Lace

I could list 1000 units we 'really need' for realism. The sad truth is that 99.9% of them will never make it into the game.

Given the obvious detail to the cargo bay, cargo physics etc, how comparable is the performance (particularly in VR) to other modules? What feedback can you share that has been received from the early testers?

Worth a listen. Some interesting info there.

Does anyone know if the new air-dropping is a DCS core feature or proprietary ASC thing embedded in the module? Are we likely to see it incorporated into the CH-47, or AI DC-3, IL-76, C-17 etc? Also, will the cargo be functional or just cosmetic? Will dropping ammunition actually provide a rearming function in the same way placing ground logistics vehicles does?

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?

I love the Yak, but for western pilots it makes no sense. Metric units, differential braking only for ground steering, 'inverted' artificial horizon, all very confusing for someone used to GA aircraft in the civvy sim. A western ab-initio trainer would be a nice addition, but I doubt it would be a big seller. Ideally something which can do light attack/CSAR and act as a GA aircraft would be a better idea. A combat Caravan (U-27 or A/C-208) or PC-9/T-6A are a little more relevant to our current maps. A Cessna O-1 Bird Dog (modified civilian C170) is another good shout for a SE Asia map. I honestly couldn't see any pure-GA type being a popular module. That experience is already well catered for elsewhere.

FWIW a game has rules, boundaries and fairness. Chess is a game, Backgammon is a game, Tetris is a game. DCS is more like a toy, there are no inherent rules on what you can or can't do beyond the limitations of the modules and physics engine, there is no in-built fairness, and if a server has a blue bias, then that is down to the individual creator. Some people try to use it like a game (PVP A2A tournaments for instance), some use it as a toy (Grim Reaper's YT channel a prime example, or flying a Viper from an Essex-class carrier). There are loads of servers out there and I'm sure you can find one which caters to your needs, and if not, start your own. There is no right or wrong however, and ED is under no obligation to match red vs blue capabilities (and has repeatedly stated that it is not possible to do so anyway). Always worth remembering - militaries are not built on 'fairness'. If you find yourself in a fair fight, someone screwed up in planning.

I did go on to mention that. Which is of course nothing to do with its geography, just a result of the simpler terrain and lower detail/textures. Which ironically is exactly what the OP & others propose changing.

I think the only reason the Caucasus map is so popular is because it is the original bundled map, therefore the bulk of the training missions and MP servers use it. Everyone owns it and it is one of the better performing maps from a FPS point of view. For years it acted as a stand-in for the plains of central Europe, the fjords of the North Cape, the hills of Korea. Now we have many of those places we don't have to pretend. People talk of a red/blue imbalance in most of the module releases, Caucasus is a 100% red map, with zero realistic historical Bluefor scope. It was popular because it was all we had. Given the massive competition it now has, I think that if it didn't exist, there wouldn't really be any great urge to make it. It lacks broad appeal. Personally I'm a bit tired of it and was disheartened when I started the F-4U training mission only to find myself back in Batumi. Given the WWII Marianas is also a free map, this was a perfect opportunity to showcase the two together. Instead, my initial reaction was 'why on earth is a Corsair in mid-90s Batumi!'

It sounds to me like there is a fundamental lack of understanding on how aircraft manoeuvre in the air. Turns are made by banking the aircraft in the direction you want to turn, ie. to increase the heading roll right, to decrease it roll left. This is combined with some stick back pressure to maintain level flight. The aircraft rolls by increasing lift on one side, and decreasing it on the other. This is achieved by ailerons moving in opposition. The result of more lift on one side is more drag on the same side (which wants to yaw the aircraft to the outside of the turn). This is where the rudder comes in. The rudder induces yaw primarily, and the second order effect is roll. To counteract the yawing moment from the asymmetric drag, a little rudder in the direction of the turn is used. This effect varies airframe-to-airframe, and is dealt with by the computer in a FBW aircraft, meaning in (almost) all flight regimes, there is no real need to touch the rudder pedals. In the F4 at high angles of attack (i.e. nose pitched up but without the resultant climb) the rudder can be used to start a turn. This is the second order effect. By yawing at low speed the fuselage is blanking a large portion of the inside wing, resulting in a reduction in airflow, which in turn reduces the lift, causing the wing to drop, hence roll. Rudder is also used to counteract the p-factor on large piston-engined aircraft, but that isn't relevant to the F-4. Aerodynamics is a complex subject, and rather than spend all day doing this, I politely direct you to John Denkers old but brilliantly written website, av8n.com.

Also nope (though I'm mostly a single-seat guy).