Just flew my first mission with the discord group and had a lot of fun. Many of the pilots had previously done practice missions together and there were only a couple of us newbies. The learning curve for this kind of thing is VERY high, but the veterans were all very patient and made the whole thing way less stressful. Thanks to everyone on the Sidekick Discord for making it possible, can't wait for the next one.
This series is the best thing I've ever seen out of DCS, and I've been playing it off and on since it was just the A-10C and Ka-50. Thank you for doing this!
Delighted that you ditched the grey camo 😂 Nice video. Maybe for fun you could try this with an earlier aircraft like an A-4 or some such, to contrast and compare to the A-10
Well... I'd be honored but I'm not sure he needs the help. I think he has probably forgotten more about making missions and campaigns in DCS than I will ever know. I appreciate the kind words though
I've only just finally pulled the trigger on getting into DCS, your ME videos really helped me out. Really enjoy this style of video, someone that plans everything out and gets good people in to attempt. Makes me look forward to getting to this level of flying in the future!
First of I would say, A10 is clearly too outdated for this type of stuff. Its just too slow to react with threats. Maybe take less ordinance to be faster?
I would suggest you try the mission before you have an opinion. I doubt anyone who has flown it would agree with you. The A10 is the right tool for thus job. Buy it requires a skilled and experienced craftsman to use it well. We are learning. But it takes time. Give it a try you won't regret it.
I don't think I would say it was the Hawg's failing I got a heatseeker up my butt. I just didn't go down low fast enough, basically trusting the countermeasures too much in that instance. It's me being too slow, not the airplane. ;)
Outdated isn't the word in my opinion, it was designed exactly for this scenario from get go. Cold War gone hot, Soviet columns pouring out into the Fulda Gap. Though, I don't agree with Sidekick either, that it was designed for this doesn't necessarily mean it was the right design for the situation. Don't quote me on it, but as far as I know the expected attrition rates for A-10s and Apaches were pretty huge by the 80s. So I find "two strikes and out" to be extremely artificial for the scenario. I'd understand if it was "two strikes and out" per pilot, but "two strikes and mission stops", while I understand is there as a measure to force a certain survival attitude probably, is also just that: forced. As far as I know, A-10s were, in fact, expected to drop like flies in this scenario, just hopefully burn more of the enemy forces down before they do so.
Outdated for a 1982 scenario for a mission the Hawg was specifically designed for ? That's an opinion that is going to require some more factual justification.
@@ErdenizSANLAV The key point being "burn down sufficient enemy forces to justify the losses". The group in the mission sustained 50% losses and achieved absolutely nothing so it seems right to end the mission at that point and address the failures. Also, the Soviet units modelled are just the vanguard elements. If you lose half your team on the vanguard there won't be a fight once the main group shows up.
Just flew my first mission with the discord group and had a lot of fun. Many of the pilots had previously done practice missions together and there were only a couple of us newbies. The learning curve for this kind of thing is VERY high, but the veterans were all very patient and made the whole thing way less stressful. Thanks to everyone on the Sidekick Discord for making it possible, can't wait for the next one.
This series is the best thing I've ever seen out of DCS, and I've been playing it off and on since it was just the A-10C and Ka-50. Thank you for doing this!
Well! I'm glad you are enjoying the videos. Thanks for letting me know
Delighted that you ditched the grey camo 😂 Nice video. Maybe for fun you could try this with an earlier aircraft like an A-4 or some such, to contrast and compare to the A-10
Great Series! Following closely!
This video series focusing on your Balloon Gose Up scenario has been entertaining and educational. Thank you for making them for us Iain.
My pleasure glad you are enjoying them
Very well thought out scenario. Shame on me for not having found more time to actually join you guys for a flight in multiplayer.
There will be lots of other opportunities - please drop by the Discord and check the Wingman-Finder or the Session Sign Up channels!
Great series. Maybe you should design a campaign with reflected. You would be the tactics guy and he could flesh it out
Well... I'd be honored but I'm not sure he needs the help. I think he has probably forgotten more about making missions and campaigns in DCS than I will ever know. I appreciate the kind words though
I've only just finally pulled the trigger on getting into DCS, your ME videos really helped me out. Really enjoy this style of video, someone that plans everything out and gets good people in to attempt. Makes me look forward to getting to this level of flying in the future!
Keep at it. Drop by any time, a little company along the road can be helpful. We'll leave the light on for you.
This is gold
Thanks
Training…training…training
First of I would say, A10 is clearly too outdated for this type of stuff. Its just too slow to react with threats. Maybe take less ordinance to be faster?
I would suggest you try the mission before you have an opinion. I doubt anyone who has flown it would agree with you. The A10 is the right tool for thus job. Buy it requires a skilled and experienced craftsman to use it well. We are learning. But it takes time. Give it a try you won't regret it.
I don't think I would say it was the Hawg's failing I got a heatseeker up my butt. I just didn't go down low fast enough, basically trusting the countermeasures too much in that instance. It's me being too slow, not the airplane. ;)
Outdated isn't the word in my opinion, it was designed exactly for this scenario from get go. Cold War gone hot, Soviet columns pouring out into the Fulda Gap. Though, I don't agree with Sidekick either, that it was designed for this doesn't necessarily mean it was the right design for the situation. Don't quote me on it, but as far as I know the expected attrition rates for A-10s and Apaches were pretty huge by the 80s. So I find "two strikes and out" to be extremely artificial for the scenario. I'd understand if it was "two strikes and out" per pilot, but "two strikes and mission stops", while I understand is there as a measure to force a certain survival attitude probably, is also just that: forced. As far as I know, A-10s were, in fact, expected to drop like flies in this scenario, just hopefully burn more of the enemy forces down before they do so.
Outdated for a 1982 scenario for a mission the Hawg was specifically designed for ? That's an opinion that is going to require some more factual justification.
@@ErdenizSANLAV The key point being "burn down sufficient enemy forces to justify the losses". The group in the mission sustained 50% losses and achieved absolutely nothing so it seems right to end the mission at that point and address the failures. Also, the Soviet units modelled are just the vanguard elements. If you lose half your team on the vanguard there won't be a fight once the main group shows up.