Gaming Digital Combat Simulator Thread

[Urwumpe]

I can't stay at higher altitude, out of MANPAD range, due to the medium range SAM sites that are behind a few hills. In the Su-25T this would be an easy situation to remedy, I'd just take the Fantasmagoria and a couple of anti-radiation missiles, solve the SAM site problem and then use the 20x zoom to pick off the targets from a safe distance, but this doesn't work in the A-10.

Is there something I'm missing?

Well, if you can't fly high, fly really low. important is also finding good ingress and egress routes to the target.

From what I learned about the A-10, it is either deployed above 7000 ft MSL or below 200 ft AGL. The lower you get, the bigger the chance to be out of visible range for a MANPADS before it can fire at you.

 

[Hielor]

Well, if you can't fly high, fly really low. important is also finding good ingress and egress routes to the target.

From what I learned about the A-10, it is either deployed above 7000 ft MSL or below 200 ft AGL. The lower you get, the bigger the chance to be out of visible range for a MANPADS before it can fire at you.

But from 200ft AGL, how do I identify and hit targets without labels, or at least pausing the game every few seconds? It seems that at that altitude, you've got basically no time to react in order to get your weapons on the right targets...

 

[Urwumpe]

But from 200ft AGL, how do I identify and hit targets without labels, or at least pausing the game every few seconds? It seems that at that altitude, you've got basically no time to react in order to get your weapons on the right targets...

You pop up, you also need more altitude for dropping bombs (unless you use the Mk-82AIR). And yes, it is much harder than just picking the targets from afar.

But... what is the alternative?

 

[Richy]

That was some nice action.

I uploaded all 60 screenshots I took to Flickr:

http://flic.kr/s/aHsjUeC7xB

Indeed! Especially the hunt or to be hunted by non-AI air defence.

btw:
Nice screenshot (the last milliseconds) ^^
http://www.flickr.com/photos/119955138@N08/13044752564/in/set-72157642116777585

 

[ex-orbinaut]

...while asking me to take out vaguely described targets in vaguely described areas. I'm trying to fly it with labels off, but it seems all but impossible to actually find the target I'm supposed to hit, much less actually hit it and GTFO before getting shot down.

My labels are off by default. I have only done the second mission since the last post. It was not the same one you described, at all. Vague briefing, yes. Go take out a "logistics center". What is that? Anyway, two attempts. Gunned down a load of POL tanks and leveled a building that looked like a warehouse with a pair of '84s in Ochkamuri. Not the objective. Went home. Next time, hung about over my lines, parallel to the front, scanning and zooming in with the mouse on suspect areas, cross referencing with the map (in SAT view so I could discern the ground features) until I saw some trucks near Ochkamuri. Took them out. No word on mission accomplished. Found some more trucks farther east. Took them out. Still nothing. Found even more trucks even farther east. CBU-87ed them. Mission accomplished.

I don't know, I sort of like, in a way, the garbled, hectic front line style "here's what we know, go find out the rest" style briefing, but a couple more specifics certainly would not hurt.

There is a problem (bug) with the ATC, which is affecting the hour logging on the A-10A module, and I suspect the air to air refueling capability. Saw it and have have asked more about it on the ED Forums.

And now weapons. Though in the default loads I can see the Mk-20 Rockeyes are available for the A-10A, I cannot actually select them to a custom load (they, and a larger rocket launcher). I should think this is a bug (omission) in the load-out config file. I know the file exists, but I do not know where it is. Not looked for it, honestly. Can't be bothered, at this stage. Meh. However, there is probably an easy manual fix for this problem.

And now, the white phosphorous experiment. During the first of the second mission attempts I took some WP rockets, thinking that if I happened upon a fuel bowser or something equally flammable, they might be just the ticket...

...:rofl: I will limit myself to using them as smoke markers, in future!

Is there something I'm missing?

I think you are missing the SU-25T :lol:.

 

[Hielor]

And now weapons. Though in the default loads I can see the Mk-20 Rockeyes are available for the A-10A, I cannot actually select them to a custom load (they, and a larger rocket launcher). I should think this is a bug (omission) in the load-out config file. I know the file exists, but I do not know where it is. Not looked for it, honestly. Can't be bothered, at this stage. Meh. However, there is probably an easy manual fix for this problem.

Actually, this isn't a bug at all--if you look at the patch notes for the latest patch, the larger rockets were intentionally removed. No idea why. The bug is (I'd guess) that the default loadouts weren't updated.

I think you are missing the SU-25T :lol:.

Well, yeah...

If the relative balance of the Su-25 vs. the A-10 in DCS is any indication of the real-world balance, it's probably a good thing we've never had a European ground war. Although I suppose it's possible that the Su-25TM (or whatever they actually ended up producing) isn't nearly as powerful as the -T...

 

[ex-orbinaut]

Actually, this isn't a bug at all--if you look at the patch notes for the latest patch, the larger rockets were intentionally removed. No idea why. The bug is (I'd guess) that the default loadouts weren't updated.

Ah, okay. Looking at them now. Says the Rockeyes have gone, too. Well, that explains that, though I share the thought; can't imagine why. Thanks!

If the relative balance of the Su-25 vs. the A-10 in DCS is any indication of the real-world balance, it's probably a good thing we've never had a European ground war. Although I suppose it's possible that the Su-25TM (or whatever they actually ended up producing) isn't nearly as powerful as the -T...

Wondering the same thing. The SU-25T is a far superior weapons system, in DCS, at least. The only plus seems to be the A-10A's more forgiving handling characteristics.

You were dead right about that pitch ladder / flight path vector indication on the HUD, BTW. I was initially interpreting it as a sort of turn coordinator aid (which it can be used for, I suppose, momentarily while establishing a bank), but it is definitely to represent wind drift. The second mission had a good wind going, and its purpose then became clear.

 

[Hielor]

Wondering the same thing. The SU-25T is a far superior weapons system, in DCS, at least. The only plus seems to be the A-10A's more forgiving handling characteristics.

I'm not even sure about that. The A-10A seems to have a tendency to stall abruptly and with one wing dropping sharply, and I don't remember the Su-25T being nearly as violent when stalling. Plus, the Su-25T's "maneuver" flaps are usable up to a significantly higher speed than the A-10's, giving you even more available lift for hard maneuvering.

Although, comparing the A-10A to the Su-25T is a little unfair, considering that the Su-25T is from 1990 and the A-10A is from the 70s, but even comparing to the A-10C the Su-25T would seem to come out on top. I suppose I need to finish up the A-10A and move on to the -C fairly soon, but the complexity scares me, and I'm not sure I'd be able to convince the significant other that a Warthog HOTAS stick is a valid purchase...

You were dead right about that pitch ladder / flight path vector indication on the HUD, BTW. I was initially interpreting it as a sort of turn coordinator aid (which it can be used for, I suppose, momentarily while establishing a bank), but it is definitely to represent wind drift. The second mission had a good wind going, and its purpose then became clear.

I thought the same thing at first, but one of the missions mentioned that the A-10's rudder automatically coordinates turns. And then I flew in a crosswind and its purpose became abundantly clear...

So yeah, don't get into an unusual attitude when it's windy, you won't be able to see the pitch ladder to figure your way out of it! :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

If the relative balance of the Su-25 vs. the A-10 in DCS is any indication of the real-world balance, it's probably a good thing we've never had a European ground war. Although I suppose it's possible that the Su-25TM (or whatever they actually ended up producing) isn't nearly as powerful as the -T...

Well, I don't think so. The Su-25T is still pretty much the best you can make of the Su-25, but it is nowhere comparable to a A-10C. And the contemporary versions Su-25A and A-10A have the same relation.

What the A-10 really makes a lot better than the Su-25 is the package.

First of all: It is really hard to kill a A-10. Even if you are damaged, it is not the end of the world. Minor AAA damages, that would force a Su-25 to drop its payload, mean no automatic end of mission in the A-10. And when a A-10 is badly damaged, you can still fly it home. When you can't fly a A-10 home anymore, you have usually still deprived the hostile side by a lot of ammo to get you down.

Second: No fixed-wing aircraft in DCS is better suited to low-level flying than the A-10. The large wings and control surfaces make it react far faster and no aircraft in DCS has a smaller turn radius (though you also will find out that it is no dogfighter, because of the weak and pretty slowly reacting engines). And when you fly into ground effect, you are still pretty high, its really like flying on a cushion of air.

Third: The Su-25T has no fire-and-forget weapons. You need to laser your target most of the time and you can only laser your target in the frontal aspect. The laser of the Su-25T has annoying long cool down periods. The Maverick allows you to break away and egress already before you even fly into air defense range. On the A-10A, you lack the TGP, but still you have it better than the Su-25T. And in the A-10C, you have JDAM, WCMD and other great toys that don't require you to keep the target in laser range. Just remember: Never take laser guided bombs to a low-level mission. They require you to be dropped from 15000 ft or more. Choose the right weapons for your mission.

Fourth: The Su-25T is constantly low on fuel. With a A-10, you can really loiter near the battle field for 2 hours in altitude and at low speed. While this never has a real effect in the short missions that you play, it is really important in a more realistic battle. Even in BAI missions, you need time to analyse the battlefield before you strike, regardless if you use a A-10A or a A-10C.

And last, but not least: GAU-8 Avenger. Nuff said. The toy gun of the Su-25T is not even slightly comparable, as well in range as in damage. In the A-10C, you can make use of the PAC system by gently squeezing your gun trigger a bit to really put all bullets into a tank sized target.

EDIT: I also don't know how realistic the Vikhr missile system is really implemented in DCS. The behavior seems to be close to what you can expect of a beamrider. If you don't maneuver much, and attack with the wind, you can hit your target. If not, you will more or less likely miss it. But it still feels a bit too capable. I was damaged in flight by two (and belly-landed the A-10C in repairable state) because I ignored helicopters as threat once, but still it felt a bit strange to be hit because I was already maneuvering during the first hit and was jinking during the second.

 

[astrosammy]

Some armed HMMWVs (important, as unarmed HMMWV can't be controlled) would be nice in the weapons training mission, they seem to be the fastest ground vehicles.
Maybe a few in Kutaisi and a few in Senaki.

We can use them to designate targets for laser guided weapons, this could be useful for the SAMs.

 

[Urwumpe]

About the A-10 and its usefulness... here is a scientific study about the precision engagement upgrade:

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA406850

 

[ex-orbinaut]

What the A-10 really makes a lot better than the Su-25 is the package...

The synopsis is convincing, and the the A-10 modernization thesis was a good read, as far as I have got through it at the moment (finish it later). In truth, the previous discussion (ie; the comments about the preference for the SU-25T) is a bit hypothetical and very simulator based, and is made somewhat moot by the consideration that if we actually were forced to fly a SU-25A / SU-25T mission ratio in DCS based on real production, we would be flying some sixty missions in an inferior SU-25A for each "golden" mission in a T. Though I have not got the SU-25A (yet), just looking at the low fuel load (compared to the SU-25T's internal fuel load), the lack of ECM (afaics), no ARMs, and no beam-riding ATMs, would convince me which side I would rather be on, given that the A-10A was the other option. This case, I would surmise, is closer to the reality of the prospect of a Warsaw Pact invasion during the early and mid 'eighties, at least regarding these two types, and putting all other variables aside. I have no intention of opening a discussion (interesting as it would be with the benefit of hindsight) regarding the outcome if all variables were, indeed, included, and the possibility of unleashing a nuclear exchange was "overlooked". I have not that sort of time at my disposal for diving into all the reference required! I was very interested in it once, but it is all cob-webbed research now. Let's just say I would "listen" with some interest if it did devolve into that, and certainly re-learn quite a bit along the way.

Regarding no fire and forget weapons for the Su-25T, are not the TV guided AS-14 Kedge B and KAB-500Kr (AS-12 Kegler and AS-11 Kilter ARMs aside) this class of weapon? Granted, you cannot carry many of them, when compared to the six AGM-65s you can hang on the A-10A. However, in DCS at the moment, the targetting of those Mavericks is infernal, when compared to the Su-25T's highly multi-purpose targetting system. The Shkval / laser combination not only provides the beam for the Vikhrs, but also targets the gun pods, manages bomb release points and (as TV only) acquires the target for the Kedge B. Though again, it is all rather an inconsequential discussion seeing as, from what I understand, the mass modernization of the Su-25 took its biggest blow from the break-away of the "states" of Soviet Union, in which the various components for the program were produced. Correct me if I am wrong.

I trust (understand) that the targeting on the A-10C, as simulated, is much better, but as Hielor mentioned, the time investment required to master the complexity scares me a bit. I was looking at this key matrix when considering getting the "C". Sometime, and taking it step by step. It is a complete type conversion.

As for "belly landing" an A-10, it looks from the configuration of the retracted gear that, with stores jettisoned, it turns into a very short landing gear tail-dragger (well, bottom-of-fins dragger, at any rate :lol.

We can use them to designate targets for laser guided weapons, this could be useful for the SAMs.

So you can do that? Need those LGBs for the A-10A, quick.

I suppose I need to finish up the A-10A and move on to the -C fairly soon, but the complexity scares me, and I'm not sure I'd be able to convince the significant other that a Warthog HOTAS stick is a valid purchase...

:hmm: Mine is better "trained", then. I would just have to mention my liking of it and she would present it to me on the next special day, be that a birthday, Christmas, or a national holiday! I have a touch-screen Blackberry that I never use hanging about just because I picked it up in a shop and looked at it once, to prove the point. I have not the heart to try this, even as an experiment.

 

[Richy]

Some armed HMMWVs (important, as unarmed HMMWV can't be controlled) would be nice in the weapons training mission, they seem to be the fastest ground vehicles.
Maybe a few in Kutaisi and a few in Senaki.

We can use them to designate targets for laser guided weapons, this could be useful for the SAMs.

There is actually a HMMWV south of the targets already as JTAC. But I can add some more for sure. Is there something special I need to set in the editor, so they're capable of laser designation?

 

[astrosammy]

Oh, I missed that one.
No special setting is required, every ground unit can be used as JTAC and has a laser.

 

[Urwumpe]

Regarding no fire and forget weapons for the Su-25T, are not the TV guided AS-14 Kedge B and KAB-500Kr (AS-12 Kegler and AS-11 Kilter ARMs aside) this class of weapon? Granted, you cannot carry many of them, when compared to the six AGM-65s you can hang on the A-10A.

These are not only much bigger, they also are even less capable than the CCD guided mavericks.

However, in DCS at the moment, the targetting of those Mavericks is infernal, when compared to the Su-25T's highly multi-purpose targetting system.

That is because the A-10A has no targeting pod, the Mavericks are the best sensor that it has next to the human eye balls. The A-10A CAN carry a targeting pod in reality now, with one of the later upgrades before the A-10C.

With the A-10C, the TGP outperforms the Su-25T system by far. Also, the Su-25T carries its internal optics and an external targeting pod at night, while the TGP of the A-10C does both AND also allows selecting the IR scale.

Not sure which kind of magnification the narrow FOV (1° x 1°) represents at maximal zoom level (which would mean 0.5° x 0.5°).

I trust (understand) that the targeting on the A-10C, as simulated, is much better, but as Hielor mentioned, the time investment required to master the complexity scares me a bit. I was looking at this key matrix when considering getting the "C". Sometime, and taking it step by step. It is a complete type conversion.

Well, getting the Warthog HOTAS and rudder pedals was sure a good idea, it really makes flying the A-10C easier. But still, it takes time to learn the procedures.

 

[Richy]

Ok, I've improved the whole target lineup in the mission and did some other changes. I'm going to test it out today saturday evening at 1800 UTC.
You are welcome to join.

 

[Fabri91]

Unless the teamspeak site finishes its maintenance I won't be able to host a TS server this time.

 

[Urwumpe]

Unless the teamspeak site finishes its maintenance I won't be able to host a TS server this time.

No problem for me, my voice is a bit raspy today, would also prefer to talk less than usual. :lol:

 

[Ghostrider]

No problem for me, my voice is a bit raspy today, would also prefer to talk less than usual. :lol:

Raspy voice?

Works for him.

 

[Urwumpe]

Raspy voice?

Works for him.

Yeah... and the slogan "Judgment is coming" could also apply to some A-10C days. :lol: