Auto Air to Air Refuel

[johodg]

Agree totally that the approach is vital, but on my setup the aircraft also feels more nervous when correctly established with green light.

 

[VpR81]

8 hours ago, Tippis said:

No, in the exact same terms, what you're asking for was not what I was discussing and you're trying to move the goalposts

What? You claimed competive MP FPS games offer a built-in aimbot while using these codes/mechanics (internal or external by 3rd party cheat doesen't matter) instantly results in a punkbuster or VAC ban. Aimbotters get banned pretty fast on competive FPS. I asked for an example (because i can't remember any proper FPS game offering that)and you were unable/unwilling to name one. Obviously, you are the one trying to move to goalposts by claiming that this was not what you were discussing.

 

9 hours ago, Tippis said:

And since AAR was the topic at hand, it doesn't really solve that problem. The presence of advanced system modelling is almost — but not quite, you have to flip a couple of switches after all rather than just push one button to ready the aircraft — entirely separated from the issue of learning how to AAR or playing missions where the balancing acts and compromises that this entails come into play. It's not a systems issue; it's a design and content issue. I don't quite see why your choice of aircraft must necessarily dictate what kind of content you're allowed to enjoy, or vice versa for that matter.

 There is no problem to solve. Become a pilot before you become a fighter, number one rule plain and simple. What i meant with this was, that if one is unwilling to learn AAR properly he should better stick with FC3 as some of the systems in FF modules need as much time and effort to learn (i.e. A/A and A/G Radar together) as AAR does. Same for tactics. People got enough time to train dogfights, BVR tactics and formation flight (wich is literally the same as AAR), but only for AAR is no time left? C'mon, thats bs and you know it.  

 

9 hours ago, Tippis said:

And you can point out where I used that fallacy, presumably?

 

Not that fallacy, but one that isnt better either. But of course i can, look here what your crystal ball told you:

 

6 hours ago, Tippis said:

 when people don't want more people to enjoy what DCS has on offer

Or how do you know what my (and others) intentions are? I also want to be capable of jedi mind reading.

 

 

To think people will learn AAR better with an automated AAR sequence is also a huge fallacy. It's not a tool to teach people AAR in a simple way, it's a cheat so people don't need to learn it. If they turn it off, they are in no way better prepared and will face the same difficulties as they would without using that tool before. Wich is why i think deactivating wake turbulences is the only more or less reasonable option to simplify AAR in a way so it still has teaching capabilities. So claiming this would be helpful to train AAR is pure nonsense. And that propably is another reason why the "conservatives" don't want it implementet. And no, i'm still not ok with deactivating WT as it doesen't make any difference with a correct approach and i think it facilitates negative learning. But i admit, that in some cases it may be helpful for newbies until they learn the correct procedures.

[Mars Exulte]

8 hours ago, sthompson said:

What a productive comment. Insulting people always is a good way to make your case.

 

I wasn't trying to ''make a case''. It's a factual observation, based on many years playing online and seeing how people behave over and over. The average gamer is lazy, expects to be 1337 in the first 10 minutes and gets easily frustrated by ''learning''. Example : Shooting someone in Arma 3 from beyond 100m and being called a ''no lifer'' or ''hacker'' cause ''real men'' fight at point blank blah blah blah.

 

This thread is an excellent example of the most ''gamer'' kind of behavior in the world, even more so because it's centered around a game whose entire SHTICK is ''as real as you digitally can get'' so OF COURSE they want ''aids'' and ''easy modes'' and ''mouse friendly'' and blah blah blah. God forbid our little adderall addicts have to sit still for ten minutes and learn something @@

 

-edit

I also know from years of experience reasoning with people like this is almost never productive. They either build up the motivation to jump those hurdles (like I did, once upon a time) or they walk away (like I did for a number of years when I was still ''intimidated'' by what was going on).

Edited January 8, 2021 by zhukov032186

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Other than the few of you that are real pilots, i’ll bet you none of you yahoo’s could launch off a carrier, refuel then trap an F14. 
So get over the game vs sim thing. Everything you use is a crutch or shortcut. As real as you can get? Maybe, but even you sanctimonious tabletop “top guns” are on crack. 
I’m surprised the real pilots don’t call y’all out....

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

I’m surprised the real pilots don’t call y’all out....

Well the real pilots are using DCS to train at AAR 

 

 

[jross194]

On 1/5/2021 at 7:09 AM, johodg said:

So tired of all this reluctance to change..

Agree on some things, like E-Warfare. I mean, they just need to invent something cuzz they're never going to get the real info. Sure, people will whine, but that's 'normal'.

 

As for Air Refueling, sure an "Easy" option is fine with me. Personally however, I want it _more_ realistic (harder) - basket/hose physics; no 'gotcha' when you are only  this " |    |" close - I want it this "||" close.  People are different. I find AR very easy (Very old CH fighter stick and VR), but carrier landings very hard. You may be just the opposite, finding carrier landings easy.

 

I do NOT want carrier landings to be easier. Easy is boring, to me.

 

27 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well the real pilots are using DCS to train at AAR

Yeah I saw that too. Thought it was cool. The video I watched (didn't click your link yet) showed them using PointCtrl too. Made sense.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

36 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well the real pilots are using DCS to train at AAR 

 

 

Perhaps but your not a real pilot...

[Mars Exulte]

1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Other than the few of you that are real pilots, i’ll bet you none of you yahoo’s could launch off a carrier, refuel then trap an F14. 

Irrelevant

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

So get over the game vs sim thing.

 What, you mean the whole principle of the game? It's about as logical as complaining an FPS having FPS mechanics. Yeah... it's cause it's a FPS. It's kinda... what it does. Same token, DCS is a simulator, albeit a video game, and as a result has simulator mechanics. *shocked face*

 

It IS a game, nobody seriously disputes that (unless they're really foolish) regardless, like every game, it has an ''overarching theme''.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Everything you use is a crutch or shortcut. As real as you can get?

 Yeah, pretty much. Despite its flaws, DCS is about the closest there is as far as emulating flight. Professional sims are typically procedural in nature and very accurate for ''system function'' with ''flight model'' as an afterthought (if it exists at all), effectively reversed from DCS.

 

 Also, irrelevant.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Maybe, but even you sanctimonious tabletop “top guns” are on crack.

  That's a lot of words strung together to form an insult. Fairly creative, though, so +1 internetz for your effort.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

I’m surprised the real pilots don’t call y’all out....

Presumably they either

A. Don't care

B. Are busy flying their real planes

Lucky bastards.

 

Also, nobody is claiming to be better than a real pilot, that I've seen. Not that that matters because real pilot skill levels vary widely as with everything else, ''appeals to authority'' are pointless in and of themselves. We're debating a game mechanic, in a video game, and whether or not a suggestion is preferable. Whether or not a person is or is not a pilot means exactly jack in this context.

 

Finally, the whole discussion is moot, as the AI currently can't handle a PFM necessitating some sort of ''recode'' from scratch. With everything on their plate right now and the amount of effort likely required, this mechanic is unlikely to appear anytime soon and we're all just killing time waiting for *insert your yet to be released module of choice*

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Perhaps but your not a real pilot...

Didn’t say I was. 

[Mars Exulte]

19 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Didn’t say I was. 

Doesn't matter if you are a pilot or not  I love his ''appeal to authority on behalf of real pilots everywhere'' LOL

[Alligator]

13 hours ago, Tippis said:

The problem is that, as demonstrated, infinite fuel is not a viable option since it doesn't actually solve anything — it just creates more problems. The point you seem to be missing is that people want to worry about fuel and make the need to do AAR a part of that, but also don't want to shut out players who aren't quite there yet. In addition, it would be a lot easier to go through the process of learning if that process had the proper tools available; if the task could be broken down in more discrete chunks; if the difficulty level could be ramped up in stages by adding more and more of the complexities as earlier ones are learned or mastered.

 

I understand what you're saying, but you're describing a game.

As a simulator, it's nowhere near DCS goal to have that I believe...

 

What would make sense is a more in-depth training system with said features, but different difficulties in multiplayer? I don't really believe that would work. I mean... I'm one of the guys who took longer than most to learn AAR, but even then, I don't think it's THAT much of a commitment to give up altogether.
 

And I did AARs on boom arms which are supposed to be harder than baskets, I think

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

An option like this isn't bad, its quite healthy for the game.

 

Many people on this board have forgotten that what killed flight sims is the lack of transitional games like light sims and survey sims that simplify a good portion of flying and remove some of the tedium and making it less daunting and scary for new comers.

 

The complexity of DCS is a major selling point but also a curse in regard to the game's market reach.

 

ED has been aware of this under served market of people wanting something a cut above Ace Combat but not quite DCS A-10C II.

 

If they break into it with MAC, fantastic it'll be for the better of the sim genre if it can bring people in asa gateway title.

 

If they do it through varying levels of difficulty in DCS that is also fair I suppose.

It would allow them to grow into the Sim and tackle the genre portion by portion. Learning to Crawl before they Walk and Run.

 

[Tippis]

9 hours ago, VpR81 said:

What? You claimed competive MP FPS games offer a built-in aimbot

No. Dracons claimed that “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”; I claimed that there are plenty that do. You then moved the goalposts by adding the “competitive MP” constraint.

 

Quote

There is no problem to solve.

Sure there is. DCS — a supposed study-level sim — offers plenty of tools, mechanisms, and built-in functions to teach in very interactive ways about all kinds of aircraft handling, from no real handling at all on the ground, through take-offs and landings and flying in various tricky conditions, to outright combat. What it doesn't offer is the exact same thing, but for this one single task. That's a pretty significant and odd gap that really could stand filling. Doing so could also offer the side-benefit of allowing for far more realistic mission setups for people who are still learning the ropes.

 

There are literally no downside, and only huge upsides to filling this gap, and the gap being there is indeed a problem given the gamut of capabilities that DCS apparently want to offer.

 

Quote

Not that fallacy, but one that isnt better either. But of course i can, look here what your crystal ball told you:

 

Or how do you know what my (and others) intentions are? I also want to be capable of jedi mind reading.

What's the fallacy?

 

As for how I know that that is the intention of some people? It's because they says so. You can find posts right in this thread about how DCS should not cater to a greater audience. No mind-reading is really required; just reading — the regular kind.

 

Quote

To think people will learn AAR better with an automated AAR sequence is also a huge fallacy.

No it isn't. At most, it could have been a bit of an unfounded assumption, but that would require ignoring the many ideas offered throughout this and other threads how such a sequence would work, and it would also require ignoring how teaching and learning works.

 

An automated AAR sequence will help people learn AAR through the aeons-old mechanism of monkey see, monkey do. It's a method that has been hard-coded into us from that early on. To say that this wouldn't work would also mean that the oft-heard suggestion to watch youtube videos and tutorials doesn't work because it's a much worse version of the same thing. Worse because it's not interactive; worse because it rests on the assumptions of what the video maker assumes you want to know, rather than letting you check the aspects you feel you need. And even then, that whole thing rests on the assumption that it would be a fully automated sequence, which is far from a certainty. Hell, I'll even agree with you that that would be a bad implementation, but even at that level it would still be a huge improvement, and there are plenty of other ways to make it less binary; more interactive; more dynamic; more granular.

 

That's what wake turbulence is in this context: a granularity option. Unfortunately, it is also very binary and, somewhat ironically, non-optional in the sense that you, the pilot, can't fully choose.

 

So no, thinking that auto-AAR or AAR helpers would not be able to teach AAR is not nonsense. It is an extensions of well-known methods to teach things and to learn things and of suggestions made in this very thread by detractors who don't want to see it happen. The inherent contradiction in what they say is blindingly obvious.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Tippis

[Lurker]

Another thing that the "purists" or whatever you want to call them are forgetting is that aerial refueling in DCS implemented currently as it is is totally, and almost completely unrealistically, not to mention frequently it is buggy and actually more difficult to perform than it should be due to various reasons. Let me explain. 

 

A lot of that is down to simply downright stupid AI. The tanker more often than not simply refuses your requests. (Usually down to broken missions, due to patch, bugs whatever) 

Sometimes the tanker will make a turn or increase or decrease speed, without informing the pilot about it. 

The boom operator is basically non-existant. in the real tanker, a pilot would be on the radio with the boom operator, for the entierity of the procedure and would inform the pilot about any corrections he would need to make. 

Unless you are flying in VR (and most are not) and without the real life seat-of-your pants feel it's much harder to learn and master AAR in DCS than it is in real life. 

 

In fact DCS does a whole lot of things very, very badly which in turn teaches virtual pilots some pretty bad habits. Off the top of my head, ATC, GCI, EWR, AWACs, etc. etc. etc. 

 

I am all for realism, but lets be real here. (Pun intended) A system that would help pilots learn proper AAR procedure (even if it simplified it initially) can only be a good thing, and any other opinion smacks of elitism. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Lurker

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

The tanker more often than not simply refuses your requests. 

I haven’t seen this. Are you sure you’re on the right freq and not too far away when you call “Ready”? If you get disconnected and stray too far you may have to call again. 

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

Sometimes the tanker will make a turn or increase or decrease speed, without informing the pilot about it.  

 

If you’ve “got it” in formation, it doesn’t matter what the tanker does.

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

A system that would help pilots learn proper AAR procedure (even if it simplified it initially) can only be a good thing, 

 

What system? There’s no way for the game to teach you this. You have to practice and teach yourself. 

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

Another thing that the "purists" or whatever you want to call them are forgetting is that aerial refueling in DCS implemented currently as it is is totally, and almost completely unrealistically, not to mention frequently it is buggy and actually more difficult to perform than it should be due to various reasons.

We're not forgetting anything. I could name more unrealistic or bugged things in DCS. But we want it fixed, improved and made more realistic - that's going forward. Making it easier or automatic is dumbing down and going backwards. We got what we got but even in current state many players can do it - so can everyone else. You can shout "elitism" - I shout "lazyness".

[DD_Fenrir]

10 minutes ago, draconus said:

We're not forgetting anything. I could name more unrealistic or bugged things in DCS. But we want it fixed, improved and made more realistic - that's going forward. Making it easier or automatic is dumbing down and going backwards. We got what we got but even in current state many players can do it - so can everyone else. You can shout "elitism" - I shout "lazyness".

 

And I shout "narrow-minded" and "gatekeeper".

 

Considering the evidence presented to the contrary, how bloody dare you pompous ass.

 

Though having said that, it's unsurprising that your capacity for any other viewpoint than your own is so limited; comes from having your head so far up your own posterior.

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by DD_Fenrir

[draconus]

5 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

And I shout "narrow-minded" and "gatekeeper".

To you too if you're against fixes, improvements and more realism.

[lmp]

16 hours ago, draconus said:

There's no shortcut here or way to teach it better by some magic interface. Just HOTAS and flight hours.

 

 

There is absolutely room for a helper interface for AAR. How do I align the probe with the basket in the Harrier? Well, I can just keep trying until I find the right sight picture myself, I can switch between the game and a youtube video of someone who did the hard work already or, if I had some popup that showed me if I'm aligned, I could use it to speed up the process a few times. Why shouldn't I have the popup then?

 

There's a ton of "unrealistic" training aids already in game and I see no reason not to use them just because it's not possible in real life. The end result should be "realistic" (as much as the game and the players' skills allow), the training to get there doesn't have to be. You can map the pause function to the HOTAS so you can stop the game, and check your alignment in the external view. You can airstart behind the tanker instead of on the ground when you practice (I'm sure just about everybody trained this way, even though it's impossible in real life). It all saves plenty of time while still letting you learn the right skills. You'll still need to put in the work, but why not make the process easier if it leads to the same goal? Let's absolutely discuss how we could flatten the learning curve a little.

 

OTOH, I'm not such a big fan of getting the results without putting an effort (i.e. autowin buttons) but I understand that people have time constraints, disabilities and ultimately this is an entertainment product. So as long as this isn't some huge effort for the devs and can be turned off by game hosts, let the people have what they want I suppose.

[DD_Fenrir]

47 minutes ago, draconus said:

To you too if you're against fixes, improvements and more realism.

 

Where do I challenge that specifically in my response? Nowhere. You're reaching to find a valid argument and are conjuring phantom axes of argument on my behalf.

 

The greater question here is why you are so threatened by a training aid that could potentially help those who find that leap to AAR too challenging and could use a leg-up? If - as a user selectable option and equally easily activated or deactivated by server operators - there was an easier AAR option that specifically does not dumb down AAR for your personal edification, there is NO logical or rational reason you should be so against this as IT HAS NO EFFECT ON YOU.

 

Get it? It's that simple. If it is implemented intelligently and my squad-mate chooses to turn it on, in his SP mission to practise his AAR, your precious little immersion bubble won't suddenly implode; you won't suddenly find yourself with 360 degree radar and 50 missile auto-replenishing loadouts and clown-plane FMs. IT HAS NO EFFECT ON YOU.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by DD_Fenrir

[draconus]

5 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Why are you so threatened by a training aid...

I'm not. Just providing my opinion like everyone else on the public forum. Have one of yours? Be my guest and write it. Why so personal? Happen to not like it? I don't like options I deem not necessary.

[DD_Fenrir]

12 minutes ago, draconus said:

I don't like options I deem not necessary.

 

How gregarious of you.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, lmp said:

Why shouldn't I have the popup then?

Something like the IFLOLS graphic? That wouldn’t help because you’d become so fixated and dependent on it you’d never learn to turn it off. So you’d never learn for real by using such a crutch. It’s been said so many times; you’re flying formation with the tanker, not the basket. And not a screen graphic. 
When you guys finally get this you’ll realize all this advice was correct. Listen to it and don’t try to imagine “easy” solutions because there aren’t any. 

58 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

The greater question here is why you are so threatened by a training aid

There’s no such aid possible that the sim could do and no agreement, if it was even possible, what it should be. Unless you just want to click an F10 radio option and have your tanks automatically fill themselves. Which is silly and arcade gamey. 
 

AAR is not required to play DCS. It’s an advanced skill. There are plenty of workarounds already available. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

There are plenty of workarounds already available.

Funny how you've not been able to name a single working one, then…

[DD_Fenrir]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

There’s no such aid possible that the sim could do and no agreement, if it was even possible, what it should be. Unless you just want to click an F10 radio option and have your tanks automatically fill themselves. Which is silly and arcade gamey. 

 

I agree on the last part and is not the way I would wish to see it implemented. However with some intelligent cogent and considerate software design it is not impossible to design an aid system that could be both selectable, scalable and used as a progressive training aid towards accomplishing actual probe-in-basket/boom-in-receptacle AAR in DCS. I outlined my proposal on a solution that could accomplish that already: