shagrat

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?

The misunderstanding here is 'Alt+Enter' is a function from Windows that forces the current Window(!) into full screen, or if not possible (screen in windows is extended over multiple monitors) it will put that window(!) into focus. This is for the rendering of application windows, not a VR/3D-Scene. In the past using Alt+Enter could help to force the focus or fullscreen to the DCS simulation window, if another process/application had focus and DCS running "in the background". It seems that behavior has changed.

Nothing, people don't understand the function. If you have multiple monitors that use a virtual screen (basically a borderless window that covers all screens) Alt+Enter will try to "force" that window to fullscreen and if it is a virtual screen it will pop the focus to that one. Again, this is a Windows function. The real question should be, what has changed that prevents the DCS Window from acquiring the focus in the first place? The function to "force fullscreen" should work only with a single screen matching the monitor in windows anyway, as any virtual screen is a "borderless" window by design. Edit: what it did/does is forcing the window focus on DCS as "focus window".

As 'Alt+Enter' is a MS Windows function to (re)-focus the current "window", I doubt ED is messing with anything.

Nach dem Neuaufsetzen von Windows ändern sich die USB-IDs die Windows vergibt. Daher werden die gesicherten Profile im Config Ordner nicht "out-of-the-box" geladen. Es gibt zwei Möglichkeiten das dann zu fixen: 1) Du gehst in den Control Settings zum Modul, dessen Settings du laden möchtest. Dort die Gruppierung nach Kategorien ausmachen (oben kommen Optione zum Laden von Profilen). Jetzt wählst du das Modul und markierst die Spalte(!) des Gerätes, dessen Settings du laden willst. Im Profil laden Dialog darauf achten, dass du den richtigen Ordner/Modulnamen auswählst und nimmst die unter Joystick abgelegten Gerätename.diff.lua die du gesichert hast. Dies musst du ja Gerät tun und Tastatur findet sich unter Keyboard. Die .diff.lua enthalten deine individuellen Settings/Änderungen. Das muss man leider für jedes Modul einzeln tun, aber besser, als neu belegen. Dieses Vorgehen würde ich empfehlen. 2) einmal je Gerät eine einzige Änderung vornehmen und diese speichern. Damit gibt es eine "neue" .diff.lua die den aktuellen USB-Identifier enthält. Diese Dateinamen kann man sich je Gerät kopieren und verwenden um die "alten" .diff.lua umzubenennen. Danach werden die alten Profile dem "neuen" USB-Device zugeordnet. ACHTUNG! Das solltet ihr nur tun, wenn ihr versteht, was ihr da tut. Deshalb auch keine detaillierte Anleitung. Wer hier Fragezeichen über dem Kopf schweben hat, sollte Methode 1) verwenden.

This seems to be related to the new rigging of the anti-torque pedals, as explained in this post: This is only the anti-torque. There is another issue with FM, as Bignewy mentioned, which is related to an excessive modeling of "tailrotor Vortex Ring State", but that seems only to affect hover or lateral movement above 10 kts. Your issue looks more like what Raptor9 pointed out. Try adjusting pedal input and cyclic to compensate the lateral thrust from the tailrotor. Edit: sniped by Raptor9

I am not arguing, more describing. My guess is, it is a deliberate addition, not a "bug". George actually does exactly what you describe, for the exact same reason. You "tell him" (press button via George Menu), to WAS the gun or Hellfires and it takes a second for him to switch and answer. As for the animation, actually the CPG TEDAC buttons are animated. Just in sync with you touching them. The difference between buttons on the controls and the IHADSS tube is the motion necessary to let go of the Cyclic, raise your right arm and move the monocle aside.

Seems they fixed the instantaneous movement and made it more realistic and in line with the action you see in the external view. Raise the hand, move the monocle, Instead of the monocle simply switching on and off instantly.

This happened even before wake turbulence was a thing. As you said, reproducing this phenomenon or tracking it down is horribly difficult. My theory is that the transition over different terrain types or the switch from "normal ground" to "runway" messes with the ground effect calculation, in some weird way. I had this very sporadic in the A-10C, the Huey and the Bf.109 back when we flew Caucasus only, but had it at least once on the Persian Gulf map.

Maybe, but I guess it still won't work as a way to change a mindset. People that look for casual game style, or air-quake won't see a benefit to learn the startup procedure, same as they won't bother to understand the aircraft systems or learn navigation, beyond what's necessary to shoot stuff. The other group that is interested in aviation, wants to understand the aircraft, learn how it is done in real life and enjoy the study part of study-sim, won't need filters or controls, but help and support while learning. That's where the hand holding and DCS' multiplayer community shines. If there is someone who wants to learn he can with the training and reading, asking, but also join a dedicated group that will help induce him into DCS just fine and he'll quickly learn (and understand why) taxiway take-offs are a no-no unless explicitly ordered. As for the rest, they usually don't stick around long.

Best option to achieve this in my opinion is a Discord to get to know each other and use a private server. I would try communicating agreed upon rules. I don't know how many casual players would actually join a server where you do a briefing, everybody else goes through startup manually and taxies , while they still wait for alignment, but honestly, if this is really a problem and you get lots of air-quakers, this could indeed discourage even more. Still from my point of view locking the server is maybe a better solution. Or what Zeagle said: crank the realism options up to full. Though I think birdstrikes without birds are not for me and the random failures can be very frustrating, as not every module had them, yet, and if you are the poor sod that's in the only module getting hit by failures that make you abort mission and divert... Maybe fun once or twice in a row, but it gets old pretty quick.

I explained the reasons in the post you cited. The great thing about the included campaigns is, you can simply copy those to your Saved Games/User/DCS World/Missions/Campaigns folder and then set the player aircraft to "Start from ramp cold" in the Mission Editor. The argument was, if missions don't use cold start, ED will start to remove cold starts ( "use it or lose it" )... Though I don't really understand how this would work, as you need to remove the switchology AND system modelling on so many levels, that is basically the core of every DCS module. Given the influx of FC3 level modules during the last 15 years, I doubt there is trend to "simplify" the system modeling on any level. Looking at the modules delivered, in development or announced it looks like we get more detailed and in depth flight, system and cockpit modeling, more multicrew, more weapon systems, more integration of Datalink, IFF, complex comms and even things like briefing room on the carrier etc. so the trend is definitely "more realism" than less. Thus I don't think your "use it or lose it" message of doom holds any merit...

Not even this, because autostart isn't faster than a manual cold start, if you at least know what you are doing. The cold versus hot start is already a decision made by the mission builder (he can force all slots cold, hot, ready on runway or even a mix of slots, for example add hot starts for respawns, if he sees a need for it). As I said, I can't see a real benefit for a denial option for autostarts, other than a way to micromanage other players and worst case drive them away, but if this is a popular request and an option, ok. Though a waste of development time, in my eyes.