testudine2002 Posted February 24, 2019 Posted February 24, 2019 After learning the su-25t and doing most of the missions last week, I'm thinking about my next plane. Here's the issue...There were some things I liked about the SU-25t and some things I didn't. What I mostly did not like was how difficult it was to find enemies with the shikval (even with mercury pod), and I think it would be worse in VR. I did like evading sam sites and employing most of the weapon systems (when my targets were well known and fixed). The flight mechanics were also nice. My question is are there planes that have missions that require less of the type of bad stuff I mentioned (searching with not so easy equipment) or is that the way all planes / missions are? I know it's a sim, so I'm not expecting action around every corner, but my eyes are strained, and I want to try a new job if possible. I was thinking about the F5-E to get some air-to-air, and I read the A1-C would be tough to learn, but the targeting systems are easier to use. I'd only consider a study level aircraft moving forward.
Marcq Posted February 24, 2019 Posted February 24, 2019 Do you have Flaming Cliffs 3? or The A10A? I started too with the Su-25 T but it felt too heavy, then I tried the Su-25 which was nice and less complicated. To make a long story short I now fly the A-10A and I love it, I'm going to stick with it for a while Marc..
Fri13 Posted February 24, 2019 Posted February 24, 2019 (edited) After learning the su-25t and doing most of the missions last week, I'm thinking about my next plane. Here's the issue...There were some things I liked about the SU-25t and some things I didn't. What I mostly did not like was how difficult it was to find enemies with the shikval (even with mercury pod), and I think it would be worse in VR. I did like evading sam sites and employing most of the weapon systems (when my targets were well known and fixed). The flight mechanics were also nice. The Su-25T is missing many of the features it should have because it is a FC3 level aircraft. Example the real Su-25T has a automatic Shkval targeting when you get closer to the mission, where Shkval is activated and it is slaved to mission defined location. It has as well the automatic slaving once you reach the Shkval gimbals, like the ARBS has in AV-8B and A-4. And anyways you would be working very closely with the ground troops, them guiding you in to the targets, firing signal smokes for you etc. Those are fully missing from the DCS. My question is are there planes that have missions that require less of the type of bad stuff I mentioned (searching with not so easy equipment) or is that the way all planes / missions are? I know it's a sim, so I'm not expecting action around every corner, but my eyes are strained, and I want to try a new job if possible. A-10C would be the closest one.... But again, you are operating with the ground troops that are guiding you in. But that side is partially simulated in the DCS. But if we would have a good ground troops, we would have recon teams, scouts, lots of signal intelligence, signal processing, radio communications etc. You would often get support calls from troops, them telling you where they are on the map, signaling some kind location with smokes and talking you in over radio. In solo missions I like to use in Su-25T a smoke rocket pod. You search for the target visually etc, and then you fire rocket at the enemy location or place that you want to quickly find in next few minutes. Then you can circle around and plan your attack runs. The sad thing is that the smoke rockets are totally unrealistically visible and long. Instead just small smoke sources that you could spot, but not from a many kilometers distances such a way as the current smoke rockets and signals does. The Viggen is another nice module where you set the target positions to your mission cartridge you load to aircraft and then you get there. I was thinking about the F5-E to get some air-to-air, and I read the A1-C would be tough to learn, but the targeting systems are easier to use. I'd only consider a study level aircraft moving forward. AV-8B is my suggesting. You get to do nice CAS, capable for good A-A performance but if we ever get AV-8B+ then you get much better A-A performance from that module. Anyways, it would be so great in the future that we could have the thousands of infantry troops moving across the map, recon teams, radio communications and close air support calls etc, with more realistic smoke grenade signaling etc. Like think if you could really get a radio calls from the ground troops, them requesting assistance, telling you the location on the map not by coordinates but by the roads, towns etc map details. So you would look at the map and then find their general location and fly there, then you would ask them to pop the smoke grenade at them or to specific location that you can recognize as a pointer, then getting their directions from that like "North-East from the green smoke, three hundred meters, a blue house" or "Friendlies at green smoke, enemies South from the green smoke, five hundred meters". You really do get the location of the friends or enemies and know what to do as you have the superior advantage to see from above. Edited February 24, 2019 by Fri13 i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S. i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.
_mu110_ Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 In my opinion the F/A-18C is a great plane to get to get started with. It’s quite forgiving and not too hard to learn how to fly. It can perform air to air, air to ground, SEAD really well. The basics are pretty easy to get but there is a lot of more complex systems you can learn, but not yet on the level of the A-10C since it still is in early access. Check out my skins and mods on the User Files.
testudine2002 Posted February 25, 2019 Author Posted February 25, 2019 These are all great tips. I got the F-18 and I am so happy. This is what I thought DCS would be like. I had a feeling it was just the plane that I didn't connect with and not the sim itself. I would enjoy learning this and flying it around. I didn't realize that the plane I had was an easy one. I was disappointed and quickly bored (not to mention I didn't like fiddling with the Russian shkval. The hornet will be fun to learn. I always wanted to, and I think that matters too. Also, isn't there a special helmet with this plane that helps a bunch with finding targets or something?
Wizard1393 Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 So far, what the HMCS (Helmet Mounted Cueing System) does is just that it lets you lock up AIM-9's to bandits in a dogfight. I'm unsure if it will do more later on. Maybe someone else knows. GPU: PALIT NVIDIA RTX 3080 10GB | CPU: Intel Core i7-9700K @ 4,9GHz | RAM: 64GB DDR4 3000MHz VR: HP Reverb G2 | HOTAS: TM Warthog Throttle and Stick OS: Windows 10 22H2
Wolve03 Posted February 26, 2019 Posted February 26, 2019 The F/A-18C still has a lot in store (pun intended). We will get more weapons, and more sensors. The JHMCS is WIP and only supports the AIM-9X right now, but will eventually allow us to target grounds points as well. We will get the LITENING and ATFLIR pods too, as well as Harpoons and Decoys (ADM-141 TALD)! :D @OP... I have flown the Russian birds excessively. If you go the FC3 route, the Su-25A is not a study-level sim, but much more fun to fly than the Su-25T. Finding and engaging targets is more difficult as it does not have SHKVAL, but it's faster and more agile. The A-10A is simpler, but not study-level either. When you come to study-level, the A-10C and Ka-50 (helicopter) are classic modules now. The A-10C is better in terms of sensors and weapons. If you want a full multi-role modern aircraft, then the F/A-18C is a very good option as it's a naval asset and can do A2G and A2A quite well, but won't carry as much A2G load as an A-10C. The Viggen and the AV-8B NA are both good aircraft, and if you are into helos, you could also look at the Gazelle. What module you go for next, would be driven by what your favourite role is... air combat (fighter, interceptor, CAP), ground attack (CAS, SEAD, Deep Strikes, pinpoint strikes), or helicopter / non-combat support tasks. Heck, if you want, DCS also has dedicated trainer and stunt aircraft now! And DCS also covers different eras (WW2, Korean / Vietnam war eras, 80s and 90s...) If you want a glimpse of the "unofficial roadmap"... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893 The F-16C Block 50 is planned for this year ;) EDIT: remove extra lines. And just noticed that you bought the F-18 already. Enjoy the Hornet! SA Page comes out this week!
Wexler Posted February 26, 2019 Posted February 26, 2019 (edited) and I think it would be worse in VR. I find any combat in VR inappropriate when it comes to visual. If you love military engamements, I would recommend to go for TrackIR and ask about VR in 1-3 years again. I am playing with Rift on 1080Ti. Maybe different VR headset is better with spotting but I dont think so. The objects, which u can clearly see on desktop with same settings - like smoke marker. is visible from 50km, while in VR it just doesnt exist on the screen, no matter if zoomed or not. It is just not on the screen. So literally you wont see the objects, because they wont be on the screen, not because they are hardly to see. (In that scenario though you will love the 25T television zoomed). Anyway its better to take "stupid" rockets and fire them easy way, as you spot the target too late to work it with guidance systems. Edited February 26, 2019 by Wexler Ryzen 7 2700X | MSI Trio 1080Ti | MSI X470 Plus Motherboard | 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator 2933 DDR4 | M.2 XPG GAMMIX S11 Pro SSD | Virpil Mongoost-50 throttle | Thrustmaster Warthog Stick | MFG Crosswind | Rift S
testudine2002 Posted February 26, 2019 Author Posted February 26, 2019 I find any combat in VR inappropriate when it comes to visual. If you love military engamements, I would recommend to go for TrackIR and ask about VR in 1-3 years again. I am playing with Rift on 1080Ti. Maybe different VR headset is better with spotting but I dont think so. The objects, which u can clearly see on desktop with same settings - like smoke marker. is visible from 50km, while in VR it just doesnt exist on the screen, no matter if zoomed or not. It is just not on the screen. So literally you wont see the objects, because they wont be on the screen, not because they are hardly to see. (In that scenario though you will love the 25T television zoomed). Anyway its better to take "stupid" rockets and fire them easy way, as you spot the target too late to work it with guidance systems. I'm a little disappointed in this because I got the F18 to use in VR. I only use VR for iracing now, and it makes me a better driver no doubt. After I learn this sim better, I was planning to switch to VR. So far, I'm happy to give up graphics for a more immersive experience. But I know how I am. If I VR makes the game frustrating to play (can't see targets!) Id probably get unhappy and have to either give up the game or the rift. But for now, I love my f-18. I'm happy just sitting in it using my single 4k monitor. I can always use ME to make something I can see. I'll bomb a skyscraper or something.
Wexler Posted February 26, 2019 Posted February 26, 2019 (edited) VR is good, but you are very handicapped with it in multiplayer competition. I have no much of experience for A2G engagement, but On cold war server I am ok, but this is probably because there is "weaker" Anti-Air power. So i can close enough. when playing single player A2G - no point trying.. Maybe tutorials are ok. So far my most likely activity is flying by instruments. in very low visibility, total rainy and making fly and landing by ADF, RSBN/PRMG. Also Helicopters are quite enjoy to fly in VR. I love Mi-8, Huey. Edit: F-18 is recent and newest module, so it can be much better tuned for VR. If it has clean and uncoloured canopy, then you will be just slightly handicapped. You must try. If you dont expect to be best in it and play for immersion, than you will like it even through some disadvantages :-) You can always compare it to Mig-21 visibility through canopy to appreciate the hornet. Anyway, what i have heard, with TrackIR one can look backwars like theres no limit in turning the head, this is not real either and have nothing to do with simulation - unless its aircraft system helping the pilot. Anyway there you see - who wants to top the score boards - go for TrackIR, those who wants to enjoy and play for study, fun, whatever - go for VR. Edited February 26, 2019 by Wexler Ryzen 7 2700X | MSI Trio 1080Ti | MSI X470 Plus Motherboard | 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator 2933 DDR4 | M.2 XPG GAMMIX S11 Pro SSD | Virpil Mongoost-50 throttle | Thrustmaster Warthog Stick | MFG Crosswind | Rift S
testudine2002 Posted February 26, 2019 Author Posted February 26, 2019 That sounds like fun. Instrument flying at night or in bad weather was a great idea. How about take-off and landing from a carrier too. We should start a thread on the cool aspects of hornet vr until they address the spotting issue. I do want to enjoy that aspect of the game, so I guess I can get track ir.
Wexler Posted February 26, 2019 Posted February 26, 2019 Definetly. I dont do this, because i am not playing Western aircrafts so far. And when I do these things I love to have full fidelity module. Its not that fun with Su-33, because whole navigation wll be 1 - button = set to return, 2 - button = set the landing base/carrier. Done. Finding the appropriate ADF, RSBN, radio channels in kneeboard, knowing where I am taking off from and where to head before I acquire the signal for the systems, that what makes it fun :-) But I will probably one day buy the F-18 just for these purposes, it has very big support and future features coming, everything is about hornet today. even the ATC will be made first for carrier (2-3 modules) while the all other modules can wait for airport ATC.. Ryzen 7 2700X | MSI Trio 1080Ti | MSI X470 Plus Motherboard | 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator 2933 DDR4 | M.2 XPG GAMMIX S11 Pro SSD | Virpil Mongoost-50 throttle | Thrustmaster Warthog Stick | MFG Crosswind | Rift S
Gierasimov Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 I would go for a Bug... I was thinking about the F5-E to get some air-to-air, and I read the A1-C would be tough to learn, but the targeting systems are easier to use. I'd only consider a study level aircraft moving forward. I think you would like F/A-18C more. It's far more advanced than F-5 and allows for a true multirole application. It is still in EA but getting a lot of development hours being the flagship ED module now. Intel Ultra 9 285K :: ROG STRIX Z890-A GAMING WIFI :: Kingston Fury 64GB :: MSI RTX 4080 Gaming X Trio :: VKB Gunfighter MK.III MCG Ultimate :: VPC MongoosT-50 CM3 :: non-VR :: single player :: open beta
streakeagle Posted March 1, 2019 Posted March 1, 2019 If you are using the free version and are wondering what aircraft you should get next, catch Flaming Cliffs during a sale. You can't beat it for the number of aircraft you gain, the relatively new professional flight modeling, and the number of different aircraft you get for the price. If you insist on a clickable cockpit, it becomes a difficult choice highly dependent on your personal preferences. I am an air-to-air guy, my favorites are all of the air superiority fighters: P-51, Spitfire, Fw190, Bf109, F-86, MiG-15, MiG-21, M2000, and F/A-18. But the AV-8 and AJ-37 are fantastic attack aircraft that are also fun in air-to-air. I personally own every DCS aircraft and love most of them minus the Hawk that was never finished and now unavailable in the latest releases and the P-40F that I bought but was never released. Wait for a sale. But a couple of aircraft that interest you, then move forward from there. But as soon as you can afford it and/or catch it on sale, get Flaming Cliffs 3. The F-15C, MiG-29, Su-27, and Su-33 are really enjoyable if you love air superiority missions. The A-10A and Su-25 are great for old school ground attack rather than bombs with gps guidance :P [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts