Zius

:lol::lol::lol:

Do you mean this one? Very generous offer! Thanks for that, on behalf of the community! Do you have any limitations to shipping? Because international could become expensive due to the weight and volume. I already have a Warthog though, so I'm good.

My suggestion would also be to start with a trainer. The Yak-52 is probably the easiest to start with, and the Albatros and the C-101 being just slightly more complicated. The advantage of the Albatros and the C-101 is that they are also quite capable, if somewhat limited, ground attack aircraft or even fighters. This means that you can stick with one aircraft for a variety of missions, from practicing take-off and landing, through aerobatics, to weapons practice and finally real combat. This is also their disadvantage, since these weapon systems do add additional complexity. The Yak is easier in that respect. I do think that the Yak benefits a lot from having rudder pedals, which is not absolutely required on the jets, incl. the Albatros and C-101. Between the Albatros and C-101, I find the cockpit of the C-101 easier to use. When I first flew it, I could figure out how to do most things, including launching weapons, without even looking in the manual. The Albatros is a bit more complicated, especially the weapons systems. But for me as a European, the big disadvantage of NATO aircraft, including the C-101, is the @##$%^@# Imperial system with feet and knots instead of the Albatros' metric system. You will get used to it, but even though I have a Maritime background and am used to knots as a measure for a ship's speed, I have real difficulty dealing with it as aircraft speed. Km/h is just much easier to feel and understand for me. And don't be put off by the Russian language cockpit, because it's very easy to switch to an English languange cockpit/ With regards to clickable cockpits, it is often thought that full fidelity modules are somehow more complicated to operate than FC3 modules. My opinion is the complete opposite. In a clickable cockpit you can just look around you for the correct button to push, instead of having to memorize buttons on the keyboard or joystick. Initially it's a good idea to hit the pauze button, but you'll soon learn where the important buttons are. You *may* eventually want to program certain buttons on your stick or throttle, but all that I have programmed on my Thrustmaster Warthog is usually just the view controls and the trigger button.

There are also anti war movies, which can still make you enthousiastic about the military. Maybe more so because of a sense of gritty realism. Das Boot and Full Metal Jacket are excellent examples. Both are (I think) considered anti-war, but are also very popular in military (and wannabe military) circles. It's a complicated subject... :music_whistling: Regarding this trailer, I think it looks great and I would really like to see the full movie, preferably with English subtitles.

If you understand how it works, then why post it anyway? :megalol: Back to topic, even with a highly manoeverable missile, it still needs a turn circle and it needs to change it's vector from (aircraft speed) to 0 deg. (forward) to (missile speed) 180deg (backwards). These things take time, so the bandit most likely have the time to fire it's own missile, no matter how outdated, or use it's guns. And if the bandit has the common sense to switch off his radar, your missile still wouldn't have any guidance as it was mentioned that the missile would guided by RWR before acquiring the target in the missile gimbal (which is still only the forward hemisphere). So in my opinion, maybe it's possible but it's not in any way practical. Although I guess it could be nice to have the possibility in some circumstances.

Try flying the Viggen at tree-top level through the Caucasus! :thumbup:

Interestingly, almost the entire Abkhazian Air Force is flyable in DCS... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazian_Air_Force The advantage is, that as an Abkhazian pilot, you don't have to worry about your wingman! :thumbup: (you are most likely flying alone... :music_whistling:)

Thanks Silver Dragon, that's it! :thumbup: I even found a model kit for it: https://www.sharkit.com/sharkit/L-133/L-133.htm Cool looking aircraft in any case!

No, it's not a X-29. The story takes place in 1947 and the other German (experimental / proposed IRL) aircraft portrayed are done quite "historically correct", as far as possible. So I assume that the unknown American aircraft was also in the conceptual or experimental stage by 1947.

Attached is the cover of a French comic called "Wunderwaffen" which explores an alternate reality where the allies failed at D-Day and WW2 went on beyond 1946. It's an interesting comic where most of the German experimental aircraft are featured. The other aircraft on this cover are Focke-Wulf Super Lorin, but I don't know the American aircraft.

The F-15 had it's first flight in 1972. The P-51 in comparison in 1940. Imagine somebody proposing buying an upgraded P-51 (as the best American fighter of it's generation) with the avionics and weapons in 1986... I agree with you regarding stealth and V/STOL, but it's not like the world stood still since 1972 and the only advances made were due to sensors and weapons. For instance the Su-27, especially advanced variants with thrust-vectoring is simply a better airframe. As for the "failure" of the F-22, it's certainly capable, but still cancelled after a quite short and small production run, like Emu explained. But regarding the F-15 vs. P-51 comparison, it may sound ridiculous, but it shows the extremely slow evolution of aircraft, especially since the end of the Cold War removed much of the need for advanced fighters, since the apparent enemies were either small third world countries or terrorists who could not mount any serious opposition beyond MANPADS.

Ordered! :thumbup:

This is exactly the philosophy that Western European countries are following, but in my opinion it's very dangerous. Just look at the development speed of Chinese aircraft and other weapons. Their exact capabilities may still be unclear, but only approx. 20 years ago the PLAAF was still operating MiG-17 copies... Now they are building 5th generation fighters and I think that soon they'll be in the lead with regards to fighter technologies. Just as they are taking over the smartphone market, maybe not entirey coincidentally... But yes, with a fleet of F-15's, modernised or not, you can still take out Iran, probably. So if that is the goal, then yes. On the other hand you see that European countries don't have an answer to Russian threats, for instance. Now everybody is slowly waking up, but budgetary compromises need to be made, as usual... Just like in the 1930's... :doh: Edit: sorry if this post is seen as political, it's not my intention. However topics such as this need to take into account the geopolitical situation.

Thanks NineLine! Any ideas about a possibile / rough ETA yet? I know that everything is subject to change ;) but it would be nice to know whether it's approx. 1 year, 2 years or 5 years...

I think there are two ways of looking at a combat aircraft: 1) A platform for carrying sensors and weapons. 2) An integral concept (an "aircraft") which happens to have sensors and weapons. I think that 1) is a very common approach, even among decision makers either in the armed forces or in politics. I also think that it wrong and it was proven wrong e.g. in Vietnam. However in this case, the USA failed to produce an affordable modern heavy fighter (if we consider the F-22 a failure, which it kind of is), but instead only produces a modern "light" fighter, the F-35 JSF. There remains a demand for a heavy fighter, but there is no aircraft available, so they continue with something that is, in my opinion, just as outdated as a MiG-21 Lancer or Bison, which is exactly the same concept as this F-15X. Except that, without disrespect meant, the upgraded MiG-21 versions are flown by countries which have much smaller defence budgets than the USA has.

Good point, but.... Is it possible to ever completely a module in DCS? :huh:

Because I'm lazy I'm quoting Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-39_Albatros#Specifications_(L-39C) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASA_C-101#Specifications_(CASA_C-101EB) L39C: Empty weight 3,455 kg (7,617 lb) Thrust 16.87 kN (3,792 lbf) C101EB: Empty weight 3,800 kg (8,380 lb) Thrust 15.8 kN (3,550 lbf) So, yeah, the L39C has lower weigth and more thrust... I bought the C-101 yesterday, and I think it's great. Even more easy to fly and operate than the Albatros! :thumbup:

As I said before, I'd also really like a dynamic campaign and some more gameplay / roleplaying in DCS, kind of like in Falcon 3.0 in the good old days... But: - Implementing these things would not bring additional money to ED because of the business model. Players, old and new, pay money for modules, not for the game itself. So it makes more sense to develop modules / maps in which the existing user base may be interested rather than improve the core engine. Expanding into General Aviation for instance may increase the user base dramatically, while such modules could also sell reasonably well among the existing users. - ED always made games like DCS is at the moment. The original Flanker (1996) was in many things quite similar: great flight model, deep system modelling, maximum realism, extensive mission editor. It's interesting to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-27_Flanker_(video_game) because many of the comments the press made about Flanker, can be directly applied to DCS as well. Finally, when we return to the topic of focus, if I had to chose between Falcon 3.0 gameplay and Flanker 1.0 realism, I would go for the Flanker. So, yes, for me, DCS does have the right focus.

Really interesting. Especially since the survey was obviously conducted among a FSX audience. Looks like DCS is gaining momentum! :thumbup:

Define useless... Playing around on a computer is not the most useful thing to do in the first place. At least, that's what my wife says! :music_whistling: Besides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172#Military_operators My reasons why I would like a Cessna 172 in DCS: - DCS is my go-to simulation platform because for "just flying" it's so much better than FSX - The Cessna 172 is the most produced aircraft in history - It's interesting to fly something that you may have a hope to fly for real one day - There are actually interesting combat missions one can think of, like transporting a package to an airfield across the border - There are apparently even armed versions: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134677&page=8

I don't have the Sabre (yet) but the MiG-15 is fantastic! One or two hits with 37mm cannon are enough to blow up a B-17! :thumbup:

Personally speaking, DCS: Cessna 172 would be in instant buy for me. DCS: Boeing 737 on the other is something I *might* pick up in sale. Or not. Flying those big things just isn't really for me. As for ATC and other objections, I think that it's a chicken and egg discussion. Without civil simulation focus (and customer base) in DCS, this will probably never happen, but on the other hand, maybe they are not here because somethings are still missing. On the other hand, I think that flying a plane like the 172 in DCS can also be very enjoyable and educational even without accurate ATC etc. Just look at the Yak-52, which is great in my opinion.

Although more planes and more maps are great, the only thing I'm really missing is a dynamic campaign and possibly some way of roleplaying. Kind of like Falcon 3.0 used to be: create a squadron with yourself as commander, plan missions and affect the course of a war with your squadrons efforts. DCS is a fantastic simulator but it's kind of missing the game aspect. BUT! Adding Falcon 3.0 style gameplay would not bring any additional money to ED. It might bring additional players, but I think most dedicated military simulation enthousiasts are already here while more casual gamers are playing more casual games (duh). On the other hand focussing more on (aspects of) civil simulation would bring new players and new money.

It could well be. And ED was right about Crimea (in the Flanker series)... :noexpression: Unfortunately (?) Fulda doesn't have oil... :music_whistling:

I more or less agree, but I find the MiG-15 and L-39 very satisfying aircraft since they are great to fly. Modern FBW aircraft on the other hand I find kind of boring. The MiG-21 and Viggen are great, but also actively trying to kill you. Hence, I would personally recommend either the MiG-15 or the L-39 as a first module, and of those two, the latter gets my vote as it is more versatile. I kind of agree with this, on the other hand, you may also be disappointed. Good looks or interesting service history do not always equal great pilot's aircraft.