Auto Air to Air Refuel

[Evoman]

18 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

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. 

This is a great definition as to what exactly is considered a game or a simulation.  With that said DCS should continue to focus more on achieving being as authentic and realistic as possible. However I see no problem with there being some training aids added to better help people be able to refuel and land without having to invest too much time.

For those still wanting an auto mode to just have fun then the new MAC game would be a better fit them.

Edited January 18, 2021 by Evoman

[Shmegegge 1-1 Aero]

As someone who has put in many nights of practice to learn AAR, I find this would be extremely useful from a training perspective.  It is hard to learn how to do AAR just from videos and handbooks, but if you could press a button so that the computer could take control while you follow its motions through the controls indicator, it would be a lot easier to learn.

 

[Tippis]

42 minutes ago, Evoman said:

With that said DCS should continue to focus more on achieving being as authentic and realistic as possible. However I see no problem with there being some training aids added to better help people be able to refuel and land without having to invest too much time.

Why that focus and not the other, probably far more constructive and challenging one, outlined in the product description? It seems more in line with what the game is meant to be to strive to maintain a good balance between realism features and approachability features, especially since going after one at the cost of another will eventually just end up reducing the customer base and thus their ability to keep improving either part of that combination.

 

42 minutes ago, Evoman said:

For those still wanting an auto mode to just have fun then the new MAC game would be a better fit them.

Nah. Mainly because no-one really knows how MAC plays or what its design goals are. Given the goals for DCS, as demonstrated in Sharpe's link, there's no reason why people having fun in this game should suddenly abandon it and pick a completely different one — that would mean ED failed to create the game they wanted for the audience they want, after all.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, [TF-108] Aero said:

It is hard to learn how to do AAR just from videos and handbooks, but if you could press a button so that the computer could take control while you follow its motions through the controls indicator, it would be a lot easier to learn.

I don’t understand why watching your aircraft fly itself and AAR in-game is any more beneficial than watching the same thing on a video. Many tutorials show you the control indicator as well. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t understand why watching your aircraft fly itself and AAR in-game is any more beneficial than watching the same thing on a video.

Because you get to see it from your own perspective. And because it can be combined with other in-game indications. It is pretty darn trivial to figure out if you try to think. Or, you know, just read the thread.

 

But it's pretty nice to see that you finally understand why this improvement would be beneficial. After all, you suggested that very methodology of teaching yourself.

[Dragon1-1]

If you really want that in the sim, you can just watch a track of someone who can AAR. That's basically what you're asking for. 

 

Myself, I needed only verbal description of canopy cues to plug the Harrier on my first try. Likewise, once I got a good description of what to look for in the Tomcat, I found I could plug it pretty reliably. We just need better training missions for the other aircraft, that's all. And that can be done by mission makers, as opposed to engine coders, which is another plus. Just a few well-chosen words is all it takes! AAR is all about sight picture, once you know what to look for, it's pretty straightforward.

[Dragon1-1]

51 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

edit: sight picture isn't the most important imho, the hardest part really is stick and throttle control. And learning this takes time.

Not really. The problem that people have, judging from the posts, is that they're all looking at the basket. The Harrier was the easiest plane for me to plug, because there, you can't look at the basket, as it's too far back to see. It does have snappy controls and a very quick-reacting throttle, but once you learn to work them and use the trim properly, you can control every aircraft with that kind of precision. Different throttle response is just about the only thing that can throw you off (and Tomcat's wings, if you forget to sweep them manually).

 

Plugging in becomes much easier when you're not trying to coincide the basket with the probe in space, but instead focus on some well-defined cue (like a gun cross or some part of the pitch ladder) and try to keep it in the correct place with relation to the tanker (ideally, also using a distinctive feature, like the hose or refuelling pod). Also, that's the only way to refuel on the boom - you just fly formation in the right spot, and once you know how the tanker looks from that spot (you've got a neat set of lights for when you're starting out), staying there is straightforward. The problems people have with AAR are entirely on the lack of proper training missions explaining what sight picture to go for and not enough practice.

[Tippis]

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

If you really want that in the sim, you can just watch a track of someone who can AAR. That's basically what you're asking for. 

Not really, no, since there is no interaction or direction in that the way you could with some proper teaching tools. Watching a track is, if anything, even less informative than watching it on youtube and that is already lacking in pretty much every way except that it can have graphics and audio overlays.

 

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

We just need better training missions for the other aircraft, that's all. And that can be done by mission makers, as opposed to engine coders, which is another plus.

Just one problem: it can't be done by mission makers because the tools aren't there. The engine coders haven't put it in. So yeah, putting those kinds of tools in would be another plus and also be fully in line with what DCS is intended to be and with the content and toolset it is meant to offer.

 

5 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

edit: sight picture isn't the most important imho, the hardest part really is stick and throttle control. And learning this takes time.

It sure would be nice if there was some way of teaching that, perhaps methods of easing the pilot into it. Doubly so if it also taught you the sight picture.

Hmm… if only there was a suggestion or five in this thread as to how that could be achieved, as opposed to a bunch of people wishing that this wishlist thread was unwished for some poorly defined reason. But alas.

[Dragon1-1]

4 hours ago, Tippis said:

Just one problem: it can't be done by mission makers because the tools aren't there. The engine coders haven't put it in. So yeah, putting those kinds of tools in would be another plus and also be fully in line with what DCS is intended to be and with the content and toolset it is meant to offer.

It can. Try the Harrier the next time it's on free trail, or buy it, it's worth the money. It includes an AAR training mission that'll teach you how to do it. There is no need to implement anything more than that. In fact, telling you about the sight picture is better than showing it. When you see an image, you don't know what to focus on. OTOH, when you're told what to look for, you can just focus on one cue and keep it in alignment (or, as with the Harrier, scan between two locations). Focusing on the whole picture isn't the best way, because it's far less precise. It works for something like F-16, because without even a canopy bow you don't have much of a choice with the tanker above you, but it's too imprecise (especially when starting out) for plugging into a basket.

 

Falcon 4.0 had "easy AAR". It wasn't recommended for actual AAR training because it would teach you bad habits. Any simplifications that would not be equivalent of watching a track or YT video would have the same result. You can disable wake turbulence, and that's it. Control during AAR is ultimately about developing muscle memory, a lot like riding a bike, actually, and I can tell you that riding a bike with training wheels on doesn't actually do much to teach you the hardest part, which is also the one part you can't learn from someone telling you about it. 

[Wrcknbckr]

4 hours ago, Tippis said:

It sure would be nice if there was some way of teaching that, perhaps methods of easing the pilot into it. Doubly so if it also taught you the sight picture.

Hmm… if only there was a suggestion or five in this thread as to how that could be achieved,

 

Best way of teaching is formation flying and tuning your controls until you feel confident on controlling your position w.r.t. other aircraft. Only then you are ready for the next step, not earlier. This does not need additional coding effort and this method is already available under the best teaching conditions you can think of.

 

It has been mentioned several times in similar threads...

[Wrcknbckr]

10 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It can. Try the Harrier the next time it's on free trail, or buy it, it's worth the money. It includes an AAR training mission that'll teach you how to do it. There is no need to implement anything more than that.

 

This I would recommend too. If I remember correctly it was refueling over the sea. I missed the ground in my peripheral view. I think refueling at low altitude above solid ground would help in the spatial awareness and would also be beneficial when the tanker is in a bank.

[draconus]

31 minutes ago, Wrcknbckr said:

I missed the ground in my peripheral view. I think refueling at low altitude above solid ground would help in the spatial awareness and would also be beneficial when the tanker is in a bank.

You may think so but it's irrelevant. You don't need to know where ground or horizon is in a formation flight and so it works during AAR. You just follow the tanker. No matter if it is in a bank or a climb.

 

Sight picture and points of focus are important esp. for boom type but aren't helpful at all until you're fully in control of your aircraft. This is the skill which takes most time - some get it sooner than others but actually the formation flying is the one and only tool you need for learning.

 

So, basically AAR is:

1. The approach - no tools really needed, maybe a mission with some additional visuals like already suggested before.

2. The connection - imho the hardest part as it requires you to fly most precisely to the point in space, with the right speed and in the right direction - here some exagerrated cone visual would help to direct the player into.

3. Staying connected - depending on the type we have some wiggle room here - some box visuals might help.

 

This are of course just learning tools - not an easy AAR alternative.

Edited January 19, 2021 by draconus

[Katj]

 
This I would recommend too. If I remember correctly it was refueling over the sea. I missed the ground in my peripheral view. I think refueling at low altitude above solid ground would help in the spatial awareness and would also be beneficial when the tanker is in a bank.

You really shouldn't focus on anything but the tanker.

That way it doesn't matter how much the tanker is banking, or doing whatever. The horizon is just a distraction that might tempt you to level your wings.

[Dragon1-1]

32 minutes ago, Katj said:

That way it doesn't matter how much the tanker is banking, or doing whatever. The horizon is just a distraction that might tempt you to level your wings.

It is important in one specific moment: during the transition. DCS has an unrealistically shallow bank on part of the tanker, which lessens the effect of the transition knocking you out of alignment, but it's there, and also unrealistically, it doesn't announce when it's about to do this. Also, it puts you out of trim, which is an quite insidious, because in DCS, you may not notice the tanker is turning. If you're trimmed for level flight, you're not trimmed for the turn. Compensating for this takes some practice.

 

It is, however, true that you shouldn't focus on anything but the tanker. TBH, for this exact reason I think a cone would be counterproductive. It's another thing, just like the basket, that distracts you from the important thing, which is the tanker. I do have an idea that could work - an overlay similar to what we have for IFLOLS, showing USAF-style director lights. That would especially help low-end VR users, who may have trouble seeing the lights on the actual tanker.

[Tippis]

  

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It can. Try the Harrier the next time it's on free trail, or buy it, it's worth the money. It includes an AAR training mission that'll teach you how to do it. There is no need to implement anything more than that. In fact, telling you about the sight picture is better than showing it. When you see an image, you don't know what to focus on. OTOH, when you're told what to look for, you can just focus on one cue and keep it in alignment (or, as with the Harrier, scan between two locations).

I've tried it. It's pretty poor and could be improved in a major way by actually having the full range of tools available to other flight regimes. You know what would be better than being told what to look for? Being told and shown what to look for, in a wide array of circumstances when what to look for — and how to make sure it looks that way — changes as you go through the steps of the procedure.

 

Also, don't confuse your subjective learning style for being an objective truth that works for everyone.

 

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Falcon 4.0 had "easy AAR". It wasn't recommended for actual AAR training because it would teach you bad habits. Any simplifications that would not be equivalent of watching a track or YT video would have the same result. You can disable wake turbulence, and that's it. Control during AAR is ultimately about developing muscle memory, a lot like riding a bike, actually, and I can tell you that riding a bike with training wheels on doesn't actually do much to teach you the hardest part, which is also the one part you can't learn from someone telling you about it. 

…and that's the problem right there. So why this compact resistance to improving the game to be able to do do what it says on the box? What's so horribly wrong with trying to teach the parts that you can't just listen your way into learning? Because there are ways of teaching those things, and the best way of doing that is to offer a difficulty gradient so the problem can be broken down in different parts focusing on different aspects of that muscle memory. As you point out, there isn't one at the moment — you can disable wake turbulence, and that's it, but that doesn't actually change much in this case and it is completely binary. Other options and aids and helpers might also be binary, but layer enough of them on top of each other, and suddenly get a fair amount of granularity in what the student need to keep track of.

 

Also, come to think of it, so what if there was an F4-style easy AAR? So what if it taught bad habits? That might be bad for those who want to go all the way, but those people would also known this and would push through to the next level of lessons; those that don't, won't, and will keep having fun. So where's the harm? DCS is supposed to hand-hold novice players; it is supposed to offer gameplay and options for casual players — if the new or casual player wants to get into the larger complexities and considerations that go into a mission that requires in-flight refuelling, what's the benefit of not giving them that?

 

39 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It is important in one specific moment: during the transition. DCS has an unrealistically shallow bank on part of the tanker, which lessens the effect of the transition knocking you out of alignment, but it's there, and also unrealistically, it doesn't announce when it's about to do this. Also, it puts you out of trim, which is an quite insidious, because in DCS, you may not notice the tanker is turning. If you're trimmed for level flight, you're not trimmed for the turn. Compensating for this takes some practice.

That's the funny thing here. So much of the argument against improving the game is that it would somehow make it unrealistic (even though as previously mentioned, it would actually open the window for much more realistic setups for more players) but at the heart of the matter is the problem that the refuelling itself  is… lacklustre, let's say… in that department. One thing that would probably make it a whole lot easier is if it were made more realistic. Granted some of that would require robbing the AI of its on-rails flying, which is likely to break things in irreparable ways, but a man can dream.

 

That's not all that strange though. You'll always come across this undercurrent in any and all sim communities: the notion that “real” directly correlates with “hard” and vice versa. That something that is made easier must somehow forcibly mean that it is made less realistic. And then you get people fighting tooth and nail against increased realism because they've somehow tied their preference or persona and they've become invested in that difficulty, as if DCS was a bullet hell arcade game or something. This thread has actually been refreshingly free of that for the most part, but you can still see it pop here and there.

[Dragon1-1]

2 minutes ago, Tippis said:

 That's the funny thing here. So much of the argument against improving the game is that it would somehow make it unrealistic (even though as previously mentioned, it would actually open the window for much more realistic setups for more players) but at the heart of the matter is the problem that the refuelling itself  is… lacklustre, let's say… in that department. One thing that would probably make it a whole lot easier is if it were made more realistic. Granted some of that would require robbing the AI of its on-rails flying, which is likely to break things in irreparable ways, but a man can dream.

It has nothing to do with "on rails AI", and everything to do with ED trying to make it "more accessible" by making the tanker take unrealistically shallow turns, which take forever and sneak up on you. Try the other F-16 sim for more realistic tanker tracks, it'll put in enough bank to make what's basically a standard rate turn. If you're not prepared, you'll fall off the boom, which is why the tanker will give you a heads-up before it does that. TBH, handling the moment when the tanker is in process of banking does add some difficulty (mostly because you need to apply a larger input that can easily develop into PIO), but the current way trades that for an extended period when you're out of trim. 

9 minutes ago, Tippis said:

 I've tried it. It's pretty poor and could be improved in a major way by actually having the full range of tools available to other flight regimes. You know what would be better than being told what to look for? Being told and shown what to look for, in a wide array of circumstances when what to look for — and how to make sure it looks that way — changes as you go through the steps of the procedure.

There's no wide array of flight regimes involved. A tanker will fly a narrow range of altitudes and airspeeds, so every refuelling is more or less the same. All you need to do is trim, get in formation, fly the cues you were told about. If you can't convert simple directions into a mental image, then you have bigger problems than AAR.

11 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Also, come to think of it, so what if there was an F4-style easy AAR? So what if it taught bad habits? That might be bad for those who want to go all the way, but those people would also known this and would push through to the next level of lessons; those that don't, won't, and will keep having fun. So where's the harm?

Wasted development time that could be used elsewhere. We don't want ED working on simplified AAR, because it takes away programmer time from something else. It's a dead end, you can't use it as a stepping stone to realistic AAR, because you'll have to unlearn your bad habits. 

 

DCS has stopped trying to be a "game" long ago. FC3 was the last time it tried, and now MAC is taking that role. Devs have simply given up on casual players in favor of hardcore simmers. Simplifications made for their sake are now seen as flaws and being phased out. The last such thing was the ability of MiG-21 to be steered on the ground with rudder alone, which was greatly reduced after people complained (and that wasn't even ED). Game avionics are buggy and have been so for years. Instead, the devs are adding support to latching 3-position switches, which are present only on the most high-end HOTAS setups and on DIY ones. Whatever it might say on the box is an artifact of an earlier era, just like the FC3 pack.

[Tippis]

15 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It has nothing to do with "on rails AI", and everything to do with ED trying to make it "more accessible" by making the tanker take unrealistically shallow turns, which take forever and sneak up on you. Try the other F-16 sim for more realistic tanker tracks, it'll put in enough bank to make what's basically a standard rate turn. If you're not prepared, you'll fall off the boom, which is why the tanker will give you a heads-up before it does that. TBH, handling the moment when the tanker is in process of banking does add some difficulty (mostly because you need to apply a larger input that can easily develop into PIO), but the current way trades that for an extended period when you're out of trim.

Right. The on-rails-AI thing is more a matter of how the tanker isn't moving through the same air the player does, so something that just basic aerodynamics should help make happen, they player have to do for themselves because they exist in a completely different space than the AI tanker. If the AI actually flew the plane (and had some sense of self-preservation), the player would have an easier time of sticking to it.

 

The tanker AI behaving more like a tanker crew and the tanker plane behaving more like a plane are just two of those cases where more real = more easy, but the flight model part in particular is just so unlikely to ever happen because of what it would mean on a larger scale.

 

15 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

There's no wide array of flight regimes involved.

You're mixing the two up: it is a single flight regime with a number of different circumstances. There are a number of sight pictures you want to keep track of (here, too, the terseness of the AI contributes a fair amount but fixing one could solve the other).

 

And again: don't generalise your subjective learning style. It is not a universal fact. People who don't share that learning style do not “have problems” to any greater extent than you do.

 

15 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Wasted development time that could be used elsewhere. We don't want ED working on simplified AAR, because it takes away programmer time from something else. It's a dead end, you can't use it as a stepping stone to realistic AAR, because you'll have to unlearn your bad habits. 

The question was: so what?

 

And yes, you most certainly can use it as a stepping stone. It's an age-old and millennia-proven methodology: first you show and tell; then you try some minor part with a lot of hand-holding and even hand-guidance, still with a lot of show and tell; then you pull back on the show-and-tell in favour of just correcting the errors; then you expand the minor part to include more complex parts, possibly adding new things to show and tell as they become relevant. Tacit knowledge transfer is a known entity — we've been doing it for aeons, but it requires the right capabilities and tools to work well.

 

Oh, and we definitely want ED to work in simplified AAR because it puts programmer time on a part of the game that has been lagging behind and needs to be updated, and which would be beneficial to just about everyone no matter what plane they fly (because many of the same tools could be used for other flight regimes and tasks). Something that universally applicable should be a lot higher priority than any single module could ever be worth.

 

15 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Instead, the devs are adding support to latching 3-position switches, which are present only on the most high-end HOTAS setups and on DIY ones. Whatever it might say on the box is an artifact of an earlier era, just like the FC3 pack.

Well, the game already fully supports latching switches. That's just a binding UI feature. And what it says on the box is what the game should strive to deliver, especially given how they keep coming back to and hammering that single point on multiple occasions.

[Dragon1-1]

48 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Oh, and we definitely want ED to work in simplified AAR because it puts programmer time on a part of the game that has been lagging behind and needs to be updated, and which would be beneficial to just about everyone no matter what plane they fly (because many of the same tools could be used for other flight regimes and tasks). Something that universally applicable should be a lot higher priority than any single module could ever be worth.

Except you're the only one who thinks that way. Instead of implementing more "helpers" like this, I'd rather see ED's time go towards damage model, ATC, performance, new clouds, AI... there's so much more they could work on instead. Making AAR accessible to casual players most definitely shouldn't be a priority. After those things are done, maybe. Not before. Until then, you'll have to do some reading and some spatial thinking. And it's not about "my" way to learn, either. Real pilots learn that way all the time, no magic AAR in real air forces. 

 

And no, AAR with simplified physics can't be used as a stepping stone to doing this in realistic mode any more than riding a trike prepares you to ride a bike. It just won't build the sort of muscle memory needed to fly this kind of thing. Was true in Falcon 4.0 days and is just as true today. 

 

Also, the tanker using the same physics as the player wouldn't change as much as you think. IRL, those planes are pretty stable. Tanker AI follows the trajectory you'd expect from a real tanker reasonably closely, including angles of bank. The unrealistic turn radius when in track (they can do normal turns outside of it) is the only issue that makes it harder than it should be. IRL, tankers don't generally maneuver themselves to help the pilot trying to hook up to them, in fact, they're typically on autopilot when flying the track.

 

I have a feeling that you're trying to blame DCS for your lack of ability, willingness and/or time to learn this thing properly, and expecting DCS to solve that for you. Well, in Doom, you don't get the BFG until you've put in some time and effort into the game, either. AAR is rewarding precisely because it's hard. In other words, go grind your AAR skill until you're on a high enough level.  Really, when you compare this to the time you'd spend grinding for essential skills in an RPG (engineers in Elite:Dangerous, anyone?), DCS is positively lenient in that regard.

[Tippis]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Except you're the only one who thinks that way.

Clearly not as this thread demonstrates.

 

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

And no, AAR with simplified physics can't be used as a stepping stone to doing this in realistic mode any more than riding a trike prepares you to ride a bike. It just won't build the sort of muscle memory needed to fly this kind of thing. Was true in Falcon 4.0 days and is just as true today. 

Yes it can. It is as true today as it was over the last couple of millennia. Training wheels exist (and are call that) for a reason.

 

You're also vastly simplifying what goes into AAR if you just condense it down to “muscle memory” — again, this thread offers plenty of explanations and examples of why it's more than that. It's part of a larger complex of tasks and skills to be learned. The more these can be isolated and practised individually, the better. Right now, the part you suggest is the most important is also the one that is the least supported by the game training tools.

 

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I have a feeling that you're trying to blame DCS for your lack of ability, willingness and/or time to learn this thing properly,

I have a feeling you've run out of arguments since you feel the need to inject this ad hominem. Oh, and the general lack of argumentation also further enhances that feeling, of course, but that one is a pretty standard sign of someone opening their final box of coffin nails…

[sthompson]

21 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Everything this thread is about is an AI that takes away the burden of performing sim features some people have no initiative to invest learning time into while still looking to receive the benefits - in this case not having to land and refuel nor AAR themselves but have auto-refuel.

 

You obviously haven't been following the thread very closely if you think that everyone commenting is asking for AI to fly the plane into the basket. Lots of us are asking for learning aids, not auto-refuel. Perhaps we should start a separate thread.

 

[Katj]

 
Oh, i didn't say 'everyone in here', but 'everything the thread is about'. First post states so and there's a bandwagon following. If you skip a few pages back, you'll see i even contributed an idea that might help learning without being anything-auto (if you had followed the thread very closely... ).
 
I'm all in for clever learning aids but against any auto, so we're on the same side actually. Having a separate thread might be a good idea on one hand (due to the title of this one) but be aware it will be hijacked by auto-folks asap.

I'm most definitely in something of an auto camp. It could be implemented like if you fly in the general vicinity, like a mile or so, of the tanker you get the gas. That way you still have to manage your fuel, find the tanker, and join up. I.e. you have to handle all aspects except the close formation flying.

I don't think many of the "learning aids" you guys are discussing would help much. When I see people struggling with AAR it's because of PIO, not because they don't know where they should be. Especially when we're talking basket. Perhaps the boom operator could be more talkative and actually help talk you into the correct position, at least if you ask him to via radio menu.

Of course every AAR capable module should have an instant action type of mission that starts you off right behind the basket or boom. Most missions starts you off way too far behind, and it's just tedious to first join up on the tanker if you just want to have a quick 10 minute sit down in front of your computer and practice some AAR.

Such missions could also be voiced and tell you about any tricks that are helpful for the module in question. Like "Put the thing on the thing", "sweep the wings back to such and such", that sort of stuff.

Other than that I think practice, adjusting equipment (like joystick axis curves), and patience will have almost everyone doing AAR within a reasonable time frame.

[draconus]

51 minutes ago, Katj said:

if you fly in the general vicinity, like a mile or so, of the tanker you get the gas.

40 years back in River Raid you had to fly right through the Fuel. Now in a flight sim we need a mile or so

[Glide]

Can someone chime in on the real life experience for the Viper.  I seem to recall the boom operator does all the connection work and afterwards you are hands free until disconnect.  This would be a better option for some.  Simply toggle boom operator in the settings, and when you get in contact position, the boom grabs you and you autopilot along with the tanker until disconnect.

Edited February 12, 2021 by glide

[draconus]

8 hours ago, glide said:

Can someone chime in on the real life experience for the Viper.  I seem to recall the boom operator does all the connection work and afterwards you are hands free until disconnect.  This would be a better option for some.  Simply toggle boom operator in the settings, and when you get in contact position, the boom grabs you and you autopilot along with the tanker until disconnect.

Yeah, that's what real boom operators said in these forums. But the pilot still needs to be proficient at precise formation flying or it won't happen. So it would not be an option - just part of possible simulation improvement.

[upyr1]

This would be cool for a USAF Phantom II, I've seen an F-4 pilot say the WSO had an easier time refueling