Zius

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.

Of course there is. Better AI = more enjoyable single player experience = more players. Bad AI, that is, AI which does inexplicable things like not dropping bombs when supposed to, or AI which dogfights so poorly that it doesn't pose a challenge, does hurt DCS. Not everybody wants to join multiplayer servers. And also those have their limitations. In an ideal world, AI opponents should be indistinguishable from human opponents. If that were to happen, this would be a great asset to any combat flight sim.

I quite like the map. It's not without issues but it's a really nice change of scenery. Most of the time, in my experience so far, the map is reasonably accurate to the point that you can navigate VFR using a satellite map on your tablet. Which does not mean that it's without problems, some details are missing etc. But still, it's a great scenery to explore. In particular, taking off from Ushuaia and landing at Puerto Williams is a lot of fun. As is canyon flying in Torres del Paine. Whether or not you should buy it, is up to you. Personally I prefer to spend money on scenery rather than on yet another aircraft.

And apparently the law doesn't apply to helicopters. Anything up to and including MiG-29A is completely "open source" at this point, except *maybe* (but I don't think so) some weapons / sensor systems. You can even buy a MiG-29A on the internet if you are so inclined (and have some place to put it). The same applies for any MiG-23 / 27 variant.

Yeah, I meant 17PF and 19P. I read somewhere (some non-authorative source) that the radar in both were the same (RP-1) but I may well be wrong. In any case I assume that they are mostly similar though and equally mostly useless (though technically interesting), except, maybe, for bomber interception. Which in itself is problematic since we are missing period bombers (B-29 etc.) except the B-52 (in a wrong version). The technically interesting part is sufficiently covered by the MiG-19P for those interested in early Soviet radars. But since you have the MiG-19, how often do you use the radar? Do you find it interesting or useful? Or, are you, like me, just somewhat disappointed in the MiG-19P's flight characteristics?

Sorry, but I disagree. The MiG-17F might be the best dogfighter in DCS. The PF will be overweight and with a mostly useless radar. I also think that Razbam made the wrong choice with their choice of MiG-19P model, they should have gone for a version without radar, like MiG-19S. Do you have the MiG-19? I think the radar of the MiG-19P is the same RP-1 Izumrud as in the MiG-19PF. Would appreciate to hear your opinion on it.

I am also really excited about this! Immediate buy as far as I'm concerned. I love the MiG-15 and the MiG-17 fixes one of it's shortcomings: lack of engine power, especially when engaging more modern aircraft. The MiG-17F will probably be the best gun dogfighter in DCS. I wonder how the MiG-17F module will compare to the MiG-15bis when it comes to gunnery stability. It is something I struggle with a bit in the MiG-15.