Auto Air to Air Refuel

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, sthompson said:

So you think that flying a long mission with a fixed load of 10% or 50% or 100% fuel is the same experience (apart from the actual AAR) as doing AAR (with assistance or not) and then having to worry about your weight and fuel consumption? Obviously not. Unlimited fuel totally changes the mission.

Why do you want all this realism and yet also for the aircraft to magically fly itself?

2 hours ago, schmiefel said:

The only thing I can think off why ED hasn't done such an option is that it isn't that simple to implement and that there are tons of other problems within DCS that have a much higher priority getting fixed.

This. Nothing is as easy as some people assume and yes there are many many more important things for them to work on. And again, there’s already a solution for this in the game so no need for them to put in the additional work. 

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, lmp said:

You essentially want an autopilot mode that will perform a complex task and work across many modules from many developers (at the moment at least 4 different devs have AC with AAR capabilities). That's a huge task!

Good point. 

[Tippis]

 

25 minutes ago, lmp said:

Also, automatic refueling won't help you learn anything and thus is only useful for people who gave up on AAR entirely but still wants to fly missions that require it - which is a very specific use case and I imagine not a lot of people would use it. Then there's the question of developing it. You essentially want an autopilot mode that will perform a complex task and work across many modules from many developers (at the moment at least 4 different devs have AC with AAR capabilities). That's a huge task!

Actually, it would indeed let people learn something — even AAR — if done properly. It would let you create scenarios where long-range fuel management and timing matters, which you can't do with some of the more ignorant non-solutions often proposed (eg. infinite fuel), and related to AAR in particular, it would also give people get an eye for what it is they need to do to make it work on their own. The things that it would let you learn are not all related to AAR, specifically, even though it would also help there, but that's kind of the point: these kinds of options can only ever improve the ability to set up more complex training scenarios to teach people more complex skills. Not having the option can only ever reduce the ability to teach people. It's really that simple and that black-and-white.

 

So there is no good argument against implementing this kind of thing from the perspective of offering a solid teaching environment. None.

 

As for developing it, it's not really a huge task for the simple reason that most of it is actually in the game already, for all relevant aircraft. You want the AI to fly the ship from a holding position to a different holding position and then sit there for a while. It can already do that. It does it every time you ask AI units to air refuel. So while the whole development opportunity cost is pretty much the only working argument against adding this feature (or indeed any feature ever), it is as mentioned a very weak one. Especially in this case when most of what's needed already exists.

 

24 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Why do you want all this realism and yet also for the aircraft to magically fly itself?

One does not stand in conflict with the other. This option would open up for more realism than the non-solution you offer because you haven't bothered to think about it.

 

Quote

Nothing is as easy as some people assume and yes there are many many more important things for them to work on. And again, there’s already a solution for this in the game so no need for them to put in the additional work. 

There is no existing solution for this in the game, and there is nothing to suggest that it is even remotely as hard as some people baselessly assume that it is. Those assumptions just demonstrate that they have no idea what DCS can and cannot do at this point, which is a pretty strange position to argue against improvements to the game from.

 

It's especially strange to use ignorance as a basis for an argument against improved realism in the game.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Tippis

[lmp]

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

As for developing it, it's not really a huge task for the simple reason that most of it is actually in the game already, for all relevant aircraft. You want the AI to fly the ship from a holding position to a different holding position and then sit there for a while. It can already do that. It does it every time you ask AI units to air refuel. So while the whole development opportunity cost is pretty much the only working argument against adding this feature (or indeed any feature ever), it is as mentioned a very weak one. Especially in this case when most of what's needed already exists.

 

AI aircraft use different flight models than player controlled aircraft. I don't know how easy it would be to switch from a PFM/EFM to SFM while at the same time having all the other systems (which are often closely coupled with the flight model) in the aircraft work normally and then switch back again. To my programmer mind that sounds like it could be very complex if not impossible.

 

What do you think about my solution (additional UI elements that help to guide the pilot through the process and a "stay within X m for Y min" script)? Would it help you achieve your goals and if not, why? To me it at least seems a lot easier to implement and maintain...

[Tippis]

8 minutes ago, lmp said:

AI aircraft use different flight models than player controlled aircraft.

Shouldn't really matter. You're just along for the ride anyway so the controller could just move the 3D model along, belly first, nose towards the ground, with no simulation at all for all intents and purposes.

 

Quote

What do you think about my solution (additional UI elements that help to guide the pilot through the process and a "stay within X m for Y min" script)? Would it help you achieve your goals and if not, why? To me it at least seems a lot easier to implement and maintain...

Those might help, but that sounds more like an extension of the helper gates and argument triggers that already exist, but those are limited to SP use for some reason. It would be an excellent addition to the teaching toolbox (especially if SP triggers could be made MP compatible across the board), but feels more like a supplement to a particular sub-genre of existing tools than something that would fit into an actual live or mission environment.

 

e: Also, when I think about it, it's probably that “script” word that creates an uncomfortable itch. Such solutions have had a historical tendency to be brittle and break with little to no warning, but that's honestly more of a personal aversion to scripting solutions rather than proper hard-coded ones.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Tippis

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

If adding auto-AAR to that list isn't a big thing, auto-takeoff and auto-land aren't either, auto-aligning the TGP and auto-locking the AGM-65 on a target you picked from auto-spotted targets on the F10 map wouldn't be too. We'd basically just need an auto-press for the button that runs the mission automatically on it's own.

Slippery-slope fallacies are fallacious for a reason.

 

But you're absolutely right: if you can think of a scenario where those automations could improve the overall realism of a mission, or add to the teaching toolbox, then there really wouldn't be much reason not to implement them. So… can you think of any? Or are they just the hyperbolic fallacies they appear to be?

 

Quote

Maybe after all everything we need here is an advanced F2 view where you can just sit in an AI flown plane's cockpit while you imagine you fly that plane yourself.

This pretty much already exists.

[lmp]

5 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Shouldn't really matter.

 

It will, because your flight and engine model is coupled with the hydraulics, electrics, bleed air, FLCS... all of those can't just ignore what's happening to the aircraft and its engines for five minutes. I of course have no more insight into the implementation specifics of each of the modules from each of the companies than the next guy, but I'm pretty convinced that unless something similar was envisioned from the outset of development, it will be very difficult to add to existing code (some of which is over a decade old now!).

 

If I'm wrong and this can be easily done and will work in a robust way, then sure, why not. Whatever helps. But I fear it's not the case.

 

22 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Those might help, but that sounds more like an extension of the helper gates and argument triggers that already exist, but those are limited to SP use for some reason. It would be an excellent addition to the teaching toolbox (especially if SP triggers could be made MP compatible across the board), but feels more like a supplement to a particular sub-genre of existing tools than something that would fit into an actual live or mission environment.

 

Then I'm in favor of making such features available in MP, at the discretion of the game host. Similar GUI features are used by many in actual missions (external cargo helper, control helper, Supercarrier ball helper) and scripts are widely used in missions as well.

 

I would actually use a "tanker alignment helper" UI to help with learning AAR in new aircraft. I can do it fine on my own but I can see how it would make the process quicker and more efficient.

[Qiou87]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Expensive hardware isn’t needed. Practice is needed. Unless your joystick is broken or you’re playing this with a laptop and joystick balanced on your knees or something. 

These are all realistic features. AAR “autopilot” is not. 

Depending on the stick, making minute corrections is not as easy. I have used an old TM stick, then T16000, finally a VKB gunfighter, and I can tell you with absolute confidence that a precise stick with less centering force definitely helps with being precise and make small adjustments, which is what is needed for AAR. Same for AAR in a turn, you need to put in a bit of rudder ; doing that with a twisting stick, instead of pedals, is theoretically possible but in practise a lot harder to maintain for 5min. So yeah, hardware helps. Everything is possible, you can play DCS with a keyboard and maybe manage AAR, doesn't mean it will be as easy to learn it.

 

If you are so offended by a game trying to make life easier for its players, please write a letter to ED to remove the text in the top when someone speaks on the radio, remove the "ball" pop-up in the Supercarrier when coming to land, and of course auto-start and all of those. 

 

How can you not see that a task performed in front of a computer screen can, in fact, be more difficult to perform than the real-life task, and therefore providing ways to help with said task, even if not realistic in the strict sense, actually brings the level of difficulty of said task closer to what it is in real life?

 

I agree that more urgent changes need to be made, more urgent features added. But it is not our task as gamers to evaluate how hard it would be to implement this feature and therefore if it should be implemented or abandoned. Just to rate if this, indeed, would benefit us or other players, were the devs adding it later down the road.

Seeing as 2 campaign creators each tried to implement their own "workaround", I also believe a universal workaround, eventually helping to learn AAR as was proposed (excellent idea!) that would work for all campaigns and all planes would be a nice addition to the game core. I can also think about a way where just plugging in for 1-2 seconds would refill the tanks, in this case the "easy AAR" would only be a 5000 pounds/sec flow rate. At least the player would need to learn some of it already, but not fly in formation for 3-4min with the tanker. After a while, that option could be toggled off as the player would have accumulated a lot of experience already and be comfortable just staying plugged in.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Qiou87

[Tippis]

1 minute ago, lmp said:

It will, because your flight and engine model is coupled with the hydraulics, electrics, bleed air, FLCS... all of those can't just ignore what's happening to the aircraft and its engines for five minutes

They pretty much can, though. Just put the plane into active pause and notice that they all keep operating absolutely fine on the basic assumption that whatever state the aircraft was in when pause was engaged keeps being the state. Systems that require airflow will assume they still have the same airflow, when in actual fact, you're not moving at all. Your bombs drop with the momentum they would have had had the plane still been moving, but again, it is just sitting there, not moving at all and your free-fall bombs will fly ahead of you because they assume that there is still some speed involved in your completely still aircraft. Your IAS shows the IAS you had, when it should be 0, etc etc etc.

 

They are all already fully able to ignore what is actually happening to the aircraft, and if a might Hand Of God AI-Controlled-Basically-Noclip-Stringalong-Thing moves the aircraft model through the air in the meantime as opposed to it sitting still in one spot, they would be none the wiser. Granted, the hand-off at the end might be a bit jarring if the aircraft is suddenly in a strong headwind that wasn't there before, but that's a problem for the pilot to solve at that point.

[sthompson]

36 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Having realism-inconsistencies in a study-sim isn't an argument to introduce even more, it's at best an argument to find a way to remove those already existent.

 

If adding auto-AAR to that list isn't a big thing, auto-takeoff and auto-land aren't either, auto-aligning the TGP and auto-locking the AGM-65 on a target you picked from auto-spotted targets on the F10 map wouldn't be too. We'd basically just need an auto-press for the button that runs the mission automatically on it's own.

 

Maybe after all everything we need here is an advanced F2 view where you can just sit in an AI flown plane's cockpit while you imagine you fly that plane yourself.

 

"DCSUS 1.0, Digital Combat Simulator 2.5 User Simulator, can simulate up to 8 real life gamers flying virtual aircraft at the same time. Literally everything you need to simulate your virtual fighter wing squadron. No experience or knowledge needed, suited for everyone."

No one is asking for anything remotely close to that. All I want is an option for better visual cues about where the "thing" is that I need to hit, with mission planners having the ability to choose whether to permit that option or not just as they do for other options such as wake turbulence. All it would require is limiting the basket's movement a bit and perhaps enlarge a bit the region where it snaps to the probe to make the hookup a bit more forgiving. I doubt if that requires more than a tweak to parameters already in the tanker code with no changes at all to the flyable modules. And to those who say I am ignoring the complexity and resources needed to implement something I say you don't know that is true any more than I do. Only the developers can answer that question, and it isn't the purpose of a wish list to set priorities for their efforts based on the unknown to us difficulty of implementation.

 

I realize that the OP asked for an "auto" mode option. That's not what I want, but apparently some think that it's not OK to contemplate any changes at all that would give struggling customers some help. There have been reasonable arguments for something less extreme as an OPTION. Perhaps we could focus the discussion on what would best help people overcome their limitations without going all the way to making it a pushbutton process. Advice to "practice more" doesn't cut it for many of us.

 

Think about this: The most common advice given for how to successfully AAR in DCS is to ignore the basket and fly the picture. Is that really how the military trains? I doubt it. Is it realistic to have the basket and hose slice through your aircraft when you miss with no damage? Obviously not. And I'd be very surprised if the military would let people who can't do AAR continue to fly. Perhaps we should ban people from certain aircraft if they can't demonstrate realistic proficiency within XX hours? Or a permanent ban from flying DCS if you crash and die. That would be realistic. I just don't buy the argument that it's realistic now. I suspect it is harder than in RL in some respects and easier in others.

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

Depending on the stick, making minute corrections is not as easy. I have used an old TM stick, then T16000, finally a VKB gunfighter, and I can tell you with absolute confidence that a precise stick with less centering force definitely helps with being precise and make small adjustments, which is what is needed for AAR.

I agree or at least my personal preference is a light spring on the stick. I’m sure everyone has a different preference for that though. 

4 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

Same for AAR in a turn, you need to put in a bit of rudder ; doing that with a twisting stick, instead of pedals, is theoretically possible but in practise a lot harder to maintain for 5min.

The modern aircraft which AAR have auto rudder stability control or FBW. You don’t use the rudder for normal turns. 

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

 

Seeing as 2 campaign creators each tried to implement their own "workaround"

So. Problem solved. And again there’s no reason for ED or 3rd party Devs to put hours towards solving when there’s already a work around for in the sim. Unlimited Fuel. 

[Qiou87]

30 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

So. Problem solved. And again there’s no reason for ED or 3rd party Devs to put hours towards solving when there’s already a work around for in the sim. Unlimited Fuel. 

Repeating something again and again doesn’t make it true. Unlimited fuel means you don’t care about fuel at all, so instead of drop tanks you can take more ammo, fly in burner all the time, etc. Having an easy mode for AAR does only that, and as was suggested in different ways, it could also be a nice enough system that it actually teaches you basics about AAR so you can feel more confident to try it for yourself and not need the system later.

[XtraChrisP]

8 hours ago, Tippis said:

That's the doubly funny thing too: an actual study-level sim would almost by necessity have to include such a feature to allow for scenarios where the thing you study today hinges on AAR being a factor but not on the AAR itself being the main issue to learn or problem to be solved.

 

 

 

Here's the thing though.  Most missions in tactical jets require air refueling.  I was attached to a AAR unit and we were always supporting jets with pre/mid and often post mission tanking.  They just don't have the legs to do what they need to do without hitting the tanker at least once.  In that regard, AAR is as essential a skill as takeoff and landing.  It's a part of almost every mission, so to state that it's not necessary to be able to do AAR you can just do other stuff instead kinda ignores the fact that you aren't doing anything without tanking.

[nighthawk2174]

This should absolutely be an option, it's just a QOL thing to add and would be big helps to missions I want to fly with friends but i'm the only one who can AAR.  And as such I can't do the mission.

[SharpeXB]

17 minutes ago, Qiou87 said:

Repeating something again and again doesn’t make it true. Unlimited fuel means you don’t care about fuel at all, so instead of drop tanks you can take more ammo, fly in burner all the time, etc. Having an easy mode for AAR does only that, and as was suggested in different ways, it could also be a nice enough system that it actually teaches you basics about AAR so you can feel more confident to try it for yourself and not need the system later.

So carry tanks, set unlimited fuel, and just pretend that you ran out of fuel, fly near the tanker, pretend that you’re refueled. That’s not any less realistic than having your plane automatically refuel itself. 
 

There’s no way an Easy Mode Helper thing can teach you to AAR. The “basics” of it are actually very simple, it’s the practice that takes time and effort. 

[randomTOTEN]

24 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

I want to fly with friends but i'm the only one who can AAR.

So why aren't you guys running AAR training sessions together?

[DD_Fenrir]

My two cents:

 

There aren't many stepping stones in other aspects of DCS to help those who wish to progress in a given task to master it, and as such it tends to be a hurdle that you overcome or you don't. 

 

That said, AAR is a particularly steep hurdle, and can be dishearteningly frustrating - I was fortunate in that I was able to get proficient relatively quickly (though it must be said I'd rather take a basket than a boom any day!).

 

However, I have seen many of my squad mates try repeatedly, despite the best help I can give, to fail to either connect or maintain the connection when attempting AAR even after many hours of trying. And some of these guys can fly reasonable combat formations. They just struggle with the PIO elements that dominate the neophyte AAR experience.

 

This limits the scope of missions I can propose; or it punishes those who might get trapped in a dogfight and obliged to use more fuel than they had planned to land away from their home base, crash or eject, because they dread the thought of trying to AAR, especially in front of their friends.

 

For that reason alone I'd welcome as easier AAR option.

 

There could a fairly simple workaround that could be used as an aid to work up to sustained contact with the basket/boom.

 

As a difficulty option, selectably overridden by servers have a Defined 3D Zone behind the tanker which, after communicating the necessary rejoin requests becomes visible as a translucent cube/cone, whatever. By flying and keeping your aircraft within this area you are automatically transferred fuel. Maybe you could have Zone size selectable or scalable to help those who wish to progress make the Zone smaller and thus gradually work towards the ultimate goal of realistic plugging. 

 

I'm a fairly hardcore DCSer and prefer to do most things as per prototype - but I for one would welcome the implementation of a feature that would ease the learning gradient of AAR - which to some can seem vertical and almost insurmountable - for the sake of my squadmates and the entry level DCSers.

 

As long as I can still do it the authentic way, it's no skin off my nose.

Edited January 6, 2021 by DD_Fenrir

[Tippis]

  

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

So. Problem solved. And again there’s no reason for ED or 3rd party Devs to put hours towards solving when there’s already a work around for in the sim. Unlimited Fuel. 

So no, problem not solved if you had bothered to actually read. They tried to offer a workaround. They didn't actually  solve the issue.

And no, unlimited fuel is not a work-around either. It is really baffling that you seem to argue that massive unrealism is preferable as a non-solution to something that already has most of the parts needed to make it work. Why is it that you are so adamantly against improvements to the game?!

 

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

So carry tanks, set unlimited fuel, and just pretend that you ran out of fuel, fly near the tanker, pretend that you’re refueled. That’s not any less realistic than having your plane automatically refuel itself.

Come on. Do you honestly believe that absolute drivel?!

 

Compare the following two scenarios:

 

1. You set your aircraft to 1% fuel; you load up every pylon to the absolute maximum with ordnance because weight is not a factor since you don't need to carry any fuel; you afterburn 200nm to the combat area at 50m AGL because fuel is not a factor and you want to easily avoid all the air defences in the area; and you loiter for hours to expend all that ordnance on every last thing present; and then you afterburn back.

 

2. You set your aircraft to 100% fuel and add fuel bags because you have quite some way to travel; you carry a select few weapons because that's the load limit of your aircraft; you expend a fair amount of fuel to climb to a good altitude, where you auto-refuel; you carefully weigh altitude against speed against range as you have to thread your way through air defence coverage arcs, because you have to get there and back again with only what you can carry, and you only really have one run at the target because of the limited ordnance you are able carry. On your way back, you probably have to auto-refuel again to make it back to base.

 

How on earth can you even begin to believe that these two are equally realistic? I am having to refrain myself really hard to not start using strong invectives to describe the absurdity of what you are saying, so I'm left to simply ask: do you honestly believe a word of what you're saying and on what grounds?

 

You will of course, as you always do, avoid answering this very simple question and just keep repeating the same unfounded nonsensical slogans because YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT! You cannot think of a single reason why this should not be implemented, so you resort to the only tactic you know of: repetition of nonsense until people grow tired, and then calling that a win. Your only option is to evade any discussion and rely on trolling to make sure that the game remains as unrealistic and unappealing as possible.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Tippis

[lmp]

While I'm not claiming unlimited fuel is the solution, your argument about players gaming the system by taking 1% fuel is flawed. You can game automatic refueling just as well. When I refuel manually I need to accept the possibility of having issues connecting (everyone has bad days), I have to account for any battle damage I might have taken, I have to accept a degraded SA... While you can ignore all that, sit back, set up your bomb fuses, monitor the airspace for your buddies while the "helper" does its thing.

 

IMHO if you accept handicaps for a portion of your players, you need house rules and gentlemen agreements that'll prevent them from getting and advantage. Any handicap can be gamed.

Edited January 6, 2021 by lmp

[Tippis]

25 minutes ago, lmp said:

While I'm not claiming unlimited fuel is the solution, your argument about players gaming the system by taking 1% fuel is flawed. You can game automatic refueling just as well. When I refuel manually I need to accept the possibility of having issues connecting (everyone has bad days), I have to account for any battle damage I might have taken, I have to accept a degraded SA... While you can ignore all that, sit back, set up your bomb fuses, monitor the airspace for your buddies while the "helper" does its thing.

That doesn't really change with automatic refuelling, though. Even if you refuel manually you can (and indeed must at some point) do that, and even if your refuelling is automatic, that same battle damage and degraded SA will affect every other part of your flight. Doing all that during the refuelling would also be a fairly poorly chosen occasion — you still have to maintain some awareness of how things are proceeding, after all, and you will have had plenty of far better opportunities to set yourself up before that.

 

And it's not about gaming the system. The point was to illustrate what a laughably idiotic notion it is to suggest that automating a single part of a much larger multi-staged mission where you still have to balance all the complexities and considerations that go into those different parts, would somehow have the same effect as turning on unlimited fuel. One of those two will massively change every single part of the mission and how you approach it; one of them will not, and indeed cannot possibly do so. Someone would have to be wholly, completely, 100% ignorant of how DCS works to even begin to believe something that stupid.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Tippis

[draconus]

You guys are trying to say how big of a problem it is while it's like 2 campaigns that already take care of the issue. You're free to choose how you handle it and that's fine.

For many pilots and many aircraft it's bread and butter to AAR daily so it's funny how players deliberately put a lot of time on BVR, WVR or A2G and yet ignore AAR. It's their choice of course but they should deal with consequenses and that means no long flights. Does it take time to learn the skill or just better hardware to manage it doesn't matter - these are still choices players make.

What is really needed here is better AAR simulation, collision and damage model - not some simplification that already can be workaround in many ways.

And lastly AAR is not something that is forced on you. It's a skill like many others. You either learn it or not. Just like formations, patterns, procedures, comms or aerobatics. If you don't want it - don't do it. Simple as that. You don't need helpers and simplifications for every one of these things.

Edited January 6, 2021 by draconus

[Tippis]

3 hours ago, XtraChrisP said:

 It's a part of almost every mission, so to state that it's not necessary to be able to do AAR you can just do other stuff instead kinda ignores the fact that you aren't doing anything without tanking.

I can only assume that you misclicked somewhere and intended to answer a different post than the one you quoted because at no point was any such statement made.

 

2 minutes ago, draconus said:

 it's funny how players deliberately put a lot of time on BVR, WVR or A2G and yet ignore AAR. It's their choice of course but they should deal with consequenses and that means no longer flights.

Why? What's the benefit to the sim — from an entertainment perspective; from a teaching or learning perspective; from a “study sim” perspective; from any perspective — that you are barred from specific content for… some unclear reason. Why should there be “consequences” at all?

 

Quote

And lastly AAR is not something that is forced on you. It's a skill like many others. You either learn it or not. Just like formations, patterns, procedures, comms or aerobatics. If you don't want it - don't do it.

Going by XtraChrisP above, it sort of is forced on you. Unlike those other things you list, it actually is required under some circumstances and those are not always under your control. Sure, you could just not play, but if that's the choice a game offers you the game has failed at its primary purpose and is in desperate need of immediate redesign.

 

As for “if you don't want it — don't do it”, that defuses and deflates pretty much every single argument against this kind of improvement to the game.

[lmp]

Example then. The other day I was playing as the lead of a strike element in a bigger package. I had planned to refuel before the push from the marshalling waypoint. However, there was not a lot of time left (10 minutes maybe) and I fumbled the AAR - only picked up half of the fuel I wanted to before we had to push. That influenced the rest of the mission, I had to fly higher, use less afterburner, do fewer passes and refuel on the way home. This is something you don't need to consider at all if you have the option to automatically refuel.

 

18 minutes ago, Tippis said:

that same battle damage and degraded SA will affect every other part of your flight

 

But it won't affect the AAR which may be crucial for the rest of the flight. Can I refuel with a degraded FLCS? Or do I have to reconsider how I continue with the mission? Doesn't matter, AI will solve this problem for me! Gee, that flanker is rather close, is it going after me? Do I risk being target fixated on the tanker for the next 5 - 10 minutes? Doesn't matter, I'll turn on the AI and watch my SA page like a hawk...

 

All those little things will add up. People using the automatic mode will be able to take more risks, go for the tanker with less onboard fuel, just because they can't fumble, can't fail and don't incur many of the costs that "manual players" do.

 

This will lead to this feature being disabled on public MP servers (or everybody using them, regardless of AAR skill level) and house rules will be used on private servers.

 

29 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Someone would have to be wholly, completely, 100% ignorant of how DCS works to even begin to believe something that stupid.

 

Well, I believe something "this stupid" and you know what? I am in at least one way more "knowledgeable" about DCS than you (Christ, that sounds arrogant... but you asked for it). I know how to AAR, I do it in missions regularly and I know first hand to what degree it affects the entire flight. You don't.

[Tippis]

8 minutes ago, lmp said:

But it won't affect the AAR which may be crucial for the rest of the flight.

So what? What's the problem?

 

Quote

This will lead to this feature being disabled on public MP servers (or everybody using them, regardless of AAR skill level) and house rules will be used on private servers.

Ok? So it will be like every other option in the game. Great (well… aside from the MP settings bug that needs to be resolved at some point).

 

Quote

Well, I believe something "this stupid"

Are you sure? Do you really believe that the two scenarios I painted are exactly the same in terms of how the use of the two different options affect how you can approach the mission? Read them again and think about it.