shagrat

Yep, so artificial 5% damage to mirrors, webbing, metal sheets etc. doesn't "kill" a vehicle either. But the cumulative effect of 8 rocket impacts near a vehicle each dealing 5-10% damage, will likely give you a more severe effect, up to killing the vehicle. The critical damage does not require 100% damage, from what I've seen. Anyway, the point is, though there is definitely room for improvement on the damage model of certain warheads and more detailed options to model internal damage, the rockets, if used against the right targets do perform not that bad, as people like to paint them.

No, it isn't. You notice when paying attention to the damage notification (critical damage messages) and also the actual behavior of damaged vehicles. Since at least the Nevada Map, you get mobility effects, where a unit in a group suffering enough damage has its maximum speed reduced. This can be as bad as to a crawl. The group is slowed by its damaged unit. I have seen effects where vehicles that were suspiciously similar to "weapons" disabled, though it is difficult to tell, as I could not find a log entry or similar for this, yet. If someone knows if and where DCS logs the critical damage sustained, I would love to get a hint.

That is the point. In other scenarios, where collateral damage, area coverage against infantry, quick snapshots against a general area of suspected infantry and light vehicles is called for by the mission, the rockets (especially if we finally have all warheads and can mix!) are the "better" choice. If the mission calls for quick and precise destruction/disabling/blocking heavily armored columns of enemy, Hellfire missiles (especially the Radar-Hellfire AGM-114L) is the preferred choice. Though the damage model of fragmentation warheads like the M151 rockets (but also Mk-80 series and the general cluster bombs) still need some love, the overhaul of the ridiculously resilient infantry a while ago, was a game changer, in my opinion. Since then you can actually kill infantry with rockets, especially the new warheads on the AH-64D. Damage to vehicles is actually modeled, though not visible. You can reduce their speed, or get a mobility kill. Cumulation of damage from multiple rockets in the vicinity, can take out a Zsu-23, Technical or truck... People expecting a BMP or Tank getting killed without at least a few direct hits, need to lower their expectations. A mobility kill against a BTR or BMD is actually debatable. Really didn't test that one for quite some time. Bottom line, if you use rockets against their preferred targets (infantry, unarmored vehicles/weapon emplacements) the results are pretty believable, though not perfectly realistic. The addition and realistic modeling of effects of M255 flechette, M261 MPP and the option to define zone loadouts ourselves will further increase the usefulness of the Hydra rocket system on the Apache in DCS. If ED further overhauls the damage effects of cluster bombs, rockets to better model fragmentation warheads that would be the icing on the cake. The change of the infantry damage model and introduction of technicals had a very positive impact on the typical Counter Insurgency scenarios, already.

He isn't flying the Helo, George AI is and it seems George AI has trouble holding a heading on commanded altitude changes.

Very eloquent and good explanation. The interesting thing is, this is a wishlist thread, basically a place to ask for new features. Why certain people feel the need to suppress everything they personally don't like, with bogus "arguments" is beyond my understanding. I really hope the overhaul of the AAR system as a whole, will see some closer looks at the ideas and input from these requests.

He always "knows" what ED is thinking, what their business model is, their plans, everything. He is the omniscient mastermind behind DCS... at least he posts like he is.

You are aware, that this is why there is a whole branch of businesses and specialists around "market analysis", basically trying to find out and anticipate what people "want"? So, yes, even finding out what people want is worth a considerable investment, let alone actually delivering what people want...

It's not "this game is too hard" it is "this game would benefit from training aids and accessibility, like we have for other things, like auto start-up, take-off assist, auto-rudder, active pause..."

I am neither an employee of Eagle Dynamics, nor do I shout down anyone. Please revisit my posts and read what I wrote.

Good for you. Seems you are a natural or have better equipment. For me it is different. I can manage to get close, then either the tanker starts an (unannounced) turn, or I miss and need to reposition, fight with the F-Menu to get another "Ready pre-contact", etc. and honestly, after a couple of my precious DCS hours wasted with frustration instead of something enjoyable, I tend to fly a mission instead. Try again after a couple months, rinse and repeat. That's why I would love to have the "contact box" adjustable. This could enable newcomers to AAR to manage at least to get the intial contact easier, train positioning, holding formation once in a while. It would also enable us to dial the box size down after we get more comfortable and actually improve with a less steep curve and less frustration.

Nope, tried that a couple times. Didn't work in 30 minutes, neither in 60 minutes, or after 20 hrs over the years... If you have to take a one week break in-between, you basically start again.

We should hope ED does implement it in a way that it's flexible enough, so everyone can enjoy, the style of simulation he likes. I don't want to take the realism SharpeXB likes away, by no means! I want to add an option to help others to enjoy maybe better learn stuff. We are not here to decide how others should enjoy their favorite simulation, that was a major point, I made.

So as you can't answer the original question, we are full circle to the nonsense argument of "taking ressources away from my beloved feature, which is way more important than everything else", again, so ressources like "the reception desk" could do a lot more important work like "an Artificial Intelligence/Automation specialist". Just an idea: the parameter, that controls the local clientside "snap to contact" for the basket or boom, could be a variable that you could adjust. Or use the existing "lock controls" feature, let the AI do AAR and "unlock" again... I am sure the guy(s) that work on the AAR overhaul, can do this. In the end it is about what features ED puts on the list to improve DCS. Nobody ever requested take-off assist, ED decided it is a helpful feature. As for the not required to play DCS argument: better missile guidance or fusing options aren't exactly necessary to play DCS, either. Actually we played DCS without it for over a decade... We sure don't want to only do stuff that is strictly necessary to "play"? That is actually what sets DCS apart from a lot of other titles... The little things, the developers do, because they can and like, instead of only what is necessary to play.

So still the question remains: What concern of YOURS is the way I play DCS? How does the time I am willing to invest into something affect YOUR experience? What happens on YOUR server if I allow even AAR assist with full automation on OUR training server? Why this obsession with controlling everyone elses DCS experience? I don't see the point, as it has no impact on YOUR DCS experience.

Yep, that's a valid point. The AAR overhaul may even ease the pain, if the tanker would call turns, or if the boom operator gets some love, etc. But yeah, in the end an option to adjust the "contact box" for yourself, an optional AAR assist that does what the AI is doing and maybe some training aids/missions that do more than just tell you to "trim and slowly connect" would be super helpful for a lot of people. Make it options a server admin can deactivate as required and I am sure mostly everyone is happy.

Of course Microsoft did not remove the feature, that was a rethorical question. The fact it is a Windows feature means ED has no control over it. Again, what is "the bug"? A Windows feature not having the effect it had before? The "trick" is pretty much exactly a trick, to fix a situation, where another application "steals" the focus from DCS or another process hogs the focus. As this isn't a general issue (e.g. it seems this performance sink affects a number of users, not all), otherwise it would affect everyone. I can't even think of anything ED could do to "revert back" as it is Windows that manages the application windows, ressource allocation and process priorities, not DCS. If some other application messed with DCS and pressing Alt+Enter told Windows successfully to "force this Application in Fullscreen and give it the focus", before the patch, it will still command Windows to do the exact same thing after the patch... If it does not work, look for the process, that keeps hogging the system ressources and preventing DCS to run with full ressources. If it is something ED can influence on their side, my guess is they will check, but given how it is supposed to work, as a Windows integrated function I am sceptical they can do much.

I am sure most people asking for an AAR assist learned riding a bicycle at a time where they had no job and family to take care about and plenty of spare time to put into training. Unfortunately grown ups often have to deal with very limited time. For example, if I had to get my driver's license these days I would have no idea, how to free up enough time to get a meaningful training schedule. Could I learn Kite-Surfing? Shure, but I don't have the time. Could I learn AAR sure, but I still don't have the time.

See that's what I am talking about. Not even enough to tell me how to play, now you try to control my whole life and priorities. That's why we will never have a common understanding. You want to micromanage how everyone has to play DCS according to your views, while I simply want the freedom to adjust the difficulty of one of the most difficult things in DCS, for myself (!) similar to what take-off assist and auto-rudder already provides. It's not even about the option of an AAR assist. Just about control.

Nothing to do with name calling. The thing that gets people heated up is that some players feel entitled to decide how others have to play. Even if it would be in single player. I have no issue with AAR assist being an option in MP that you could deactivate on a server and I guess nobody else would. If "everyone" deactivates AAR assist on their server, fine with me. I can still train in Single Player and host our missions with AAR assist enabled. No problem at all.

We run circles here. As I said in the past discussions: no a campaign "requiring" AAR would not be an incentive, but a blocker. Unfortunately there are people out there that play DCS as a means of decompressing from work, or to have fun. These typically have these things called a job, family and life. So they need to juggle the 2-3 hours spare time a week between their hobbies. Even with DCS as my only hobby, I don't have the time to train AAR for two to three months (in game 10+ hours) instead of enjoying my hobby. I guess I am not the only one.

They disable unlimited fuel, because it impacts fuel management/weight management. AAR assist would actually solve that problem. The solution I asked for about 3-4 times already with an adjustable "contact box" and something like a magnetic lasso effect to enable adjustments for each player would btw solve the "press a button" and actually help in training. L As for "everyone would disable that option", do you know anyone who disables auto-rudder on a server? Does every server enforce wake turbulence? What about the single players and campaigns? You feel threatened by a guy managing AAR in his campaign for "reasons"?

It takes away from their feeling of achievement, maybe? I don't understand it either. Especially, as we have things like take-off assist and auto-rudder to help people that lack the money for a premium HOtAS and rudder pedals. I would love to see anyone pointing out that one guy on the server who uses take-off assist and/or auto-rudder... If they can.

No! It won't. Or would you say a player that refuels on a tanker has less fuel? How would that work? Like take-off assist does not give you "better maneuverability"...

Yeah, that's the reason multiple campaigns have very creative "automatic AAR" or "Spawn me in again after AAR"solutions, because it is "not required". Even Content Creators figured, you need a way to circumvent forced AAR for a paid campaign, so their customers don't end up asking for refunds after the first mission. The fact alone this topic pops up again and again shows it is an issue. And an option like the take-offs assist, auto rudder, or an "Air-Refueling-Assist" that would basically do, what AI aircraft in mission do all the time without anyone complaining about it... Only if it serves the "I am a more pure simmer than thou" agenda we get complaints about something you wouldn't even notice, as it has no impact, same as AI doing AAR on their own. I really don't understand the backlash and negativity when it comes to a feature that is similar to other player side options, we have since the first WWII warbird.

The Alt+Enter "toggle" is a function of the Windows Operating System I doubt, Microsoft removed that function. A side-effect of the Alt+Enter (that should force fullscreen on a console window) was to (re)-focus the DCS window (despite DCS being in the front) what would ensure priority for performance, again. The real question here is why is DCS for some people still does not run as focused application, even when never Alt+Tabbed?