Minsky

I'm having it as well. Track available on request, but it's dead simple to reproduce - launch the "Instant Action > F-16C > Nevada > GBU-10/12 Laser Guided Bombs" mission and let it play for about 20 seconds until the canopy shadows begin moving with the camera.

Aware, although not intimately familiar. The suggestion was to reverse the current logic and make the carrier dark by default. I was talking about taxiing (hence the mention of the plane directors).

Only the Tomcat currently supports this feature. Not sure it ever worked with the Hornet.

@Micr0, what are you asking for exactly? That they should remove the island backlit? Or that they should make the carrier dark by default? The former is "correct as is", although it might look exaggerated in DCS due to its poor lighting system. There are many different types of lights mounted up there, and some of them illuminate the island either directly or indirectly (by light scattering). I can agree with you on the latter. While in reality the carrier doesn't have to be concealed 100% of the time, virtually all missions we fly in DCS are combat missions, so it would be tactically sound to make most of the lights off by default and on when needed (via scripts / triggers / etc.) But maybe leave this for after we get the plane directors? So people other than the hardcore players could actually use the module at night.

Except there are.

DCS is bugged as it is. Even if a mod works now, doesn't mean it will be working in a month. Or that its next version will be compatible with your older missions. Mods just add more variables and maintenance headache. So I'm trying to avoid them unless they're absolutely crucial for the gameplay. And even then, I tend to only use mods that have been "stable" for quite a long time: e.g. CAM and 2SAM are okay, but VPC, which has been abandoned and requires non-trivial installation, is not. That's my personal informed choice. Yours is different, and that's fine. Just don't go overboard with statements like these:

Tabuk. This part is well outside the detailed region, has low-res textures, basically no mesh, and a bunch of generic city blocks and roads pulled from the GIS data. There's nothing to improve or expand: to properly feature Tabuk in game, the whole area needs to be created from scratch.

We've been listening to this song for months.

That's what you usually get for asking to make a simulation game more accessible to newbies, so they could skip the suffering the old-timers had to endure

A typical Harrier mission lasted about five hours when operating from the NAG. An hour more than that for the Hornets. And up to 8.5 hours for the CAP-tasked Tomcats. Anything longer was an exception.

Huh what?

I don't think we need multiple difficulty settings. But having something akin to the 'easy comms' toggle would help not only players, but also content creators, who must rely on various walkarounds to make their AAR missions more accessible. The idea is simple. By ticking a box in either the DCS settings or in the mission editor, and then positioning the aircraft inside a fairly large box behind the tanker, the player will automatically begin receiving fuel. Contacting the tanker or extending the probe is not required. Although the player is free to try plugging in and improve their skills while waiting for refueling to complete.

Hi! Finally upgraded from the 1.61 (which I loved) to the latest version, and immediately noticed that the UFC looks... odd. The buttons no longer have bezel, and the font seems out of place. Have you used some obscure (late / foreign) Hornet variant as a reference, or this is just an artistic choice?

3rd parties could've set the ship's dimensions smaller than the actual model. Just to avoid this particular problem.

I believe that label was added after or during the discussion, not before it started. I'm not worried, and there's really no need to calm me down or persuade how marvelous this map is going to be without some silly ocean. It was a simple request. It got denied. I moved on.

@durka-durka @zerO_crash You don't see the whole picture. No requests were made by me in this thread. I did so in the appropriate place. But, instead of answering us in that topic, the mods decided to deny our request here. Citing concerns and assumptions - not technical facts - as the reason for denial. Hence my reaction. A couple messages later this discussion has peacefully ended over there. Despite hearing no sound technical arguments against our request, I went along with ED's decision and stopped bugging them about the idea. And then Kharrn showed up and really rubbed me the wrong way with his mentoring tone.

How about I continue requesting whatever features I want and repeating my questions until they get answered? If you are so irritated by this, just block me. Instead of acting all old and wise and schooling me around. Thanks.

*Allegedly I'm afraid this fictional pit stop won't cut it for people who wish to simulate the real ops.

It all simmers down to whether this "flat slab" will have a noticeable impact on performance and budget or not. Did the team actually run the tests, or it's all concerns and assumptions? Simple logic says that we wouldn't have these extra areas on almost every map in DCS if they were expensive, time consuming and performance heavy. Instead of hundreds of miles covered with mesh and satellite imagery nobody ever begged for, it would have been 50 miles or less, merely to fade out the playable area. Anyway. It's clear that you guys have your mind set, and my arguments won't change much. Maybe one day we'll see a (fairly priced) Afghanistan 2.0 spanning Pakistan and the Arabian Sea.

Concern =/= proven impact. We don't ask for a low detail terrain. We will settle for no details at all. Flat surface with a basic shoreline will do. We merely want a patch of ocean to place a carrier and cosplay the OEF. Do you remember the early days of the Syria map, with all its performance woes? So how comes the heaviest map in DCS has this 400 (four hundred) miles beyond the detailed area? If all this empty space is such a burden to DCS engine, then why didn't they start optimizing the map by cutting it?

Have you even read the wishlist thread? How a nearly flat terrain with no objects is gonna impact performance? IIRC the physical size is not the limiting factor for DCS maps. It's the number of assets.

2008-2010 for the airbases: