Confession and disadvantage....

[sobek]

Little nitpick, it should be "IF the US Army AH-64 had A2A weapons". Other nations Apaches do carry A2A weapons :)

 

Are there any occasions were they were fired in anger?

[EtherealN]

Good point MBot, thanks for the correction. Apaches are like M1's - I keep forgetting that they've been exported. :P

Sobek, as far as I know, no, but the difference is that they have them as operational standard equipment. They just haven't served in a conflict where they have faced air threats.

[sobek]

They just haven't served in a conflict where they have faced air threats.

 

My point being that in any other sort of conflict, they would most likely have had as much chance to use them. Reminds me of a bee sting, somehow. The moment you have to use it is the moment you're doomed anyway.

[EtherealN]

Well, afaik even there their actual intended use isn't against fighters, but rather self-escort against other attack helicopters. I haven't checked their doctrines though, but I'd imagine it's similar to Marine Corps.

[coder1024]

I just don't know how "realistic" Lock On is? Is my NOE flying going to confuse a jets radar at times??? Are things reasonably modeled in LO compared to Black Shark? I just know that the level of realisim is quite high in Black Shark... I just don't want to be in my Black Shark against people who are flying HAWX on the other end of the server.

As I understand it, LO is a much lower fidelity simulation than the DCS series. Thats the whole point of the DCS series to provide a new product line which features high fidelity simulation of certain aircraft. Its not HAWX but its not DCS either :)

[EtherealN]

Well, there's another thing involved in fidelity as well that we should remember: there's different kinds of fidelity.

 

An example would be that LO:FC2 has better "fidelity" in simulating air combat than a DCS:F15C Eagle would have on it's own, simply through allowing human players to conduct what basically amounts to DACT. So from a tactical training standpoint, FC2 is pretty much as good as you can get today on the consumer market. From avionics/procedure/pure airmanship standpoints though it gets soundly beaten by DCS:BS. You become a better pilot through using DCS, but you become a better tactician through FC2.

 

But the main thing that's causing it's advantage there is simply that it has more aircraft that are "roughly right" than anything else. Once DCS has had a few more releases the picture will be different.

 

For a hint at surprising advantages of "non-fidelity" software I could mention that the US military did at various times use special versions of both Doom and Quake1 for training - but they were obviously not training actual shooting, they were looking at training for teamwork. Similarly, a teacher of mine back in the days had previously had the habit of teaching strategy through elaborate custom-designed board games, but instead opted to just play Command & Conquer with us. Sure, it wasn't really "real-world", but it got us thinking in the right direction of various elements supporting each other towards a strategic goal and had the added benefit (vs a "board game" exercise) of forcing us to really think on our feet as the battle developed.

 

But today we are thankfully getting to the point where computer technology will allow us to have the best of both worlds - both superb avionics and flight model fidelity and a good combat environment to try out actual tactics and strategy in. Just two or three more DCS products and we'll be there. :)

[sobek]

Just two or three more DCS products and we'll be there. :)

 

Is that really the appropriate word? ;)

[EtherealN]

Of course it is. What's a couple years when we are looking at that prize to be claimed? :D

[sgtmike74]

"But will I be at a HUGE disadvantage playing MP with Lock On players who are not exposed to the same amount of realism?"

 

Just my take on the original question....Yes if the mission designer pits you in a KA-50 against fast movers, you would be at a disadvantage. This is due to DCS BS's realism, not LOMAC's level of realism. A good example of this is in ARMAII. KA-50 pwns fast movers left and right due to the lower realism settings for vikhrs. Fast , beyond line of site lock on via tab key = dead flyboys. In DCS BS you cannot simply "lock" a target via tab key so your job is much much harder.

 

On the mission design side, someone mentioned the BS being on the lower end of the food chain. This is a good point but I like to design missions with the chain being more a circle of life. Jets eat sharks, sams eat jets, sharks eat sams (if done right). By forcing the players to rely on each other for mutual survival on the battlefield makes for a more enjoyable experience in my opinion.

[fangav]

The biggest leveler of realism in the 2 sims is teamwork and comms. When you're on line get on team-speak 3 and call for help and help direct the fighters to where they are needed. the fast mover guys know how vulnerable the ka50's are and work very hard to keep us alive.

 

If you're not on comms you don't count IMHO

[Slayer]

FFA multiplayer is a fail if you are in a KA-50. All the PUG fighters on your team ever do is worry about their precious K/D ratios so you will be on your own. Then of course is the dork on the other team that can't compete with the other fighter jocks so he is constantly checking the roster of both sides hoping someone is stupid enough to jump into a chopper slot so he can go hunting and keep his K/D ratio up also....

 

If you want teamplay and coordinated attacks and fighter cover.... well you probably need to join a squadron and play against AI.

[Krebs20]

If you're not on comms you don't count IMHO

If your not on comms you are a pug.

[Bucic]

Recently I were flying MP missions in Ka-50 almost on a daily basis. First on 104th and later on 51st (the location of the server is better for my crappy connection). So here are my comments on the matter:

• - during few of my first missions 50's got nailed every minute, even around FARP, not because our fighters didn't do air cover. It was because they were doing a truly piss poor job even staying alive because the other side used voice comms and our didn't. They combat value was probably at 20% of the opposing fighters because of that.
  
• - when the air forces balanced out I didn't consider fighters a complete show stopper during my missions as long as I stayed low and cared to stay on a patchy background (forests, towns etc. That said when mission creator places the mission on huge plains in a sunny day he effectively sends 50's to death
  
• - on 51st both missions I play are over mountainous terrain so even when fighters spot you and circle above you to get a good shot 5 times out of 10 you will survive if you don't just continue flying a straight line. voice comms are of big help when fighters can alarm you on enemies in your area. All in all on 51st I don't consider fighters a lethal threat at all thanks to voice comms, terrain and them occupied with their own dogfights.
  

 

voice comms :thumbup: