Exorcet

You can change which countries are part of which coalition in the ME. The button for this is on the left, above the green fly button. So: Set Country A and Country B to Blue Set plane from Country B to follow plane from Country A Set Country A to Red Blue Country B plane will now be set to follow Red Country A plane

AI communication needs a total rework really. I tried to go into detail in wish thread of mine: The idea to specifically select targets would be such a thing to add.

Like Gigafiga mentioned, if you change a unit from one side to the other, the follow task remains.

More advanced weapon modeling in general would make big difference in the sim. More varied behavior means weapons have different capabilities and need to be used/defended against differently. And of course it's also more realistic.

More and perhaps randomized burn times sound nice.

Yep, a livery manager is what we need. Choose what gets downloaded and remember our settings.

I play SP, own all the packs, and this is still a problem. If you want to share missions at you need to take into account if it uses packs or not, and the more packs there are, the worse this gets. I've already had to clone missions because of the existence of packs: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3308427/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3315425/ Now in this particular case, it's not that much trouble because DCS only has a limited number of packs (currently) and the SC pack was changed to be more user friendly, but the I think the problem is made clear. If we had many packs and they locked users out of missions, I as a mission maker would face a lot of wasted time planning my missions around packs instead of content.

Yes this is necessary, one very obvious use case is recreating Cold War intercepts. And we know this already works in DCS, but requires some trickery to intentionally build into a mission. In general we need to reduce restrictions on tasks and AI options.

I understand, I also own the WWII pack, the price is a non issue. The problem for me is dividing players or having to make millions of versions of a mission to be compatible with many packs, if DCS goes down that route.

I like the idea of tying in relevant units to modules. So for instance the F-86 would have come with B-29 and Tu-4 AI and possibly a higher selling price if deemed necessary. Barring that though, your ideas are huge improvement over now. It's bothering having to worry about potentially greatly reducing the accessibility of my missions just because I want to add a single unit from an asset pack into it. DCS has a decent unit list, but some time periods are pretty scarcely populated, like Korea as I mentioned above. That early Cold War era is one of the big problems because it can be beneficial to pull a unit or two from the WWII pack, but then you might end up barring a bunch of people from your mission. In a WWII scenario you'd expect more players to have the pack since it's marketed for WWII. Also, if we keep adding packs, things get more and more divided and more and more complex. It's an unnecessary headache.

There isn't really any point to this. DCS already covers a wide of range combat eras, having packs isn't necessarily going to make things faster or better. Then there is also the problem with dividing players. The free core is one of the attractive points of DCS, we shouldn't throw it away.

C:\Users\<Username>\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS

I understood your stance here the first time it was brought up. However DCS isn't about bragging points. I don't care how hard I have to work in relation to anyone else, I did the work because I wanted to, not because I wanted to score "points". If anything it's good that others can replicate my skill for little effort, that way if I'm flying online I can count on people at least matching my skill, which is more interesting than flying with or against novices all the time. Assuming there is even a tanker, which may not be the case. Assuming that distance is enough for refueling to matter which may not be the case. Also my stance isn't that AAR doesn't affect anything, it's that having an AAR assist doesn't detract from DCS. Increasing the AAR success rate means a player that doesn't know how to AAR can participate in a long range mission. That's a change, but nothing negative comes from it. Like I said, I've put time and effort into things in DCS too. The idea that the value of my time was dependent on other people in anyway has never crossed my mind. Not a single time. Imagine if artists took your position. No one would have bothered panting anything after the camera was invented. I can't say that how you feel is wrong, it is what it is, but if I had to choose between AAR assist and policing the "purity" of DCS player skill, AAR assist is about a million times more valuable in my opinion. And I don't think you shouldn't have your pure curated skill zone, but there are existing solutions for that. Make your own server for instance.

Yes, and in the racing world it's reward weight. As tends to be the case sadly.

This misses the point entirely. There isn't a Game Assist Association that sets laws for what kind of assists are legal or not. I'm not posting racing game assist because they have to be used as a template for flight sims. I'm posting assists from multiplayer games because someone apparently thought variable difficulty in multiplayer was unheard of. Also, let's circle back to what was ignored here, the aim assist in the other game. It's basically autopilot for aiming. So shouldn't that justify autopilot assists in flight sims. Actually, let's just look at flight sims themselves. DCS has autorudder, takeoff assist, options to disable difficult penalties for flying aircraft past their limits, options to disable damage, and autopilots beyond the native autopilots found in aircraft. There are also trim resets, autothrottles, and autostart/shutdown. Automation is nothing new. It was called B-Spec in Gran Turismo. I can't really see why this is relevant at all. I never saw a flight sim that let you so easily switch between high fidelity aircraft before DCS, yet here DCS is going on over 10 years. Progress happens. The only assists that aren't acceptable are ones that detract from people's experience or take things away from DCS. While I haven't specifically requested anything I've made sure to only suggest things that won't adversely affect DCS. If you asked me what I think the best assist is, it's the more forgiving refueling box. It would allow inexperienced players to perform all the steps related to manual AAR while also making it much harder for them to fail, and it would have absolutely no effect on players that choose not to use it since it would be a personal option and because it changes nothing about their game. Some people may not like that it's there even if it doesn't affect them, but there isn't really anything that can be done about that. I've seen some people make requests to take away some sim aspects from DCS, but that's clearly not the direction DCS is intended to go. There isn't much to do in these cases but ignore the suggestions. Just because they don't like something isn't grounds to keep that thing out of the sim.

So it should be fine if AAR assist is added to help with hardware deficiencies, I guess the discussion is over. Yes because my post contained what you're looking for, an explanation on how assists aid in learning, including the plane flying itself. All your answers are in the thread. Unlimited fuel doesn't help train AAR assist. Since you're fixated on training people for some reason you either have to be against unlimited fuel or you can choose to not care how people train in which case AAR assists are fine. So pick one, it doesn't matter which, but it seems like you don't have an argument against AAR assist. Yet AAR in DCS is harder, so it seems like time doesn't matter.

Autorudder doesn't turn off when you have rudder pedals. It's not for keyboard users, and it's like it would matter if it were. Anyone can use it. OK but if you need proof of an a setting designed for inexperienced players, and not just keyboard users for whatever reason, here is some text from the MiG-21 manual: As assist designed to make things easier for inexperienced players. They are directly comparable. As assist is an assist, it's exactly the same situation as in DCS: Give a player assistance at something they might have difficulty doing on their own. But if the intent is all that matters, well let's just say AAR assist is intended for keyboard users. Would it now suddenly be OK to have in DCS? The poster above apparently thinks autorudder is for keyboard users even when it works just as well with rudder pedals, so there shouldn't be a problem I guess. How the assists help training have been explained many times. Here is just one example: You can practice AAR with an assist. It's obvious that you can practice without, but that doesn't matter. Flying missions with unlimited fuel is totally different and also can't be used to learn AAR. Those features are assists in the real world. They're still assists. And in games they can be applied in race series where they are banned in order to assist drivers in controlling the cars. OK, but if for some reason an assist being a real world assist matters let's focus on the non real world ones like racing lines, auto clutch, friction force, etc. Why are you ignoring these? I don't know if you've done sim racing, but I've driven multiple hour long races and driving isn't that hard. AAR took more practice. Maybe what's difficult and what's not is a personal thing. Lastly, again, having AAR assists doesn't prevent anyone from trying to AAR during a mission, but it can encourage them to get better at AAR or participate in missions they otherwise wouldn't confidently join. Hence the desire for an assist.

Not in DCS where you can turn on auto rudder, or fly FC3 planes against full fidelity ones, or set radio to simple mode. Nor is it how it works in other games which offer assists to make it easier for some players

There really isn't anything to create divisions over. The assist would be personal. A player that turns it on would not turn it on for any other player. All players, no matter their settings, can coexist on the same server without issue. OK then having an assist shouldn't matter if there are already ways to avoid dealing with AAR. Some players still want to refuel, so having an assist that allows you to do so instead of just skipping AAR is desirable. I'd say that the training merit of a few options are under represented. AAR is not a single task but a series of tasks. Autopilot allows one to practice all the non flying aspects. It also has to be turned on, if it's a button press. Meaning that a player can make manual attempts before resorting to pressing the button. This alone expands the amount of missions they can play and likely increases the amount of practice they will put in. "Cheap" and "cheaty" don't really mean anything here. It's not cheating if it's not against the rules. Lastly as someone who AAR's manually, this is certainly not a slap in the face. I have exactly zero concern over people getting to refuel while putting in less effort than me. What you called Wireless AAR and More Forgiving Box are basically the same thing. These are excellent training tools because the player can approach them exactly as they would fully manual AAR all while not having to worry about the consequence of failure (as much). A larger refueling box doesn't stop the player from trying to respect the tanker lights, and if they're doing that, they are basically practicing full manual. Learning is about being willing to learn more than anything else.

Not true. Learning AAR only has no use if you can't AAR. The assist does not take away AAR. If you want to refuel manually, you still need to know how to do it. This applies even if the assist is present. There is a reason for AAR assist, it's to help those people refuel who can't do it completely manually. If there is no reason to care if people can or can't AAR, then there is no reason to be concerned about how they learn. In other words, there is no reason to be against people using an assist instead of manual practice. What problems are there with the assist? There are none as far as I see. And what existing solutions are you talking about?

How does refueling have no use in the game? You can't fly 500 miles if your plane only has enough fuel for 250. This remains true even if AAR assists are present. True, so no one should care if players can do it or not, or if they're using assists. Most people aren't all people. Not every feature needs to have majority support. And DCS has a variety of mission types. It's not hard to come up with a mission that can push the limits on one of the less fuel efficient planes, like the Hornet: Which is a big point. If the mission designer feels the need to exclude AAR because it will reduce the attractiveness of their mission, that's a bad thing. Adding an assist solves this. It's not about being kept out of the game. It's about being kept out certain missions. As for who they are, they're the people making these request threads.

Why, what are you losing? Nothing would change. The reward for learning AAR is knowing AAR. The people that train would still have that, the people that don't won't. Nothing changes. Why don't the existing assists in DCS ruin the game? People don't have to learn to fly properly, and flying is basically the entire point of DCS. Shouldn't DCS be dead? But they're not exactly convincing. Some people say there is no training value when there is. Some people say it ruins the game but ignore the other assists that exist in DCS. I guess you're within you're rights to be upset that people don't approach the game exactly how you want them too, but that doesn't mean they can't have what they want. AAR assist don't take anything away from DCS. Until they do, I don't see any reasonable stance against the feature. Yet it's part of my standard procedure as I seek a realistic experience. You don't need to force people to comply with carrots and sticks. People will work towards what they want naturally, and it's perfectly OK if they want something different than other people. The anti assist side is basically saying that the only valid way to approach AAR is to practice it unassisted. This is incorrect. It's perfectly valid to ask ED to add an assist and learn using that. DCS has implemented new features at the request of players before, nothing new. Why would I ask for them? There isn't a thread where these things are being debated. I can safely say that if they existed I wouldn't care though. We have PVE autopilot by the way on the multiseat modules. If I don't want to play on a server I don't, it's a non issue. And if people aren't playing the game, why are they even on the server in the first place? Where did forced and competitive come from? That wasn't part of the original line. As for MP games with varying difficulty, DCS is one. Most shooters have aim assist options. Driving games have driving assists, etc. As did I. You said if people won't use the assist they shouldn't be asking for it. You fit into that category don't you? So I guess we can drop the rather silly idea that people can't participate in the discussion. Since I have I'll just repost what I said already: " In fact in benefits me by making AAR in missions less of a concern when mission building. As someone who worked to learn AAR, I have absolutely no argument against the assist. " "However yes I do feel like the assist is an overall good thing to add to DCS even if I won't use it. I make missions to share and I know that people are divided on AAR. If there was an assist that would guarantee a high rate of universal AAR success, I could freely add refueling in any mission of mine. " You can Ctrl + F and search for those and find that they were copied from previous posts, so yes I have explained why AAR assist benefits me even if I won't use it. Like how I said. I don't want to be rude, but are you reading my posts? It would explain a lot if you just ignored what you don't like to see. We must live in different universes. Do you watch any competitive racing? Did you know that winners can recieve "reward weight" for winning? It's a disadvantage for being successful in order to make it more difficult to keep winning and make it easier for lower performers to win. Just FYI.

Sure, why not. There are many many ways to approach this. Even multiple assists could be added hypothetically. It all depends on what people want and what their preferences are. You've never, when learning AAR, overshot the tanker? Or perhaps fumbled with some of the controls early on (where is the refuel door switch, etc)? Or forgot to set the radio to the proper channel? It's all worth practicing. Remember, checklists aren't just for beginners. They're intended to be used by even the most experienced people so that consistency is maintained. It's worth practicing the entire AAR process, not just spawning behind the tanker. The F10 map is irrelevant. You're not forced to use it. Mainly, I reply in response to arguments against because I feel they tend to distort the argument or make little sense. However yes I do feel like the assist is an overall good thing to add to DCS even if I won't use it. I make missions to share and I know that people are divided on AAR. If there was an assist that would guarantee a high rate of universal AAR success, I could freely add refueling in any mission of mine. I don't see how my statement is wrong. DCS has unlimited fuel. If you don't want to AAR, use that. An AAR assist only makes sense if you want to interact with a tanker. Why would the box be smaller than it already is? The box is there in the first place - it's the limits of the boom/hose. It being invisible, as it already is, doesn't matter. That just gets the player to focus on existing references like tanker lights or the tanker itself. This game isn't competitive. Servers can be setup to be competitive, but that's a server by server choice. DCS is an entertainment product that aims to reach a wide-ish audience. Options are only natural is this case. AAR assist also isn't even a concern for division. It would be a personal setting. If you don't like it, don't use it. How? I still have my ability to AAR. Why would I care that people use assists? Does autorudder invalidate your flight pedal purchase? Are they now worthless? Do dogfights suddenly lose all sense of engagement? If so, if assists that others use without impacting your game somehow devalue your experience, that is beyond bizarre.

This doesn't really make sense, unless you're also going to apply the same reasoning to everyone saying to practice flying formation in acrobatic servers, etc. You still need to fly formation with the tanker if the assist only something like an extension of the range of the refuel mechanism. It's not going to stretch for 100 miles, it's just going to expand the valid refuel box a bit beyond where it is now. But even if the assist were to just fly for you completely, the player still has to manage fuel, find the tanker, join up with the tanker, contact the tanker, know the proper procedures (ie for F-16 open the refuel port early to depressurize tanks). So it would still facilitate learning. Not that this is even necessary for the feature to be considered of course, DCS is entertainment and not training software. Exactly, AAR assist doesn't take this away. As above. As above. We just established that AAR assist does not remove fuel management or tanker form up and communication. And now you're arguing apparently that neither does unlimited fuel, so I guess whether fuel is limited or not also doesn't matter. I would disagree. Now when it comes to learning how to refuel, having AAR assist means the player doesn't need to worry about needing to refuel in the mission, because with the assist, success rate should be high. So with this high success rate the player won't fear participating in missions with required AAR, in essence allowing every mission they participate in to involve AAR practice. Without the assist, they can't do this unless they're willing to only practice AAR. And of course, like I said before even if the assist flies the plane completely, that doesn't remove all the other components of AAR, which are still valid for practice. You're also somehow ignoring that so long as the player has control over the plane, they can attempt to fly tight formation with the tanker. Just because your refueling box is larger than normal doesn't mean you have to automatically ignore the director lights or ignore the tanker itself as a reference. If people so desperately want to improve tanker competence, they should be asking for AAR assists to encourage players to practice more. It would be even better than trying to fly formation with random planes on free flight servers and more permissible for players that want to actually fly combat missions. You don't ask for AAR assist unless you want to AAR, pretty obviously. So what's the problem? Here is the solution to your fear: don't use the assist. That's it. DCS remains totally unchanged for you. I play DCS because it's realistic. DCS has options for autorudder, unlimited fuel, unlimited ammo, immortality. DCS even allows you to play the role of an omnipotent inhuman diety if you want to mess around with triggers (set up the F10 menu to automatically blow up the entire enemy force, you can do it in DCS). Does any of this diminish the realism of DCS? Obviously no. Completely fine. What's the problem? People are going to be upset? Over what? Some random person somewhere pressed a button and skipped the game? Players have no reason to care. Did I mention that DCS has a win button? I outlined how to make it above. Also the DCS campaign now features a skip mission button, you know a win button if you can't be bothered to play a mission in a campaign. It doesn't press itself though, so it's not ruining your experience is it? This only makes it more confusing why speedrunners would care in Minecraft, but moving on All of this, doesn't even really matter because an AAR assist would be personal. Like autorudder. Someone turning on autorudder doesn't enforce for the entire server. There is no risk here, at all. And now AAR is the final challenge of DCS apparently. I don't want to wrongly accuse people of bias or anything, but this just sounds totally biased. AAR is just one of many things you can do in DCS. It's not "the final challenge" it's not some sacred right of passage for sim pilots. Just let people play the game. No, I don't care. Let people use the assist, has no effect on me and my AAR skill. In fact in benefits me by making AAR in missions less of a concern when mission building. As someone who worked to learn AAR, I have absolutely no argument against the assist. There is more to flying than AAR. You're supposed to turn the radar off so as not to fry your tanker crew. And it's not like manually flying prevents you from looking down or listening to AWACS. Because you want to learn. The ultimate motivation. Much more effective than learn this because someone else says so. Yet it's in many games. So apparently not? Then the people arguing against it should not be posting in the thread.

Whatever you want to call it doesn't change anything. No, we need options. Just because someone might pick something different than you isn't a reason to restrict choices. The DCS community hasn't been shattered by the ability to turn off wake physics, or auto rudder, or anything else. And there is zero reason to divide because one person has as AAR assist on that everyone else can ignore completely.