moco

If you need to upgrade today and can't wait then I'd say go with a 1080ti over the 2070, the difference in performance is almost negligible but the 1080ti has 11GB of memory vs the 2070's 8GB. That extra memory may not seem like much but it is going to future proof your system much more than some RT cores that you'll likely never use, especially with a simulation like DCS that can really put all that memory to good use. Either way you're going to eventually have to upgrade you're CPU/MOBO, any modern GPU you put in that system will likely be bottlenecked by the CPU. As of now though I'd say your GPU is probably what's holding you back, I'd say good strategy for future proofing a system is more memory on the GPU and more cores on the CPU, all things being equal a system that has a CPU with more cores and a GPU with more memory will theoretically age better than a system that has less.. which is why a lot of old AMD CPU's are handling modern games pretty well now that developers are finally starting to really go for multithreaded performance. TL/DR: Buy a 1080ti for the extra memory with plans to buy a newer CPU in the future

I'd say just stick with the Hornet and save your money, If you really want something else to fly I'd say go with the F-14 or Mirage 2000. The F-14 would be the most similar to the F-18 in terms of capabilities. the Mirage is like a modern version of the F-5, it a great A2A platform but has limited A2G also needing a buddy laze for precision bombs. You start off saying you want A2A but it seems more like you want all the F-18's capabilities in a different airframe, i.e. F-14.

I agree with HereThen, slowing down the rate of updates could actually get more systems to us faster if ED manages their time right. People are always complaining about features not making it in updates or bugs introduced form rushed updates so I look at this as ED actively trying to rectify those issues. If it doesn't work it doesn't work, worse that can happen is more of the same in my opinion.

If I could add my two cents I'd have to agree with the people suggesting the F/A-18F. The D would just be more of the same but with multi crew, if the only added feature is the ability to fly with an extra person than I'd rather ED focus on something "new". I'd gladly wait another 10 years for a Super Hornet than get a D model tomorrow. Just my personal opinion.

Danny beat me to the punch, SLI is effectively dead with NVLink seemingly taking over. Even AMD has invested in it's own version of this called xGMI so you can be assured SLI/Crossfire is a thing of the past. I haven't read too much on NVLink but it seems like it's a pretty big improvement over SLI, the best analogy I heard to describe it was using the master/slave example.. In SLI one GPU will essentially control all the GPU's connected to it and all information must come from or be passed to the "master" GPU. The master will transfer data to the slave GPU's and once they're done the information is transferred back and then displayed onto the screen (Please correct me if I'm wrong, I know computers well but not the interworkings of SLI). With NVLink the GPU's theoretically share the work load with no master/slave system, all GPU's have access to the same information and it is distributed more evenly without the need for one GPU calling all the shots, this also allows them to use a bridge that allows much higher data transfer rates so when the GPU's do communicate or share data with each other it is at a much faster rate, SLI can do 2GB/s while NVLink on the new RTX cards can run at 50GB/s (25GB/s each way).. Like Danny said too this is much easier for developers to implement as well so once it (hopefully) takes of multi-GPU should be a more viable options for games, couple that with the Vulkan update we're getting and DCS should have itself set up pretty good for the foreseeable future.. sorry for the rant and terrible formatting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the real life F-15 IS a superior BVR platform. It was designed from the ground up to be an air superiority fighter, and is able to go higher and faster than the F-18 can giving it a huge advantage in that role. The F-18 was designed as a multirole fighter with fleet defense being its primary air to air role. There are some countries that do rely on the F-18 for air superiority but majority of them are likely to never fight in a large scale war without the aid of a more capable nation. i.e. If Canada ever joined a war where it really needed to use its F-18's the US/UK/France would likely also be involved and providing aid with more capable jets. Like Oceandar said TWS, while very anticipated, likely won't change much in terms of other planes being better at BVR.

ED needs to update their manual page on the official DCS website, I download the manuals on my laptop so I can reference them while I'm learning new modules but I hate going through the the hassle of downloading on my PC just to have to transfer it to my laptop. Which is why I usually defer to the mudspike website and use Chuck's Guide's, which are phenomenal and are good for a quick reference and helping remember how some systems work, But I like how much more in-depth and descriptive the official manuals are. And yes I know NATOPS manuals are out there, but easy access to ED's official manuals would go a long way for new customers. Especially those who may not be technologically literate enough to search for manuals and transfer them to use on other devices, or for people (like me) who don't have the time, or interest, in reading the whole NATOPS manual.

I'll be exclusively A2G until I get a VR headset and buy a legitimate throttle to complete my HOTAS, using the mouse to keep track of enemies is a pain and using a scroll wheel as a throttle is inefficient for an A2A engagement.

:lol::lol::lol:

I wouldn't want ED to spend a second of time or resources on a map like this, but if there was a dedicated team of modders I'd definitely support it and likely use it. Don't know how combat would be handled with a dragon though; It's a reptile so little to no heat signature, highly agile and can change direction almost instantaneously, not sure if a radar could pick it up either... none the less it sounds more interesting than it would likely be if actually implemented.

Depends on what you plan on using it for, if you want to do simple one and done bombing runs or some light CAS and stay on station for 15 or so minutes then I'd say the A-10 is a bit overkill, The A-10 is a jet you'd use for loitering around and picking off targets slowly or as needed by a JTAC. Personally I'd say go for the L-39 for a change of pace from the modern jets, where you're eyes are glued to an MFD most of the time. IMO the A-10C is a tad too slow which makes long range missions a little boring, the F/A-18C doesn't have nearly as much gas but the aerial-refueling helps break up the monotony of longer flights. So yeah, I guess my vote goes to the L-39, mainly because you said you already had modern fighters and I assume this would include either the Harrier or the Hornet and I think these jets are similar ENOUGH to the A-10 functionally that you wouldn't be missing out on anything significant.

Maybe one day we'll get a FC3/MAC module of it, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it if I were you. A Eurofighter or Rafale seem more plausible, but even then I don't think we'd see either of those anytime soon either

People should also be mindful that not everyone can afford full prices, it has nothing to do with appreciation towards the sim. If I could I'd buy every module 5x over but I can't, not because I don't appreciate the modules available to me, but because I literally cannot afford to buy them...

I'm in the same boat as you right now, I love DCS but there isn't much for me to do.. the mission editor is a great and powerful tool but it is also very boring and tedious for me, plus it tends to take away almost all element of surprise since you literally hand place every unit. I just got faster internet a few weeks ago so I might start dabbling in Multiplayer more often, but for the most part I'm just patiently waiting for Dynamic Campaigns because the online feature tends crashes on me a lot

This, you can easily check your system memory as you play and see how much RAM the game is using during a given mission, I personally play with 8GB of RAM with all settings maxed out and haven't had any significant issues. Most issues I have I blame on my relatively weak CPU (i5-6400t @ 2.2GHz)