Hiob

I'd like some kind of vintage chopper. I'm tired of glass cockpits. Steam gauges all day every day! Apart from that personal preference, no offence, but a Cobra seems kind of obsolete to me. Single row attack helicopter - we already have two of them. I'd rather like to see either a Ka-52 or an early UH-60. Or maybe as indicated earlier - that would be super lovely - a S-58!

to be fair, there is an increase in untranslated posts in the English main forum. Whatever the reason, I don’t know. Since I can’t read Russian I don’t know the content of the posts. I just ignore them unless someone translates them….

Sorry to hear that @tobi! But I totally get it. Take care of yourself and thank you and @Eight Ball for the awesome contributions!

Good Job!

You must be fun at parties. Actually there are even proper "flight schools" for virtual pilots. Wether that seems useful to YOU (or me) really doesn't matter...... Laughable though - it's not!

...except for the Instructor in the back seat.

You're correct. Everybody is free to "Air-Quake" and respawn as much as he likes. But I found proper learning/flying actually pretty rewarding. It's all about options. I just don't get the sentiment that anything needs a purpose. Even if there isn't any objectively needful purpose it can still be a source of fun for people. The Yak is definitely a different experience from all jet-trainers.

I don't agree with that. It can serve the same purpose in DCS as a RL Trainer can in RL. Given you use it in Multiplayer with somebody who is capable to teach you proper flying. Tha Yak-52, you are correct in that is hasn't any real "purpose", given there are better two seater trainer. However it is still fun flying from time to time.

I don't really get your point tbh. If you don't have a need for it, you can just ignore it. I own all "Trainer" in DCS, including the Yak-52, which I use either for sight-seeing/relax flights or for aerobatics. My most beloved and used Trainer is the C-101 though. Not for the weapons, but for the wonderfully modeled systems and neat simulation. And I would add, that if you use a trainer like it would be intended in RL, that is with a qualified instructor in the second seat, you would actually learn a lot about the basics of flying, instrument reading/use, procedures and patterns. And even though that doesn't aleviate the need for proper lessons in RL, I wouldn't say, that it is not benefitial (given you start from scratch and zero knowledge)

Hey, there is a ready Crosswind FFB mod designed by me based on the VPforce Rhino. You can print it yourself (you need to obtain the circuit board and motor from VP) or buy a Kit by @kaltokri. Best source for detailed information is the VP discord ( vpforce.eu - there is the invite link) Cheers.

I know - completely off-topic - but a suggestion to ED ( @BIGNEWY), given the state of art of translation algorithms, wouldn't it be possible to auto-translate a post to english in the main forum (in addition to the original language post). I get the issue with foreign language posts in the main forum, but the problem with the localized ones is that they are comparably small and less frequented.

That is because you don't seem to know how heuristic virus detection actually works and why therefore false positives are a very common occurrence. Actually, the very poor success rate and the fact that false positives vastly outweigh actual true positive detections, makes consumer class AVs more of threat than actual viruses. Which in most cases enter the system by poor user behavior like opening links in unsolicited emails or plugging in alien USB-devices. AVs just give a wrong sense of security which can lead to lower guards on the user side. IF you happen to run in a DCS-related virus by downloading some corrupted files ,that is most likely when using some unofficial mods downloaded from some fishy source (aka not directly from the developer). So, don't do that and you're reasonable safe with excluding DCS-Folders from the AV-scanner. (And I would also recommend turning of real-time protection whilst playing for better performance and loading times)

Das ist momentan nur eine These. Sonst nichts. Auja, bitte! Fände ich persönlich tausendmal interessanter als F-35 oder Eurofighter......

Das ist ja genau mein Punkt. Welche Türe, die nicht ohnehin schon lange offen ist, wird denn hier geöffnet? Ich sage nur Apache oder Eurofighter.....selbst Viper..... Ich glaube, dass viele dem Trugschluss unterliegen, dass "so realistisch wie möglich" bzw. "die realistischste Consumer-Flightsim" gleichbedeutend ist mit "entspricht zu 100% dem Original". Ich denke, dass ist es nicht und war es auch nie. ...und selbst mit einer F-35 ist der Unterschied zwischen Warthunder und DCS noch ungefähr so groß wie der zwischen Wing Commander und Falcon 3.0.....

Nunja, zwischen den zwei diskreten Zuständen "100% realistisch" (was DCS sowieso nie war) und "Arcade" gibt es ja ein breites Spektrum. Die verschiedenen Muster in DCS enthielten schon immer einen variablen Grad an "educated guesswork". Und wir Hobby-Piloten können in den allermeisten Fällen sowieso nicht beurteilen, ob ein spezifisches Modell eher ~75% oder ~85% realistisch ist. Ist wohl anzunehmen, dass die F-35 einen sehr hohen Anteil an "Schätzwerten" enthält und sich damit ganz am Rand des Spektrums einsortiert - aber was soll's? Nimmt den anderen Flugzeugen ja nichts. Die Einzigen, für die das ein echtes Problem sein könnte, sind die "Air-Quake"-Spieler - und die sind wohl eine ziemliche Minderheit. (Mal abgesehen, dass die mit Realität sowieso nichts am Hut haben). Und Server-Betreiber, können die F-35 ja bei Bedarf auch ausklammern. Man schaue sich auch die Beliebtheit der diversen Mods an (einschließlich F-22), die sehr wahrscheinlich noch wesentlich mehr Guesswork enthalten. Dazu kommt, dass der gegenwärtige "Aufschrei" meines Erachtens ebenso beim Eurofighter hätte erfolgen müssen. Oder glaubt jemand, dass der zu 100% de-classified ist? Ich würde da einfach mal abwarten und Tee trinken und nicht bei jeder Neuerung/Veränderung gleich den nahenden Untergang befürchten.

I‘ll have a look. But I was more referring to the time it takes to “git gud”. Especially in steampunky aircraft like the Phantom. Not so much about the length of individual missons. But I feel I’m distracting from the actual topic. So enough of my personal shortcomings! Bottomline: The amount and quality of stuff you put into your campaigns is just awesome!

That’s the one I’ve progressed the furthest so far, indeed.

“(and time)” was the keyword…. Usually Professionals don’t have a second side (main) profession. But I wasn’t criticising in the slightest. Quite the opposite. I admire Reflected and will keep buying his stuff (even though I haven’t finished any). But I will probably need to retire before I actually accomplish any campaign.

Agreed. Absolutely. But what you personally find intuitive is based on your experiences and learnings. Might be different from one individual to another. Given, some things are generally more intuitive than others. But those, I would assume, are the ones that are somewhat more relatable from a evolutionary pov. Others like complex machinery or theoretical physics..... you get my point. Regarding the initial topic. I think most of us westerners can't deny that we are much more imprinted by western artificial hrizons from the very beginning (MSFS 1.0 and onwards )

What you are used to applies to EVERYTHING. Did you know, that when you wear prism glasses that flip the world upside down, that your brain will adjust in a couple of hours/days and will flip the world right side up again for you? In stress situations your lizard brain will always revert to automatisms based on what you are used too. Using a western style arificial horizon is learned, like everything else. It may be more intuitive to you, but it isn't inherently better. Your argument could easily be turned around in favor of the eastern style instrument. Let me try to open a different perspective. As evident by countless accident reports. The "intuition" of what your inner ear is telling you about where gravity/acceleration is pointing always tops instrument reading. That is why pilots are relentlessly trained to rely on instruments when they don't have a clear visual outside reference. Because your feelings are intuitive, instruments are never.

What he said. I think DCS is slowly outgrowing your hardware specs, which probably was manageable with low settings - but with your resolution upgrade you probably gave it the death blow. You can still use lower rendering resolution in DCS than your native hardware's.

Guns only, top contenders of the current lineup are probably the F-18 and Mirage 2000. Taking Mods into account, the Eurofighter and the F-22. The latter outmatching the Viper clearly. Not claiming that this is the complete list - just what comes to my mind. Mig 29 and Su-27 will also stand a chance of course. It'll always depend on who is able to force his game on the opponent.

I will probably get the campaign and then never accomplish even the first mission. Wouldn't be the first..... Let's say my ambition outweighs my talent...... (and time) ...but either way - mad respect for Reflected and what he accomplishes in DCS.

Die A-4 läuft meines Wissens einwandfrei und ist eines der besten Module überhaupt. Auf jeden Fall bekommt man da fast alles was man braucht um viel Spaß mit DCS zu haben.