Gaming Digital Combat Simulator Thread

[Urwumpe]

I already have the Mirage 2000C here, I got it together with the NTTR and the red flag campaigns I also have the Viggen as more guerilla fighter here.

Not sure about the Harrier, since it is the US version and not the Sea Harrier, which could be a real fun with the new south atlantic map.

 

[Fabri91]

@Urwumpe while the Sea Harrier is probably in development by Razbam, the current is heaps of fun and while it's technically the American version it's quite close to the more recent British GR.7 and GR.9 if that helps immersion, so I do think I'd still recommend it if you want to try something a bit new.

Additionally, it's still a competent ground attack aircraft since you enjoyed the A-10C.

 

[Urwumpe]

@Urwumpe while the Sea Harrier is probably in development by Razbam, the current is heaps of fun and while it's technically the American version it's quite close to the more recent British GR.7 and GR.9 if that helps immersion, so I do think I'd still recommend it if you want to try something a bit new.

Additionally, it's still a competent ground attack aircraft since you enjoyed the A-10C.

Yeah, it must be some old 1990s trauma there, I never really felt at home with the AV-8B. But you are right, especially with the pod, its a pretty comparable aircraft to the A-10C.

 

[Frilock]

Not 100% sure I'll pick the viper up (I want to, but not sure if I'm going to end up with the time available to learn a new aircraft at the moment) but I think I'll give switching over to OB a shot so I can at least fly with some other people. Worst case I suppose is that it keeps updating and I go back to 'stable'.

 

[N_Molson]

Always liked the 16... don't know why, maybe because it can do pretty much everything. Even flying at Mach 2+ (not for long but at those speeds it doesn't really matter). Also a reasonably small target, unlike the 15.

 

[Linguofreak]

I've been watching DCS videos on youtube, but it doesn't really seem worth it to me. It does the whole "everything is paid DLC" thing, which is not the greatest when the prices are normal, but here pretty much everything is well beyond the point where I decide I'm being screwed if I'm buying a standalone software product of any type, let alone DLC for a game.

The other thing I'm wondering about, which is something I've noticed in a number of flight sims covering modern jets, is that aircraft performance seems to be about a factor of two less than the public performance figures for the aircraft. Aircraft that are supposed to be able to hit Mach ~2.5 are making Mach ~1.5 at very best at 30kft. I suppose a good chunk of this might be stuff like performance with a combat load vs. performance clean with just enough fuel to run speed trials, but it seems a rather extreme difference: with older generations of aircraft, or with ships, published capabilities have tended to be a slight understatement (to keep the enemy guessing) rather than a massive overstatement of capabilities, but most sims dedicated to modern-ish jets tend to exhibit performance that's far below published capabilities.

 

[N_Molson]

I've been watching DCS videos on youtube, but it doesn't really seem worth it to me. It does the whole "everything is paid DLC" thing, which is not the greatest when the prices are normal, but here pretty much everything is well beyond the point where I decide I'm being screwed if I'm buying a standalone software product of any type, let alone DLC for a game.

The other thing I'm wondering about, which is something I've noticed in a number of flight sims covering modern jets, is that aircraft performance seems to be about a factor of two less than the public performance figures for the aircraft. Aircraft that are supposed to be able to hit Mach ~2.5 are making Mach ~1.5 at very best at 30kft. I suppose a good chunk of this might be stuff like performance with a combat load vs. performance clean with just enough fuel to run speed trials, but it seems a rather extreme difference: with older generations of aircraft, or with ships, published capabilities have tended to be a slight understatement (to keep the enemy guessing) rather than a massive overstatement of capabilities, but most sims dedicated to modern-ish jets tend to exhibit performance that's far below published capabilities.

The thing to understand is that the top speed can only be reached with nothing under the wings. To get the maximum performance you need to get rid of anything that can create drag, from fuel tanks to missiles to missile pylons. ECMs pods are a no-go. There are a couple of exceptions : the F-16 is designed to fly with two AIM-9 on the tip of the wings. Planes like the F-22 or F-35 don't have that problem with internal weapons. Also if you want to hit Mach 2, FL300 is a bit low, aim for something like FL450, higher if you can. Remember the Concorde was cruising around FL600 !

 

[Urwumpe]

The F-16 reaches its top speed at about FL360 according to its envelope plots, just short of Mach 2.

 

[Fabri91]

I've been watching DCS videos on youtube, but it doesn't really seem worth it to me. It does the whole "everything is paid DLC" thing, which is not the greatest when the prices are normal, but here pretty much everything is well beyond the point where I decide I'm being screwed if I'm buying a standalone software product of any type, let alone DLC for a game.

The other thing I'm wondering about, which is something I've noticed in a number of flight sims covering modern jets, is that aircraft performance seems to be about a factor of two less than the public performance figures for the aircraft. Aircraft that are supposed to be able to hit Mach ~2.5 are making Mach ~1.5 at very best at 30kft. I suppose a good chunk of this might be stuff like performance with a combat load vs. performance clean with just enough fuel to run speed trials, but it seems a rather extreme difference: with older generations of aircraft, or with ships, published capabilities have tended to be a slight understatement (to keep the enemy guessing) rather than a massive overstatement of capabilities, but most sims dedicated to modern-ish jets tend to exhibit performance that's far below published capabilities.

Yes, the pricing can be offputting, but I think you need to consider a couple of things prior to comparing to "normal" DLC for other games:

• The base program is free to download, in order to ensure that it runs satisfactorily on your system
• The individual modules are a lotof work, to the point that I don't think someone can reasonably be proficient in more than 2 or 3 airframes at the same time. I mostly fly the F-16 and F/A-18, while I did buy only during sales other modules that are of interest to me over the course of 10 years
  • Addendum to this: to my knowledge the helicopter flight model in DCS is absolutely unparalleled in the consumer space
• It's possible to trial every module for 14 days without purchasing it, again enabling you to make sure that it might be something you enjoy:

That being said, I vehemently disagree with the choice of having the maps being paid: this splinters the multiplayer community, while this of course doesn't happen with aircraft modules.

Not 100% sure I'll pick the viper up (I want to, but not sure if I'm going to end up with the time available to learn a new aircraft at the moment) but I think I'll give switching over to OB a shot so I can at least fly with some other people. Worst case I suppose is that it keeps updating and I go back to 'stable'.

It's a good idea to switch to Open Beta - yes, there's the odd bug from time to time but it's where all the multiplayer servers are at.

 

[N_Molson]

Bought the Mirage 2000 C. Still haven't managed to start it up, which probably means it is realistic enough ?

 

[Urwumpe]

Bought the Mirage 2000 C. Still haven't managed to start it up, which probably means it is realistic enough ?

AFAIR, that was even easier than on the A-10C....

 

[N_Molson]

Sure, at least you have only 1 engine to worry about.

 

[Urwumpe]

Sure, at least you have only 1 engine to worry about.

Yeah and and a much simpler electronics suite as the A-10C... but no GPS, the INS alignment can take a moment of work.

 

[N_Molson]

8 minutes ?

 

[N_Molson]

First flight with the Mirage 2000 C, was able to push it to Mach 2.25, and land back in one piece.

 

[N_Molson]

Getting familiar with the Inertial Navigation System, was able to input a loop of waypoints in the computer, no accuracy issues. Now using this for precision bombing is something else, I'm not there yet.

@Thunder Chicken : soon in Orbiter ?

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Getting familiar with the Inertial Navigation System, was able to input a loop of waypoints in the computer, no accuracy issues. Now using this for precision bombing is something else, I'm not there yet.

@Thunder Chicken : soon in Orbiter ?

Just stumbled across your post. As you wish...

https://www.orbiter-forum.com/resources/kev33s-mirage-2000-module-updated-for-orbiter-2016.5464/

 

[Urwumpe]

Just got the newletter that they are planning to bring a German Tornado IDS to DCS.

 

[N_Molson]

Now I have the HOTAS, I begin to have some fun with DCS and the Mirage 2000C DLC.

Latest "war story" : I got why it is important to correctly set the "bingo fuel" alarm. Left AB on while I was trying to get the radar in working order while flying over the Black Sea. I had that weird feeling when the Master Alarm blazed on and the engine died Well, I was at Mach 2 and 50,000 feet, so I was able to glide all the way to the Turkish coast (not modeled in detail, landed on grass, plane was saved but the nosewheel was badly angled ).

I still have to fire a Super 530D

 

[Fabri91]

One thing at a time!

Next step