Lace

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).

Yes, it does look rather good, doesn't it.

Thanks matey. Hard work doing it all again after a big gap (already have an 11 and 13 year old)!

We had another baby in January so I've not been using DCS much lately, so yes it could be from the December update. It does feel excessive now, I quite liked it before.

This is a feature I have used in many of my missions as I felt it added a subtle effect to desert missions, and created a realistic atmospheric depth. However, having just jumped back into some of those missions the effect has been massively amplified, and even at maximum visibility distance (ME slider) creates a real sand-storm effect of reducing visibility to a minimum. The effect is now totally overdone IMHO. When did this change and was it intentional?

It depends what you fly most often really. Don't forget that the 'Hornet' grip is also used in the Harrier, Strike Eagle and Eurofighter. I used to be in the matched-peripherals for maximum realism camp, but the reality is that unless you are really dedicated to one particular platform then you spend more time swapping over hardware than actually flying. I now have a setup which is common for all aircraft (fixed and rotary) sacrificing some realism for convenience, which I'm happy with.

Viper is only wired for two HARMS. If you are carrying them on the fuel (inboard) pylons they will not fire. That configuration is for transport only IIRC.

Minimal. SP only I use Tacview for debriefs, 476th range targets, and a couple of SAM asset packs. No other community/unofficial mods, no scripts.

The problem with this map is that with the exception of some Gazelles, most air assets were based thousands of miles away from the action. The map would be huuuge. I would still buy it though, and have made several Épervier/Ouadi Doum missions using Syria or NTTR as stand-ins.

The main 'gap' was north of Fulda, with a smaller avenue to the south. Historically it had been of importance (Napoleon retreated through it, and Patton advanced through it), so it was assumed it would be part of a Soviet invasion plan (along with other avenues of advance) and an obvious route to Frankfurt. The North German Plain would have no doubt seen some action too, but Fulda became more synonymous with WWIII because it was in the American dominated CENTAG.

Scorpion and Scimitar, great for Sennelager!

This is a great reference source if you can get a hold of a copy... Lots of info and useful sketches.

At least there would be a reason to stow the TGP on take off & climb out.

Mission 4 - Only Fools Rush In... 1987 Fulda Mission 4.miz

The RTX 3080 Mobile came with either 8 or 16GB IIRC. My Alienware x17 has the 16GB version.

I found this for the upgrade program from A to C

At the moment I can't equip my AI AH-64As with Hellfires as the version we have is too modern for the CW Germany map. Can we have an older version please?