Auto Air to Air Refuel

[lmp]

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

Are you sure? Do you really believe that the two scenarios I painted are exactly the same in terms of how the use of the two different options affect how you can approach the mission? Read them again and think about it.

No, but that's not what you said

 

"One of those two will massively change every single part of the mission and how you approach it; one of them will not, and indeed cannot possibly do so."

 

Both can affect the entirety of the mission. Unlimited fuel is more likely to and it will affect it in a bigger way, but that doesn't mean there's a level playing field between people who would use automatic refueling and those who wouldn't.

 

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

So what? What's the problem?

 

 

Let me rephrase that in case I wasn't clear. The "manual player" will have degraded SA for the 5 - 10 minutes while the "automatic player" will not. The "manual player" will have to judge whether his skills are up to the task of refueling a battle damaged plane, while the "automatic player" won't. Those may be "only" 5 - 10 minutes, but that can be enough to make or break a mission. I'm sure I don't have to explain how dangerous can having no SA for 5 - 10 minutes be.

 

10 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Ok?

 

Ok! That is what I'm trying to prove here, that this handicap, like any other handicap such as unlimited fuel, will need house rules/gentlemen agreements in order not to be abused. Some may be easier to abuse than others, but this one is certainly not free of possible exploits.

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, lmp said:

No, but that's not what you said

 

"One of those two will massively change every single part of the mission and how you approach it; one of them will not, and indeed cannot possibly do so."

 

Both can affect the entirety of the mission. Unlimited fuel is more likely to and it will affect it in a bigger way

On other words, one will massively change every single part of the mission and how you approach it; one of them will not and indeed cannot.

 

One of them lets you completely ignore all considerations of finding a compromise between armaments carried and being able to even get off the ground, much less reach the AO; one does not.

One of them lets you rather trivially bypass air defences and removes all need to carefully consider your route planning; one does not.

One of them lets you just kill whatever because you can loiter forever and pick targets for your massively bloated arsenal; one does not.

One of them lets you just push the throttle to go-faster-position and leave it there; one does not.

One of them lets you take a complete yolo attitude towards the mission; one lets you take a bit of a yolo attitude towards the mission.

 

So my question, again, is: do you really believe that those two are the same?

 

Quote

The "manual player" will have degraded SA for the 5 - 10 minutes while the "automatic player" will not.

Going by you suggestion of what he'll do with those 5–10 minutes, the automatic player most certainly will.

But that's assuming that you don't do outright evil things like… well… making it AI controlled — as a smiling man in glasses once said, what good is a phone call what good is SA if you are unable to act on it? If it's really that much of an issue (and that's questionable to begin with), it's not like it's difficult to give it detrimental side-effects.

 

Quote

Ok! That is what I'm trying to prove here, that this handicap, like any other handicap such as unlimited fuel, will need house rules/gentlemen agreements in order not to be abused.

And that was never in question, so…

Indeed, that's kind of the whole point of adding such an option: that in the vast majority of cases, it won't make the slightest bit of differences, but in the select few where it might, you can trivially decide whether you want it or not. Just about everyone benefits.

[lmp]

They are not the same, unlimited fuel can be exploited a lot more, but automatic refueling can affect the entire mission. If, say, your SEAD element can't refuel in time for the push because one of them keeps fumbling... you're without SEAD, for some time at least, or you delay the push, have everybody reconsider refueling again and so on. If you're refueling manually, you won't go to the tanker with 10 minutes of fuel left, you'll go earlier, do one or two fewer passes at the target. Even if you get it right 99% of the time, the mere thought that you have only one chance at it will make you tense up and it'll probably be the 1% when you screw up.

 

AAR is often a really big part of the mission and it can have a cascading effect on a lot of things - especially when there are many people who have to not fail simultaneously. The impact of automatic refueling would be significant enough that I trust it would be banned on most public server, and private sessions - if they aim to be realistic - would enforce their own house rules (such as go to tanker with at least enough fuel for several approaches, look at the tanker while you refuel, don't look at the SA page or do any housekeeping in the meantime...) to eliminate at least some of the advantages players choosing to use the handicap would have.

 

And if you need house rules for automatic refueling... it at least partially defeats this particular argument in favor of it. There are others. Better ones. But this one is flawed - whether you use unlimited fuel, automatic refueling or some sort of script that does it for you, you will need rules to keep it realistic and fair. Different handicaps are unfair to different degrees, but that automatic refueling won't affect the mission at all is simply not true.

[sthompson]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

As for “if you don't want it — don't do it”, that defuses and deflates pretty much every single argument against this kind of improvement to the game.

Well said. I think I will start a wishlist item asking them to stop working on the Viper so that they can focus on my pet wishes. If you don't like the Viper as is, just don't use it. Problem solved.

[Tippis]

  

25 minutes ago, lmp said:

They are not the same, unlimited fuel can be exploited a lot more,

…aaaaaaand that was the whole point. Congratulations.

More specifically, where unlimited fuel inherently creates exploits (some of them not even beneficial to the user), an auto-refuel feature does not. It can conceivably be exploited under certain circumstances, but it is not automatic, nor is it as extensive and universal even when those circumstances are in place.

 

Quote

And if you need house rules for automatic refueling... it at least partially defeats this particular argument in favor of it.

Not really, no. It simply demonstrates that it has no impact on the people that are adamantly opposed to improvements to the game for no adequately explained reason; that their “don't use it” argument actually works against them rather than in their favour.

 

The ability to choose the rules of your mission does not in any way “defeat” the very obvious fact that unlimited fuel is not a viable “solution” that would obviate the need for an auto-refuel option. I don't know, maybe you've just misunderstood what this particular argument actually is. It is simply this: people keep bringing up infinite fuel as a “workaround” that makes it unnecessary to let more players play more realistic missions through the use of some kind of AAR helper system, but the simple fact of the matter is that it fails in every way to actually do what they think it does — it does not do the same thing; it does much much worse things; by its very nature, it creates infinitely more unrealistic and broken scenarios than what an AAR helper system would. They should stop bringing it up because it only serves to highlight their own ignorance about how DCS works, and it makes them argue — quite weirdly  — against more realism, often on the basis that more realism would be less realistic. Somehow.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Tippis

[sthompson]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

You guys are trying to say how big of a problem it is while it's like 2 campaigns that already take care of the issue. You're free to choose how you handle it and that's fine.

For many pilots and many aircraft it's bread and butter to AAR daily so it's funny how players deliberately put a lot of time on BVR, WVR or A2G and yet ignore AAR. It's their choice of course but they should deal with consequenses and that means no long flights. Does it take time to learn the skill or just better hardware to manage it doesn't matter - these are still choices players make.

What is really needed here is better AAR simulation, collision and damage model - not some simplification that already can be workaround in many ways.

And lastly AAR is not something that is forced on you. It's a skill like many others. You either learn it or not. Just like formations, patterns, procedures, comms or aerobatics. If you don't want it - don't do it. Simple as that. You don't need helpers and simplifications for every one of these things.

 

Those two campaigns avoid the issue rather than "taking care of" it, and the fact that they felt compelled to do so shows that it really is a problem. (Their approach won't work for multiplayer in any event.) As for the rest of your post, you seem to miss that many of the people asking for some help HAVE spent a lot of time trying to learn it, DO want to learn, but have not been successful. It's really arrogant to argue that other people shouldn't have something just because you and others don't need it. 

 

[lmp]

41 minutes ago, Tippis said:

More specifically, where unlimited fuel inherently creates exploits (some of them not even beneficial to the user), an auto-refuel feature does not. It can conceivably be exploited under certain circumstances, but it is not automatic, nor is it as extensive and universal even when those circumstances are in place.

 

It is not as extensive and universal, that much is true, but it is automatic and inherent. You think and plan differently if you know you have a difficult maneuver to perform on which the success of the entire mission depends. And doubly so if there are two, four or eight of you and everybody has to get it right. You consider things that you wouldn't if it were a matter of turning on an autopilot for 10 minutes and getting a new cup of coffee. It's obviously better than unlimited fuel but turning AAR into basically a non-event that always succeeds doesn't do it justice. You go from "oh, I don't have to worry about fuel, there's always enough" to "oh I don't have to worry about refueling, it's impossible to fail".

 

In this respect I think having the player manually stay close to the tanker (within a configurable distance), perhaps also match its speed, while refueling happens automatically, is a more realistic solution than either of the above. It can be adjusted to each player so that it's within their capabilities but still requires a high degree of focus and can be unsuccessful. It would better simulate "how it feels" to AAR and what impact it has on the mission much better than a fully automatic mode. It could obviously still be abused but it would at least put the players in the right frame of mind. And it trains one of the key skills (formation flying) needed to successfully refuel on your own one day.

[SharpeXB]

Since multiplayer servers tends to prefer running without game aids, in all likelihood Auto AAR or any AAR assist would be disabled on most servers anyways. That’s the trouble with being dependent on gameplay aids. Learning to play “full switch” gives you more options online. 

[sthompson]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Since multiplayer servers tends to prefer running without game aids, in all likelihood Auto AAR or any AAR assist would be disabled on most servers anyways. That’s the trouble with being dependent on gameplay aids. Learning to play “full switch” gives you more options online. 

You don't know that. I just looked at the top 4 MP servers by player count tonight (each currently has more than 30 players connected) nd they all allow some form of game aids and I'm not even counting perfect weather. These include radio assist, unrestricted Sat Nav, mini HUD, external views, labels, padlock, not enforcing integrity check, and no wake turbulence in various combinations. You must have quite a crystal ball to know how MP servers would respond to availability of an AAR assist OPTION. That said I agree that some servers (and perhaps most) might choose to not use the OPTION. That's what it means for it to be OPTIONAL.  But I'll bet that some would, most likely those that are less hard core or that cater to learning. On servers that permitted the OPTION, no player would be forced to use it. No one is asking that it be made mandatory, and for missions where it would interfere with the objectives of the MP server I would have no problem if they didn't use it.

 

I've said my piece on this and will move on. I'm disappointed to see how many seem to think that because they don't need it or wouldn't use it that no one else could possibly have a legitimate need or use. That's really the gist of most of the contrary arguments in this thread.

[nighthawk2174]

8 hours ago, randomTOTEN said:

So why aren't you guys running AAR training sessions together?

Most people don't have time for that we all have lives outside of DCS

[randomTOTEN]

5 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Most people don't have time for that we all have lives outside of DCS

You got time to run 3 hour sorties with mandatory AAR, but you can't find any time in your busy lives to run a session with air starts in trail of the tanker?

...funny how that works...

Edited January 7, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[nighthawk2174]

Just now, randomTOTEN said:

You got time to run 3 hour sorties with mandatory AAR, but you can't run the instant action mission that starts you 5nm away?

...funny how that works...

Yeah so should we dedicate the one time we get to fly during the week purly to AAR?  For the overwhelming majority of my group it's a hell no answer they want to actually play the game and not be bored.  I just don't understand the resistance to this idea why limit this as it could be a big help to people who just aren't that interested in learning AAR and just want to blow stuff up.  Just because someone else just doesn't give a crap about the "hardcore" aspects of the game shouldn't mean we push away possible players who just want to have fun.  In my group the strongest proponents of stuff like this are actually the rlf piolts.  This is a game not a job...  I would love to make slightly longer ranged missions or long NOE missions with AAR as a backup incase you use a bit too much gas.  But I can't as there's a not insignificant number of people who can't do it.  Were not even talking 3hr flights even just a 1.5 hr noe flight.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, sthompson said:

You don't know that. I just looked at the top 4 MP servers by player count tonight (each currently has more than 30 players connected) nd they all allow some form of game aids and I'm not even counting perfect weather.

You must be looking at training or aerobatic servers. None of the combat PVP servers I see have very many aids enabled at all. The point is that you do yourself a favor if you’re not dependent on gameplay aids if you want to play online. It gives you more choices. 

 

 

1 hour ago, sthompson said:

But I'll bet that some would, most likely those that are less hard core or that cater to learning.

How about a learning server catering to learning AAR?

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

For the overwhelming majority of my group it's a hell no answer they want to actually play the game and not be bored.

See I don’t get it, you don’t consider AAR “playing the game”? It’s a sim and AAR is a routine part of any real mission. But you want to devote all your time to making stuff go boom. And it’s definitely not boring. 

Edited January 7, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Qiou87]

2 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Most people don't have time for that we all have lives outside of DCS

 

One crucial remark I'd like to make: not only do most DCS players have lives, they also have different backgrounds than fighter pilots. We don't have a trainer, we get training missions (considering the overwhelming majority of DCS players is SP only). Those focus on startup, take-off/landing, navigation and weapon employment. Most modules I own do not offer a dedicated AAR training mission - quite surprising for such a critical part of flying (and I say that without sarcasm, I do agree that fighters guzzle fuel at alarming rates and IRL need AA refueling a lot).

 

So while it is easy to blame the many students who fail to AAR, I'd like to propose that we take a look at the teacher. AAR is not something you can learn whilst reading the manual. You need practise, but you also need somebody to tell you what you are doing wrong or right so your practise actually goes towards learning the skill. We need more dedicated SP training missions. We need an intermediate system, between "unlimited fuel" (which, as I explained and others have, is a broader cheat) and full realism. Something that forces you to join on the tanker, maybe plug in the basket, but is not as hard as AAR, just to avoid discouraging people right away. We need training missions for every module, and not just a voice telling you to join on the tanker and just fly formation and all will be fine. I actually managed AAR once I stopped listening to that advice.

But until the DCS training for AAR is made better, I'd like to see people stop blaiming other players because they cannot do it. No everyone has the resolve to fail at something repeatedly and just keep going. This seems to be the advice I see here: just go behind the tanker and try AAR for 100x, if you fail just continue trying, maybe the 101th time will be the charm. Sorry, but that's 1900's teaching methods, and we can do better here. Just because it is a study sim doesn't mean the learning curve should look like the cliffs of Dover.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Qiou87

[VpR81]

What? There is an option for deactivating wake turbulences, so you don't need to approach the tanker 100% accurate. That is more than enough simplification of AAR. AAR is not much different than formation flying. So basically , you are asking for automated formation flying? This is like asking for an aimbot in ArmA3, because hitting enemies at 500m is so hard without a scope and it needs so much training.

 

2 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Most people don't have time for that we all have lives outside of DCS

 

Learning AAR does not take more than 1 or 2 days of serious training. As soon as you can connect to the tanker, you just need to perform missions that include AAR to get more used to it / stay trained. So most people have time for 1 or 2 hour missions, but lacking time to learn AAR? Sorry, but that's not logical. It's sounds more like people want to do something (AAR), but just don't want (yes, want!) to learn how to do it. Learing how to land takes about the same time. Did you guys learn how to land the aircraft? If so, why is it not possible to invest the same time again for learing AAR? Sounds very strange tbh. No offense, but it's the same with everything else in life, driving a car, shooting a rifle, cooking, fishing, working with a chainsaw or whatever you want... if you don't want to learn it, stay away from it! 

 

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

And it’s definitely not boring. 

 

+1 

AAR is a very exciting part of each mission and IMO it's a ton of fun following the procedures and watching the other planes in queue taking fuel . Very rewarding refueling your plane on the way home after a intense fight.

Edited January 7, 2021 by VpR81

[Tippis]

6 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Since multiplayer servers tends to prefer running without game aids

Prove it.

[draconus]

The idea is really simple in a gaming world. You have easier and more diffult missions. Based on your skill you do the missions that suits you. If you choose the one which is too difficult for you - you'll be frustrated and fail. That's a player's choice - they can still try. The game just provides possibilities.
It's not on the game to make it easy for you - it's on the player. Ever played FPS? No game implement aimbot just to make players go through difficult mode or allow less skilled players to make a team with more skilled group.
Why should there be consequenses? Because it's a simulation. You get hit - you get damage. Your fuels ends - you lose thrust. Can't AAR - can't do long flight.
And please stop calling it 'improvement' - nothing that is unrealistic improves simulation. Even if it would be implemented like game mode in SP for sure it will not be allowed in public MP unless you run your own private server.

If one tries and fails there are threads on that in the forums (or make a new one, people will jump to help) or videos if you prefer - for every one module.

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, draconus said:

The idea is really simple in a gaming world. You have easier and more diffult missions. Based on your skill you do the missions that suits you. If you choose the one which is too difficult for you - you'll be frustrated and fail. That's a player's choice - they can still try. The game just provides possibilities.

…and the main problem here is that DCS doesn't do that.  That's part of why this improvement would be hugely helpful: because it's another tool in the toolbox to adjust difficulty level on top of being another tool in the teaching toolbox, on top of allowing more realistic missions, on top of being more consistent with the functionality a proper simulator would offer. Trying and failing is a very poor and antiquated method of learning things compared to the most natural way we've been doing for… oh… millennia: being show; taking it in stages; adding more and more complexities over time — things that DCS can do in some areas, but not this one for no good reason.

 

Quote

No game implement aimbot just to make players go through difficult mode or allow less skilled players to make a team with more skilled group.

Yes they do. Did you miss out on the last quarter century worth of yelling back and forth between players of the genre over which game are for pros and which are for n00bs because they offer that feature?

 

Quote

Even if it would be implemented like game mode in SP for sure it will not be allowed in public MP unless you run your own private server.

In other words, it would for sure be allowed in plenty public MP serves since that includes pretty much all of them, and since for even surer, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference in a huge number of instances.

[nighthawk2174]

1 hour ago, VpR81 said:

What? There is an option for deactivating wake turbulences, so you don't need to approach the tanker 100% accurate. That is more than enough simplification of AAR. AAR is not much different than formation flying. So basically , you are asking for automated formation flying? This is like asking for an aimbot in ArmA3, because hitting enemies at 500m is so hard without a scope and it needs so much training.

 

Having an AP that would follow your wingman or auto climb like in Aces High would be nice actually.  And I don't think this is in any way comparable to an aimbot as this a non combat function.  No need to strawman our arguments here.

 

1 hour ago, VpR81 said:

Learning AAR does not take more than 1 or 2 days of serious training. As soon as you can connect to the tanker, you just need to perform missions that include AAR to get more used to it / stay trained. So most people have time for 1 or 2 hour missions, but lacking time to learn AAR? Sorry, but that's not logical. It's sounds more like people want to do something (AAR), but just don't want (yes, want!) to learn how to do it. Learing how to land takes about the same time. Did you guys learn how to land the aircraft? If so, why is it not possible to invest the same time again for learing AAR? Sounds very strange tbh. No offense, but it's the same with everything else in life, driving a car, shooting a rifle, cooking, fishing, working with a chainsaw or whatever you want... if you don't want to learn it, stay away from it! 

 

Right but are these reasons not to have it... I don't think it is.  Plus you can generally avoid AAR landing not so much.  As Tipis says above it would just be another tool in the toobox for the player to decide how they want to play.  And why should we prevent that?  Yes getting AAR down is a definite accomplishment, I can do it and it was a great feeling when I finally nailed it.  But if a player just doesn't want the hassle I don't think they should be punished.  Its what drives people away from flight sims this attitude of hating and not adding such tools.  Just let people play at the level they want too.  It's why i'm so interested in GHPC its going to be WT simple in gameplay but SB in depth of simulation.  

 

Edit:

 

In terms of the comparison to FPS a more APT description would be a bot that does all of the combat for you.  Essentially taking all of the gameplay out of the game.  All of this stuff like AAR and clickable pits are excess minutia.  Yes it is fun to learn and use such systems but is irrelevant in comparison to the core gameplay... combat and the tactics you use.  Hence my strong hopes for GHPC.  Plus I see no downside in making the level of simulation experience customizable.  You want your clickable pit go for it! If you just want to do A/A or A/G combat and don't want to deal with the minuta of exactly how to aar or how to start the jet you should be able too.

Edited January 7, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[VpR81]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

Yes they do. Did you miss out on the last quarter century worth of yelling back and forth between players of the genre over which game are for pros and which are for n00bs because they offer that feature?

 

 I played several FPS in Clans and participating in semi-professional competive leagues. Bf 1942, 2, 3, 4, CS, UT, just to name a few...Can't remember a single game that is used in official events for competive MP and at the same time offers a built-in aimbot. Maybe you can name me one? 

 

2 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Having an AP that would follow your wingman or auto climb like in Aces High would be nice actually.  And I don't think this is in any way comparable to an aimbot as this a non combat function.  No need to strawman our arguments here.

 

Doesn't matter if it's combat related or not. That's an excuse. In fact it is comparable to every feature that lets you do things without learning them properly. Also, as i said, there is an option for deactivating wake turbulence. So there is in fact a significant simplification of AAR already provided. 

 

2 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Plus you can generally avoid AAR landing not so much.

 

So there is no need to implement such a cheat. Just avoid AAR and stick with the stuff you're capable of. How can you not avoid landing? For someone asking for a AAR cheat, it shouldn't be a problem to hit escape and exit the mission without landing the aircraft. Landing is just, how did you call it? Excess minutia? Accepting automated AAR, but ending the mission without landing is a no-go? Makes absolutely no sense at all.  

 

2 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

But if a player just doesn't want the hassle I don't think they should be punished.

 

Yeah, but at the same time purchasing a full fidelity module? Sorry, absolutely zero compassion with these people. If you choose a full fidelity module, fkn deal with the complete package instead of looking for ways how to simplify the aircraft as much as possible, so you can operate it like an FC3 plane. And then ask for even more options to do so, while there are already massive options for that. Is it realy necessary to have a massive simplification for every single aspect of DCS? No, there are already enough. ED should focus on important things. My opinion.

Do you think it is a punishment, if someone does not drive a car on public roads because he is not willing to learn how to drive a car? It is his own decision and the logical consequence, isn't it? No drivers license, no driving. No AAR training, no AAR. Plain and simple, i don't see any punishment there. DCS already provides way more than enough options to simplify it to a near arcarde state and keep the learning curve relatively flat. If that is not enough, one should honestly look for Warthunder or Hawx. I can't believe people want realy everything automated and just pickle / pull the trigger. I know a bunch of guys i'm flying online with, most haven't trained AAR yet. But none of them is whining and they're all willing to learn it some day , and none of them would ever use a AAR-bot. Not even the newbies, they all want to learn it properly when they start to train it.

 

The reason why there is such a resistance against such a feature is propably, that most people play DCS the way it is meant to be played. A study level combat flight sim. And i guess a lot of people are afraid (including me) their beloved simulator beeing downgraded to an arcarde game, drawing more and more trolls and idiots to a great niche game and on its servers. I've seen this multiple times with ArmA3. Everytime ArmA3 is on sale in Steam, the mil-sim servers get flooded with a**holes and little kids that have no fkn clue about RL infantry tactics, how to properly call out targets etc. and f**k up the game for everyone else. Thankfully the game is too complex for those simple mainstream shooter fans, so they mostly vanish after a few days. I personally don't want this to happen with DCS, but this is just me.

Edited January 7, 2021 by VpR81

[Tippis]

Just now, VpR81 said:

Can't remember a single game that is used in official events for competive MP and at the same time offers a built-in aimbot.

This is called moving the goalposts, with more than a hint of no-true-scotsman.

 

Just now, VpR81 said:

Doesn't matter if it's combat related or not. That's an excuse. In fact it is comparable to every feature wich let you do things without learning them properly. Also, as i said, there is an option for deactivating wake turbulence. So there is in fact already a significant simplification of AAR already provided. 

That doesn't really simplify AAR so much as it gets rid of a number of simulation bugs. But it certainly does raise an important question: why is it that you are ok with this apparent simplification of AAR but you're not ok with that simplification of AAR?

 

Just now, VpR81 said:

So there is no need to implement such a cheat. Just avoid AAR and stick with the stuff you're capable of.

Sure there is. The many uses and the amount of improvement it would entail has been described in detail. Oh, and you sort of shoot yourself in the foot there: if people should only ever stick to the stuff they're capable of, what's the point of having a study-level sim to begin with? You might as well juts turn DCS into a tier-based arcade fighter league if that's the attitude that is supposed to guide its development — grind enough XP to attain Level Max or you don't get to play with the S-class characters.

 

The whole idea is to… you know… study to increase what you're capable of, and any and all tools available that helps with that are inherently good things for the game to have.

 

Just now, VpR81 said:

Yeah, but at the same time purchasing a full fidelity module? Sorry, absolutely zero compassion with these people. If you choose a full fidelity module, fkn deal with the complete package. Otherwise stick with FC3 if you still want to play DCS. My opinion.

Just one problem: sticking with FC3 doesn't change anything. And your compassion is irrelevant — what matters is that it will improve the game in a huge number of ways, for pretty much all players irrespective of whether they use it themselves or not. It's also worth mentioning that “full fidelity modules” in this game are rife with similar simplifications and automations that shouldn't be there.

 

Just now, VpR81 said:

The reason why there is such a resistance against such a feature is propably, that most people play DCS as what it is. A study level combat flight sim. And i guess a lot of people are afraid (including me) their beloved simulator beeing downgraded to an arcarde game

Funnily enough, being a study-level combat sim is perhaps the best reason in favour of implementing these kinds of improvements. There is nothing in it that would suddenly turn DCS into an arcade game — that's just the same tired old nonsensical slippery-slope fallacy that always get trotted out when people don't want more people to enjoy what DCS has on offer and when they, for some unexplained reason, don't want this “study level” sim to be any good for studying or learning or teaching. It kind of goes against the whole point of having it…

[VpR81]

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

This is called moving the goalposts, with more than a hint of no-true-scotsman.

In other terms, you cannot name a single one and were talking bs. Thanks a lot, that's what i was expecting.

 

4 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Oh, and you sort of shoot yourself in the foot there: if people should only ever stick to the stuff they're capable of, what's the point of having a study-level sim to begin with?

Whoohoo, you wanna start hair splitting now? Ok, i'll express it different. Stick with the stuff you are capable of, if you are not willing to learn something new. Got it now, or do you need me to draw it?

 

6 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Just one problem: sticking with FC3 doesn't change anything.

Of course it does. Just not for AAR. But after your answer, i don't wonder you didn't get the context.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Tippis said:

that's just the same tired old nonsensical slippery-slope fallacy that always get trotted out

I can only give back the favor  

19 minutes ago, Tippis said:

why is it that you are ok with this apparent simplification of AAR but you're not ok with that simplification of AAR?

Please quote me where i stated to be ok with it. Or how do you know?

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

It's also worth mentioning that “full fidelity modules” in this game are rife with similar simplifications and automations that shouldn't be there.

Yes, now you're talkin'

 

4 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

But if a player just doesn't want the hassle I don't think they should be punished.  Its what drives people away from flight sims this attitude of hating and not adding such tools.  Just let people play at the level they want too.

They are not punished for anything. The game allows them to do AAR. It's on the player to learn it and have a right h/w to succeed. You're free to ignore AAR altogether if it's not fun for you.

I can't fly like Blue Angels but the game allow me to do just that. I just need practice. What I don't need is simplification for everyone suddenly fly like Blue Angels if only one can get close enough. That's funny to ask for in a study sim and even inappropriate.

Attitude of hating? What are you talking about? The DCS community is one of the most kind and helpful.

Edited January 7, 2021 by draconus

[Mars Exulte]

Lol, it always amuses me how unabashedly lazy gamers are and how many hoops they'll jump through to justify their unwillingness to learn and/or ineptitude.