Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Flyer0001

  • Birthday January 1

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree with this statement. Though I have seen people alluding to the unlimited fuel option. What I didn't get was the remark about - being functionality the same - or "completely contrary to the purpose". I tried to say up front that this didn't specifically follow the thread but might ameliorate the situation with those having trouble with AAR. Which in a general sense is what this thread is all about. It seems that almost every proposal to provide additional assistance to those having trouble with AAR, for whatever reason, is shot down. And they are left with the status quo. A few months later the debate starts again. I thought I would put this proposal out there as a possible way that does not meet a with 50 50 split on yay or nay since it has other advantages and the coding is partially done (or that is what I hope). This is what I would have wanted when I was learning AAR. You can fly just like everyone else with the fuel being consumed and if you are unable to refuel you can get more and proceed with the mission. This seems a lot better to me than setting unlimited fuel and flying around with whatever level of fuel you started with.
  2. I don"t think you understand at all what I was proposing. Not at all.
  3. Okay. Here is another proposal for a way to help those having trouble with AAR. I was considering putting this under a general wish list but since the Air to Air Refueling (AAR) issue came up again I thought I would see if you all had any comments. The idea is to get rid of the "Unlimited Fuel" and "Unlimited Weapons" options and replace them with one option that says something like "Rearm and/or Refuel Whenever You Want". (Title needs work.) If you check this option you have the ability to bring up the rearm and refuel window whenever and where ever you want during a mission. Of course some "logistics" of how best to do this would have to be worked out like do you slow the sim down or actively pause the sim, etc. to deal with the window. This relieves those relying on the unlimited fuel option from estimating the fuel level. Estimating the fuel level is quite difficult especially if you have been dodging a SAM or engaging in a dogfight. They can even attempt to refuel from the tanker and if they haven't been able to refuel they can activate this option and get what fuel they need. It also provides an option for those of us who haven't flown modern jets as often as we like and get rusty at AAR. Should we fail at AAR we don't have to end the mission. For me another benefit is I can go after that bridge with my P-51 as many times as I need to without carrying bombs home. It would also allow pilots to replenish one kind of weapon. Say Air to Air. It would allow a pilot to replenish your chaff and flares which are part of the window. These alleged benefits are outside of this thread. But that is a point, this proposed idea is not specifically for AAR. Plus development time may relatively low since much of the code exists.
  4. It still really bothers me you didn't even understand my post and criticized me up one side and down the other.

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Flyer0001


      Thank you for the nice response.  Not what I expected.  All the way back in March.  F/A-18 Wish List Aerial refueling issue.  I finally responded but never heard back from you.  I kept asking you why you leveled the criticism at me.  The one that bothered me most I did not explain.  I typed a paragraph saying that ED has done as good as it can in aerial refueling but can only work with the visual end.  No one that I know of wants to make the visual less realistic. The feeling of the plane moving is not available for programming.    This is why it is so difficult to learn in DCS.  I believe I got this from one of Wags guides.  You pulled the sentence from the paragraph dealing with perceiving the plane moving and I remember you typed something about using that as an excuse for not learning aerial refueling.  The thing that got me was I was on your side of the fence.  Granted I suggested a training campaign for teaching aerial refueling only because I wanted to suggest something that might help.   

    3. randomTOTEN


      Okay, I found it again.


      Apologies for not responding to you at the time, but I felt it wasn't helpful to respond. We had both typed enough by my judgment.


      "I kept asking you why you leveled the criticism at me." The answer which I probably should have mentioned was that I hadn't chosen you specifically to respond to. It's just at this point there were about 4 threads on the same topic (Auto AAR), with the same points being cycled repeatedly by each side. And at that point, when you posted, you were the most recent person to give what I thought were the same arguments again. So it just so happens I quoted you over anybody else really... but I didn't mean anything malicious by it.

      "You pulled the sentence from the paragraph dealing with perceiving the plane moving and I remember you typed something about using that as an excuse for not learning aerial refueling."

      I still think that's true. You and I can both AAR in DCS and neither of our seats move. So it can't be that big of a barrier, especially when we both agree that the major hurdle is time and commitment.

    4. Flyer0001


      Thank you for this.  And you are right.  We had said enough.  I still wondered what was going on.  Your answer makes sense.  And you are right about the seat moving.  I was only trying to point out that ED has no way to program the feeling of movement and is stuck with the visual meaning this is as good as it is going to get.

  5. We are writing about protecting and attacking bomber formations. Probably the big reason planes are up that high. Granted the attacking planes may try to draw off the fighters down low but the defenders have to stay with the bomber group. The bombers are going to stay high rather than get clobbered by the flak. Grafspee-The experience has nothing to do with what I am doing. Thank heaven - I am not that good of a pilot. My experience in the past has been an amazing ability of enemy planes which can suddenly turn and climb with amazing speed at 23,000 feet. I feel like the cop in the beginning of the movie, "The Matrix", standing on top and at the edge of building as Trinity and the agent are jumping across streets from building top to building top saying, "That's impossible." I don't know why you have not experienced this. I agree that we are dealing with a lot of variables, including time. Maybe some things got fixed recently. Lately, I have not been able to use the Simm as much as I would like. Thank you for your time.
  6. Thanks for the video Grafspee and the time but this is not discounting what I have experienced. And you are right, these planes seem to dive once they get into a fight so you can't stay at a high altitude. I don't know how these missions are programmed but axis fighters seem to behave differently than what I witnessed in your video when they attack a bomber formation. They seem to brush me off like a fly and then head to the formation with incredible speed and disperse the formation. I thought I had observed some of this behavior in the Instant Action mission which is why I wanted you to try it but even then they seem to head to the ground fairly fast since there is no formation to go after.
  7. I appreciate your response. My understanding from the historical accounts is the enemy might try to drag the fighters down to lower altitudes because they were inferior for most of the war at high altitudes. Or at least the Axis did not have better planes for high altitude fighting in large enough numbers that would make a difference. This is not what I am experiencing which is why I would still like to see you take on an enemy plane at 23,000 feet. There is a mission under the Instant Action under Channel where P-51s take on Doras at 23,000 feet in a Dogfight. Granted the Dora was one of those planes made to meet enemy expectations of a high altitude fighter and came too late in the war. However, if you can fight him even at altitude, you will have gone a long way with me in proving your point that enemy planes are not UFOs.
  8. I watched your last video Grafspee and was impressed with your flying. However, you didn't score a hit on the P-51 until you were below 10,000 feet. Also, I need to see a dogfight against a FW-190D or a BF-109K4 at 23,000 feet. I am not sure it will make a difference but this is what we are up against when protecting bomber formations. Most of the campaign missions I fly at altitude are to protect bombers so you have to stay at altitude and not chase the enemy to lower altitudes. Also do we know if the AI programming is the same for all planes: allied and axis? I must admit I seem to be doing better so I don't know if I have improved or ED has done some work on the AIs. What still gets me is how well the FW-190 Dora can turn and climb at 23,000 feet when I am chasing it.
  9. Very impressive but this is not my experience. Granted you are obviously a much better pilot. But you let go with your first burst from your guns, tracers and all without registering any damage. (I presume tracers are programmed to alert the pilot being attacked. Shaw's book) The German fighter made no maneuver or jink. Plus you brought him down from what looked like quite a distance. (Again in Shaw's book the universal strategy is to get as close as you can before you hammer them with your 50s.) How are you firing on an opponent without them jinking and scoring damage from what looks like far away? I noticed you're zoomed out much more than I am. Plus you are not using the gyroscopic sight.
  10. I am with you Nealius. Although I find what Grafspee is typing to be very informative and interesting, this is not what I imagined when I bought the P-47 and P-51. Granted my expectations are not the issue and learning about high altitude flying in WW II is one of the reasons I bought the planes - somehow I missed the - having to gingerly control the aircraft in the historical accounts of protecting bomber formations. Even after practicing flying at high altitudes, if I manage to get behind a 109 or 190, they seem to dart away with incredible alacrity and agility while I am left rolling towards the ground if I try to follow them.
  11. Works great! Thank you. And thank you for responding so fast. I think I have 3 of these type of Mods and one of them turns out to be a problem. I was willing to put in the time to become proficient at aerial refueling but to become proficient at programming again after all these years... But fortunately we have people like you who are accessible on the Forum.
  12. I am having the same problem. dcs.log
  13. I was trying to report what I thought might be a bug. I included a track file because that is what was requested when reporting a bug. Apparently the lower part of the boom being permeable and the upper part of the boom being impermeable (or has collision) is not a bug. The upper segment of the boom having collision especially when the lower segment does not is what I was not sure about. The point at which I backed into something is the only thing I was concerned about showing on the track file.
  14. Thanks for responding so quickly. I am a better pilot than what the track file shows. Perhaps not a lot better. I made that track file quickly to get something on the Forum. I was trying to show the position of my plane under the tanker when I went down. I have seen the tutorial and a number of others. I did not know how to edit the track file and I should have told you to disregard everything until I am under the tanker. ie. Fast forward until I am under the tanker. Sorry about that. I thought I was " keep an eye on the tanker under belly lights". Are you saying that what I am experiencing is by design.? That the upper part of the boom is impermeable and I just need to stay in the right spot in order not to hit it. Or are you saying that I am not even hitting the boom? If that is the case then why are the tanker lights telling me I am not overly high? I never did see a solution to the multiplayer people who I thought might be having the same problem.
  15. I posted this issue under "Boom operator kills you in multiplayer" but no one has responded as yet. So I thought I would post it under its own topic. For one thing, my problem has nothing to do with multiplayer specifically. I am using single player on DCS World OpenBeta on the Caucasus map. I thought it might be contributing to their problem. I am working on AAR in the F-16c Viper. The lower colored extension segment of the boom is like the drogue basket for Navy planes in that it will pass through the aircraft being refueled. (I have seen the boom going at my chest.) However, the upper segment of the boom, with the "wings", will not pass through the aircraft about to be refueled. (I ran my aircraft into the upper segment of the boom while using the external view.) When I am close to being in position to be refueled, I apparently hook the "boom wings" under my wings and pull both planes down. Apparently the Boomer is not moving the boom to avoid hitting the plane being refueled. In fact, all I need to do, it seems, is bump the upper segment of the boom with my tail and both of us go sailing for the ground. This is happening more, the closer I get to being able to refuel. In fact, it is happening every time I use my 12 minute practice mission I developed in the Mission Editor. With as many pilots in DCS who are using the KC-135 to refuel, I would think there would be more reports if the problem was universal. The only other possible reports of an occurrence of this nature are those flying multiplayer alluded above. And that was a couple of months ago. Has anyone else experienced anything like this? I have provided a track file. Right before the "bump" occurs, the Tanker refueling lights show I am only slightly high and too far forward. AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Eight Core Processor; ACPI x 64-Based PC; 953 MG SPCC Solid State; NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080; 3 screens each Dell U2412M; NVIDIA High Definition Audio; Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog, Thrustmaster T-Pendular Rudder F16RefuelingCrash1.trk
  • Create New...