Lace

Looks great. A nice surprise about the MC-130 too. Some great new mission profiles to practice with this pair.

Is that not the JFS winding down?

Yep. Some sort of Franken-Lynx which can do anti-tank, light transport, recce, ASW etc. would be a great addition.

After some digging I found a _backup.001 folder in my DCS install, which contained 227GB of terrains, which are normally installed via aliases on another drive. Anyway, after deleting this it loaded up as normal, both in VR and Pancake.

Of course. So do I. But I also want the capabilities they bring. I enjoy doing IMC terrain following in the F-15E. but not because it is an F-15E necessarily. I like the variety of mission profile as much as the variety in aircraft type.

One easy fix for me would be to add LANTIRN to the Viper. At least then we have an all-weather low-level strike capability again, at least until the Tornado (or eventually maybe F-111 or A-6?). Another 'easy' one is to develop the F-35B to replace the Harrier - if it is a good enough replacement for the USMC and RAF/FAA then it is good enough for ED. A lot of the work will be done already for the 'A'. Personally I'd prefer a GR3 which would be great for Germany and the Falklands, but not many other places, and that would be a big project.

Yes, the ME is not difficult to use and is well worth investing the time. And by using a few random flags it is fairly simple to incorporate an element of uncertainty to your own missions allowing surprises and re-playability. The vast majority of my flying is on missions I have made myself and it will probably remain that way, at least until the DCE is available.

Indeed. In the meantime, enjoy them while you can!

My install has been fine otherwise. Yesterday however was the update trifecta of NVIDIA driver, Meta Quest Link and DCS, so who knows which element is to blame for this problem.

Anyone having issues launching into VR? DCS loads fine - if a little slower than usual - into desktop mode, but when I select VR from the launcher menu it just stays on the loading splash screen. I waited 5 mins+ twice and it didn't start.

Concur. These super detailed AI ground units look great in screenshots and cinematics, but for most players they are IR spectral dots on a TGP. Even the Helo guys shouldn't be close enough to be counting rivets. If CA was a properly fleshed out element then maybe it would make more sense, but the development speed <= => unit detail slider, is way too far to the right, and while the units look great, releasing 2 or 3 a year is just glacial. I'd much prefer objects at half, or even a quarter of the detail but produced at a quicker pace to allow more variety and temporal relevance for historical scenarios. Maybe that's just me though. I do feel that the sweet spot is somewhere between the FS2004-esque C-17 and the beautifully modelled new M1A1. It does make decent performance with high unit counts tough with these new super-detailed models, to the point that a lot of the time I will chose older ones as ground targets to keep the FPS up. Anyway, a bit off topic though.

With DCS you need to accept 'close enough'. If you tried for 100% accuracy in theatre, targets, ground units, weapons and aircraft versions you'd never get any flying is done. The nature of DCS is that substitutions and stand-ins are as good as we can hope for. There is no single coherent plan, except maybe WWII (though purists might argue that too is compromised).

Thanks, I thought that might be the case.

Kind of. The question is whether or not I can take advantage of the longer range optics of the ATP with my 'Visibility Range' setting at 'Medium', or will I need to increase it to get the benefit?

From a technical point of view (and I suppose this applies to all TGPs, not just Sniper), how does the draw distance graphic setting effect the TGP image at longer ranges? i.e. is it possible to see beyond your normal render limit with the TGP? Will the ATPs better optics be negated by my constrained graphics settings?