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

[GreyStork]

Did you based on the ww2 experience?

 

I believe that's from the movie 'Flight of The Intruder,' which would place it in the Vietnam-era. As perceived by Hollywood, that is. ;)

[GGTharos]

Which is why I said famous persons - specifically those who have done the work ... not movies ;)

[GreyStork]

I've repeatedly heard the expression 'perishable' about A/A skills. I'm curious - what is it exactly that perishes? Is it your spacial judgment or your reflexes or something completely different?

[GreyStork]

Which is why I said famous persons - specifically those who have done the work ... not movies ;)

 

Now you've made me curious. Let's hear some of those quotes - or perhaps post a link to one. :)

[GGTharos]

Your ability to judge opponent's speed, his turn circle, when you are in good weapons parameters, how to use your speed or lack thereof, etc. Magically 'knowing' where everyone is.

 

In general, a whole bunch of things at once. Try getting good at A2A, then get off it for 2-3 weeks and then try again. You'll feel the rust, though you'll get your 'stuff' back in a few rounds of practice.

[GGTharos]

Here's a link :)

 

http://www.skygod.com/quotes/combat.html

[NotiA10]

Try getting good at A2A, then get off it for 2-3 weeks and then try again. You'll feel the rust, though you'll get your 'stuff' back in a few rounds of practice.

 

 

try the same with A2G. Its not any different sorry GG. This thread has gone a bit OT. The question is what interests you most and not what is more difficult or what is easier. I personally prefer A2G but at the same time i could not imagine the game without human controlled A2A.

 

cheers

[GGTharos]

I already have. And it's just like getting back on a bike. I have a much greater chance at success in A2G without practice as opposed to A2A. Unless my opponents really, really suck ...

 

try the same with A2G. Its not any different sorry GG.

[GreyStork]

Try getting good at A2A, then get off it for 2-3 weeks and then try again. You'll feel the rust, though you'll get your 'stuff' back in a few rounds of practice.

 

I used to be good at A/A, and perhaps I'd even agree more with you then than I do today. However, I'm afraid it's a bit more than 2-3 weeks ago I was into it a lot. My strategy today would be to simply climb like a chimp on helium to extend my BVR firing range. :)

 

I think the reason for my shift toward A/G is that I did it too much. It got to the point where it was either too easy to win or too hard to improve myself to any significant degree. Perhaps it is more rewarding to see the more direct impact of my efforts, say, ground troops gaining territory because I pounded an enemy tank column or something. The allure of A/G may really be that you get to invent your own tactics a lot of the time, while with A/A there is to a greater extent a 'right' way of doing things, which may not necessarily be entirely intuitive. In contrast, A/G is very intuitive. Your first impulse is usually the right one. Whether you're skilled enough to execute whatever it is you want to do is an entirely different matter.

[GGTharos]

That generally works - if you're playing something other than LOMAC :) In LOMAC the hilo/lohi launch difference is not quite as pronounced as it ought to be. But it is certainly a great general tactic. It is also only a small part of what you may want to be doing :)

In any case, case in point - you might find the other guy launched his missile at a more appropriate range and aspect than yourself when he has had more recent experience. That is what perishable means ... you basically suck more than the other guy if you don't train your skills for some time. In some cases, it's an expected level of decline - this happens with all skills - with some skills, like A2A, it can hit you like a hammer and you'll sit there and shout 'WTF! I'm a n00b!!!!' :D

 

I used to be good at A/A, and perhaps I'd even agree more with you then than I do today. However, I'm afraid it's a bit more than 2-3 weeks ago I was into it a lot. My strategy today would be to simply climb like a chimp on helium to extend my BVR firing range. :)

 

Yeah, I'll buy that. many v many engagements are neat, but it becomes a lot more interesting if you have to cover a bunch of other aircraft or, in general, you have objectives other than just 'shoot the other guy down'.

 

And I'll agree that there's a lot of non-intuitive stuff in A2A - but I don't think there's more 'right' ways to do something than there is in A2G. There's the bag of tricks, as mentioned, but the idea is that the situation can be very fluid (if the bandits just fly into our missiles, well great but ... it's probably NOT the situation you're training for) in A2A. There is a large degree of movement on both sides, a lot of parameters to meet -and- avoid, and those parameters (if you like to imagine your missile firing envelope as a volume pinned and warped around your target) move around in space all the time. Not so in A2G. Nowhere -near- as much. You might get more -surprises- from the ground, granted, but surprises again, require neither skill nor lack of skill to get you killed. Herein is where prevention is important where, just like in A2A - for example - if you know you might have a heater popped at you you want those flares in the air and hope the seeker picks them instead of you even before it comes off the rail. Same for the MANPADS (though IIRC Falcon was pretty bad about making CM's effective against weapons before they're launched at you - and that is certainly not how it ought to be).

 

I think the reason for my shift toward A/G is that I did it too much. It got to the point where it was either too easy to win or too hard to improve myself to any significant degree. Perhaps it is more rewarding to see the more direct impact of my efforts, say, ground troops gaining territory because I pounded an enemy tank column or something. The allure of A/G may really be that you get to invent your own tactics a lot of the time, while with A/A there is to a greater extent a 'right' way of doing things, which may not necessarily be entirely intuitive. In contrast, A/G is very intuitive. Your first impulse is usually the right one. Whether you're skilled enough to execute whatever it is you want to do is an entirely different matter.

[NotiA10]

I already have. And it's just like getting back on a bike. I have a much greater chance at success in A2G without practice as opposed to A2A. Unless my opponents really, really suck ...

 

well you must be a very good and gifted pilot then. speaking for my self, if i dont fly for 2-3 weeks it takes me quite some time to get back into it.

[GGTharos]

Nope, I'm probably a little below average. But I will grant you Noti that some people might think in different ways and some things might be easier for some persons and harder for others. Kinda like math; it's not because people are dumb - everyone can learn math - but it might not suit their style of thinking and thus they lose it quickly.

 

But again, there are certain types of skills that you will lose MUCH faster than other skills across the board.

There exist people who are 'naturals' in A2A. They don't need any, or barely need any practice. They fiddle with the stick and throttle a bit and they're on your tail. We're not talking about those people and I ain't one of'em :D

[NotiA10]

rgr GG, i agree with you that up to a certain degree it comes down to natural talent. however somethings can only be learned and keept fresh through practice. If not practiced on a regular basis these learned skills disappear, ala "use it or loose it". this very principle applies also (well i guess so) to both A2A and A2G. For some it is easier than the other and visa versa. What is the deciding factor whether it is easier for some to get back into A2A or A2G easier and quicker or not ?: maybe it is the talent and/or personal interest into one particular style.

[GGTharos]

I'm just parroting some studies the Air Force did Noti. They pretty much found that air to air skills on average rot much quicker than A2G. I thus conjecture (and I say that I conjecture because I do not recall if this was explicitly mentioned in the study) that this is due to the greater amount of SA that must be maintained in a combat that is more dynamic. It really has little to do with people requiring NO skill to do one or the other, it's just that some decided to take it that way :D

[NotiA10]

rgr that - from my personal professional experience i also like studies but i made the mistake once to not question it and to not go into details. Thing is that yes overall A2G can be split into several very different mission types. I think that many of them could be quite easy to get back into provided all the knowledge is still there. On the otherhand, if we talk about some very specific mission types (i didnt read the study so i just assume) which make up part of the result, their nature and the requirements maybe completely different. I cannot imagine that for example SEAD, CSAR and CAS are mission types where someone could easily get back into without constant training.

[Deadman]

Well I guess when We( The Few A-10 Pilots ) are minding our own business. Flying easy just hitting those easy ground targets and attacking SEAD targets some thing the A-10 does not have the correct weapons to do.

 

( I.E Mission makers are adding the SU 25 T with longer weapons ranges) get attacked by aircraft that have radar and long rang missiles unlike the A-10 with its buggered Aim -9s and a gun with no range. ( your own statements and points have been made backing up th Aim-9 s problems and lack of the gun range and bullet effectiveness )

 

So we pop the canopy pull our trusty Colt 45 from its holster and cap the bad guy through the canopy with two rounds to the head. Ya its so easy to dodge sams and do A2A you should come down in the mud and fly with us:pilotfly:

[GGTharos]

The studies themselves do not explicitly break up mission types; an in most cases they are concerned with degradation of A2A skills, and when it comes to attempting simulation, also with A2G (simulation for the purpose of training pilots that is). They do -not- explicitly state how long it takes to lose skills in A2G ... they do so for A2A, and mention that for A2G it is less likely to lose that much that fast. It's very hard to find references though, and I still can't find that one specific study.

 

And again, all skills require some retraining, but for some you can do it at greater intervals. This is what perishable really means: Practice more often.

 

SEAD isn't like A2A: Your target's sitting in one place, and conceptually you've got one range measure modified by altitude that you want to be outside of, that's the SAM's range, and one to be inside of, that's the ARM's range - just as a very simplified example.

 

By contrast in A2A those measures are now modified by additional factors: altitude difference and specifically who's higher and who's lower, your speed vs. target speed, target aspect, your aspect - all of that causes all those ranges to move around in different ways. It's more dynamic. I'd call that 'harder'. Not less nerve wracking ... but certainly the more things you need to consider, the more challenging something is, is that not so?

 

 

rgr that - from my personal professional experience i also like studies but i made the mistake once to not question it and to not go into details. Thing is that yes overall A2G can be split into several very different mission types. I think that many of them could be quite easy to get back into provided all the knowledge is still there. On the otherhand, if we talk about some very specific mission types (i didnt read the study so i just assume) which make up part of the result, their nature and the requirements maybe completely different. I cannot imagine that for example SEAD, CSAR and CAS are mission types where someone could easily get back into without constant training.

[mvsgas]

You know what guys, I must say sorry, I have been part of derailing this tread to this level. I think we should stop arguing with complete stranger about stuff that (in my case anyway) I don't fully comprehend or have any use to in RL since I'm not a pilot. I say we find a good server in HL and go at it. You guys are more than welcome to come and shoot me down, I can be the designated drone. Ok maybe not know but soon since I don't have my comp. Anyway see you guys around in HL.

[NotiA10]

if you get hold of this study it would be interesting to see for sure.

 

in regards to what you say about SEAD i have to disagree (you are correct in a gerneral when referring to most missions on hl though with some exceptions).

 

Yes basically SEAD could be explained in my opinion also very simply the way you did it.

However, there are factors like airspace, weather - example cloud cover and wind, terrain, type of target and its capabilities, location, surrounding unknown surface to air, available weapons etc etc which make it much more complicated than what it may seem - if you focus on surviving and completing the mission that is.

 

I for myself like the concept of lockon and i sincerely hope that this will be continued in an enhaced form through DSC. Both A2A and A2G and maybe one day G2G (does this exist ? lol).

[GGTharos]

A l33t QF-4 pilot! :)

Either way - yes, this thread is quite derailed the I'm the culprit ;) It's about what sort of thing you like doing most. The poll there speaks for itself - people answered what they like most, so I think they understood the question. The rest of the stuff is fluff. :D

[GGTharos]

I'll see if I can't find it ... it's certainly around somewhere. I probably got it from Air University press.

 

Anyway, as for the SEAD thing: Your targets are still in one place; it doesn't help much to add this and that weapon to the equation, since I could add this and that fighter, and AWACS, and unknown shooters, and make it still more complex than SEAD. Once you get away from simple situations you start losing focus for comparison I think.

 

As for G2G ... yep. I'd say a Javelin missile is a good example of G2G ... actually the proper term is Surface-to-Surface, though usually reserved for SRBMs and longer ranged missiles, or sea combat.

 

The rest is small arms and artillery (direct or indirect :D )

 

Personally I am looking forward to a more complex ground force simulation in DCS, in all respects - from AI behaviour to visibility ranges ... not to mention the same for aircraft.

 

if you get hold of this study it would be interesting to see for sure.

 

in regards to what you say about SEAD i have to disagree (you are correct in a gerneral when referring to most missions on hl though with some exceptions).

 

Yes basically SEAD could be explained in my opinion also very simply the way you did it.

However, there are factors like airspace, weather - example cloud cover and wind, terrain, type of target and its capabilities, location, surrounding unknown surface to air, available weapons etc etc which make it much more complicated than what it may seem - if you focus on surviving and completing the mission that is.

 

I for myself like the concept of lockon and i sincerely hope that this will be continued in an enhaced form through DSC. Both A2A and A2G and maybe one day G2G (does this exist ? lol).

[NotiA10]

well the SEAD targets can move (not many people make use of it in lockon) also they can popup and become active at a certain time not giving you any warning prior. these can be ir or radar sams or AAA. it really depends on the mission builder. now just imagine the complexity of being circled in by radar sams and AAA which all of a sudden popped up all aournd you in an area where you felt safe (according to intel).

 

cheers, good times are ahead of us sim freaks, i think.

[RedTiger]

I'll own up for my own derailment too. Prior to this thread I was always puzzeled at why air to ground was so popular. I was the one who commented on this preference with an air incredulity.

 

If I've ticked anyone off, I'm sorry. On the bright side, I have a better understanding and appreciation of what makes you bomber pukes tick! :D ;)

[159th_Viper]

66,22%.............More than adequate confirmation of the title " FLAMING CLIFFS " as opposed to " FLAMING CLOUDS " me thinks........:D

[Pilotasso]

This IS a thread about AG aircraft...try doing the same poll on F-16.net or frugals, and your going to be surprised...or not.