Zius

I agree with this. You *could* think about a great deal of "optional" sub-systems, which could be paid for. For example, a R-73 + HMS. It would, in fact, be awesome for the MiG-21. And possibly also for the Albatros. I would, in fact, also be willing to pay money for it. But, this does make life a lot more complicated, especially since the possibilities are near endless. But then we'll end up with a huge amount of modules and sub-modules, which, besides making the total quite expensive, also makes everything very complex. Finally, regarding costs, yes, we do get a lot of updates and new content for "free", but don't forget that the cost of a single aircraft here is similar to the price of a full AAA game. If, for instance, the R-73 + HMS would not be a separate module, but instead a free upgrade to the MiG-21, this would possibly draw new people to that aircraft. Same for the NS430, this could draw in people who are afraid of the standard navigation system of the Mi-8 / Albatros.

Although I don't see the reason to use any big words, I have to say that I was also under the impression that the NS430 would be offered to other modules for free. Maybe I was wrong or misinterpreted something, that happens. As to how this makes me feel, on one hand, the price I would have to pay for integrating it into my Albatros is negligable. On the other hand, I have paid really good money in total for the various modules that I have (incl. the Mi-8 and NS430), and having to pay something (no matter how small an amount) again to put something I already own into another module that I also own does leave a slightly bitter taste in my mouth. Not to mention that it's quite confusing... All in all I think it's bad PR at least. It makes something positive into something that can be perceived as negative. On the other hand, we will probably get over it. *shrug*

Ok, so I did get both. And the NS 430 system... :music_whistling: I'll let you know what I think when I get some time playing with both. :thumbup: :pilotfly:

I get the feeling that this will be the conclusion.... Thanks for all the opinions so far! :thumbup:

I presently have the Ka-50 and the Gazelle, but have difficulty coming to grips with both of them. The Ka-50 is fairly easy to fly, but the systems are too complicated for my taste. The Gazelle has quite simple systems, but very, very twitchy... Which lead me to lose control and crash. So, with the sale going on, I thought of getting either the Mi-8 or the Huey. I have read Chuck's guides on both, as well as watched some videos on Youtube. The Mi-8 appeals to me a tiny bit more, but I am quite scared of all those switches and systems. The Huey seems to be easier in that respect, but more sensitive when it comes to flying.

In 2050, all aircraft (included simulated ones) are flown by AI. We humans are safely plugged into the matrix. Maybe we will dream of flying a simulator... ;)

Looking forward to it!

The MiG-15's greatest strength is rate of climb, which is generally significantly better than the Sabre. So you are usually able to escape by climbing away. My problem is that I suck at gunnery... Which is also historically a flaw of the MiG-15 apparently. But the advantage is that one 37mm round is usually enough for a kill. :thumbup:

Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me... I have a Warthog hotas, but I just put them on my (normal size) desk for use and put them back in the cupboard afterwards, no need for a purpose built pit. Although it would be cool obviously... Weak point is (apparently) the gimbal. All internals are basically plastic, not metal. So if you are worried about that, I guess you could open them up for inspection (discoloration, small cracks etc). I'm not sure if that won't void the warranty though. But I would recommend to keep using it thoroughly while you still have the six month warranty. There is no point to keep it in the box until the warranty expires...

Cool! It reminded me of this Antoinette VII:

The Albatros is one of my favourite aircraft. It's simple and really a joy to fly and practice whatever you like. As a combat aircraft, I would like to point out that most successful COIN aircraft are a lot like the Albatros: - Small - Light - Slow - Dual seat Think about it: Super Tucano, Strikemaster, Bronco etc. etc. all the same recipe. The A-10 and the Su-25 are without doubt also great, but probably a bit too big and heavy for a real COIN aircraft and more suitable for tank killing etc.

When I was a kid, I used to play F-14 Tomcat on the Commodore 64 with my dad. One of us would fly, the other one would control the keyboard. I recently told him that after 30 years, we are finally going to have a proper simulation of the Tomcat soon! :thumbup: Here's a video of the C64 version, but it doesn't show the sim part unfortunately: And this is DOS version, which was brought out later and looked better:

I happen to think that learning the quirks and complexities of a specific aircraft is what makes DSC great and stand out among other sims, especially in relation with the combat aspects. Despite their shortcomings, both the Mig-29A and Su-27A are still great planes in their own right. And of course the MiG-29 (and Su-27) also serves in countries where I doubt there is any efficient GCI system in place. That said, yes, we do need GCI. Fortunately it's not only Russian customers who are interested in Russian planes. :)

I'm not sure at all if that represents the general DCS player. That sounds more like World of Warplanes etc. Except for "modern". I would have thought that if ED's goal would have been maximising sales, it may have been better to stick with FC3 but add more theaters and a dynamic campaign. Then you'd end up with Falcon 3.0 Gold +++. This is still one of my all-time favourites, so that would not have been bad. Also, if there would have been no DCS, we might not have known what we were missing. ;) Also this I disagree on. Actually I think that for Blue, the only top of the wishlist aircraft is maybe the A-10 (although I wouldn't call it "top of the wishlist myself as it is a rather limited aircraft and not as sexy as a fighter). The F-18, F-14 are coming up, but the F-15 and F-16 are still missing, let alone the F-22 and F-35. The latter two for obvious reasons, and I can also see the reasons why the F-15 and F-16 are still missing, but still. Also popular European aircraft are still missing (Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, Mirage F1, Mirage III, Tornado). This I fully agree on. But we are getting off-topic here. ;)

I don't have the sales number for each module obviously (let alone the profit), but I did make a list of forum popularity (ranked by total no. of posts). I didn't take the devs main forum into consideration, but for devs with only one module, one can imagine many of those posts are actually about the module, just in the wrong forum. So the actual posts regarding a module may be more. I also only counted the English forums. Module / Threads / Posts DCS: A-10C Warthog 15,891 186,080 DCS: Ka-50 Black Shark 10,261 127,391 DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3 3,353 48,623 Mirage 2000 2,945 47,710 MiG-21Bis 2,637 35,621 DCS: P-51D Mustang 2,075 31,267 DCS: UH-1H Huey 2,328 26,330 DCS: AJS37 Viggen 1,340 18,603 DCS: Hawk 869 16,728 AV-8B N/A 1,112 14,802 DCS: Mi-8MTV2 Magnificent Eight 1,254 14,134 DCS: Bf 109 K-4 Kurfürst 695 13,742 DCS: F-14A & B 391 13,479 SA-342M Gazelle 839 13,125 DCS: F-5E Tiger II 931 11,273 DCS: Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX 617 11,147 DCS: Fw 190 D-9 Dora 562 10,541 DCS: F/A-18C Hornet 221 9,826 DCS: F-86F Sabre 999 9,658 C-101 Aviojet 282 5,312 DCS: L-39 Albatros 626 4,806 DCS: MiG-15bis 362 2,963 BO-105 PAH1A1 40 1,836 Curtiss P-40F 28 1,548 DCS: Yak-52 6 104 What I see is that the older modules A-10C and Ka-50 are by far the most popular. Besides those, the Mirage 2000 and the MiG-21 are popular, followed by the Mustang and the Huey. So I can't see that American modules are significantly more popular than Soviet modules. What does suprise me is the lack of popularity of the F-5E and the huge popularity of the F-14, even before it's released. Also the DCS version of the Viggen seems very popular compared to it's real world counterpart, which is probably the least produced aircraft in this list. My two favourites, the MiG-15 and the Albatros also seem to be vastly underrated. :( Of course, forum popularity does not equate sales figures or profitability.

Thanks, really interesting! Both the speed of development and production was really amazing in that era, especially compared with the modern age where the bulk of most airforces still consist of 1970's designs (F-16, F-18, F-15, MiG-29, Su-27 etc.) and the total number of fighters even for countries with a decent sized economy is below 100...

Although I fully agree on the general lack of period opponents for the MiG-15, one could argue that the (early version) B-52 is actually a period opponent for the MiG-15 and a quite interesting one at that. Imagine the problems that Soviet air defence had at time of the introduction of the B-52 and similar fast nuclear bombers. Although the MiG-19 and 21 followed quite rapidly, I imagine that the MiG-15 was still the Soviet Unions most numerous fighter/interceptor in the late 1950's. After all it was produced in massive numbers and it would have taken time to replace all of them by newer types. Actually I couldn't find out when the PVO (and VVS) phased out it's last MiG-15's. This information would be interesting to know.

Well, I think the MiG-15's primary target was the B-29, which had a top speed of 357 mph / 570 km/h compared to 650 mph / 1,047 km/h for the B-52H and 1,076 km/h / 669 mph for the MiG-15. So for the MiG it would be hard to catch up with a B-52, which I can imagine, was one of the design criteria for the B-52 (to be hard to intercept). But based on service dates, MiG-15 vs B-52 is a reasonable matchup. Personally I like hunting B-17's with the MiG-15. Maybe not historical, but lots of fun.

That is actually what I'm looking for. But it is still vague. Copyright license for the manufacturer is clear, Mikoyan and/or Sukhoi have to approve. Otherwise you can't use the name, but you could use something close, like MaG-229 or Sa-72. The other part about classified systems is something which would be good to have clarified in detail, so that we know what we might expect. As I said above, with the MiG-29A/G, I can't see the problem.

My bad... It doesn't feel like FBW though for some reason... :music_whistling: I'd still buy the Su-27A even if it's FBW. :lol:

That's the rumor... But there are two questions: 1) Is that rumor even true? 2) What are the exact conditions of this ban? If you consider the Mi-24 and the MiG-29A of the same level of technology, I don't see the problem. The Ka-50 is arguably much more advanced and "secret" than the MiG-29A, or the Su-27A. So the present situation is not logical at all. As for the commercial aspect, I'd buy a full fidelity MiG-29A or Su-27A in a heartbeat, for any reasonable price (say Hornet level). Personally I don't care that much which version of the MiG-29 or Su-27 we could get (as long is it's not FBW. :pilotfly:)

Russia have (or had) deployed A-50 to Syria though.

I agree with this. An official statement from ED would be great. As far as "classification" goes, there are many MiG-29A's in Western museums, in the hands of private "warbird" owners as well as in NATO airforces. So Russia can hardly claim that there is anything still classified about the MiG-29A. More modern MiG-29 variants are another story, let alone aircraft like the MiG-31. But I would be very happy to get a full fidelity MiG-29A. Same story for the MiG-23 or Su-17 / Su-22 or the Su-25. And as has been mentioned above, the Mi-24 is already under development, which can (IMHO) be considered in equivalent position as the MiG-29A So, if classified information cannot be the reason to not develop e.g. a MiG-29A, then what is?

With the recent news about the US launching some kind of strike against the Syrian government and their Russian allies, some (Dutch) journalists seem to think that the S-300 and S-400 SAM systems are a good defense against a large scale Tomahawk attack. Given the low flight profile, I doubt that, unless maybe if the S-300 (or any other longer range SAM) system is deployed right on the coast line and especially if they are somehow able to intercept the missiles when they are in the high-level phase of their flight. Which seems an unlikely mistake in my opinion. I suppose fighters with a good look-down/shoot-down radar are a much better option, especially when coupled to AWACS. Any thoughts (non-political please) on this matter?

If you like that, then I'd recommend the Viggen. :thumbup: