A10 vs Shark?

[Flybye]

Is it possible to be in the chopper playing vs or co-op with someone in an A10?

I thought I was reading about this somewhere but can't find it now.

[TatsueN]

At present, no, this is not possible.

The situation right now is that the two games are incompaitible online, but the ambiion of Eagle Dynamics is to offer an upgrade or patch to DCS: Black Shark that will make the two compatible online and offer that functionality. The main hindrance right now is one of resources - since maintaining two development paths at the same time is very complex, it is desirable to wait with implementing "compatibility" until that is the only thing left to do. At present A-10C is seeing further development (current tasks include implementing surround-sound, self-shadowing cockpits (very pretty) and other things beyond the regular bugfixes). Once that is satisfactorily set up the guys in charge and in the know can evaluate the ability to patch up Black Shark to make the two compatible.

Basically, it's the same thing as happened when DCS:BS was made compatible with Flaming Cliffs 2. There is no absolute guarantee that it will happen, but the stated ambition is to make it happen. Personally, the only obstacle I can imagine is time and money, but I am hopeful that it'll happen even if it does take a while.

Official FAQ: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=67747

[rainn24]

There's news of the compatibility patch!

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=71156&page=2

1.0.0.8 patch is out for the A-10C hopefully on May 20th. Once this patch is live, they'll start work on the Black Shark compatibility patch.

[flarp]

I'm not too sure what the point of this would be.

you guys cant really dog fight with one another, unless you play coop. But then again having 2 ground attack aircraft is rather redundant...

[TatsueN]

Having two ground attack aircraft is redundant? So... Why does the american armed forces use both A-10C's as well as AH-64D's, AH-1's etcetera? Why does the Russian armed forces have Su-25's, Mi-24's, Mi-28's and Ka-50's?

This is a case where the real-world utility transfers pretty directly to in-sim utility.

The A-10 has a heavier and more adaptable payload than the Ka-50, but cannot hover. One very good reason to co-op is that the Ka-50 can act as an AFAC. (Incidentally, using helicopters as AFACs is common - though they are being replaced to a certain degree by GlobalHawks and Predators)

Another thing with the Ka-50, compared to the A-10, is that it is a lot harder to spot. So if you have to contest the target area with enemy aircraft, it is a lot easier to pick off enemies with a Ka-50 that they're having a hell of a time trying to find. Used this to great effect online in FC2 actually (where the same argument would apply, since there are ground attack planes in FC2 already): me and a mate escorted a third person who was flying a Ka-50, for three hours, to get him safely to their base. When there, he was free to kill and murder as much as he liked - they just couldn't find him, because we killed what came after him from elsewhere, and whenever something got in "under the radar" (literally :D ) he just hid behind a hill for a couple minutes until we could flush the guy out.

Both choppers and fixed-wing strikers are very useful, and having both available at the same time allows for some kickass scenarios.

[flarp]

Having two ground attack aircraft is redundant? So... Why does the american armed forces use both A-10C's as well as AH-64D's, AH-1's etcetera? Why does the Russian armed forces have Su-25's, Mi-24's, Mi-28's and Ka-50's?

This is a case where the real-world utility transfers pretty directly to in-sim utility.

The A-10 has a heavier and more adaptable payload than the Ka-50, but cannot hover. One very good reason to co-op is that the Ka-50 can act as an AFAC. (Incidentally, using helicopters as AFACs is common - though they are being replaced to a certain degree by GlobalHawks and Predators)

Another thing with the Ka-50, compared to the A-10, is that it is a lot harder to spot. So if you have to contest the target area with enemy aircraft, it is a lot easier to pick off enemies with a Ka-50 that they're having a hell of a time trying to find. Used this to great effect online in FC2 actually (where the same argument would apply, since there are ground attack planes in FC2 already): me and a mate escorted a third person who was flying a Ka-50, for three hours, to get him safely to their base. When there, he was free to kill and murder as much as he liked - they just couldn't find him, because we killed what came after him from elsewhere, and whenever something got in "under the radar" (literally :D ) he just hid behind a hill for a couple minutes until we could flush the guy out.

Both choppers and fixed-wing strikers are very useful, and having both available at the same time allows for some kickass scenarios.

Redundant in terms of gameplay; jesus...

it would be nothing you couldnt do yourself plus an AI wingman.

Better yet, you could have 2 human A10 pilots or 2 Ka-50 pilots. I dont see how it would be anymore beneficial or fun to coordinate with 2 different types of aircraft (2 drastically different aircraft at that).

the A10's would get to their target and destroy it, before the Ka-50's have even gotten to the first waypoint.

It would make sense if instead of the A10 you had an interceptor or a fighter like the f35 or the su35; this way you can send in the jets to clear out the airspace and then fly in the choppers to destroy the ground targets...

[Pyroflash]

It makes sense when you factor in that the helicopters can operate outside of a fixed base(ala airport) with the use of FARPs. Also keep in mind that helicopters are extremely useful as AFAC(Airborne Forward Air Controller) aircraft, and you have more than enough reason for the two aircraft to be working together.

I would love to see a flight of A-10's hover, or hide behind a building. Maybe they can also operate off of a 10x10 meter pad in the middle of a forest. A-10's are also really great at not being found right? I mean with those massive, loud engines, large profile, and easy observability by search radars.

No, DCS aims to simulate reality, so it makes perfect sense to rip tactics and strategies straight from the real military books. You will find they work more often than not.

Do not look simply at the weapons load and speed of the aircraft as criteria for judging their capabilities. Always be innovative and think of ways that you can maximize the use of a particular tool for a particular purpose; much the same way that a hammer is much more efficient at pounding in nails, than say, a monkey wrench. They will both work eventually, but the difference is the monkey wrench takes six hours while the hammer only takes one hit. However, try to use the hammer to turn a nut, and you will find yourself in quite the pinch.

[flarp]

It makes sense when you factor in that the helicopters can operate outside of a fixed base(ala airport) with the use of FARPs. Also keep in mind that helicopters are extremely useful as AFAC(Airborne Forward Air Controller) aircraft, and you have more than enough reason for the two aircraft to be working together.

I would love to see a flight of A-10's hover, or hide behind a building. Maybe they can also operate off of a 10x10 meter pad in the middle of a forest. A-10's are also really great at not being found right? I mean with those massive, loud engines, large profile, and easy observability by search radars.

No, DCS aims to simulate reality, so it makes perfect sense to rip tactics and strategies straight from the real military books. You will find they work more often than not.

Do not look simply at the weapons load and speed of the aircraft as criteria for judging their capabilities. Always be innovative and think of ways that you can maximize the use of a particular tool for a particular purpose; much the same way that a hammer is much more efficient at pounding in nails, than say, a monkey wrench. They will both work eventually, but the difference is the monkey wrench takes six hours while the hammer only takes one hit. However, try to use the hammer to turn a nut, and you will find yourself in quite the pinch.

i still dont see how it would be any better than just having a flight of a10's destroy the targets from 15miles away with their AGM's. or doing the same with some ka-50's


Realistically yes, what you're saying makes sense; but in the game, they feel redundant. I dont understand why you'd need both when 1 or the other will work...

i'm not trying to troll, i genuinely dont get it...

[TatsueN]

it would be nothing you couldnt do yourself plus an AI wingman.


So?

Better yet, you could have 2 human A10 pilots or 2 Ka-50 pilots. I dont see how it would be anymore beneficial or fun to coordinate with 2 different types of aircraft (2 drastically different aircraft at that).

Then I respectfully suggest that you fly Ka-50 co-op with some FC2 planes. ;)

Unfortunately though, many think as you and don't even try it - and even set up the missions for their servers to pretty much prohibit such interactions. (For example, placing the Ka-50's on the other end of the map to the other strikers.)

the A10's would get to their target and destroy it, before the Ka-50's have even gotten to the first waypoint.

One word, or well, abbreviation: FARP
Why would the helicopters operate from the same base as the A-10's? One of the points of the helicopter is that they can operate from pretty much any open space of 20 by 20 meters.

It would make sense if instead of the A10 you had an interceptor or a fighter like the f35 or the su35; this way you can send in the jets to clear out the airspace and then fly in the choppers to destroy the ground targets...

That would of course be nice, and might well happen in the future.

i still dont see how it would be any better than just having a flight of a10's destroy the targets from 15miles away with their AGM's. or doing the same with some ka-50's

"15 miles away" assumes a lot of interesting things. First that you have some sort of super-Maverick that doesn't exist. :P 13 miles is the high end of the envelope for Mavericks kinetically, assuming an M0.9 delivery from angels 33. To get up there in an A-10, you are carrying two Mavericks and nothing else.

We are also assuming that you are using a version of the Maverick that has a seeker other than the ones carried by the A-10C. Your seekers simply will not find a target at that range unless it's the size of a city and lit up with torches against a tundra background. :P (Otherwise your limits are between 2-3 miles and 8 miles, depending on Seeker version, target type and background.)

...and we're assuming that you are at liberty to deliver the weapon from high up. The Maverick is a flying airbrake and needs a lot of altitude and the benefits of thin air during the burn phase to get anywhere far.

Realistically yes, what you're saying makes sense; but in the game, they feel redundant. I dont understand why you'd need both when 1 or the other will work...

Depends a lot on how the mission is designed, of course. But assuming a realistically designed mission that has more than token air defenses present, you can make lots of use for chopper/A-10 coordination.

If we consider a Fulda Gap scenario, the two have a major advantage and a major weakness, each:

Ka-50:
+ Hover; it can stay in cover as needed, as well as maintain a stable firing position to put consistent fire downrange. (And let's not forget that the Ka-50's 30mm is rediculously accurate, although it does not pack the same punch that the GAU-8 does.)
- Slow; it cannot move across a wide battlefield with any speed.

A-10C:
+ Fast; it can move between engagements much quicker, and can thus be assigned a wider area of action.
- Obvious; it cannot hide effectively and also cannot maintain fire for long before it needs to turn off the target.

Thus, in a mechanized offensive scenario, we can use these assets thusly while assuming we have four of each:

Ka-50's:
We split these up into two Rotes, each of which follows an armored thrust (or overwatches a defensive position if on the other side), giving support.
A-10's:
Flight of 4, on-call. If the ground forces on either thrust - or the Ka-50's - require urgent assistance, the A-10's can be there very quickly and assist. If the other thrust then needs assistance, the greater speed of the A-10 allows it to make good speed to assist them.

What we have now achieved is that both fronts have constant overwatch and CAS by the Ka-50's, and both have A-10 support. We could not do this with 8 Ka-50's: they are nice, but they cannot put as hard a punch as the A-10's, so doing two splits of 4 would be less effective than what we have devised, and they would be unable to assist the other thrust if the assets over there are defeated by the enemy. On the other hand, four A-10's each would suffer from the fact that they would need to fly very high to keep overwatch positions - which is extremely dangerous. All you then need is a single MiG-29 that gets told by it's GCI to "head over there and become an instant Ace". (Incidentally, you'd be able to effectively shut down all CAS or even overwatch without firing a shot - just point the nose of a MiG-29 in the general direction of the A-10s, speed up across the Mach and the AWACS will have to call them running home while it arranges a flight of F-15's to come over; you then turn home, land, refuel, and do it again - and then the ground forces will never have CAS...)

Now, on a normal "air-quake" server where no-one bothers to talk to anyone else... Yeah, the above isn't going to happen. But having the option to do something like that does seem rather nice when you have friends and acquaintances that would also much like to play out scenarios like this. :)

[Pyroflash]

Well Put, +1

[flarp]

i dont think you guys understand what i'm trying to say.

i know the a10 cant hover or that the ka50 is slow; there is no disagreement there so i dont see why you guys keep bringing that up. Also i know what a FARP, FOC, etc is

unless you want to get several friends together to plan out such a coordinated assault then i suppose it would be fun, but for people who just pub which is probably like 90% of people, it dont see this level of teamwork happening.

I dont know.

As for the example you gave, i guess it makes sense; though i dont know how entertaining it would be for the a10 pilots to just chill at the airport until their needed.

Thanks anyway, it was rather well said.

[Pyroflash]

Well, if you want to play air quake, that's fine, but I PERSONALLY think it is quite out of character for a sim of this caliber.

To each his own however, and I just hope that at least you realize how a combined helicopter/fixed wing force can be an effective one.

[TatsueN]

i know the a10 cant hover or that the ka50 is slow; there is no disagreement there so i dont see why you guys keep bringing that up.

Because it has profound tactical implications for the commander.

unless you want to get several friends together to plan out such a coordinated assault then i suppose it would be fun, but for people who just pub which is probably like 90% of people, it dont see this level of teamwork happening.

True, but those 10% usually are the ones who run their own servers, start squadrons and basically make the whole multiplayer scene happen at all. And you don't really need much of an "event" for this either - there are a LOT of squadrons out there that have 8 or more players, some many times more than that. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes things fun for those.

As for the example you gave, i guess it makes sense; though i dont know how entertaining it would be for the a10 pilots to just chill at the airport until their needed.

Well, they wouldn't just chill at the aerodrome - one of the nice things with the A-10 and it's high-bypass engines is that it does have a significant loiter time, which is what I meant by "on-call": they'll fly to a station that gives them reasonable response time to both areas and hold there until called upon.

As for the "fun" aspect, well - the airquaker won't do it, of course. But that's no different here compared to FC2 - there's not many (as a portion of players) that would consider spending the evening in a two-ship protecting the AWACS while everyone else on the server is milling about AirQuaking, but there are still quite a few that would. I've done it, and it's a lot more exciting than one might think; effectively protecting an AWACS isn't easy, since the AWACS can't notch or practically do anything defensive, so you need to make sure that the enemy never even enter weapons range of the AWACS. And if you mess up, the AWACS goes down. No ifs or buts, it's dead, because you won't be able to respawn and get back there in time.

Spending three hours during which I made a single weapons launch was still some of the most fun I ever had in FC2, and trying to schedule aerial refueling such that we always had one bird ready to respond to anything that went nose-hot on the AWACS within 100 miles was also fun.

[Pyroflash]

Well, they wouldn't just chill at the aerodrome

How would an A-10 be expected to take off from Langley's Aerodrome? Hehe, early aviation history humor.

[TatsueN]

Easy, just circumvent the ME's artificial limiters through LUA-editing the .miz to get a 140 knot wind, and then take off vertically. :D

[jimgnarkill]

The thing I love the best about flight sims (real ones) is that the complexity of them acts as a superb noob filter.

This being the steam forum means some cling on, but as a rule the 'ZOMG my laptop with shared RAM and built in video wont run XXXX' are few and far between.

[jimgnarkill]

How would an A-10 be expected to take off from Langley's Aerodrome? Hehe, early aviation history humor.

Oh and they would use the ancient steam catapult of course!

(assuming you mean the dawn of flight Langley Aerodrome,steam powered contraption and not Langley AFB)

[TatsueN]

There's another side to that though that we get relatively much of - "old dog" RL pilot type people on the forum that are restless in their pension and wants to fly something now that their medicals have expired. And while they're awesome, it's unfortunately a fact that they often have next to no clue how computers work so relatively often one has to just tell them that they unfortunately need to buy a new computer to make it work. :(

[jimgnarkill]

They would be likely to take on the advice though, rather than start crying about it and calling the advisor a noob.

I couldnt find the thread to C and V but the last time I had to give the 'unfortunately you 4 year old Dell Inspiron wont run this game' line I was subjected to a torrent of abuse and then given a list of over 20 games that DID work, and therefore so must this one.

Its funny though and pretty much the only reason I really come to Steam Forums. The homeland of butthurt noobs.

Not the DCS forum actually, but the best one recently was the Cliff of Dover forum. If I was 1c I would probably shut it down, because its just reams of people with inadequate gear and knowledge whining about something they know little about. Sure the game ended up getting rushed out, but it isnt a hyper commercial game, and can only get better. Jeez IL2 wasnt in the greatest state on release for those of us who remember it.

Best one I remember was a fellow enraged because his plane wouldnt fly straight and claimed it was due to poor joystick support. A few people tried to explain Torque roll, but he would have none of it!

[Pyroflash]

Did they try and explain P-factor and propwash as well? Maybe that was the reason he failed to grasp it.

[TatsueN]

The best one in my memory was actually on the DCS forums. A guy complained loudly about the flight model of the Ka-50 in DCS:BS, saying it was too sluggish in response.

His evidence was that he flies RC choppers, and posted a video of one of those little RC kits scooting around. We tried to explain that inertia is a B when you're trying to maneuver 8 tonnes of helicopter around, but... :D