arteedecco

Awesome. I will give it a shot. What video settings do you use for your MFDs? 512, 512 every frame, 1024, 1024 every frame???

(FYI my video settings for MFDs is set to 512) It seems to me that the contrast is way to washed out on the white hot and a little bit better on black hot (key word being "little"). The issue is worse at longer range (around 10 miles) and improves significantly as you near the target (around 5 miles). The obvious problem being that at 5 miles you are pretty well in the engagement envelope for any nasty AA threat. Anyone have any tips on getting better contrast on the TGP? a.) video settings b.) where / how do you "fiddle" with the gain? Is it one of the LSK on the MFD for the TGP? Thanks!

From the "DCS World Su-25T Flight Manual EN.pdf" On page 36, "Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD Mode)": ...and there is more detail provided later on in the manual, page 64: You can find a link to the manual in: Start >> Programs >> Eagle Dynamics My understanding is that the Fantasmagoria ARM control pod can detect and lock onto transmitters that are emitting (within certain frequency limitations). period. In other words, you can target them with ARM even if they haven't locked you up. There are probably tons of RL caveats to this and I am not sure how well DCSW models it all, but it's probably fairly sandbox'ish, but yet good enough to give us that additional component. Hope that helps.

This thread came up in a quick search: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=94332&highlight=F-15E An F-15E would be an amazing follow-on to the 'C' model so long as the back seat is fully playable and modeled IMO. Being able to have a human backseater would be so excellent. That and multi-seat Apache, PLEASE! FTW!!! :thumbup:

+1 Very good point. I'd meant to mention that myself. That's something that can be modeled in campaign design over the coarse of an operation or war, but is rarely addressed in the more common "sandbox" type missions you see out there. In RL they are obviously quite effective within their fragmentation envelope... would be nice if that was reflected in DCSW so they would be more commonly used in missions.

I have to agree, with a mild exception. The Su-25T has a seemingly wider array of rockets, some of which pack a decent punch. But yeah... still, I think the modeling is not where I would like it to be. I actually posted a very similar sentiment in another thread in the DCSW forum, relating more to the smoke / burning effect of rockets and how it is not enough. If you watch vids on RL rocket attacks the effects are pretty substantial with plenty of smoke... even if the target itself wasn't combustable. Had a similar discussion about CBU-105 / 97 modeling a while back. They were not tracking individual skeets and then doing damage based on them... it was just an area effect weapon basically despite the nice animation. I know they've worked on that some... well... the animation at least, but maybe the modeling of the skeet damage too. The net from that thread was that a re-working of the damage model in general was in order, but that would come in a future release... we may not be to that release yet... Seems w/ frag type weapons, they need to do something similar to the skeets recommendations where they model a certain number of fragments and ray-cast out from them and do kinetic damage. After all, they model the kinetic off of the GAU-8 among other things, each round too as I understand it, so even 50 fragments off a rocket wouldn't be too terrible to handle I would think.

Hmmm... this thread and the ideas posed by GGTharos made me remember Flight Sim, where there was no bombing, yet some of the missions were fun. In other words, sometimes the flying of the mission is fun, not just the blasting. There was a mission in the FSX Accelerator Pack where you were in a damaged F18 returning to the carrier, flying off the wing of your flight lead in IMC... at night.... and you had to land on a carrier... yikes! (but challenging and FUN!). So having longer enroute to IP could be fun depending upon how it's used. For instance, flying up a canyon NOE to the IP is challenging and fun... you could even place occasional (mild) AA threats to keep things dicy, though you probably wouldn't want to put anything bad enough out there to shoot your players down unless they were stupid... so as to avoid player frustration at having long periods of doing nothing while enroute to the action only to get wasted unexpectedly. Q: Does anyone know if it is possible in the ME to add areas of different cloud cover and other meteorological conditions? How bout through the new scripting interface where you can create polygon shapes for areas? The idea I had, based upon the original post, was to have an enroute and loiter in the "soup" (IMC) and then have a hole or scattered layer to get below near the target area. This would make the enroute flying more challenging and fun and not just seem like... takeoff... a/p "ON"..... zzzzzz.

So... I have been thinking about this dilema more lately. I've also been watching a lot of vids of Su-25T in action (though the aircraft type really doesn't matter for this particular point). What I notice is that... A. In RL it is not about how much ordinance you lay down... I mean... it is, but there is a MUCH higher value placed on surviving engagements, so you see loadouts that allow for good aircraft control and maneuverability, rather than... the typical SIM loadouts where you fill every dang pylon with 110% of whatever it can handle. B. Most engagements are rocket attacks against an invisible enemy... troops firing from trees... in most of the vids you don't see a target, yet stuff is burning afterwards, which means that there was a FAC or something to alert the Su-25 pilots as to where the threat was... C. In RL, they don't fly into areas with thick AA threats like we do so often in the SIM... in the SIM we find that we are often taking on every single possible threat simultaneously on every mission (or at least they are present and have to be worried over). In RL there are limits to the number and placement of enemy assets, so you won't necessarily have 4 enemy aircraft flying around, SA-11 batteries, MANPAD all over, Shilka, Tunguska, etc every time. But... you want to have a target rich environment for your pilots and you want it to be challenging for them even if they spawn into the multiplayer game after it's been running for an hour or so... catch 22. That's why I would love it if DCSW worked on getting the ability to spawn units after mission load. D. Weapon accuracy on unguided munitions is not very good. You watch the vids and you see that rocket attacks hit an area but the nose of the aircraft is wandering around and the rockets hit within an "area" rather than a pinpoint strike ,but... E. (my main point) the effect of rocket explosions is much much more significant that what is modeled in DCSW. The smoke from the explosions lingers longer, billows more, and is just visually more obvious than what I see in DCSW... thereby making it more difficult to locate a target area after a strike. Yes, the smoke from burning wrecks seems to last, but it is generally uniform and fairly non-descript. Regarding my point on E... it seems like more could be done to the explosive, burning effects to make them more visually predominant (even if a target wasn't hit... it seems like trees, grass, environment would burn and smolder). Thoughts?

DCSW is awesome. Far and away, it is the best SIM I have ever flown, the dev team is very active with regular updates, the community is very active, the SIM has been made accesible to 3rd party devs to freely address areas and niche's in the market that ED will not/cannot pursue itself, there is an ME that is continually developed and has allowed many rich mission to pervade the community, they modularized the DCSW Suite, AND!!! they continue to release new aircraft. I mean... in the old days you either got one aircraft to fly period... then the company went belly up or the title lost support, or you got a handful of poorly modeled planes. Or you got a huge, accurate terrain database, aircraft with great skins, decently modeled (sometimes even exceptionally modeled systems) aircraft, but... no ability to blast the crap out of anything!!!! GAH!!! And (sorry Flight Sim) the control modeling of the aircraft has sucked since day one... hate the flight sim "bobbing" after adding control input (pitchy... very pitchy). Okay... Flight Sim rant over (it serves its purpose)... don't argue with me on Flight Sim... ;) just keep reading so we can stay on topic. Of course there is a place for feedback, wishlist, and even criticism, but when I take stock of the SIM as it is today, it feels like a present and makes me so happy. Every time I go through the A-10C startup sequence I grin because it just seems so real. F-15C seems really natural being that they already have the 6dof cockpit in FC3 and that it is not too complex to make it impossible to model (like the F-22 / F-35, which would take forever, would have lots of Top Secret issues, and frankly... would be boring to fight with). I can't wait for the F-15C, it will be awesome if it is done to the same quality standards as the A-10C. Regarding Flanker, Fulcrum... those would be awesome too, but here we are... and where we are is amazing and frankly, revolutionary! Let's see how this Mig-21 goes when it is released and then hopefully with the revenue he can build another, even more amazing Eastern aircraft. I too love those birds and would love to fly them! Of course.. it would be awesome if more effort was put towards adding more ArmA FPS style playability to "round-out" the SIM and allow for me to grab a MANPAD and shoot my jerkface friend down when he decides to give me an AIM-9 for no reason other than he's bored! (laugh) Love it, love it, love it... okay... carry on with the complaining! :) j/k of course Cheers

I have come to appreciate the Su-25T and think it is really awesome, so I'm glad to have it, but I can see SkateZilla's point as the Su-25T just isn't strikingly "sexy", so it primarily attracts a smaller cadre of enthusiasts (albeit the kind I like to talk and fly with!) and those who live in areas where it flies in RL. The F-100 will not have over-complex avionics or systems to learn, making it accessible. Yet, it will also be fast and have both AA and AG capability making it well-rounded and fun (afterburner baby!). This is another aircraft that I have not previously put a lot of effort into learning / knowing, but it will be a welcome addition! Thanks for the hard work all! :thumbup:

Maybe this has already been covered, but Q1. Are there plans, or WIP to update the DSC Su-25T to an official 6dof cockpit, clickable pit, and basically brining it up to the same speed as the DCS A-10C? My assumption is "no" since it is offered for free with DCS World... Q2. What is the best endurance speed (level flight, MGTOW) in the Su-25T? And, maybe more important... what is the optimal cruise speed / power setting (RPM) for best endurance, balanced against enough speed for maneuvering in the case of a pop-up threat (MANPAD, or AAA)?

Yeah, good tip. It's tough to always remember to pay attention to the precise geography surrounding your target when you are screaming overhead at 500 kph, avoiding terrain, and/or dealing with threats. Q1. Let's say you're ingressing to a target in a valley and are NOE... what mode / weapon system do you have active? Do you favor having your smoke rocket active so you can quickly pot-shot the target and then pull a u-turn and begin engaging? -- I find that my valley NOE tactics are crap and I tend to have trouble with the heightened workload. Need some quick tips (a sort of checklist) to run through to help manage.

Derk, I hadn't seen that one yet! I love the F-100. Viva la Boyd, the 30 second killer!

Grimes, thanks so much for the response. I really appreciate all the work you do in support of the community and towards making mission building better. Thanks! I am familiar with the ME portion of the forum, so I'll head back there for follow-up questions. You know how when you are programming or building out a mission and you hit that one question that is just ... not ... addressed anywhere, but seems like a huge, big deal? That whole thing you just illuminated about how DCS cannot currently spawn new units / re-spawn units after starting a mission... that is just one such critical piece of info. If it hasn't already been done, this bit of info should be bold-faced added as a callout to the very beginning of the ME portion of the manual and to the API Wiki you're working on. IMO. Thanks a ton! Looking forward to more updates on the LUA scripting API! :thumbup: Cheers!

+1 to that as well. Excellent. It is the hackers that really innovate and improve a product. This software - DCS World - will grow to new heights, become richer, and get better than imagined if a real focus is made to support outside development / interaction. Look at what the community has done with Falcon 4.0 after it's code-base stopped being developed. Isn't it possible to develop something new like DCS, but make it consistently backwards compatible, in terms of it's API? If you write an object or function, don't change method, property names, just add new ones for new features. Make functions so they can accept more parameters while preserving the old ones. Keep the data provided in various parameters from changing. I'm not sure if any of that is possible, but I would just LOVE to see more effort put towards supporting the outside development community as well as making the mission editor much easier in terms of scripting. Why not make the ME parse JavaScript and then post a Wiki of all API objects / methods etc. Would LOVE that! It is so convoluted to program any sort of complex logic in the ME (IMO) right now. Please, if I am wrong point me to a resource that makes it easy (please!). Sorry for somewhat of a tangent on the ME topic, but to me it is critical for the community to be able to develop content in the form of robust missions (among other things). I still cannot figure out how to create a unit that respawns after being killed to effectively create an infinite army instead of having to add a ton of cluttered groups to a mission and then having to manage them all in the ME. Anyhow.. I digress. But I do love Moa's thoughts. EDIT: Alas... I am not crying in the night! :) http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=95148

Good to know! 1. Any other suggestions on how to find targets in a multi-player environment where you may not have AI to find targets? 2. Can you interact with JTAC if you're flying the Su-25T? If "yes", will the JTAC give you WP? -- Do JTACs know not to give Su-25Ts data linked targets? -- Do JTACs know to use WP instead of coordinates only with Su-25Ts? Thanks for the clarification!

Cool! Adds a whole new depth to the game doesn't it!? Yeah, I've noticed the same problem finding targets in the Su-25T. Some ideas. You can (in the game Options) switch from simulation to "Game" mode, which is described in the very beginning of the Su-25T Flight Manual that is installed with DCS World. It makes it a little more like an "arcade" game, but it is one possible solution. You can search the forum on how to edit labels so they are a darker color and only a "." or something much smaller than the full description of the vehicle, so it is not as invasive in the game (I also like to just play more "realistically" and don't like using things like labels). Have you updated your game to 1.2.2 and done the auto-updates after installing that version? They have been making lots of fixes / updates / tweaks. If you fly with a wingman, any vehicle they spot will show up as a diamond in your HUD (so I have read, but have not yet confirmed myself). Really... the built-in (in the nose of the aircraft) "Shkval" TV targeting system is THE way to detect and ID targets. Here is a quote from page 61 of the Su-25T Flight Manual: Remember, the Su-25T in DCS World is an FC model, so it has waaaaayyyy less "fidelity" and detail than the DCS A-10C Module you can purchase (if you haven't already). The Su-25T has a much less sophisticated avionics package than the A-10C and the targeting is one of the primary limitations. A lot of its systems are "automated" as well because it is a Flaming Cliffs port and has not been given all the dev time and effort of the amazing DCS A-10C. In general, the way it works in the Su-25T is your waypoints are set over your targets, so when you are ingressing to a waypoint you know to start searching with eyeballs and with your Shkval TV [O]. Remember you "stabilize" the Shkval camera by pressing "Enter" [RETURN] and slew the seeker around using "," "." "/" ";" keys. Once you slew the seeker over a target it will lock up, so long as you have the correct target size set (default is 10m which is ideal for most ground vehicles). Read the Flight Manual for more details. That's really it. Otherwise you have to use your RWR, see the enemy shooting at you, look for target diamonds designated by your wingman, use the F10 map if available (mission designers can make this unavailable during mission design). Remember, to go into ground attack mode, press [7] and then press [D] to cycle between weapons and hardpoints. To engage the laser for laser guided munitions, press [RShift+O] and remember to TURN off the laser after using it, so it doesn't burn up basically. Some have said the laser is turned on/off automatically, but I have not tried that much yet. So far I have not seen it work that way. Also, to engage the weapons override (allows you to shoot two Vikhr anti-tank rounds simultaneously) press [LAlt + W]. It may allow other things as well, but I'm not sure exactly what yet. So yeah... the Su-25T is a whole different "ballgame" than the A-10C in terms of detecting, and acquiring targets. You essentially have to see them, see smoke, see them fire and then be facing them to target them with the TV targeting system. Sorry I don't have better news for ya! Hope some of that helps you out. I will be trying the Su-25T in multiplayer mode soon to try to figure some of this out better. Cheers! Happy flying! :pilotfly:

Thanks! And yes, you are right for mentioning that. People in these forums have advised to carry less than 100% load-out on the Su-25T for that very reason; it becomes much more maneuverable at lower weights and empty weapon stations. :joystick: In-fact, one poster mentioned that he never flies with the Vikhr missiles because they detract from maneuverability so much. What is your favorite multi-purpose load-out for the DCS World Su-25T?

Hey RichardG, thought I might provide a response to your original post since this thread has gone every which way already, including two different flame wars. I liked your original post/question primarily because I have just taken to learning the DCS World Su-25T myself. For me, there were two major thoughts that came to mind: First there was the question of ... what is this plane's capabilities and how do they compare to the DCS A-10C... in other words, "why would I fly the Su-25T over the A-10C?" Second in my mind was, how is the Su-25T model (originally from FC) different from the DCS A-10C. I love learning to fly new aircraft, learning their systems, learning their strengths and weaknesses, and when / how to employ them to their best effect. It leads me to learning a lot about their history and design intent... and also how they get used out of plain necessity. Just so everyone knows, I have unfortunately never flown LOMAC, FC1 - 3, or BS1 - 2.... for now, I'm just a DCS A-10C guy (I will be getting FC3 shortly). Here are my initial thoughts on the DCS World Su-25T after flying the DCS A-10C many many hours (primarily in Multiplayer missions). I am going to make the distinction that I am speaking solely about these aircraft in terms of their existing implementations in DCS World 1.2.2. I am going to talk about my take on how they can be used in DCS World's model of "reality" as it were, NOT how they are, or should be used in Real Life. I was struck by how much ordinance the Su-25T can carry and by how much more range some of it's weapons have over the A-10C (e.g. Kh-25, Kh-29, and the Anti-Radiation Missiles [ARM]). On the other hand, I was struck by how difficult it is to acquire targets in the Su-25T in comparison to the A-10C (in general terms), due to the TAS / SADL / TGP of the A-10C. Here are the differentiators, broken out in a list: Su-25T Advantages 1. Carries more, longer-range anti-tank munitions than A-10C -- Can carry 8 vikhr anti-tank missiles PLUS a bunch more stand-off missiles / bombs / rockets / guns / AA missiles, the thing can carry a TON of hardware (it flys like a cement truck when loaded up like that) 2. Faster than A-10C 3. SEAD capability -- A-10C cannot employ ARM (drat!) and doesn't have weapons that make it properly suited to this role... yes, you can do pop-up Maverick shots, yes you can stay out of the Tunguska, Strela, Shilka, MANPAD engagement envelops and kill them, but... anything with more range / capability than that outclasses the A-10C's capabilities -- With ARM missiles that have over 20KM range and an AI that doesn't do too much AA trickery, the Su-25T actually has the capacity to eliminate most ground-based, radar-guided AA threats in-game A-10C Advantages 1. Avionics, TGP, SADL, Markpoints, FMS make the A-10C far better in terms of locating and eliminating targets if they are not exactly where you expect them, plus night time capability and TGP allows for constant target visual lock (so long as you maneuver smartly and don't block the camera's optics) -- In the Su-25T the targeting optics are limited to a forward-facing field of view, so you basically have to find targets with your eyeballs, that your wingman has already located, that are near a recognizable landmark and are pointed out to you by some other source (or mission briefing... hope they don't move!), or get shot at by them first! 2. True night/day capability (not a huge differentiator in terms of DCS) -- Yes, the "Mercury" pod gives the Su-25T night capability, but it's limited to viewing forward and only has 4x magnification, so it's limited compared to the A-10C 3. Seems to have more endurance than the Su-25 (without external fuel tanks) 4. Better flight characteristics -- Less pilot workload, though this can be mitigated in the Su-25T by employing the Autopilot well 5. I've read in the forums that the A-10C has better anti-IR-missile defensive flare programs (so more survivable) 6. GAU-8 ... I mean... that thing is awesome! (yes, the Su-25T has a nice cannon and can add external gun pods too, plus it can depress the gun barrels for relatively level strafing runs, neat! but still the GAU-8 is just unique) So really, for me, it seems that in the current rendition of DCS World (discounting FC3 aircraft), the Su-25T has more capability in terms of adding the SEAD role. It also has more options in terms of AA missilery (not a huge perk, but hey, I'll take it!). And the Su-25T can take out targets using precision laser, or TV guidance from a much greater range than the A-10C. Also, the Su-25T can move faster in general so it can get to / from targets in less time. On the other hand... the A-10C can actually find targets at standoff ranges even if they've moved / are underway, can share targets via SADL, is more survivable against certain IR AA threats, and can find targets and prosecute them better at night/limited vis. Plus, it's cannon can really kill tanks handily. Ideally, though perhaps not what would occur in RL, a flight would have an Su-25T with ARM / SEAD capability and an A-10C to locate targets. Once the Su-25T blasts the big ticket AA items from range, the A-10C hammers in and the Su-25T helps clean up. (I primarily fly with one other wingman, so I think in terms of 2 aircraft, since that's all I can usually muster... would love to try it with more, coordinated pilots of course!). In terms of DCS World, I'd expect that the Su-25T in practiced hands could probably outscore an A-10C if the Su were loaded all-out and all targets were located along the planned waypoints. As soon as the environment gets "dynamic" the A-10C's avionics start to weigh more in its favor. On the other hand, if there are significant ground-based, radar AA threats then the Su-25T (if properly armed) gets a leg up... well... as long as the threats make themselves known before the Su is overhead :) Overall, the Su-25T is a fun addition to DCS World and would not normally be an aircraft I would even consider. I'm very glad to be able to try it and I have found it very satisfying to learn how it compares to the A-10C and how they can interleave to make a unique flight package capable of much more than just A-10Cs or just Su-25s. Part of the fun of a SIM for me is that you can mix and match in ways that would not necessarily occur in RL, but are also not impossible in absolute terms. Happy flying everyone! See you in the skies! :pilotfly:

First of all, thank you for putting that spreadsheet together! I'm new to the Toadie and was struggling to understand the difference between the various munitions, so this really helps! A few suggestions for improvement if I may: Add max velocity column (at least for missiles, maybe rockets) -- Would be useful in quickly determining rough TOF for the weapon... potential for getting off multiple shots in one pass, etc. Add which stations weapon can be loaded onto (for example some of the larger TV weapons like the Kh-25T can only go on 5/7) Maybe just add a note reminding pilots that TV guided munitions are fire and forget while laser guided weapons require the laser to paint the target all the way from launch to impact. I will see what I can do to provide input here when I'm back home in front of the gaming rig. Thanks again for the list and the updates! :thumbup:

Oh, gotcha, that's handy. True in MultiPlayer as well?

THanks for the reply Weta43! Not really. A "SIM", simulates reality (RL). It is completely feasible in RL the HARM could be deemed crucial to the success of the A-10C mission and then flight tested and eventually fielded in combat. Doesn't matter if it seems likely, it is possible. "Fantasy" would be if I wanted to add a cartoon missile that shot fireballs out of it and cast spells as it flew to the target (lol). This SIM, grants us a sandbox, which is what I'm describing. I mean... P-51? Having a P-51 flying around in the A-10C environment is WAY more fantasy than equipping a HARM to an A-10C. True indeed! I find driving the fuel truck in ARMA to be "neat" once... then I'm like... it's tank, helo, and cobra time! Yeah... ME for mission creator. Back to fantasy vs. hard-core sim that models RL... :music_whistling: But in RL you get to select your loadout before you step on a mission. I mean, heck.. you could do it all the way back to Falcon 3.0 (I think!?) for goodness sake.

A real mission editor application with a solid UI that has a REALLY well-documented API. Maybe it would use LUA, which seems to be favored in the DCS series as well as in ARMA (though I believe ARMA III is going to Java [not JavaScript]), but maybe JavaScript could be used. Not just a scrapped together UI. For $500 this thing should be a full-fledged application. ALL vehicles and systems modeled and available to play / command. Completely customizable vehicle, munitions (I want to add markings on the sides of my bombs), avatar skin templates in PSD format. I want to be able to equip a HARM on my P-51 if I want to put in the effort, but the game should allow for me grabbing the HARM, the harm system, the HARM management display and dropping it into my P-51, or what have you (A-10). The ability to easily select your weapons loadout within the limits of the aircraft capability BEFORE launch (a briefing section). WAY better visual affects and AI on land vehicles. I should actually be able to visually identify targets without being totally dependent upon my TGP. NOTE: I run on older equipment so perhaps if I could run at peak game performance today, I might not have the same criticism). Imagine blending ARMA II (or III) for ground / infantry, and A-10C & BS2 model for air. Basically, if they left the graphics alone and just added content, expanded the mission editor to a real, solid application where triggers and logic are available via the UI (thinking the graphical UI part should include an Integrated Development Environment with debugger). Here's the big part that would require quite a bit of new code: I'm not insinuating that I like this game, or endorse console gaming, but... when Dirt 2 first came out, I had the opportunity to play it on a cutting edge system with a huge display. The part I liked, that I'm adding to this wish-list is that it would create a movie of your races which you could review afterwards. I loved it and the algorithm used was actually pretty good. One of the things that keeps me coming back to IL2 (Pacific Fighters) is the built-in movie recording and playback and the easy mouselook camera operation. Just take one look at YouTube and you can see how much fun people have sharing their funniest moments, tips & tricks, exploits, awesome team play, and even failures. I know A-10C has this capability but it seems to be quite finicky and error prone with objects not showing up in the movie where they were while you were playing. I never had that problem in IL2 (obviously a much less-rich and intensive game, but hey! we're wishing here). I'd like to be able to set up briefings, waypoints, and get recon photos before launching. So, that's my 10 cents. Thoughts?

Seriously, there should be a cheat for this and/or it should be a server-side option.

TrackIR. Without it the whole conversation of spotting SAM launches / AAA is exponentially more difficult. Someone else said it, but you have to know your threats. There's a limit of what is out there to shoot at you and what the game encompasses that reduces that further. Download your threat guide and you will start to learn what is what, when to take action, what action is appropriate, and how to avoid the fight when you don't want it and how to have it when you do. Link here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1117116&postcount=1 Read more posts on the subject, here's a good one that got me started: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=72951&highlight=threat+guide Once you've read the threat guide you realize things like, an "A" on the RWR is going to be a Shilka, which is radar guided AAA with a max elevation of 8K feet above its starting altitude and a max range of 1.5miles. So what? If you're at 7000 feet you can pop a zoom climb and bust out of his envelope in a second. As long as you take evasive maneuvers you're gonna survive, just make sure you are proceeding away from him in general, but he does have a relatively short range. If you enter his envelope at treetop level doing 250knots groundspeed, you're moving 4.2 nautical miles per minute, which means you'll cross through his 3 mile bubble in under a minute (43 seconds) if you do nothing else. Fight when you want to: To me this means if I'm flying over 10K feet above the ground you don't have to worry about the Shilka AND I don't have to worry about MANPADs, unless you want to. Get above 12K feet and the SA13/SA9 Strela's are out of the picture. When you want to look for trouble, get down into the enemy threat envelope, but on the edge to reduce the probability of their acquisition / PK of their shots. It is dang tough finding a single unit in a city and I've died many times trying or being reckless. Operation Saturn is a great example to use to try SEAD against Shilka and Strela (but Strela are a different story as they're IR; no RWR). Get down and fly near cities (not over) and wait for the "A" and beep on your RWR. Usually, it'll occur after you've passed them as it takes a bit for them to acquire you and begin tracking you. As soon as they do note the position on the RWR and look in the direction outside. It helps if you have the presence of mind to quickly hit the MRK up front display button under the HUD to create a markpoint at your current position and then note the bearing on your HSI to the target (happens quick, but you're just getting a start). Fly out away from the threat, u-turn, and maneuver to approach the markpoint you set on the heading (bearing) you noted to the target when you set the markpoint. Scan your TGP AND EYES out away from your markpoint as you approach. Keep in mind that the range of the Strela is only 1.5 miles so he won't be far. Get used to what 1 - 2 miles looks like by referencing markpoints (waypoints) and your distance from them. You'll be surprised how close 1 mile is when you're looking outside for things. Also consider that the airframe will block (the nose of the aircraft) your view as you approach head on so offsetting some is useful, just be conscious of it and factor it in to where you're looking. If you can't locate the Shilka fly near his likely position and wait for the RWR to light up again, look outside as you maneuver and look for the tracers. Etc. With the Strela the whole operation is much more dicey as you won't get a launch warning until the missile is on the way. Couple that with the short engagement range of Strela (2.3 - 3 miles) and you have very little time to be looking around setting markpoints, etc. However, Strela like to pop off missiles so unfortunately chances are you'll get multiple launches. Good news is you'll have a better chance of spotting the plume! :) Anyhow, as you maneuver dumping flares, look outside for those trails. Remember that their range is 2.3 - 3 miles so you shouldn't be looking way out there, but rather close... unfortunately for you. Maneuvering and dumping flares seems pretty effective vs. Strela, but you do have to react aggressively. Sometimes you will get a circle "L" on your RWR when you're being lased, you can use that to help locate them. It is sometimes tough to tell the difference between a MANPAD and a Strela shot, but generally Strela shoot a lot faster comparatively, so if you're getting multiple launches in short order it's a good bet it's a Strela. Locating Strela and MANPADs is downright tough unless their shooting so I consider them pretty mean threats. However, their shots seem fairly survivable if you're using flares and putting your moves on em. SA-11, S-300, SA-6 get into the mud and get something between you and the missile or poof. For these bad boys realize they are much larger setups and generally you won't be flying into a place with 5 or more of these just sitting about. Usually mission designers are courteous enough to only place one or 3 about in areas they want to make either "off limits" or very tough targets. This goes to the whole Intel discussion. Know your threat environment. A RL pilot would not just go hop in an A-10 without being briefed on intel, especially not without SEAD cover and just go roaming about looking for targets. Good way to turn a Hog into a nice assortment of parts and make a SAM operator's day. Fly Operation First Strike as Dodge flight. Excllent mission and is where I cut my teeth against an SA-6. Terrain masking, pop-up Maverick shot on Radar of SA-6 FTW! Also In The Weeds is an excellent SEAD practice mission IMO. With SA-6 if you're buzzing along and you get an "S6"... LOL realize that's a Tunguska! haha How many times have I been mistaken! But!! If you see the "6" pull a 180 and run for cover. For the most part the game is not modelling smart SAM operators who wait for your flight to get well into their engagement envelope before flipping on the lights. Also, moving SAM / AAA generally don't track / shoot and then move / go silent... thank goodness. Except that nasty SA-15 / SA-19 combo in First Strike! Yargh!!! Now... Tunguska (SA-19). Nasty little bugger, but avoidable. Get up above him by going up over 20K feet and you're in hog heaven... though it'll take about 10+ minutes depending upon fuel and weapons loadout. You can even get above the SA-8 with it's 23K max altitude. He apparently is easy to break lock with, but ... don't forget he hits higher than the Tunguska. SA-19, SA-8, SA-15 all have similar range of 7 miles, which... you may note is just a little shorter reach (especially climbing up to altitude) than your Maverick going downhill, especially from high altitude. So... against such nasty targets as these you must be careful finding them, but since their missiles go much further you have a lot longer to see them coming and hopefully get an ID on the location of the SAM launcher. My technique vs. those three (19, 8, 15) is to get up above 20K, approach them in a descent constantly pushing the TGP fwd-short to attempt to get it to lock up on the SAM. Once it does, rifle, climbing turn to egress 180. Most of the time I get the Maverick off before they can acquire me. The 15 is particularly nasty with his 35K ceiling, so if he shoots well... good luck. Generally if there are others flying either AI or MP pilots watch for the shots against them to ID the meaner SAM systems. If you're running into a waypoint you should really start getting your "Spidy Sense" on at outside of 7 miles and be ready if that RWR goes off. I've heard it before and I like it, but if you're running in an area you are unsure of the threat environment, leave the Countermeasures in Auto. If you get blasted to hell... who cares how many flares and chaff you've got on board. Better to survive, and return the favor to the enemy! Once you're going against a threat you know exists, drop down to SEMI... IMHO.