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.

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.

It might be copyright or intellectual property. For example, system drawings for a commercial passenger aircraft may not be classified but they are definitely intellectual property, and, as such, should not be distributed on a forum like this, where ED could be held liable for content posted here. Important disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer either.

For some reason, there is no module review section on these forums. Anybody know why that is? It seems to me, that, with the ever increasing amount of modules, new users must have difficulty chosing. For sure you can look at reviews on YouTube but there are only a rather limited amount of people making those.

MiG-29A! I keep hoping... And it was in the 2023 video...

Lots of people here complaining about AI MiG-15, but I think the MiG-15 is simply a great dogfighter. As long as you manage to keep your speed up, which is not that easy, you can win a guns-only dogfight against any opponent. Once you lose energy, you are finished. The 2 × 23 mm and 1 × 37 mm cannons are brutal. One hit of the 37mm is enough for an enemy fighter. Problem is slow projectiles and small amount of rounds. But if you become compentent with gunnery in this thing, it's a beast. However, the reason why the F-16 is a better fighter is that the likelyhood of getting in a guns-only dogfight nowadays is pretty small. And the MiG-15 has zero answers against missiles. Lots of people here complaining about AI MiG-15, but I think the MiG-15 is simply a great dogfighter. As long as you manage to keep your speed up, which is not that easy, you can win a guns-only dogfight against any opponent. Once you lose energy, you are finished. The 2 × 23 mm and 1 × 37 mm cannons are brutal. One hit of the 37mm is enough for an enemy fighter. Problem is slow projectiles and small amount of rounds. But if you become compentent with gunnery in this thing, it's a beast. However, the reason why the F-16 is a better fighter is that the likelyhood of getting in a guns-only dogfight nowadays is pretty small. And the MiG-15 has zero answers against missiles.

Thanks! That's the kind of answer I am looking for. Thanks the other who replied and/or voted as well, of course. Opinions seem to vary quite a bit, but in the poll the F-16 is clearly ahead. Thanks for the comments! I have looked at Chuck's Guides, but the one for the F-16 is (IIRC) over 738 pages.... which I found "a bit" overwhelming at first glance for a "simplified" guide... I mean, it's not a flight manual... F-16 => 738 pages JF-17 => 488 F/A-18 => 712 Mirage 2000 => 335 L-39ZA Albatros => 87 (!!!) and that's the ZA version!!! That's what I call manageable This kind of comparison is hardly fair, I know. But still...

Looking at them is not the same as flying them! But, yeah, the F-16 in 322 Sqn colours does have a special appeal...