Lace

Looking at that aesthetic nightmare, I would say VR.

Why did you land downwind? I mean, apart from everything else that was wrong with that approach...

The M2K was the first FF module I spent the time learning. It sounds like it may be worth a long overdue re-visit, especially if the documentation now reflects the current state. Have the training missions been update too?

Good to know, I might have to take a look when they have more stock.

I have the FSSB for the Warthog/Viper stick. I like it, but takes a little adapting to, and there is still a tiny bit of slack which I don't like - due to the TM/FSSB interface. Might be better with the Realsimulator stick, but not sure I want to spend that much to find out.

Can't believe I have missed this - amazing work, an essential mod.

Get the Mi-8. Arguably one of the most realistic helicopter flight models available anywhere, and offers a very different experience to the other modules in your virtual hangar. I love the Viper, but it is quite similar to the Hornet in role and performance (excluding the carrier ops obviously). Mi-8 is DCS's best kept secret and is so prolific around the world you can fit it into just about any scenario you can think of, either as BLUFOR or REDFOR, or even non-combatant.

You've posted this in the Apache thread, so I'm going to offer an opinion which may be unpopular here - I don't like the Apache. There, I said it. I'm not criticising ED's incredible effort in producing the module, it really is one of their best, but as a single player experience I am not a fan of the platform. I find it overly complicated and the George AI is poorly implemented in VR. Perhaps this has been improved since release but I haven't been back to check. The Apache is not a light nimble helicopter and is quite dull to fly compared with some other DCS Helicopters. If you have a regular MP gunner, I am sure it would be a very different experience, but I found myself going straight back to the Gazelle and Mi-8 for my rotary fix. As for the Hornet - it is probably the module offering the widest breadth of combat flying variety. Carrier or land-based, A/A or A/G, BVR or phone box, stand-off smart weapons or rippling Mk82s, CAS, SEAD/DEAD or anti-shipping. The Hornet is the one module which really can do it all.

It's difficult in a furball, but then you need to ask - how did I allow myself to get in this situation in the first place?

Similar story. Very strong prevailing winds and saturated soil. Not easy for trees to take hold.

huh. I didn't notice them on my FAM flight. Must have been a little high over the inlet.

Stay out of their threat zone. If it is IR SAMs then fly higher (most wont reach more than 15,000 ft), or lower and faster (to reduce their OODA window). If it is AAMs then disengage until you have a tactical advantage. If you are attacking a target with a known IR SAM defence and can't perform a high or medium altitude delivery, then plan a pop up attack and a pre-emptive CMS program which dispenses throughout the pop-up phase, for example, FL BQ 2, BI 0.5, SQ 10, SI 3, - two flares, released close together, 10 times, at three second intervals, giving you 30sec to perform your attack run and consuming 20 flares total, before bravely running away at low level. Also, stay out of afterburner.

Yup. More basing options always welcome.

The Falklands are notably barren IRL too.

Agree broadly with the OP. My main take away from my initial flights is that it doesn't 'feel' like other DCS maps. The satellite imagery gives it a MSFS or XP11-ortho vibe. I had to keep reminding myself that I was flying DCS. Certainly lots of potential for mission building and a huge variety of terrain will allow some very unique scenarios. There are very few fixed-wing basing options, but that is as IRL, so not much can be done there, but for heli or carrier ops this is not an issue. I would love to see the Harrier FOB as a placeable item. Price seems appropriate to me.

It would be nice if these could be readable, as they are really prominent IRL. Map link for those who don't know.

Performance for me is decent - very smooth on the islands, even over Stanley & Mount Pleasant. Ushuaia had a few stutters. Rift S, medium settings, laptop 3080.

Seems a lot more lively in CAT III - almost like CAT I was previously.

^^^ all of this is great, but it still doesn't really answer the use case. I know it is nothing to do with medium level CAS wheels, I do have some tactical application appreciation, but I can do low-level pop up attacks and toss CBU-87/97 with CCRP without VIP/VRP against a known location target by careful positioning of steerpoints in mission planning. Is it simply to reduce the number of steerpoints in a flight plan? or to allow multiple targets to be attacked from the same IP? Like all of you, I want the Viper to be as feature complete as it can be, but I also like to know the 'why' as much as the 'how' with each feature added.

As much as I like the B-52, even on a full-world map, I'm not sure how much I would actually use it. It would soon be relegated to the back of the hanger with all the other modules which get a brief outing once a month or so. I know there are plenty of civvy-sim flyers who happily spend 8 hrs+ in the cruise at FL340, but my time is limited and my typical sortie is 1-2 hrs. I think the B-1B would be a better option for a strategic bomber, as it is capable of carrying out low-level high sub-sonic strikes, which as a pilot appeal more than sitting in the stratosphere (though it can still sit up there in uncontested airspace dropping JDAMs all day long if that's what you want). However, since both are in-service strategic assets, it is unlikely that we will see them modelled as anything other than AI (and forget about a B-2!). Now, an F-111 on the other hand... If rumours are to believed there could be a C-130 on its way, and an AC-130 variant would be a great addition, but again from a a piloting point of view endless left-hand standard rate turns might get old fast. Personally I think the standard Hercules has a more varied role and would offer a deeper experience, and would bring a more important logistical element to the dynamic campaign, even though the Spectre does more pew-pew stuff.

During Wag's latest video demonstrating the use of VRP and VIP, in both cases he is attacking pre-planned targets at a known location. In this instance, why would you not just position the steerpoint directly on the target during planning and do a standard 30/30 pop up based on distance to run? What is the advantage of the VRP/VIP attack? Is it a remnant of pre-GPS attacks when the IP would actually be used to update the position by using an easily recognisable feature? (is this why it needs a TMS up on passing the point?) What am I missing here?

I'm all for anything which improves the mission planning element of the game.

Even if there is no 'DTC' as such, you could still create a custom kneeboard* briefing pack, with marked up charts, PLOG, frequencies, weapon attack profiles, weather, etc. etc. The actual planning features are as important as the means of implementing them in the aircraft. All the DTC does is save a bit of time entering in the information into the various systems. The planner is the main thing. *oh, and put it on the pilot's knee, rather than glued to the Perspex.

Yep.

The Gazelle is probably my favourite helicopter in DCS (yes, even including the Apache!). I have flown in (but not flown) the Gazelle a couple of times, so by no means an expert but it is a light, responsive and agile helicopter. It isn't meant to feel like the Huey or Hip (It is 1/2 the weight of the Huey, 1/5 the weight of the Apache, and 1/7 of the Hip). Realism is a two-way street, for a simulator to feel realistic, you have to do things in a realistic manner. If you fly it like a real helicopter, then it behaves pretty much like a real helicopter. If you fly it in unusual ways at the edge of the envelope, then you will get unusual results. It definitely needs some work, but is far from a lost cause.