they can do stuff they can't in RL. Keep in mind this does not make the gameplay unrealistic. It's just the process that is being simplified. The jet still has realistic FM, and you still apply real BFM tactics in the game. Again, if you really want to live a real pilot life. Just go and get pilot training, dont't role play in a simulator...

I guess you didn't read my post above (the one before I said it's not a bug). I know it is not turned on by default... It is simply where the default position for the switch is, nothing is broken. There are many switches that are turned off by default in the Viper, but there are also many that are turned on by default.

ED said a long time ago that they will fix the NWS handling but nothing so far.... I really hope the fix comes in the next patch.

Personally, I won't touch CCRP right now until ED finishes working on TGP. It is confusing and possibly creates bad habits in the Viper, such as the zero to boresight function we had in the previous build, which was not realistic (although super easy to use). I will stick to CCIP bombing for now.

I agree with you Draconus. But what I meant was that DCS is a flight sim and simulates mostly aircraft. The pilot simulation does not really exist in DCS at the moment, and it would be really complicated to simulate a pilot accurately since it involves a lot of factors such as physiology. I don't think there is a hardcore sim in the market right now that simulates human body. What Fri13 was suggesting was not simulation, but a game leveling mechanic that involves a lot of grinding and role play, which is not what DCS is meant to be. There are plenty of MMOs like this such as WT and WOWs. No one wants to see DCS go down that route. Serously, bringing in leveling for a hardcore flight sim is probably the worst idea. If ED wants to simulate pilot realistically in DCS. That is more than welcomed. But I doubt they will ever take that approach in the recent years. I mean currently we do not even have a pilot body in some of the modules we are flying.

Another guess from me is that you are at 42k ft and your target is at 29k ft, so your radar have to look down to find the target, and terrian background could have affected your radar's ability to acquire the target. It is easier to lock a target coming hot at you when both of you are at similar altitude.

Nice splash. I honestly have no idea why you cannot lock the Flanker until you get to 45nm, because I have had so many solid locks on Flankers or similar targets at around 60-70nm. Sometimes even around 70-80nm. Maybe it's the WIP radar behaving inconsistently. I do found it is easy to lose long range locks tho.

But it's not a bug...

Not really. Like I said, there is still a massive difference between the NWS on Viper and NWS on other jets. The NWS we have right now is not easy to use at all. Under heavy crosswind with asymmetrical loadouts, you probably need cyborg legs to steer the jet accurately without becoming a fireball on the runway when takeoff.

And back to the topic, ED should just simply increase the G tolerance in DCS right now. End of story. If you want to simulate "cannot turn your head under high Gs", just get pilot training and fly real planes. The reason ppl are asking for higher (more realistic) G tolerance is because they want to max perform the aircraft, which is possible in RL. DCS is about the aircraft, not the pilot. DCS is not a MMO or RPG. Of course anyone can have their opinions about how the game should be. But I doubt most ppl in the community or ED will agree with you.