Su-25T...what a turd

[G-Lock91]

This sounds like a spawnkill while baseraping in Battlefield 3...

 

No sir, an honorable kill takes place up in the air.

 

Yeah.. say that when a missile is being shot up your a$$ :smilewink:

[monotwix]

Lets say you have prepared for a mission and then become a target on the ground. Nice, stage one complete.

So creating a trigger zone for AI fighters to spawn or switching a spawning ground is still equals to more mission designers than players in quantity.

I would spawn a CAP to operate in zone and make it orbit until it’s out of fuel and stick some a$$ dynamite up that launcher pipe.

Battlefield-3?, Arma? Pakman? Mario, Tetris. RTB.

[RIPTIDE]

This sounds like a spawnkill while baseraping in Battlefield 3...

 

No sir, an honorable kill takes place up in the air.

A kill's a kill. Sir.

 

I wouldn't know much about BF3. I hear children love that game.

[EtherealN]

This sounds like a spawnkill while baseraping in Battlefield 3...

 

No sir, an honorable kill takes place up in the air.

 

War is not honorable.

 

But as GG indicated - this is a mission design issue. Bases too close to each other causes this to happen.

 

And of course, come FC3, there'll be a lot of skittish T-Frog drivers around. :P

[maturin]

The only genuinely turdish behavior I have noticed from the Grach is the occasional refusal to pitch the nose down when (presumably?) thrust is to high, sometimes at speeds as low as 450 or so. Is this a normal part of flight dynamics, or just the Toad being unfriendly?

 

It messes up my attack runs from time to time.

[Echo38]

As I understand it, the Su-25T in World has greatly simplified systems and avionics from the real things, right? Or is the real Su-25T so advanced that a single control movement is required to start up an engine?

[maturin]

Simplified controls for sure. I would be interested in hearing about the quality of the flight model, however.

[monotwix]

The only genuinely turdish behavior I have noticed from the Grach is the occasional refusal to pitch the nose down when (presumably?) thrust is to high, sometimes at speeds as low as 450 or so. Is this a normal part of flight dynamics, or just the Toad being unfriendly?

It messes up my attack runs from time to time.

 

There could be a shift in the centre of gravity at various pitch angles or may be it’s to do with fact that the direction of the lift force is perpendicular to the wing and the direction of the earths gravity force never changes.

 

As I understand it, the Su-25T in World has greatly simplified systems and avionics from the real things, right? Or is the real Su-25T so advanced that a single control movement is required to start up an engine?

 

F-15C FC2 starts with the avionics in your face.

Edited August 10, 2012 by monotwix

[GGTharos]

I'm not sure anyone really knows what the real avionics of the Su-25T are. But yes, it isn't a clickable cockpit and the modeling is not in-depth. It is adequate.

[zzzspace]

Simplified controls for sure. I would be interested in hearing about the quality of the flight model, however.

 

The flight model, when released, was the show-piece addition within FC1.1. And at the time it was presented by ED as the state of the art in realistic PC-based advanced flight modelling. It was purportedly developed and constrained by data-logged real-world flight envelope data, and was considered particularly representative of the real aircraft's flight characteristics and performance.

[OutOnTheOP]

The best is just when they start rolling after going through their 259 point checklist for the last 10 mins. :lol: The 25ML's a helluva thing. Oh lawdy... 'U mad, bro?' does wonders in chat. :megalol:

 

PS: Welcome back posting.

 

 

And that's exactly WHY you can do that: the Su25T in game has near-instant, one-button start-up. It's practically a cheat; you can get in the air so much faster than the A-10C drivers that have to go through a realistic startup, therefore you can bomb them still on the runway.

 

This is why I am against FC3-level fidelity and DCS-level fidelity in the same environment: the lower-fidelity players have less pilot workload and an easier time completing tasks. To be honest, THAT is a bigger difference in most cases than having unfair maneuverability or thrust-to-weight advantages!

[RIPTIDE]

The only genuinely turdish behavior I have noticed from the Grach is the occasional refusal to pitch the nose down when (presumably?) thrust is to high, sometimes at speeds as low as 450 or so. Is this a normal part of flight dynamics, or just the Toad being unfriendly?

 

It messes up my attack runs from time to time.

At high speeds the Grach-T likes to , counter intuitively, loose lift and pitch authority. I don't have figures to hand but I recognise it instantly. It can be very dangerous in a dive for example, when you pull the stick back you can get a nasty surprise. So If you've trimmed in a high speed dive and next thing you begin to slow down coming off the attack, the nose just loves to Jump back up again.

[RIPTIDE]

And that's exactly WHY you can do that: the Su25T in game has near-instant, one-button start-up. It's practically a cheat; you can get in the air so much faster than the A-10C drivers that have to go through a realistic startup, therefore you can bomb them still on the runway.

 

This is why I am against FC3-level fidelity and DCS-level fidelity in the same environment: the lower-fidelity players have less pilot workload and an easier time completing tasks. To be honest, THAT is a bigger difference in most cases than having unfair maneuverability or thrust-to-weight advantages!

It would not have changed ANYTHING of the events that happened. As I understand it, it's a mixed bag. DCS Fidelity afforded to systems will allow some tasks and some automation that might never appear in FC2/3/4 and at the same time make other tasks more complicated and switch hungry.

 

They're just switches and process flows that can be learned by rote and as long as they add into some modicum of pilot stress reality, then that's fine. It's what happens OUTSIDE is most important and the realistic representation of SA to the pilot behind the screen INSIDE are what's relevant to me. Add in an accurate representation of workload. Those are key to a simulator.

 

Now, what's this about unfair manoeuvrability?

[EtherealN]

And that's exactly WHY you can do that: the Su25T in game has near-instant, one-button start-up. It's practically a cheat; you can get in the air so much faster than the A-10C drivers that have to go through a realistic startup, therefore you can bomb them still on the runway.

 

You forget a couple things:

 

The situation described involved taking out SAM defenses first.

Also, way bigger player than startup times is the fact that the Frog is simply very fast. Compared to the Frog, the A-10C is a Cessna. And your analysis also seems to assume that EVERYONE on multiplayer starts at the same time, with one life, and fly until dead - then the round restarts Counter-Strike style... Just not so. You can "vulch" very effectively with an A-10 too, the problem is just that you don't have the same measures against heavier SAM defences, which the T-Frog does.

 

Also, the really big player here is: apparently someone made it too easy to fly to the other side's airfield. This is AirQuake-syndrome, IMO: people don't want to spend a long flight getting to their targets, they want to just get up there, launch weapons, and be killing stuff right away. However, that means that those that have patience to go around defences etcetera will be able to do some pretty spectacular things.

 

This is why I am against FC3-level fidelity and DCS-level fidelity in the same environment: the lower-fidelity players have less pilot workload and an easier time completing tasks.

 

This is just wrong.

Higher fideily gives you WAY more capability.

If we had a fight between an FC F-15C and a DCS F-15C, with equal pilots, guess who'll win? No, it's not the "lower-fidelity" one, he'll be practically neutered by all the fun stuff the DCS guy can do. ;)

 

And this applies here as well. A-10C guy can get a coord from a friend, feed it in to his system, then fly NOE through enemy defences only to make a quick popup with that coord as markpoint, ripple off his weapons, and then turn away. Time spent looking for the target: 0,1 seconds. Try to do that with the FC T-Frog. ;)

 

To be honest, THAT is a bigger difference in most cases than having unfair maneuverability or thrust-to-weight advantages!

 

Nothing unfair about those. The russians wanted their sturmovik to fly fast, the yankees didn't. Them's the breaks.

Edited August 10, 2012 by EtherealN

[Boberro]

Hheheheh mad GheyTen drivers woke up :D

[OutOnTheOP]

Who said anything about complaining that the Su25 was too fast or maneuverable? Way to put words in my mouth. What I said was: in many cases the ability to ignore switchology is a bigger advantage than having a more maneuverable plane

 

Ethereal, I'm calling BS. You're making the assumption that more capability automatically comes with more switchology. Other than the ability to program target coordinates, give an example. I'd say that the ability to hit the a single key to accomplish a task that in the detailed birds (and reality) requires a series of actions is more significant. Unless this theoretical DCS-quality F-15C has a longer radar detection range or better jammers or something (neither of which are logical conclusions of having more switch options), there's no reason it would "do fun stuff the simple version can't". That aside, your DCS:A-10 vs FC: Su25 comparison regarding preplot targets is a strawman; "simplified" controls can be made to do anything up to and including automatically entering co-ordinates for you.

 

After all, the simplified versions automatically perform switch flips for you: taking it to it's logical (but extreme) extent, what's to stop the simplification from going back to the old EA "press t to cycle through available targets" days? You mean to tell me that the pilot that has to manually select radar search sectors, slew the cuing bug on the target, etc etc has a qualititative advantage over the one that hits a single keystroke and has the simulation do the work for him? Not buying it.

 

Agreed that the primary culprit in this case is poor scenario design, but that does NOT mean the FC and DCS birds play the same or compare favorably.

[Grimes]

Suppose I oughta get into this mess :D

Ethereal, I'm calling BS. You're making the assumption that more capability automatically comes with more switchology.

Well I suppose we can compare the A-10C vs A-10A. The C is simply better. It even makes the bombs both can carry better as the C can change the bomb profile and account for wind to accurately drop dumb bombs at even high altitudes. Granted its comparing apples to apples++. But since this thread is about Su-25T mostly, lets compare the A-10C to the Su-25T...

 

Ok, best case scenario you have a waypoint exactly on top of a bunker or other target you need to kill.

 

Acquisition:

Su-25T uses Shkval and WP reference. Its somewhat effective!

A-10C uses "slaves all sensors to SPI" Its Super Effective

 

A WILD Enemy Stinger Appears!

Detection:

Su-25T uses Mk. 1 Eyeball. Its slightly effective!

A-10C uses Missile Warning System its super effective!

Deception:

Su-25T uses maneuvering and spams flare button. Its effective.

A-10C uses maneuvering and anti-IR missile flare program. Its Super Effective!

 

Re-acquisiton of target

Su-25T uses maneuvering to get target within Shkval sensor range. Minus 20 seconds time!

A-10C uses Litening Targeting Pod. It never lost visual on the target. Minus 10 seconds to line up.

 

Yes the Su-25T and A-10C are equally qualified to take out a known target. Both have precision guided munitions, both have stand-off weapons, and both have a target pod to visually scan the area for threats, although the A-10Cs pod is better due to built in FLIR, amazing zoom capability, and its massive range of motion.

 

However, pre-plotted targets are one thing, the targets whose location is not known is kind of a pain to deal with for Su-25T and FC aircraft in general. You just can't give them new waypoints to add to their flight plan. New coordinates must be handled by referencing known waypoints and providing a vector to the new coordinate and must be committed to the pilots memory or a notepad. Even using this method, the A-10C has a massive advantage as it can simply use the TADS and make a markpoint at the approximate location.

 

Navigation systems and datalinks can go a long way for improving combat capability.

[EtherealN]

Ethereal, I'm calling BS. You're making the assumption that more capability automatically comes with more switchology.

 

No.

 

But in these cases, higher fidelity simulation of systems = more capability, both as far as weapon employment and as far as SA goes.

 

During combat in the A-10C, I don't really touch the "switches" at all. I've already set myself up for combat, so everything I need is already on the HOTAS. This is zero difference from flying the T-Frog, where I have mapped all functions to the HOTAS.

 

The big deal is, that with the FC T-Frog, there's tonnes of things that simply are not there, things that could help me if they were there. THAT is what "low-fidelity" gives you. It gives you a disadvantage, NOT an advantage.

 

Other than the ability to program target coordinates, give an example.

 

I can easily ripple weapons between precise targets, no slewing involved. I have automated countermeasure systems that I can program to my desire. I have a WAY superior handling of my sensor suite and thus greater SA. Etcetera.

 

Unless this theoretical DCS-quality F-15C has a longer radar detection range or better jammers or something (neither of which are logical conclusions of having more switch options), there's no reason it would "do fun stuff the simple version can't".

 

Except that the FC version is missing a score of very capable radar modes, missing missile datalinks, etcetera etcetera. There is a lot more to a real F-15C than manually slewing your radar cone and flipping between STT and TWS... ;)

 

And yes, those are things that make life easier for the pilot. That's why they were implemented.

 

That aside, your DCS:A-10 vs FC: Su25 comparison regarding preplot targets is a strawman; "simplified" controls can be made to do anything up to and including automatically entering co-ordinates for you.

 

Then enter some coordinates into the Su-25T. :)

 

After all, the simplified versions automatically perform switch flips for you: taking it to it's logical (but extreme) extent, what's to stop the simplification from going back to the old EA "press t to cycle through available targets" days?

 

This already exists in both FC and DCS, as one of the functions available in "game" mode. But as you might have noticed, very few (if any) servers operate in this mode. So the answer is: YOU are the one to stop that simplification, through not using it. :)

 

You mean to tell me that the pilot that has to manually select radar search sectors, slew the cuing bug on the target, etc etc has a qualititative advantage over the one that hits a single keystroke and has the simulation do the work for him? Not buying it.

 

The one that has to manually slew and select everything is the FC guy!

The real plane has functions that are a LOT smarter, and the "higher-fidelity" simulation would reflect this, thus making the pilot's job easier.

 

Do you, for example, really think a real F-15C pilot, in TWS mode (let's ignore modes not represented), would be manually slewing his radar cone to make sure all bugged targets remain in there? Nope.

 

Agreed that the primary culprit in this case is poor scenario design, but that does NOT mean the FC and DCS birds play the same or compare favorably.

 

Indeed, they do not play the same. FC birds are easier to learn, thus are gentler on the learning curve. But the DCS birds rewards those that study with superior functionality. So the comparison is indeed not "favorable", but it's the FC birds that suffer. Remember, you can get up in an A-10 and kill stuff just as easily as you can in the T-Frog (assuming you use RWin-Home or have learned to start the thing, which takes all of 2 hours) - you don't need to learn markpoints, CDU stuff, weapon profiles etcetera to be combat "effective"; you'll be at the same level the T-Frog is with the same effort. Then you study more and you get new capabilities. Capabilities the T-Frog pilot could only dream of.

Edited August 10, 2012 by EtherealN
typo

[docfu]

Wow...

 

Usually I hear the phrase "arguing on the internet makes you stupid" but I think I've learned quite a bit from this thread...

[OutOnTheOP]

Ethereal, apples != oranges. You can't compare the simple version of one aircraft to the DCS version of another. Implying that because one cannot enter coordinates on the FC Su25 means that it is impossible is ridiculous. As is implying that the "varied sensor modes" and "close control of countermeasures" is inherently better in a DCS suite aircraft. The FC A-10A isn't inferior to the DCS A-10C because it is FC, it is inferior because it is an A model.

 

And yes, there is more to operating the radar on the F-15C etc etc... unless, of course, the FC version of it automates all those functions and/ or automatically grants the same detection range WITHOUT THE PILOT HAVING TO DETERMINE AND SWITCH TO THE RIGHT MODE. In that case, the FC pilot is getting all the advantages, but doesn't ever have to worry about checking his switches, nor will he ever be in the WRONG mode. Just because the FC version doesn't have "modes available to the real one" doesn't make it at a disadvantage. This is a simplified computer simulation of the aircraft, it's NOT the same as if they'd taken a REAL aircraft and superglued the radar mode switch to "RWS" So unless the SIMULATION gives an inherent advantage, then no, there is no advantage.

 

No, if you take this to the logical (but extreme) extent, you end up with one player flying a real airplane, and the other playing HAWX, with the game offering up flawless 360 SA to him on an F10 map radar screen, who only has to "hit t to select next target". Do I think it will ever be THAT pronounced, no, but everything that the game does FOR the player makes it easier.

 

You won't convince me, sorry.

 

As to "me being the one to stop that simplification", you're right: I don't play on servers with FC aircraft, simple as that.

Edited August 10, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[EtherealN]

So okey, explain this to me:

 

FC F-15C

vs

a DCS F-15C with accurate representation of systems.

 

Who will be at the advantage? That was my original postulation and example, which you wanted to reject. You cannot first reject apples vs apples, then complain about apples vs oranges. ;)

 

What I am saying is that when comparing "FC level" simulation of an aircraft with "DCS level" simulation of an aircraft, and pitting those two in a fight with each other, it is NOT the DCS guy that is at a disadvantage, which is what you suggested. That would only hold true if we assume each pilot spent a maximum of 30 minutes to learn his aircraft. But the FC pilot will quickly max out on his learning of what his systems can do for him, while at the same time the DCS guy is learning, and using, things the FC dude just dreams of.

 

Further, you can't say "unless the FC version just automates". We already have the FC bird! That "standard" already exists. And the DCS standard also exists, indicated by the Shark and C-Hog. Extrapolate the detail in the latter two towards what this would mean for a DCS standard F-15C, and the FC one gets murdered.

Edited August 10, 2012 by EtherealN

[WildBillKelsoe]

So okey, explain this to me:

 

FC F-15C

vs

a DCS F-15C with accurate representation of systems.

 

 

The latter, no brainer for me...

[RagnarDa]

So okey, explain this to me:

 

FC F-15C

vs

a DCS F-15C with accurate representation of systems.

 

Who will be at the advantage? That was my original postulation and example, which you wanted to reject. You cannot first reject apples vs apples, then complain about apples vs oranges. ;)

 

What I am saying is that when comparing "FC level" simulation of an aircraft with "DCS level" simulation of an aircraft, and pitting those two in a fight with each other, it is NOT the DCS guy that is at a disadvantage, which is what you suggested. That would only hold true if we assume each pilot spent a maximum of 30 minutes to learn his aircraft. But the FC pilot will quickly max out on his learning of what his systems can do for him, while at the same time the DCS guy is learning, and using, things the FC dude just dreams of.

 

Further, you can't say "unless the FC version just automates". We already have the FC bird! That "standard" already exists. And the DCS standard also exists, indicated by the Shark and C-Hog. Extrapolate the detail in the latter two towards what this would mean for a DCS standard F-15C, and the FC one gets murdered.

+1

It seems to me people haven't actually played FC2 but still have strong opinions on it.

[GGTharos]

Sorry, I'll have to get into this one here :D

 

Regarding the example of 25's vs. 10C's above, it is also apples and oranges. It doesn't matter that you can start up your plane with one keybind if the guy who takes 20 switch throws is hovering above your base and raining DU down on you - not one bit.

 

It's about who gets there first, and frankly I have have the 10C in the air /almost/ as fast as I can get a 25T in the air. So I have to use scramble checklists and align in the air instead - so what? As soon as the engines are on and the trim is set, I go. All the doo-hickeys can lineup/boot up/spin up/party while I'm on my way to carpet bomb the enemy airfield and make those 25T guys while about how they're being vulched.

 

I'll say /again/ that this is a matter of mission design. I will guarantee you that if you build the same mission with no FC style aircraft, you will experience the same pain, because your startup time doesn't matter so much - what matters is which side manages to down all enemy aircraft and get above their airfield first. And like I said, I can launch a 10C about as fast a 25T ... but I can't fly it as fast. This is just the difference in the aerodynamic performance of both aircraft.

 

PanzerTard has a story about a 5 hour Ka-50 flight flown under the cover of some FC2 F-15C's that allowed him to attack an enemy airbase and return home. It was a single trip, EtherealN and I had to tank a few times. This was in a TvT scenario, not against AI. With the right scenario, DCS and FC level planes mesh quite well. No need to hate :)

 

As for avionics making the A2A fight ... you don't want to be facing DCS level modern air threats. I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Ethereal, apples != oranges. You can't compare the simple version of one aircraft to the DCS version of another. Implying that because one cannot enter coordinates on the FC Su25 means that it is impossible is ridiculous. As is implying that the "varied sensor modes" and "close control of countermeasures" is inherently better in a DCS suite aircraft. The FC A-10A isn't inferior to the DCS A-10C because it is FC, it is inferior because it is an A model.

 

And yes, there is more to operating the radar on the F-15C etc etc... unless, of course, the FC version of it automates all those functions and/ or automatically grants the same detection range WITHOUT THE PILOT HAVING TO DETERMINE AND SWITCH TO THE RIGHT MODE. In that case, the FC pilot is getting all the advantages, but doesn't ever have to worry about checking his switches, nor will he ever be in the WRONG mode. Just because the FC version doesn't have "modes available to the real one" doesn't make it at a disadvantage. This is a simplified computer simulation of the aircraft, it's NOT the same as if they'd taken a REAL aircraft and superglued the radar mode switch to "RWS" So unless the SIMULATION gives an inherent advantage, then no, there is no advantage.

 

No, if you take this to the logical (but extreme) extent, you end up with one player flying a real airplane, and the other playing HAWX, with the game offering up flawless 360 SA to him on an F10 map radar screen, who only has to "hit t to select next target". Do I think it will ever be THAT pronounced, no, but everything that the game does FOR the player makes it easier.

 

You won't convince me, sorry.

 

As to "me being the one to stop that simplification", you're right: I don't play on servers with FC aircraft, simple as that.

Edited August 10, 2012 by GGTharos

[HiJack]

Holy crap, this shit again! We already have established why FC3 is a important move! Ppl that don't like it can just stay away, simple as that.

 

(HJ)