Bosun

There are two posts (possibly more?) about this now. Suggest merging these.

I posted about this earlier. Merge them!

Haha 'Only Turbo-fans' account

While I actually feel like the F-4 is close to release based on what they've shared - you should know that there is a solid and reliable track record of developers missing release dates by not just 1 year, but several years. In many games across all genres. So a single year delay is actually well within reason and expectation of any community, and unless they tell you it is delayed indefinitely, a delay of a year should not cause concern nor be a shock to anyone who's been paying attention to any game development in the last 10 years.

While realism is much appreciated - at times during multiple multiplayer missions, it becomes overly tedious to re-program all your displays. I would love to see a feature under "SPECIAL" in the game options for the F-15, to save configurations for the MFDs that would automatically load on start up. I would also like for the option to have Re-Arm/Re-Fuel action to load the ordnance into the computer. I understand this was an added point to realism, but could we make it a selectable 'toggle' in the "SPECIAL" game options for the F-15 as well? For those that want that added realism? An option for these would be awesome, at least to speed up some multiplayer so I'm not constantly having to re-target things that get blown up in the 15 minutes I spend re-setting and re-programming displays after every spawn.

The next-generation iteration of this is a real AI program that uses 4-5 different sets of recordings from 4 or 5 different RIOs, to generate responses on the fly as you're in-mission. You'd get a sampling of each RIO's style from recordings clips of them, and then select the one you want to 'build' the AI personality off of. The AI program could then use your own responses to it, to further refine and adjust what it generates for you. No more of anyone complaining about the profile of responses - the RIO would be as childish, or as helpful, as the pilot indicates to the AI they want it to be.

They're still being developed. In several spots, the narrators reference 'we'll go over this in another lesson.' In the mean time, there are several good ones popping up on Youtube from users, and Grim Reapers are always a clean, good presentation on various aspects.

I mean, if you're designing missions out of a passive-aggressive loathing for players deviating less than 20 feet from the prescribed course on the tarmac, while actively trying to correct their course, I'd say either grow up or let someone else make a mission. "no amount of coffee can get you through that process without losing your sanity, and instead you either ignore players doing it wrong, or you take the quick and easy solution of having them restart a mission that only takes a few minutes anyway" It actually is telling that you'd have that kind of impression of the mission I mentioned. I think RAZBAM simply wanted to have some fun with the narrator which is great - I just think the 'Restart' isn't necessary as it causes me to have to wait another 5 minutes while it reloads and get back to that point. When I encountered this I was concerned if it was present in the other tutorial missions, because it would make going through them tedious. But that was not the case, so no worries there. I think if that's the impression your'e going into mission building with, perhaps take a break, come back when you're fresh and not burned out on it. No other module in this game forces a reload and restart if the player deviates from the set course a little. There's no viable reason to do that, when you could just have the narrator say, "It seems you went the wrong way. Get turned around and hurry up pilot!" or something like that. And then the mission simply waits for you to hit the right trigger area to progress. Can you imagine if all the tutorials simply shut down the mission and reloaded them every single time a mistake was made? No one would use them.

When Stanley started up the F15-E, he came to a set of two taxiways. He chose the taxiway on the left. ::goes a little right by accident:: Stanley, are you even listening to me? Stanley? Why do you do this to me Stanley? I thought we had something here. I really did. But I can see now that it was all just a cruel joke to you. F'it. Restart. (Truly though - I actually found the 'snarkiness' in training missions unhelpful and unnecessary. Especially in the landing tutorial where it was so distracting that I had to just digest the steps and then practice in instant action instead. The 'forced restart' on the taxi mission was entirely unnecessary and should be cut. After checking steering left and right, and having a bit of prolonged right due to some controller trouble, I still had plenty of room to turn around and go left. No reason to force a restart, and reload of the mission.)

This was the top of the best arc I could make so far. F-15Elon maybe?

Hence the "and allow modifications of those within set limits" - because of course exceptions exist, but those exceptions are still bound by the laws of physics. I've seen small cruise ships get exposed screws from 15-20ft seas due to the timing of the swell, while being squarely in line with Beaufort Scale expectations. If you're travelling with the wind, it will certainly feel odd to meet a rolling sea, especially when modern cruisers can go 30-40kts, effectively creating conditions onboard deck of having 0 wind. If your sea-state was 20-30 ft swell, you either had wind and were travelling with it - or you had a recent major storm nearby somewhere that piled that energy up - or - you were running against a high-flow current near the bay, and the wave action was piling into the shallower water and creating high swell. That's a localized effect closer to shore or shallow water, and cannot be universally applied as a sea-state. San Francisco - sure. Been there lots. San Fran is a cool case though, due to the Bay Area and the currents that move around it. I would not be able to say that a large ocean like the Black Sea would behave the same way as being just outbound of the Bay. The video I posted is just offshore of Monterey about 20 miles. Land topography has a lot to do with swell height, period and wind waves as well. Shallow seas produce more choppy water as energy does not have the ability to expand into the depths beneath it. You see a lot of localized water-states in Puget Sound, for example, due to all the eddies and currents and varying depths. That doesn't mean that you can judge an entire sea-state from those. They're very unique to localized conditions within a few miles. Exceptions exist. Again - if anything - base it on the observed scales, and deviate from there for adjustments with depth and localized effects of the Black Sea. Barring the ability to be that specific with the programming, they've not done a terrible job at modeling the states. They could do better - but I would still say that having controls that let you put heavy rain on a clear sky would be silly, and being able to create 30ft swell on a calm day is equally illogical, barring some exception to land topography that would cause that kind of swell to pile up. Better to adjust the states to be more customizable within limits and relationships to each other, than to completely decouple them. I've been deep in the Coral Sea on a long-haul crossing that took 56 days with a loaded ship to the gunwhales, and I've seen swell state reach 12-15 ft on a gentle 15knt breeze. Why? We were crossing the Colverson Ridge (sp?), a sea mount where the depth goes from over several thousand feet, to several hundred in a short span. The wave energy piled up and the swell exceeded the nominal range of expectation for the scale of windforce we had. Exceptions exist. But they are not rules by which to code a universe, and without the ability to only apply those exceptions locally to certain spots on the map - better to stick with the universals for now, would be my leaning. I don't want to start flying in servers were people are throwing 50 knt winds across a carrier deck on a flat-calm sea. That just breaks my immersion.

Those wind-wave calculators you're looking at are not correct. Can you link me to them? Apologies, but I've wrung more salt water out of my hat than you've sailed across, and I can tell you on a 40 kt breeze with hundreds of feet of depth and a 40 mile fetch, 17-ft swell is actually right in the variable zone of what would be expected. For example - see this attached video. It's an old one from the early 2000s on a crappy cell phone - but - wind here was about 25+ sustained, gusting 30kts. Notice the swell/windwave. That was mostly wind-wave fetch, as the swell was not that high that day. Why? We had stable weather and the 'energy' of swell had not been built up. This is 20 miles offshore in open water. For reference - this was moving a 250-ton ship under lower-canvas (half it's available power) only, about 10 kts, fairly close to it's hull-speed of 11. 1338268_10151636419788195_40727_n.mp4 A few things to note here - The Beaufort scale marks this as a Force 6 (it was.) Look at what the Beaufort Scale has to say about this weather: A Force 8, the windspeed you're 'calculating' above: null I would highly encourage everyone who wants to get to know actual sea-state conditions, to learn the Beaufort Scale, and go sailing. Not power-boating. Actual, hard sailing on a cruising sailboat - or tallships. On a large powered vessel, you're not as aware of conditions because the ship doesn't rely on those conditions the same way. You'll get a much more 'grounded' experience of the sea, if I can turn a phrase. If you've ever served on a smaller vessel, even powered, however, you'll have a good idea of it. On a large cruise ship, massive carrier or battleship, however, it is difficult to learn the associations of sea-state to weather, because you just plow right through most of it all the same. For the nay-sayers - yep - exceptions indeed exist to the scale's general descriptions of sea states. However - those are exceptions to the correlated conditions that are so predictable -someone made a set scale out of them that has been used by professional mariners as a proper gauge for hundreds of years. So. Don't believe the movies. (Except Master & Commander - nailed it.) And don't believe online calculators that tell you a tsunami-force wave happens at 40 kts.

For anyone looking at other modern Unreal based engines - one big factor that has made Flights Sims need their own engines since forever - is the scale at which you're able to see things. Only in flight sims, do you get the need for an engine to render things tens of kilometers, sometimes hundreds of kilometers away, all at once. For the Unreal video posted above, those 'bush' renderings may be dreamy, but you cannot apply that rendering engne to an aircraft travelling 600knts at an altitude of 10,000ft. It would crash the computer. Most all the games that run Unreal Engine dynamics do not have to render such large areas, and move that large area of render around such a large map, as quickly, all at once, like a flight-sim engine needs to do. Furthermore, weather dynamics are often under-utilized in those engines, where they're more often simply 'background' to a scene, and not an active part of the environment, outside of generated precipitation at ground level.

This is a universal world modeling issue. The reason the Black Sea has differing swell structures than the Atlantic, is because it is a smaller, land-locked ocean. Swell energy cannot build up the same way as it does across an ocean that is affected by current and massive weather depressions. Furthermore - the depths of the Black Sea are overall more shallow, leading to more choppy wind-waves. What we're really asking for here, is to have sea-state modeling specific to the Black Sea, or Mediterranean for the Sinia map, for example, that factors in the shallower depths, more localized currents, and smaller 'pool' from which wave energy is built. The effect of separating wind from ocean state is akin to asking if you have rain or snow settings separate from clouds. At that point you have ceased being a realistic simulator, and have gone into a purely science-fiction realm, which is not the goal of the sim. What you should properly ask for is accurate modeling of sea-state based on swell energy, fetch, and depth. If you're unfamiliar with those terms, do some reading on them. Then - look up The Beaufort Scale. Wind, weather and wave energy are so tied into each other, that a set scale was created and is still in use today as a primary way to describe sea state based on wind. This is used by all professional mariners, from private yachts to massive CVNs. I would say, more realistic to model that scale and be able to 'select' a state of the scale on a slider, say, and then be able to change wind parameters within set limits for the silder scale you're on. A completely-separate control for wind, and sea-state, however, is only applicable if you're looking to create artificial conditions that are not physically possible - and just are not part of physics, like having aerodynamics in space, or precipitation from a clear sky. Easier to have a simple tablet from which to scale the states of wind and sea as they realistically relate to one another, and allow modification of those settings within set limits. Similar to what they've already done, perhaps but more refined.

Changed topic title and updated the post a bit with more reflections.

I started another thread about the difficulty of the F14 in refueling. It is an arduous learning curve, but the Jester implementation is meant to mimic the kinds of calls a RIO would give you. Ultimately, the approach is up to the pilot. You should have line of sight on the basket, and Jester's calls on right or left are really just there for ambience, not really meant to be actual direction, as you should be able to see where you're at in relation to the basket. I typically turn Jester off, because his calls get 'stacked' in a queue when you do a slow, steady approach, and after you've connected, he's still calling out directions as the stacked call queue runs through. The difficult part that I proposed revising is the bounding box of pre-contact. The F14 has to approach close enough that the plane is forward, and inboard of the actual drogue in order to 'Clear Contact', making it necessary to fall back and re-approach in order to contact the drogue, which risks pushing back outside the precontact box and having the crew retract the drogue on you. Some tips to help from my observations: 1. Trim so that you are ever-so-slightly needing to notch the stick back, and nose up. This allows faster and more accurate control of vertical alignment since you will only need to use the stick to adjust in one direction of the vertical and won't need to 'push' the stick in order to bring the alignment down. I find it easier to hold attitude with a consistent stick pressure, albeit very light. If I need to bring the nose up, I can 'tap' the stick back, and have the nose travel in a very shallow parabolic curve. I can then use that curve to put the basket at the top of it, and when I get close, tap the stick and have the nose travel into the basket. Once contact is made, I can keep the stick ever so slightly tapped back with just pinky-pressure really, letting up on it when I need my vertical aligment to come back down. The pinky-pressure becomes my baseline for holding attitude. More baselines with your throttle below, as well. 2. Get into a formation with the tanker prior to calling for Pre-Contact. Track your position relative to the fuselage of the tanker, and establish a 'Baseline' for your throttle to hold you there. 3. From that baseline throttle positions, you can notch it up, or down, to come forward or fall back. 4. Remember that notching your throttle is a three-step action. You notch it forward, and wait as the engines take time to build speed in small increments. Then, bring the throttle a notch back below the baseline, to slow down to your baseline speed - and finally, notch the throttle back up, to your baseline to maintain that speed. Each movement needs time for the aircraft to respond. The aircraft also needs time to respond to stick input, and trimming your nose so that there is a bias for you to 'push against' is very helpful - but make it very slight. If you have rudder pedals - use the rudder to control your right/left alignment - don't use the ailerons. A lot of F14 pilots found it easier to approach the basket from slightly below, and upon getting just to it, notching aileron left to pitch the right-hand mounted probe up and into the basket, keeping it in the forward 1-oclock a-frame of the cockpit. Finally - many people swear by using 'Bomb Mode' wingsweep - however - that is a preference and at high altitudes or lower speeds, can actually making holding alignment more difficult. The benefit of it is causing your plane to have a higher AoA on approach, making your throttle inputs more responsive against a higher-drag profile approach. I've achieved the same effect using the speed brake and keeping the wings out at 20 degrees. Ultimately with practice you won't need bomb mode or the brake, once you get more proficient at throttle control. Keep at it - you'll get it. It's definitely frustrating, and as my other post mentions, more frustrating when the tanker doesn't respond logically to your approaches.

Yes, that is currently true. I'm not debating where the defined contact-box currently is, but rather suggesting it could be adjusted for a more realistic interaction. The proposal I'm suggesting is that the area where pre-contact registers for the computer to release the drogue is too forward and too in-toward-center of the tanker. In the area where I'm flying in the bottom photo, saying "return pre-contact" is ridiculous, and I doubt that any real tanker crew would simply say that to a pilot holding station at that position. I bet, if you're that close, holding station and called for a drogue, they'd probably think you were close enough, and release it. They wouldn't wait until the perfect moment your plane is within that small box of contact radius as defined by the computer's programming. When I am in pre-contact and get it to register, and the drogue has been reeled out all the way, I actually have to back up, as the drogue is behind and outboard of my nose. Logically, that makes no sense as a pre-contact box. It should be that the pre-contact box leaves the drogue 50-100 ft ahead, and slightly right of the of the aircraft, for a steady approach. The shots I had above, the bottom one? That's exactly where the drogue extends too - I'd still need to back up a bit to actually line up on it - and it tells me in that position, that I need to return pre-contact? Where the heck does the tanker crew think I am? I'm right there. That's what I mean. You're absolutely correct on where you need to be currently. I feel like, however, that the positiion I was holding in that last photo should be inside the pre-contact confirmation range. It could be adjusted.

Photos of the exact moments when the tanker has told me "Return Pre-Contact", and then started retracting the basket: (Note the basket is out in hte 2nd pic, it's just retracted behind the line of sight of the frame. The first photo, I actually had the probe just at the basket, and about to make a solid connection.) Am I taking too long? Is there a timer? Why does that keep happening? I have a working theory that the 'Pre-Contact' position is so precise, that once you stabilize your aircraft to approach the basket, and make a solid connection that will keep you pacing and heading with the tanker - you're technically outside the pre-contact bounds, and if you're not already connected, or soon, it does this. This seems odd, since in order for me to approach the basket and connect, I've got to be roughly where I was. Seems like the pre-contact area needs to be adjusted? You can see the tanker call in the upper left on this first photo. See below pictures of me saddled up, ready to fuel - and still not inside bounds of pre-contact when I made the call: (It could be noted that I'm too far back and right in the first photo - too far down in the 2nd. However - both photos are close enough, as once I got closer to pre-contact, I had to back off again to be behind the basket, and approach it. In the first photo, the basket falls just ahead and right of where I am, so I'm in a natural position there to have them extend it. But they won't until I'm so close that i have to back up to see the basket once it's out.

Fwiw - scanned it and came out neg.

nullSwap the numbers on this photo. They're backward.

@RAZBAM_ELMO Just curious - it appears that Baltic down-sampled the images in the PDF during compression. Could someone tell them? The cockpit photos have unreadable/discernable details due to the artifacting. Selecting non-compression on PDF export will dramatically increase file size- but it will also make the photos referenceable.

Yep. Now, granted, I may have oscillated out of the range momentarily, but then recovered and tracked in. And that is several minutes past when I would have tracked out of it. I feels like there's a trigger to a count down timer that calls the non-contact and retracts the probe, and once you trigger that countdown, nothing stops it until it retracts and you call again. Regardless where you're at when the timer runs down. Further - there absolutely is a timer on the probe for you to make contact, even within the bubble. I feel like that makes sense game-wise - but isn't something I could see a real crew doing to a pilot who's trying to hook it.

Hmm. Perhaps - I'll test that more. It's confusing because they show up as an option,but maybe that's the issue.

[Photos located a few posts down] Air to air refueling is the most difficult task in the game by far for me. It takes so much focus and control calibration, that I've gotten plugs for maybe 4-5 times, for a total 5 to 7 minutes out of first 20 hours of trying in an F-14. While I am getting better at it and can reliably plug the basket now, there remains some issues with the bounding box of 'Pre-Contact' for drogue engagement being too forward and inboard for proper approach. Also difficult is when a tanker will suddenly turn a course with no warning while I'm about to hook up. Would it be possible to have the tanker do a friendly call when it is about to turn? The main issue though, is when I'm slowly approaching the basket, less than 5 ft away from it on track, and they tell me to return pre-contact and retract the basket, presumably because I've 'taken too long.' That's utterly maddening, when I've spent an extra few minutes slowly notching the plane in, and finally getting it on a track to nock it at a steady speed, only to have them retract it. So my wish here would be, that the area wherein the tanker 'is aware' of a plane lining up after the ready call, be increased or adjusted to reflect the ideal position of the aircraft prior to pre-contact, and to reflect a more realistic and logical application of "Cleared Contact" calls so that aircraft holding station just aft, and just outboard of the drogue's final extended position be included in that bounding box. Also - expand the area, and the timing of, 'return pre-contact' triggers so that when an aircraft suddenly turns, for example, it doesn't knock me out of pre-contact simply for falling a few more meters behind after adjusting to the turn. In a real scenario, would a tanker crew really retract the drogue each time an aircraft that was actively attempting to refuel fell outside the radius of the tanker wingspan or tail length? I'm willing to admit they might as I'm not an actual pilot - but I have a doubt they would. It's trouble enough to practice this skill without the tanker making it unnecessarily difficult, so perhaps there could be 'Difficulty Settings' for the tanker that implement different bounding pre-contact box distances and behaviors for the tanker. 1. Easy Fueling - Bounding Box is larger for pre-contact, basket or boom stays deployed until an abort is called or distance of a quarter-mile is gained from tanker. Tanker gives out a friendly call on channel when it is turning, 'Coming Left to new heading XXX." for example. 2. Realistic Refueling - Bounding box is smaller, but still more-appropriately placed than is current, and distance for drogue or boom to remain deployed is less, as well as the current 'timer' that exists for when the tanker crew gives up on you. (lol.) Finally - tanker does not give any warning for heading changes. I think if it would be possible to implement that, it may make learning to refuel a little more palatable, and make the more realistic refueling feel a little more authentic and organic.

Not sure if this has been brought up - but more fidelity in damage modeling would be cool to see. I realise this isn't a priority due to the nature of missile combat having the same effect on a plane no matter where it hits - but it would be neat to see the actual body of the plane damaged and broken, instead of just the insta-wing-pop-off no matter where the missile strikes. As well, there is rudimentary modelling of bullet damage, but it would be neat to see more systems independently affected with bullet strikes or missile damage. Having a wing partly sawn off, for example, instead of it breaking cleanly at the root...or having the back quarter of the jet mangled and damaged from a missile, instead of just the wings falling off. This game has a lot of immersion and this one area where it breaks it for me sometimes.