Jump to content

I want to be a Tanker pilot and a Boomer!


Recommended Posts

Being able to take the controls of the various tanker planes or maybe even just one like the S3 and having basic in cockpit control to control the refueling process would be good for a start. But being a Boomer in VR would be fun on the KC's. It would definitely give a lot more reality to the missions if we could avoid using the pre-canned in game radio calls and talk to a real person and pilot to make last minute course deviations to accommodate the strike package. Being a boomer would be a blast. Being able to control the boom connection as well as having the physics of the "tanker tow" that happens in real life when connected to the boom. This would also make AAR a little easier for people to learn since they would not be constantly having to make small corrections. I know that the boomer does not always lock the toggles on the boom to the plane, but they can if conditions are right I guess. I am sure this wont be an easy thing to implement though. That is why this is the "wish" section. Oh and I want a Pony...


Edited by BMGZ06
  • Like 4

System Specs: i9 9900KS, EVGA 2080 TI FTW 3 Ultra OC'd, 32gb Gskill Trident Z Royal ram(for the bling), Samsung 970 PRO M.2 SSD,. Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog throttle and VKB GF3/MCG PRO stick, MFG Crosswind V2, HP REVERB.

 

DCS modules: F-14, F-18, F-16, A-10, Nevada and PG

Link to post
Share on other sites

cant wait to deal with the boom operator whos tabbed out on facebook

  • Like 3

hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely would not go into a public server of randos and expect anything but Tom Foolery and Shinnanigans. I am talking more for the organized groups on private servers that are actually trying to run legit ops. 

System Specs: i9 9900KS, EVGA 2080 TI FTW 3 Ultra OC'd, 32gb Gskill Trident Z Royal ram(for the bling), Samsung 970 PRO M.2 SSD,. Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog throttle and VKB GF3/MCG PRO stick, MFG Crosswind V2, HP REVERB.

 

DCS modules: F-14, F-18, F-16, A-10, Nevada and PG

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

There's no stopping that, for sure. There's also people who do stupid things like like actually loading the R-55 or RS-2-US for air to air duties in the MiG-21 but that's fine. 

 

This also opens up support roles that might actually invite in some new players.

Ya it would really add a lot to the sim for sure. I doubt making a tanker module is even on their list of things to consider. ED has already got way too much on their list. Looking at how long it takes to get a module ready for early access, it would likely be years until we saw one even if they said yes they are going to do it. 

System Specs: i9 9900KS, EVGA 2080 TI FTW 3 Ultra OC'd, 32gb Gskill Trident Z Royal ram(for the bling), Samsung 970 PRO M.2 SSD,. Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog throttle and VKB GF3/MCG PRO stick, MFG Crosswind V2, HP REVERB.

 

DCS modules: F-14, F-18, F-16, A-10, Nevada and PG

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BMGZ06 said:

Ya it would really add a lot to the sim for sure. I doubt making a tanker module is even on their list of things to consider. ED has already got way too much on their list. Looking at how long it takes to get a module ready for early access, it would likely be years until we saw one even if they said yes they are going to do it. 

 

I think that no one is wishing (for now) to fly example KC-130. Instead they would want to just be operating a boom/baskets.

So only thing to be modeled is the boom operator station and controls for the boom physics.

 

And everything else is like the AI controlled plane.

So how long it would take to model that one station?

 

 

 

As it has been multiple times mentioned by Wags, the most challenging and demanding part of the module development is the flight modeling.

Well, it is basically done already, if not demanding a special boom flight dynamics to be done. But that should be minimal work compared to whole aircraft.

 

So just giving even a basic boom physics, I think it would make many happy if the 3D model of the cockpit is great.

But do not ask that what all the buttons and such does in that station, as that would then be the most demanding part and I think we should accept that many would be "not simulated" state.


Edited by Fri13

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't exactly see the appeal. Sure, for me at least, it'll be cool the first few days but wouldn't it get boring after some time ? It doesn't seem to be a very varied "gameplay".

In any case I also must ask the question: what did you have in mind about this feature integration in DCS ? Is it going to be a paid module (somewhat like the supercarrier) with high fidelity clickability, or is it a feature in the base game with simple but accurate refueling simulation (somewhat like the free su25t) ?

In both cases, I've got things I'd rather like to see more than refueling operations but hey, I'd still gladly take it if ED were to drop it down on us.

 


Edited by notproplayer3

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, notproplayer3 said:

I don't exactly see the appeal. Sure, for me at least, it'll be cool the first few days but wouldn't it get boring after some time ? It doesn't seem to be a very varied "gameplay".

In any case I also must ask the question: what did you have in mind about this feature integration in DCS ? Is it going to be a paid module (somewhat like the supercarrier) with high fidelity clickability, or is it a feature in the base game with simple but accurate refueling simulation (somewhat like the free su25t) ?

In both cases, I've got things I'd rather like to see more than refueling operations but hey, I'd still gladly take it if ED were to drop it down on us.

 

 

It's honestly a pretty simple sell as I see it:

Combat in DCS can be unforgiving, frustrating, and even alienating to a degree. We all take our thumps and proceed from there. Some of us stick with it, others just kind of lose interest because while DCS isn't hard, necessarily, it can be frustrating. 

 

On top of that, there's a clear non-combat interest in DCS. After all, we have no shortage of handwringing over things like the Yak-52 and Eagle II. But, they still make sales and aerobatic servers still populate the master list.

 

These two groups of players have an interest in non-combat support roles. These are roles are every bit as vital to the warfighting capacity of a nation as the infantryman on the ground and fighters over head. AAR is particularly important. So, offering the ability to top off in the air and control the tanker craft becomes a practice in formation flight that benefits a game. It's not going to be as frustrating to the player as combat as the new player just needs to concentrate on trimming and flying straight & level. The flight sim crowd who enjoy long, uneventful flights and made civilian flight simming as popular as it is might find it interesting, too.

 

Of course, this could be said for a lot of roles that should be added to DCS, but AAR is just pertinent to this topic.

 

As for how? With Heatblur doing the A-6 and a KA-6D, making the KA-6D flyable would be a great step. Either that, or offering a buddy pod to an existing aircraft. That said, both do present unique issues as one is asking to build a cockpit from the ground up and the other? I'm not sure any flyables right now can carry a buddy pod. I'm almost positive the Hornet we have can't and those are exclusive to Supers.

 

Still, it should be a route that ED considers.

  • Like 3

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Click here to see the updated time until DCS: F-22A

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

As for how? With Heatblur doing the A-6 and a KA-6D, making the KA-6D flyable would be a great step. Either that, or offering a buddy pod to an existing aircraft. That said, both do present unique issues as one is asking to build a cockpit from the ground up and the other? I'm not sure any flyables right now can carry a buddy pod. I'm almost positive the Hornet we have can't and those are exclusive to Supers.

 

Still, it should be a route that ED considers.

This is what I would want to see, a flyable plane ! From my understanding this thread revolved around making the boom operator seat available to which I responded that I personally didn't see the appeal since all you'll be doing is sitting and waiting for planes to eventually come refuel. But making a whole module about a tanker plane is a whole different story. I'm all for it !

Heck, any support plane is interesting and they'll definitely be unique since only DCS offers this type of combat sandbox experience where support could have important roles but aren't yet flyable modules.

  • Like 1

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notproplayer3 said:

This is what I would want to see, a flyable plane ! From my understanding this thread revolved around making the boom operator seat available to which I responded that I personally didn't see the appeal since all you'll be doing is sitting and waiting for planes to eventually come refuel. But making a whole module about a tanker plane is a whole different story. I'm all for it !

Heck, any support plane is interesting and they'll definitely be unique since only DCS offers this type of combat sandbox experience where support could have important roles but aren't yet flyable modules.

 

 

Most of the buyers would be hardcore purist flyers that spend more time at co-ordinated multiplayer setup, meaning, only dedicated online players would be the buyers of flyable Tanker planes, Cargo and AWACS etc etc.

 

So in the end, mostly the takers would be players who are more into multiplayer ranked and co-ordianted team based buyers. Its mostly useless for those who sim in Singleplayer.

 

I mean, at Singleplayer, I just do not see the appeal of flying a Tanker, operating a boom, AWACS and Cargo flying waypoints, orbit circles and stuck with needing a real well oiled AI for missions to work like clockwork for the supposed mission to function. We do not have a good AI at present.

 

Rest all depends on how ED and other potential developers sees this as a feasible option in terms of sales and development COSTS to make a module vs who all would buy it. The multiplayer folks or SP people. Its not going to be cheap if such a module does come into fruition. They gotta model multiple engines, crew and lots of buttons plus its functions and how long does each of the current modules take to develop? 4-5 years? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see this at all as full aircraft module, with that average 3-5 year development time and price range at a $500'000.

 

So wouldn't it be enough to be like "notproplayer3" said, a free "Su-25T" level refueling station?

Why it would need to be much, much more? Have a 20-30 different functions and buttons to press and you have anyways primary controller as joysticks and radio...

If there is then a demand, then go and make it full fidelity one. Until then, "boom up" or "boom down" kind controllers with the Joystick.

 

After all it is just a support element for some flights, a position that should be possible be seated by a Combined Arms player when required. Instead someone required to purchase it separately to have it.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jojyrocks said:

 

 

Most of the buyers would be hardcore purist flyers that spend more time at co-ordinated multiplayer setup, meaning, only dedicated online players would be the buyers of flyable Tanker planes, Cargo and AWACS etc etc.

 

So in the end, mostly the takers would be players who are more into multiplayer ranked and co-ordianted team based buyers. Its mostly useless for those who sim in Singleplayer.

 

I mean, at Singleplayer, I just do not see the appeal of flying a Tanker, operating a boom, AWACS and Cargo flying waypoints, orbit circles and stuck with needing a real well oiled AI for missions to work like clockwork for the supposed mission to function. We do not have a good AI at present.

 

Rest all depends on how ED and other potential developers sees this as a feasible option in terms of sales and development COSTS to make a module vs who all would buy it. The multiplayer folks or SP people. Its not going to be cheap if such a module does come into fruition. They gotta model multiple engines, crew and lots of buttons plus its functions and how long does each of the current modules take to develop? 4-5 years? 

 

 

You are right and I don't expect DCS developers to make a big support plane (perhaps the derived ka-6 from the a6 heatblur is maybe gonna do). But I still do think there is some appeal to those planes even for only single player folks such as me, a C130 is already pretty cool if you do hot LZ missions (similar logic as transport helos in DCS), the ka-6 or the s3b tanker aircraft are cool in my eyes because they are carrier operated and if you get to the really big tanker aircrafts such as the kc's, to me, they are a dream size wise and systems wise (I already like piloting commercial aircraft in different other sims so having the same flying is good). The ultimate dream would be to have fully crewable Awacs even for single player. These are American aircraft but I'd also like to see other countries support aircrafts.

In any case, like you, it really isn't something that should be expected to arrive anytime soon (I hope this turns out to be wrong) but I really feel as if I could really enjoy those planes in single player.

5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

I don't see this at all as full aircraft module, with that average 3-5 year development time and price range at a $500'000.

 

So wouldn't it be enough to be like "notproplayer3" said, a free "Su-25T" level refueling station?

Why it would need to be much, much more? Have a 20-30 different functions and buttons to press and you have anyways primary controller as joysticks and radio...

If there is then a demand, then go and make it full fidelity one. Until then, "boom up" or "boom down" kind controllers with the Joystick.

 

After all it is just a support element for some flights, a position that should be possible be seated by a Combined Arms player when required. Instead someone required to purchase it separately to have it.

Combined arms integration seems like a a good idea, still, I don't see how the boom operator would be that interesting but why not hey ? ED should probably think about this regardless.

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if I said "I wish ED would send everyone a Free Puppy with every purchase of a module" there would be people saying how bad of an idea it is and that not everyone wants a puppy. Some of you are thinking way too hard about this.lol Also everyone thinks they don't want a puppy, until they get one in their hands.the office puppy GIF

  • Like 1

System Specs: i9 9900KS, EVGA 2080 TI FTW 3 Ultra OC'd, 32gb Gskill Trident Z Royal ram(for the bling), Samsung 970 PRO M.2 SSD,. Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog throttle and VKB GF3/MCG PRO stick, MFG Crosswind V2, HP REVERB.

 

DCS modules: F-14, F-18, F-16, A-10, Nevada and PG

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, notproplayer3 said:

Combined arms integration seems like a a good idea, still, I don't see how the boom operator would be that interesting but why not hey ? ED should probably think about this regardless.

 

The DCS World (weight on the word "World" and "Digital Combat") has potential to offer a lot to the players who just want to be a pilots.

There are many positions for multiplayer that could be utilized and help a lot. Example:

 

- ATC tower to manage the incoming/outgoing traffic on airbase and as well allocate logistics (requires another part), so having a view from the traffic controller tower, radar screen, schedule of aircrafts that has taken off and that are incoming. And of course radios to talk to the aircraft. Same thing belongs to carriers and of course the road bases.

- A Ground Control Intercept officer, having a large tactical map, receiving information from multiple radars, ground observation points, troops on the ground etc. You can generate the missions for the pilots to pick up and so on.

- AWACS or Hawkeye (or similar) operator with station to operate with flights.

- SAM operators.

 

The Super Carrier can offer places for the Landing Officer to play with other players. As well we need to have position for other similar flight operations and there is where a tanker boom operator would be interesting enough to assist other pilots to get refueled. It is not something that everyone or most would want, but it would just open up more air missions and more multiplayer positions.

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fri13 said:

I don't see this at all as full aircraft module, with that average 3-5 year development time and price range at a $500'000.

 

So wouldn't it be enough to be like "notproplayer3" said, a free "Su-25T" level refueling station?

Why it would need to be much, much more? Have a 20-30 different functions and buttons to press and you have anyways primary controller as joysticks and radio...

If there is then a demand, then go and make it full fidelity one. Until then, "boom up" or "boom down" kind controllers with the Joystick.

 

After all it is just a support element for some flights, a position that should be possible be seated by a Combined Arms player when required. Instead someone required to purchase it separately to have it.

Hence why KA-6D? We'll have the model, a flight model only needed relatively minor tweaks, and a cockpit that could be modified to suit it. If there were to be a player controlled AAR bird, the KA-6D is the best opportunity for it.

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Click here to see the updated time until DCS: F-22A

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Hence why KA-6D? We'll have the model, a flight model only needed relatively minor tweaks, and a cockpit that could be modified to suit it. If there were to be a player controlled AAR bird, the KA-6D is the best opportunity for it.

 

I still don't see it as replacement for the boom operator station that you just fly a KA-6D. As you don't have a boom but just basket, and you are not there really to station for long times to be visited by multiple aircraft etc.

As idea is not to fly, but operate the refueling.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

The topic's title also includes "tanker pilot" so, frankly, a KA-6D would qualify. 

 

Tanker pilot AND a boomer. So no, KA-6D wouldn't qualify if both are requirements. 😉

 

If we just go for a "capable to go help other players by bringing them more fuel", then KA-6D would totally fill that cap as you could just fly there and let them refuel from you and you return to deck.

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

Tanker pilot AND a boomer. So no, KA-6D wouldn't qualify if both are requirements. 😉

 

If we just go for a "capable to go help other players by bringing them more fuel", then KA-6D would totally fill that cap as you could just fly there and let them refuel from you and you return to deck.

I mean, there's a second seat in there.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Click here to see the updated time until DCS: F-22A

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...