Mr.Scar

Huey. Simply because of the raw flight experience that teaches you how to actually fly a helo, forces you to respect engine limitations, weather conditions, and how to behave when something goes wrong without the help of automated systems. I would say it is a invaluable experience before the AH-64D To explain. I focused a lot of time on the Huey, but before that i have tried the KA-50 and thought its to hard to fly. But after a quite bit of hours in the Huey, when i jumped in the KA-50 i was like: its so smooth and easy. Both are different beasts, so no comparison here, but it truly made me appreciate how much work flight stabilisation systems are doing for the pilot. So again, try the Huey. Its a great learning platform before something more advanced like the AH-64D

Well, when i finally jumped into the KA-50 after flying the Huey (i tried the shark before the huey but hated it for trying to kill me) i have basically focused on the following things step by step: 1. Did all the tutorials 2. Found my flow to do the cold start with the understanding what specific gauges and systems mean, and what all the buttons do (did not cover all of them, since im not flying the BS right now) 3. Free flight, tinkering with the autopilot modes, hovering, landing, simulated bob ups from behind cover etc. just to train stick time and master the trim. Flying In stability augmentation modes and without them etc. pure flight. 4. Weapons training on dummy, defenceless targets. how to acquire them fast, and what weapon to use against targets. 5. Starting step by step missions, where i setup units that can actually fire back. Gradually increasing threat they pose, and learning this way bit by bit the ranges at which enemies can engage me. But fact is, everything is a threat to a helo at those altitudes. 6. When i feel i have enough confidence in flying/weapon employment i setup my own missions with the assumption that the intel is 100% correct (i setup the enemy myself duh) and then i train to kill them 7. Do the opposite in point 6. So download some missions, or actually try the campaigns that are included in the module, to test my skills and what i already know. 8. Rarely try multiplayer, since i unfortunately do not have that much time for it. 9. Play Red Alert OST - Hell March when crusing to the AO. I hope it counts as passing time in KA-50? Thats about it, what i have tried to do, but that was around 1 year ago since i drove the shark, so memories are a bit rusty. But in principle its taking it step by step and supporting yourself with YT tutorial videos and Chucks guide. PS: Volks videos are fantastic.

I will throw in some eye-candy too.

+ You can also do it like a boss, and just do a low level strike bombing the crap out of the target area Its just personal preference, but like I mentioned in other posts, i like hands on flying experience more than systems management. I also am more fond of SP missions/campaigns, than MP. But anyway, there are some good arguments here. To sum up, a better battlefield environment would be desired.

Oh yeah, definitely. By saying what you said, you also moved a very important topic, so i have to go off top again, but the reasons you stated above is why I would love to see a official dynamic campaign. Because in the end, historical accuracy or not, the real problem are not aircraft modules. We have good modules although some are more advanced in development and others are not, the problem lies in the environment we fly in. When we would get a DC with advanced ground and air units AI behaviour, and the battlefield management AI would be generating dynamic missions depending on changing circumstances, it would all boil down to: Not what you want to do, but what the mission that has been issued to you, requires you to do. In my opinion it completely changes the perspective. You are no longer the saviour hero pilot, but you are part of a big war machine. I think it would solve a lot of problems, and the realistic loadouts argument would be somewhat pushed on the second place. Since it would simply force people to be effective in executing a mission, and not preforming rag tag random killing with as much type of weapons possible. That is just my feeling, but i might be wrong of course.

Allright, I think I get it now... Thank you for the explanation. I need to digest what to think about it honestly, but it seems that when one wants to fly the Viper he has to really think what type of mission he has to perform. So the loadout example you have given, basically forces you to do SEAD and than potentialy CAP? And If you want to do pure A2G, then sorry, no Harms? I dont want to sound bad, but... I have better SEAD and A2G combo with the Harrier in this case. Sidearms were not used historically I think, but they can be really potent in DCS. So yeah, so much for realism. To explain, i love realism, but I am definitely not some hardcore realism guy. I spend a lot of time on DCS, but its definetly not my second life. On the other hand, I avoid Air Quake... I prefer sitting with my crotch on the fence, and people from both sides usually hate me hahaha But anyway, sorry fot the offtop and thanks for the explanation one more time.

Guys... I don't have that big of a brain to understand all the super-in-depth-technical-quirks as you DCS veterans do, but as far as I understand the discussion, the main argument is that some think the F-16 should carry 4 Harms, and be able to use them. And officially the Viper is able to carry 2 and use two HARMS and this is what we get in DCS, right? So... just to use common sense, without all that technical mumbo jumbo. 1. Isn't having 2 HARMS still better than having none of them? 2. Why would you need to carry 4 HARMS mission wise? Just to kill radars and ground vehicles using radars against aircraft? What about the rest of ground targets? With point 2 I mean, is it not better to carry bombs/mavericks etc. next to HARMS? (if such a configuration is possible) and use the HARMS to disable major air defence threats? The Viper is a very capable striker too i think, so after firing the HARMS, why not get balls into grass at mach speed and drop cluster bombs on some fat target, then get out. Its just my 2 cents, but what I basically want to say is that I like to have my loadouts as clean and versatile as possible, without getting into "frankenloadouts". Also, when possible, I limit the amount of carried ordnance for fuel conservation purposes. Meaning, as an example, the A-10C can carry an outrageous amount of ordnance, but honestly I never pack it full of bombs, since I want to stay relatively quick on my feet. So simply put, my way of thinking when enjoying DCS is that in this case 2 HARMS are more than enough to do the job. But this is just my personal opinion, from a guy that mostly flies solo ground pounding missions, and in SP. I rarely do MP, and If i do, its in a Huey. Like mentioned I am not an expert and need to learn the F-16 from the beggining, once I decide to jump into it, but that is just my perspective as an "outside" guy that does mud moving/Helo ops most of the time.

I had a very similar experience, so i totally know what you mean. I love the A-10C, but the speed makes you curse sometimes. You are the heavy weapons specialist in a squad. Everyone curses at you for being slow, but once you get there everyone is cheering when you start shooting. I have tried to like the Hornet, flew it quite a bit of time, but Hornet carrier ops and its systems management do not click with me. Then I went to fly helicopters for a long time, but sometimes i wanted to be a bit faster without loosing the VTOL, and dedicated A2G options. Harrier was the answer. Fell in love instantly. Sub-sonic speed, lots of ordnance, flexibility to take off and land basically anywhere, and ironically carrier ops that click with me. For me its a sci-fi hybrid of a jet and helicopter. One of its kind, with a lot of hands on flying experience. Exactly the thing i was looking for. Right now I am in the middle of re-learning it. Also, first bird ever I managed to perform AAR in... so that means something for me. But not to hijack the thread, then came the Viper which i love since I was a kid. And it clicks with me way better than the Hornet does. Right now I am giving the F-16 time to develop, but... soon.

Hahaha, actually I did. But also for the Harrier, Apache, Super Cobra and a few more. The A-10C however has got a somewhat special place, since it is something that got me hooked with A2G. I jump around helos and ground pounders most of the time, but the A-10C is where it all began for me

I am not an A2A guy, prefer mud moving. Helos, A-10C, Harrier, those are my bread and butter. But truth is, if i finally decide to switch my attention to A2A too, it will be the Viper. I have only flown it a little bit, but I love everything about it. Provides the best hands on experience while flying, that brute force engine is a monster and thanks to that makes it a very formidable strike aircraft. The bubble canopy provides fantastic vision not only in A2A but in A2G also. And the speed allows to get out of hairy situations quickly. I also dont mind the small MFDs. Frankly speaking, they have some kind of charm of their own, that I prefer much more than the green blobs in the Hornet. I already look at a lot of green in the AV-8B Simply put, from a mud mover perspective, it ticks a lot of boxes for me when it goes to ground pounding. The way A2A is done, is just a sweet added bonus. Viper all the way.

Hey, there is this big guy, Harrier is his name i think, he said he wanted to talk to you. He is behind that building over there, waiting for you. I dunno what he wants but have fun. But on the serious side I am a bit biased, since the A10C was what got me hooked with A2G ind the first place, and have not done anything else. I have the tank killer upgrade, and would say it is totally worth it. Makes the A-10C even more mean. Also what is worth mentioning, is that the flight model changed, so the Hog is much more agile even with heavier payloads. Turns like the devil now. Scorpion HMCS provides much better SA. It also works great with my T.16000m FCS Hotas, because i do not own the Warthog stick. But since you have the Warthog setup, even with F18 stick, it should be even better for you. I cannot say that much about the Hornet. I own it and the Supercarrier, have tried to like it but Hornet performed carrier ops are not my thing. 2. Too much system management for me. 3. I prefer to focus on A2G with a lot of hands down flying experience, and use A2A only as a backup option. I leave the 40.000 feet, BVR SPAMRAAM fights to others that thrive in it. No offence. BUT, this is not about me, but about you. Since you have the most time in a warbird, I would recommend the A-10C, if you can afford it, the upgrade is totally worth it. You still have the good old HOG but with new tricks up the sleeve, and additions in my opinion are always welcome. But before you do that, my recommendation, and also something I have done to re-learn the Hog is as follows: 1. Before you update to A-10C II , do the official Tutorials in a chronological order for the Legacy A-10, since they teach you how to manage the HOTAS buttons that are king on the Hog. And the next tutorials teach you how to use that hotas switchology in a practical manner, while still being handheld during the procedures. Great thing to train muscle memory before going into actual combat. 2. After you have done the tutorials, for the A-10C, and know how to oparerate the Hotas for the legacy Hog, refer to Chucks guide https://www.mudspike.com/chucks-guides-dcs-a-10c-warthog/ PART 8 - Understanding HOTAS. There you will find the differences between in the HOTAS control logic between the Legacy and Tank Killer version. They are a bit different, change some things but after learning the Legacy A-10 hotas controls you will be able to see that kind of differences those are and what is most important, you can decide if the new logic suits you or not. 3. For more in depth and hands on tutorial, also about the Scorpion HMCS try this: This is basically a series from 0 to Hero, literally. Covers everything nicely about the HOG in separate videos, including the mentioned helmet mounted display. Its episode 5. 4. Or if you are not interested in seeing the difference between those two, you can get the Tank Killer immedietly and learn it from the beggining, without seeing what is the difference. But since you own the legacy A10C, and you are thinking about the upgrade, i think it was worth mentioning that there are differences in the Hotas controls. I hope this will help.

Hope im not late for the party, but i will throw in my few cents. I am mostly a Helo pilot in DCS, but in general i prefer aircraft that provide hands on flying experience. So more flying, less systems management. Also what is worth mentioning, i have discovered that A2G is my cup of coffee. A2A, not so much. Anyway, coming back to the topic. Back in time, i was also thinking which helo to fly and I will provide some insight how it looked from my side. 1. Huey - that was the first helo i have chosen to learn in detail. It provides massive raw experience on flying, is very easy to start up, forces you respect the engine limitations, but there after learning it, there is nothing more satisfying than doing a clean smooth manoeuvre and landing it in a small spot between trees, to deploy troops. Then all the gimmicks start to kick in, how to "climb" a mountain in difficult weather condifions, taking into account ambient temperature. All in all it is a very agile, and very light frame that contratry to belief allows you for some crazy manouvers as long as you respect that collective input and engine gauges. Loadout wise, its not a monster, but it has claws of its own. Miniguns and rockets are a great thing to clear out hot landing zone, but still you are not an assault chopper and even a shilka, or guys with rifles will and can kill you. 2. KA-50 - i was trying to fly that thing before i started to learn the Huey, and i hated it for trying to kill me. After the Huey, i could not believe how easy this thing is to fly. It was because i was trying to fly against the autopilot systems. Now although both are helicopters, the design is something that you need to take into account. Meaning, in the KA-50 does not have a tail rotor, and it makes a huge difference. Plus the autopilot systems which you really start to appreciate, what they do and how they literally babysit you. Best thing to do, after flying the Huey, try flying around the KA-50 with the autopilot systems off. You will see what i mean, because of the lack of the tail rotor. Loadout wise, its a monster. A lot of ATGMS, cannon, and almost pinpoint accurate rockets can make short work of everything from a relatively safe distance. Flying the KA-50 is a bit like being a Predator from the sci-fi movies, you need to be patient, stalk prey, use a lot of terrain masking, be aware of your surrounding and kill targets one by one. One flaw is that it does not have thermal imaging systems, so its best used in day or low light conditions. It can be done at dark, but requires a lot of tinkering with the screen brightness, extensive use of NVG and flares. Best thing for night ops is having a buddy to light up the targets with flares and you doing the killing or vice versa. Hunter-killer tactics. 3. Mi-8 - Very similar to the Huey. It is heavier, but once you make it rolling it is much more stable and less trim extensive in a straight flight. It is also very agile for its size, but because of the weight, the landings are more tricky to pull off. Once you pick the place you want to land on, you really need to focus on a stable approach angle, making sure you are not descending too fast or too slow. Its because of the mentioned weight of the helicopter, sudden or too late made corrections can make you smash into the ground or get into a Vortex Ring State. On the upside, the Mi-8 is much more resilient against harsh weather. Its good for climbing mountains, it has dust protection, anti-ice too if I remember correclty and also you have Yuri sitting in the back and making some mean coffee while you cruise to your destination. The M-8 is a very zen airfract once you get the grips on how to fly her. Also she aint pretty, but she is very tough. Weapon wise, also similar to Huey, but bigger callibers and more rockets to level a small village and deploy Spetsnaz for mop-up work. Last thing to mention, dont get scared of the amount of buttons in the cockpit. Once you go through the tutorials, she is very easy to start up. 4. Gazelle - dont own it, least amount of hours in in, just a few in fact. Tried it during one of the free periods. Its a wild dog that one, that can be compared to a dragonfly in my opinion. I though the Huey is light, the Gazelle is paper light. Its basically a cockpit attached to an engine with rotor blades. It does not carry much ordnance, but once you figure out how to fly it, its a total blast. It does not do sling loading of course, and is best used as a scout helicopter in conjunction with other attack helicopters, but it does have ATGMS that will kill MBTs. In comparison to the KA-50, the Gazelle is a scalpel, and the Black Shark is a hammer. 5. Mi-24P - I own it, but have not yet flown it. So cannot give an opinion on that one. 6. Honorable mention: Waiting for the Apache, which will be most probably my bread and butter in DCS once it is there. Advanced systems, but still, hands on flying experience because it is a helicopter. Currently I am re-learning the Harrier since it provides more ground pounding, sub-sonic speed and helo-like options thanks to the VTOL. Its also very capable in heliping out helicopter pilots in Helo Escort duties. But that is a different topic. One thing I love about helos, that you basically have to worry about everything on the ground and the need to be constantly aware of the surroundings. Its easier to avoid a AMRAMM at 40.000 feet than a manpad hiding in the bush, when doing NOE flying. Like Chuck Owl wrote it in one of his guides, helicopter pilots are batshit insane. And you know what? I love to be batshit insane.

I dont know if this was confirmed or not, but does anyone know which Tranche we will be getting? I only found information that it has not been kind of announced/decided? yet. I wonder if the EF will be also A2G capable in DCS.

Dont know how relevant this is, but its the only video I have found where you can hear the Gau-12 firing from the perspective of someone standing on the ground. Also the muffled sounds should be similar i think, but the AC-130 Gunship is a different airframe afterall... All in all, i think it sounds fantastic

Oh yes. And having AIM-120C while doing helo escort can be a really nasty surprise for enemy fast movers. I honestly am very eager to see this, because it will change the "gameplay" tremendously. What I mean by that is, there is nothing wrong with the current modules we fly. The problem is the environment we fly in. When the changes to the ground unit AI come, to make it even semi-realistic, suddenly all the available dcs modules will have their place in such an dynamic environment. It will simply create a plethora of factors that need to be accounted for when going on a mission. Now im not criticizing the Hornet or any other module, but in the current state of ground AI, the Hornet is simply put, the "best" option for many virtual pilots. But like you said and I am of the same opinion, once we get a better simulated environment, it will be a total game changer. That is also why I love flying the Harrier and it clicks with me. Im still in the middle of re-learning it, but it is simply so much more fun and hands on. The added fluff comes from the history of the aircraft and the way it is used in the real world. Same goes for the helicopters that in my opinion give me the most joy from flying. I hope RAZBAM will continue to update and improve the Harrier

Sorry for the late reply mate. Thanks for the update and I agree about the radar. The Harrier will gain more with the radar, even if it means loosing some stuff. A2A in general is not my cup of coffee, since i simply do not feel the urge for BVR/BFM. I have tried to like the Hornet because of the "can do it all" thing, but it simply does not click with me. Ironically, Hornet carrier ops is not my thing, but operating from the Tarawa in a Harrier works for me way better. Probably because it kind of reminds me of helo landings. Same goes to pure A2A that I am not fond of in the Bug, but i do think Aim-120C option for the AV-8 will provide a complete new dimension. Anyway, right now I hop between the Harrier and the Hog, since CAS is my thing. I leave A2A fights to those who thrive in it. One thing i wish for, Hog or Harrier, is that the ground units AI get some kind of overhaul or more complex behavior. I love blowing stuff up, but at some point it becomes only target practice. More natural ground unit behaviour would be desired, but we will see what happens. Once I finish re-learning the Harrier i think i will try out some SP campaigns, or I will try getting my hands on DCS Liberation. But that is a different topic for another time.

I am in the same boat. Generally after flying the A-10C which fits me like a glove i have discovered my love for mud moving. But I wanted more, and thanks to the A-10C i have found out that Helos are my thing. Have tried the fast movers, F-18, F-14, JF-17, Viggen, Mirage, they are all nice and cool, but dont offer the things that I want. Meanwhile the Harrier is kind of a mix of a helicopter and jet, maybe not the biggest ordnace capacity, but a lot of flexiblity. So my cup of coffe. Thats why the Harrier got me hooked, but got shelved because of the bugs. Uh, kill me, cant remember. That was a good time ago, maybe a year or two. The thing how it looked like was as follows: I have bought the Harrier without even reading about potential bugs (yeah, shame on me) i got hooked, started doing tranings, simple sp missions etc. but i think there was something wrong with the TPOD that made me wonder if I am doing something wrong, or it is a plane thing. So i started reading/searching forums about it and i stumbled upon a lot of posts how the Harrier is plagued with bugs. That was the main thing that made me resign from the Harrier for the time being, although i did it with a nasty taste in my mouth, because i really started to love that bird. I was looking at YT videos showing how future marine aviatiors were sitting in the mud with other grunts, so that a stronger bond is created between those two. This is something that made it stand out for me a lot, and something that is rather not practiced anywhere else that i know of. This sounds much better than I remember it was, so its great news they are making progress! Thanks for the write up Well, it will take time but honestly I think when the Plus drops it will be a very nice game changer. I might get roasted for saying it, but i personally thing that the Plus harrier will have much greater flexibility than the Hornet has. Option to land almost everywhere, boat ops, a2g, a2a, specifically designed for night ops, helo escorts, limited but still, sead capable, it will be very flexible and yet somehow more interesting than the Hornet. At least for me. I totally know what you talk about. I have tried the Hornet several times, but it simply does not have that "itch" for me that helos or dedicated ground pounders have. I honestly prefer the Viper over the Hornet and I am far from a good BVR/dogfighter... and you know what? I dont care, i love blowing up stuff on the ground and leave the A2A to the others. But the Viper gives me better vibes in a2a combat than the hornet does. Maybe because a lot of years ago my first flying was done in the F-15C. I totally agree, and I like different. Truth is, the Harrier for me is a bit of an underdog in DCS and I like being an underdog. And yes, i flew the training missions those 2 years ago, they are fantastic because they force me to use the knowladge from previous missions to apply them in new ones, so going from simple stuff to the more advanced ones! Great news that BD is working on updating them. Thank you all guys for the feedback, maybe the Harrier is still not in a perfect condition but i think it is in a much better shape than it was a few years ago. I have also noticed that they added APKWS to the Harrier and this thing is a beast... I think i will jump into the Harrier training missions and give it a shot. One last question, any recommended SP campaigns to hone the skills? I heard Sky Warrior is quite good and the Ottoman Courier prologue missions are also quite nice. Anything else worth mentioning to hone skills, once i go through the training missions? Thanks a lot again!

Hold your horses there. What? We are getting the Plus variant? Well ill be damned... This is awesome news.

Wow, this is a lot of good stuff. Thank you all. I will sit down in a few hours in front of my pc, and refer to, what you wrote.

Yeah, i know. Another of those topics... So i will keep it short. Question as the title, but things worth mentioning from my side. 1. I flew the Harrier around a good time ago, when it was filled with bugs. 2. Was the first module ever i managed to do a2a refueling. 3. Had a blast, coming from the A10C at that time. Have tried the hornet but it was... Boring. 4. Spent a lot of time on helos, and this is something i currently do. I shelved the Harrier one year ago because the bugs became too irritating. I have read through the patch notes and forum topics. So i kind of have an idea that a lot of stuff has been fixed and Thank you RAZBAM for that. But i wonder simply what the hands on experience right now is. Reason for asking is that i am on holiday and do not have Access to my pc. But i am considering what to fly with additional days off, when i am back from holiday. Last thing, i love mud moving. Second place of my interest Goes to the F16. Thanks for the feedback

Ill get banned for this, but oh well... The Viper gets screwed by the tanker on one night stand. The Hornet screws the tanker that asks for more, because the hornet lasts longer. And on the serious side. Both. Viper gets my adrenaline pumped. Hornet gets the job done. The Viper for me is a neighborhood bully. Once he catches you, you are in big trouble. The Hornet is a resilient and professional hunter, that will not rest until you are dead.

Hehe, thanks for the reply. I fully agree with you. About helis, I prefer the Huey much more over the KA-50. But in general, I am mostly a helo pilot, so all helicopters are a go for me. As for the F-5, i totally agree. I do not own it, but I do think its very fun to fly even from a spectators perspective. So getting the F-5 is also probably a matter of time for me As for the F-16 or JF-17. I have flown both the past two days ago more. And although I said that I feel more freedom in the F-16, I think i figured it out how to fly the Jeff. To be honest with you, It "clicks" more with the JF-17 now. Its all the small details that matter, i have a feeling that the fuel consumptions is better on the Jeff, and also i feel that the JF-17 is a bit like if the F-18 and F-16 had a son. The JF-17 seems to be a great rate fighter, but also has great nose authority. I figured that out yesterday, when I experimented with the A/A A/G1 switches etc. Behaves totally different when setup for air combat. I only miss the HMD a bit, but truthfully is not that big of an issue, once I got the hang of pointing the nose at the bandit. Sure, my dogfighting skills are still terrible, but for me it was always about the "how do I feel in the aircraft" and not the "what is more appealing to me" I mean by that, although I like the visuals and on-paper capabilities of the F-16, F-18 or others, when I have tried them out, after few days I got to realize those are not the planes for me, because i do not "feel" them from piloting perspective. The skills will come with stick time. Now I do feel the JF-17... like I said it has everything that clicks with me. Starting from the small things (start up procedure, DTC, alignment, the fantastic glass cocpkpit, rwr, and handling) right to the big things, like weapons, provided SA, fuel management. I have not flown the Viper in the "we shall-not-name-that-other-F16-flight-sim", but only the DCS one. But from what I have heard, the flight model of the Viper will not change, she will get only bugfixes and additional features. But that is not that important to me, those things will come eventually. Its, like i said, about feeling the aircraft. The JF-17 fits me like a glove. As a side note, I really hope that Deka Ironworks will release the SU-30MKK or MKI. Those guys made an awesome job with the JF-17 and I am still astonished how well the Jeff is done. Anyway, once I can afford it, I am getting the JF-17 Thunder. I start to feel that thin thing was built for me. And also about the Japanese car thing, well... I own a Toyota in real life so... There might be something in it, why I like the Jeff.

Well, yesterday I flew the tutorial missions with the JF-17, then took it on a fast mission with some dogfighting included. I repeated the same for the F-16, to get a comparison on how they "feel" JF-17 Now I know what was meant by "flies like on rails". It feels good, handles well, and most probably also my dogfighting skills are crap, however when doing it I kinda felt a bit restricted. Of course it would require practice and there are things I do wrong, but by saying this I mean that I do not "feel" the machine in a natural way. Like mentioned, I felt restricted. I did not have that type of feeling even when flying the Hornet, that is very much designed to prevent the pilot from doing stupid things. The glass cockpit is great and offers a lot of SA and visibility for BVR or A2G. Also the IFF and RWR are fantastic. F-16 I felt much more freedom when flying the Viper in a dogfight. She did exactly what I wanted and reacted the way I expected she would react. Dogfighting feels much more natural in it, although my energy managment skills got very rusty (was flying the F-15C a long time ago). The MFDs although much smaller are honestly not that big of an issue, you need to focus on them anyway when doing long range engagments, be it for ground or BVR. IFF and RWR are not as good as the JF-17, but they do the job and thats more than enough. Also the HMD, bubble canopy and general visibility is something much more comfortable for me. The throttle response is something I also like very much. I think I can also say that the fuel consumption in a dogfight feels quite similar on both aircraft. All in all, i will think about buying the JF-17 eventually when it is on sale. But after flying and getting a feeling of both during those short few hours, i simply have the impression that the Viper fits me more, even in its current state.

Thank you very much. I am trying the JF-17 on the free period right now, but those were the answers I was looking for. I wanted a more hands on feedback from someone that was actually flying it for a longer period of time. I was only doing it like for 1h yesterday. As for the boring part about the JF-17, well that is also something I am a bit afraid of. But funny fact is that I did no get bored with the Mig-29 although she is a FC3 aircraft. I am not sure what it is, but its the way she handles i think. I also come from helos, where the Huey was my workhorse for a long time and flying helicopters is a completely diffrent cup of tea that literally forces you to focus on flying and not on system management. Even the KA-50 with all fancy flight assist systems does not make NOE flying less interactive. Anyway, coming back to the topic. I will continue flying the JF-17 during the free period and will see how i like it. So far my impressions are similar, she is very comfortable to fly. I will wait for a sale anyway, before thinking about purchasing. Maybe the Viper will get updates/bugfixes until the Jeff is on sale. Who knows?

I have tried it out, just the training lessons a took a quick flight. Got to say its something different but in a good way. Hard to tell how it fits yet, but I am sure the glass cockpit is a really nice thing to have. I will do more flying around, then I will check out the Viper and make my decision, but truthfully i will probably get it when the next sale hits. Thanks again for the replies!