Wrcknbckr

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...

I guess I was blessed with the Harrier when I first tried AAR. Watched some YT's and started. After two weeks I had my first transfer complete. It does not mean that it has become easy over time. Every AAR is exciting and stressful, still, requiring a mindset and concentration. That's why I'm skeptical for any distracting 'helper' functions that will somehow aid in doing the task, let alone for beginners. Gates have been proposed earlier and now 3d boxes (still 2d in their projection). 2d gates/boxes bear no relation with length, distance and scales, which are so badly needed. Once in the box you have a square of lines moving/expanding in all directions, not sure how that's gonna help your spatial awareness. You need a target object of which you know the dimensions, that moves steadily in space, steady altitude, steady speed and ... eh... wait, sounds like a tanker! I'm wondering why additional objects are needed? Is it easier to remain steady with respect to a box, instead of a tanker? I've seen other suggestions; having speed feedback. If anything is NOT important, it's your speed. What matters is position w.r.t. the tanker, speed could be anywhere between 200 and 900kts, doesn't really matter for your task. Any speed feedback would again distract from what is really important; hand-eye coordination and positioning. Another suggestion was to have visual control input feedback. Again do not add distracting features to what basically is available already; a steady object and a positioning task. I'm surprised to hear that people that manage to land an aircraft with prescribed speed/AoA/glideslope combinations are not able to fly straight (or maybe never tried and confronted with their wobbly course through the skies). Formation flying is the base for AAR, which seems to often forgotten. Before even thinking of Campaigns, Missions, or AAR itself, formation flying should be encouraged. I have not seen any dedicated formation flying in a training session (having a limited number of modules though). Additionally players could be advised on tuning their controls. I can imagine people have never considered tuning controls. Tuning curves so they are able to fly in formation with whatever aircraft, and choose position at will, without entering into a Pilot Induced Oscillation scenario (PIO). Maybe that would really help.

Maybe following is workable for you; once you have the frequencies via F10 as described by Wolf359, you can then link these with your channels in the Mission Editor. The Mission Editor has radio presets for the R-832 that links custom frequencies to your channel numbers. Haven't had time to check though. Disadvantage is that you have to do this manually for every mission. I hope there's a better solution through scripting, anyone?

Server may have checked 'Realistic ASP'?

Easiest: Harrier, just line up the basket/hose with the top of the hud and refuel box. Most difficult: Mirage, due to the fact that developers decided to hardcode a deadzone, which makes it impossible to tweak controls to your liking

@59th_Reaper; Care to share your loadout when you have a tire burst on taxiing? I tried to provoke it using your apparent loadout (32 Rocket Launcher + SAB/RBK type bombs) and added the external fuel tank. All added up to 22073 lbs (max 22928 ). During rearming the left gear sinks in the tarmac but resurfaces upon moving. I taxied at 100 kph and did a full front-wheel break. You can hear the gear touching some mechanical stop. but the tire stays intact. Same with a 100 kph differential break; first right, then left to keep it on the runway. Here again you hear that a gear limit is reached, but the tires are OK. (tested on last stable version)

Well, that's good to know. I only experienced that after landing, which I thought had to do with hard landing or speeding at take-off... Never had it after start-up.

The pictures show burst tires due to hard landing. Aircraft is tilted cause only one of the main gears was affected. The sparks stem from the wheel hubs. This has nothing to do with wheels disappearing in concrete which was a bug that was solved...

Wheels sinking into the concrete has been solved some versions ago. I think the bugs you mention would be considered minor. One major deficiency still is the drop in fps when the radar is used. This however is beyond 3rd party capabilities. It has to do with the Nvidia driver version and ED's platform.

This link has some interesting discussions on the topic. https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/digital-combat-simulator/dcs-world-2-5/272346-can-you-fly-formation-aerobatics-without-multiplayer . Depends on what you want to do, but it's not easy

As for the general sentiment among forum users; a few months ago we had the same (old) discussion that ended up in a poll; https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...-easy-aar-poll 2/3 not in favor of easier AAR.

Unless you want to only fly high speed and never want to land or take-off, you definitely need some yaw control. I'd suggest to fix your rudder pedals and have fun in future!

Problem with Mirage in my view is the deadband that seems hardcoded in the model itself. Is this realistic? There's no way I can configure the controls to my likings and cannot make small adjustments. Contrary, I have no problems with AAR in the Harrier.

Hawkeye, not as a personal grudge, but I needed a hook, i hope you don't mind. Some thoughts I find it rather strange that as first party you want a clarification of a third party. A third party is only accountable to, in this case, ED. The strange thing is, viewing all the posts, that everybody is blaming Razbam while it should be ED right? They should have the ultimate say on EA status and handle communications, on behalf of their subcontractor, otherwise third party looses its meaning. The fact that the customer communicates with the 3rd party is strange, but apparently it's custom in DCS. Moreover i wonder why Razbam does not communicate, not even with ED (seems like only when hell breaks lose). Did you ever wonder why Razbam did not respond, only through own channels.There are two parties involved here. How could this have gone wrong? I've been thinking. Please 'seniors' enlighten me. Could it have been evolved by following; The Harrier is not just any aircraft. It has VTOL capabilities. Vertical flight and its modelling is complex and requires additional efforts. In fact a hovering fixed wing has nothing to do with a conventional aircraft. I can imagine that after the development of the FM and then commencing the weapon systems they just ran out of financial resources. Blame it on a failed estimation of required efforts (by both parties), but apparently RB and ED had a different opinion in how to proceed. Did financial matters cause RB to ignore ED (forums) altogether and not even address futile, easy to solve issues (remnants of the visor appearing on side-screens comes to mind). RB creating forward load by promoting Mig23/F15E in order to generate financial resources to complete the promised features also fit in this picture, and so is the waiting on ED to come up with additional weapon systems/functionality. I have always been surprised that the present model is available for a price less then F-16/Hornet/F-14 (~70 vs 80$) -but with the additionally modeled VTOL capabilities. Conventional/STOL/VTOL landing modes. Good training sessions. All these features alone are worth the price tag. I have not even touched the weapon systems. I'd be willing to pay additional fee to get it complete. How is the pricing of a module determined? Did that lead to a disturbed relation between the two? Am I far off with these thoughts?

Refering to https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=268153&page=4 Downgrading your NVIDIA drivers is a workaround (442.16 or earlier).

I come from the rotorcraft/VTOL side. Rotorheads are advised to remove the spring alltogether from the joystick (a crappy one I admit). That helped a lot in flying helicopters and also seemed beneficial for AAR. Stimulated by the 'Easy AAR' discussions elsewhere in the forum, I dusted off my Harrier practices and tried AARs for the first time. In the end I managed to get 'transfers complete'. I guess partly because I could fly by the fingers instead of by a sweaty hand, fighting the spring, detents and deadbands. Ooh.. and also not looking at the basket!