Viper vs hornet-user friendly

[Sparc]

Green horn here. I currently own the hornet and currently trying out the viper and love it. I haven't played much with the hornet but just curious to know which of these two one would consider more "user friendly". Probably neither right? Both equally challenging in their own respect?  

[Dannyvandelft]

Green horn here. I currently own the hornet and currently trying out the viper and love it. I haven't played much with the hornet but just curious to know which of these two one would consider more "user friendly". Probably neither right? Both equally challenging in their own respect?  

Viper for sure. The hardest thing to understand isn't even the Viper itself, but what hangs underneath it, namely the (edit: LITENING) pod. once you understand that, you're 70% there. The Hornet isn't as user friendly I find.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Sparc]

What's the "LANTIRN"? forgive my ignorance.  

[Tholozor]

6 minutes ago, Dannyvandelft said:

namely the LANTIRN.

I think you mean LITENING. The LANTIRN pods were primarily used on Block 40/42s.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Tholozor

[Dannyvandelft]

I think you mean LITENING. The LANTIRN pods were primarily used on Block 40/42s.

Yup! Gets so confusing between all the modules Tomcat is LANTIRN.

OP the LITENING pod, is a targeting pod for laser guided bomb delivery among other things.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Blinky.ben]

F-16 for sure easier, the F-18 IMO has an unnecessary complex software system and switches. The F-16 you could probably work out how to do everything without tutorials. However I would say the F-16 has a slightly more complex flight model.

[Furiz]

I have both modules and for me Viper is more user friendly, the logic on the systems is just great.

[Sparc]

I've found the viper very user friendly compared to the hornet. Although I can memorize how to cold start a hornet easier than the viper but I just started with the viper. Also from what I've seen, it appears the viper is a bit more challenging to do a2a refueling compared the hornet.

[Nahemoth]

Hi,

 Just one question related to the F-16 module, how mature is at this stage? 

 Mainly compared to the F-18 module. I want to start with the F-16 but I was waiting for the correct moment, and recently I see the F-16 has acquired several new good features.

Thanks!

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

I have both, I fly the Hornet first. Still working on the DCS Viper, but having flown the original Falcon 1.0 back then (cough). This is just my 2p, not a complete comparison:

Console layout - apart from lacking flat top operation-related stuffs and the location of the control column, the Viper has more similar to other planes in service before, like the A-4E and A-10C, on which many controls like the radios and ECM, etc to the side consoles, whereas the Hornet puts many functions in the center UFC with a small cluster of displays in the center. It is not to say the Viper has no UFC, it provides  a bit less of the same functionalities however the display is on the right for some reason I do not understand.

Also the panels in the center are cleaner on the Viper but the location of the control column on Hornet makes accessing to the controls in this part a bit trickier.

One cannot help but appreciate the location of the RWR display on Viper and the nearness of the related controls. Whereas the RWR on Hornet is on the lower right center and it requires the pilot to look away to get to.

Even though the Viper and only 1 engine, the HOTAS has way more buttons and knobs on it and functionality is way more complete than the Hornet, which is a good thing for the pilot can get more "hands-on".

MFD: Hornet has 3 and the Viper has just 2. A moving map at the bottom is always welcomed. On the other hand, both displays on the Viper show colour but they are relatively smaller. I have yet to learn the JDAM pages on the Viper, but it is very complicated on the Hornet to me. Also, the confusing AA sensor pages on the Hornet is something to reckon with.

HUD: The one on Hornet provides just the right amount of information for the task on hand, but I find the one of Viper very crowded, and it is not just me.

Air-to-air: missile pages are similar on both, afaik. However, after getting used to a gun piper on F-15C, F/A-18C, F-14A/B, A/V-8B NA and A-10C ][, a funnel is kinda hard to get used to, or it is just me.

HMD: the info on the Viper are more detailed, and surprisingly not that cluttered (unlike the HUD), making it better than the Hornet counterpart. For some reason, I have yet to find the keybinding to turn on/off the HMD on Viper...

To sum up, both environments have their own set logic in terms of layout and when one happens to own both, which is inevitable, familiarising with both can be tedious. Given the multi-role, and the redundant nature of military engineering, both office spaces are inherently complex, which unlike the Viggen (big cough), has a clear, clean and logical layout due to its roles limited to ground attack, anti-ship and recon. Of course, none of both are even close to the complexity of the Warthog, of which I have grown a lot of respect to all those who fly this thing.

At the end, it is really down to a matter of taste and what one gets used to.

Edited January 22, 2022 by VFGiPJP

[Dawgboy]

Viper.

[Dawgboy]

4 hours ago, VFGiPJP said:

I have both, I fly the Hornet first. Still working on the DCS Viper, but having flown the original Falcon 1.0 back then (cough). This is just my 2p, not a complete comparison:

Console layout - apart from lacking flat top operation-related stuffs and the location of the control column, the Viper has more similar to other planes in service before, like the A-4E and A-10C, on which many controls like the radios and ECM, etc to the side consoles, whereas the Hornet puts many functions in the center UFC with a small cluster of displays in the center. It is not to say the Viper has no UFC, it provides  a bit less of the same functionalities however the display is on the right for some reason I do not understand.

Also the panels in the center are cleaner on the Viper but the location of the control column on Hornet makes accessing to the controls in this part a bit trickier.

One cannot help but appreciate the location of the RWR display on Viper and the nearness of the related controls. Whereas the RWR on Hornet is on the lower right center and it requires the pilot to look away to get to.

Even though the Viper and only 1 engine, the HOTAS has way more buttons and knobs on it and functionality is way more complete than the Hornet, which is a good thing for the pilot can get more "hands-on".

MFD: Hornet has 3 and the Viper has just 2. A moving map at the bottom is always welcomed. On the other hand, both displays on the Viper show colour but they are relatively smaller. I have yet to learn the JDAM pages on the Viper, but it is very complicated on the Hornet to me. Also, the confusing AA sensor pages on the Hornet is something to reckon with.

HUD: The one on Hornet provides just the right amount of information for the task on hand, but I find the one of Viper very crowded, and it is not just me.

Air-to-air: missile pages are similar on both, afaik. However, after getting used to a gun piper on F-15C, F/A-18C, F-14A/B, A/V-8B NA and A-10C ][, a funnel is kinda hard to get used to, or it is just me.

HMD: the info on the Viper are more detailed, and surprisingly not that cluttered (unlike the HUD), making it better than the Hornet counterpart. For some reason, I have yet to find the keybinding to turn on/off the HMD on Viper...

To sum up, both environments have their own set logic in terms of layout and when one happens to own both, which is inevitable, familiarising with both can be tedious. Given the multi-role, and the redundant nature of military engineering, both office spaces are inherently complex, which unlike the Viggen (big cough), has a clear, clean and logical layout due to its roles limited to ground attack, anti-ship and recon. Of course, none of both are even close to the complexity of the Warthog, of which I have grown a lot of respect to all those who fly this thing.

At the end, it is really down to a matter of taste and what one gets used to.

 

 

Thanks, good rundown.  I really like the Viper's stick on the right, versus the center.  I've flown both in my physical cockpit, which you can configure either way, regardless of the DCS module you're flying.  I just like the stick on the right better, although this, too, is a matter of preference...there's no right or wrong.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Thanks, but please bear in mind mine so call breakdown may not be that accurate, let alone complete. I have just human and I have bias too (Hail Viggen!!!)

I read long time ago by putting the control stick on the right, it is easier for the right hand pilots, however, I am no RL pilot so I cannot verify if this would make left turn harder in higher G condition -- which DCS does not simulate this.

[BuzzU]

Also, what wasn't mentioned is the Hornet has carrier landings. Not that they're really hard but it's another skill you need to learn.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

What we are trying to discuss was the office user-friendliess. If one wants to talk about functionality, mission proficiency, and performance, I would say, imho, what the Hornet can do, except carrier take off and landing, the Viper simple does it better.

[Raptor9]

Both the Viper and the Hornet are solid modules, with the Hornet much further along in it's EA trajectory than the Viper.  Depending on your preferences, you will most assuredly have a blast in either jet, and both jets offer a robust multirole capability giving a player a lot of variety in what type of mission sets they can do.  Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground, SEAD, etc.

Some unique weaponeering options between the two:
The Hornet has a dedicated anti-ship option in the form of Harpoon missiles, and a long-range land attack capability in the form of SLAM/SLAM-ER missiles.
The Viper has more potent cluster munitions, including guided variants that can be employed like JDAMs.
Both aircraft have JSOW precision glide bombs, however the Viper only carries the A-model which is a cluster-based weapon whereas the Hornet can carry the C-model which is a point-target warhead.

Some unique sensor options between the two:
Hornet has two targeting pods to choose from, Litening and ATFLIR, each with their own pros and cons and mounting location options. Depending on your loadout and mounting location, it can be quite easy to "mask" the TGP sensor from the location you are looking at.
Viper has only one targeting pod at the moment, but the current estimate is we also might get the Sniper down the road.  The Viper's TGP is much more difficult to mask due to it's mounted location, but not impossible.
The Viper also has the HTS pod, giving it a unique and very potent threat emitter geo-location capability, allowing you to passively locate threat systems instead of just getting an RWR azimuth location, and more rapidly select individual radar systems to fire HARMs against, including "over-the-shoulder" at emitters to your side or behind you.
Both aircraft have similar air-to-ground radar capabilities.

Differences in cockpit layouts/controls:
The Hornet has more displays available to you to use, but like others have said, the specific layout of certain auxiliary displays like the RWR can be cumbersome in use.  You can place the RWR indications on the HUD/JHMCS, but this can very easily cause a lot of clutter on the HUD and JHMCS, with no ability (that I've seen or found) to selectively declutter this through multiple levels or options.  The Hornet has a couple of general HUD declutter levels, but it's very limited.
The Viper only has two small MFDs compared to the Hornet's three, however the Viper (like the A-10), has a lot of controls to not only customize the MFD's between the left and right, but you can also set up to five MFD layout schemes (for each master mode: NAV, A-A, A-G, MSL ORIDE, and DGFT).  Plus, there are integrated HOTAS controls allowing you to cycle between the different MFD's extremely rapidly even while maneuvering in a dogfight, dodging missiles, or flying low-level through terrain.  Additionally, the Viper (like the A-10), allows you to customize the HUD to increase and decrease what elements of data are displayed, to include multiple info levels of the JHMCS.  The ICP and the DED on the Viper may seem more cumbersome to some, but in my opinion it is easier and quicker to use than the Hornet UFC, and it allows you to manipulate a lot of settings and view miscellaneous data sets without having to use one of the main displays.

TL;DR: The Viper allows much more user-customization to reconfigure the cockpit to their preferences, to include individual MFD settings per master mode, and more robust HUD/JHMCS customization options.  My personal opinion is the Viper has more intuitive HOTAS controls and MFD interaction allowing more seamless sensor usage and weapons employment, and even though the Hornet has an additional display and a moving map underlay, I find myself able to gain situational awareness more quickly in the Viper, as well as more easily maintain it.  Each have pros and cons in the realm of weapon options, but in my opinion the Viper has better sensors.  Unfortunately, if you want to do carrier ops, there is only one choice between the two, the Hornet; but again, both aircraft are solid multirole aircraft and good modules to purchase.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Raptor9

[WobblyFlops]

The Hornet isn't what I'd call particularly user friendly, the avionics are better integrated, it has the unique AZ/EL display which can make things seem more intuitive, plus it's one of the first legacy platforms with actual sensor fusion, however some of that isn't replicated in DCS properly, mainly the sensor fusion capabilities. The Viper is a top notch, high quality module, and the real aircraft is famous for its pilot friendly design. However, many idiosyncracies in the Hornet are DCSisms, or workaround for certain bugs. If the Hornet's air to air radar got reworked and MSI was properly implemented, save for the Eurofighter, nothing could compare to the Hornet when it comes to SA and presentation but this comes with the cost of a more cumbersome interface and significantly worse HOTAS integration.

 

As it stands today, it has many bugs, simplifications and problems which means that ultimately, you barely get more capabilities but it's significantly more cumbersome to use. Since the current Hornet has many issues, the Viper is basically on par when it comes to capabilities but it has a massively better pilot-vehicle interface. For air to air, the HOTAS integration is butter smooth, very intuitive, the information is presented in a digestible way and you have much better kinematic performance at your disposal. In the Hornet, you have to manage your PRF, your radar modes with either the TDC or push buttons, in the Viper, you don't have control over the PRF and you can change modes with the HOTAS.

 

Air to ground is still in favor of the Viper but the advantage isn't as prevalent. The VRP-VIP function makes pop up attacks a breeze to conduct, it will have a dedicated toss bombing mode (toss cues in auto mode aren't implemented for the Hornet) and the master mode logic is highly superior, which is very relevant when doing self escort missions. The Viper's CCIP mode is pinpoint accurate, the Hornet's CCIP cross has been bugged for like 2 years and can't give you an accurate solution. In the Hornet master modes are hardwired to bring up certain pages (although some functions are missing and the left DDI shouldn't necessarily change what it displays but regardless), in the Viper, you can set it up in advance what page should each master mode bring up, and the transition is seamless. You can be in air to ground master mode, react to an aerial threat with a quick swap to MRM/DGFT then cancel the override and return to the air to ground mode exactly as it was. Seamless transition.

 

The Hornet should have drastically better IAM integration but this is also not exactly simulated. We should have the ability to address specific bombs, upload coordinates and do a PP quantity release, with much better symbology on the HSI to aid in this attack. The Viper will cue the IAM to the SPI and it can't directly sent specific coordinates and proper SPI management requires a bit of practice. The properly implemented IAM logic of the Hornet would be superior here but as it stands, the Viper is probably easier to use even in this category. The SMS in the Hornet is much better, the Viper uses buttons on the actual MFD to input numbers to things like bomb interval, while the Hornet uses the UFC in a very logical manner. However, the Hornet's laser switch resets itself, so you have to manually control it. 

 

The Viper's Maverick integration is more involved and it requires actual boresighting, this is missing from the Hornet, but slewing with a designation isn't possible so it's a bit of a toss up. The cluster bombs of the Hornet are much more difficult to use than the 97/105s of the Viper, which are probably one of the most powerful and capable weapons in the game. The HARM simulation of the Viper is much more detailed and in depth and the Hornet's is more simple to use due to better integration (some modes are not simulated in DCS) but ultimately, when learned properly, the Viper has the edge with the HTS pod in capability but it's going to require a bit more practice to utilize. 

 

The Hornet has a couple of advantages. The RWR is repeated on the HUD and the JHMCS, which makes it easier to scan for threats in less congested environments but the RWR filters aren't simulated, so it can be problematic if a lot of contacts are around. The JHMCS datalink integration in the Hornet is drastically superior, it allows you to visually see PPLIs, enemy targets, unknown targets and it's also highly costumizable. The designation logic is probably easier to wrap your head around than the SPI system of the Viper, the latter is somewhat easier to mess up. The ATFLIR is probably a bit more intuitive to use but the Litening on the Hornet is incredibly wonky when compared to the Viper.

 

Markpoints are a pain in the ass in the Hornet because you have to cycle through all your waypoints to get to them but they are much more user friendly to use in the Viper. The air to ground radar designation drifts in the Hornet (it shouldn't, it's a bug) while it works perfectly in the Viper and the quality of the image is also better and easier to interpret. 

 

For navigation, the Hornet's ability to visually see the course lines instead of a traditional HSI makes it a lot easier to use for beginners, but programming new waypoints, rolex times, TOTs and other features are a bit more complex and not exactly intuitive at first glance. The moving map is pretty useful but you can't slew it and you can't use it to create waypoints at a specific location, so its usefulness is not that particularly good. If the slew and waypoint creation functions were implemented in game, it would be a pretty big advantage but as it stands, it's kind of a niche capability.

Edited January 22, 2022 by WobblyFlops

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Thanks everyone, the posts are very informative and I have learnt a lot.

Com'on guys! Don't hold back on your likes and thanks. They are free.

[wilbur81]

I own both. I find the Hornet's UFC to be way more user friendly than the Viper's ICP. I also find the Hornet's HUD to be more user friendly as well... the Viper's HUD displays too much info for me... The Hornet's HUD: just right. I also prefer the larger DDI's in the Hornet. I think the Viper has a slightly more intuitive HOTAS in some ways... though I've cheated in the Hornet and mapped things to my HOTAS such as radar range, azimuth, mode, etc. so I can actually do more with my HOTAS in the Hornet than the Viper. The Viper cockpit feels like an older airplane that has received a lot of updates (new MFD's, ICP, etc...a bit Frankenstein-y) whereas the Hornet feels a bit more integrated in it's pit tech because it is closer to the original design.

[GrEaSeLiTeNiN]

Hornet is less intuitive (Boeing designs seem that way) but if you fly it often and master the complexities ir can be a better fighting system esp with SA.

[Rongor]

18 minutes ago, GrEaSeLiTeNiN said:

Hornet is less intuitive (Boeing designs seem that way) but if you fly it often and master the complexities ir can be a better fighting system esp with SA.

I really don't think Boeing had anything to do with the design of this airplane.

[Machalot]

On 1/22/2022 at 3:23 AM, VFGiPJP said:

For some reason, I have yet to find the keybinding to turn on/off the HMD on Viper...

DMS aft long

Edit: I meant down, not aft.

Edited January 23, 2022 by Machalot

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

6 hours ago, Machalot said:

DMS aft long

Sorry but I see not aft here:

 

[some1]

He means down.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Thanks, shoulda read more manual.