With regard to the table at 5:10, I would suggest that if you used the SHOOT-SHOOT doctrine, your opponent had 800 aircraft and you've shot down 680 of them- accepting that you're out of missiles you have caused an enormous tactical and logistical problem for your enemy. You can probably afford a pause, minimising engagement while your industry catches up with missile construction. Your opponent has to regenerate pilots and aircraft. Likely the remaining 120 aircraft are going to move to a defensive posture- especially if they don't *know* you're out of missiles.
Fiiiiiiinal point (and then I'll return to my breakfast), the probability of kill for that second is likely to be higher than the first missile. The first shot is fired against a hostile aircraft, presumably focused on you, with plenty of energy and situational awareness. The second shot is against a panicking pilot who has bled energy to avoid your first missile and is now struggling to remember where North is, let alone you. I flew with a guy who had a particularly sadistic way of flying the F-14 in DCS. He would save a single Phoenix and instead fire a Sparrow at RMax1. In the moment, I would hear the lock tone and break immediately- giving him time to observe my maneuver and Maddog a Phoenix ahead of me. The Sparrow never hit, but the Phoenix almost never missed.
I'm replying here to both of your posts :) In primis, remember that this is a series of conjectures based on real life. IRL, a ton of engagements are blow-throughs and bugouts. The idea is that you launch a low Pk missile as max In LAR, then the second one much closer to NEZ. Depending on Vc and the missile, it is entirely possible to have both guiding at the same time. Since a minor offset defeats long-range shots, the first launch may not connect, but the second probably will. This means that you don't have to recommit, but if the first one hits anyway you can immediately carry on with your plan. If you launch a single missile instead, then you may be too close to launch a second without breaking through the MAR. That being said, these considerations do not apply to airquake or any DCS mission without logistic and supply implemented. PS: how was your breakfast? :)
If/when you get to a dynamic campaign (such as the DCS one in developed, or the currently modelled one in BMS), you may well start seeing this issue pop up. It can certainly cause issues in some cases on the GreyFlag online servers.
Thank you for the videos.. This one has strange static sound every time the narrator speaks; normally this is not the case with your videos but this was too disturbing to listen, made use of mute to be able to watch.
Yeah, GD had a problem and I tried to fix it, but the result was not optimal. The issue is more acute for a minute or two of the first third, then it should be much better.
Apologies, I had to record a second take on some parts on a different day after work; I probably sound a bit tired there. There are some background noises that I believe Karon tried to clean up, rather successfully I might add. Additionally I do my recordings with a $12 headset microphone. As nice as a good microphone would be for this kind of work, I more generally use my mic in flight sims on SRS, so background noise is better masked by the filters and modelled radio static, so it usually doesn’t matter as much.
With regard to the table at 5:10, I would suggest that if you used the SHOOT-SHOOT doctrine, your opponent had 800 aircraft and you've shot down 680 of them- accepting that you're out of missiles you have caused an enormous tactical and logistical problem for your enemy.
You can probably afford a pause, minimising engagement while your industry catches up with missile construction. Your opponent has to regenerate pilots and aircraft.
Likely the remaining 120 aircraft are going to move to a defensive posture- especially if they don't *know* you're out of missiles.
Don’t die with ordnance or countermeasures onboard.
Good morning FlyAndWire, just watching this over breakfast. Cheers!
Fiiiiiiinal point (and then I'll return to my breakfast), the probability of kill for that second is likely to be higher than the first missile. The first shot is fired against a hostile aircraft, presumably focused on you, with plenty of energy and situational awareness. The second shot is against a panicking pilot who has bled energy to avoid your first missile and is now struggling to remember where North is, let alone you.
I flew with a guy who had a particularly sadistic way of flying the F-14 in DCS. He would save a single Phoenix and instead fire a Sparrow at RMax1. In the moment, I would hear the lock tone and break immediately- giving him time to observe my maneuver and Maddog a Phoenix ahead of me.
The Sparrow never hit, but the Phoenix almost never missed.
I'm replying here to both of your posts :)
In primis, remember that this is a series of conjectures based on real life. IRL, a ton of engagements are blow-throughs and bugouts.
The idea is that you launch a low Pk missile as max In LAR, then the second one much closer to NEZ. Depending on Vc and the missile, it is entirely possible to have both guiding at the same time. Since a minor offset defeats long-range shots, the first launch may not connect, but the second probably will. This means that you don't have to recommit, but if the first one hits anyway you can immediately carry on with your plan. If you launch a single missile instead, then you may be too close to launch a second without breaking through the MAR.
That being said, these considerations do not apply to airquake or any DCS mission without logistic and supply implemented.
PS: how was your breakfast? :)
My main takeaway from this is that I shoot way too much
If/when you get to a dynamic campaign (such as the DCS one in developed, or the currently modelled one in BMS), you may well start seeing this issue pop up. It can certainly cause issues in some cases on the GreyFlag online servers.
Thank you for the videos.. This one has strange static sound every time the narrator speaks; normally this is not the case with your videos but this was too disturbing to listen, made use of mute to be able to watch.
Yeah, GD had a problem and I tried to fix it, but the result was not optimal. The issue is more acute for a minute or two of the first third, then it should be much better.
we must crowdfund cleaner preamps! 💪
Apologies, I had to record a second take on some parts on a different day after work; I probably sound a bit tired there. There are some background noises that I believe Karon tried to clean up, rather successfully I might add.
Additionally I do my recordings with a $12 headset microphone. As nice as a good microphone would be for this kind of work, I more generally use my mic in flight sims on SRS, so background noise is better masked by the filters and modelled radio static, so it usually doesn’t matter as much.
Don't worry about it :)
@@ghostdog688 All good, thanks again