Auto Air to Air Refuel

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, Cthulhus said:

I love the idea to have some "IA Auto actions" for some cases like refueling, landing on carrier or ground, for those who don't want or don't have yet the level for this. I personally don't need that but some of my friends can't manage to refuel. So why not. For MAC, this is something you need to think about. (and for DCS as well)

Not for DCS, maybe for MAC. There doesn’t need to be this level of AI helper for everything. If you won’t even try to learn and just want to watch the aircraft fly itself this just isn’t the game for you. 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, MisterVince said:

 

This solution would compensate for the lack of training, or for the bad hardware, as I think they are the predominant causes for players not being able to AAR.

The predominant cause for people being unable to AAR is lack of practice or willingness to learn. 

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The predominant cause for people being unable to AAR is lack of practice or willingness to learn. 

Hence the reason why just about any kind of teaching tools — up to, and yes including, the AI simply showing it to you — would be a vast improvement.

 

It's kind of funny how you recognise the problem but refuse to think it's a good idea to try to solve it.

 

5 hours ago, Cthulhus said:

I love the idea to have some "IA Auto actions" for some cases like refueling, landing on carrier or ground, for those who don't want or don't have yet the level for this. I personally don't need that but some of my friends can't manage to refuel. So why not. For MAC, this is something you need to think about. (and for DCS as well)

Pretty much. It would really just benefit everyone if such a feature existed — more people would be able to enjoy more of the game, in SP as well as in MP, and it's kind of mind-boggling why such universal improvements are met with such fierce opposition for no coherently explained reason.

[Deano87]

On 1/10/2021 at 2:40 PM, Desert Fox said:

Okay, to be a bit constructive i just did a little mockup for a possible AAR training mission. The boxes are not in the right place and not the right size, i know

They would float in space relative to the tankers position following him (we got similar floating visual gates already in some missions like landing or overhead for example, difference is they don't move and are 2D).

 

As i mentioned a few pages earlier, im absolutely against some auto-refuel function since its not a help for learning at all - people just get lazy and used to relying on the feature. Its counter-productive to create a good learning environment.

 

Maybe such a training mission (which would have to be individual for each module due to different receptacle positions and plane dimensions) would be a good compromise for everyone.

 

Getting a feel for where to be in space on each step i think is the key to get AAR done but from my own experience while just trying to accomplish AAR is, that a YT video isnt THAT helpful with getting these positions. Watching a "2D" video and being in the "3D" space is a bit apples and bananas   Having 3D boxes in space while flying yourself at least for me would be a big help and i believe for everyone else too.

 

Would this be something being possible maybe? @NineLine @Wags

 

edit: from another perspective. Again, boxes are not representative

 

 

I think this would be great, I'm all for better learning tools, much more so than automatic helpers.

[jetsimace]

Hi Rhinozherous: simple answer is YES Please!

Or add an "Easy Option" - air refueling currently is too difficult in DCS!

[Evoman]

On 1/12/2021 at 6:09 AM, MisterVince said:

 

I think this would be great.

 

I would not totally be in favor of implementing an 'auto-AAR' thing, but dedicated training missions, or tools to better visualize the position of your aircraft with respect to the boom/basket, would be a great addition, in my opinion.

 

My idea for an 'auto-AAR' thing would be to have a button that almost blocks your flight controls so that you can only steer your aircraft very gently, a bit like an autopilot.

Your speed is locked to the tanker speed +1 knot when you are behind it, and locked to tanker speed when connected.

This solution would compensate for the lack of training, or for the bad hardware, as I think they are the predominant causes for players not being able to AAR.

 

I think this would be a great solution to actually help train people to refuel. Even the old Top Gun game for the 8bit Nintendo had something similar without no auto refuel mode.

Heck the first time I attempted to refuel in my Tomcat in DCS I had fashbacks to how difficult my younger self had refueling a Tomcat on the NES. But I eventually got it down.

 

 

 

[SharpeXB]

42 minutes ago, Evoman said:

Even the old Top Gun game for the 8bit Nintendo had something ... (snip)

 

Nintendo?! Seriously... 

 

(This isn’t a console kiddie game)

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Nintendo?! Seriously... 

Of course. They have a long history of making approachable games, so they're a pretty good source for ideas and solutions to common problems related to approachability issues. At the same time, they weren't exactly afraid to present the player with significant challenges — the concept of “Nintendo Hard” is named that way for a reason.

 

And since you can't really think of anything wrong with the proposed idea, or even addressing it in any way whatsoever, I guess this should be taken as an implicit approval of its implementation on your part.

[Evoman]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Nintendo?! Seriously... 

 

(This isn’t a console kiddie game)

You obviously did not get the point that even for a so called kiddie game it was hard because it did not have any automatic modes for refueling and landing. Back in the day the average person that played Top Gun ended up throwing in the towel because it was actually difficult for those that were not really dedicated to it. It was defiantly not like the average kiddie game that most played just to have fun. Which in a way could be compared to DCS vs other easier games out there.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Evoman

[SharpeXB]

20 minutes ago, Evoman said:

You obviously did not get the point that even for a so called kiddie game it was hard because it did not have any automatic modes for refueling and landing. Back in the day the average person that played Top Gun ended up throwing in the towel because it was actually difficult for those that were not really dedicated to it. It was defiantly not like the average kiddie game that most played just to have fun. Which in a way could be compared to DCS vs other easier games out there.

 

A silly Nintendo game has nothing to do with DCS  But ok sure I get it, even kiddo arcade games didn’t have an auto-play mode where you watched the game play itself for you. 

Edited January 17, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

A silly Nintendo game has nothing to do with DCS  

You still refuse to get it or to do the most basic of research on the topic you are so adamant on trying to quell because… no-one knows.

 

A silly Nintendo game has a lot to do with DCS for the simple reason that they're both games and also because they are both famously difficult. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from; it only matters whether they work and what they're trying to solve. This particular idea has a very long history and a very clear reason to exist. Maybe if you spent more time addressing the actual idea than irrelevantly dismissing the source, you'd have more of an argument here…

Edited January 17, 2021 by Tippis

[Tippis]

30 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

And that's where you're wrong.

Oh? Are you saying that Top Gun wasn't a game, because DCS certainly  is one.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Tippis

[Tippis]

1 minute ago, Desert Fox said:

I agree "Nintendo Top Gun Simulator" is an in-depth study sim while "Digital Combat Game" by ED is just a casual jet game and hence should receive all-auto-features.

Ok? If you say so.

But who are you agreeing with? No-one else is suggesting anything of the kind.

[Tippis]

9 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

Yeah, you indeed didn't suggest this.

No. Read it again.

 

Quote

You suggested DCS and that Nintendo game are literally the same

No. I suggested that the ideas and solutions used in one game might be applicable to another. So far, no-one has been able to offer any argument against this other than a very silly  attempt at ridiculing the source as if that was in any way relevant.

 

Adding strawman arguments to that particular pile of fallacies only manages to further strengthen the impression that this idea has a good bit of merit to it…

 

The suggestions you're… well… suggesting, are yours and yours alone, not mine.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Tippis

[Tippis]

14 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

Some idea or solution from A might be applicable to B because they got some vague characteristics in common. That's the pillar of your argument.

And where we are now, no-one has been able to offer any kind of counter-argument or description why it wouldn't be applicable. A number of overlapping issues have been identified, many of which could probably be solved through the same means and methodologies — this is an idea for one of them.

 

Quote

So let's apply chess rules to DCS.

If DCS were amenable to those rules, then sure, that might be worth investigating. But since those rules rely on existing in a turn-based format with a specific and very limited set of units with restricted movements, very few of them are. So what rules would be applicable? That one side moves first? Well… as it happens, that turns out to actually be a very handy design principle to use in the mission editor to get your triggers and timing order.

 

Quote

Some difficult game from the 80s that is somehow aviation themed got nothing in common with DCS except: both are games, both are difficult and both are about planes.

…and both have to work with potentially unsuited controls; both have a reason to offer simplifications, be it for the purpose of accessibility or learning or difficulty tweaking; both have similar affordances for other parts of the game; and both sit in a genre and a lineage of games where this particular solution has been successfully employed on numerous occasions.

 

So why would this particular solution be wholly unsuited for or inapplicable to DCS just because it suited for and applicable to a game from the '80s?

 

Quote

There simply is no reason to offer any arguments because it's just so absurd.

Prove it.

Why is it absurd to apply a long-proven technique to DCS to address the issues being discussed?

Edited January 17, 2021 by Tippis

[Tippis]

Just now, Desert Fox said:

2021

:'D

So that's an “I can't” then, I presume?

Otherwise, again: prove it.

[Tippis]

5 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

That's an "Boy, my sides! I need a break!" but whatever pleases you.

It doesn't particularly please me.

What would please me is is if you could actually explain what is so supposedly absurd about applying known and well-established techniques to address the issues being discussed?

Edited January 17, 2021 by Tippis

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

It’s a wish list section. Not a demand list section, bug section or an “I can’t allow your opinion because I’m a snowflake”section. 
Give it a rest already. No matter how correct you are absolutely sure you are, you can’t tell him his wish is wrong. Don’t like his wish? Go suck an egg....

[draconus]

A game has playability and challenge as a goal. The sim has a goal of making it as real as possible, no matter how hard or fun it is. That's the main difference. If you don't find any fun in AAR you're free to dive into all other aspects of a simulation.

Edited January 17, 2021 by draconus

[Tippis]

18 minutes ago, draconus said:

A game has playability and challenge as a goal. The sim has a goal of making it as real as possible, no matter how hard or fun it is. That's the main difference. If you don't find any fun in AAR you're free to dive into all other aspects of a simulation.

That's part of the goal, but not the entirety of it. Per ED's own description, DCS is…

Quote

designed also to offer a more relaxed gameplay to suit the user and his particular level of experience and training. The ambition is to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator of such complex weapons systems as the A-10C Warthog or the F/A-18C Hornet.

…and this thread is about a suggestion to further fulfil that goal and ambition. Apparently, for no adequately explained reason, this design goal should not be pursued according to some.

 

Also, let's not forget what the developers themselves say that DCS is, namely “a free-to-play digital battlefield game”. So it's not exactly surprising that playability is part of that mix, or that improvements to playability would be an improvement to the game as a whole. It even lists “Both hardcore realistic and casual gameplay modes and options” as a key feature — it doesn't exactly make much sense for them to skimp on those.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Tippis

[Bremspropeller]

I'd already be happy if the tanker didn't reel the drogue in so quickly.

 

It would be cool, if the hoses were out all the time and you'd just be cleared in.

 

[draconus]

41 minutes ago, Tippis said:

That's part of the goal, but not the entirety of it. Per ED's own description, DCS is…

Good find, can't deny ED's own goals. Good luck then.

[Dragon1-1]

TBH, the "game" part of DCS is so severely neglected, I don't know whether we can take those statements at a face value. FC3 was the last attempt at it, and barring occasional maintenance, it's basically abandoned. They're not making new FC3 modules, and several (admittedly mostly 3rd party) modules don't support the "game" avionics at all. I'm under impression those statements come from the time when FC3 was new.

[SharpeXB]

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/
“Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.5 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible”

 

A simulation is a subset of game. All sims are games but not all games are sims. Simulator games attempt to be as “authentic and realistic as possible”

Games have no such goals or aspirations.

Artificial helper features which control the aircraft for the player in a manner which is not authentic or realistic are inappropriate for a simulation. 

[Tippis]

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Artificial helper features which control the aircraft for the player in a manner which is not authentic or realistic are inappropriate for a simulation. 

…but highly appropriate for the ambitions of what kind of game DCS is intended to be, as that very page explains.