Jump to content

Is it worth to buy it now ?


jcbb92

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Ignition said:

MARK IS necessary for us, since we fly a dynamic campaign.

Also Bullseye to TDC is mandatory and the F16 doesn't have it atm.

 

If you like to fly alone and only do some training its ok but forget it if you plan to fly seriously, its missing basic stuff.

You don't need FCR bullseye, older planes like the F-5 doesn't have that for example. Use BRAA calls instead of bullseye callouts for enemy positions.
MARK isn't necessary unless you don't have target coordinates, and if you don't you probably shouldn't be targeting those targets because of a high chance of friendly fire. Only exception being smoke on the targets. I don't think MARK is a big necessity in DCS, as it isn't IRL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, jcbb92 said:

The F16 module is at discounted price now. But I read some months ago this module was missed of lot of features. 

So what about now ? Is it worth to buy it now ?

if so, what is provided with the module : training missions ? campaign ? it is not very clear in the module description.

 

Thanks for your feedback

It depends on what you want to do. The F-18 is a better all-around, ground attack focused aircraft. The JF-17 I would argue is better at BVR in that the SD-10 is a better missile than the Amram and the Jeff has much better avionics and situational awareness than the F-16. The JF-17 simply works as it should and is more reliable in BVR IMHO. Having said that, the F-16 is very fast and joy to fly. However, if you use VR, the small displays can be a bit of a PITA whereas the Jeff has all the information you need right there without pushing a button or squinting. The HOTAS functionality is marginally better in the Jeff.

 

In summary, I'd say unless you have a thing for the F-16 like I do, I'd skip it for now. In a year I'm sure it'll be in much better shape, but right now, the F-18 and JF-17 are just far superior products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Ignition:

MARK IS necessary for us, since we fly a dynamic campaign.

Also Bullseye to TDC is mandatory and the F16 doesn't have it atm.

 

If you like to fly alone and only do some training its ok but forget it if you plan to fly seriously, its missing basic stuff.

 

This. Those two missing features are a pure pain. This bothers me every single flights since I can't make raygun or buddyspike calls, making flight communications in coordinated AA operations nearly impossible, especially if you have no AWACS with its magic datalink. It is no problem for lone wolfes, for us it's a pain and I wait on this even more than on the FM rework.

And the MARK points on SOI would be an adequate solution for the time until we get an AG radar. Since this creates in fact STPTs, this would make it possible to exchange target positions between flights.
Bullseye to radar cursor is like a half-a-day-to-develop-feature yet it would bring soooo much. Like... We would possibly fly the viper in complex missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may offer my opinion as a new owner of the Falcon also 🙂.

 

It's true there are missing features, however I've been pleasently surprised with the module in my relatively short time with it. From what I've seen, the missing stuff is really rather deep into how professionals fly and plan missions etc. I'm talking here about some of the DED modes and functions being placeholders and some of the finer points with some avionics. In terms of an overall aircraft it starts up nicely, all the major systems appear to work correctly and I've been having an awful lot of fun flying it. I can highly recommend it as a purchase if you're looking for a land based multi-role fighter as opposed to naval.

 

Flying her in the NTTR map in particular is great fun, setting up short sorties to learn various systems before heading home to Nellis. I must try out that Red Flag campaign too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LanceCrown said:

 

 Whats the 400/0.82 cruise/climb thumb rule ?

With drag index 100 and 150 (2 tanks and missiles/bomb usually fit that description). The block 50 F-16 has best cruising/climbing performance when you're flying at 400 knots / mach 0.82 which ever is higher in MIL power. For the heavier you are the faster you need to go, and wise versa. But usually we're flying with drag index 100/150 so this is really the only thumb rule you need to remember. 400 usually is a good speed no matter the drag index and it isn't all that important, what really matters is your mach.
For drag index 0 and 50 (only missiles or clean) you have a speed of 0.9
Drag index 100 = mach 0.85
Drag index 150 and 200 = mach 0.82

For that reason you can't really go wrong with 0.82, but usually somewhere between 0.85 and 0.82 is a good speed to be at with standard loadouts.
Safe flights!

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, ok. So you try to stay at mach 0,82, no matter if i am cruising or climbing. Where i obviously add throttle when climbing and decrease throttle when going back to level flight.

 

Honestly i wasnt sure if its best to match the throttle to my speed, or if i keep my throttle the same and accept the loss of speed when climbing. Or like go full throttle to reach my desired altitude as fast as possible and then decrease speed to my desired cruising speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LanceCrown said:

Ah, ok. So you try to stay at mach 0,82, no matter if i am cruising or climbing. Where i obviously add throttle when climbing and decrease throttle when going back to level flight.

 

Honestly i wasnt sure if its best to match the throttle to my speed, or if i keep my throttle the same and accept the loss of speed when climbing. Or like go full throttle to reach my desired altitude as fast as possible and then decrease speed to my desired cruising speed.

nono, that's not how you're supposed to do it. When climbing/cruising you always want to be in MIL power. You climb with mil and gradually level off to keep the speed at 0.82, after a good 10-20 minutes of this you will be level on your cruising alt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who are now on DCS 2.7, are the AIM-9 modes / functions (like cage & uncage for instance) complete already ?

 

Thank you.

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, falconbr said:

 

No, it remains WIP.

 

Best regards,

 

falconbr

 

 

Thank you.

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Top Jockey said:

 

Thank you.

But you can use the helmet mounted site to shoot off borsight with the 9x.

"Subsonic is below Mach 1, supersonic is up to Mach 5. Above Mach 5 is hypersonic. And reentry from space, well, that's like Mach a lot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2021 at 7:14 AM, SpaceMonkey037 said:

You don't need FCR bullseye, older planes like the F-5 doesn't have that for example. Use BRAA calls instead of bullseye callouts for enemy positions.
MARK isn't necessary unless you don't have target coordinates, and if you don't you probably shouldn't be targeting those targets because of a high chance of friendly fire. Only exception being smoke on the targets. I don't think MARK is a big necessity in DCS, as it isn't IRL.

 

I don't understand, what about the F-5? Even if it doesn't have it why the F16 shouldn't have it? In reality you get Bullseye calls, BRAA its only used against HOSTILE in danger situations, BANDIT and no factor are Bullseye most of the time. BRAA calls only works for 1 aircraft and its no use for the rest of the coalition. With bullseye you make 1 call instead of 20+ BRAA calls.
Even if the F-5 doesn't have it he should know his position and bullseye (roughly), if he doesn't then he is lost and/or has a bad situational awareness and should take care. This is really common in DCS since its difficult to learn and the community and/or ED don't help. It's a lot of practice, much more than anything else, that's why "modern" jets have it integrated in their systems.

 

Mark is necessary since the ground battlefield is moving constantly, unless you only fly only static missions. If you don't want to hit friendlies you need to have a good comunication with the gound allies plus smoke is a good signal yes. 
Mark is fundamental for targets of opportunity and intelligence specially for a dynamic campaign and modern conflicts, so yes it's necessary unless you always target known locations with static targets like practices.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on your experience levels as to the level of enjoyment you will have and whether or not the unfinished items in the module will hamper your experience.

 

I think a lot that bought on day 1 may now be at the point where missing features may cause issue and if buying today an already experienced DCS player is going to also reach that point sooner especially if they are doing complex MP missions. 

 

I am a newer player , if you are like me then the uncomplete parts really will not bother you for quite some time, and by that stage there will be further updates to plug the gap (hopefully) Perhaps the only caveat would be for BFM in a BFM server. In it's current state the F-16 is not ideal and if facing off against a reasonable opponent it's a struggle (especially when you are also learning BFM tactics).

 

Overall I really like the Viper, I spend a lot of time doing basic airmanship stuff, landings, AAR etc... The AAR alone will take a lot of time to master !!! (well for me anyway).

 

Some other considerations:

 

In VR the MFD's are smaller so a high PD is necessary (The Hornet for example is a little easier to read as the screens are bigger and closer)

I think the overall graphical fidelity of the Hornet cockpit is slightly better than the Viper.

There is no virtual pilot like in the Hornet so in VR the cockpit can feel a little empty 

I have a side stick set-up so the F-16 feels nice in that regard

I have a Warthog HOTAS so having the F-16 stick already is also a nice bonus for immersion. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked it up and put it away for later.  If you are just starting out with the F-16 then it will probably be a great buy and fun to start learning.

 

Just flew it enough to set up the controls, it's very nice to just fly around in but it is pretty basic functionally.  In a way, it's unfortunate I have 1000+ hours in a fully functioning F-16 sim so my expectations/requirements are different from someone who's just starting out.  I'm looking forward to when it catches up (hopefully) as I do like flying in DCS.

 

Just watch out for the inevitable changes as it is updated, struggling with that in the Harrier right now.

 

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

i7 10700K OC 5.1GHZ / 500GB SSD & 1TB M:2 & 4TB HDD / MSI Gaming MB / GTX 1080 / 32GB RAM / Win 10 / TrackIR 4 Pro / CH Pedals / TM Warthog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2021 at 1:50 PM, SpaceMonkey037 said:

What "placeholder-menus" are you annoyed about? Most of the pages are test pages and pages that are only used for setting up very advanced stuff. I don't think most people would ever touch most of the pages.

Most of the missing things are not just “test pages”. To name just a couple very important functional things missing: Markpoints, Datalink, CRUS, VIP/VRP, etc... 

 

And not to mention: 

 

-The HSD is missing almost all of its functionality except for showing you waypoints. 

-HTS pod - one of the things that makes the viper special.

-Cursor bullseye on the FCR (why this hasn’t been added yet when own ship bullseye is displayed elsewhere?). BRAA calls don’t work if you aren’t located in the same spot as other flights hence the need for bullseye callouts. 
 

The F-16 is worth buying. But disagree the stuff missing avionics wise are just “test pages”.


Edited by DemoVFW
  • Like 4

i9 9900KS 5.0Ghz | 64Gb 3200Mhz DDR4 | EVGA 2080Ti Kingpin | SSDs | W10 Pro | Rift S | TM Warthog, Pedals, MFDs

 

www.1stvfw.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings gentlemen. This is semi-offtopic, but I didn't want to make a whole thread just for this question.

I read that the F18 would be moving to release after this big update and more manpower would then shift to the F16.

Has anyone heard anything on that front? I see the F18 is still listed as early access on the website

 

on-topic:

This is a very difficult question and it looks like you got some great input already. It depends entirely on your play style and what missions you want to achieve.

I went with the viper for what it should theoretically be once complete. Essentially, from the viewpoint of capability, the only reason you would take the F18 over the F16 is if you want to do carrier ops.

There are a lot of scenarios you could compare the two jets in. If you remove carrier ops from the equation both jets from what I have read come out in the end about even. With each jet having some strong and weak points.

I suspect when the F16 is finished and ready for release the community will be placing it considerably above the F18 over all.

I don't own the F18, so here are some key points on why i went with the Viper:

  • Bubble canopy bubble canopy bubble canopy. this can't be overstated. The F16 has an absolutely amazing view out the cockpit
  • HARM capability functional and easy to use.
  • Great payload capacity and array of items with more on the way
  • Great A2G capability once it is complete
  • Helmet Mounted Cueing System
  • extremely fast and reasonably agile, the flight model will be improving in the future

The biggest downside I have seen so far is that if you don't keep your throttle out of afterburner you will constantly be running out of fuel. It helps to keep volume up and don't simulate the helmet sounds. Eventually you can tell by sound alone where your throttle should be. Beyond that get used to looking at the RPM gauge when you are free from threats and keep it at or just below 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sternzy said:

Greetings gentlemen. This is semi-offtopic, but I didn't want to make a whole thread just for this question.

I read that the F18 would be moving to release after this big update and more manpower would then shift to the F16.

Has anyone heard anything on that front? I see the F18 is still listed as early access on the website

 

on-topic:

This is a very difficult question and it looks like you got some great input already. It depends entirely on your play style and what missions you want to achieve.

I went with the viper for what it should theoretically be once complete. Essentially, from the viewpoint of capability, the only reason you would take the F18 over the F16 is if you want to do carrier ops.

There are a lot of scenarios you could compare the two jets in. If you remove carrier ops from the equation both jets from what I have read come out in the end about even. With each jet having some strong and weak points.

I suspect when the F16 is finished and ready for release the community will be placing it considerably above the F18 over all.

I don't own the F18, so here are some key points on why i went with the Viper:

  • Bubble canopy bubble canopy bubble canopy. this can't be overstated. The F16 has an absolutely amazing view out the cockpit
  • HARM capability functional and easy to use.
  • Great payload capacity and array of items with more on the way
  • Great A2G capability once it is complete
  • Helmet Mounted Cueing System
  • extremely fast and reasonably agile, the flight model will be improving in the future

The biggest downside I have seen so far is that if you don't keep your throttle out of afterburner you will constantly be running out of fuel. It helps to keep volume up and don't simulate the helmet sounds. Eventually you can tell by sound alone where your throttle should be. Beyond that get used to looking at the RPM gauge when you are free from threats and keep it at or just below 100%

 

Well said,

 

I'd like to add that other than Carrier ops, Hornet can also do anti ship strikes with Harpoon, while our Viper will not have that capability as far as I know.

Viper will be much better SEAD platform in the end, when everything is finished and Viper has its HOTAS very very well set up, really easy to use, better than whats in the Hornet.

 

But overall both Viper and the Hornet are great platforms, and can perform many different types of missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sternzy said:

Greetings gentlemen. This is semi-offtopic, but I didn't want to make a whole thread just for this question.

I read that the F18 would be moving to release after this big update and more manpower would then shift to the F16.

Has anyone heard anything on that front? I see the F18 is still listed as early access on the website

 

on-topic:

This is a very difficult question and it looks like you got some great input already. It depends entirely on your play style and what missions you want to achieve.

I went with the viper for what it should theoretically be once complete. Essentially, from the viewpoint of capability, the only reason you would take the F18 over the F16 is if you want to do carrier ops.

There are a lot of scenarios you could compare the two jets in. If you remove carrier ops from the equation both jets from what I have read come out in the end about even. With each jet having some strong and weak points.

I suspect when the F16 is finished and ready for release the community will be placing it considerably above the F18 over all.

I don't own the F18, so here are some key points on why i went with the Viper:

  • Bubble canopy bubble canopy bubble canopy. this can't be overstated. The F16 has an absolutely amazing view out the cockpit
  • HARM capability functional and easy to use.
  • Great payload capacity and array of items with more on the way
  • Great A2G capability once it is complete
  • Helmet Mounted Cueing System
  • extremely fast and reasonably agile, the flight model will be improving in the future

The biggest downside I have seen so far is that if you don't keep your throttle out of afterburner you will constantly be running out of fuel. It helps to keep volume up and don't simulate the helmet sounds. Eventually you can tell by sound alone where your throttle should be. Beyond that get used to looking at the RPM gauge when you are free from threats and keep it at or just below 100%

New threads are easy and free, and they keep the forum better organized and searchable. 

 

For your afterburner issue, consider using the throttle detent keybind. It's also more informative to look at the fuel flow rate than the RPM.

  • Like 1

"Subsonic is below Mach 1, supersonic is up to Mach 5. Above Mach 5 is hypersonic. And reentry from space, well, that's like Mach a lot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with the Viper is whether buying it simply provides "more of the same" as I already have the Hornet. An even on sale the Viper still a couple of dollars. That said, I'm not a nit picker for systems, either their function of state of completion. I just love the enjoyment of flying. Is the plane fun? Is it cool?

 

I guess I'm just wondering out loud if the flying fun and cool factor of the Viper is different enough from the Hornet to justify the purchase.

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Sternzy said:

I don't own the F18, so here are some key points on why i went with the Viper:

  • Bubble canopy bubble canopy bubble canopy. this can't be overstated. The F16 has an absolutely amazing view out the cockpit
  • HARM capability functional and easy to use.
  • Great payload capacity and array of items with more on the way
  • Great A2G capability once it is complete
  • Helmet Mounted Cueing System
  • extremely fast and reasonably agile, the flight model will be improving in the future

The biggest downside I have seen so far is that if you don't keep your throttle out of afterburner you will constantly be running out of fuel.

 

I agree with all of that, excepting coming from the A-10C, the Viper's payload capacity is really really light 😛 And I think the Hornet carries more ordnance if I'm not mistaken.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I guess I'm just wondering out loud if the flying fun and cool factor of the Viper is different enough from the Hornet to justify the purchase.

 

ED occasionally has free demo days/weekends/weeks. It could be a good time to try out the Viper and see if you like it.

 

Personally I feel that it's worth picking up if you love the jet. I think the Hornet has more utility right now, but I just like the Viper better for personal, non-utilitarian reasons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I guess I'm just wondering out loud if the flying fun and cool factor of the Viper is different enough from the Hornet to justify the purchase.

It depends I guess. For me I consider different airframes to be unique, the idea of having the F-18 for instance never deterred me from getting the F-16.

 

Anyway some major differences between the two:

 

Speed/acceleration - The F-16 is fast, it feels like a fighter. An armed Hornet feels like a truck in comparison. Unless carrying really heavy payloads, I prefer the feel of the F-16 by far.

 

Maneuverability - The F-16 has an AoA limiter while the F-18 has a g limiter. The former is more intrusive at low speed while the latter activates at high speed. In my experience I find the Hornet's g limiter to be the more annoying limitation, although there have definitely been situations in the F-16 where I wish I had the F-18's nose pointing ability.

 

HOTAS/cockpit - Both aircraft are pretty capable, but doing things in the F-16 generally feels more intuitive. The workflow in the Hornet feels overly complicated for no reason, especially AA. The exception here might be radios.

 

Weapons - They carry similar weapons, but there are a couple of unique options. The Hornet gets Harpoons for antiship, and radio controlled Walleyes. The F-16 will eventually get the Harm Targeting Pod for better spontaneous SEAD capability and has monstrous options for anti armor because of huge cluster bomb payloads.


Edited by Exorcet
  • Like 2

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2021 at 8:28 AM, jcbb92 said:

The F16 module is at discounted price now. But I read some months ago this module was missed of lot of features. 

So what about now ? Is it worth to buy it now ?

if so, what is provided with the module : training missions ? campaign ? it is not very clear in the module description.

 

Thanks for your feedback

  I was on the fence about buying the F16. After watching this video........SOLD!

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2021 at 5:28 PM, jcbb92 said:

The F16 module is at discounted price now. But I read some months ago this module was missed of lot of features. 

So what about now ? Is it worth to buy it now ?

if so, what is provided with the module : training missions ? campaign ? it is not very clear in the module description.

 

Thanks for your feedback

 

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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