LucShep

Mine were only used once for configuring things first time, afterwards got back on the box. I also don't use them while flying.

That's close to my description as well - and of so many in here, I could bet. I'm also few years from 50 and, yes, between lots of work and necessary mundane stuff, the short free time and getting old surely doesn't help the hobby. I also went through the "golden age" of flight sims and had a sabbatical of (way) over 10 years. It was DCS that got me into it again, and quite the shock on first impact. Anyway, my recommendation might go against the grain but... I'd say to start with a Flamming Cliffs 3 aircraft, as they're simplified (far less complex) than all other DCS modules, closer to those sims we used to enjoy in the 80s/90s, and serve as a "softer" introduction to DCS. They'll keep you entertained until you feel that you want something more advanced and complex (and when getting into those, Chuck's Guides are a must). Either the A-10A Warthog (slow, air-to-ground combat) or the F-15C Eagle (fast, air-to-air combat) are excelent choices as a starting point. On these two, you'll notice that neither has interactive training missions by default, but fellow community members done them, see here: CFrag's A-10A Flight School (Training Missions): N22YF's F-15C Training Missions: You'll also notice that the Flamming Cliffs 3 aircraft don't have "clickable cockpits" (no interactive cockpit) but a community member made that also work for them. If it interests you, have a look:

I don't know what's your past with flight-sims. But I think you're at a similar crossroad that many of us got at some point. You'll often hear/read to imediately invest yourself in the aicraft listed in DCS that you find most interesting (in real life). But then that one may turn out as too complicated. I think what you need to decide first is what's the most appealing "stuff to do" with an aircraft in the game, for yourself. Then see which aircraft fits that criteria the best. There are youtube videos (gameplay, reviews, tutorials) for you to check, and find what to expect from each DCS aircraft module. If what you're really interested is modern aircraft and complex systems (post 1990s, like the ones you own) then, from those, I'd suggest to stick with the one that you feel you enjoy the most, and persist with that one. If you're more interested in "driving" a combat aircraft, while also handling some systems but in the least complicated way, then I certainly think the cold-war era (early and middle, 50s and 60s respectively) aircraft are the most interesting, as they have far less systems to get lost into, though they certainly have their quirks (which actually give them some "charm"). If so, I'd say to check some youtube videos on the F-86F and F-5E (if preference is blue) or MiG-15bis and MiG-21bis (if preference is red). Remember, you can always trial a DCS module (up to for 14 days each) before buying.

While that looks better, it still suffers from the overdone (awful) weathering that @probad described so well, and I quote "crudely exaggerated paint chipping effect that ends up making everything look like its made of crumbling concrete instead of painted metal" - exactly how I'd put it in words too. If the MiG-15bis is not enough, the red aircraft of FC3 (Su-25A, MiG-29, etc) can be another example of how it should be (IMO), those look like the real deal. Anyways, I think we're diverging from the main topic. This is about the MiG-17F.

Both in 2D and more recently in VR, yes. It's true that cockpits always look better in VR than with a 2D screen (as the 3D stereoscopic depth makes things "pop", as they became far more "real life alike"). Still, the impressions I described prevail also in VR.

To each his own, but I personallly agree with you. I absolutely abhor the MiG-19P cockpit in DCS - the 3D is average at best and the textures are awful. Which was one among other things that made me not buy it after trialling it (twice, back on its release and another just over a month ago). I sure hope RSS doesn't follow the same ugly aesthetic choices. As old as the MiG-15bis module is, I adore its cockpit (both 3D and textures), actually still one of my favorite DCS modules. I'm hoping the MiG-17F cockpit in DCS will be better, but would be content if at least as good as this one.

Not sure you noticed but the mod is 100% free. When placing the donate ammount you can put 0 (that's right, ZERO), then add the mod to basket and insert your email, to finish the transaction. It's up to you to donate or not, the link for download is still sent to you regardless. (but come on, pay the author a virtual beer!)

Forget high refresh and framerates in VR for DCS. The way things work are completely different in VR... it's far more intensive on hardware resources, you also reach the limitations of DCS itself far sooner (it's not all a matter of hardware muscle). Some things work better or not depending on the PC, the headset, and the user (perception and sensibilities to motion, stutters and framerate are key). For now, one thing I know is for certain - regardless of whatever headset one gets, and no matter how good one may think his/her system can be, you'll be forced to either: Run the game in motion-reprojection (usually half framerate lock of the selected refresh with motion smoothing) to achieve good visual settings. Or you go hunt for those practically impossible high framerates, but at absolutely horrible "minecraft levels" of detail. Which means that, if you're getting a headset with higher refresh-rate specifically for DCS and flight-sims, that choice won't necessarily work (my opinion is it won't at all). Resolution over framerate in DCS VR works better, and is more important (IMO) because you really need the visual clarity along with the smooth experience that isn't necessarily only exhistent at ultra high framerates (again, completely different to 2D). The Valve Index is still a great headset, but for this particular use case I'd rather get the HP Reverb G2. For sure a better choice for seated games/sims like DCS. Maybe wait just a bit more (September/October) for the upcoming Meta Quest 3, see how the reviews and first user impressions here are. VR will never perform as good as in 2D, compromises have to be made for the best experience (be ready for it). But then it's all worth it, DCS in VR is amazing!

This USB lapel mic is wireless, and very cheap (10 bucks). Not the best thing out there (not even close to something like those expensive big suspended mics from Shure) but, especially for the price, it does the job. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0C5DDP7B5/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A35HHLYGU7JAUF&psc=1

So, in recent years there have been discussions about the FC3 aircraft modules (A-10A, F-15C, Mig-29 A/G/S, Su-25A, Su-27, Su-33, J-11A), which are also available as separate modules, and also the Su-25T module included as free content in DCS. Among other aspects, there is one particular aspect that these modules lack, instantly detaching them from all other modules (then makes them "out of place" in the sim), which is the lack of cockpit interaction, as there aren't any clickable switches or buttons. IIRC, E.D. stated that there won't be more development on FC3 aircraft modules and Su-25T, at least not in this aspect, as too many resources (too much work) would be needed. But, as it turns out, a talented community member managed to insert the relevant functions (ones that are modeled for key bindings) of each FC3 aircraft, also the free Su-25T, and made it all work interactively in each aircraft's cockpit. However, there are no button/switches animations or "click/toggle" sounds (with exception of the very few ones that ED has modeled). My "wishlist post" here is just a suggestion to E.D.: contact the author and manage a way to officially adopt his work, and build it up from there. Make the missing button/switches animations and "click/toggle" sounds work, for those that he made interactive/clickable, then update the content of these aircraft in DCS. We all know that these modules are more of a "survey simulation" (simplified) inherited from LOMAC, FC1 and FC2 aircraft predating DCS World, which instead focus more on "study simulation" (all-out complex) modules. They're at the bottom of the priorities list, and considered of less interest by experienced users, all of which is understandable. But it's also true that these simpler modules have their place in DCS - we've read many times how difficult and expensive DCS modules can be for the unexperienced newcomer. Frankly, I think these are the best introduction to DCS for the unexperienced, and really deserve this type of update. I believe this "mod adoption and build up from there" is a great chance for E.D. -as the bulk of the work is already done by this talented fella- to then provide these exhistent modules with a better user experience, for those starting in DCS with these modules, as well as those still using them. The FC3 interactive cockpits mod on the author's page: https://redk0d.gumroad.com/l/fvkodo A couple of videos demonstrating the mod: There's also a forum thread here about it: PS: Sorry if this was already addressed in some other "wishlist" thread, but I haven't noticed any on this subject.

The DCS module of this iconic aircraft is definitely getting momentum. Looking very forward to it!

That DCS World 1.5.8 vs 2.5 side by side video there is an excelent ilustration of the problem. Yes the old 1.5x had the proportions quite right for the Caucasus trees, much better. The Caucasus trees in 2.x always looked wrong, at least 50% bigger than what they should be. But in Syria they look alright, proportions wise (to me anyway).

They actually look quite ok in a good old CRT monitor. It's when you try to recreate the nostalgia on a modern LCD (of whatever kind) that it makes you think "OMG NOO WHY YOU SO UGLY NOW?!?" AAAH... that's a TM Mark II FCS system, you lucky you! Maybe you can resurrect that museum piece: https://www.hackster.io/zachary_fields/thrustmaster-mark-ii-fcs-resurrection-08b793#story

No, nothing to do with "overspend" and DC certainly isn't a bottomless pit. I'd even say, in the mid-long term, that it can save money and work to the dev-team, and make it more lucrative if it's a long-term project (like DCS is, for instances) as it actually immortalizes your game, replayability wise. Because it renders every mission or campaign forever fresh and nearly unpredictable (it's always different, throughout and in the outcome), makes it an unknow "true conflict scenario" instead of plain scripts that always repeat "those two from the left as always, and next those three at the right... zzZZzzZ", keeping interest from players in your own game, on and on and on. It's worth every bit of the investment, IMO. Every one of the "big" flight sim titles went through bad management, and/or horrible aquisitions from bigger greedy companies, bastardising or ending such series. And (directly or indirectly) it broke those teams of hyper talented people, who went to other places (competitors) or quit the genre entirely. ED is probably the sole exception to all of this, maybe the only true survivor today from that era (a feat on its own, and worthy of everyone's admiration). Add to that the market over-saturation and the "consolization" way of things that went on in the 2000s, sadly it was the perfect storm. At some point it happened with racing-sims, isometric RPGs, and even Beat'em up games, no genre escaped it so far (it's happening now with "Battle Royale" games!). Money and business always mess with creativity and passion at some point. That's the cyclic nature of the gaming industry too (it repeats itself), unfortunately. That's why the "Golden Age" of flight-sims ended. Fortunately there has been a bit of a slow resurgence in recent years, and we're all here to savour it.

Dude you make no sense. You contradict yourself in just two sentences. First it's the Dynamic Campaign on that one single game title (and one of the reasons users kept that game alive through modding), so complicated and costly that it bankrupted its developer house. While forgeting that didn't happen with other developers (among others, EF2000 and Jane's Longbow also had Dynamic Campaigns). Meaning, if they did it, then.... btw... have you even tried a Dynamic Mission/Campaign in those old titles, to understand why it's such a big deal? And then the cost difference, they were much cheaper to produce then than today. If it was so much cheaper... why have they gone bankrupted then? PLEESE STAAAP

I don't think anyone dispute this, here or elsewhere. Flight sims are not dead, far from it. But to claim that the genre lives a better moment now than about 25 years ago (the supposed "Golden Age") is a bit of a fantasy...

I don't agree with the comment but I'd like to say thanks for posting that vid. That was a great show (thanks to all involved).

Quite obvious don't you think? YTB channels (and the so called "content creators") are a heck of a PR machine for game studios today. It works far better than the reviews and ads on printed magazines did. The pandemic was a major factor recently. There were never more sales in a smalll closed period in time for PCs, Consoles and respective game titles (of whatever genre). A certain hollywod movie with a celebrity actor got its sequel, over 30 years later, a monumental success and is part of popular culture now. Maybe ED can confirm how big was the number of sales of the F/A-18 and F-14 modules then and since. By your logic, as they now sell so much more, DCS and every other modern sim got soooo much better and more complex all of a sudden, in such a small space in time, right? But they didn't, did they? DCS and other sim competitors, already by then, exhisted and were recognized for years. Yet none ever seen as many newcomers than during this period, for sure. It has nothing to do with "better or worse" comparisons of "today vs the old days" sim titles and era. It has to do with circumstances, and a huge quantity of people all of a suden locked in their places, with money to burn and eager for entertainment, discovering new hobbies. Something we may read or watch later as case study, I suspect.

For someone who wants facts and figures to prove an impossible point, it sure looks like you're basing yourself on opinions of others that suit yours (and, in the process, ignoring people's opinions that don't). That guy was selling his product... what else were you expecting him to say?? An honest question - have you even spend time on some of those sims? Say, something like EF2000, Jane's Longbow or Falcon 4.0 ? And I mean a fair good time, like you would when approaching a new DCS module? Because as archaic as those old sim titles may seem (and are today), they definitely got far more depth and quality than what you seem to give them credit for. Quite frankly, I suspect that you may be in for quite the shock, once you realise how good all those actually are (then imagining how it must have been in the day!) and realizing how hard the developers must have had it. And on this last note... Speaking as a (ex)sound designer (and old modder) who had a few excursions in the sim business, I actually think today there is a lot more freedom and far less limitations, it's much easier to quite a fair extent. Today you're protected by modern potent hardware to skimp on optimizations or quality restrictions (a fact, if you now where to look for), you're able to get away with that. Lots of great software ready to assist, more documentation and materials ready to be accessed. And work with fairly relaxed time goals, knowing the project may have no real end, that it may be patched indefinitely after release. Back then there was a restricted budget for anything and everything. Devs had a limited budget for the assets, file size and quality of materials (mostly because of hardware restrictions/performance). Optimization for the exhistent hardware was a major factor (again, something I could definitely criticize on so many modern games and sims today). Everything from basic game engine coding (on its different fronts) to the final art, on models, maps and sound assets, physics, and UI, it had to be all so balanced on a very thin line, and all done with such a team effort that, it on itself, was close to black magic. Complexity was already huge then (to some extent more than now) as there were far less known quantities and, more often than not, people were working with new tech, often on "virgin territory". I look at the file structure, materials and file properties or sizes in modern sims, it's impossible not to snort in disbelief. Lots of work, for sure, but... devs today have it so good. People didn't have the luxury of basing on 20 year old polished code or UE rented platforms, and lots of "known quantities". Or the refuge of Early Access and Free To Play. Remember, there was a set dead line, for all of it to be ready. Sometimes with another project already in line. The project would become "gold" (close to be ready for distribution) and that was it. Really difficult to balance on such restrictions, but oh so satisfying once the final results could be seen (and the reviews of users and journalists!). Those people and those old titles deserve all the respect.

I got no axe to grind. But it seems you do? The past... you mean the particular time in the scene that you admited not even having experienced, right? Which is curious. Then how can you even form an opinion at all, or even make a comparison? About my own opinion... it's similar to that of so many others in this thread (the majority, from what I gather?) and of other similar ones on other forums in recent years. Maybe that means more than "rose tinted memory"... Here's another opinion - bringing nonsensical statistics just make it look more and more like "grasping at straws". What's now the purpose or supposed outcome, I don't know. Now I'm reprehended for the word I've chosen for it... fine, substitute that with "ubiquitous". Better now?

We don't have to convince you of anything. You still miss that point, 5 pages later in the thread. Once and for all, and this is consensual here too, for us that lived simming in that era, yes that's a Golden Era compared to today. For obvious reasons that those who didn't miss entirely. The variety and speed of progress in gaming and simming, along with the hardware constant leaps, was at light-speed if compared to today. It was a great time to be in it. This is a fact that is impossible to miss if we get to these "then and now" comparisons. And that's it. It is what is is. Sales numbers, popularity of the specific genre, numbers of houses with computers, none of that really matters for comparisons. It can't break what was so good then. The flight-sim genre has plenty history to read if you care to look for. It's rich, and was popular. It's why people persist with it, the few developers and us as end-users. We technically have the most complex, jaw dropping beautiful simulations and controllers today. Far and beyond anything that supposed "Golden Era" had, undoubtedly. Head-tracking is pretty banal today, and even VR usage is quite spreaded today. Those weren't even a thing then (at least not for the general userbase). BUT.... the lack of choice and variety in the recent market, and steeper costs once you dive in, impose restrictions that weren't really there then. And as good as things are today, it all kind of feels stagnated. Remember, we still don't have perfect products, as good as the (very few) modern ones we have today became. I haven't seen Dynamic Campaigns/Missions like I'd see in quite a few of those old titles (endless re-playablity), as much as some mods try to workaround and disguise that. Or worlds that somehow felt a lot more alive (as archaic as they look now) than what we feel today in modern sims, no matter how many pretty static objects get to fill the space. Also, the awesome details and complexity of everything we get to have now, comes at a cost of extremely long production times and costs. Which result in necessary higher prices for the end user. And, to some extent, a "far higher patience requirement" from the consumer, who has to wait YEARS (literally, in plural) for every single module after its announcement for the exhisting sim. It's all certainly well justified, absolutely. But a sad reality nonetheless, IF we have to compare.

Yes, correct. Production costs are definitely much, much higher now, for sure. But you also have to take into account the cost of the content for the consumer. For instances, consider the price of each module (aircraft, map), assets, extra campaign, etc (or each game within DCS, as you've said inumerous times). And if you gather all of DCS content final price, its total is way beyond anything in AAA gaming, or its direct competitors, then or now - even when modules are on sale. So, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Far more complex than sales figures numbers and etc. Not possible, totally different things, aspects, audiences and business models. As to say, that line of thought is going nowhere.

If you didn't live that gaming/simming era in its period, it's unlikely you'll understand why and how it was. Plenty to read in the previous posts throughout this thread. But you didn't get it already, I'm not sure you will.

So what? Being popular or selling numbers is irrelevant, especially during/after the pandemic era we lived in, when every Harry, Tom and Dick got a PC at scalper prices and got into sims. "PSY - Gangnam style" was far more popular and sold more than "CCR - Fortunate Son" or "TYA - I'd Love to Change the World" ever were or did decades before. Please don't tell me music is much much better today.

Perhaps your own age is the problem. The perception of tech of the period, what you would prioritize time for, during those days, made it all pass by you unnoticed, underrated. That's what me and others have been saying here all this time. This is not a criticism, mind you. For example, I'm in my late 40s, never gave a hoot to smartphones or social-media (I still don't). Yet I see every 20s-something person unable to go through life without it. A similar generational perspective, perhaps, as I guess they went through every major aspect involving such things, and participating in that progression. And I didn't, don't even get what's the point. What me and my friends felt during that period (but you didn't) for PCs and gaming (including flight sims), is a bit like this.... imagine if: ....all of a sudden DirectX13 or Vulkan-2 was a thing, ambitious sim-gaming studios were opening left and right, and unimaginable graphics (even for UE5 standards), sounds and gameplay were possible, all of a sudden. ...if the next supposed Nvidia, AMD or Intel GPUs were out in the next months, and had three or four times the VRAM and rasterization strenght, compared to the currrent ones they replace. Similarly for next gen CPUs of Intel and AMD, 2x or 3x the IPC and core-count. Or if 128GB of RAM was mainstream all of a sudden, within one year. That was the whole 1990s for many of us who were into this. Progress was happening, real faaaaast! Doesn't matter if 20-30% of households had PCs (I'd be far more inclined to believe it was 60-70% then). Being a part of the whole process during that time was super thrilling. "Nostalgia?" For sure. "Rose tinted glasses?" hmm not sure if so, as things today are not all for the better. Gaming today follows the easy buck, is quite timid in comparison, in regards to innovation. The "DLC this" and "Early Access that" also serves to excuse mistakes, to launch things prematurely, which maybe later will be fixed... or not. (but have your money already) Even sim-racing (which used to be a big part of my life) is littered with that concept today, same content basically being thrown to them all different titles, for monetary reasons. DCS World is a rarity, and probably the sole exception in the whole scenario, even if the modularity of content is technically "Early Acess DLC". Back then you had game-developers willing to risk it, do their own thing, as they wanted. And that thing was launched on Floppy-discs or CDs. And that was it. No 2nd chance. Yet it worked. Put that all into context and -as I hope one of my previous posts here with videos have shown- almost every new sim title, and new hardware, the constant innovations, it was absolutely mind blowing to experience then.