Cik

the objective is to win and kill the eagle though, and your chances of actually doing that 1v1 are very slim. the whole point of this entire discussion was "how to beat eagle?" the answer was "go wide, fire lots of missiles, try to split his attention, press & kill" you can always of course exit the fight at a high airspeed, spam chaff and probably evade the slammer(s) but that's not really a victory.

in the history of air combat generally you did not have to fly a formation so wide you lost visual. loose deuce is essentially a visual formation i believe, it was invented in WWII and didn't involve losing visual there (AFAIK) eagleTWS necessarily stretches your formation very wide, as flying even relatively far away (but still within visual) means that you are still within parameters of eagle multilaunch capability. the SU27's wide formation requirement (if you want an actual numbers advantage you would not have by flying solo anyway) requires very atypically wide spreads between wingman and lead. if you fly close enough to stay visual having just one extra sukhoi with you is mostly pointless, because your PK probably doesn't rise much with the ER and you can still both be killed by AMRAAM.

not required but would be a huge boon. as it is if you are wide enough to exploit eagleTWS limitations you are wide enough to be out of visual. even assuming you are very good you have to maintain a constant two-way conversation about where you are, where the enemy is, where you are going etc. a single dropped "packet" of information will lead to wildly inaccurate fixes. even if you are extremely proficient at estimating, you will still often be off by enough to make re-acquiring visual for mutual support impossible. acquiring visual in DCS is very difficult at long range, and especially if you are the high man looking down. datalink allows multiship tactics to be employed effectively with a reasonable amount of radio chatter. see: falcon 4, where the link16 makes threat, defensive, and fox calls the only necessary information over the radio and improves SA of everybody a thousandfold.

this is still a huge advantage though, because it allows a very large ambush advantage. the snap-on and launch within RTR is theoretically very threatening. it allows SARH to be moderately "stealthy" (though in most cases still less than ARH) because the aircraft can maneuver into a good shooting position without revealing it's existence.

the gain seems marginal at best. what would achieve essentially the same effect and be way more helpful in general would be the activation or fix or coding or whatever of the su27 datalink, in which case you could actually run loose deuce or other wide formations without getting hopelessly separated once you break 3nm apart. then you could actually make the case that running such formations would actually help in BVR, instead of the current case of close formation being the only realistic option if you ever want to keep track of each other.

hi BD, i bought your campaign after having tried it way back in it's original non-dlc state (back when it was just 8 missions, i believe?) well, at least, only recently when it was added to steam. anyway, i have one question: are the coop missions still in the works / planned? i took a glance through the folder where the campaign itself sits, however i found nothing that looked cooperative. i have a small group i'd like to give them a try with, as your missions are a cut above the vast majority of missions. are they hosted elsewhere, or not done yet? in any case though i'm happy with the purchase, 10bux isn't much for the time i've already put into it. waiting for the release of the next few, i'm sure they will be excellent.

russian rockets i have no great complaint about. anecdotally they seem relatively effective, though i only use them on the KA50 and i do not have a ton of experience with them there, preferring to use vikhr and cannon (mostly because getting close to anything with a 20mm+ is basically death) it's the A-10's rockets i care about, because they seem not worth mounting at all and i get stuck with them in the default loadout of many missions. i know for a fact that if i had thrown a single mk82 in there even without the warhead mod lazily and without a great deal of setup i would have smoked the whole lot quite easily.

maybe everyone is just having a totally different experience than i am, but i think i'm a reasonably good marksman and i have no luck with rockets at all. just now i emptied 7 rockets (M151 HE) into a checkpoint of three trucks on a road, several of which exploded well within hand grenade instant kill range to no observable effect at all. this is hardly an effective weapon considering that the trucks have no armor. against a BTR or BMP they seem even more worthless. for whatever reason they're both inaccurate and require direct hits (with HE ??) with the mod bombs seem a little more reasonable. MK84 seems at least to be above a firecracker at least.

does this improve lethality of rockets? they need it even more than bombs do. at least near misses kind of kill infantry with 500 pd bombs, HE rockets are totally hopeless, often failing to kill trucks with very near misses.

i had a swedish friend of mine dig around on the net, but no joy. you'd probably have to take a trip down to a government office and grab copies of technical manuals to get a count, though you can maybe ballpark it if you got the deploy rate and referenced the weight of the flare bundle + the weight of the pod.

i mean, you could just make one yourself in like 30 seconds

are you sure you're lasing all the way to the target? i've never known gbu12 to miss, even with junk / high altitude releases. you're doing something wrong if they ever miss, TBH.

yeah, it's a little crazy, to the point where the entire hierarchy of AAA threats is totally backwards. shilkas, by far the more dangerous IRL because of the radar that allows them to easily detect, track and destroy low flying air threats are actually less threatening because they at least give a RWR ^spike. the BMP2+, BTR80 and ZU-23 don't seem to actually lose any detection ability or accuracy, and don't, so actually shilkas are less threatening. it's not even too bad for the A-10, which at least has some energy and maneuverability. the ka50, the next step down from the A-10 in those categories has incredible problems, i can't imagine how bad it must be for MI8/huey players, who must basically die as soon as they enter the max range of anything equipped with an ironsighted AAA gun.

if you are running win7+ and the file is in your program files(?) folder it will sometimes be an idiot about modifying files. try (temporarily?) disabling user account control, making sure you are signed in as an admin and/or try removing it to your desktop, modifying it and then re-pasting it back into whatever directory it was moved from. to be more specific i'd need to know the actual error you're getting, though.

works fine for me, save the briefing being cut off. still functional, however.

i am is that not a feature? i thought it was because of the huge port opening in the nose affects the aerodynamics have i been doing it wrong? sure, it's trimmable but it's way more work to refuel in the A10 because of the trim requirement, taking 10-15 minutes to get in trail of the tanker etc. perhaps it's been my fault though, some sage in this thread said A-10 refuel should be at 220 and i've been leaving it default, so maybe that's the cause of my difficulty. at 200~ the plane feels like it's stalling (which it might be, lel)

i have had this problem before while in an undamaged plane with nothing out of the ordinary i could find. i have never figured out what exactly causes it, and it seems to occur rarely enough that when it happens i just do my best to compensate and call it a fluke.

just saying, it's hard in DCS because of the way the plane works out (aerodynamic problems with nose port, low airspeed refuel etc) rather than because it's much harder than it should be. even then, it's not like it's impossible. you just need a good stick and good formation flying skills. i've done it a few times, though it took me longer than it probably should have.

it's easier in falcon, IMO. something about the warthog's nose port, the visibility, the aerodynamic effect of the port being open and the low speed you have to do it at make it much harder. in the falcon you don't get any aerodynamic effects (port is in the spine behind the cockpit so shielded from airflow mostly) and you're hitting tankers at 320~ or so KN which makes it easier. falcon is generally more stable too. in DCS it's way worse than in falcon, i can't really tell you if that's realistic but my guess is probably yes. to be honest though, A10 simply doesn't need tankers that often. unless you are going to be flying for over 2 hours you can do pretty much any mission i've ever flown with 100% fuel. if you are skimping on the fuel to bring more weapons, you should consider simply bringing more warthogs and more fuel. tl;dr mostly it's not necessary, though it's harder than in the F-16 for many reasons. generally i find hitting tankers in the falcon is both much easier and much more necessary.

i try to use it in the "shooting down an enemy when the year is past 1980" role with some success. it's pretty fun you should give it a try sometime :^)

tracks are deeply broken, my advice is if you want to record flights, use tacview and then simply record video with OBS (or your choice of recorder) or both.

that's true. there is a tendency in mission design to somehow plan the layout of enemy defenses to perfectly coincide with the player's steerpoints. it's almost as if the enemy mission planners and my mission planner is the same person.. hmmm. and then they commit the cardinal sin of not even telling you they're sending you into zeus alley "more AAA per square foot than anywhere else on earth!"

real problem isn't being able to spot non-shooting targets, it's the superhuman accuracy of non-radar AAA that makes them onehit you most of the time. if they actually had a semi-credible inaccuracy you could recon by being fired at and then get a rough fix of where they are. as it is, ducking into even the max range of an ironsighted AAA gun is basically suicide if you don't know exactly where it is already.

to be honest, i don't see how you have time to do anything but come to these threads and snidely snipe at people who critique your holy missile model (which you constantly admit is horribly flawed, yet continue to defend for some bizarre reason) yet if the flaw is recognized, then why have these problems persisted for literal years? what's taking so long, and if this is in the works why don't you just say so and stop making snide remarks? i don't know if you're defensive or just have nothing better to do, or what.

the AMRAAM, while on it's own level, is not nearly as on it's own level as that thing. in fact, it'll be so good and will rule by such a margin that it will make every other BVR platform entirely obsolete.