Zius

Except that the JF-17 is the best (alongside F-16) and soon most numerous fighter (surpassing J-7/MiG-21) in the PAF. The Tejas on the other hand is still both numerically and operationally much inferior to Su-30. So the Tejas can be a "cheap and cheerful" aircraft because the IAF has different aircraft which can do the heavy lifting, namely the Rafale and Su-30 and to a lesser extent the Mirage 2000 and the MiG-29. The PAF does not have that luxury. Regarding the Gripen, I think it's probably much superior to both the JF-17 and the Tejas in a lot of ways, including build quality and design maturity. But that's hard to quantify or prove without actually having them side-by-side.

True, but the country involved does need some kind of basic capability. I think that capability could be lacking in several countries. Of the C-101 operators (Spain, Chile, Jordan, Honduras), I think only Spain has that capability for sure, but they don't need to arm their C-101's to that extent because they have Eurofighters and Hornets. Similarly Chile and Jordan have F-16's. That leaves Honduras, but I'm pretty sure that they can't modify the C-101 sufficiently to integrate LGB's.

Interesting read! :thumbup: This sentence had me wondering however: Since Pakistan's arch enemy is India, and India obviously operates the Su-30 as well as Rafale in the future. The JF-17 on the other hand, is Pakistan's most modern fighter with, as per this article, comparable capabilities as Pakistan's F-16. So there are two options: 1) The JF-17 is the best aircraft that Pakistan can afford 2) The PAF thinks that the JF-17 is actually capable enough to stand a chance against the Rafale and Su-30 These two don't have to be mutually exclusive of course. But the JF-17 *is* *obviously* intended to take on Rafales and Su-30's. I think another interesting comparison would be JF-17 vs. Gripen as both are relatively cost-effective aircraft.

Personally I'm not interested in a world map. I like details and I think that including low-res versions of the rest of the world will just give people the wrong impression about DCS. Everybody wants to fly over their own country, but if it's low-res then why bother? It'll just be ugly and unsatisfying. Further I think that for the purpose the maps are big enough. Crossing the Persian Gulf in a Viggen at supersonic speeds while flying 20m above the water is fun, but that's more than enough for me.

Pity... But thanks for the openness! :thumbup:

I don't think it's that complicated: https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=199 That won't happen I think. Any Russian aircraft that was never exported would be very hard to do, I think.

Schlageter 1? I guess that makes sense, but maybe too simplistic?

I don't think that any module is a "waste". All of them are well built and worth their price. Early access modules may still have some imperfections, but that's why they are "early access". However, some aircraft may be more suitable for you personally than others. This depends on a couple of things, like what do you want to get out of DCS? - The most modern and most capable combat experience? - More old school seat of your pants flying? - Aerobatics? - etc. etc. But one thing I learned, is that the aircraft which interests you the most may not be the one that you like to fly the most. My favourite aircraft is the L-39, which is an aircraft that, before I got it in DCS, never really interested me. But in DCS, I've learned to appreciate it, because it's simple to operate (I don't have a lot of time to learn complex aircraft), very enjoyable to fly, surprisingly capable and surprisingly multi-role. Of course it also has limitations, but those don't bother me that much. Unfortunately, it's also kind of hard to predict which aircraft you'll enjoy flying and which will mostly gather dust. Personally, I've come to realise that I'm not a fan of FBW and that I'm unlikely to enjoy very complex aircraft, simply because I lack the time. Personally I would recommend that you buy the F-5 at the next sale, and maybe you should consider picking up the C-101 as well. Like the L-39, the C-101 is a simple aircraft that can learn you a lot.

DCS is not a game, it's a simulation. That's what sets it apart from most/all others. It's still a simulation, not real life, so therefore a computational approximation of reality. One thing I am pretty sure about, is that DCS aircraft are not artificially enhanced or worsened because of "balancing" especially concerning multiplayer. Balancing doesn't exist in real life either, and it should not and does not exist in DCS. Balancing in DCS is done by managing your fuel tanks. ;)

+1 I think there would be a LOT of people interested in this aircraft. And given the fact that several demilitarised MiG-29A/UB's are privately owned and operated in the USA, and because several fully equipped MiG-29S's were evaluated by the USAF, I don't think there are that many secrets about the MiG-29A left anymore...

Not a Luftwaffe expert, but I did just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann Karaya being the name of the Staffel.

Thanks guys! The folded comment makes sense, I didn't think of this one.

Nobody? :dunno:

Interesting video, especially the cockpit, but it seems that it won't work out: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/policy/govt-shelves-10-b-single-engine-fighter-jet-deal-to-push-for-tejas/article22859624.ece Regardless what one may think of the Tejas compared to the Gripen or F-16, the IAF already has so many different aircraft that adding another one would make the logistical nightmare even worse... MiG-21 MiG-27 MiG-29 HAL Tejas Mirage 2000 Sukhoi Su-30 Dassault Rafale (near future) SEPECAT Jaguar Further away future: HAL/Su-57....

I found this video here on the forum: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96637&page=196 Cool video by the way! Worth watching! I was wondering what the thingies where which I marked in the attachment. It's probably some sun shade, but why does is look like it does on the top side? Is it a place to store documents or something? Won't they fall out? Or was did it just look different when it was new? It also shakes quite a bit during that video, must be distracting...

I'm afraid not... Just one or two machineguns, please? The don't have to be Spandau MG 08's or Maxims either... Any .30 or .50 will do. Please? :D

That kind of depends on the aircraft doesn't it? I think you could buy a mothballed MiG-15 for a couple of thousand euro's / dollars. A combat ready MiG-21 incl. fuel and weapons? Maybe 1 million? Probably not more... On the other hand, the USA also has a much bigger budget than an opposing country flying old MiG's. So shooting one down will still hurt them more, even if in absolute terms, you are loosing money. And, if the F-15 would not use the missiles to save money and let the MiG-15 come into gun range, some interesting things could happen. :D

Yes, I know this is not correct and therefore unlikely to happen, but I would REALLY like to mount one or two machineguns on this aircraft, WW1 style. This aircraft is so nimble, it would make a great dogfighter! :thumbup:

Good posts, especially the one by xvii-Dietrich. The amount of runway that the C-101 needs took me by surprise the first time as well. The Albatros is simply a joy to fly. The ergonomics, especially related to weapons, are not that fantastic. Although, contrary to others, I have 0% problems with the size or location of the gauges. The C-101 is perhaps slightly less entertaining to fly, but it way easier to operate everything. It's also more stable and easier to fly in my opinion.

What do you think about this comparison? Both are trainers with light attack and limited A2A / self defence capability. Both are fairly uncomplicated and pleasant to fly. But what about the differences? The easiest difference is East vs. West, but what else can we say about these aircraft / modules? Which one do you prefer? Which would you recommend more?

It's an interesting concept, but in my opinion, in it's present state it's very subjective. A few comments: - Some aircraft are not included. - Fidelity: what's the reason to not award this to all non-FC3 aircraft? Granted, there are some in Early Access which are not feature complete and therefore not 100% fidelity in that regard, but I think it's the defining feature of DCS as a whole to offer "full fidelity" (within certain limits, obviously). I think that if you withold this rating, you should specify what is not correct or what is not modeled and why this is important to you. - Complexity: this is not properly defined. Are you referring to cold start procedure, radar operations, combat, or a bit of everything? I would say that the Ka-50 is more complex than the Mi-8, unless you count the amounts of switches to flip during start-up. - Modelling: this is a bit subjective... - Stars: this is probably the most controversial aspect. Personally: Albatros: 3 stars for originality, joy of flying, multi-functionality, inclusion of two versions, campaign availability. MiG-15: 2 stars for flight modelling, weapons modelling, campaign availability. Viggen: 2 stars for systems modelling, flight modelling, campaign availability. With regards to the star rating you would create a poll to try and eliminate the subjectivity.

:megalol: :thumbup:

For one thing, I have spent WAY more money on DCS than on any other game... :music_whistling: And not nearly all aircraft that I'm interested in are presently available in DCS. My problem however is that I don't have the time to learn all modules that I own already. Not by a LONG shot... I am more or less proficient with the Albatros. With the MiG-15 and the Viggen on a lower level where I can do basic combat but not much else. The other modules, well, I very occasionally fly them, but not nearly enough to become proficient. At this moment, I would be more interested in other theatres than other aircraft for this reason. But I'm still getting the MiG-19 when it becomes available.

I cannot disagree with this more. DCS aims to be a simulation (i.e. an as-close-as-possible replication of reality), so if something proves to be too difficult, then there are a few things you can do: - Choose a simpler aircraft. The Yak-52 is much simpler to fly and operate than any FC3 aircraft, yet is a much closer simulation of reality. - Start with easy tasks and then slowly progress to more complex tasks. - Spend time learning the aircraft itself rather than wanting to dogfight immediately. Incidentally, this is the same as any airforce cadet does. Start with a simple trainer, practice take-off and landing, followed by navigation, aerobatics etc. Then go for a more complex jet trainer, practice with simple weapons employment training. Finally convert to a "real" fighter and perform real combat missions. Some people then convert back to jet trainers and become aggressors / instructors. Personally I don't have a lot of time either, so I usually fly a simple aircraft (Albatros mostly) on simple missions via the mission editor. It doesn't matter, as long as you have fun!

Wouldn't there be one or two Tomcats conserved in flying condition somewhere? As part of a memorial flight or something?