Ornithopter Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago (edited) Quote Being of the russian/soviet variety, one has some inherent difficulties to overcome when compared to western models most of us are used to. Basic things such as units, the availability and layout of cockpit controls and in more general terms, the installed equipment supporting solely the soviet doctrine of aerial warfare are quite different. So a fair comparison is not an easy thing to do. My suspicion being that it is meant to replace the M2k eventually and compared to the Mirage I find the Mig way more challenging to learn. But then again, the Mirage was build around the idea of an easy and flat UI with only a few knobs and controls to operate in order to make things happen the right way. Thats not my impression of the Mig. Russian/soviet design choices do not seem particularly user friendly across the DCS board. Speaking of leverages to work 20+ switches on startup or such things. So yeah, you may be in for a treat. My countdown from most difficult(oh, why even bother level, I'll never be good) to easiest(why don't they all work like that level) 4th Gen modules is: 5) Tomcat RIO, 4)A-10C, 3)F/A-18C, 2)M2k, 1)JF-17. So you're saying its a bit more difficult than the M2K in your opinion, but its not F/A-18 levels of learning complexity, is it? The reason I'm asking is because I'm not sure I want to take on a new difficult module. On the other hand, my alternative is sitting there watching mind-slobbering navigation tutorials on the Chinook, and how the navigational-hydraulic operates on the rear linkage valve. But, then again, I could be flying a shiny new MiG. Life is full of really tough choices. Edited 10 hours ago by Ornithopter grammar
Recommended Posts