Scrim

Nose mounted could be OK-ish, as it's been that way, though never with the H version. However, door mounted, that's ridiculous. It'd be like putting HARMs on the A-10C. Has never happened, and will never happen.

Where? Not in the stable version, nor in the open beta.

Yeah, but I'm guessing it's been altered recently, because their behaviour has changed rather a bit from what I can see.

Also, try shorter autolase time. Ever since the last open beta 1.2.8 I've noticed that LGBs tend to fall short if they track a laser for more than ~6 seconds prior to impact. I can't recall doing things differently, and before I could set the autolase on 100 seconds without the LGB falling short.

Also, Markpoints. Once you've picked up registering coordinates, it's very simple. It's not a long stretch to say that Markpoints are almost half the reason to use JDAMs when there's no cloud cover obstructing your view of the target, as they allow you to designate several targets to hit in a single pass.

Please, not a repeat of the Great F-15C Derp of a month or so ago. Pretty please. :P

Yikes, definitely WIP. Makes some graphic thing on my computer crash :P Looking forward to a finished website though.

That's asking them to make a whole new helo. Other engine, somewhat smaller airframe (H version was extended 3 feet IIRC), etc. They'd have to make a lot of new things, only to end up with a product that is so similar to the H version that they'd be hard pressed to sell enough to make up for the resources spent on developing it.

And BST seem to have focused on an UH-1H, not a Vietnam era specific Huey.

Don't understand the argument of this thread to being with. Hueys weren't discontinued the moment the Vietnam war ended, and even in that war I've read of H versions being used as gun ships. Guessing we don't get twin 60's because it was pretty much solely a Vietnam field modification, rendered obsolete when M134s became more standard.

Don't think so. PilotMi8 IIRC said they weren't planning on adding any more weapons to the Huey.

Don't see the point Cali (btw, the second paragraph is addressed "to whom it may concern"). If the thought of having an assist for AAR is so scary to so many people, lemme ask this: Is it worse than people just ticking in the infinite fuel box instead, because it's a question of behaving like a child and neglecting real life for the sake of a computer game (this is not intended as an insult. It is a common fact that some people due to different lives simply don't have as much time as others to spend sitting in front of a computer) to learn AAR, or going back to base every twentieth minute to refuel? Has anyone who's so violently against this ever thought of how people may become very reluctant to buy certain upcoming modules? There's relatively many A-10C level fast movers in the tubes, that will rely on AAR for longer missions. It'd be naïve to assume that everyone will "support buy" them, especially when they've bought their first fast mover and given up on it because they either spend very little time airborne, or tick in the infinite fuel box.

Autopilot goes offline the moment you open the tank lid.

Yes, real pilots. And not just any pilots, but military pilots, mostly fighter pilots. You simply can not get higher up on the skill level required than that. People who call AAR a feat of basic flying skills really need to get out of the house and get a perspective on people, and life in general. To seriously call it basic skills in the context of a civilian, entertainment PC flight simulator simply because it's considered basic for the very elite of IRL pilots is quite frankly pathetic.

No, I don't call it basic flying skills, because actual, non pretend pilots don't call it a basic thing. That's about all I can be bothered to write, since you're pretty much just being a troll.

Perhaps it is. The issue is that until it's fixed, there's just no way of knowing that, and I haven't read that they're about to do anything about it soon, or at all for that matter.

EthereaIN: From personal experience, it ought to help. The biggest issue I see most having isn't getting very close, or staying close, but rather staying connected to the boom because A, bad boom operator, and B, issues staying inside the most extreme distances where connection is possible. Lunatic: yes, basic capabilities for an F-15 pilot, who's job it is to know those things. Not basic flying knowledge, or basic sim knowledge. I don't know if that's what you pretend when you play DCS, I'm not in the airforce, so especially the last paragraph there was simply bulls. It's very obvious that you can do AAR, and regard people who can't as lesser, we got that on your first post. Why don't you get off that high condescending horse of yours?

Not to mention it may well serve as a training tool for many. Personally, I had too much trouble getting take offs good with the 51, so I had take off assistance set to 100% for quite a while. As I got more comfortable, I dragged it down, and soon I had it on zero. Granted, it looks like a drunken duck is taking off, but I'm taking off. The best thing I could imagine right now would be to have a slider where you can set the distance to fuel boom tolerated by the game to start filling up your tanks. Ought to be very easy to implement, extremely customisable, and very well suited for increasing the skills of the majority of DCS players. No hate from me. I know that if nothing has been done about AAR by the time modern fighters like the F/A-18 are released, I'll probably go ahead and tick that option before playing those missions. I have extreme patience and stubbornness about learning DCS, but at a certain point it just goes too far for it to be enjoyable any longer. In a module of a plane with some of the most complicated avionics in the world, it just isn't viable to not extend a helping hand to ensure that a single feature doesn't take more time than everything else combined to learn, unless you're actually trying to distance a lot of people from the thought of buying certain modules, or even all.

Nice tone there. I would hardly call A2A refuelling (or dogfighting) basic flying skills. It just isn't. A real world pilot has been quoted on these forums as saying that you have to train until "your hands bleed" to learn it. It is literally speaking one of the most complicated aspects of military aviation. And in DCS we lack the FOV, the visual and physical ques of how the plane handles, as well as competent boom operators. Assists already exist. Everything from game avionics, HUD, etc. to the ones I mentioned. Should they be removed then? The only thing mentioned that could solely be for people without rudder panels is the auto rudder. If the take off assistance, which is the most needed help for the P-51D had been intended for people without rudder pedals it would've been a box to tick in. It's not. It's a percentage slider. As it is, I can't do A2A refuelling. True. But it's not for lack of hardware, or time spent trying. I'm almost positive I've spent more time trying to learn that one thing than I had to spend learning the avionics and flying of the A-10C.

I think the most important point about fooling the GBU would be its small FOV, as well as the time you'd have to fool it. FOV: Ever gotten a bad GBU CCRP drop? You don't need to be much off for the GBU to not even see the laser. So even if you get your hands on the laser code, and start transmitting a second one to get the GBU away from you, you won't be able to get it very far away from you at all. (This is of course depending on that GBU behaviour is well portrayed in DCS.) Time to act: Most of us put the autolase time on less than 10 seconds. So yet again, if it's realistic, then it means that you have less than 10 seconds to A, know that a GBU has been dropped against you, B, what the laser code is, and C, transmit a laser of your own. And not too far away from you to prevent it from not being seen by the GBU. And even if you could manage all of this, it'll be very easy to counteract. More and more GBUs already use both INS and laser as guidance, so it'd probably be very simple to make a hotfix telling the GBU to revert to inertial navigation if it registers more than one laser.

Not quite the point of what I wrote. 25 people have voted no, saying it has no place in DCS, despite similar assistance features already being available. But no one has said why it shouldn't exist. Some have said why they don't personally need it, but no one has said why others shouldn't get to have it.

Starting to regret including a poll, because no one has said why this hypothetical, optional feature shouldn't be introduced. Aside from the Game difficulty settings in avionics and such, we already have assists similar to what I'm proposing. Control helper for the Mi-8, and even closer, take off assistance and auto rudder for the P-51D.

I'll probably set up some different B-52 strikes all over the map, and have GCI vector me to 'em, radar off until I'm close enough. That, and shooting up convoys and what not.

Maybe an assistance slider, like the "Take off" assistance for the P-51D and the TF-51? Having the tanker call out which speed it'll do for the refueling (and for crying out loud, stop turning all the time). It would at least make it easier to get to pre-contact.

I've started this thread with the intention of discussing (that is, please contribute with pro/con arguments, not just votes) the concept of having the option to have a "game" difficulty A2A refueling in DCS. Not replacing the harder, more realistic one of course. Currently, I would not think it an exaggeration to say that less than 10% of those who fly modern fast movers such as the A-10C or the F-15C in DCS are actually proficient enough to take on even enough fuel to compensate for the fuel spent trying to connect to the tanker. Now, with the A-10C, that might not be a huge problem, since it has such a long loiter time that most will probably not play any mission long enough to exhaust a 100% fuel load. However, with time we'll see at least two A-10C level simulated fast mover, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F/A-18E. These planes lack the loiter time of the A-10C, and would thus be fully dependent on A2A refueling in order to loiter for any longer duration. So how about adding the option to tick in a "Game difficulty A2A refueling" box in the Special Options menu, which makes A2A refueling much easier, perhaps by automating it or something else?