Jump to content

Auto Air to Air Refuel


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

But really: having never done it before, you float below the tanker and you really got NO clue where you are relative to the correct position you should be in.

There are lights on the belly of the tanker to give you a reference. One for height and another for distance. 

  • Thanks 1

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So tired of all this reluctance to change and improvments stating realism as factor for not doing it. What realism?? It´s a simulator and it is already unrelistic in many ways and in particular t

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

My two cents:   There aren't many stepping stones in other aspects of DCS to help those who wish to progress in a given task to master it, and as such it tends to be a hurdle that you overco

yeah I'm kinda genuinely impressed and confused how you made this gigantic long post about having your hand held learning to AAR, you actually take the time to learn to do it, remark,

 

1 hour ago, Desert Fox said:

From the first connect it really wasn't that hard to repeat anymore to be honest.

 

and make zero mention of the lights... while repeatedly remarking the lack of visual references.

so...what... you just winged your way through this? You didn't watch any tutorial vids for this (there are hundreds of them online)? You didn't read the manual, in which a picture of the perspective of the tanker in the pre-contact position is given, and a depiction and explanation of the lighting system was given...

 

what just happened here?


Edited by randomTOTEN
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, randomTOTEN said:

yeah I'm kinda genuinely impressed and confused how you made this gigantic long post about having your hand held learning to AAR, you actually take the time to learn to do it, remark,

 

 

and make zero mention of the lights... while repeatedly remarking the lack of visual references.

so...what... you just winged your way through this? You didn't watch any tutorial vids for this (there are hundreds of them online)? You didn't read the manual, in which a picture of the perspective of the tanker in the pre-contact position is given, and a depiction and explanation of the lighting system was given...

 

what just happened here?

 

Yeah, why highlight all that damn buttons and switches in all the tutorial missions? Didn't you stupid fuck just RTFM or watch a video, huh?

Why mark the ideal flight path in a landing tutorial with floating gates? You idiot could just have looked at a damn overhead break chart.

 

These tiny, hard to see lights (afaik as in RL, so correct) are probably a good reference once you're comfy under the tankers belly.

 

Idea of big, damn easy to spot boxes, gates and arrows is to make it as easy as possible for someone just learning.

 

Yeah, what just happened here? 🤔

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 16 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | Win 10 (64-bit) TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | DCS level Su-25A or SM

Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

  • Sad 1

Specs: Win10 64bits Pro, Intel i9-9900K | 32Go | RTX 2080 Ti | M.2 SSD 850go x2

Hardware: HTC Vive Pro + X56

Maps : Normandy + Assets | Gulf | Nevada

DCS Modules: FC3 | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | A-10C | F/A-18C | Ka-50 | SuperCarrier | F-14A/B | F-5E | F-86F Sabre | MiG-15bis | Mig-19 | MiG-21bis | AV-8B | Fw 190 D-9 | SA342 | P-51D | Bf 109 K-4 | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | M-2000C | F-16C

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2021 at 3:40 PM, Desert Fox said:

 

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

 

AAR mockup.jpg

 

 

 

 

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.

 

  • Like 2

Kind regards,

Vince

 

PC:

 

i5-7300HQ@2,5GHz | nVidia GTX 1050 Ti | 8Gb RAM | 256GB SSD for Windows+DCS | Windows10

 

Modules:

 

Mirage2000C | AV-8B N/A | MiG-21Bis | F-5E | L-39 | Gazelle | FC3

Combined Arms | Supercarrier

NTTR | Persian Gulf

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

AAR mockup.jpg

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

 

AAR mockup 2.jpg

 

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

  • Thanks 2

Proud owner of:

PointCTRL VR : Finger Trackers for VR -- Real Simulator : FSSB R3L Force Sensing Stick. -- Deltasim : Force Sensor WH Slew Upgrade -- Mach3Ti Ring : Real Flown Mach 3 SR-71 Titanium, made into an amazing ring.

 

My Fathers Aviation Memoirs: 50 Years of Flying Fun - From Hunter to Spitfire and back again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

  • Thanks 1

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Evoman
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by SharpeXB
  • Thanks 1

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Tippis
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Tippis
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tippis said:

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

 

 

Okay, you won.

 

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.

 

Can't argue here anymore, evidence is just too overwhelming.

/thread


Edited by Desert Fox
""

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 16 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | Win 10 (64-bit) TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | DCS level Su-25A or SM

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 🤷‍♂️

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tippis said:

Ok? If you say so.

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

 

Yeah, you indeed didn't suggest this. I was just exaggerating a bit further, since we long left the realm of reality anyways already.

 

You suggested DCS and that Nintendo game are literally the same for the subject of this discussion because... bOtH A gAmE anD DiFfiCult°!

Chess too is a game AND difficult... what now? Make DCS black and white only because... reason? Your way of giving evidence definitely would agree to this.

 

 

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 16 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | Win 10 (64-bit) TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | DCS level Su-25A or SM

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Tippis
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tippis said:

No. Read it again.

 

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.

 

 

The reason because it is ridiculed:

 

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.

Okay, i can justify literally anything walking this path. Like said: chess is a game and difficult, hell there's even chessboards using planes as figures. So let's apply chess rules to DCS. It's literally how you construct your arguments.

 

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. But that's it really, there are zero additional similarities.

 

There simply is no reason to offer any arguments because it's just so absurd. Simplifying and generalizing two completely different things to a point where they appear to be somehow equal and then build an argument on top of that: that's a strawmen. Just saying 😉

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 16 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | Win 10 (64-bit) TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | DCS level Su-25A or SM

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Tippis
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...