Jump to content

F14 or A10


jimblue74

Recommended Posts

i'm A bit late to the Party. Even though you've made your choice, let me point out that the F14B is virtually a finished product. All features are essentially there As of now minus Jester AI being able to operate Lantirn.

 

IN the future you will also get F14A as well as modern built B ( basically just digital Engine control panel)

 

Even though the A10C is a complete product, and still a fine simulation let me point out that A10C is nonetheless a bit of a frankenstein aircraft. Its a combination suite 5 Features ( SADL datalink) but missing AN/ARC210 Digital Radio set present from that specific suite , but also in turn anachronistic features from suite 3 like AN/ARC 164 radios which in turn wouldn't have had SADL datalink integration at the time.

 

Regardless of the Franken status, SADL functionality is severely limited. I don't know what the agreements ( besides no laser mavericks) that the ANG forced on ED when they made the consumer version of the ANG A10C for DCS , but i can tell even just from purely non classified public sourced information SADL is barely functional relative to capabilities already present on early access Link 16 simulated on the F16C and F/A18C. As of now you can only See A10's and only see other blueforce aircraft like Viper or Hornet if AWACS is up to host a gateway link between SADL and LINk 16. SADL is capable IRL to also display symbology based on friendly, unknown and confirmed enemy contacts detected by AWACS radar or other fighter's radars. Although not part of SADL also missing is the A10's ability to display known SAM threat radius's on the TAD page like you can on the Viper and Hornet.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you prefer an Air Force or navy bird also the f14 is a dual seater so you may want to find a rio to learn with you and help with the workload or we’re you going to rely on jester. And being more primitive may mean you are doing more. I would read the manual for each and go

From there

BlackeyCole 20years usaf

XP-11. Dcs 2.5OB

Acer predator laptop/ i7 7720, 2.4ghz, 32 gb ddr4 ram, 500gb ssd,1tb hdd,nvidia 1080 8gb vram

 

 

New FlightSim Blog at https://blackeysblog.wordpress.com. Go visit it and leave me feedback and or comments so I can make it better. A new post every Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm A bit late to the Party. Even though you've made your choice, let me point out that the F14B is virtually a finished product. All features are essentially there As of now minus Jester AI being able to operate Lantirn.

That's just not true. It's still missing a lot of things. To name a few:

- TWS AUTO mode

- Proper Phoenix missiles (current Phoenixes are just long range AMRAAMs)

- TARPS

- Correct engine instrument panel

- RIO flood light

- Proper carrier arrestment physics

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...let me point out that the F14B is virtually a finished product. All features are essentially there As of now minus Jester AI being able to operate Lantirn.

 

IN the future you will also get F14A as well as modern built B ( basically just digital Engine control panel)

I have to disagree. B is not finished as far as it lacks TWS-Auto - most needed funcion of the module for now. It will also not be more modern anymore - it will just get proper engine gauges that were wrong from the start.

The most important difference in HB's A will be engines of course but don't forget RWR too.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3750764&postcount=17

 

 

- F14 has Jester. For now I don't like the idea of having to rely on AI for many tasks, or jumping from seat to seat to use systems. I would see it as an immersion breaker.

Many see it the other way - Jester actually adds immersion of flying with other person. Of course best would be to fly with good human RIO. I feel that lack of TWS-Auto (and Jester's radar work atm) and HUD would turn you away from 14 if you fly 18 mostly. But you'll have to try it for yourself.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many see it the other way - Jester actually adds immersion of flying with other person.

I think he meant switching between seats midflight is an immersion breaker which I can fully agree with. ;)

Jester on the other hand is indeed supposed to improve immersion as you said.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he meant switching between seats midflight is an immersion breaker which I can fully agree with. ;)

Yeah, although it may sound as a good idea at first to do everything by yourself, nobody I heard of is actually doing it beside checks/tests :)

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just not true. It's still missing a lot of things. To name a few:

- TWS AUTO mode

- Proper Phoenix missiles (current Phoenixes are just long range AMRAAMs)

- TARPS

- Correct engine instrument panel

- RIO flood light

- Proper carrier arrestment physics

 

key word was virtually. Virtually does not mean everything, and relative to whats missing on the Hornet that has been out for how many years, it is very fair to say the F14B is virtually complete.

 

 

 

AS regards to the instrument panel What we have now is a former F14A rebuilt to F14B standards as opposed to a new F14B factory production. Only those have the different ( in this case digital) engine indicators as opposed to analog ones found on F14A and A's upgraded into B's

 

Refinement of Phoenix missiles capabilities doesn't count as unfinished. They just need to be adjusted. That would be like saying FC3 F15C was never finished because AIm120B and C weren't performing as quite as supposed to.

 

 

TARPS is only relevant for recon purposes ( which arguably a niche role within a niche genre of combat flight sims), and even then its more sense for an F14A than the F14B. even though both could carry it.

RIO flood light minor thing.

 

 

- Proper carrier arrestment. Thats again refinement

 

 

So again this is Virtually finished.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree. B is not finished as far as it lacks TWS-Auto - most needed funcion of the module for now. It will also not be more modern anymore - it will just get proper engine gauges that were wrong from the start.

The most important difference in HB's A will be engines of course but don't forget RWR too.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3750764&postcount=17

 

 

 

Many see it the other way - Jester actually adds immersion of flying with other person. Of course best would be to fly with good human RIO. I feel that lack of TWS-Auto (and Jester's radar work atm) and HUD would turn you away from 14 if you fly 18 mostly. But you'll have to try it for yourself.

 

Lack of TWS auto is only an issue when flying with jester. With a real person not an issue.

 

Jester Ai was nessary as it would be impossible to operate the TOmcat alone ( in MP in particular) and otherwise inneficient to swap seats all the time in singe player.

 

JEster AI however is not more immersive than a human rio, as you have to basically "instruct" jester on every little thing thing from that drop down menu, which is distracting amidst combat, but the best compromise that can be done for a single play experience. AS IRL, in DCS a human RIO doesn't ( or at least shouldn't ) have to be micromanaged.

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kev, virtually I am a pilot but Tomcat is not finished. The TWS-Auto is not only for Jester, which is not finished too. He's not perfect but was never meant to be. He does a lot on his own and will do more. Nobody says he's more immersive than human but that probably depends on the RIO.

Another missing feature - pilot body.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kev, virtually I am a pilot but Tomcat is not finished. The TWS-Auto is not only for Jester, which is not finished too. He's not perfect but was never meant to be. He does a lot on his own and will do more. Nobody says he's more immersive than human but that probably depends on the RIO.

Another missing feature - pilot body.

 

 

pilot body just gets in the way of seeing panels and switches, wheras IRL you can just move your extremities around to reveal them, in game you can't., you have too entirely remove the body with key combo . Its Not gamebreaking lacking such a feature, and the least important of anything to nitpick about since not every module has one anyways, and you should be used to not having one because most other sims never did. Don't use it in any other module.

 

Also

 

The word virtual or virtually, doesn't have to mean in a computerized or virtual reality or virtual plane. It can means nearly or almost. In the context i used the word it very much makes sense. The F14B Tomcat is arguably nearly complete since its only missing a very handful of features ( of which are going to be ticked off in the very near future) . IT especially makes that term more impactfull when comparing the state the F18 or F16c are in.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, really Kev?! Barely anything you just said is correct...

 

key word was virtually. Virtually does not mean everything, and relative to whats missing on the Hornet that has been out for how many years, it is very fair to say the F14B is virtually complete.

The Hornet came out in EA in May 2018. That was one and half year ago. Definitely not many years!

 

AS regards to the instrument panel What we have now is a former F14A rebuilt to F14B standards as opposed to a new F14B factory production. Only those have the different ( in this case digital) engine indicators as opposed to analog ones found on F14A and A's upgraded into B's

Then apparently Heatblur is wrong, because they say that our F-14B is supposed to have the new engine instrument panel and will get it once the panel has been finished. The one we currently have is the one that will go into the F-14A and serves as a placeholder in our F-14B for the time being...

So maybe you should tell Heatblur that they're wrong.

 

Refinement of Phoenix missiles capabilities doesn't count as unfinished. They just need to be adjusted. That would be like saying FC3 F15C was never finished because AIm120B and C weren't performing as quite as supposed to.

Unlike the AMRAAMs for the F-15, the Phoenix for the F-14 isn't just missing small smaller refinement. It's missing a complete overhaul as it currently works entirely different it did IRL. I'm not talking about range or speed adjustments, I'm talking about the entire guidance system of the missile that doesn't work at all like it did IRL.

For example it should be a Fox 1 when launched in STT mode, while currently it behaves like the AMRAAM (Fox 3).

It should also get trashed if fired in TWS and TWS lock is dropped before the "go active" command gets send to the missile.

Those are not just some minor refinements. When implemented this will make a big change in how we can employ the missile.

 

TARPS is only relevant for recon purposes ( which arguably a niche role within a niche genre of combat flight sims), and even then its more sense for an F14A than the F14B. even though both could carry it.

It might be a niche role for you, but it's a product feature that Heatblur is advertising.

 

 

RIO flood light minor thing.

From your posts it seems like you don't fly as a RIO, but I do and not having the white flood light available is really annoying during night missions.

 

 

- Proper carrier arrestment. Thats again refinement

It's refinement, but still something that is missing and still needs to be done.

 

 

Lack of TWS auto is only an issue when flying with jester. With a real person not an issue.

What the hell? You really have no clue about the RIO position, do you?

TWS auto is required to keep targets in track in TWS, especially when launching Phoenixes. Currently we have the workaround of being able to use TWS MAN to do that, but this is a) unrealistic, as the real system automatically switches to TWS AUTO when a Phoenix gets launched and b) it's rather difficult to manually keep a target within the radar scan zone that is close in range but at a totally different altitude.

 

Jester Ai was nessary as it would be impossible to operate the TOmcat alone ( in MP in particular) and otherwise inneficient to swap seats all the time in singe player.

JEster AI however is not more immersive than a human rio, as you have to basically "instruct" jester on every little thing thing from that drop down menu, which is distracting amidst combat, but the best compromise that can be done for a single play experience. AS IRL, in DCS a human RIO doesn't ( or at least shouldn't ) have to be micromanaged.

That#s why it is so important that Jester gets proper behaviour, like the ability to use LANTIRN, which is still missing.

 

So again this is Virtually finished.

So again, this is practically not finished at all.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What one thinks of how useful some features are or how important they are or what other modules have is irrelevant. HB made a list of features and until it is fulfilled, the module is not finished. Hornet got pilot body, Viggen got it and Tomcat will get it too. Some fly without the stick visible because "it gets in the way" too but I don't feel like flying the drone.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=234203

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end I decided. The F-18, for now, will be my main aircraft, it is multi-role, modern, it can carry out operations on aircraft carriers. Now I will start studying the A-10C. I came to the decision for the following reasons:

- it is a finished product. I got tired of early access, F-18 after a year and a half is still EA, F-16 is an EA (maybe an alpha), Supercarriers will be in EA .....;

- being a finished product, it has many paid campaigns (and I have almost all of them), in particular the Marple Flag ones, which I find very rewarding and instructive;

- it is completely different from the F18, if I have to learn from scratch, I prefer to do it on a very different plane (but always from the same era as the F18), I find it more stimulating, not only because it is exclusively AG, but because, as said by some here, even the AG missions can be very different from what you can do with the F18, such as close air support, very low and slow flight .....

- a 2.0 version will be released, this is inspiring, so I'll be prepared for when it comes out.

- F14 has Jester. I have thought and tried a lot on this subject. And I have come to the conclusion that, for now, the two-seaters don't interest me. I'm sure Jester has been implemented to the best of current possibilities, but the fact remains that I like to have control over everything, I find it more immersive and more simulative. Having to give orders to Jester, with combinations of keys, even for very simple things, spoils the atmosphere, moreover, no matter how well done, it will never be as if I did it (as a human, not because I'm good), on the other hand, if I jumped from one seat to another, it would be a too big immersion break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end I decided. The F-18, for now, will be my main aircraft, it is multi-role, modern, it can carry out operations on aircraft carriers. Now I will start studying the A-10C. I came to the decision for the following reasons:

- it is a finished product. I got tired of early access, F-18 after a year and a half is still EA, F-16 is an EA (maybe an alpha), Supercarriers will be in EA .....;

- being a finished product, it has many paid campaigns (and I have almost all of them), in particular the Marple Flag ones, which I find very rewarding and instructive;

- it is completely different from the F18, if I have to learn from scratch, I prefer to do it on a very different plane (but always from the same era as the F18), I find it more stimulating, not only because it is exclusively AG, but because, as said by some here, even the AG missions can be very different from what you can do with the F18, such as close air support, very low and slow flight .....

- a 2.0 version will be released, this is inspiring, so I'll be prepared for when it comes out.

- F14 has Jester. I have thought and tried a lot on this subject. And I have come to the conclusion that, for now, the two-seaters don't interest me. I'm sure Jester has been implemented to the best of current possibilities, but the fact remains that I like to have control over everything, I find it more immersive and more simulative. Having to give orders to Jester, with combinations of keys, even for very simple things, spoils the atmosphere, moreover, no matter how well done, it will never be as if I did it (as a human, not because I'm good), on the other hand, if I jumped from one seat to another, it would be a too big immersion break.

 

 

Remember to look into "force correlate" in regards to the A-10C. A previous entry brings up all the limitations of the A-10C in a high threat Anti Air environment. However, with Force Correlate, and some practice, you can deal with older SAM threats by targeting the ground at the base of a radar installation and lofting a couple of MAV's from high altitude.

 

It doesn't mitigate IR threats, and personally I run my EWR and jamming systems in manual, as I can toggle the ECM pod at will, and cycle through chaff/flare options depending on what I run into.

 

Force Correlate will open a few more options for you with the A-10. Also, play around with Air to Air mode. Again, the A-10 is not a fighter, but once you learn to how to use A2A in the A-10, you can pull out some dicey situations if a bandit shows up. You will really enjoy the A-10, but yes, it is a ground pounder, and Force-Correlate and A2A scenarios are only going to open a few more options for you - but a fast mover that wants you down, will take you out. :thumbup:

Pointy end hurt! Fire burn!!
JTF-191 25th Draggins - Hawg Main. Black Shark 2, A10C, A10CII, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Mig-15, Mig-19, Mig-21, P-51, F-15, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29, FW-190 Dora, Anton, BF 109, Mossie, Normandy, Caucasus, NTTR, Persian Gulf, Channel, Syria, Marianas, WWII Assets, CA. (WWII backer picked aircraft ME-262, P-47D).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end I decided. The F-18, for now, will be my main aircraft, it is multi-role, modern, it can carry out operations on aircraft carriers. Now I will start studying the A-10C. I came to the decision for the following reasons:

- it is a finished product. I got tired of early access, F-18 after a year and a half is still EA, F-16 is an EA (maybe an alpha), Supercarriers will be in EA .....;

- being a finished product, it has many paid campaigns (and I have almost all of them), in particular the Marple Flag ones, which I find very rewarding and instructive;

- it is completely different from the F18, if I have to learn from scratch, I prefer to do it on a very different plane (but always from the same era as the F1cool.gif, I find it more stimulating, not only because it is exclusively AG, but because, as said by some here, even the AG missions can be very different from what you can do with the F18, such as close air support, very low and slow flight .....

- a 2.0 version will be released, this is inspiring, so I'll be prepared for when it comes out.

- F14 has Jester. I have thought and tried a lot on this subject. And I have come to the conclusion that, for now, the two-seaters don't interest me. I'm sure Jester has been implemented to the best of current possibilities, but the fact remains that I like to have control over everything, I find it more immersive and more simulative. Having to give orders to Jester, with combinations of keys, even for very simple things, spoils the atmosphere, moreover, no matter how well done, it will never be as if I did it (as a human, not because I'm good), on the other hand, if I jumped from one seat to another, it would be a too big immersion break.

Sounds like a well thought decision. You can't go wrong with the mighty Warthog :thumbup:

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember to look into "force correlate" in regards to the A-10C. A previous entry brings up all the limitations of the A-10C in a high threat Anti Air environment. However, with Force Correlate, and some practice, you can deal with older SAM threats by targeting the ground at the base of a radar installation and lofting a couple of MAV's from high altitude.

 

It doesn't mitigate IR threats, and personally I run my EWR and jamming systems in manual, as I can toggle the ECM pod at will, and cycle through chaff/flare options depending on what I run into.

 

Force Correlate will open a few more options for you with the A-10. Also, play around with Air to Air mode. Again, the A-10 is not a fighter, but once you learn to how to use A2A in the A-10, you can pull out some dicey situations if a bandit shows up. You will really enjoy the A-10, but yes, it is a ground pounder, and Force-Correlate and A2A scenarios are only going to open a few more options for you - but a fast mover that wants you down, will take you out. :thumbup:

Force Correlated in DCS is not realistic thogh as it is pretty unreliable IRL and hence almost never gets used IRL.

 

Despite that you don't really need it in DCS either. You can take out even long range SAMs by staying low and using terrain masking.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,

 

 

Agree to disagree. And yea as of late I've been flying rio quite alot actually with a online buddy from adiscord channel I frequent, including having lantirn manually and fully mapped out to my Hotas

 

And yes a year and a half for the hornet is a long time and so much is still unfinished relative to the tomcat that was not only more feature complete at launch but also released later than hornet.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes a year and a half for the hornet is a long time and so much is still unfinished relative to the tomcat that was not only more feature complete at launch but also released later than hornet.

Sure, that's why we had to wait much longer for the Tomcats release, which has been ind evelopment for much longer than the Hornet. And while the Hornet is making steady progress after it got released in EA and is getting new feature after new feature, the Tomcat is not getting much updates at all.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, that's why we had to wait much longer for the Tomcats release, which has been ind evelopment for much longer than the Hornet. And while the Hornet is making steady progress after it got released in EA and is getting new feature after new feature, the Tomcat is not getting much updates at all.

 

Becauae the tomcat was ( and currently is) much closer to completion relative to the hornet.

 

I'm sure if ed released the hornet nearly feature complete but at the same time promised an additional variation part of the f18 module package ( say an f/a18a++) then you could be expected to get less frequent updates, because there would be less pressure to churn out against internal deadlines, whilst also dedicating time to developing the other variation.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Force Correlated in DCS is not realistic thogh as it is pretty unreliable IRL and hence almost never gets used IRL.

 

Despite that you don't really need it in DCS either. You can take out even long range SAMs by staying low and using terrain masking.

 

 

Given that it doesn't work as IRL - I have found a use for it in DCS for not having to hug terrain. I fly high, and cruise on auto pilot while I setup targets and hit multiple assets from afar. Certainly not applicable for all scenarios, but I have enjoyed this method when I can.

 

To each his own they say. :)

Pointy end hurt! Fire burn!!
JTF-191 25th Draggins - Hawg Main. Black Shark 2, A10C, A10CII, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Mig-15, Mig-19, Mig-21, P-51, F-15, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29, FW-190 Dora, Anton, BF 109, Mossie, Normandy, Caucasus, NTTR, Persian Gulf, Channel, Syria, Marianas, WWII Assets, CA. (WWII backer picked aircraft ME-262, P-47D).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first gut-feeling after reading the first post: Go for the F-16C... but it needs a bit more time to mature.

 

Next gut-feeling: The F-14B wouldn't suit you all too well. Rather go for the Mirage or Harrier perhaps or if you are ok with the Warthog (DCS Warthog 2 is coming soon!) then go for it. :)

FC3, Ka-50, A-10C, AJS-37, MiG-21bis, F-14A/B, F/A-18C, F-16C, NTTR, Persian Gulf, Super Carrier, TacView Advanced

Next in line: F-5 II , MiG-19 , MiG-23 MLA

Wishlist: PA-100 Tornado, F-104 Starfighter, MiG-25 Foxbat, A-6 Intruder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...