What interest you most, A-A or A-G missions?

[504Goon]

However, this ISN'T the point. The topic asked for what is most interesting, not most challenging.

 

So it IS a matter of opinion afterall? So some people like A2G instead of A2A, which has even studies to prove that it is more interesting..i mean it is more dynamic and requires constant training.

 

Multirole, baby. And when it comes to fighters eating bomb trucks, i'd just get rid of that a2g ordnance and kill the guy who thought i was a target. :) Oh i just wish we had that sort of platform here..:)

 

"We got every mission that you do

And we fly 'em all better than you"

[159th_Viper]

So it IS a matter of opinion afterall?

 

Aye - well said Indeed :)

[159th_Viper]

.....Also, it's a sign of a weak argument to attack the how an opposing argument is presented rather than the actual argument itself......

 

The factors submitted were as per cursory interpretation of the text in my original post expressed as an Opinion - and to state the obvious - My Opinion...

 

As always prudent to do in such circumstances - should I have presented the members of this Forum with an Argument - which in this case I refrained from - I would have substantiated said argument with the relevant Facts to back it up with..........:)

[RvETito]

I don't need LOCERF to show me anything.

 

You're dead wrong on that. Reagrdless A2A or A2G, LOCERF has nothing to do with any other LO online activity. Be part of the planning, flying and debriefing(just watching a TacView without knowing the initial plan doesn't say much) of any RF and you'll feel the difference. It's a benchmark of online flying and nothing comes closer. HyperLobby? It's 95% airquake.

[RvETito]

A couple of questions guys. Do you consider the SU-27, F-15, Mig-29 and SU-33 in LOMAC FC easier or harder to fly than the KA-50 in DCS BS? Because if you think the KA-50 is harder ( I mean, taking in consideration all aspects, FM, weapons utilization, SA, etc) and the KA-50 can only fly A2G, then how is A2G easier? I know it is a hello and completely different flying but, it is still A2G right?

 

No room for comparison. The level of modelling differs with one generation. Unfortunately there are so many exploits in LO's A2A that copletely ruin it.

[504Goon]

The guns work :P

[Boberro]

And planes fly :P

[RvETito]

The guns work :P

 

Sure do, at least for =RvE= :D

[504Goon]

We shall see on the 6th? ;)

[Fjordmonkey]

A2G all the way, either in the SU33 (High-speed low altitude insane kaboomery ftw) or the Vanilla-Frog. Haven flown the Tea-Frog much, since I tend to stick with the Vanilla.

[RvETito]

We shall see on the 6th? ;)

 

Hell yeah! We were looking forward to that match for quiet some time Goon.

 

Happy New Year to you and your guys, see you on 6th! ;)

[504Goon]

And you too! :)

[GGTharos]

I'm dead right. I've been in such events before Fudd's RF was even conceived. Like a year or two before. I suggest you look up Crimean Air Wars for starters - the original, that is. That's aside from private RF's. LOCERF is a great initiative, but it has nothing new to show me, as I said.

 

Happy new year :D

 

You're dead wrong on that. Reagrdless A2A or A2G, LOCERF has nothing to do with any other LO online activity. Be part of the planning, flying and debriefing(just watching a TacView without knowing the initial plan doesn't say much) of any RF and you'll feel the difference. It's a benchmark of online flying and nothing comes closer. HyperLobby? It's 95% airquake.

[RvETito]

It's your call but you gotta know that you (and your squad) are missing a lot for not being part of it.

 

Happy New Year! :D

[GGTharos]

Oh, I don't disagree with that - it's not my intention to diss Fudd's RF, the job being done by the organizers of this event is fantastic :D Good work all around :D

[RvETito]

Exactly! That's what makes it so attractive- the support and commitment from all people involved, especially the organizers. And what is also positive is that it's expanded with each edition- ATC, GCI in the last, not to mention the number of clients- 70+.

[cool_t]

It's your call but you gotta know that you (and your squad) are missing a lot for not being part of it.

 

Happy New Year! :D

 

 

GG What Squad do you fly with?

 

AA/AG or both?

 

:music_whistling:

 

heheheheheheheh, lol

[GGTharos]

Yep, I have kept track; I joined the forums to see how the planning is done out of sheer curiosity as well :)

 

We used to keep the ATC tool on back when we ran a server - it was actually pretty hard to get a good GCI controller!

 

Exactly! That's what makes it so attractive- the support and commitment from all people involved, especially the organizers. And what is also positive is that it's expanded with each edition- ATC, GCI in the last, not to mention the number of clients- 70+.

[GGTharos]

We used to do both but now we only do A2A - a while ago we lost leadership for the A-10's and not wanting to leave'em be all lonely we rolled'em into A2A.

 

It's the 44th, BTW; we've been off the public scene for a while. ;)

The last public outing was one of Ice's big missions.

 

GG What Squad do you fly with?

 

AA/AG or both?

 

:music_whistling:

[RedTiger]

As for "intensity", the intensity of this thread has been kicked up a notch!

 

I hope that in all the discussion here that people aren't relying on Lockon to heavily for their opinion of which is harder. Both A/G and A/A have several problems. Like "SA-10s that will not fire at me if I fly at 30,000 feet" types of problems.

 

Lockon, like IL2, doesn't seem to "do" higher altitudes. Everything seems to be tuned for 20k or below. This is unrealistc, both in terms of A/A and A/G.

[GGTharos]

Are you sure? SA10's like to reach out and touch high-flying things ... last I checked anyway.

 

But the SAMs have a couple very known defficiencies - no ambush setups (radars always on), target fixation and firing at ranges that are way too long.

[RedTiger]

Are you sure? SA10's like to reach out and touch high-flying things ... last I checked anyway.

 

But the SAMs have a couple very known defficiencies - no ambush setups (radars always on), target fixation and firing at ranges that are way too long.

 

 

Well, let me explain. I made a simple mission the other day to, amound other things, see what the more dangerous SAMs were like in Lockon when flying at a realistic altitude. The target was an unescorted AWACS at 30k feet that was being "defended" by a SA-10 sight. I was within the dark colored threat circle you can see in the mission editor that is supposed to indicate weapons engagement range. I know this because the AWACS was well within this range and I was within visual range of the AWACS when I shot it down. The radar was certainly tracking me and my AI wingman was going nuts about it. The whole while we were flying in the area he continually dropped flares. I was waiting for SOMETHING...anything to happen. I figured I was probably flying into my doom, but nothing happened. I flew all the way in, killed the AWACS, and flew all the way out. Wingman was going crazy, dropping flare, the RWR chirped, but I confirmed afterwards - not one SAM was fired.

 

The SAM was in flat terrain and I was flying high above it at over 30k feet the entire time.

 

I think I'll try something more deliberate and see if I get any different results.

[GGTharos]

The threat circle is calibrated for high (and I mean high) altitude targets at head-on aspect incoming at 1500kts IIRC. It is not a realistic representation of SAM threat coverage against fighters. Although I think you could reasonably assume it should attack at a range of 1nm per 1000' of altitude head-on (20nm if your jammer's on), and effective low-alt coverage is about 10-15nm.

 

You -cannot- defend an AWACS with a single SAM. If you want reasonable coverage, your S300's must be spaced about 10nm apart. This is actually a little more than a realistic SAM corridor spacing (for PATRIOT, that is) but other than that, this is what you should plan for, IMHO. If you really want to protect that AWACS, you must set up your SAM barrier so that it will begin interception 40-50nm away from the AWACs itself. You can make it a little closer, but then things might get sporty.

[RedTiger]

The threat circle is calibrated for high (and I mean high) altitude targets at head-on aspect incoming at 1500kts IIRC. It is not a realistic representation of SAM threat coverage against fighters. Although I think you could reasonably assume it should attack at a range of 1nm per 1000' of altitude head-on (20nm if your jammer's on), and effective low-alt coverage is about 10-15nm.

 

You -cannot- defend an AWACS with a single SAM. If you want reasonable coverage, your S300's must be spaced about 10nm apart. This is actually a little more than a realistic SAM corridor spacing (for PATRIOT, that is) but other than that, this is what you should plan for, IMHO. If you really want to protect that AWACS, you must set up your SAM barrier so that it will begin interception 40-50nm away from the AWACs itself. You can make it a little closer, but then things might get sporty.

 

Yeah, thats what I meant about trying for something more deliberate. In the previous scenario, the AWACS only served as a reason to fly into the engagement zone. It wasn't realistic in terms of actually trying to defend the AWACS. Imagine a single SA-10 site in the center and an AWACS doing donuts around it, with the donut being about 20nm in diameter. I figured that if I intercepted the AWACS and shot it down WVR, I'd be flying right at the SAMs and surely they'd shoot at me.

[cool_t]

SEAD A-10 and SU-25

 

Are you sure? SA10's like to reach out and touch high-flying things ... last I checked anyway.

 

But the SAMs have a couple very known defficiencies - no ambush setups (radars always on), target fixation and firing at ranges that are way too long.

 

Well as far as SAMs fireing too early sure and SAMs Radar always on sure.

 

But a realy good Mission maker will set SAMs in a "Trap Zone", setting SAMs behind terrain, buildings, or turn some radars faceing in different directions.

 

Ambush SAM sites have been used in the 169th for a long time now, where the Radar cannot bee seen at all and then once you have flown near the Missile site it fires on you.

 

It would be nice to see some "LIVE" ground SAM controls or somthing. Where designated persons would be incharge of AAA, SAMs, and moving moble sites, ect, ect.

 

We realy need AAA Flack guns as well, the EF2000 by DID had that.

 

:pilotfly: