Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
2) Both have just one pilot, so no co-pilot seat or controls.
3) If you mean the Supercarrier module, then you can do carrier ops with just the F/A-18 alone. However, Supercarrier is strongly recommended due it enhance the realism a lot adding CASE I/II/III departure/landing procedure and animated carrier crew. In few words: try buy both F/A-18 and Supercarrier if you can.
However you should get what you are most interested in ultimately.
https://youtu.be/Xo3arfoGbvc
Of course one will notice the short legs on the Falcon as well maybe as the poor acceleration on the hornet. But as usual, people that try to rate a cat on its abilities to compete with a squirrel will most likely always say "meh, i don´t like it".
Me personally, i started with the Hornet first before having bought the Falcon, just because r i´m interested in carrier ops as well as standoff capabilities using slam/er and harpoons. The Falcon lacks that part, apart from the jsows. I do think the F18 really needs the SC addon to feel complete. Just my 10 cents although i know many feel different. The realistic naval ops for the F18 is kind of essential for me on a Jet that´s built exactly for it.
Keep in mind tho, DCS simulates the F18C which is a single seater, not the double-seated D version.
2. The F-16C and F/A-18C in DCS are single-seat fighters. If you want two-seaters, there are other options (e.g. the F-14 and the upcoming F-15E).
3. No supercarrier is the main reason I haven't bought the Hornet yet.
My general advice is to get the Hornet if you want to do naval operations. Otherwise, get the Viper. Above all, get what interests you.
And the funny thing is, while the Falcon might be just a bit short-leged compared to F-18, it still has a pretty solid range, can do a few hundred miles combat radius or so.
It just burns a lot of fuel if you are using your speed advantage, or loses range with heavy bomb loads, but its by no means a Mig-29, let alone Mig-21, who are more genuinely short-ranged.
Same way our up-engined Hornet really isnt that bad at acceleration or high speed turning, even if it cant always keep up with an F-16. Sure the afterburner is sometimes a bit weak, but its also way more efficient than almost any other.
Or how the F16 is godlike in two turn dogfight, and F18 in one turn fight, but the F16 in a one turn and F18 in two turn is basically just degraded to a "good" dogfighter.
Its just two super versatile planes. They mostly lack more extreme capabilities outside of dogfighting, those arent F15/F14s, but theyre good at everything. Cant say which I like more in DCS, each of the fliers just can do some things better. Often its just preference for "how" the plane does something best.
I guess the F-18 is easier to learn with its easy flight charachteristics, big screens and more straightforward control logic. So for a beginner it might be better.
Aerial refueling in DCS is, as in many games, very difficult for all the wrong reasons. With a T-16000M I wouldnt even try it, especially not with an F-16 thats harder to refuel than an F-18.
Peculiar about the plane tho, I find the F-18 easier to control, its more stable.
Currently ED is actually investigating if theres something wrong with the F-16 stick controls on non-FFB sticks. Like a giant deadzone, for example.
T-16M got a bad centering spring like most cheap sticks, with a massive bump in the middle and little feel for detail. I dont think difference between center and sidestick really matters?
And considering OP is asking for his first module, I dont think aerial refueling is relevant anyway, considering how difficult it is. Youre basical half blind and numb if you do it in a game. Its a massive PITA and not fun.
Could you clarify some of this? Are you suggesting those of us who do and/or enjoy aerial refueling are half blind and numb(whatever that means) because of how difficult(not difficult) it is? Where is the logic in this?
No lol, that wasnt a personal attack at all. IRL with refueling, you rely on an number of sense during refueling, which mostly just arent there in games, hence its way more difficult, and an artificial challenge.
Youre "half blind" in games, especially during refuel, because you dont have depthts perception and peripheral vision, which is central to judge your and the tankers position. Even VR doesnt fully make up for that.
And youre numb, because you dont feel any movement of the aircraft, so any reaction is delayed and you have to react purely based on limited visuals.
Refueling in games is just starring at pixels and trying to ingraine some geometric relation out of them. Its not at all like IRL refueling, which pilots even have described as relaxing, meditative.
Theres nothing wrong with having fun with that in a game obviously. Its a game after all. I just wouldnt assume everyone can and wants to learn refueling ingame. Let alone use it almost every mission. With a T-16M which isnt that accurate.
Hence if youre worried about the F-16s short legs, then fuel tankers might not be the solution. (tho I dont think the F-16 range is a big problem, personally)
Now elitism is a personal problem, doubly ironic because you completely missed the point :P