Zius

I have to say that I don't understand much of the discussion here. DCS is a study simulator which tries to simulate an actual aircraft as closely as possible. For this, the Me262 is nearly perfect: it was new technology, it needed careful engine management and flying, it has a lot of flaws that can be explored. DCS is also a sandbox, which means you can pit whatever aircraft you like against each other in any theatre that you like. The MiG-15 happens to be one of my personal favourites, despite lack of a Korea map (not that I miss it) and despite the lack of opponents beside the Sabre. It's irrelevant. You can fly the MiG against B-17 (which could have happened during the 6-Day War, we even have a more or less appropriate theater for that now!), or you can fly it against F-5 (don't know if that ever happened but it's also not unimaginable). Or, if you like less of a challenge, you can fight Mustangs (also could have happened in Korea). It's the same for the Me262. Maybe we don't have a one-on-one opponent. I would definately support the Meteor as well though, but that's not the point. You can still just learn to fly the plane and have fun in other scenario's besides dogfighting against an "equal" opponent. You can at the moment fight B-17 with P-51 escorts, which is historical. You can also try to fight the MiG-15 or the Sabre if you want a challenge. In real life, air combat is also not about fairness. On paper, Desert Storm (or Deny Flight) could have been a somewhat fair fight: huge numbers of 4-th gen fighters vs. smaller but still large numbers of mostly 3-rd gen and some 4-th gen fighters. In reality, the combat was rather one sided, and that's how it was intended! Fair dogfights in multiplayer may be fun, but hardly what sets DCS apart from other sims. DCS should be about simulating combat, not about fair and even matches or (gasp) game balance! As for the discussion Me262 vs. Pacific Theatre, I also don't see the point there. Surely it must be much easier to create one aircraft (even a difficult one) vs. a working carrier, several aircraft, new asset pack, new map etc. But if ED want to do WW2 Pacific first, that's fine, they can decide what they want to work on first. As long as they come back to the Me262 later...

Nice overview! Thanks for compiling it. But is the intention to show only the specific version? Or the general type? For instance, MiG-19 / Shenyang J-6 is still in use, but that's not the MiG-19P we have in DCS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-6 From my side, a smaller table with only the flyable modules would be appreciated as it would be more readable. Also the column width can maybe be narrower for better overview.

Sorry, but that's hardly a fair comparison. The Me262 is just one module, and, given that nearly all the technology is already available in DCS (jet engine, aluminium structure, hydraulic system, electrical system, etc.), it seems not even a very complicated module. WW2 Carrier Ops on the other hand, needs at least one module, a new map, a new working carrier, completely new asset pack including aircraft, naval vessels, hopefully also commercial and traditional vessels, ground units etc. etc. All in all, it's a huge amount of work. Of all modules that seem to be in the pipeline, the Me262 is the one which interests me the most.

My vote for a Su-25T replacement or addition would be the F-5. It's a full fidelity jet, with radar, but at the same time not a contestant for F/A-18, F-16 etc. And it's a jet. But certainly not the best at anything, so there is something that's left to be desired in all directions. At the same time it's an aircraft which is a lot of fun to fly. And it gives a full experience of DCS systems modelling. And it's owned by ED. But at $59.99 list price, I think the vast majority just goes for either F/A-18 or F-16 as their first aircraft, as they are just a bit more expensive and (in the eyes of the general public) a lot more attractive to fly.

I fully realise that this up to ED to decide but: At present we have the following aircraft for free when downloading DCS: - TF-51D - Su-25T I would argue that those are not the best aircraft to lure in people who want to try out DCS to see if it is for them. Personally I think the TF-51D is fine, it's a good example of how a warbird can be modelled in DCS. But the Su-25T does not represent what DCS is capable of at all, and I think it can be disappointment for new players who happen to be not interested in warbirds. My suggestion would be to take one of ED's full fidelity modules, e.g. the F-5, and make that available for free to new players. That way they can fully experience how DCS models jet fighters. And I think that in the end these players will end up buying other modules as well, and although they won't buy the F-5E or whatever module is made available, I think probably more players will stay interested.

MiG-29A!?!?!!! Whoohoo!:pilotfly:

Except that (early / export models of the) Su-27 and MiG-29 are already flown by countries that are allied to any major power and even by private citizens. So the US, China and various European countries have had the chance to take both apart and completely reverse engineer them. All in all, I don't think that argument works anymore.

This is a really good point. As it is, there are still a lot of countries where the MiG-21bis is their supposed "front line fighter". If the addition of the R-73 is relatively easy as Cuba's example seems to show, then it would make sense that other countries could/would also integrate the R-73 when it becomes necessary. I believe that one of the strengths of the MiG-21 in DCS is, that it is usable for many scenario's, including Cold War but also assymetric combat, in different time periods, from the late 1960's to "modern day" 2020, with appropriate weapons and opponents. I have no evidence but I would think that Syrian MiG-21bis with R-73 could be possible and then air combat scenario's between Syrian MiG-21bis and Israeli F-16C would become at least a bit more interesting with more capable missiles.

Of course it's still not equal but it does increase the MiG's chances. https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-mig-21-vs-f-16-r-73-missile-which-iaf-pilot-abhinandan-varthaman-used-to-bring-down-pakistani-jet-2725652 Please see above article regarding Indian Bison vs. Pakistani F-16C. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21_operators Still a lot of aircraft have and fly the MiG-21. You say COIN aircraft, maybe, but if a Syrian MiG-21 did encounter a Turkish F-16 do you think it won't try to defend itself? Maybe it'd even get lucky...

The "problem" with the Magic I would be that I think it is not a major improvement over the R-60. The R-73 on the other hand would make the MiG-21 more competitive vs modern fighters. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I don't really see how the pylon integration matters so much. I think that the integration in the targetting system is more important, especially considering the wide angle gimbal of the R-73 compared to the narrow angle gunsight of the MiG-21. P.S., just found below on Wikipedia which illustrates my point:

Especially this one makes it rather pointless. The only thing bonus points could be useful, is to save, save and save some more, and then finally buy all campaigns at once. But it's quite unlikely...

Honestly, I have thought about becoming a third party myself to develop a WW1 or pre-WW1 aircraft. But I lack almost everything that is needed to do it, most of all the time...

I agree, but the basic physics are similar. Piston engines (a piston moving in a cylinder) are something that can be modelled in DCS. An engine where the pistons are not moving in line (in the Z-axis) but radially around the X-axis of the aircraft is also modelled already. I *think* this means that on a physics level, there is nothing against modelling rotary engines as well. That's what I pointed out before as well. But I do think it may be worth it, because, as it is, DCS is the only simulator capable of capturing the flying experience, as well as accurately modelling the systems. Actually there are still several originals still in flying condition, as well as quite a lot of good replica's / recreations. So there is definately real-world experience available, if you want to look for it. I would say that, if there proves to be a market for it, then ED might consider to add asset packs and maps, but I think that there would not be a lot of cannibalisation. With that I mean that if someone buys a Fokker E.III module, he's not going to skip buying an F-16 module because he already has a similar aircraft. If he buys the E.III but not the F-16, it is because he's more interested in the E.III or more interested in WW1 stuff in general. Or, just because he already has the F-18... If a lot of people buy WW1 modules and then call for assets and maps, then ED can make them and sell them at a profit. That profit will at least benefit the core sim, if (maybe) not the development of further modern modules.

You are partially right. ;) DCS has radial engines modelled. Many iconic WW1 aircraft used rotary engines which is indeed different. But also several WW1 aircraft used radial engines (Anzani, Salmson).Anyway, the physics modelling required to simulated radial and rotary engines is similar enough to expect that it should not be that difficult in DCS. As long as you consider DCS a sandbox in which you can create missions to your liking I don't see any problem at all. The problem partially starts with multiplayer, but if DCS would have two matched rival aircraft (e.g. Fokker D.VII and Spad XIII, or Fokker E.III and Airco DH.2) then it would be no problem and similar to the Korean War situation. If you think about simulating the entire Air War of WW1, then I would say that DCS is notoriously bad at simulating actual wars, and it will stay like that at least until we get a good dynamic campaign.

As far as I know, "the other sim" (let alone older sims) is based on parameters and not on actual physics modelling like DCS. I think DCS is the only simulation platform that could theoretically do justice to WWI and other early aircraft. Maybe some things what I mentioned are more important and/or easier to model than others. I think wing warping is a very important aspect that was already introduced to DCS (but I'm not sure how DCS handles it from a computational fluid dynamics perspective). The physics of rotary engines is another very important aspect that is already modelled in DCS. Damage modelling of wood and fabric is also important for some WW2 aircraft (Mosquito) so it is definately coming to DCS.

That's why I'd advocate not trying to simulate WWI but instead just modelling a few aircraft which can be used in e.g. Normandy map in a sandbox manner.

That's something I wonder about. You need to simulate wood flexing, wing warping, airframe overstressing, fabric ripping, guns jamming, leaking coolant fluid hitting the pilot, etc. I *think* these are all things that aren't in DCS at the moment. I don't know how hard it would be to implement it because I'm not familiar enough with DCS physics modelling.

Flanker without any doubt...

Exactly. This is DCS. It's about accurately modelling interesting aircraft. Not about balance. Real life military aircraft are also not about balance, they are about creating disbalance. They are about fulfilling a specific request. The request is usually mission based, and/or based on certain specifications.

I have the same problem: bonus points ($25) expiring soon and no apparent way to use them. I have played around a bit and found the following: - Bonus points cannot be used on items on sale - Bonus points cannot be used on new-ish items Since most items are presently on sale or too new, the options are sadly really limited. I did, however, eventually find an item which I could purchase using some bonus points (screenshot attached), but the selection is really limited and you can use only limited points per item. Now I suppose I could pick up all older campaigns but chances are I'm never going to use them. And I'd still be paying real money for them. Personally I wish ED would just convert bonus points into miles and be done with it.

I really like the MiG-15. Together with the Albatros and the Viggen it's my favourite aircraft. The feeling of flight is great. It's also an aircraft that you really need to keep in it's proper envelope (not too fast, not too slow) to fly well, which I find a nice challenge. If you are worried about period adversaries, most of the WW2 assets are also contemporary to the MiG-15. Personally I like hunting B-17's. It may or may not be historically accurate (MiG-15 vs B-17 could have happened in Korea and during the Suez Crisis) but it's fun to do anyway.

In general, I love the Viggen. The only thing I don't love is that is suffers compressor stalls / flame-outs during high AOA manoeuvering, so even though it's pretty agile, it's really hard to dogfight in it. This problem was apparently solved in the Jagdviggen but not in our version. I can't see any glaring things that are still missing or wrong but I'm not an expert. The MiG-19, is a slightly different story. I got it because I love the MiG-15, thinking the 19 is a 15 on steroids, but the MiG-19 is quite a bit more complicated. Personally I find it difficult to get to grips with, similar (maybe a bit easier) to the MiG-21. Also, the MiG-19 is a bit "in-between". The MiG-21 is capable enough to fight modern jets (at a disadvantage and certainly not BVR but still). In the MiG-19 that is more difficult due to lack of speed. The MiG-15 on the other hand belongs more to the WW2 era aircraft and can fight those with quite a big advantage. With regards to early access and missing / incomplete features, it would be better to ask in the subforums.

That's not that difficult. With ED modules, Early Access means it's not finished, but in terms of bugs and in terms of content. Stuff may be missing but will be added sooner or later. Not-early-access means it's finished, complete, done. As far as I can tell, the ED modules that I fly a lot (Albatros and MiG-15) have been very stable, with little to no changes (for better or worse). With 3rd party modules, it's a bit more complicated, and it seems every developer has it's own way of dealing with things.

I did some tests with regards to low level speed. Location: Black Sea Temperature: 20 deg C Height: 100-200m above sea level Viggen: Load-out 95% of max. weight 2x RB-04E 8x M71 bombs Fuel tank Max speed 1200 km/h, Mach 0.98 Load-out: 2x RB-04E 2x RB-74 Max speed 1465 km/h, Mach 1.19 Clean: 1580 km/h, Mach 1.29 Hornet: Load-out 96% of max. weight 2x AIM-9M 4x Mk-83 3x Fuel tank 2x AIM-120C 1115 km/h, Mach 0.91 Load-out: 2x AIM-9M 2x AGM-84D 1180 km/h, Mach 0.97 Clean: 1280 km/h, Mach 1.05 Mirage 2000: Load-out 100% 2x Magic 2x 2000L 1x 1300L 4x Mk83 90% fuel 1132 km/h, Mach 0.93 Clean: 1463 km/h, Mach 1.21 So in terms of speed, it's really clear. The Viggen is amazing at low-level flying, even with a realistic anti-ship load she's much faster than a clean Hornet. The Hornet is kind of slow, but it does carry the biggest load. The Mirage is decently fast, but putting even a smallish load hampers performance a lot.

I think that takes just some getting used to. I used to drive a Saab 9-3. It also had some strange design choices, like the key locking the gearbox rather than the steering wheel, that nobody copied, but they still made sense. Correct. In the real world, the Harpoon is the most common Western anti-ship missile, including ship-ship missiles. If it's the primary ship-ship weapon, where weight and size are not really considerations, then it must be plenty capable IRL. The question however is how relevant it is in DCS. One aircraft vs four ships seems a bit stupid. It's not about how many ships one aircraft can sink, it's about how he can sink one and still survive. I'm really looking forward to the Arleigh Burke class destroyer that will be included in the Supercarrier pack. I'll have a look and see how fast it can be fully loaded. Maybe tomorrow if I have some time... Yeah, now the Viggen is 50% more than the Hornet. That does make it a bit hard to justify...