Zius

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...

I can't really comment on multiplayer because I don't do that. But I think the Viggen is portrayed in a way that it is very limited. I disagree with that. Clearly the aircraft concept is centered on well-planned interdiction strike missions, but that doesn't mean it can't be used otherwise. Personally really like the Viggen. It is very, very fast. In my opinion it feels by far the fastest of all the jets in DCS during very low level missions in the Caucasus valleys... :pilotfly: I also like the fact that it is not FBW. It feels like real flying compared to F-18 computer game flying. ;) I also like the cockpit lay-out. For me it is the only truly European fast jet in DCS: it has metric gauges but contrary to Soviet planes, they are logically and ergonomically ordered. (to be fair: the Albatros has that as well). All in all, the Viggen and the Albatros are my favourite aircraft in DCS. The Hornet may be more capable (except at low-level interdiction missions I think), it's also more modern and has a larger choice of weapons. I do find it hard to overlook the FBW style flying which I really don't enjoy.

Welcome guys! Great to see the Eurofighter come to DCS!

It's a beautiful map and the one I use the most. But whether it is worth it or not depends on many things, among those your wallet... Caucasus map is also beautiful (especially in Winter) and you can also do carrier ops there. Not historically correct, but nevermind...

Well, that's the question... I do have another laptop lying here, maybe I should install DCS on it and try multiplayer with the TD-51 or the demo aircraft of the day. Pity there are no multicrew aircraft taking part of the demo...

I was thinking of my daughter flying with myself doing the RIO work, but I can imagine doing both seats myself occassionally as well. With ample use of the pauze button, obviously.:lol:

I normally run DCS on my PC, which has quite decent specs and runs DCS well, but is just a regular desktop. No VR, no home cockpit etc. Now I was thinking about buying a mid-range laptop (around E800 or so) and running DCS on it for the sole purpose of manning the RIO seat. The pilot seat would be operated from my PC. I think that, because looking outside is not that much mandatory, I can decrease the graphical settings quite a bit so DCS will run on the laptop. I have neither the space nor the money for another gaming spec desktop PC... Any thoughts or comments?

Thanks, that helps. Again, sorry if I am being a pain, but lack of sources means it is not really credible, is it? I mean that in a general sense, and not in particular directed against this specific module. I understand that there barriers to releasing data pertaining to aircraft which are presently in service / in development. For some, older, aircraft, the data is in the public domain, either because they can be studied, e.g. in museums or because the government doesn't consider the data classified anymore. The Viggen is a good example of this, and Heatblur has said that it would not be possible at this moment to simulate the Jaktviggen because certain components (IIRC the datalink) are being re-used in the Gripen which remains classified. The modern US aircraft (F-16 / F-18 ) I suppose that the data / schemes / manuals are sufficiently available in the public domain to make simulation possible. Although also there I have some doubts that everything is actually public and not an "educated guess" by the developers, but I think that is, in those aircraft, limited to certain systems and not to the entire aircraft.

I disagree. A F-15C would, in my opinion, not offer that much more than the F-14 / F-16 / F-18 that we already have. Yes, it's a different aircraft but not much more advanced or very different in terms of systems than those. The MiG-29 or Su-27 on the other hand would be a huge leap from the most modern full-fidelity Russian fighter that we have now, the MiG-21. Whether it melts your brain, well, that depends on different things. Personally the only thing that I suppose could really melt my brian would be DCS:Space Shuttle...

I'd buy that as well. But I think it can be difficult to model correctly...

Maybe I'm being too skeptical and probably the question has already been answered, but I keep wondering: are there enough credible sources for accurate simulation of such a new aircraft? Surely the PAF would also like to keep some of the aircrafts capabilities secret? It is, for instance, a couple of years newer than the Eurofighter. But of the Eurofighter I'm pretty sure that there is not enough solid information to build a module on. Then how much is known about the JF-17? And what sources are publically available? Sorry in advance for doubting, but I do have to ask the question.

Two reasons: 1) Like Zhukov said: there are too many interesting aircraft which deserve to be in DCS but simply haven't been made yet. The Tornado is definately one of them and there are a lot of people who really want it, so maybe it'll be done somewhere in the future. 2) DCS is a simulation which attempts to be very close to reality. To do this, you need detailed data, manuals, systems drawings etc. You have to think about DCS like re-building the actual aircraft, but inside a simulation. To do this, you need to have access to such data. For modern aircraft, like the Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F-35 etc. etc., this data simply isn't public, so these aircraft unfortunately can't be modelled in DCS.

I beg to differ. In my opinion, the flight modelling that DCS offers is the best available in commercial PC simulation. Not to mention real-time flow modelling of wing warping etc., I think DCS is the only commercial simulation which could possibly handle that. Yes, it's different from flying the real thing, and the difference between the simulation and reality is bigger in a WW1 aircraft than it is in the Hornet. But it's the best that is possible, and, let's face it, PC simulation can never simulate flying in an open cockpit (unless you put a strong ventilator next to your screen ;)) This depends as well. Personally I see DCS as a sandbox. So a lack of suitable opponents wouldn't bother me at all. If we get only a Fokker D.VIIF and nothing else, we could: - dogfight other D.VIIF's (why not?) - dogfight WW2 aircraft (you may get lucky and it's not even that far-fetched, Dutch airforce flew the D.VII until 1931, Swiss airforce still ordered new ones in 1928 ) - Do reconaissance or light bombing missions against WW2 infantry, trucks and other more or less appropriate targets All in a more or less appropriate map. In my opinion it would be unfeasable and stupid for DCS to try and model WW1 in it's entirety, but like I said, this is not necessary at all.

Patrouille Dewoitine - Swiss Air Force 1931. (I had to look it up) Hardly WW1 but still very cool! :thumbup: Btw, the wing looks really a lot like that of the Fokker D.VIII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VIII#/media/File:Fokker_D.VIII_3-view.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewoitine_D.27#/media/File:Dewoitine_D.27_3-view_Aero_Digest_July,1930.png

I don't know. I fear the hardcore simulation fanbase of WW1 aircraft is pretty small. Red Baron was pretty popular, but that was simply a great game (!). With that, I mean that the gameplay was good. You could challenge other aces, customise your plane, transfer squadrons to fly with certain aces etc. DCS has none of that. I think the bottom line is: "would you pay $50 for xyz WW1 plane?". To me it slightly depends on the aircraft (I would prefer Fokker E.III or Fokker D.VIIF), but generally the answer is yes. Even if there were no other WW1 modules or maps available. But I fear I might be in a minority. Maybe if someone could develop both a D.VII and a SPAD XIII, or a E.III and a Airco DH.2, then maybe more players could be interested. But most would buy just one of those, so developing more aircraft could decrease the return on the investment. And it would still be very far from Red Baron. Personally, I would buy all of those four planes I mentioned, but likely not at the same time, and maybe I'd wait for a sale to pick up the SPAD. I would, incidentally, also pay $50 or more for a Bleriot XI or Ettrich Taube. The advantage of those aircraft being that they are not dogfighters so other aircraft would not be necessary. They can be used for light bombing and scouting missions, or aerobatics.

I think it's the other way around. DCS's strength is the simulation. In a complex plane, especially one with computers doing a lot for you, you tend to not notice it. But in a small, light, simple plane, everything you do has consequences. Lean your body to the left, centre of gravity goes to the left, aircraft banks. Fuel too lean, engine problems. Fuel too rich, engine problems. Etc. In a WW1 plane, there were no electronic aids or anything like that. And solving a gun jam may involve something else than just hitting some key repeatedly. I think that most other sims, including that other one, still use parameters. But in DCS you can actually model the gravitational forces of a rotary engine. But I do think that maybe WW1 is too big of a scope. There are tons of aircraft which played a role in that war. My vote would be to just model one or two iconic aircraft, and not try to emulate the entire war. We already have the Normandy map which is not quite period specific, but is at least passable.

The Tomcat is only a few years older than the F-16, so the women analogy still stands. The first woman does look slightly older than the second one... :smilewink: Except that, since taking the photo, both are now already well into their adult lives, have children (C/D versions respectively) etc. The F-14 is already phased out in the USN but the F-16 is also in the process of being phased out in favour of the F-35.

Personally I buy modules for two reasons: 1) To support ED / the developers 2) To try them out I am more or less proficient in the Albatros, to a lesser extent the MiG-15 and even lesser the Viggen. One thing I did learn in DCS, is that there is a big difference in liking an aircraft as an aircraft enthousiast, or liking one as a (sim) pilot. Before DCS, I would not have given the Albatros a second look, but as a weekend sim pilot, it is great. Systems and controls are simple enough to understand and remember after not touching for several days (or even weeks). Yet it is surprisingly capable in a light attack role, and most of all very satisfying to fly. Anyway, some aircraft have "it", they somehow feel right to me. The Hornet isn't really one of them, although it's definately interesting as a weapons and sensors platform, it's not as satisfying to fly as the older, "simpler" jets, in my opinion. Aircraft like the Viggen however may be the sweet spot: interesting to fly due to no FBW but still quite deep and capable systems. If you have a human RIO (preferably in the same room) then I think the Tomcat would be awesome as well.

Yes, the MiG-21 is immensely satisfying. Due to it's ergonomics, it is pretty challenging but that makes it immensely satisfying if you master it. The Mirage is a hotrod. Very fast, nimble, good climb rate. One problem is that we get an early version, while the other 4th generation fighters we have are late versions. That puts it at a disadvantage compared to the F16 / F18.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean? I guess it depends on what you want... If you fly a F-5 vs a Hornet with Amraams in BVR, yes, then you will struggle. If you want to dogfight with guns or sidewinders, then you will miss the helmet mounted sight but for the rest they are not that different. But DCS is a sandbox sim, you can set it up however you like. You don't need the absolute best aircraft to enjoy yourself.