Lace

I have to say, this was one of my first thoughts too - they have done a fantastic job with this, in what seemed to be a very short development time. I wonder what region is next on their list? Certainly large cities don't seem to be a problem any more. How about Taiwan?

I was struggling at first but then set the draw distance down to medium and am getting very good results now. Obviously everyone has their own take on the whole quality/performance compromise, but as a VR flyer with a laptop 3080 I think the performance is as good as any other map, and still better than the Marianas. Tested so far with the Gazelle, Mi-8 and Viper.

Yeah... already bought it now (inevitable really ). First impressions are it looks great. Performance is varied, depending on where on the map, with densely built-up areas performing worst (no surprise). I've often found that maps receive a little VR optimisation after release and improve. I've had less than an hour on it so far though, but Sinai has pushed SoH further down the pecking order, putting it in serious danger of an uninstall.

^^^ Good to know. Just finished the download so might give the Gazelle a quick fly over lunch.

Anyone have any comments on the content of the patch, rather than the installation debacle? Looking forward to the Gazelle, still undecided on Sinai. It looks great, however, perhaps superficially similar to the Syria map, but with fewer Western/NATO basing options. Also waiting to hear about VR performance before I hit the 'buy' button.

I'm eager to give this a try. I always liked the Gazelle, despite it's quirks. This should bring it up to the expected standards though, and bodes well for the future Kiowa.

I'd echo the above comments about the mission editor. It really isn't difficult to create a simple, single-aircraft, target practice mission, which will allow you to get those reps in. Which map(s) do you fly? I can knock a quick mission up for you if you like, with a mix of ground and air targets, and options for ground or air starts? But really, it doesn't take much effort to create basic missions. Liberation is great, but not that user friendly for an inexperienced player IMHO.

A couple of boxes (with lids) to house the Leo Bodnar BU0836X and BBI32 USB interface boards. The legs allow bolting to MonsterTech (or similar) Al profile. Viper Panic Dispense to fit Cougar Throttle. For a standard 30mm panel cut out mushroom button. Also has platforms for the ELEC SYS and MANUAL PITCH panels if required. Added a small bracket for an eject handle which fits the Virpil CM2 or standard 80mm Al profile (40mm centres). BBI32 Enclosure.stl BU0836X Enclosure.stlPanic Dispense Bracket.stl Eject Bracket.stl

This is the ideal solution (and add in water swell, chop and current effects for good measure).

^^^ Sounds about right. At close ranges the off-bore angle increases rapidly, and if you are heads-down on the MFD getting the lock then it is easy to be out of limits when you rifle the missile.

If you are fluent in English then you should know it is proofreading, not proof reading.

I stand corrected, though in my defence, I rarely fly the MiG-21 and I think only tried the nuke once a long while back.

There are some amazing 3D print resources which creators have kindly shared in this sub-forum, but most are within their own build threads. I think it would be really helpful if we maybe had a central resource with all the publicly available files in one place.

I know, but with no special visuals, persistent cloud, ground deformation, etc. It's basically just a big bomb, and ED have stated that there will be no 'proper' nuclear weapons developed for a number of reasons. I know this wish list request is unlikely given the TOP SECRET classification of nuclear procedures, and as such any delivery practice would be limited to what we would normally fly with other 'dumb' weapons, but still worth an ask IMHO.

I'm happy to report this version of the MT is far better in VR (Rift S) than the previous, essentially unusable (for me) version. Still not quite the night-and-day difference some are reporting, but at least I'm not seeing worse performance anymore.

Will have to give MT another try now. See if it shows any improvement for me.

I think the issue with this is that we are seeing more procedurally developed maps based on current imagery. This means historical maps will be much more work to develop given the lack of digital resources for the time period. I guess the flipside of that argument is that they don't necessarily need to be 100% accurate though. That said, I'd love to see a 70's Vietnam, 80's central Europe, 90's Iraq/Kuwait, etc. I wish the Sinai map was a 50s/60s version, and I really hope ED don't do something stupid with the Vietnam map and make a modern version.

The nuclear strike mission was (is?) a key mission of the F-15E, after it replaced the F-111 in the same role. And since ED have repeatedly stated that they will not have nuclear weapons in DCS, would it be possible to at least have an inert 'shape' for practice delivery?

I'm also interested to hear where this setting is please?

You can trim the saturation curve in DCS so it reaches maximum deflection at say, 50% of elevation, or however you feel it should move.

Is that a physical restriction on the missile, or an operational restriction? There are a lot of things which are 'possible', but 'prohibited' IRL. Just because there are operational restrictions placed on something that doesn't necessarily mean it will not be possible to operate them outside of those limits, it's just at that point you are an unofficial test pilot with little legal protection. See also VNE, MTOW, MLW, etc. Edit - to answer the OP, I think that if there are launch envelope restrictions then they should be modelled in DCS as accurately as possible.

I would suggest using a modifier button on the throttle to change the function of the joystick X-axis from roll to rudder. Since in the Hornet (most modern jets) the rudder is only really used for NWS on the carrier deck. That way you don't need any extra hardware, you just hold the modifier button and move the stick for taxying. This is especially applicable to the Hornet and carrier ops as you aren't required to track the runway centreline on take-off or landing in the same way a conventional land-based aircraft does.

ATC is undergoing a complete rework AIUI. At the moment I just operate under strict radio-silence EMCON and follow published procedures/SOPs as best I can, so I don't have to deal with it in its current state.

The problem is that it works like this in real life. The way DCS does it a bit backwards, but does make sense if you want to define conditions on the ground for airfield ops. It is realistic that winds 'slack and back' (in the Northern hemisphere) when approaching the surface, so should be about 50% reduced, and backed by 30degrees (veer by 30 in the Southern hemisphere) compared with those at altitude. This is even more noticeable at night where the slacking and backing effect is increased due to colder, denser surface air, however DCS doesn't take this into account. The effect is reduced over water where there is less surface friction. Again, not modelled in DCS's atmosphere. Having these independently configurable wouldn't make sense from an atmospheric modelling point of view, as which ever one you choose to define will effect the other. It is just not realistic* to have the wind speed and direction the same at 1600ft as it is at the surface. * 99% of the time. As always there are some unusual cases where this might not be true.

Yes, Batumi only has an elevation of 37ft IRL. Every millibar of pressure setting is approx 30ft change, so it won't take much deviation from a ISA to put you on a 'negative' altitude.