Easy Refuel Option

If you don't know how to lock onto a target and fire a missile you cannot have combat related missions. How do you get over this? Read/watch youtube/practice. It's no different with AAR.

That's one way of doing things. It's not the only way. If you can't find targets you can enable labels which show you where you might expect to look for enemies, which could help you in learning where to point the radar to search by building up some relationship between the radar display and where things are in 3D space outside the cockpit.

 

 

You're assuming the this "assist" or "easy" refuel option is going to make the player eventually able to tackle the "real" version. It's not.

I'm not assuming anything, you made an assumption here in assuming assists won't help. I just stated that something like easy AAR could give someone more incentive to experiment with AAR. Do you at least agree that if one can't AAR they don't really have any reason to add it to missions they might make for themselves?

 

 

 

 

 

They're going to get used to the easy version and still be unable to do the real version because of the same exact struggles they experienced before.

This is an assumption. There is nothing stopping them from switching off the assist. I'm sure you've seen one of the many threads new DCS players post asking for advice on which module to get. A very common answer is FC3/older jets because they are simpler to use. From that starting point the player can decide on if they want to go on to more advanced modules. Assists are the same.

 

 

 

It's practicing the fundamentals that will get folks over the hump. IE: formation flying, visual cues, etc.

Practice certainly helps but again it's not mutually exclusive with assists.

 

 

If you put me on a bike with training wheels I still don't know how to balance without the training wheels. I still need someone to hold me until I learn. the only things training wheels teach me is that I'm not going to fall off the bike and I can bike with others. But once they're removed I still havent learned how to balance.

Right, but you've gained a feel for how the bike operates instead of falling over repeatedly and learning nothing. The training wheels didn't let you learn how to ride without training wheels, they let you break down the problem of learning how to ride into smaller steps.

 

 

You see I don't start off attacking people or being disrespectful. You get what you deserve and your post proves the garbage you are pushing.

You do make some sweeping assumptions and tend to brush off others' opinions. That one person learned to AAR on an Xbox controller doesn't really mean anything, that doesn't remove the issues others might have. You also claimed that autostart doesn't teach anything when people in this thread have said otherwise.

 

 

I don't mean to antagonize, but you don't come across as completely neutral.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Exorcet

Wrong. They're all a simplification. Rearming does not actually work this way.

Okay, let me rephrase it for the lack of understanding on your part. As a USAF Veteran I know how it actually works - thanks though.

 

There is only the single option on re-arming in DCS. If there was a more authentic experience I would chose that. I don't know how much simpler I can make....

 

Yes there are. You may not be using them because it's not your style to skip over all the (not actually) mandatory bits, or you may simply not know that you can, and not do it for that reason. But yes, you most definitely can make landings a lot easier than they should be if you did everything “accurately”.

There are no options in-game to make landings easier. Whether one follows proper procedures has NOTHING to do with changing core game mechanics to make something easier. Try, yet again...

 

No, my argument is that if people are eased into a difficult subject by layering on more and more complexity and/or detail, then you are giving them the opportunity to actually learn the different components in isolation rather than just heap it all on top of them at once. This enhances learning. It's about as fundamental a process of learning as they come, and a well-established pedagogical concept.

That's not how easy refuel works. Either the virtual pilot puts in the effort to fly in close proximity to the tanker in proper position to connect to the basket or boom and maintain it in order to take on fuel or the game does it for you. There's no in between here. Changing complexity is going from basic two-ship formation flying straight and level to four-ship executing turns while maintaining proper position and spacing.

 

At what point did I become hostile? Can you cite examples?

I already did. Try reading to understand what another types instead of reading to respond.

 

Not really, no. They both work to simplify a task. There's some differences in complexity in tools that make them more or less suited for different levels of learning and/or application, of course, but that would apply just as well to easy refuelling. Oh, and your assumption here is that “the computer perform the function for you” is something of your own making, and not something you can actually disqualify the idea for (that would be a strawman).

That is not the equivalent of a straw man argument. The very nature of an easy refuel option is for the game to perform the task for you. You don't know what elitism is and you don't know what a straw man argument is....

 

 

I did. You ended up saying that “Some people want an easy refuel option, cool have at it.” which means that you don't actually disagree with this option being in the game.

 

As I said you are being disingenuous and your post is clearly garbage.

 

This is what I typed....

What you do and what you enjoy is entirely on you. Some people want an easy refuel option, cool have at it. Don't try to justify the option as anything other than a lack of commitment to learn how to do it properly. I don't care what your justification is, the facts remain.

 

Oh, and calling people's opinions “garbage” is the very definition of “taking offense to somebody who has a different opinion as you.”

As I said before, please try to keep up this time, you get the level of respect that you deserve. You started off with your elitist BS and now you are crying that I didn't roll over and take it. Instead I dished it right out back to you.

You do make some sweeping assumptions and tend to brush off others' opinions. That one person learned to AAR on an Xbox controller doesn't really mean anything, that doesn't remove the issues others might have. You also claimed that autostart doesn't teach anything when people in this thread have said otherwise.

 

 

I don't mean to antagonize, but you don't come across as completely neutral.

My first post in this thread was neutral, just an opinion piece. The whole point of the xBox controller example was that anyone, with time and patience, can learn how to do it. It's not elitism as another poster indicated just that person put in the time to do it.

 

When the name-calling, disrespect and attacks started rolling I gave it right back. I am not going to remain neutral at that point in time. As I have stated in other posts, you (not you exorcet), get the level of respect you deserve.

 

For instance, your post wasn't inflammatory, degrading, insulting or any other negative term. I have no reason to talk in anything other than a respectful manner to you.

Okay, let me rephrase it for the lack of understanding on your part

So ad hominem rather than actually addressing the point. That's a good start. And since you know how it works, you also understand that it is a simplification and — hopefully — also why this simplification exists. Also a good start.

 

There are no options in-game to make landings easier.

Zoom, active pause, systems fault simulation, bombing the runway, ignoring ATC, being helped down (your favourite), and yes — not following procedure — they all make landing easier. Hell, even zone-triggered or universal invulnerability are available as options if you want to be really extreme in how easy you make it.

 

That's not how easy refuel works.

Says who? It doesn't exist yet. You can't criticise the unknown use of a non-existing functionality, and draw conclusions about what people will or will not learn from that unknown use, based on your guesses/assumptions/nightmares of how it might possibly be implemented should that ever happen.

 

Either the virtual pilot puts in the effort to fly in close proximity to the tanker in proper position to connect to the basket or boom and maintain it in order to take on fuel or the game does it for you. There's no in between here.

…other than making the pre-positioning easier, up to and included fully automated; making the connection easier, up to and fully automated; making the staying in position easier, up to and including fully automated; making the time requirement for staying there more lenient, up to and including being instantaneous — all of which can be accomplished both internally in the tanking plane, or in the tanker.

 

That's a lot of potential in-between, and many many layers of learning, you're dismissing outright based on some preconceived notion of what easy refuel must categorically be.

 

I already did.

Using the word “elitism” is hostile? Interesting. So you definitely didn't go first by dismissing as “invalid excuses” all kinds of different opinions and explanations for why this teaching tool is needed. Yeah, no.

 

That is not the equivalent of a straw man argument.

It is the very definition of a strawman argument. Rather than arguing against and refuting something posited by the other party (what an easy refuel option could, would, or should entail), you insert your own assertion of what it (for no particular reason) must entail, and then attack the argument as being “garbage” based on your own assertion.

 

This is what I typed....

…and the only part of that that matters is that “Some people want an easy refuel option, cool have at it.” Your incredulity at it being used by some to entice or improve learning is not particularly relevant.

 

You started off with your elitist BS

No. Read the exchange you quoted again…

 

Explain, if you will, why any of that respect you keep talking about should be extended to someone who out of hand dismisses all manners of opinions as “invalid” — does that really sound like a very respectful attitude to start out with?

 

How about this, if you stop using ad hominem arguments and start respecting other people's differing opinions rather than immediately and categorically dismissing them, and maybe some respect might be extended your way as well. Does that sound fair to you?

Edited May 22, 2019 by Tippis

Sorry for not reading all of the long texts. But I consider this thread to be at the point where I'm glad that DCS is no democracy where the majority defines what all of us have to want and to need.

 

 

I'm confident that the heads of ED do what they consider to be good for DCS.

 

 

Lots of threads walk this way these days, where one is told what to like, to do and to think.

 

 

I'm over and out here.

So ad hominem rather than actually addressing the point. That's a good start. And since you know how it works, you also understand that it is a simplification and — hopefully — also why this simplification exists. Also a good start.

AND... You don't know what an ad hominem attack is either. I absolutely addressed that point very clearly. I even reiterated the point.

 

Zoom, active pause, systems fault simulation, bombing the runway, ignoring ATC, being helped down (your favourite), and yes — not following procedure — they all make landing easier. Hell, even zone-triggered or universal invulnerability are available as options if you want to be really extreme in how easy you make it.

Zoom, is a simulation of using binocs in the cockpit. That technique was used by A-10 pilots in Desert Storm. Try again.

 

Systems fault Simulation is not a good example at all. The whole point is to simulate failures. You as the pilot will have to identify the fault and the appropriate response. A better example would be an easy button in the cockpit that would take all proactive measure in the event of a system failure. This is also a core gameplay feature.

 

Ignoring the ATC, well you can do that in real life too. Albeit the outcome will be much less pleasant.

 

How does bombing the runway correlate to easy refueling? That doesn't even make sense and it looks like you are really stretching to justify your position.

 

Invulnerability should not be in DCS, except in game mode. If it did not exist and people were calling for it to be added I would speak out against its inclusion. In fact if you really want, you can do research from years ago where people were experiencing landing issues because they were using invulnerability due to a bug and even I advised that they don't use it and just put in the time to learn how to land the bird.

 

Zone-triggered events are a core gameplay mechanic in the Mission Editor. Again, you are reaching here to justify your position and you are only making your position look weaker by using something like that as justification.

 

Says who? It doesn't exist yet. You can't criticise the unknown use of a non-existing functionality, and draw conclusions about what people will or will not learn from that unknown use, based on your guesses/assumptions/nightmares of how it might possibly be implemented.

Sure I can. If I cannot then you cannot speculate on its usefulness as a training aid. You know, in fact, I can go one step further. In the original LOMAC there was only the option of easy refuel, you could not manually fly and connect to a tanker. Funny how that did ZERO to prepare one for AAR in DCS...

 

It's simple. If you want to learn how to do something you put in the time to lean how to do it. Easy refuel will not teach you how to refuel your aircraft in the air.

 

…other than making the pre-positioning easier, up to and included fully automated; making the connection easier, up to and fully automated; making the staying in position easier, up to and including fully automated; making the time requirement for staying there more lenient, up to and including being instantaneous — all of which can be accomplished both internally in the tanking plane, or in the tanker.

You are still at the point that you become dependent on the system to do "x" for you. You still will not know how to do it without that assistance.

 

That's a lot of potential in-between, and many many layers of learning, you're dismissing outright based on some preconceived notion of what easy refuel must categorically be.

We'll have to disagree.

 

Using the word “elitism” is hostile? Interesting. So you definitely didn't go first by dismissing as “invalid excuses” all kinds of different opinions and explanations for why this teaching tool is needed. Yeah, no.

 

Seriously, do you even read what you type? You absolutely had no other meaning.

 

Pointless elitism is invalid; excuses are not. Doubly so when that elitism only serves to exclude more people because it assumes conditions that are far from universal. At that point, it moves beyond invalid and careens straight in the realm of being outright toxic.

 

 

It is the very definition of a strawman argument. Rather than arguing against and refuting something posited by the other party (what an easy refuel option could, would, or should entail), you insert your own assertion of what it (for no particular reason) must entail, and then attack the argument as being “garbage” based on your own assertion.

No. A strawman argument is if I refuted a position you never presented. You presented a position in favor or easy refueling and I have been in opposition to that position.

 

Calling your posts garbage is a declarative statement as to the nature of your posts.

 

…and the only part of that that matters is that “Some people want an easy refuel option, cool have at it.” Your incredulity at it being used by some to entice or improve learning is not particularly relevant.

That is not the only part that matters. You cannot take part of a statement out of context and claim that the rest of the statement are irrelevant. It doesn't work that way. You have to take the entirety of the thought, meaning each sentence that makes up a statement.

 

 

 

No. Read the exchange you quoted again…

Explain, if you will, why any of that respect you keep talking about should be extended to someone who out of hand dismisses all manners of opinions as “invalid” — does that really sound like a very respectful attitude to start out with?

As I have stated above, you were completely disrespectful with your entire elitism comment, notice how I look at the entirety of the statement instead of just a single word. You were the first to declare that ones statements are invalid. You cannot do such and then cry foul when it is done unto you.

No you didn't. We all have real-world issues that we deal with, you're not special.

 

 

 

See how you have to resort to defamation and name-calling to try and validate your position.... Keep trying.

 

 

 

If you only have 1-2 hours of flying, you don't need to practice AAR at all. Yeah, I went there as you cannot have a respectable conversation with other forum posters.

 

 

 

"Positive experience." That's a good one. I find joy in mastering difficult tasks. Being able to finally get connected and stay connected in a new module is a "positive experience."

 

 

 

What you do and what you enjoy is entirely on you. Some people want an easy refuel option, cool have at it. Don't try to justify the option as anything other than a lack of commitment to learn how to do it properly. I don't care what your justification is, the facts remain.

 

 

 

Quit taking offense to somebody who has a different opinion as you.

Man, what an A.. hole... Over, and out.

Man, what an A.. hole... Over, and out.

 

I love you too!

 

You validated my point.

Exorcet, others - I don't think this is the right game for you, unfortunately. This is a study level simulation that requires a vast amount of effort and practicing to gain proficiency.

 

If this is too hard for you, or others, then I suggest a recent arcade game (that I won't mention due to rules) that has all of the aspects of "easy" you are searching for. You can even play in on a console or PC and has HOTAS support.

 

The time you are sitting here arguing with us you could be training and learning to overcome a realistic aspect of flying a simulated jet fighter. There is a lot of advice in this thread, all very good, that could help you and others over this very real challenge.

 

With that, I'm done responding.

Hey guys, pretty good at AAR in the Hornet. If anyone wants to meet up and practice I'm happy to help you all "git gud." Send me a PM. EDT evening availability.

AND... You don't know what an ad hominem attack is either.

Incorrect. It's exactly what you started out with: an ignorant, irrelevant, and wholly unwarranted assumption about my person.

 

Indeed, it was — albeit implicitly — how your posting in this thread started.

 

Zoom etc

Zoom is not a binocular, and it is an in-game option available to make landing easier.

Systems fault simulation, while perhaps not a good example, is still an in-game option available to make landing easier (or harder for that matter).

Ignoring the ATC is an in-game option available to make landing easier. The fact that the outcome doesn't matter just makes it that more viable as an option.

Bombing the runway does not make refuelling easier, but it sure makes landing easier since you cut down on the amount of traffic that might interfere with you.

Invulnerability (both general and zone-triggered) exists as an in-game option to make landing easier whether you like it or not.

Active pause was skipped over, but let's reiterate that since it's an in-game option available to make landings easier.

 

The point here is that when you say that there are no in-game options for making landing easier, you are wrong. You might not think that there are, and it's anyone's guess why you overlooked these, but the bigger picture is that your overlooking these options most likely means you're not using them to make landing easier. You don't view them as learning or teaching tools because you forgot/overlooked/whatever that they existed.

 

Similarly, just because you don't view easy refuelling as a tool for learning, how much of that might be because you're forgetting/overlooking/whatever the options such an implementation might have?

 

Sure I can. If I cannot then you cannot speculate on its usefulness as a training aid.

Well, yes ok, you can but when you then try direct that criticism against what I'm saying it would just be a strawman since it's actually your own inserted imagination that you're criticising, not mine. Your idea for easy refuel is bad — ok, so let's not use your idea and implement a better version of easy refuelling. Problem solved. That doesn't actually refute what I'm saying about easy refuelling in any way.

 

And yes, I can speculate, exactly because that's what it is: speculation on a possible implementation. Not an assertion that something you never said will not work.

 

It's simple. If you want to learn how to do something you put in the time to lean how to do it. Easy refuel will not teach you how to refuel your aircraft in the air.

You don't know that. I can just as easily say that easy refuel will definitely teach you how to refuel your aircraft, and at least I can base that on how teaching and learning works. It will depend on the individual if that's a good method for them, of course, but that doesn't change that showing how it's done helps people learn how it's done.

 

Seriously, do you even read what you type? You absolutely had no other meaning.

Yes I did. Do not presume to tell me what I mean. And do not pretend to be all innocent when the first thing you did when a differing opinion was offered was to assert the invalidity of a whole slew of opinions.

 

A strawman argument is if I refuted a position you never presented.

…which is exactly what that example would be: trying to refute an implementation of easy refuelling based on your assumption of complete automation when that was not a position I ever presented.

 

That is not the only part that matters.

Yes it is, because if that part is actually true, then you don't really care about the rest. You don't approve of its use and think that it won't help — that's fine. But again, your incredulity is not actually an argument against its implementation, and that's the discussion we're having: for or against.

 

As I have stated above, you were completely disrespectful with your entire elitism comment

As were you in your entire comment about “invalid excuses” — the post that preceded and spurred that response.

 

 

This is a study level simulation that requires a vast amount of effort and practicing to gain proficiency.

Part of studying and practising is breaking down the problem in digestible chunks. Easy refuelling would thus make it even more of a study sim.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Tippis

Incorrect. It's exactly what you started out with.

Negative Ghost-Rider. Please cite the specific instance and I will thoroughly dismantle your claim.

 

Zoom is not a binocular, and it is an in-game option available to make landing easier.

Zoom is a simulation of a binocular. It does not make landing easier. I can land perfectly fine without the use of zoom.

 

Systems fault simulation, while perhaps not a good example, is still an in-game option available to make landing easier (or harder for that matter).

No. It is a core gameplay feature to simulate systems failures and you as the pilot have to overcome them. System failures cannot make landing easier....

 

Dude, really, I am trying my best to be understanding and be sympathetic to your position but you are making it more difficult with each post like this.

 

 

Ignoring the ATC is an in-game option available to make landing easier. The fact that the outcome doesn't matter just makes it that more viable as an option.

Ignoring ATC is not an "option" in the game that changes gameplay mechanics. You still have to land the aircraft. Now if there was a option for the aircraft to land for you then that is a different story all together.

 

You are conflating two completely different situations.

 

 

Bombing the runway does not make refuelling easier, but it sure makes landing easier since you cut down on the amount of traffic that might interfere with you.

Say what? You are so out in "left field" that I am not sure you are being serious. You seriously have to be trolling now... Holly crap I thought you were being serious this whole time.

 

 

Invulnerability (both general and zone-triggered) exists as an in-game option to make landing easier whether you like it or not.

No it does not.

 

 

Active pause was skipped over, but let's reiterate that since it's an in-game option available to make landings easier.

No it does not. Nothing you have cited so far amount to the plane landing itself without user input.....

 

 

The point here is that when you say that there are no in-game options for making landing easier, you are wrong. You might not think that there are, and it's anyone's guess why you overlooked these, but the bigger picture is that your overlooking these options most likely means you're not using them to make landing easier. You don't view them as learning or teaching tools because you forgot/overlooked/whatever that they existed.

No, at this point you are reaching into the abyss of the unknown to try and validate your position.

 

Similarly, just because you don't view easy refuelling as a tool for learning, how much of that might be because you're forgetting/overlooking/whatever the options such an implementation might have?

No. As I said, verbal or visual queues that help you get in position would be a good thing for new pilots. Easy Refuel where the system takes control will not teach you how to perform AAR and is no where in-line with your scenarios above that are an absolutely conflation.

 

 

Well, yes ok, you can but when you then try direct that criticism against what I'm saying it would just be a strawman since it's actually your own inserted imagination that you're criticising, not mine. Your idea for easy refuel is bad

No, that is not a straw man argument. A straw man argument is if you were making an argument for easy refuel and I stated you were for making a call for all of DCS to be setup in game mode.

 

I cannot fathom how you could try and argue "straw man" when you clearly don't even know what it is. You are either a troll or you are being completely intellectually dishonest in your assertions and I venture to guess the later.

 

— ok, so let's not use your idea and implement a better version of easy refuelling. Problem solved. That doesn't actually refute what I'm saying about easy refuelling in any way.

It unequivocally does. If it is not implemented then you have to put in the time to master the "art" of AAR.

 

You are trying to claim that an easy refuel mode would teach you how to AAR which it will not. You will not develop the fine motor skills to maintain proper position with the tanker.

 

You don't know that. I can just as easily say that easy refuel will definitely teach you how to refuel your aircraft, and at least I can base that on how teaching and learning works. It will depend on the individual if that's a good method for them, of course, but that doesn't change that showing how it's done helps people learn how it's done.

I do know that easy refuel will not teach you how to perform AAR. You will be no better at AAR after using an easy refuel option for months as you were prior.

 

 

Yes I did. Do not presume to tell me what I mean. And do not pretend to be all innocent when the first thing you did when a differing opinion was offered was to assert the invalidity of a whole slew of opinions.

Your meaning was quite clear; don't try to backtrack now. Man-up and take responsibility. The fact that I haven't claimed innocence, not once, further proves that your post are hyperbolic trash.

 

…which is exactly what that example would be: trying to refute an implementation of easy refuelling based on your assumption of complete automation when that was not a position I ever presented.

Easy refuel can be any form of assistance; either way YOU will not learn the proper and correct fine motor control if you rely on the system to perform AAR for you. Whether it plays a small part or large part, it is doing it for you since you are not in full control.

 

I have dismantled your position from top to bottom and you can only claim false ad hominem or straw man arguments that turn out to be completely basis.

 

Yes it is, because if that part is actually true, then you don't really care about the rest. You don't approve of its use and think that it won't help — that's fine. But again, your incredulity is not actually an argument against its implementation, and that's the discussion we're having: for or against.

Actually, because I do care I am telling people to do it the right way instead of gaming the system with an easy refuel option and never developing the fine motor control to be able to perform AAR on their own merit. If one did not care about others they would want an easy option as they cannot be bothered.

 

I on the other hand have spent countless hours with members of the squadron I fly with teaching them exactly how to perform AAR properly.

 

As were you in your entire comment about “invalid excuses” — the post that preceded and spurred that response.

Buahhahhahahahahah!

 

So citing how someone can learn to perform AAR with an xBox control and calling your excuses invalid spurred the responses... LOL that is laughable. The only way you can take offense to that and Spurr a response is if it "hit home" and you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Part of studying and practising is breaking down the problem in digestible chunks. Easy refuelling would thus make it even more of a study sim.

No, a study sim is such that you take the time to learn to do things correctly, not make this easier for your impatience and lack of dedication.
Edited May 22, 2019 by Revelation

Exorcet, others - I don't think this is the right game for you, unfortunately.

I'll have to disagree as ultra realistic flight simulation is my preferred game genre.

 

 

 

This is a study level simulation that requires a vast amount of effort and practicing to gain proficiency.

It also has a game mode. DCS is directed at a non-homogeneous user base. But let's put that aside. That the game offers easy modes take away nothing from the simulation aspect, which is what confuses me when it comes to negative responses toward additional easy features. There is one argument against that I find very easy to understand, which is that easy modes take dev resources. Everyone brings up every other point though and I don't see why those matter when you don't have to use assists.

 

 

If this is too hard for you, or others, then I suggest a recent arcade game (that I won't mention due to rules) that has all of the aspects of "easy" you are searching for. You can even play in on a console or PC and has HOTAS support.

Not sure what you're referring to, but I suspect that if it doesn't accurately simulate military aircraft that many in this thread wouldn't be interested. Wanting an easy feature does not in any way equate to wanting an arcade game. Just like using labels in DCS does not in any way correlate with flying in game mode. It's very reasonable to like labels while preferring every other option set to maximum realism.

 

 

As for me personally, as I hadn't performed AAR in DCS for some time, I actually went and did it quite a few days ago to make sure the complaints I had against it were valid (since the sim often changes). I was perfectly able to fill up in one attempt, though having not practiced it was sloppy and I did disconnect a couple of times. I'll say that the tanker AI (at least for the boom tanker) is no longer a problem, not sure if it was improved at some point. Visibility of the position lights under the tanker is very poor though. I can't see them on my screen without zooming in to the point that I lost spatial awareness or sight of my instruments. In any case I managed to refuel anyway. My position has nothing to do with how hard or not something is. My position comes out of the fact that options aren't binding, and thus having easy refuel or something similar takes nothing away from the sim.

 

 

The time you are sitting here arguing with us you could be training and learning to overcome a realistic aspect of flying a simulated jet fighter. There is a lot of advice in this thread, all very good, that could help you and others over this very real challenge.

That's only the case if the computer you're at has DCS on it. Again though I don't see what ability has to do with the argument.

 

 

If easy options are something to argue against, I'd like to see a reason why. I can't really say that someone doing things differently is much of a reason to be upset. If the request was to dumb down refueling so that you could not do it realistically, I would be against that instantly with no room for negotiation. That's not happening here.

 

 

I feel like we'd all be better off just letting people do what they want when it doesn't effect us, but that's just my opinion.

No, a study sim is such that you take the time to learn to do things correctly, not make this easier for your impatience and lack of dedication.

 

Ultimate realism means starting with a prop plane, flying the sim for an hour then it uninstalling itself because you're not in the top 0.01% of people who didn't get chopped.

 

DCS strives towards as much realism as possible. Adding features to make it less overwhelming to more casual players widens the player base without sacrificing realism for those who want it. ED understands that; why you don't is more of a puzzle.

Ultimate realism means starting with a prop plane, flying the sim for an hour then it uninstalling itself because you're not in the top 0.01% of people who didn't get chopped.

 

DCS strives towards as much realism as possible. Adding features to make it less overwhelming to more casual players widens the player base without sacrificing realism for those who want it. ED understands that; why you don't is more of a puzzle.

 

You miss the point of the conversation. If ED adds an easy refuel option, cool. Where I take issue is when an intellectual dishonest person claims it will teach people AAR.

You miss the point of the conversation. If ED adds an easy refuel option, cool. Where I take issue is when an intellectual dishonest person claims it will teach people AAR.

 

Ah now that could well be true, good point.

 

May I suggest a bit more... diplomacy? You've put your point across much better in that short paragraph than in the last few pages. Just a thought. :)

Negative Ghost-Rider. Please cite the specific instance and I will thoroughly dismantle your claim.

Okay, let me rephrase it for the lack of understanding on your part. As a USAF Veteran I know how it actually works - thanks though.

I look forward to you failing to explain how this is not a case of attacking the characteristic and authority of the other party as opposed to the actual substance of the argument.

 

Zoom etc

Just because you can land perfectly fine without the use of zoom does not mean that zoom does not make landing easier. As a system, it is also more of a simulation of the variable-focus (on both senses) eye than a fixed-magnification binocular.

 

System failures being a core gameplay feature does not make them any less of an option — in fact, it's what makes them an in-game option — and the ability to turn then on or off makes landings easier (or harder, if that's what you want instead).

 

Ignoring ATC is an option available to you. Since ATC is… ehrm… of a questionable quality and usefulnes, let's say, ignoring what it says cuts out part of the landing process and generally makes it easier.

 

Bombing the runway does indeed keep traffic away. Your ignorance of this quirk does not change the fact that it is an option, and that it makes landings easier.

 

Removing the chance of exploding on impact or of even breaking anything does, in spite of your assertion to the contrary, actually make landings easier. This is an in-game option available in DCS.

 

Active pause lets you do all the landing prep without having to worry about accidentally becoming a control tower hood ornament. This makes landings a bit easier.

 

Nothing you have cited so far amount to the plane landing itself without user input.

That was never the question. The question was whether there were were options to make landings easier. You said there weren't. All the aforementioned options prove you wrong. At no point have you been able to demonstrate that they either don't exist in the game or that they can't make landings easier. Your ignorance of or incredulity at the fact that these options make landings easier does not constitute an argument, much less an actual refutation of this fact.

 

No. As I said, verbal or visual queues that help you get in position would be a good thing for new pilots. Easy Refuel where the system takes control will not teach you how to perform AAR and is no where in-line with your scenarios above that are an absolutely conflation.

It will show you how to do AAR, which immediately means it can teach you about how you should do AAR. Same as any other instruction by showing. Moreover, as mentioned again and again, there is nothing that categorically demands that easy refuel must take complete control — it is only easy refuel; not automatic refuel. Easy radio does not automate all things radio — it removes (most of) the part where you have to fiddle with frequencies. Easy game mode does not automate the game or your flying — it removes (some of) the avionics fiddling and in some cases alters the flight model (which actually makes it more difficult at times, funnily enough).

 

Analogously, there is nothing inherent about “easy refuel” that means it must mean a fully automated process, or that you cannot possibly learn from it or use it as a teaching tool. Even at its most extreme, you can learn from it; more sensible implementations would let you learn even more.

 

A straw man argument is if you were making an argument for easy refuel and I stated you were for making all of DCS to setup in game mode.

…or if I'm making an argument for easy refuel that just makes refuelling… well… easier, and you refute an argument where easy refuel automates the process.

 

It unequivocally does.

No. It only ostensibly refutes the argument that your vision of easy refuelling would not achieve what I'm talking about, but since I'm not basing my argument and my speculations about what it would achieve on your vision, that refutation does not affect my stance in the slightest.

 

There is more to AAR than fine motor skills. Easy refuelling could trivially teach you those things. Others here have mentioned watching youtube videos as a way to learn how to AAR, and that's true as well, even though that does not have the interactivity and responsiveness that even a fully automated implementation would offer.

 

I do know that easy refuel will not teach you how to perform AAR.

No. You only feel that your vision of easy refuel would not teach some people. I have no problem visualising an easy refuel option that would; I also have no problem seeing that even your vision would offer some lessons that you can learn from. Again, argument from incredulity does not actually hold that much water…

 

Man-up and take responsibility.

Will you?

 

I have dismantled your position from top to bottom

No. You have only shown that you don't even understand a rather central portion of the game, and you have only offered fallacies (with the odd interspersed unqualified “nuh-uh” to spice things up) as attempted counters to my facts. At no point have you ever actually been able to address or disprove anything I've said.

 

Actually, because I do care I am telling people to do it the right way instead of gaming the system with an easy refuel option and never developing the fine motor control to be able to perform AAR on their own merit.

…and as it happens, none of that is an argument against it being implemented. If it's there, like you say, “cool have at it”; or as you also say, “if ED adds an easy refuel option, cool”. The argument we're having is whether or not it should be added to the game — you're cool with that, and so am I except for a different reason: I see how it could be a useful tool for people who want to learn to AAR.

 

So citing how someone can learn to perform AAR with an xBox control and calling your excuses invalid spurred the responses.

I don't know what excuses you're referring to here, but they certainly weren't mine. You made a categorical assertion that “excuses are invalid”, which is a pretty blatant disrespect for other people's opinion, preferences, and time. This is further reinforced by how you've continued to disparage those who do not live up to your standards of patience and “dedication”. You refuse to own up to this immediate show of disrespect that slipped out the very instant a differing opinion to yours was uttered.

 

No, a study sim is such that you take the time to learn to do things correctly

[citation needed]
Edited May 22, 2019 by Tippis

I look forward to you failing to explain how this is not a case of attacking the characteristic and authority of the other party as opposed to the actual substance of the argument.

Citation needed.

 

Just because you can land perfectly fine without the use of zoom does not mean that zoom does not make landing easier. As a system, it is also more of a simulation of the variable-focus (on both senses) eye than a fixed-magnification binocular.

The fact that you cannot grasp the difference between a zoom and a computer assisted/controlled AAR is beyond intriguing....

 

System failures being a core gameplay feature does not make them any less of an option — in fact, it's what makes them an in-game option — and the ability to turn then on or off makes landings easier (or harder, if that's what you want instead).

We've been over this, you are wrong and you are "reaching" to try and justify your position that easy refuel will train people to be better at AAR.

 

Ignoring ATC is an option available to you. Since ATC is… ehrm… of a questionable quality and usefulnes, let's say, ignoring what it says cuts out part of the landing process and generally makes it easier.

Again, completely unrelated. Maybe it would be easier for you to just uninstall DCS....

 

Bombing the runway does indeed keep traffic away. Your ignorance of this quirk does not change the fact that it is an option, and that it makes landings easier.

No it does not. Maybe you should learn how to better design missions so you don't have to engage in fratricide to land.

 

Removing the chance of exploding on impact or of even breaking anything does, in spite of your assertion to the contrary, actually make landings easier. This is an in-game option available in DCS.

Incorrect. The landing is not easier, simply that the repercussion from a bad landing are non-existent. You still have no clue what you are talking about.

 

Active pause lets you do all the landing prep without having to worry about accidentally becoming a control tower hood ornament. This makes landings a bit easier.

No. It does not make landing easier. You still have to land. Active Pause simply allows one to take a "breather." By your logic Active Pause makes you better at AAR, when in fact it does not.

 

That was never the question. The question was whether there were were options to make landings easier. You said there weren't. All the aforementioned options prove you wrong. At no point have you been able to demonstrate that they either don't exist in the game or that they can't make landings easier. Your ignorance of or incredulity at the fact that these options make landings easier does not constitute an argument, much less an actual refutation of this fact.

You still have to land the plane, it takes your skill to put it on the ground. Nothing you have listed makes it easier to put it on the ground. You are ignorant of basic logic.

 

It will show you how to do AAR, which immediately means it can teach you about how you should do AAR. Same as any other instruction by showing. Moreover, as mentioned again and again, there is nothing that categorically demands that easy refuel must take complete control — it is only easy refuel; not automatic refuel.

Whether it takes complete control or partial control you are not learning the fine motor skills needed to AAR on your own and you are no better for it. That is a plain and simple fact that you continually ignore.

 

For it to show you how to do AAR it has to have complete control. Unless you are referring to visual or audio queues that I have already mentioned would be good for new pilots.

 

 

Easy radio does not automate all things radio — it removes (most of) the part where you have to fiddle with frequencies.

Right, you don't have to adjust the frequency or use the correct radio. You just press a button and the system does it for you. It's "easy" and you fail to grasp the basics of how the radios in game work. I cannot count the number of times people gotten a server that had easy radios disabled and they complained because they didn't know how to get it go work.

 

You actually just proved my point in regards to easy refuel.

 

 

 

IEasy game mode does not automate the game or your flying — it removes (some of) the avionics fiddling and in some cases alters the flight model (which actually makes it more difficult at times, funnily enough).

And if you only flew in game mode you wouldn't know how any o the systems worked and you would be completely ineffective in sim mode. Again, you just proved my point...

 

…or if I'm making an argument for easy refuel that just makes refuelling… well… easier, and you refute an argument where easy refuel automates the process.

Maybe you cannot read where I have said any form prevents you from learning the fine motor skills of AAR. Quit being disingenuous, you have not "gotchas" to rely on here.

 

No. It only ostensibly refutes the argument that your vision of easy refuelling would not achieve what I'm talking about, but since I'm not basing my argument and my speculations about what it would achieve on your vision, that refutation does not affect my stance in the slightest.

You obviously have no clue what my vision is. You clearly haven't read my responses as I have specifically not said strictly complete control.

 

 

There is more to AAR than fine motor skills. Easy refuelling could trivially teach you those things. Others here have mentioned watching youtube videos as a way to learn how to AAR, and that's true as well, even though that does not have the interactivity and responsiveness that even a fully automated implementation would offer.

Day refueling CANNOT teach you the fine motor skills for AAR. What planet do you live on where you believe such nonsense?

 

 

No. You only feel that your vision of easy refuel would not teach some people. I have no problem visualising an easy refuel option that would; I also have no problem seeing that even your vision would offer some lessons that you can learn from. Again, argument from incredulity does not actually hold that much water…

My vision, as you put it, is based off of the Flight Sim industry of the past several decades. So do tell, genius, what is your vision that is so hard for us mere mortals to grasp?

 

Divine fallacy has no place in this discussion as it was not used. You keep trying to catch-phrases to support your position and you are falling flat on your face.

 

Will you?

Wow, that is so profound of you. I can AAR I don't need to man-up and take responsibility for my lack of dedication. Again, will you?

 

No. You have only shown that you don't even understand a rather central portion of the game, and you have only offered fallacies (with the odd interspersed unqualified “nuh-uh” to spice things up) as attempted counters to my facts. At no point have you ever actually been able to address or disprove anything I've said.

Actually I have. You simply refuse to accept facts.

 

You keep bringing up how zoom makes it easier to land - BS. Zoom has nothing to do with landing.

 

You then state that bombing runways makes it easier to land - BS. Fratricide is not a solution to bad mission design.

 

You then state invulnerability makes it easier to land - BS. This will not entice a player to learn the mechanics of a proper landing and will result in bad habits. This does not make landing easier.

 

You then state ignoring ATC makes it easier to land - BS. ATC does nothing for or against landing. ATC does not guide you in nor does it fly the aircraft for you.

 

You cited that easy refuel will help train people at AAR - BS. Pilots will not learn the fine motor skills to stay in position to get gas. You have provided no facts or substance to substantiate your position.

 

 

 

…and as it happens, none of that is an argument against it being implemented. If it's there, like you say, “cool have at it”; or as you also say, “if ED adds an easy refuel option, cool”. The argument we're having is whether or not it should be added to the game — you're cool with that, and so am I except for a different reason: I see how it could be a useful tool for people who want to learn to AAR.

As I have said - very clearly for the laymen to understand.

 

It's not needed as it will not benefit someone that wants to learn AAR properly. If ED adds it fine. Simply admit that you do not have the patience and discipline to learn to do it right. Quit hiding behind the BS you can "train" with it.

 

I don't know what excuses you're referring to here, but they certainly weren't mine. You made a categorical assertion that “excuses are invalid”, which is a pretty blatant disrespect for other people's opinion, preferences, and time. This is further reinforced by how you've continued to disparage those who do not live up to your standards of patience and “dedication”. You refuse to own up to this immediate show of disrespect that slipped out the very instant a differing opinion to yours was uttered.

Yes, your excuses are invalid for not learning AAR the proper way. Just admit you don't have what it takes and you need an easy button. We can all get on with our day.

 

Any disparagement you feel you have suffered is brought on solely by your ineffective communication, false declarations of attacks, personal strife and general lack of intelligence to have a respectable conversation.

 

Again, YOU get the level of respect YOU deserve.

 

[citation needed]

Are you seriously so obtuse you don't know what a study-level sim is?

Ah now that could well be true, good point.

 

May I suggest a bit more... diplomacy? You've put your point across much better in that short paragraph than in the last few pages. Just a thought. :)

 

I'd love to Flamin, I really would. Simply put, other posters have refused to engage in civil dialogue and they get the level of respect they deserve. While it's not constructive to the topic, watching them lie and engage in dishonest debate tactics is fun...

Citation needed.

How many do

need? See how easy that was?

Now, would you care to explain how it was not a case of attacking the characteristic and authority of the other party as opposed to the actual substance of the argument?

 

The fact that you cannot grasp the difference between a zoom and a computer assisted/controlled AAR is beyond intriguing....

It is also a completely new red herring you're introducing since that's never been a connection I've ever made.

 

We've been over this, you are wrong

Prove it. You haven't actually been able to offer up any evidence to suggest anything of the kind yet, other than to make increasingly abusive statements that turn out to be factually false.

 

Again, all of the factors I've listed exist in the game and make landing easier. You have yet to actually demonstrate the opposite of either. You're just saying “no” without offering any argumentation or reasoning behind it.

 

If you doubt the facts I presented, test them. You'll see that they do what I'm telling you. If you happen to come across some instance where they don't, you can show it off and actually prove me wrong, which just saying “no” does not.

 

And yes, being able to see the airport more clearly makes landing easier. Not being able to break the plane does indeed make landing easier. Not having to contend with other traffic (which can be done in numerous ways, none of which have anything to do with bad mission design — that's just some nonsense strawman you injected because you apparently don't understand how parts of the game works) makes landing easier. Not having to juggle as many tasks at the same time (which can be done in numerous ways) makes landing easier.

 

Those are the arguments being put forward. If you think none of that is true, please explain why. Just saying “no” is not an explanation or proof.

 

You still have to land the plane, it takes your skill to put it on the ground.

Yes, but there are numerous options to make it easier to put the plane on the ground; to reduce the skill requirement; to reduce task saturation — in other words, to make landing easier.

 

Whether it takes complete control or partial control you are not learning the fine motor skills needed to AAR on your own and you are no better for it. That is a plain and simple fact that you continually ignore.

I addressed that: there is more to AAR than fine motor skills. You can keep harping on about those motor skills as much as you like, but until you actually address the point you stand no chance of actually mounting a rebuttal. The fact of the matter is that there are more things to learn. An easy refuel option could be fully capable of teaching those things. Address that.

 

So no, I didn't ignore it — you were just too locked into your singular focus to notice.

 

You actually just proved my point in regards to easy refuel.

Actually, you completely missed the point: that “easy” does not mean “automatic”. All of those instances demonstrate different variations of “easy” that simply entail skipping over certain parts, but leaving others for the player to deal with.

 

You obviously have no clue what my vision is.

You were quite clear in the false dichotomy you painted: “either the virtual pilot puts in the effort to fly in close proximity to the tanker in proper position to connect to the basket or boom and maintain it in order to take on fuel or the game does it for you.”

 

As previously explained there are many in-between stages that would let and/or require the pilot to observe and/or handle on their own the different tasks involved.

 

Day refueling CANNOT teach you the fine motor skills for AAR. What planet do you live on where you believe such nonsense?

That is 100% your nonsense. I have never suggested anything of the kind.

 

Divine fallacy has no place in this discussion as it was not used.

Your entire line of argumentation boils down to not believing that an easy refuel option can teach people anything about AAR. You keep bringing it up in every part of your response. You assert this without any evidence other than your incredulity to back it up. Meanwhile, others know fully well that learning by observation is a thing; that instruction by demonstration is a thing; that there is more to AAR than simple fine motor skills — visuals in particular; that instructional videos have helped people in learning how to AAR. All of which trumps your belief that it cannot possibly happen.

 

You're quite right: arguments from incredulity have no place in this discussion, but you keep using them — they are the cornerstone of your entire spiel.

 

I can AAR I don't need to man-up and take responsibility for my lack of dedication.

That was not the question. I ask again: will you man up and take responsibility for your initial hostility?

 

Actually I have.

Again, you're just listing a bunch of “no”:s — assertions that you have not actually proven or even argued to be true, or which are just gross misrepresentations of what I'm even saying.

 

It's not needed as it will not benefit someone that wants to learn AAR properly.

Are you saying that observation does not help learning? That demonstration is not a teaching tool? That breaking down a problem into digestible parts does not help with understanding? Again, you only throw out that assertion, and the only argument you have in its favour is to speak of fine motor skills as if that was the only thing AAR consisted of.

 

Yes, your excuses are invalid

What are “my” excuses, pray tell? And just to be clear: you must be able to quote me on them or it's just more BS strawman you've invented because of your complete inability to actually base any of your arguments on something remotely related to reality.

 

Are you seriously so obtuse you don't know what a study-level sim is?

That wasn't the question. Could you please for once actually provide an answer? Where did you get that definition of study sim from?
Edited May 22, 2019 by Tippis

+1 for Easy Refuel Option

++++++1 for Easy/Auto AAR option

I'm an avid sim enthusiast, and like many here, I like it has real as it gets (or it isn't a simulator for me), and as a study level the DCS F/A-18C is, it requires practice in many aspects, incluing AAR. But for practice, free time is needed accordingly, and proper hardware setup is also needed... witch I don't have both, and so I prefer to focus on avionics and weapon systems, that I can learn in less then an hour and enjoy them as I like, when I the time for it, then mastering a task witch I can't even succed with hours of trying, and frustration, for not getting to it... 

So, why not having it as an option ? like the word means, it's optional, you can have it enabled or not... 

Edited April 21, 2023 by lonewwolf