No you cant, But there are plenty of mountain valleys you can rip through on the caucuses map. If you want to play that game call me when you can do AAR or Case III recoveries and cyclic ops in MSFS. Or have the in game ATC collapse and sync a marshall stack. It’s great you can fly anywhere in the world, but like said. The point is for a true study level experience, it’s not available here.
1 Like
I’ve been flying the freeware Got Gravel Vertigo. It’s a light-weight composite pressurized two-seater with an 850 HP gas turbine engine. You take off with 25% torque setting and once airborne, firewall the throttle and climb at 8,000 fpm. 150°/sec roll rate lets you do some amazing canyon runs. It’s a hoot.
1 Like
Not every fast jet is capable of AAR or carrier operations. You will have to enlighten me as to what cyclic ops are. There is no reason that you can’t have a ‘study level’ military fast jet in MSFS…right up to the point of weapon deployment. You just have to pick the right aircraft that fits within the sim’s limitations. The Just Flight Hawk is one such aircraft.
2 Likes
Enjoy studying what 1/3 of an airplane can do. Can you even practice ToT or TACAN rejoins in this game? I seriously doubt it. You can’t even do a basic intercept. You can’t have a real study level warplane here because the systems depth available will not allow it. Learning the basic core functions (go,stop,land,take off) of an airplane is not study level.
1 Like
or NVG operations, especially in helos, use of targeting pods/optics/flir , or systems that simply dont follow stock asobo templates
in many cases, the DCS cockpits look better than the same airframe in msfs
another thing msfs doesnt do that dcs does is shared cockpits-
currently the c101, L39, MB339, uh1 , sa342, mi24, ah64, f14 & soon miragef1 & f15 support multicrew
this is would be a game changer on MSFS as well if ever implemented as often different crew members have different roles/responsibilities , or even in a live training/mentoring role
1 Like
I know where I’m headed now. I owned it when it was first distributed, but was too young to really learn it. About all I could do was the air refueling practice. Lol.
But my goodness, what a manual!
give DCS a chance. base game is free, and if youre on standalone (instead of steam) you can trial any and all of the airframes free (i cant remember the details cuz i own them all already)
the preferred manuals can be found on chucksguide.com
1 Like
I did try DCS but didn’t care for it.
1 Like
To each their own. No sim is perfect, they all have flaws, each has their own niche. Msfs does civ aviation well, but I think il2 does warbirds and WW1 best- systems are better in DCS, but I think il2 has an overall better WW2 experience. I feel DCS does helos and modern fighters better than msfs could.
I honestly feel DCS keybinding/ control setup is heads and shoulders above msfs, but I’m sure there’s plenty who would disagree
This thread was asking about study-level jets for MSFS. There was no mention of, or interest in, DCS. DCS is superior in weapons systems and deployment, which it should be as that’s what it exists for and it’s been available for years. In everything else it is inferior to MSFS, including flight models ( due to there being virtually zero meteorological modeling, the very place where all aircraft do what they do, and the opinions of actual fighter pilots who have flown the real things and who frequently point the problems out ). This doesn’t make them bad, just nowhere near as good as DCS fans like to think that they are. MSFS is light years ahead in this respect. Weapons are also coming, and things like TACAN are already available. However, as per below, few people care.
Just Flight are the only developer who have built any fighter jets at “so called” study-level for MSFS. They have more on the way, including the Tornado GR1, Vulcan etc.
However, it should be remembered that only a fraction of the simulator audience are obsessed with “study level” aircraft, whether airliners, GA or military. The vast majority prefer a medium level of detail, so from a commercial perspective there just isn’t the audience available to make it worthwhile unless the development house has sufficient resources to do so. The fact that DCS remained a niche simulator even before MSFS arrived to compete, despite hugely successful modules like Heatblur’s F-14s, is clear testimony to that fact.
MSFS already has the capacity to produce aircraft to the same level of fidelity as DCS. It’s just that most folks using MSFS aren’t particularly interested in them, and most devs aren’t that interested in producing them due to the limited audience available.
4 Likes
Unless you own a beautiful set of Virpil controls, get a firmware update, and then have to rebind the controls for 20 aircraft. I prefer the MSFS approach.
As for weapons systems, radar, countermeasures, and datalink, none of that is required to have a really great flying experience in a fighter jet. As long as the flight controls are correct, that’s good enough for me.
As for damage modeling and systems failures, I can live without all that too. I want my flaps to extend when I tell them to. I want my gear to come down when I flip the switch. I get annoyed when the sim goes BOOM you have overstressed your airframe start again.
Give me the best flight model and a truly beautiful environment, and I’m happy as can be.
you are no cat person?
1 Like
This is Amazing
1 Like
