mungo13

Just to know as sales are coming to an end: Is there any special requirement regarding the modules to fly on this server? Like maps, ground assets and so on? I have seen available airplanes - here I have some overlap.

I run DCS on Nvidia 1060 Ti, 16GB RAM and Ryzen CPU (do not know exact model now). As long as you have decent FPS, graphic is all right - no big deal. I am thinking about some RAM upgrade, as whole system is RAM hungry - but it is Windows general issue. General note about graphics (I am not sure about DCS itself) - sometimes it is tricky and you might have problems to see contacts depending on the settings. Better settings could worsen your situation and vice versa - I do not know what is optimal settings in DCS, but this was issue of the military flight sims Eventually: Pick A-10A or Su-25 and try some rides close to the ground around towns and hills and you will see how your PC handles it. What "old TM joystick"? It can be anything, good and bad. I have old good Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2 - it is old as hell, yet works as expected. So: * GPU - test your system when it comes to difficult part - ground, many objects. * Monitor, stick: Depends on what you have * Headtracking: As draconus pointed out, once you get used to such a think there is rarely way to go back. If you really want to fly, you want it. I do not have my system fully set for flying now (I am ~1 year off), but when I watch video from the DCS, I turn my head to turn the camera and try to put my feet on the pedals I do not have installed. You have been warned

Is Mirage 2000 also as maintenance heavy? I am just asking as it seems that Razbam loves to make planes of this type. Because what you wrote here is what in my head is attributed to the soviet construction school and particularly to the Mig-19. Memories of the ground crew from the former Czechoslovakia are saying that it was maintenance nightmare, you needed to have your hand broken in 2-3 places to reach for some parts and if you dropped any tool into the engine bay it required to rip the fuselage in the 2 halves disconnect all fittings of the engine and put everything back again. Thus if you wanted to be a dead man, all you needed to do was to let it happen after the major work on the engine (that already required this procedure to be performed once). So after long years that I read these stories I can read its copy about Western aircraft. But Mig-19 is plane from the Stone age of the jet aviation and design.

Years ago, I had chance to fly on Zeke vs Wildcat. Not on regular basis, but fairly often. It was fun. But when it comes to never ending stream of the Wunderwaffe: Please, no! Axis workhorse planes at the end of the war never outclassed Allied ones. And making comparison of those few types that were close to prototypes and Axis nations had no materials, tooling and skilled labor to make them in fully functional condition? No.

Cannot help my self: I remember stories by my friends, flying one well-known older classic WW2 simulator on some foreign servers. They saw people flying german planes with japanese markings. Turned out - they were Russians and refused to use svastika. Imagine server where Russians fly german planes, Polish guys fly russian ones and Chinese guys find themselves with no other option than kick someone using Zero. And we had scenarios where Italians were fighting Germans as it happened in later part of the war in Italy - thus you had Messerschmidts on both sides.

I do not know how well or badly is it modeled in DCS but under right circumstances it is possible. Soviet interceptors used to have IR and RADAR guided version of the same type and fire them in pair against the target. IR one be the first to go. Reason was not to lock on the exhaust of the previous one.

That is the reason of my question - whether those so called arcade accuracy has something to do with the module. Whether it is somehow cheating the DCS World module, or it makes its best calculation and that calculation is too good for the DCS World. Or: Where otherwise that arcade accuracy came from?

Just a question: Is accuracy of the bombs done by the module or by the game? I mean: In real life and iron bombs, you and your system make your best guesstimate, then you drop them and real world takes the control. Better you know those rules and better your bombs are in production quality more accuracy you get. How it works in DCS? Is some randomization and spread applied to the falling bombs? Or the module itself takes the source code (or part of it) for the environment, runs it through its own routines, models how it would look in the plane systems, calculates solution with that simulated real world already included and bombs hit exactly where he tells them to hit

I am just sitting in it during the the free test and - I am starting to fall in love. There is not billion of the switches (that doesn't mean that devil cannot hide in options through the MFDs), visibility is great, tutorials so far seems to be OK and there is a lot of them. Thus it is quite likely that today or tomorrow my bank account is going to suffer a little bit.

What version we will get? "Austrian Special" :music_whistling:

Neither I do understand that choice. You have hardened steel of the ball bearing rolling over the surface of the aluminium against pressure of the spring - is even the surface resistant enough? I do not know much about precise machining of the metal parts but I just ask myself as when now companies offer laser / plasma / water jet cutting of the metal sheets with fair (for my lack of knowledge :) ) precision whether it is not better to make yourself a steel copy if you can properly take the shape. And it is not that expensive. Of course you would need also make that mounting pin for the spring. But if it is doable - it seems to be a nuisance avoidable by VKB if they did not swap metal.

Why to complicate something that is otherwise simple? :smilewink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-28 It has defense turret position in the rear with 2x 23mm Probably only (yet critical) issue is the fact that in those days planes were literally tailored to their purpose compared to modern multirole ones. Thus if someone makes bomber, it would not be equipped to make torpedo runs.

Actually Il-28 was fairly common inventory of the Eastern block (+ friends) air forces. Thus if anyone makes F-100 as Mig-19 counterpart and either french Vatour or british Canberra it could be nice set up for some Cold War or Middle East scenario - maybe not 237% historical but very close to.

I have read few threads as I'd like to start flying finally (or better: start to learn to fly these things) and my question is: Is Mirage worth the time I have for flying? Or is it better to switch my attention to another module (Mig-21/A-10C or buying one more)? As some time after I had bought this module I printed manual as I prefer paper over PC screen. And shortly after they changed the module so there was information that my manual is just outdated (not that cheap waste now). And I do not want to spend time on something that might be overhauled again after myself spending hours to learn the stuff.

A-7, Mirage F.1 and Mig-23 will hopefully be done. Thus out of my list. Remains: Phantom and/or F-105; Su-17/22; Jaguar F-111 / Su-24, Bucaneer, Sea Harrier, Etendard, Mirage III, F-100 and long list of the other beautiful old ugly jets. Those listed are to at least partially fill both sides of the historical eras.

Obviously than you have the majority of the planes there and it makes no sense to buy the package - no bargain for you anymore. Maybe SU-25 could be still interesting for you, just it is opposing direction as A-10 to A-10C. Myself I also made my first purchases on Steam then I transferred licenses to DCS stand-alone. Now I'd like to learn at least 2 planes to operate on ordinary level. A-10C or Su-25 unless I'll take Harrier plus one fighter. I've to systematically start somewhere as I have already forgotten more than once what I had learnt.

Su-27: What about just buying Flamming Cliffs 3? You will get whole package of those birds. Much cheaper than buying single modules one by one. I hope Dr_Wigglespank would not mind if I add my question instead of making another thread as it is similar problem: What to buy (if anything). I have A-10C, FC3, Mirage 2k, Mig-21, F-86 and some frontal and roof propellers ;) and Nevada map. I was thinking about learning Mirage, but that last changes and some bug debates confuses me a little. Anyway I am looking and those jets at 50% and try to make some list. And avoid excessive overlaps in poperties. So: F-18 vs F-16 F-18 would be easily the choice as more refined module as well as universal land, navy A2A, A2G platform. F-16 - our air forces are about to buy them and I do not expect to be at this price for 2-3 years. Otherwise I'd remove it from my list - but well this makes it valid candidate Harrier Always loved that bird. Just it is something like: Oh, more power than A-10 ... wait, why not to step even further and buy F-18? Viggen Same love, woud fit Cold War theme, just I am not sure Mig-19 Thinking about it, love the bird, once again, Razbaam, complains about overpowered bird, too easy to fly and risk of the major rework = necessity to re-learn F-5 Probably not. Pure dogfighter and coming from propellers I was always rather bomber-fighter Maps: Persian Gulf or Normandy if I cannot have both of them? For now Gulf has upper hand for me. So if you can (or anybody else) make some comments, I'd be glad. I am thinking about 1-2 planes and maybe 1 map.

I know, downloading. I read this thread - still thinking, whether Harrier or F-18 or F-16. Question about A-10 is already answered for me, it was probably my first full module. - Harrier and F-18 looks somehow similar to me in some strike capabilities, although I am not deep into details as people around. - F-16 is too new, but for long it will probably not be on 50% sale. And it is future combat aircraft of the our air force, although in much more modern version. More I read, more I am confused.

Well, as they are now on sale and if he was thinking about buying one or waiting for sale that in before had been around 20% for the F-1? - now with 50% he can have 2 of them. If he wish to do so, on Steam it is even cut by additional 5€ - at least Hornet. If it was for me, I'd take A-10 and probably Hornet (as it is out and under the testing of the community for the longer time). F-18+16 combo IMHO makes little sense, I'd prefer Hummer+Mercedes than Mercedes+BMW. :D I'd love to go for Tom Cruise, but most likely I am going (if) end up with Mig-19 and Hornet (or F-5; another Map; etc.)

I am not material engineer thus maybe dumb comment on my side: - are the bearing going to be made of alluminium? Otherwise there is still going to be steel that is going to rust once protective layer is worn - what about stainless steel? Not suitable for the cams? - many parts are still made from normal steel and do not suffer from the rust - in firearms, car industry etc. They are not maintenance-free, you need to lubricate them a little from time to time. But it is still an option I wonder how resistant to the pressure generated by the leverage that alloy is. Btw. your cams are likely not rusty - it is IMHO copper layer that is used as a base layer for the top chrome layer when electroplating is used. Put thin layer of the grease (suitable for parts where electronic boards and plastic are present - some silica base etc.) over the surface, from time to time gently repeat the process and you are most likely good to go for a long time.

As the budget is not (almost) the limit, isn't that that actually question about the best pedals, excluding some (hopefully) fictional over-designed pedals coated in gold and diamonds? :D Still nice to see people describing their own experience. At least for those of us who do not have budget to buy and test 2-3 high class devices, pick the best and leave the rest in reserve :thumbup:

Agree. :thumbup: Or you visit someone with workshop to make you M32-to-VKB piece with some wiring/soldering to finish the job.

Intitialy I thought that it is kind of the outside adapter to fit the threaded connector on TM/Virpil with this more specific system used by VKB and some electronics. I forgot that it goes inside the grip. Now I see that it would be even more of a fun unless you make custom mechanical adapter TM to VKB. Will it fit F/A-18 grip? Most likely, ask streakeagle here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=249703 he claimed to have 2 TM grips (A10+F18 ) and 2 VKB adapters, thus I suppose that he is using Hornet-one in this way. Functionality of the Virpil ones on VKB base through adapter are questionable as at-least some of them have axis that are not on TM ones. I am not sure whether somebody has already tested them.

So (immediate) the solution of your problem is to buy a new controller? Well - but reading about you collection ... it is not big surprise :joystick: Hopefully at the end it is going to be nothing more than replacing the faulty bearing. That may be tricky if it is pressed in its hole and it is also pressed over the inner axis, same on the other side. In that case some skill and even special tools might be needed.

OK, I get it - probably :smartass: Their adapter goes into the grip, right? So one may have just one adapter but then he will be forced to move it from one grip to another every single time, or make some exterior piece where he would plug his grip and this piece would be plugged to the base itself.