VC

Regarding the "disabled" weapons, I made sure to double check and only load out my MiG-21 with what is allowed, only for the guy next to me to take off with 6x R-60Ms. Is there no enforcement in place or has the restriction changed based on map?

The rudimentary cockpit and very rigid doctrine makes sense in the context of the fact that these aircraft were meant to be cheap to build and operated en masse. Local initiative only works if you invest a huge amount in very advanced training, otherwise letting troops do what they want is a recipe for disaster. If you want to train pilots fast, then you also need to give them as little clutter as possible and just get GCI to direct them based on bare bones information. As for the complexity of escorts etc, the doctrine was to do fast hit and run attacks. Sure sometimes it will degenerate to dogfights, but then the plane is plenty agile if it comes down to WVR. Perhaps the Soviets were very confident in their ability to get through enemy escort screens by running their fighters fast and silent via GCI, or they believed fighter vs. fighter combat would only be close range due to the low capability of medium range missiles at the time. It's clear the aircraft is designed as an interceptor and a dogfighter, not a solo air superiority platform. To be honest, I actually quite like the minimalism of the information displayed in the Russian aircraft, and find western radar displays and HUDs overly cluttered and hard to read.

Some systems management is easier because you usually only need to press one or two keys to get an advanced effect instead of remembering a more complex setup in a full module. And FC3 as a whole is easier because planes share a lot of functionality so you don't have to re-learn everything. In terms of FM, no difference. Something like the new MiG-29 for example is very challenging and rewarding to fly. F-18s fly by wire makes it a toy by comparison. If you ignore the systems and just give a newbie the joystick, the Hornet is much easier to fly than the Fulcrum. But learning your airframe is maybe 20% of the game's difficulty. The real hard work comes with tactics. FC3 planes have a slight advantage of reduced workload, but ultimately when you move on to learning to notch, dodge SAMs, F-pole and dogfight, you're up against the same challenge no matter your ride.

So I know in a usual glide path you use throttle to control glide slope, and pitch to control speed, but I didn't realise in the Hornet you are so well trimmed that you can control pitch with power alone. Usually you still need stick and throttle in some combination. I guess then yes, the relationship in the Flanker is a bit backwards. Speed controls itself (assuming auto-throttle), and stick directly controls flight path. The only catch would be that if you suddenly change AoA too much the autothrottle will try to compensate to maintain speed and you can get some large unexpected glidepath deviations. To be honest, I find carrier landing overall to be too easy in DCS, at least in the two planes that can currently do it. As I said I flew the Hornet a couple of times when it was free, and I followed no procedure, didn't trim, didn't even look at the "ball", and I trapped fine without breaking anything. I very much look forward to the challenges the Tomcat will bring on that front.

You set the speed and the throttle makes its own small adjustments to keep that speed. The speed controls allow very slow increments, but it's not a direct control of the throttle. I'm not sure I understand the question though, what else would you control pitch with if not the stick? I only landed the Hornet once, when it was free for a weekend (I didn't buy it after) and I didn't follow any procedures so I don't know how it really compares, just slammed it down and that seemed to work.

Learn to use the auto-throttle it makes landing the Su-33 on a carrier trivial (this is what it was designed for anyway). Set speed, forget about the throttle, fly the plane onto the deck.

You can find the quite easily in the user files area on the main site.

I'm assuming it will be OK as not everyone has the 11GB cards. I might just need to optimise and turn something down. But since the 2070 and 2080 are identical in this respect (8GB), this doesn't really feature into my choice anyway, for better or worse :)

While I admire the sentiment, and you're right I do want it, there's a price involved. I'm asking because I'm trying to ascertain if the 2070 is "good enough" so that I don't have to go too far over budget.

Oh no doubt, and I'm happy enough for now on a 970 but I'm due an upgrade so I'm trying to get the most I can without going really overboard on spending.

I'm looking at an i5-9600K. The trouble with people's experiences is that they are so subjective and dependent on other factors. At one end of the scale you have people with 2080Tis and i9s saying they still can't max the settings they want and get the FPS they want, then at the other end there are people with 1070s saying they're perfectly happy.

That's weird. After I solved the Batumi spawn problem I found this mission to be a complete cake walk. The AI was swatting hornets so efficiently I barely scraped 2 kills myself. Maybe its due to the random skill the enemy AI spawn with?

I don't know, just recall some anecdotal stuff, a few posts here and there with people saying DCS uses up to 10GB of VRAM at times. I would love to see actual benchmarks for these cards specific to DCS, but I haven't been able to find any, most likely because DCS is a small community.

Thanks, that's more or less what I was thinking although the 1080 Ti specifically has the advantage of 11GB VRAM vs. 8GB for both 2070 and 2080. Some people say this makes a lot of difference but there's no way I can get an 11GB card anyway.

Hi all, I'm speccing up a new PC to buy in the near future and I'd like some advice. I'm currently playing in VR using a GTX 970, so whatever I get will be a huge upgrade. I'm looking at either a 2070 or a 2080. There is quite a big price difference between them and the 2080 is really stretching my budget. From what I've read, the 2070 should be good enough, it beats the old 1080 hands down (although comes in a bit behind the 1080 Ti). Does anyone know the actual performance differences in DCS VR between these two cards? Is there a solid reason I'm not aware of for me to spend more on the 2080?

So... never. And if what you're saying is right, we might ironically have an older jet (MiG-23) with potentially more capable missile (R-24) if that is modelled to full fidelity according to your understanding of the systems. Which I do not doubt by the way, I'm sure there is something we are missing with the R-27. Even from basic reading it implies for example that the T and ET versions should have either data link or inertial guidance first, then IR seeker only for terminal phase. But in DCS these versions are completely handicapped because you need IR lock before launch like they were a Sidewinder or something, which is not the case. I know talking about "balance" really triggers some people, and I'm not suggesting that these missiles should be given some unrealistic capability. But I really hope we get something to even the gap, somehow, some day.

Maybe the Soviets never felt it was needed, if they assumed the R-27 series were to be used as bomber killers only and that large BVR missiles had no place in fighter vs fighter combat. Or they were just going for simplicity. I'm just speculating here. Still, even if it's realistic (Actually, especially if it's realistic) the fact were stuck with the poor performance of these missiles is disheartening.

Well yes, it does depend, which is why I said energy gives you options. Presumably you have some idea (e.g. from RWR) if you're up against one of those hard turning AoA + HOBS tricksters and that they might try that. If you dump your own energy trying to beat the at their own game you're going to lose anyway. If you stay fast and they slow down to try that, you can 2-circle them or just blow through the merge and be out of effective range of whatever they're trying to shove up your tailpipe. Safe option.

Generally it's not a good idea to purposefully deplete your energy state before the fight has even started. This goes double if you're in a faster and more powerful aircraft against a better turner. There may be some situations in aircraft that can pull a really quick turn to go for a cheap-shot after the pass, but more likely this is the sort of stunt that will get you killed. If you do want to turn back hard, it's a lot better to do a high yo-yo to get you down to corner speed while preserving energy, than to have to regain energy you deliberately prevented yourself from having in the first place. Energy gives you options.

I have that setup, 15-20 in pitch works for me for basically every plane in game, F-15 included. 20-25 in Yaw assuming you're using the stick twist not the throttle paddles, and no curvature in roll.

So what can we expect with regards to seeker improvements? Better CM resistance?

Right, so I tried it again and it just worked first time, without me fiddling with inverters. Thanks all for your input! I think previously I was hasty and flicked the switches on the sight before the ASP power on the right panel, then when I flicked that it didn't work so maybe as you say I just broke it? Having said that, the auto-start turns both inverters on and leaves them there, should I just leave it like that? When I turn Inverter 2 off manually the sight goes off! Just to make sure we're talking about the same things, I'm referring to switches 42 and 43 from page 43 of the manual.

OK thanks will give that a try when I get the chance! I also did a bit more searching and seems the gunsight might not work when the "auxiliary inverter" is turned on. I searched the manual and there's no such thing, I assume it means one of the power converter switches at the rearmost end of the right hand vertical cockpit panel (buttons below circuit box). Didn't have a chance to try this either.

No axis for brightness but I interacted with the knobs in the cockpit, no effect. Those knobs work in air start missions where the pipper is there already.

I cold-started my MiG (lazy so used auto-start) but couldn't get the piper and net to show. Switches on ASP itself do nothing. I turned on all the weapons power switches on the right cockpit vertical wall, and checked all gyro, generator and power switches on the right horizontal panel were on as well, no luck. Any ideas which switch I have set wrong to stop the ASP working?