Frost

I never experienced that case. Except if the tanker is turning he keeps his speed very acurately. I suppose that's because the tanker would be on AP irl. But yes, if (for whatever reason) the tanker changes his speed I would have to get a new reference speed. But don't get too hung up on that IAS thing. That is really secondary and wasn't part of my initial post. PS: I don't know why but this talking in absolutes is really not my thing. It comes across as extremely preachy and that's exactly what I'm talking about the entire time. And people think I give a crap about their comments. No, I definitelly don't do that, really, I do appreciate them. But why do so many people have to end there comments with one of those super annoying lines like "get used to it", "just practice", or "don't do that evaaar"? Would you like that someone would talk to you like that? Would you really enjoy that? and please be honest.

#1 I'm a very normal guy I'm not aggressive nor do I have a particular attitude. I didn't say I know anything better, but yes, I definitely already knew most of what I've read here. And I'm not complaining about that. It's more the tone of some comments, or the final "get good"/"take it or die" line. Or this "we don't need it, it was built this way, swallow it, or play Ace Combat" attitude. I do swallow it and I will practice until my head explodes -believe me. But is it really prohibited to point out things I might find a little odd in an aircraft? Can I have an opinion even though I'm neither a Pilot, a mechanic, or an ace virtual pilot? And I know that I'm not overreacting because I've read some replys that were different from the rest -in a good way. Not necessarily in terms of their factual content, but in their overall tone. The people in this thread that have read those comments know who I mean. So there is actually another way to communicate. But seriously can you guys actually, absolutely and finally stop telling me what an ungrateful begger I am. I got the message. Time to get back on topic or give a crap about this thread. Nobody is forced to read or reply on this thread. I won't annoy you anymore. I'm too sensitive and ungrateful for this forum. Please don't waste any more of your time on a noob like me. I won't open another thread, just leave me alone. I'll stuck with YT and reading in this forum only. And you will never hear a personal opinion from me. Seriously just skip this thread. I'm done here.

Do you even read the replys? The whole IAS thing came up later in the thread as a side note. Thewake turbulences and a couple other things are a much bigger problem, but I wrote all that in my initial post. And didn't I just wrote that I already apply what all of those guys wrote? Really, please tell me what drives people like you to just crank out ignorant stuff like you just did? And no, I don't say, that you are generally an ignorant person, but your comment is. Because just read at least my last post again. And after that, just stop it now people, or close this thread, its getting bizzar. It's likle you are a bunch of starving wolfes that found their prey or something.

I said "brain dead comments". I actually think that most people are quite smart in here(considering the recommendet minimum IQ for DCS). Which makes it even more disappointing to read some of the comments, or parts of them. And I'm sure someone will take my reply here again and twist my words around in order to shoot them back at me. Even though I'm certain that everybody knows exactly what I've meant with every single reply I posted. I know that, beacause you guys aren't stupid, but maybe bored, or you just love forum fights, I really don't know. But don't hesitate, start firing. PS: Since weve established that I'm a moron or whatever can we stop this now? And if you guys reply on topic again, maybe you could bother to read at least a couple replys that are written above? Because getting more or less the same suggestions in 2o variations is enough. And no, I don't, I repeat, I don't think your suggestions were stupid, or anything, but I knew all that already from the videos I've watched and from my own experience. I just had a few specific questions, about wake turbulences, and I also just wanted to hear of your experiences and what you think about the module in regards to AAR. But something like that has always a strong tendency to provoke people to lecture the OP. Nobody wants to get lectured and get the same suggestions again and again. And I still think a more convenient IAS read out somewhere upfront can't hurt, it just can't.

Most of you guys probably know this guy already(I guess), but for those who don't, a little AAR shop talk from a former F-14 RIO.

Exactly what I'm doing PS: Incredible, an extremely concise and constructive comment, without any git-good vibes attached to it. Sad that I have to say that I wish more people would be like this in the DCS forums.

I thought this forum is a place for grown up, rational and constructive people, instead I get the jist of being in just another "git good noob" gamer forum. The general tone in this forum is noticeably different from that in non-military flight sim forums. Sorry, that I'm a little baffled by Grumman's Cockpit layout and HUD design. Everyone who has even the slightest knowledge of aviation and the general philosophy and consensus behind cockpit layouts and HUD designs has to be a little irritaded by that of the Tomcat. I know you guys wouldn't admit that, because... well I don't know why, but its quite obvious that the instrumentation is very spread out and all over the place. There are funny little quirks, like the FPM takes the 5° line as the horizon line, then there is no digital read out of the IAS on the HUD, but way down on the HSD (if you are in the proper mode) and the actual airspeed indicator isn't just kinda hard to read, it's also partialy obstructed, very small and almost hidden. And don't let me start on the standby compass which is literally hidden. Even WWII aircraft designer did a much better job in regards of readability and intutiveness of the gauges and the general cockpit layout. And before you guys tear me to pieces, let me tell you a secret, ok? This strangeness, this clunkiness (especially compared to something as advanced as the A-10C II), that it is difficult to fly and also a challenge in every other aspect, that was the reason why I bought this module in the first place. That and the fact that I grew up with Top Gun. I thought it could be very interesting to hear the honest and non macho "git-good" opinions of others on this aircraft. But instead I get braindead suggestions like "practice, there's no easy way out!" I am practicing, really that's nothing I need to get told. I just wanted some constructive input and your honest opinions. Please don't comment on this. I don't want to waste more time on this topic. If I have a question in the future I'll watch the respective YT videos. There's really nothing the forum told me that I didn't already knew, or just have learned from Youtube. I also fly the Mustang, the Huey, the KA-50 and the A-10C because(!) they have anlogue instruments. But thanks for another stupid braindead suggestion. I just spend 90$ for the F-14 and the carrier module I won't switch to your so called "electrical plane", whatever you mean by that.

Again, I want to know the speed that I had when I was connected or in a juicy formation with the tanker, as a reference for when I fall back for whatever reason and want to return as quickly as possible to that point in space around the tanker where my refueling world was still happy and rosy. The airspeed is basically a reference for when you screw up, not for actual refueling, I know that. It also helps when you already know the speed of the tanker, either from the briefing, or the tanker itself. There is just no denying that an easy to read IAS is one of the most important data in any aircraft and in any flight regime, only with tiny exceptions, like for example through the actual refueling process.

You can't say "exactly this" and then follow it up with a "but useful when forming up". Refueling isn't just the actual refueling part its also the advancing to the tanker part imho. And that's when I want my IAS as a reference. I.e. when I get blown away from a wake, or a crosswind I want to know what my sweet spot speed was that kept me on the probe/drogue or in formation with the tanker. Whilst I'm actually,actually refueling I don't give a crap for the IAS myself, because I have an entire tanker as my reference right in front and to the side of me.

Speed could be anything, exactly. I don't care how fast I'm going. But what made my life immensely easier when I was refueling the warthog was to know exactly what that sweet spot speed was that kept me on the probe or let me perfectly fly formation with the tanker, after I accidentally disconnected, or got to slow due to the aircrafts increasing weight. You say you don't care I say it is a great help. Different tastes, or am I wrong? I literally just said how convenient it would be to have the IAS up front, literally. As a reference. Not to be fixated on, but as a reference. Am I stupid for wanting the IAS as a reference?

I mostly talked about the airspeed indicator. Please tell me that it wouldn't be incredibly convenient to have your airspeed easy to read right in front of you -on the HUD, on the HMD/HMCS or a simple dial gauge air speed indicator right in front of you, that would show your IAS in one knot increments instead of ten(!) knot increments like the tomcat's. Tell me you would hate that, or switch it off. You might not need your AI, your VVI, your altimeter, or your HSI -if you already found the tanker, but you certainly need to now your IAS even better if it would be in decimal knots.

I'm not an entire noob in terms of AAR. I can entirely refuel an almost completely dry A-10 that is at a 100% weight/weapons load. But it's entirely different from the tomcat. #1 you can use differential throttle in order to make changes in airspeed even more miniscule. If you do that with the F-14 you'll instantly notice a yaw motion #2 you don't change the aerodynamics of the aircraft in an asymmetrical way, like in the F-14 and its probe(thanks for the hint btw.*) #3 I wouldn't use rudder at all in the A-10, whereas it seems to be consence here to use rudder with the F-14. #4 the refuel boom extents into an area around the tanker with basically zero wake vortices, As opposed to the drogue system that the Tomcat uses. And so on. *I was asking myself if they actually modeled that, and why my aircraft is allways pulling to the tanker -at least when I'am at the port side. That basically answers both questions.

One of the many problems I have with the F-14 and AAR -as opposed to more modern aircraft, is the fact that the HUD is obviously not the best. I mean forget the (realistic, I know) low update rate, it has no airspeed indication....what? This wouldn't be that much of a problem, if at least the analogue one would be easy to read. But not only is it basically hidden, it also just shows your speed in 10kts increments. And with AAR a half knot makes all difference.

Actually one of the main reasons I've picked the F-14 before the F-18, which seems to kinda work exactly the other way around -too stable. But she will definitely my next aircraft.

I fly the "stock" instant action AAR mission. Airspeed is around 350kts. Altitude is around 15000ft. PS: Funnfact, my slightly retarded wingman won't go over to the starboard side after he's done refueling. So I not only have to deal with the wake turbulences of the tanker but with those from my wingman as well. If I'm quick enough I can get tanker contact on the starboard side, but that only works as long as my wingman is on the port side drogue. As soon as he disconnects you are forced to refuel on the port side as well. And by that you have to squeeze yourself between your wingman and the tanker. And btw., why would that stupid tanker even retract its drogue at all. That just puts another layer of stress on the sim pilot. Sometimes you are very close to make contact and all of a sudden the tanker draws the drogue away from right umder your nose.

No, it is not. You might have achieved a high skill level but that doesn't make it by any means super easy. It's like saying brain surgery is actually super easy... you just have to practice and study for 20 years and it becomes second nature. Yup just like everything you study long enough. And what miracle tricks are you talking about? I can refuel relatively steady with the A-10 since I apply all the "tricks" that are applicable. Yes every aircraft has its own quirks, like putting the F-14 in "bomb mode" for example, but I did that. I did everything holy youtube and this forum so far told me about AARing the F-14. I just don't know how I could in any way apply the info from your reply. If anything I feel even more disencouraged now, because someone just told me, that I'm struggeling with something to the point where I would like to throw my PC out of the window, that is "actually super easy".....

Thanks people for your very quick replies. The thing is, it is not about AAR in general, but really only about the F-14. Its quite a challenge with most aircraft (I guess) but its either the F-14, or the drogue system, I really have no hope of getting to a satisfying level in regards of AAR with it. I've watched many videos on AAR with the F-14, have put the wings in bomb-mode, tried it with and without curves, stayed as much as I could out of the way of the wake turbulences, used speed brakes for a faster response time just like in the A-10. I did all that. Maybe really the only way to have fun with DCS is to use an extension. I'd really prefer an easy AAR mode. But than again, why can I refuel with the A-10, even in a turn, but feel like an entire idiot with the F-14? Is the A-10 way too easy in regards of AAR, or is the F-14 way too difficult?

I learned to air to air refuel with the original boxed version of the A-10C and I thought it was one of the most difficult things I've ever learned. And I still need 2-6 reconnects fully armed and with empty wing- and almost empty fuselage tanks. But I would certainly feel confident enough to say "I'm able to AAR in DCS". Today I bought the F-14 module and I had no worries about AAR, because #1 I already conqured this challenge with the A-10C and #2 refueling through a drogue has to be easier than through the probe....right? Wrong. At first I also thought, that refueling the A-10 mid-air is impossible, but there were itsy bitsy tiny little steps of progress, that I've noticed. But with the F-14 I feel absolutely nothing in this regard. I have absolutely no idea how I'm suppossed to ever refuel longer than 10 seconds. And that's when I actually achieve to connect after 15 minutes of bouncing up and down like an idiot. The thing that's giving me the most trouble are the wake vortices. So I silenced my ego and unchecked them in the options menu. The (not so) funny thing is, that after I've loaded that Instant action refuel mission again the wake turbulences were still there. They might be less strong, but I'm not sure about that. So I my question is, does the F-14 module have its own aerodynamics simulation going on on top of DCS' ? I really love this aircraft. I mean I grew up with Tomcats and Hueys in those 80 movies. And therefore it is extra infuriating that I probably can never refuel this aircraft mid-air. I hate to admit it, but this is one of those rare instances where I would really like an actual easy mode. Not for anything else, but only for the refueling part. I have a TH Warthog with the "famous" (soft)green spring and I think my axis curves are as good as they can be. At least I usually find them very pleasant to fly. I can fly very precise with them and I feel almost entirely in control of the aircraft -in terms of pure flying. But when it comes to refueling I get slapted around like little b.... from those wake vortices and whilst I'm struggeling to align my plane again and again the drogue just dances around my fuselage as if it wants to mock me for even trying. I'm actually kinda sad, because at one hand I love the sim and this aircraft in particular but on the other hand I wish I wouldn't even have started flight simming again. I mean refueling is just a tiny percentage of the myriade of things that you can do in DCS and with the F-14. But if I can't AAR this aircraft everything seems almost kinda half worthless. I don't know. Constructive replies appreciated

Ok, then I'm sorry. But you didn't made yourself very clear about what or who you exactly meant. Again, sorry.

You know that you are in the "official" DCS wishlist section of the forums right? It's not about bug fixes, or a specific aircraft, or anything that might already exist, but about what might be cool for DCS's future. Are you really that kind of person that is always happy by just taking what he is given, has never a wish, an idea, or a suggestion? And you know that they were actually working on some kind of mission cartridge system? You can find it somewhere in the forums. And they probably dropped it, because nobody, or not enough people uttered a demand for something outside the old DCS formular. In this section here they can see what kind of things their customer might still want, and maybe they'll start working again on something like a DTC system. Also, as you might know, some of the best work in DCS world has been done by third party developers, which are probably also reading this section of the forums. And especially third party devs could develop "secondary" modules for the sim. At least imho there are already enough aircraft to have fun with for years and years. I don't think that there is a dire need for more at the moment. But a more indepth editor with added functionality(DTC and maintenace) could elevate all modules at the same time. It would basically be something like a multiplier for the entire sim. That's a lot more bang for the buck than an additional aircraft module.

That's basically my thinking. That and a virtual mission cartridge system would really tie everything together. I really have no idea if that would be possible from a programming POV, but maybe it would actually be possible to program something like a seperate "Mission & Maintenance" squadron module. An add on for fight and flight planning including a data cartridge system plus an entire loogbook and repair and maintenance section. Basically the bread to your DCS-burger.

Ok, thank you for your answer. That's something I didn't expected. I knew the thing with the ejections, but I didn't expected that pilots would care so little for their aircraft. PS: The idea of persistent aircrafts in DCS grew from the fact, that I got annoyed by having to set up weapon and HMD/HMCS profiles again and again. The same with the rest of the avionics and radios. So maybe a "simple" data-cartridge system would be enough anyways. Or -as I've already stated a couple times already- a simple save option that would enable you to fly the same aircraft as long as you want as long as you make it back to your ground crew. And you could fly missions in multiple parts and "re-play" particular sections of them. I'll look into what "FASTBREAK" posted above. Maybe that's already good enough for me.

Ok, I got that. I'm no mechanic, and I certainly haven't worked on fighter jets, but I thought that an aircraft won't get entirely overhauled after every single flight. I mean like every single part of it. So there would be certain stages of degradation that are "normal" between maintenance cycles, but might reduce the max stress you could put on an aircraft at its next flight. But after all it wasn't so much about the aircrafts failures themeselves for me, but for some kind of "emotional attachement" to your virtual aircraft. So you would really really want to get your aircraft back to your base. And that you wouldn't just fight to achieve your mission goals, but also to make it back to base in one piece. Imo that is a very important aspect of a sim, because it is about decission making. What's more important, to kamikaze the last tank on the battleground, or to wave off and fly back to your base for 15 minutes with just one and a half wings? That's a decission. Not completing the mission, but still having to work for another 15 minutes or more and maybe crash at the landing. And if you made it back, you could in theory fly this exact same plane the next day -after it was repaired ofc. And in its logbook you could see what has been damaged, how long the engines were operated and what should get maintained next. I'm talking about immersion. I can't entirely explain what I mean, but some people might understand what I'am talking abut. It is about feeling much more vulnerable in your aircraft, when ditching it is the absolute worst option you could tzhink of. And you really don't want to eject over enemy territory, and leave your aircraft there. Just think about the dozents or maybe hundreds of pilots that could have ejected, but fought to get their aircraft back to base, even if they were already over friendly territory. It is about talking pride to not give YOUR aircraft up. How could you get that feeling, when your aircraft always respawns without "memory" even if you repaired the old one post mission? Ok, maybe I'am too romantic. Just watch the following vid from A2A. That's basically what I was talikng about. And when you're already on it, you might want to watch their video on the P-51 too C172 minute 6:00 P-51D minute 25:00

Such a DTC (if you mean data cartridge?) system would basically be exactly what I was talking about. At least one half of it -the customizing part. The other half would be a "living breathing" and aging aircraft that would absolutely need maintenance, or it would otherwise fall apart. A2A simulations achieved that to some extend even though the "mother sim"(FSX) doesn't really support such functions. Both the FSX and XP have many high fidelity modules that run their own subsims in order to expand the capabilities of the main sim. Especially in terms of wear and tear, electrical systems, FMCs and hydraulic systems, but even real time flight dynamics(Bell 206 from dodosim). Also, as I've stated in this thread, simply beeing able to save a flight at any given time would be the simplest solution/workaround for the lack of a DTC system. PS: This thing is probably one of the most extensive and complete add ons ever made for any flight sim ever. And fun fact, it sports the civilian version of the A-10s turbo fan engines. This thing is basically such a complete simulation in itself, that in its case X-plane is basically only the UI and graphics engine.

I guess you are mostly right on that(>95%). I actually heard that many times in a variety of documentaries. But what I mean is, you usually fly an aircraft out of the same pool and in some cases that pool can be very narrow, especially with choppers I think. Or with other words, you would definitely fly the same aircraft repeatedly if you are on base, or on deployement and you would certainly know all its quirks and everything etc. And you would certainly feel an inherent obligation to bring this bird back from action. I was thinking more in terms of giving the virtual pilots something they could actually care for. It might not be entirelly realistic, but the "emotional attachement" would be more realistic, than it is now. I think sometimes you have to change things in a sim up a little in order to make it more realistic in its entirety. Like for instance, there are many things that are harder to do in a sim than they are IRL, so you would actually have to make them easier from a technical pov in order to make them more realistic. Except if you you have a fullscale simulator at home that is.