Zius

My point was actually: I trust(ed) ED and third party devs to bring simulations which are as accurate as possible. With aircraft which can be openly studied in museums, workshops, books, manuals etc., I have no doubt and I don't feel the need of verifying every detail myself (if I could). With the proposed F-35, I am feel that I am losing this thrust, namely that ED is dedicated to providing the best possible simulation. And that is a very unpleasant feeling. And probably also why some people (including myself) are reacting perhaps too emotional.

That is a rather broad and simplistic way of looking at things. Simulators (including commercially available simulators) have clearly proven their worth in training of real pilots by now. Key to that is realism, which is never 100% but which certainly can be good enough to be valuable. Entertainment is something else completely and has nothing to do with realism, but only with having fun. Sorry but I do have difficulty believing that without evidence. Where on the other hand I don't feel the need for evidence of the inner workings of the F-5 or L-39.

From the F-35 FAQ: From Home > Products > Digital Combat Simulator World: There is a discrepancy here, namely between "study-level flight simulation game for the entertainment" and "most authentic and realistic simulation". The first sounds like an arcade game, since "study-level" could mean different things, but "game" and "entertainment" are pretty clear words. The second sounds like hardcore simulation, which is what DCS was and what I am here for. So in my opinion, DCS is making a huge mistake here. And it's not a matter of "if you don't like it, then don't buy it" either. Introducing stuff which *has* for a large part depend on educated guesses, goes against the philopsophy of DCS and cheapens the entire product.

I agree with what others have said about the dangers of reducing documentation requirements. So far, DCS was able to teach the player stuff about the real aircraft. And while I am sure there might be some simplifications or some guesses on some particular compontents, overall, my expectation is that an aircraft in DCS should model the real aircraft, if not 100% then at least 99%. It's clear that for the F-35 this is not achievable. I was already suprised (and a bit skeptical) about the Eurofighter coming to DCS and about the JF-17 as well, but the F-35 is really the next step. To those who are saying that everybody is free to buy the module or not: that's not the point. The point is about being able to trust that DCS will provide an as-accurate-as-possible simulation of the real aircraft. This breaking of trust may also affect other aircraft for which full documentation is actually available.

Actually I did read somewhere that in the Syrian civil war, the Albatros was a much favoured plane for COIN missions. And that is also what I use it for in DCS, besides free flight and aerobatics. Sometimes in the real world, high capabilities are not required or even desirable (see the USAF quest to replace the A-10 as an example). I do think that some gifted scenario builder (not me) could make an interesting campaign about COIN work in Syria. The ooomph is indeed obviously a problem. Although the MB-339 does deliver that in a way. And you are right, cold war fighters are of course great as well. But complexity quickly goes up. Maybe not so much for the MiG-21 but certainly for e.g. the Viggen or the Mirage F1.

Disclaimer up front: I am a long time fan of the L-39 Albatros. Unfortunately I can't spend as much time on DCS as I would like and I keep forgetting the correct procedures in the more complicated aircraft. Which makes the trainers ideal for me: you can do all kinds of missions with them (although less nicely as with more capable planes) without making things overly complicated. The Albatros has somewhat complicated weapons handling (especially the ZA, I need to figure it out and/or read the manual every time again...) but the rest is quite easy. And most importantly I think the Albatros is simply a joy to fly. Not as lifeless and digital as the F-16 and the other FBW planes but it makes you work for it. Not too much work, but (for me) the right amount. It punishes stupid flying, but not too much that it's unrecoverable. Then the C101 came. I bought it, and although it's a nice module, it does not feel as nimble as "my" Albatros. Especially once you put some weapons on her. On the other hand, the ergonomics, especially with regards to the weapons, are (in my opinon) better than in the Albatros. Overall it didn't grab me in the same way as the Albatros did. Now I have (finally) bought the MB-339. And to my surprise, it feels almost too good. It's extremely easy to fly, less quirky than either the Albatros or the C101. It's also a bit faster and climbs a bit better. Also the ergonomics are excellent. I was able to fly under the highway overpasses in Dubai on my second attempt. I was able to use all the weapons without reading one line of the manual. Perhaps it's too easy, but on the other hand, uncomplicated flying *was* the goal. Overall I am not sure the MB-339 will replace the Albatros as my favourite. But it might. I wonder what your thoughts on are on this topic.

Thanks for that. The fact that it is available with 16GB VRAM for a somewhat reasonable price was actually the reason why I was thinking about the 4060. If one wants 16GB VRAM, then the 4070 series become very expensive. Where I live, the 7800XT goes for approx. E540 to approx. E600, with 16GB VRAM. The 4070 series start with a 4070 with 12GB for approx. E585, which makes it kind of the same price range, but then with less VRAM. If you want 4070 series with 16GB, then you end up with a 4070 Ti Super starting at approx. E880, which is too much in my opinion. So that makes the question: 4070 12GB vs. 7800GT but I think I already got my answer. The concern is not energy price, but more about introducing too much heat into the system.

Yeah, that's fair enough. Just saying that DCS is not that extremely demanding when it comes to hardware. Regarding VRAM, Speccy says Physical Memory 2047 MB. Not entirely sure.

I'm also thinking about upgrading my graphics card, but have a slightly different dilemma, namely: 4060Ti vs. 7800XT Both in 16GB version, since apparently, DCS likes more VRAM. The way I see it, the 7800XT is a bit faster but also less energy efficient. It's also about E100 more expensive. I'm leaning towards 4060Ti due to energy efficiency. My budget is not extremely firm but I do think E600 should be more than enough, and anything near E1000 is definitely way too much. Any considerations, since people here seem to like AMD? I'm not doing VR, nor am I planning to do VR in the foreseeable future.

I happen to have a GTX 1660 Super (2GB), as a remnant of my previous home-built micro-ATX system (which I have since replaced with a midi tower and ATX motherboard). I have to say, DCS runs fine with this card, and with most of the settings on "high". I use a single 1920x1080 monitor. The GTX1650 is a bit slower but not *that* much and I think it should perform reasonably fine.

Question: will the Temple Mount ever be accurately implemented in this map? Or is it decided not to ever implement it for religious sensitivities? I could understand either way but I would like to know what it will be.

Of the simple jets I prefer the MiG-15 over all others. Keep the energy up (which is not really simple but also not really difficult) and it's a fantastic aircraft. Shooting it's incredibly powerful but low velocity cannons is an experience in itself: it's not easy to hit something, but even bombers will disintegrate after a few hits. Although for sight seeing / general aviation, and light air-to-ground work, I prefer the Albatros over anything. It's only downside is that it's slow, and to me, it's weapons controls are a bit counter-intuitive.

I think it makes sense. You take the airframe you have and try to fit them with the best weapons you can get. As I understand it, the missiles are largely "stand alone". The seeker is in the missile, it just needs to provide seeker growl and lock tone to the pilot/aircraft and respond to the launch command given by the pilot pressing the button. Possibly the different missiles have different interfaces but it seems not extremely complicated to make it work.

We need a Bleriot XI and an Ettrich Taube and then we can recreate the Italo-Turkish War. The first ever combat use of aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Turkish_War

A lot of extra people would not be required in my opinion. But putting some people (civilians who should not be harmed) around a target would make a mission more interesting, more complicated and more realistic.