Zius

It is certainly an improvement! :thumbup: I don't know how rigorous you want to approach this, but you could polish it was some polishing paste. When you get the aluminium bright again, you could repaint it. All of this would negatively affect the originality of the piece. I don't know if you are concerned about this, or if you should be. I guess it depends on how rare these grips are, what they cost and what you want to do with it. The best from conservation point of view would probably be to leave it alone but just seal it with oil (acid-free), grease or wax to stop further oxidisation.

I haven't gotten a lot of time in her yet, but she's not that difficult to fly in my opinion. She's very nimble and needs a light touch, but that's it in terms of difficulty. But she is still in Early Access so there may still be some bugs / mistakes. From your OP, I too would recommend the Albatros.

Just a guess: the black paint was worn off, the underlying aluminium has oxidised.

I love the MiG-15. My biggest problem is low velocity guns, which makes gunnery difficult (for me at least). I do believe that's accurate, so nothing to complain about. It just takes practice...

My vote goes to Viggen in that case. Although I will really miss the L-39, so maybe I'll change my mind...

Actually - not very often :). There's only 13 (official) cities in the country (though some towns call themselves 'cities'), as opposed to 69 in the UK. Thanks. In the Netherlands, the last time city rights in the traditional sense were granted was in 1586. In 1825, a few places were granted the title "city" without an actual charter. After the constitution was changed in 1848, there was no formal difference anymore between cities and other municipalities. However in speech there is still a big difference between "cities", which can have as little as 5000 inhabitants, and "villages" which can have more inhabitants than a neighboring city. Further, cities can often still be recognised by presence of city walls.

Do they actually grant city charters in New Zealand? ;) Well, there is a place called "Fairy Springs", according to Google maps. :lol:

My solution to the lack of time problem is: 1) Choose a simpler aircraft to fly, like the L-39, CC-101, MiG-15 etc. 2) Fly simpler missions, like take-off, destroy target a few miles away and land again at the same aircraft. The mission editor is your friend! :thumbup:

From the FAQ: My understanding is that EFM should be close to PFM, including out-of-envelope flight, by applying CFD calculations. However the EFM is proprietary to the 3rd party and therefore possibly not known to ED, as I don't think the 3rd party have to share the source code with ED. Therefore ED can't make sure that EFM exactly equals PFM apart from flight testing and seeing if the performance in DCS matches the official manuals as far as made publically availalble. For instance, according to Dolphin887 of Magnitude3's, who is a MiG-21 pilot in the Serbian Air Force, the MiG-21 module is being compared to actual training flight telemetry to ensure correct behaviour.

Any MiG-29 would be an instant buy for me. At any (reasonable) price. But I guess it won't be in the near future. All we can do is speculate why, as there are even civilian MiG-29A's flying in the USA, so theoretically everything should be available. Oh well... :cry:

Congratulations! :thumbup:

It's an excellent point... On the other hand, all military conflicts involving a major power have been extremely one-sided since the Korean War. I'm not sure it's any fun to play for the underdog in, say, the Gulf War. Or even Vietnam. But we have to keep in mind that DCS is not intended to be the most fun multiplayer experience. It's intended to be the best simulator possible, and then let the player figure out what to do with it. When it comes to module development, the focus should (in my opinion) be on accurate reproduction of an aircraft. Not about it's value in multiplayer or even historical fit compared to certain available maps or other aircraft. Although obviously there is some room with regards to choosing the version to be modelled.

You just countered your own argument by comparing "arcadish flight sim X" to FC3. The details of the systems modelling as well as the CFD flight model is pretty unique, certainly for a combat sim. It's even (much) better than "almost professional" flight sims like FSX / P3D, especially regarding the flight model. Regarding costs, I'm not going to argue with you, but theoretically speaking, a person could just buy a single module and be done with that. Not that that works in reality... Theoretically, one could have a complete WW2 setup with Normandy 1944 Map + WWII Assets Pack ($60) + 1 Aircraft of your choice $50, total $110, or -50% in a sale. I think $55 is perfectly fine for what you are getting. The problem is, you'll end up with wanting all other modules as well, plus new joystick, plus VR, plus new computer to handle the VR etc. etc. That's where it get's expensive!

I probably should keep my mouth shut, but you are the one who started comparing uncomparable aircraft...

Either Albatros or C-101, you'll be suprised how much fun those aircraft are! (and how much you can learn in them).

My vote goes to the Huey. I started with the Gazelle (without any serious helicopter experience in other sims) found it too complicated to control (yes I do have pedals) and gave up. I then got the Ka-50, found it too complicated to get to grips with the various systems and gave up. I then bought the Mi-8 and the UH-1 together in a sale. Both are great, but the Huey is much more nimble. The Mi-8 on one hand is stable, but also a bit sluggish. But I recommend to REALLY do your homework. Pedals are probably cheaper than 3 modules you don't use that much.

I have the Warthog as well, but there are even nicer joysticks on the market... :music_whistling:

Of course, but we were talking about modules, right? :music_whistling:

If you lack time, I would suggest simpler modules, at least at first. If you prefer Western style aircraft, the C-101 is great now that it has PFM and weapons. During my first flight in that aircraft (hot, at runway), I managed to take-off, fire weapons and land, without consulting any manual or touching the keyboard. That says a lot about how intuitive that aircraft is. Both the Hornet and the Mirage are very complex in comparison. The Mirage has (at least for me) an additional challenge because it's sometimes counterintuitive with some systems. The F-5 is somewhere in between the C-101 and the Hornet in complexity, but it is a "real" fighter. Remember that DCS is a sandbox mostly. You decide which enemies or targets you want to encounter.

I have the Hornet but don't use it much because of the FBW feel. The systems and capabilities are awesome, but I lack the time to dive into it. I also recommend the Viggen in your case.

Yes. Both of them are great fun to fly, more combat capable than people give them credit for, and both of them will teach you more about flying and fighting than a FBW aircraft with all possible electronic aids. The L-39 has Russian avionics, the C-101 has NATO. That's the biggest difference. They also have slightly different design priorities. Probably the L-39 is the more polished module, because it's by ED and because it has been around longer. But the main difference is east/west avionics. I didn't try yet, but I'm pretty sure you can land a Yak-52 on a carrier...

There is no good answer to that. In my opinion, DCS is most definately NOT about flying the best possible aircraft and beating everybody else in multiplayer. DCS is about the joy of flying and the sense of accomplishment of mastering a machine that's just as complex as it's real life counterpart. If you judge everything objectively, then the Hornet is very hard to beat. It's very capable, it's modern, it can do everything reasonably well with the added bonus of carrier operations. But the Mirage is by far the prettiest aircraft in DCS. :wub: But I find DCS is not about objectivity. I own both the Hornet and the Mirage but hardly fly either. Mainly because I dislike FBW, as it makes flying too easy. My personal favourites are: Albatros, Viggen, MiG-15, possibly in that order. Why? The common thing between these is joy of flying, although the Viggen delivers a very thrilling low-level flight experience, where the Albatros is much more relaxing to fly. The MiG-15 is neither fast nor very relaxing, but it's an amazing dogfighter. Of the three, the Viggen is by far the most advanced and complex with regards to systems, but it's very ergonomical once you understand the philosophy. It's difficult to say which aircraft will suit you best. I recommend reading all of Chuck's Guides, particularly of the aircraft you are at least mildly interested in. There are also plenty of youtube movies you can look at. Unless you mean specific campaigns designed for a specific map (e.g. Red Flag), then no, you don't need any maps in order to enjoy the game.

To mwd2 : :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup: To the OP: don't worry, the problem solves itself. Once you have all modules, the annual cost decreases and becomes slightly more predictable as well. :music_whistling:

Normal... :thumbup:

Excellent! Thanks for sharing!