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.

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.

Lack of RWR and counter-measures is hardly a problem in some cases. For example, the L-39 Albatros is a great aircraft for COIN and light CAS work in a relatively low-threat environment, both in DCS as in the real world (e.g. Syria). I couldn't quickly find much related to combat employment of the PC-9 but the PC-7 was apparently used quite extensively for COIN and CAS tasks. The PC-9 is fitted with hard points so at least putting some iron bombs, unguided rockets and perhaps gun pods and even countermeasures pods would be possible. For example the Swiss Air Force have mounted the Ericson Vista 5 jammer pod: https://www.aironline.nl/weblog/2020/02/23/de-pilatus-pc-9-in-dienst-bij-de-swiss-air-force/ While I'll still probably buy the PC-9 even without weapons, it would be a lot more fun and useful if the module would have the possibility.

Judging by your nickname: www.aviationmegastore.com They also have a rather amazing physical store near Schiphol airport. And, yes, I do collect models of DCS aircraft but mine are still plastic, in 1/72 scale. But since I lack the time to properly finish them etc., I have been thinking about metal models instead. However some of my favourite models are difficult to find in metal.

A few alternatives have been mentioned: - Steam. In my opinion (but it's up to ED in the end) THIS is the DCS forum. Steam is a place were games of all kinds are sold - YouTube. Again, in my opinion, this is a rather "elitist" platform where you get reviews from people who want to dedicate a lot of time on this review. As such, you also get reviews from people who put really serious amounts of time in their modules. But I think DCS also has a fair amount of casual gamers (like myself) who pick up a module to get some basic proficiency in but not much more. For me, DCS is about the joys of flying from the comfort of your home and possibly shoot at some stuff while you are at it. I therefore generally do not favour the systems heavy modules because for me, they take too long to learn, and are too easy to un-learn. I mean, I can spend a weekend going through the F-16 training missions or diving into the Viggen's flight computer, and I will enjoy myself in the process, but the next weekend I will have forgotten much about it. - Reading through module sub-sections. Sure, this is very useful. However what I generally notice, especially when it comes to new modules, are the many posts critizising some aspects of the flight model or other details. Such discussions, while being useful for the dev team and up to a point also interesting for potential module buyers, I think they can also discourage people looking to buy the module, or even turn them off DCS completely. If you read the forums, sometimes you come to the conclusion that all flight models are completely wrong and the AI is more stupid then it was back on the Commodore 64. Which is of course not the case. Despite it's many opportunities for improvement, it is, in my opinion, by far the best simulation in the history of flight simulation, and it's constantly improving on itself. I agree with this. I would add that the state of module (Early Access or not) and DCS version should be mentioned. And a few words about the limitations of the Early Access state of the module. Which features etc. are missing in the EA state depends a lot. Some modules are 99.99% feature complete but remain in EA state for a long time. E.g. the M2K was a good example, although it is now in Release state, but e.g. Viggen is still in EA, for whatever reason. Challenging reviews (if people feel it's necessary) can be done sending a private message, or, in the worst case, involving a moderator. Or by opening a new topic if it concerns specific topics which could be discussed.

I don't really understand where this is coming from. I think many of the discussions here are of quite a high quality, I don't see why reviews would be different. Of course it will contain opinion, but I fail to see why the opinion of someone here on the forum would be less valuable than the opinion of a guy who happens to make YouTube video's. If you are looking for them, they are here on the various module-specific forums as well. But I though it might be a nice idea to combine them somewhere in a place where they can easily be found. Also, the module-specific forums can be a bit negative, with a lot of debate about the accuracy of flight models and/or certain systems. While these discussions are valuable, they may be less valuable to new DCS users. Finally, many users don't use Steam. Including myself.