Jump to content

Start with A-4E/Tucano mod or FC3 planes?


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Lace said:

My argument was simply that if they are a VR user (we still don't know if they are) then FC3 complicates things be requiring keys to be mapped (and remembered) which is not the case in the FF modules

Agreed. If you phrased it that way, we would likely all agree. The 'effectively unusable' part, which is a far cry from 'it complicates things' is what I strongly dispute.

That being said, I'd like to point out that even for FF modules I bind many keys (well, the HOTAS, to start with). For the Hornet, for example, the left and right hand consoles are very (to me) uncomfortable to 'view-click', so I've bound FLIR and some other side panel buttons to my HOTAS. Also, I challenge you to perform a cold start in the Hornet without having to bind a key for that (the frigging bit button), so it's not as if in VR you can (nor should) be able to get by without. VR makes flying DCS better by orders of magnitudes; I merely content that this also extends to FC3 planes: they are eminently usable and flyable with a modicum of key binds, and a good investment (if you can overlook the fact that most of FC3's training content is completely MIA - but that's true for non-VR as well as VR). So would an FC3 plane be a good start-plane? I started on the Flanker (for the simple reason that that was where the training missions are), then transitioned to the (old) 10C, (then the Hawk, but let's skip that one, too many bad memories). I went VR shortly before the Bug came out, and as everyone knows (or should know) - the Hornet is near-unbeatable in VR in terms of user comfort, yes. It's also a great plane to start DCS in, as it is very easy to fly. Looking at my key binds, however, I find that I seem to have near identical binds for all planes, with the FC3 only requiring marginally more binds than the Bug, Cat or Viper.

So indeed, FC3 planes do require some more binds, but that's no where near a show-stop. They can well be used as first planes (as my Godson can attest to) in VR. I really don't know which the best starting airframe would be; GS may have been on to something when he said that you should get whatever airframe you always wanted to fly. If you are into procedures, you'll likely go to Hog Heaven sometime. If you want to blow stuff up, the FC3 Eagle or Flanker will do the job. In games, having fun is what counts most, and that's what should influence your decision most. 🙂 

  


Edited by cfrag
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

Also, I challenge you to perform a cold start in the Hornet without having to bind a key for that (the frigging bit button),

 

 

:hehe: Ah yes, that button.  Must admit I often skip the BIT for that very reason.  Same manual gymnastics required starting the Mossie too.

Laptop Pilot. Alienware X17, i9 11980HK 5.0GHz, 16GB RTX 3080, 64GB DDR4 3200MHz, NVMe SSD. 2x TM Warthog, Hornet grip, Virpil CM2 & TPR pedals, FSSB-R3, Cougar throttle, Viper pit WIP (XBox360 when traveling). Rift S.

NTTR, SoH, Syria, Sinai, Channel, South Atlantic, CA, Supercarrier, FC3, A-10CII, F-5, F-14, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Harrier, M2000, F1, Viggen, MiG-21, Yak-52, L-39, MB-339, CE2, Gazelle, Ka-50, Mi-8, Mi-24, Huey, Apache, Spitfire, Mossie.  Wishlist: Tornado, Jaguar, Buccaneer, F-117 and F-111.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lace said:

One question though, assuming you are a VR pilot (since that is why this came about), why do you use the gear keybind in the F14 rather than a glance and a click?  Do you look later to verify correct gear travel?  Is it not immersion breaking to reach for a keyboard with the headset on?

I like immersion and realistic take on the sim but I don't go further than VR+HOTAS+keyboard&mouse. Some binds stay on keyboard (if they are easy to find) and some I bind to the base of the joystick and the rest is mouse clicked. So I still use my hands to do things like a real pilot would. I try to keep HOTAS binds as real as possible for the aircraft I fly.

Why not click landing gear lever? I guess just preference and it might have stood with me after using FC3. Yes, I do check the landing gear indicator to confirm its state after the audible operation ends. I do the same in FC3 aircraft.

Imho players should start and end with the aircraft they like the most but I get why people would try and do things differently or some would like to follow the real world training path by progressing through simpler airframes starting with trainers.

People forget that FC3 aircraft are not only for "easier" and simplified operation. These are airframes not available otherwise. Even those that seemingly have their counterpart in A-10C or F-15E are very much different.

Do you really know and feel the difference between A-10A and A-10C FMs or you just took it by definition?


Edited by draconus

🖥️ 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

On 3/13/2022 at 7:56 AM, draconus said:

Actually I press the LG binding in the Tomcat too 🙂 I still have to take my hand off HOTAS though. Scanning instruments and learning procedures is absolutely not part of FF and can be done the same in FC3 aircraft - it's as professional as you want it to be. You may be right about the switches and learning their placement, I give you this, but FF power comes with full control of every system - the method of using the controls is only tiny fraction of this.

Ex. I learned proper approaches and patterns in F-15C. With smart waypoint usage I learned TACAN nav, flying radials, ADF or Bullseye calcs. That was before I have put my hands on any FF aircraft.

If you are proficient in A-10A imo you already have 90% of what it takes to be A-10C pilot. Idk maybe I'm old school but the aircraft is about aviation first and foremost. Button pushing can be learned by anyone. Piloting and decision making is a skill hard to get.

 

This was really well said. I think the point here is that the OP already acknowledged the complexity in learning the A10C, and that he already has both FC3 and the A10C.

An important part about learning is that everyone does it at different rates, and it is usually very strongly linked to the level of interest/motivation of the learner.

There is no doubt that anyone who really wants to could take any of the modules available in DCS and keep working at them until they reach their level of desired proficiency. But there is also something to be said about taking a more stepped approach, especially if it helps maintain/develop the users interest. The key is not to get overwhelmed to the point you lose interest.

 


Edited by Callsign112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lace said:

You can teach monkeys to fly.  It is the button pushing which turns a VFR bimbler into a combat effective fighter pilot.  How would you structure the A-10A training?  Given there is a one-button start procedure, you won't learn that.  The NAV/COMMS is through a magic non-interfaceable radio set.  Ok, I'll give you arrival and departure procedures (same for any aircraft essentially), weapons delivery has zero commonality with the FF A-10C, You might learn 'navigation' in a first principles sense, but it will not teach you how the nav systems in the C work nor will the A teach you the handling characteristics of the C, given the simplified FM.  There is no reason why if the end goal is flying the C, you would not just start learning the C.  There is nothing specific to the aircraft that the A will teach you.  You might as well use a C172 in xplane for learning the basics.

One question though, assuming you are a VR pilot (since that is why this came about), why do you use the gear keybind in the F14 rather than a glance and a click?  Do you look later to verify correct gear travel?  Is it not immersion breaking to reach for a keyboard with the headset on?

You make some very good points, but I would like to just highlight that not every one is as motivated as you are. You could probably learn any of the DCS modules faster than I could just because you are so motivated.

Where I disagree with your view is the value FC3 modules have in helping learn and build interest. For example you might see the nav system in the A as being completely different to what you would use in the C, but there are bound to be a lot of overlapping core principles between the two. And learning one will definitely make learning the other more easy.

Something else you may not realize, there are no simplified FM in FC3. All of the FC3 modules have a PFM except for the Su-25 which has an AFM. So learning to fly the A10A should be very relevant in terms of building experience as a stepping stone to learning the A10C.

If I am not mistaken, that is the point behind the FC3 modules.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

If I am not mistaken, that is the point behind the FC3 modules.   

I thought the point of the FC3 modules was that they were just hangovers from LOMAC? Worth including as an easier option for casual players, not as a stepping stone or training aid for FF modules.

At risk of flogging this dead horse, my point is simply that if your end goal is mastery of a FF module, then start with a FF module, even if it is a 'simple' one like the L-39, F-5, etc.  At least that way you are learning something about the processes in starting, operating and fighting a realistic airframe.  If your end goal is to fly FC3 aircraft and you have no intention of investing the time in a FF module, then crack on.  Nothing wrong with that.

Laptop Pilot. Alienware X17, i9 11980HK 5.0GHz, 16GB RTX 3080, 64GB DDR4 3200MHz, NVMe SSD. 2x TM Warthog, Hornet grip, Virpil CM2 & TPR pedals, FSSB-R3, Cougar throttle, Viper pit WIP (XBox360 when traveling). Rift S.

NTTR, SoH, Syria, Sinai, Channel, South Atlantic, CA, Supercarrier, FC3, A-10CII, F-5, F-14, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Harrier, M2000, F1, Viggen, MiG-21, Yak-52, L-39, MB-339, CE2, Gazelle, Ka-50, Mi-8, Mi-24, Huey, Apache, Spitfire, Mossie.  Wishlist: Tornado, Jaguar, Buccaneer, F-117 and F-111.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much will it help to install a Tucano mod when you would prefer to fly jets in air 2 air combat?

How helpful is the idea of avoiding FC3 because it may cause problems to memorize all the keybinds, when in fact you have 2 button boxes and a HOTAS and have actually no issue to find all the switches blindly with your fingers while wearing a VR headset?

 

In my unrequested opinion the topic question isn't the best approach at all into what DCS is or can be. Most of the well thought answers so far were necessarily based on assumptions and personal taste.

 

On the way to gather your first impressions of DCS, you may want to ask yourself:

1) start with a genuine DCS module made by Eagle Dynamics or a certified 3rd party studio or with some unofficial user mods of unknown representation value? Which choice qualifies better to demonstrate what kind of fidelity to expect in this simulator?

2) what era are you interested in? WW2, first jets, cold war classics or the rather modern stuff? Each might give you totally different results during your first steps in DCS.

3) Air to ground? Air to air? Helos? Everybody has a different itch. Which is yours to scratch?

4) How well are you prepared for aviation in general? Is this your first contact? Do you have some experience, even expectations? What is your hardware performance offering? How far are you invested in peripheral controls?

 

ED is offering a very customer friendly trial system. I'd strongly suggest to make intense use of it. If you do, you will find answers to all the questions above and even to the one in thread topic.

 

Besides, even if VR flying might be an obvious goal, consider to get into this without VR first. If you are proficient in a module, then put on the VR set.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lace said:

I thought the point of the FC3 modules was that they were just hangovers from LOMAC? Worth including as an easier option for casual players, not as a stepping stone or training aid for FF modules.

At risk of flogging this dead horse, my point is simply that if your end goal is mastery of a FF module, then start with a FF module, even if it is a 'simple' one like the L-39, F-5, etc.  At least that way you are learning something about the processes in starting, operating and fighting a realistic airframe.  If your end goal is to fly FC3 aircraft and you have no intention of investing the time in a FF module, then crack on.  Nothing wrong with that.

I agree, its time to water the horse a little. I think we are saying almost the same thing really, in just slightly different ways.

Your point is well taken, and I would agree that anyone can get a DCS modules and learn to be proficient in it given enough time and patients. If your interested in the A10C and your not worried that you could loose interest if the going gets tough for a little while, then simply spend the $80 and get to it. Unless of course you are interested in the slightly different context the A10A offers in that role, then I think the A10A/FC3 is definitely worth looking at.

And as you said, the FC3 modules are supposed to be an easier option. In the case of the OP where he has both the A10C and the FC3, starting with the easier A10A to learn the ground attack role better before moving on to the more complex A10C is certainly an option worth considering.

There is no right or wrong way to do this, there is only what works for each individual player. Some of these modules can require a lot of work to learn, so the key IMO is to keep it interesting so that you keep at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

 simply spend the $80 and get to it

No, simply visit https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/licensing/trial/ and enjoy the

Quote

 

Free to play system that lets you evaluate each of our products for 14 days!

Test one aircraft for two weeks and then another one for next two or maybe download a new terrain at the same time, whatever you fancy. Each product will give you a full fourteen days to evaluate and enjoy without any limitations or obligations.

If you’ve tried a particular product and aren’t 100% certain or want to re-evaluate at a later date, then no worries, once six months has gone by, take it up for another two-week free test flight and decide if you like what you see.

And for all newcomers to DCS, you can benefit from a 50% joining discount on your first purchase, whether you buy one module or the whole library!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I think the free trial thingy is a really good effort on ED's part.

But I see it as being more valuable for people that have been around for awhile and already know how DCS works.

Not to say that people just starting out can't/don't/wont benefit from the free trial, but if your relatively new to DCS World I think the two free planes included with the DCS download offer a better introduction experience. First of all they are free and pose no time limits.

Take for example someone that has no real-world experience in aviation with only a limited experience in other flight SIM's. I think that person will get a lot more out of exploring with the Su-25T over several months as opposed to getting free access to the A10C for a couple of weeks.

Just reading through the user manual and getting your system setup the way you want can take days if not weeks sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suggestion would be to start with one of the jet trainers.

 

The L-39 Albatros if you are interested in Soviet / Eastern European aircraft (metric units / gauges), or the C-101 if you are interested in NATO / Western aircraft (imperial units / gauges).

 

There are a couple of reasons for this:

 

1) Flying experience. In my opinion, one of the strengths of DCS is the way flight is modelled. In modern fighters, bad flying can be compensated by opening the throttle and masked by FBW computers. In my experience, modern fighters like the F-16 and the Mirage 2000 feel quite "arcade" like. This is no critism of the planes, they should feel like this. But at the same time, with the Albatros / C-101, you feel like you are actually flying an airplane. Move the stick too abrubtly, the plane will stall. Try to climb without gaining energy first, it will be very slow. When heavily loaded, you may even crash.

 

2) Easy systems. The other main strength of DCS is how deeply systems are modelled. Complex aircraft like the A-10C have lots of systems and can be overwhelming to learn. The trainers have less systems to deal with. No radar, no IR imaging systems etc., just the more basic systems like engine management, fuel management, navigation, back-up systems etc. Try flying with the IFR hood on in the Albatros. Flying the aircraft just by relying on analogue gauges without being able to look outside... If you manage to learn this, then adding other systems when you move to more complex aircraft will be easier.

 

3) Sense of accomplishment. This may sound strange but I find it immensely satisfying if I manage to destroy an armored column with my lowly Albatros. Many people forget or don't understand this, but DCS is a sandbox simulator. So you can make missions as easy or challenging as you want. Sure, a F-16 is way more capable than an Albatros in every respect, but depending on how you set up the mission, you may not need this capability. It's not about "better", it's about having fun and about learning.

 

I can honestly say that while I have most modules, the Albatros gets the most flight time, followed by the Viggen and the MiG-15. The reason for this is that I don't have the time to thoroughly study the complex systems of the F-16 etc., and also because I really enjoy the feeling of flight in the older non-FBW jets.

 

The FC3 aircraft I would mosty avoid. I find it actually much more easy to operate the various systems by clicking the switch rather than trying to memorise keys or HOTAS buttons. Free mods, I don't have much experience with them, I understand some are pretty good, but I would prefer a module which has the benefit of ED quality control.


Edited by Zius
  • Like 1

Modules: Bf 109, C-101, CE-II, F-5, Gazelle, Huey, Ka-50, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Albatros, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Hornet, Yak-52, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at this a bit differently.  What do YOU want to do with DCS?  Are you a fly high and shoot missiles at other planes type of guy?  Do you like dropping iron bombs on people?  Do you want to go BRrrrrrtttt! with the Wart Hog?  Figure that out first.  What type of air combat do you want to emulate?  After that, it becomes easier to figure out what to do.

I like dropping things on bad guys, not so in to the whole dog fight the other guy type of thing.  Flying around at 25,000 feet tossing missiles at other guys doesn't interest me, so I have the A-4, the AV8, the F-5 and use the Su-25T.  (Really, really wanting a good F-105, too!)  Those planes fit what I want to do, and have (and are) providing me with hours and hours of fun.

That's the whole point of this thing, having fun.  Figure out what you want to do, get the planes you need to do that.  Easy.  They all have a learning curve, it just takes time - and that is also a part of the fun, learning how to do what the planes do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, One Eyed Ross said:

I look at this a bit differently.  What do YOU want to do with DCS?  Are you a fly high and shoot missiles at other planes type of guy?  Do you like dropping iron bombs on people?  Do you want to go BRrrrrrtttt! with the Wart Hog?  Figure that out first.  What type of air combat do you want to emulate?  After that, it becomes easier to figure out what to do.

While this is to some extent true, for me, the biggest revelation of DCS was how much fun aircraft can be that are NOT the most glamorous ones.

For sure, I did not have a poster of an Albatros above my bed as a teenager. The Tomcat was one of my favourites. It was badass. In DCS it's also badass, but unfortunately I don't have a human available in the backseat. The F-16 was another one of my favourites, but in DCS I find it rather boring to fly to be honest...

But in general, I found it really difficult to predict which model I'd like, and of the three that I like most (Albatros, MiG-15, Viggen), only the Viggen was a favourite of mine before DCS. It seems that sometimes you fall in love with the idea of an aircraft, based on looks, history and performance statistics, only to find out that from a "pilot" perspective, things can be very different...


Edited by Zius
  • Like 1

Modules: Bf 109, C-101, CE-II, F-5, Gazelle, Huey, Ka-50, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Albatros, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Hornet, Yak-52, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maybe seriously consider the F-5E

Why? Because it's neither simple nor a super complex flying supercomputer with 300 types of ordnance (lookin a you, HornVipers!). It's nicely in between. It's like a big fast trainer... or a simpler "multi-role" fighter. 

It'll do AA with sidewinders and cannon for BFM, and it'll do basic AG with rockets, iron bombs, snakes, and so on. In the same mission!

Think of it as an A-4 but with afterburners and a very simple radar, and full ED quality. 

Consider that these are still used today for "Agressor Squadron" training in Canada and the USA. 

In the real world, the only dramatic shortcomming of this jet was it's short operational range with full ordnance loaded, limiting it's usefulness. But as an advanced trainer, it's tops!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

 

Maybe seriously consider the F-5E

Why? Because it's neither simple nor a super complex flying supercomputer with 300 types of ordnance (lookin a you, HornVipers!). It's nicely in between. It's like a big fast trainer... or a simpler "multi-role" fighter. 

It'll do AA with sidewinders and cannon for BFM, and it'll do basic AG with rockets, iron bombs, snakes, and so on. In the same mission!

Think of it as an A-4 but with afterburners and a very simple radar, and full ED quality. 

Consider that these are still used today for "Agressor Squadron" training in Canada and the USA. 

In the real world, the only dramatic shortcomming of this jet was it's short operational range with full ordnance loaded, limiting it's usefulness. But as an advanced trainer, it's tops!

 

I still can't drop  a bomb with the F-5 yet that will hit anything...but yes, it is a lot of fun to fly.  Faster than the A-4, but I haven't put the hours into it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, you could try dropping a string of bombs to hit one target. Seems dumb today, but before precision munitions, it was NORMAL to have several aircraft with many bombs each, to hit a SINGLE target. And sometimes that wasn't enough, and another strike would be ordered up. That was for high quality aircrews with experience and lots of training... pilots with low hours was almost a waste to even send them out on a ground strike.

 

I remember hearing of a ship that ran aground, and some time later it was decided to use fighterbombers to blow it up, get rid of the wreck and then send in salvage or something. But despite a very professional Air Force, they had embarassingly missed on the first try, and required more sorties to do the job. No guided munitions, but still, no SAM or AAA threats, peacetime, daylight... it was a little surprising to get results like that!  Especially for the Royal Navy. And the Royal Air Force.

Now, they DID get some hits, but what this article didn't mention was how many misses accompanied the hits.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/29/newsid_2819000/2819369.stm

Quote

1967: Bombs rain down on Torrey Canyon
The stricken oil tanker, the Torrey Canyon, is refusing to sink despite more than a day of heavy bombing.
The supertanker, snagged on rocks between Land's End and the Scilly Isles for 11 days, began breaking up three days ago, leaking more of its cargo into the sea.

Bombing is a last-ditch attempt to send the supertanker to the bottom of the sea, and burn off the tens of thousands of tons of oil which have already formed a slick 35 miles long and up to 20 miles wide around the area.

Direct hits

The bombing raids began yesterday, when eight Royal Naval Buccaneers set off from Lossiemouth in Scotland.

Since then, the RAF and the Royal Navy have dropped 62,000lbs of bombs, 5,200 gallons of petrol, 11 rockets and large quantities of napalm onto the ship.

Despite direct hits, and a towering inferno of flames and smoke as the oil slick began to burn, the tanker refused to sink.

 

Similarly, many have noted the difficulty in WW2 for bombing runways... very few hits on the runways themselves, despite huge numbers of bombs dropped. It's these frustrations that lead to air to ground guidance systems, be it Walleye, or the earliest Paveways. And even in the 1980's it wasn't certain they would be reliable dependable enough to work in combat. Only in the 1991 Gulf War did it start to look like a winner, and the CIA's famous battle damage report about that war has driven PGM policy ever since. Indeed the JDAM was developed right away as the Gulf War ended, to be cheaper than Paveway, and able to strike multiple targets with less effort on fixed targets. The loss of Paveway stock was to be replenished with JDAM purchases.  But before all that, dropping lots of bombs for one lousy point target wasn't just the norm, it was an absolute requirement!  

The only hints of the future world of PGM's, was the use of Paveways in the Vietnam war to blow up bridges, and the use of CCIP with dumb bombs during the Israeli strike on the Osiraq nuclear station construction. But no one really knew how much would change by the 1990's!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. alot of replies, thanks alot guys, appreciate it.

BTW I am not a VR user and have been using flight sims for 30 years since Dogfight on the Amiga but never done any study level stuff.

What im taking from most of these replies is that it doesnt really matter what i start with, pick a plane i like and build from there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2022 at 3:44 PM, The_Chugster said:

What im taking from most of these replies is that it doesnt really matter what i start with, pick a plane i like and build from there.

One thing that you may want to keep in mind is that most / all planes from one of the two cold war blocks (Western and Eastern) share a design philosophy.

This means it's relatively easy to transfer from Albatros to MiG-15 to MiG-21 etc. Sadly more modern Soviet planes are missing outside FC3.

The same goes to some extent for Western planes, although I don't find it that intuitive to switch from a mostly analogue F-5 to a mostly glass F-18. This could be due to lack of experience from my side as well. But from F-18 to A-10 should be easier.

The other thing that may be relevant are the units used. Soviet planes (and the Viggen) use metric units (km/h, m, bar etc.), Western planes (and JF-17 AFAIK) use imperial units (kn, ft, psi etc.). I'm from the Netherlands, used to metric units, and this is one of the reasons why I find Soviet planes more intuitive to fly.

Modules: Bf 109, C-101, CE-II, F-5, Gazelle, Huey, Ka-50, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Albatros, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Hornet, Yak-52, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A-10C-][ is a total different beast with F/A-18C, not to say, they serve in different branches of the US military. I find myself climbing a rather steep curve in learning the A-10C ][.

My guess is the office designers, especially in the US, lacks a consistent UI design philosophy between different planes. It is understandable since conversion training is rather rare, so nobody really care about about the radio is always on the left side. And when a change in plane happened, more often than not, it means a quantum leap in tech. Flying the Hornet from the Turkey is like working with Windows 10 from Windows 3.11

My £0.02 -- I used to fly a lot, back when the mainstream joysticks were not using USB connectors (blink). I started DCS a little more than a year ago after I got my Quest 2 VR headset. I knew a little bit about the basics and tell you what, the first plane F/A-18C blew me away and I found myself re-learning most of the stuff. I am not saying the Hornet is a poor plane to start with, the point is when the sim gets a (huge) step towards realism, you have to ask yourself how much time you can afford to "submerge"/"soak" yourself into this hobby.

To answer the question, what do you want to do first? If you wish to learn the basics -- just take off, flying around, admiring the scenery (this is no MSFS but there are still nice stuff around), challenge yourself to landing and/or AAR, get the free VNAO T-45 Goshawk trainer (disclaimer, this plane cannot do AAR) which features carrier landing, too (insert an ad to SC here)!!!

Next, to quote another fellow member here, it is really up to you what mission profile is A2A? A2G? Why not both?. And then think if you want a hi-fi cockpit or not (planes earlier than 4th Gen do not mean they are easier to handle). There are a lot of great options out there. If you don't mind playing with a couple of glass panels, get the Hornet. It can do almost everything, has a rich menu of munitions, and for "propagandist", read the thread "What makes the F18 stand out to you".


Edited by VFGiPJP

VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants -- this is how I fly. We do not fly at treetop height, we fly between trees(TM)

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc9BDi-STaqgWsjNiHbW0fA

My simple missions: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/284071-vr-flight-guy-in-pj-pants-simple-missions/

NSRI - National Strategy Research Institution, a fictional organisation based on wordplay of Strategic Naval Research Institution (SNRI), a fictional institution appears in Mobile Suit Gundam UC timeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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