Air to air refueling... - Page 9 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-24-2019, 07:55 PM   #81
Harlikwin
Veteran
 
Harlikwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Living rent free in your mind
Posts: 4,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
That's not wrong, but it is only half of the truth. What I miss in this answer and in DCS is the stabilising part of the connection itself. There a procedures to tow a fighter back to safe airspace. You can't do this without a connection that is more than it is now in DCS.


Imho it is not abstract caus it is not real life, it is abstract caus it is not realistically simulated in DCS yet.


There would be so much benefit if it was done realistically. And why shouldn't it be done like IRL? AAR and carrier landings are two major challenges with flight sims. Those should not be artificially easier than IRL but certainly they should not be harder just because there are important aspects missing that can be implemented if there was a will to do that.
Yup. A good example of a connection would be applying a force vector along the boom axis from the plane. I.e. up and forward. This plane motion should be restricted or redistributed to the tanker somehow. Side to side oscillations should likely be damped a bit as well. The only thing that shouldn't have too much of an effect should be a reducing speed/descending maneuver, but even in this case there should be somewhat of a coupling force required to unplug.

Right now you are 100% just station keeping in some magic fuel box which doesn't "feel" right to me. I find it much easier to tank with the basket tankers f18/14/su33 etc. And while it might be the same thing, keep the plane in the fueling box, it somehow seems different, maybe different visual cueing? IDK...
__________________
New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)
Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).
Harlikwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2019, 08:08 PM   #82
Tom Kazansky
Member
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Germany
Posts: 507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlikwin View Post
Right now you are 100% just station keeping in some magic fuel box which doesn't "feel" right to me. I find it much easier to tank with the basket tankers f18/14/su33 etc. And while it might be the same thing, keep the plane in the fueling box, it somehow seems different, maybe different visual cueing? IDK...

Exactly!


It might be the case that the basket zone is a lot larger than the boom zone. Especially the forward and aft range. But that is just an unconfirmed feeling.


However my dream is about a future where boom refuelling is easier than basket AAR. Achieved by a realistic contact.
Tom Kazansky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2019, 09:00 PM   #83
Shimmergloom667
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Bochum, Germany
Posts: 426
Default

While I don't have a problem with AAR'ing either way, boom refueling already is a ton easier, for me, subjectively. I had it nailed earlier than the basket, because just like in real life it is basically formation flying and holding first and foremost.
__________________
i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | X56 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | Ka-50 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | UH-1H
Shimmergloom667 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2019, 06:32 AM   #84
Tom Kazansky
Member
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Germany
Posts: 507
Default

Since there is no way that a fighter can be towed or stabilized by a single percent of any extent, the DCS implementation of boom refuelling is certainly not like it is in real life. This is not an opinion. It is logic.


And I hope realism where it helps many struggling users is more important than: I don't want it caus I don't need it. Still no offence with your opinion but would it really hurt if they implement a more realistic contact with the boom?
Tom Kazansky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2019, 07:37 AM   #85
Sierra99
ED Testers Team
 
Sierra99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 2,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlikwin View Post
Yup. A good example of a connection would be applying a force vector along the boom axis from the plane. I.e. up and forward. This plane motion should be restricted or redistributed to the tanker somehow. Side to side oscillations should likely be damped a bit as well. The only thing that shouldn't have too much of an effect should be a reducing speed/descending maneuver, but even in this case there should be somewhat of a coupling force required to unplug.
But thats not how it works in real life. Forces of the nature you are describing would damage equipment. The forces applied along the axis of the boom you are describing are minimal because the boom telescopes freely in and out while in contact. Surge boots and valves ensure hydraulic forces inside the fuel tube are minimized. In the KC-135 while in contact the boom operator manually aligns the boom with the receptacle. The best indication the boom is properly aligned is when it’s “Dancing”. When the boom is Wiggling juuuuust slightly right where the inner and outer tube meet there is no stress on the connection. On the KC-10 the Boom Computer flies the boom to maintain less than 500lbs of pressure in any one direction.

And lateral boom position has far more effect than you believe. Not because the receiver is applying force...because that long skinny boom actually has quite a bit of surface area and it’s attached to the tail of the airplane right under the rudder. During CFIC we would fly the departure out of castle with the boom. By flying the boom out to the right or left limit we would cause the airplane to roll and turn the direction we wanted.

And there is no force required to uncouple. When the boom goes in the receptacle, latch toggles hydraulically capture the boom. On disconnect, the toggles retract and the boom floats out of the receptacle if boom alignment is good. If the toggles don’t retract...there is a procedure. But normally no force.
__________________

Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.
Sierra99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2019, 07:59 AM   #86
Tom Kazansky
Member
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Germany
Posts: 507
Default

that's verry interesting Sierra99. Thank you for the clarification.



But how does towing a fighter work with close to no force on the boom? (Did I miss something? EDIT: I reread your post and I now got it: "latch toggles" do the job, right?) Is there a system that holds connection if you have to, so the connection stands a drag that is caused by too less thottle of the fighter?


I was verry excited while reading your post about dropping a F-16 like a tank . It seemed to me, that there is quite a bit force, that a boom can stand in the extending direction. I mean, you havn't been fired from the airforce for risking government material, have you? (just kidding)


I appreciate your posts. every single one, and look forward to understand how AAR with a boom IRL differs from DCS implementation.


a) What is your opinion with DCS boom refueling?



b) Do we need a better implemention?


c) If yes, do we need a damage model for uncorrect boom-receiver-interaction?


(I'm sorry, I have 100 questions but I don't wanna waste too much of your time.)

Last edited by Tom Kazansky; 09-25-2019 at 09:02 AM.
Tom Kazansky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2019, 09:25 AM   #87
Shimmergloom667
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Bochum, Germany
Posts: 426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
And I hope realism where it helps many struggling users is more important than: I don't want it caus I don't need it. Still no offence with your opinion but would it really hurt if they implement a more realistic contact with the boom?
Like I said: I am all for realistic options, I just don't feel that what we have is entirely unrealistic. As Sierra99 (being an SME better listen to him and not me, anyways ) said: there's little to no forces involved, with good reason.

And because of that I still think what we we have is decently realistic. He may chime in more on that
__________________
i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | X56 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | Ka-50 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | UH-1H
Shimmergloom667 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2019, 09:49 AM   #88
Tom Kazansky
Member
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Germany
Posts: 507
Default

Yes, I'm completely with you. Info from a real boom operator is of much more value than any speculation. I understood Sierra's last post quite like you. If there is/should be close to no force to the boom I want to know if it is enough to help the receiving pilot while holding position. And if so, I strongly recommend to get that into DCS.


I once was overwhelmed by the challenge of AAR. And after lots and lots of practice and buying a new stick I'm now able to get my fuel quite well and concider AAR super fun.


But I'm a little bit... disturbed by the thought that a real contact should have been helpful and might have been able to cut my training time to half of it.


I'm still driven by the dream that closing a tanker with a DCS Viper brings more joy than "fear". Not only to me but to all of those that complain about AAR in so many threads.


If ED has AAR covered realistically enough and there is evidence for it, I'll give up my dream. But if it ain't so, I won't stop til I see a realistic contact with a boom.
Tom Kazansky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2019, 03:08 PM   #89
Sierra99
ED Testers Team
 
Sierra99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 2,168
Default

Quote:
But how does towing a fighter work with close to no force on the boom? (Did I miss something? EDIT: I reread your post and I now got it: "latch toggles" do the job, right?) Is there a system that holds connection if you have to, so the connection stands a drag that is caused by too less throttle of the fighter?

The envelope is defined by automatic limit switches connected to the boom; the envelope permits a limited amount of fore and aft movement and some freedom of maneuver in the pitching, rolling and yawing planes. The envelope limits are set well within the mechanical limitations of the boom; therefore, provided the envelope limits are not exceeded too rapidly, disconnect will occur before the boom is damaged. The freedom of maneuver in boom elevation is reduced for some receiver aircraft because of their receptacle characteristics. For example F-15s are limited in Left azimuth because as the receiver moves Left the Fuel Tube and Boom get quite close to the Canopy. I ">THINK< The F-16 and A-10 were the only fighters that could use the entier 20-40 U/D 10-10 L/R of the -13 envelope. The rest had some sort of limitation either UP (NO higher than 25) or L/R as the F-15.


Quote:
I was very excited while reading your post about dropping a F-16 like a tank . It seemed to me, that there is quite a bit force, that a boom can stand in the extending direction. I mean, you havn't been fired from the airforce for risking government material, have you? (just kidding)
We only did that occasionally


I appreciate your posts. every single one, and look forward to understand how AAR with a boom IRL differs from DCS implementation.


a) What is your opinion with DCS boom refueling?

The biggest limitation of DCS AAR is the Boom Operator doesn't "learn". In 1987 I cautious with every contact...the more stable the receiver was...the better I felt about my abilities. Over time that changed I learned the receiver didn't need to be rock steady in the middle of the box to get a contact...I got more confident in my abilities which made it easier for BOTh of us. I wasn't afraid of bashing the receiver...he didn't have to work so hard waiting foor me to plug him.

b) Do we need a better implementation?

Everything could be "better"...the question is what do you want ED putting their resources in to? For me, AAR is a diversion. I don't "Need it" to fly the missions I fly.

Here's the thing folks need to understand. AAR allows aircraft to loiter for hours and not do anything...My avatar pic was taken over Iraq during OIF. We refueled a Pair of A-10s 5 times over 3 hours in the dead of night while the folks on the ground sorted out exactly what targets they wanted hit. Finally they came to get gas and told us they wouldn't be back. The went and hit the targets and went home. We don't do missions like that in DCS...Most people would call them boring...but it's real life. We use AAR to establish and most importantly MAINTAIN a presence over a country. In DCS we wanna bomb stuff...which is fine...but we dont really need AAR to do it.

NOW that being said I'd like to see a better Carrier AAR asset. There is a big difference between maintaining a presence for hours and "I just boltered 4 times and now I'm outta gas". Carrier folks could use a better AAR platform because operationally its much more critical to them on every mission.


c) If yes, do we need a damage model for uncorrect boom-receiver-interaction?

Again where do you want the resources. In 22 years I only saw real 'damage' to a receiver once. (I flew home with parts of HIS airplane still attached to mine...During a SAC ORI...And I got an award...Go figure...Loooooong story.) Most of the time poor interactions result in scratched paint and a "broken / unusable system"...but no real visible damage.
__________________

Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.
Sierra99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2019, 03:18 PM   #90
Shimmergloom667
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Bochum, Germany
Posts: 426
Default

Thanks for your real-life insight, that is highly interesting! That I see things similar with regards to DCS is just the icing on the cake
__________________
i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | X56 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | Ka-50 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | UH-1H
Shimmergloom667 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:01 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.