Auto Air to Air Refuel

[SharpeXB]

17 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

I outlined my proposal on a solution that could accomplish that already: 

The troubles is see with this idea are:

It would just get disabled in competitive multiplayer. 
Nobody would be able to agree on the “size” of the helper zone even if it was available in MP

It would again just be a crutch and nobody would end up learning to do this without training wheels. 
 

For your squad mates, how about just keep pace with your newer members instead of forcing them into difficult flights they aren’t ready for?

[DD_Fenrir]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

It would just get disabled in competitive multiplayer. 

 

As I would expect it to be. Most of the guys I know who struggle with AAR aren't interested in that environment anyway!

 

Quote

Nobody would be able to agree on the “size” of the helper zone even if it was available in MP

 

Non-issue - there is exactly the same metric when it comes to visual aid spotting icons; and what happens with this? The server operator decides what audience they wish to cater for and tunes their icon setting accordingly and ergo puts up with the pros and cons of that decision. Easier AAR could be implemented in an identical function.

 

And who's to say the functionality could not be developed to allow both types of operation from the same tanker, so that it's an F10 radio option as you approach pre-contact to give you the easier AAR refuelling zone at this point? Or if you don't want it, to continue as normal? Or have two tankers, one set to easier, the other set to normal, in the same server?

 

Quote

It would again just be a crutch and nobody would end up learning to do this without training wheels

 

This whole idea is to provide training wheels, to give some people who struggle that half-step, a sense of accomplishment that they've reached a mid-point, that if they have sufficient skill to keep their aircraft in a narrow enough portion of sky to get this far, then maybe they can develop further enough fine motor skill to push on and go the basket/boom proper.

 

Quote

or your squad mates, how about just keep pace with your newer members instead of forcing them into difficult flights they aren’t ready for?

 

That's my point; these aren't newer members - some of these chaps have been flying DCS for years but found AAR so challenging after hours and hours of attempts they refuse to even entertain the thought of trying.

 

Yet these are members who can otherwise operate the jets very well, get bombs on target and hold their own (mostly!) in a dogfight. Enabling an Easier AAR feature on our server would allow some of the more proficient hands the nuanced complexity of flying longer ranged missions and doing AAR without having to exclude those members who, if it weren't for the AAR restrictions would love to take part.

[SharpeXB]

12 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

This whole idea is to provide training wheels, to give some people who struggle that half-step, a sense of accomplishment that they've reached a mid-point, that if they have sufficient skill to keep their aircraft in a narrow enough portion of sky to get this far, then maybe they can develop further enough fine motor skill to push on and go the basket/boom proper.

You can give yourself this kind of training without a “helper” giving you fuel. Just practice. Fly closer and closer, get connected, stay connected. 
 

The basic trouble with all these suggestions is that it’s something ED would have to work on and they’ve got more important priorities. Features like game helpers probably aren’t cost effective. Making new modules and improvements to the core engine are. 

[Tippis]

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You can give yourself this kind of training without a “helper” giving you fuel.

And it would be even better, faster, and more efficient with a helper, and there's literally no reason not to create one.

 

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The basic trouble with all these suggestions is that it’s something ED would have to work on and they’ve got more important priorities

Such as? Also, you do understand that pretty much all of the components already exist in the game, right? True to form, you haven't even read the suggestions so you're not exactly in a position to comment on their feasibility, now are you?

[lmp]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Something like the IFLOLS graphic? That wouldn’t help because you’d become so fixated and dependent on it you’d never learn to turn it off. So you’d never learn for real by using such a crutch. It’s been said so many times; you’re flying formation with the tanker, not the basket. And not a screen graphic. 
When you guys finally get this you’ll realize all this advice was correct. Listen to it and don’t try to imagine “easy” solutions because there aren’t any. 

Something like the external cargo indicator or control helper, both of which I used in my training and later turned off when they served their purpose. I'm confident it would help me transition to new aircraft. Save an hour or two of trial and error and looking at YouTube videos to learn a new sight picture.

 

I don't know why are you so confident I would become dependent or fixated on a training aid. I've successfully used those available in the game already and became neither. I've also successfully learned maneuvers, including AAR and carrier landings, without them - and I can see how this process could have been easier.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, lmp said:

 

I don't know why are you so confident I would become dependent or fixated on a training aid.

Just my opinion, but AAR requires so much more focus than even a carrier landing. Anything in front of your eyes will just become a distraction or crutch. The visual clue you need is already there. The tanker. 
The reason for the IFLOLS graphic is because it’s too small on a PC screen. That’s not the case with the tanker. 

[lmp]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Just my opinion, but AAR requires so much more focus than even a carrier landing. Anything in front of your eyes will just become a distraction or crutch. The visual clue you need is already there. The tanker. 
The reason for the IFLOLS graphic is because it’s too small on a PC screen. That’s not the case with the tanker. 

 

It will become a crutch only if you let it. And it'll only be a distraction if you stare at it instead of cross referencing it while you build a sight picture using "real" visual cues.

 

The way I learn a new aircraft is I learn a new sight picture. It will include a certain juxtaposition of the tanker, basket, canopy frame, HUD etc... All depending on the aircraft. But in order to start learning it, I need to see it first. Now I have to guess, try, miss the basket, back up and try again until I find the right spot or look at how other people do it on YouTube. An indicator would save me the guesswork and/or alt-tabbing. I would still memorize a number of visual cues based on the tanker, the basket and so on, but I could be correctly aligned from the start. I'd do 2 - 3 approaches with the indicator, turn it off, do a few approaches without, maybe turn it back on for a moment to correct any mistakes and that's it. Instead of guessing, I know.

Edited January 8, 2021 by lmp

[SharpeXB]

14 minutes ago, lmp said:

 

It will become a crutch only if you let it. And it'll only be a distraction if you stare at it instead of cross referencing it while you build a sight picture using "real" visual cues.

 

The way I learn a new aircraft is I learn a new sight picture. It will include a certain juxtaposition of the tanker, basket, canopy frame, HUD etc... All depending on the aircraft. But in order to start learning it, I need to see it first. Now I have to guess, try, miss the basket, back up and try again until I find the right spot or look at how other people do it on YouTube. An indicator would save me the guesswork and/or alt-tabbing. I would still memorize a number of visual cues based on the tanker, the basket and so on, but I could be correctly aligned from the start. I'd do 2 - 3 approaches with the indicator, turn it off, do a few approaches without, maybe turn it back on for a moment to correct any mistakes and that's it. Instead of guessing, I know.

 

I just don’t see that a screen graphic would help. People haven’t developed the motor skills to AAR in the first place. They wouldn’t be able to keep formation with the graphic either. It’s better to learn with the tanker itself and yeah you can just see a YouTube video for the position. A lot of this means training your eyes where to look exactly and having control over that. Like a racing sim. A screen graphic is going to mess that up 
There just isn’t a shortcut for this. It takes time.

Edited January 8, 2021 by SharpeXB

[lmp]

Of course it won't solve everybody's AAR woes, but it's a quality of life thing. Like tutorials. We can also use YouTube for that but for many people it's easier to do a tutorial a few times rather than memorize and follow a 10 minute long start up video.

 

Interestingly enough, the F-14 was a fun aircraft to learn to refuel because of Jester's comments. So maybe that's an even better solution - aural cues.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, lmp said:

So maybe that's an even better solution - aural cues.

Like the LSO on the Supercarrier. Now there’s an idea that helpful and realistic. Probably just for the probe system though since it has an actual crew member operating it. 

[lmp]

Even if it's not done for every refueling, I suppose a real life trainee isn't all alone up there when he's learning. Somebody is giving him cues over radio. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable can comment on this?

Edited January 8, 2021 by lmp

[Tippis]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I just don’t see that a screen graphic would help.

Have you tried reading? It has been explained, you know…

 

Also, if you don't believe that it would help, why would you suggest that people use a method that relies on exactly that kind of cueing to teach people how to refuel? I know from all your previous strenuous attempts to keep the game unrealistic and stagnant that your arguments are always pathetically weak, but they're not usually this self-contradictory…

 

Quote

There just isn’t a shortcut for this. It takes time.

There are plenty of shortcuts for this. It only takes time because there are no good tools to help speed it up. Once again, you only manage to demonstrate the need for exactly the kind of thing you keep claiming isn't needed.

[VpR81]

On 1/8/2021 at 11:08 AM, Tippis said:

No. Dracons claimed that “No game implement aimbot just to make players go through difficult mode or allow less skilled players to make a team with more skilled group”; I claimed that there are plenty that do. You then moved the goalposts by adding the “competitive MP” constraint.

Totally irrelevant. Fact is, that there is no single FPS game that offers a built-in aimbot. Some single player games (where you do not form up teams as Dracons said, so in fact we are talking about MP wich is competitive in FPS games) may offer "aiming aids", wich is something different than an aimbot (assuming you know how a aimbot works). Also you claimed there was a discussion about what games are for noobs and what games aren't, what clearly means MP as for SP those discussions are totally senseless as there is no competition that would define a "noob".

 

Again, we were talking about aimbots. And an aimbot is this:

 

 

And my statement remains, you cannot name a single FPS game offering a built-in aimbot, because there is none.

 

On 1/8/2021 at 11:08 AM, Tippis said:

As for how I know that that is the intention of some people?

Ah, now it's just "some" people? No, between the lines you insunated that i don't want more people in general to find their way into DCS, what i never said. Means, you do need mind reading capabilities to know that. Hell, i realy love to get more reasonable people to play DCS. But i don't want trolls and idiots to come here, wich is the logical result if a game (namely DCS) gets more and more suited for the mass market. Good example why this does not mean that i don't want more people playing DCS in general, is what i read in the newspaper yesterday: Amsterdam is going to ban foreigners from coffeshops so only people living in the Netherlands are allowed to buy and consume cannabis. The reason for that is, that Amsterdam does not want drug-tourists in their city anymore. But that doesen't mean they don't want anymore tourists in general, they just don't want the idiots and trolls downtown wich is abolutely understandable.  

 

On 1/8/2021 at 11:08 AM, Tippis said:

An automated AAR sequence will help people learn AAR through the aeons-old mechanism of monkey see, monkey do.

 Then watching the AI wingman doing AAR should be enough to learn it properly? Because an automated AAR sequence is not realy different. Problem solved. Another thing that might help even better, would be a interactive training mission with a narrator who explains what to do, like it is with the training for start-up -> no need for simplification of the actual refueling process. That is enough to support training, just not to support lazyness. The piont is, that someone talking to you and telling you what to do while you are doing it, is more important for AAR training than just watching the autopilot doing it for you. Same for videos on YT. What realy helps is not watching what this guy does, but the hints he's giving his viewers of how to approach and where to look at. But this can still only be a general advice. What works best for you is crystalized during training and not by watching the AI doing it.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2021 by VpR81

[Tippis]

50 minutes ago, VpR81 said:

Totally irrelevant. Fact is, that there is no single FPS game that offers a built-in aimbot.

Aside from, you know, most of them in the 1990s, and most of them that have cross-play, and there was this whole Fortnite kerfuffle a while back (ok, so that was originally more TPS, but still), and a fair amount of the Alien games… and yes, auto-aim and similar aiming aids are indeed aim bots — fact is, the computer is doing the actual aiming. You're now trying to save your no-true-scotsman FPS fallacy with a no-true-scotsman aimbot fallacy. An infinite regression of scotsment will not make it any less of a fallacy.

 

Come to think of it, there are even planes in DCS that do that…

 

By the way, just because it's multiplayer or because you form up teams does not mean it's competitive, in FPS games or otherwise. Your need to add on more and more constraints and layers of assumption on top of what was actually said is indeed relevant — it's what makes your objection fallacious. That's ok. You didn't think outside the bubble of what you usually play and briefly forgot that categorical statements are categorically false, that's all. It happens.

 

Quote

Ah, now it's just "some" people? No, between the lines you insunated

Nothing. Just because you read something into what I say does not mean that I'm saying it. The fact remains: it has been said in this very thread. At no point did I say that you said it. If you want to feel that the statement somehow applies to you, then that's between you and your conscience. Or subconscious. That is entirely your problem, not mine.

 

Quote

Then watching the AI wingman doing AAR should be enough to learn it properly?

No, because you're not actually seeing anything that you can do.

 

Quote

Another thing that might help even better, would be a interactive training mission with a narrator who explains what to do, like it is with the training for start-up -> no need for simplification of the actual refueling process.

Where would the interaction be in that? Have you played through the interactive training missions for things like start-up recently? Do you a thing they do that can't be done with AAR? Something that would require far more fine control and automation as far as the aircraft goes? Hmmm…?

 

Quote

The piont is, that someone talking to you and telling you what to do while you are doing it, is more important for AAR training than just watching the autopilot doing it for you. Same for videos on YT.

So passively watching it being done is a much much better way of learning how to it than passively watching it being done? And better than actively engaging it being done? And better than being able to transition from watching it being done, and then more and more actively participating it done up until the point where you're doing it all yourself? How does that work?

 

It's all kinds of hilarious that this self-contradictory notion comes up again and again: that watching the process play out in front of you on YouTube is good; but watching the process play out in front of you in DCS is bad. Or that AAR helpers must absolutely, with no exception, be just like a youtube video (and therfore bad, but youtube videos are good), and could not possibly be an array of helpers that can be layered on top of each other to introduce new complexities one at a time. Nosireebob.

Edited January 9, 2021 by Tippis

[VpR81]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

Aside from, you know, most of them in the 1990s, and most of them that have cross-play, and there was this whole Fortnite kerfuffle a while back (ok, so that was originally more TPS, but still), and a fair amount of the Alien games… and yes, auto-aim and similar aiming aids are indeed aim bots — fact is, the computer is doing the actual aiming.

 

By the way, just because it's multiplayer or because you form up teams does not mean it's competitive, in FPS games or otherwise. Your need to add on more and more constraints and layers of assumption on top of what was actually said is indeed relevant — it's what makes your objection fallacious. That's ok. You didn't think outside the bubble of what you usually play and briefly forgot that categorical statements are categorically false, that's all. It happens.

 

 Uhm, no. With aiming aids and "auto-aim", the computer only supports aiming in a very limited way. With an aimbot, you only need to left-click and the crosshair jumps from headshot to headshot, respective from enemy to enemy. That's an aimbot, just as you can see in the linked video. 

Of course it does, otherwise there wouldn't be "teams".

 

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

Nothing. 

 Of course you did. here:

 

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

 that's just the same tired old nonsensical slippery-slope fallacy that always get trotted out when people don't want more people to enjoy what DCS has on offer

You just tried to keep the option of deniability by not naming me directly. Otherwise there would've been no need to mention it. Your tactic is easy to unmask.
 

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

Where would the interaction be in that? Have you played through the interactive training missions for things like start-up recently? Do you a thing they do that can't be done with AAR? Something that would require far more fine control and automation as far as the aircraft goes? Hmmm…?

What? Where the interaction would be? The interaction would be in operating the aircraft by yourself, while a voice actor tells you how to do it. If that is not enough, one should realy reconsider playing DCS. I just trained AAR with one of my buddies early this week and he was completely new to AAR. By his feedback, doing it by himself while i was commenting his progress and telling him a few hints was the best training he could get. Way better training than any video could ever provide. The next day he trained it in SP and was somehow able to completely refuel the Hornet just a few tries later. Yes, he still has several disconnects during the process, but who cares? It took him less than 2 days with just a few hours of training and all this without a automated AAR sequence. Strange, isn't it? When people ask for a automated sequence instead of investing 2 ridiculous days of proper training, this can truly be called lazyness.

 

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

So passively watching it being done is a much much better way of learning how to it than passively watching it being done? And better than actively engaging it being done? And better than being able to transition from watching it being done, and then more and more actively participating it done up until the point where you're doing it all yourself? How does that work?

Again, what? How do you come to that conclusion? I just pointed out, that YT videos aren't any better than watching the AI doing it and that someone talking to you and giving you hints is far more important and that this also counts for videos. Stop spinning my words, just because you read something into it i never said.
So far for reading.. the regular kind.

Edited January 9, 2021 by VpR81

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, VpR81 said:

 Uhm, no.

Uhm, yes. You see, aimbots are more than what you think, on the cheater side, sometimes just to avoid detection because the single behaviour your true scotsman accept ends up being preeeetty obvious and suspicious. Look, this is something that has been around for decades — plural — and have since day one been a point of contention exactly  because it does what was originally stated: it lets less skilled players play with more skilled ones on an equal (or deliberately unequal) basis.

 

Quote

Of course it does, otherwise there wouldn't be "teams".

LMFAO. So now you're piling a ridiculously reductive definition of “team” onto your pile of no-true-scotsman fallacies.

You really need to look up the word. This is getting absurd.

 

Teams exist when you cooperate. There's this concept of “teamwork” that sort of relies on that. There doesn't need to be any kind of competition for there to be teamwork — there just have to be more than one person working towards the same goal. Coop is teamwork; it is done by a team; it does not require an opposing team. Pulling a cart is done by a team of oxen, and that does not forcibly imply that you're cart racing.

 

Quote

 Of course you did. here:

You mean where I reference a trend that has appeared in how past discussions on improvements to the game always ends up with a detractor going for the “arcade” slippery slope fallacy? Have you engaged in that argumentation in those earlier threads? If not, then how would it apply to you?

 

Don't you get it? The fact that you react so vociferously to the realisation that you accidentally used an argument that is commonly associated with a group of people who want the game to languish in a corner of irrelevance is in your favour here. I am not saying that you are one of those people; I'm saying that you should stay away from their line of argumentation because 1) it is hideously stupid and doesn't work for a multitude of reasons; and 2) it associates you with a pretty silly group of people.

 

All you're doing here is indirectly arguing that you should be counted among them, which still seems to be the exact opposite of your intention. I didn't say you were part of the group — you are the one pushing for an interpretation that you are. Now, if you persist, I can absolutely start including you into that, but then don't complain about it.

 

So, here are your three options: either you find an instance of my explicitly saying you don't want new players; or you stop trying to insert yourself into a group that I was not including you into; or you just state explicitly yourself that you should be considered part of that group. Don't try to put your words in my mouth — use your own.

 

Quote

What? Where the interaction would be?

Play the training missions. It will become pretty obvious. So obvious, in fact, that…

 

Quote

The interaction would be in operating the aircraft by yourself, while a voice actor tells you how to do it.

…you mange to figure it out on your own. Well, parts of it.

 

There are also the bits where the game shows you with overlays and highlights; where the game helps you by locking out certain controls and complexities so they don't interfere; where the game can rate you at how close you get to the optimal performance or process; where the game can layer in more and more need to do things on your own and less and less with the help, indication, and instruction from the game.

 

Quote

Again, what?

Speaking generally, you will see numerous posters make the following disconnect:

• Watching a youtube video where someone runs through a script of the process is a good way for people to learn to AAR.

• Watching an automated track where the AI runs through a script of the process is a bad way for people to learn to AAR.

 

Speaking for you, specifically, what you've said is:

• What really helps is not watching what this guy does, but the hints he's giving his viewers of how to approach and where to look at. — Direct quote.

• What won't help is watching what the AI does, even if it gives hints to the view of how to approach and where to look at. — Paraphrasing.

 

You will obviously disagree vehemently with that paraphrasing, but that's because you seem to be locked into this idea that this whole thing must by necessity be about the AI doing everything and leaving (or offering) nothing to the player. There are plenty of ways where a proper set of AAR teaching tools, simplifications, and automations — aaaaall the way from just more overlays up to and including, yes, the AI doing the actual busywork. The thing is, most of what's needed already exists aside from the ability to let the process just run on its own while you slap highlights all over the place.

 

Quote

 I just pointed out, that YT videos aren't any better than watching the AI doing it

What you actually said was “that someone talking to you and telling you what to do while you are doing it, is more important for AAR training than just watching the autopilot doing it for you. Same for videos on YT”, and the quote above. In other words, youtube videos are better than just watching the AI because they include someone giving instructions.

 

Now, imagine if the AI could do the same…

Imagine if the AI could go a step further and layer in more and more player agency over time…

Imagine if the same tools that are available to teaching people to flip switches and fly the aircraft were also available for AAR…

Edited January 9, 2021 by Tippis

[El Chapo]

Hi guys, 

Very interesting topic. 

I have to admit I skipped the thread around page 3 or 4 to come to the end. 

My input, if it has not already been said:

- automated AAR is a thing that already exists IRL

- it has been developed on various platforms, essentially to prepare UAV's ability to go for AAR. 

 

Regarding in game experience :

- I have an experience of several hundreds of AARs IRL on high performance aircraft. But until recently , I never managed to stay in the hose to get my fuel in the game. It was one of the most frustrating thing I experienced in that game! I fully understand why some people might want to overcome that undue frustration. Therefore automated or simplified AAR in the game is understandable. 

- In order to overcome my inability to refuel, I read advices on how to do in game from other people (all were relevant, and stick to reality). I thought about changing my HOTAS for a more modern one (I have an old Cougar from the 20th century). But none of it was necessary. 

- What made THE difference was going from 2D with my old screen to 3D with VR. I instantly managed to go AAR once in VR, while I never did it once before. 

 

Therefore, for those who are still looking for a tip : if you have tried and tried and tried again and spent hours on it, maybe going VR will be your chance as well! 

 

And I recommend everyone to spend time for AAR experience in game, it is close from reality : looking for the tanker, working on geometry to join it, having stress due to low fuel, being tensed while refueling, down to your toes, looking at the beautiful view with a light heart from reform position while your buddies are refuelling themselves...

All this is included in game, and it is great!!! 

 

So thank you ED for such an immersive and realistic game. 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Габихан
Grammar

[Dragon1-1]

I think we need training missions for AAR, with voiceovers and everything. The Harrier one was amazing and allowed me to plug it without much trouble. For all others, I needed YT videos. What's crucial during AAR is the sight picture, and without knowing what that sight picture should be, you're in for a long day. Especially when you're on a basket, where the hardest thing is getting the probe into it without destabilizing inputs. The Harrier AAR training mission just tells you where to put the hose on your canopy bow, and where on the tanker you should put your gun cross. With other aircraft, you have to either figure it out yourself, or get it off YouTube.

[Dragon1-1]

That could be good, but honestly, check out the AAR training for the Harrier. All I needed was words. It's quite easy to describe rules of thumb for AAR lineup. For instance, for the Tomcat it's "hose on the 30, then after you catch the funnel, gun cross on or just under the pod". The "30", in that case, is the right number on the 30 degree pitch ladder when in the AA mode. Fly that, and you'll get there.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Dragon1-1

[snowman[FR]]

You'll never get this.

That's all folks.

[Wrcknbckr]

I guess I was blessed with the Harrier when I first tried AAR. Watched some YT's and started. After two weeks I had my first transfer complete. It does not mean that it has become easy over time. Every AAR is exciting and stressful, still, requiring a mindset and concentration. That's why I'm skeptical for any distracting 'helper' functions that will somehow aid in doing the task, let alone for beginners.

 

Gates have been proposed earlier and now 3d boxes (still 2d in their projection). 2d gates/boxes bear no relation with length, distance and scales, which are so badly needed. Once in the box you have a square of lines moving/expanding in all directions, not sure how that's gonna help your spatial awareness. You need a target object of which you know the dimensions, that moves steadily in space, steady altitude, steady speed and ... eh... wait, sounds like a tanker! I'm wondering why additional objects are needed? Is it easier to remain steady with respect to a box, instead of a tanker?

 

I've seen other suggestions; having speed feedback. If anything is NOT important, it's your speed. What matters is position w.r.t. the tanker, speed could be anywhere between 200 and 900kts, doesn't really matter for your task. Any speed feedback would again distract from what is really important; hand-eye coordination and positioning. 
Another suggestion was to have visual control input feedback. Again do not add distracting features to what basically is available already; a steady object and a positioning task. I'm surprised to hear that people that manage to land an aircraft with prescribed speed/AoA/glideslope combinations are not able to fly straight (or maybe never tried and confronted with their wobbly course through the skies).

 

Formation flying is the base for AAR, which seems to often forgotten. Before even thinking of Campaigns, Missions, or AAR itself, formation flying should be encouraged. I have not seen any dedicated formation flying in a training session (having a limited number of modules though). Additionally players could be advised on tuning their controls. I can imagine people have never considered tuning controls. Tuning curves so they are able to fly in formation with whatever aircraft, and choose position at will, without entering into a Pilot Induced Oscillation scenario (PIO). Maybe that would really help. 
 

[SharpeXB]

39 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

But really: having never done it before, you float below the tanker and you really got NO clue where you are relative to the correct position you should be in.

There are lights on the belly of the tanker to give you a reference. One for height and another for distance. 

[randomTOTEN]

yeah I'm kinda genuinely impressed and confused how you made this gigantic long post about having your hand held learning to AAR, you actually take the time to learn to do it, remark,

 

1 hour ago, Desert Fox said:

From the first connect it really wasn't that hard to repeat anymore to be honest.

 

and make zero mention of the lights... while repeatedly remarking the lack of visual references.

so...what... you just winged your way through this? You didn't watch any tutorial vids for this (there are hundreds of them online)? You didn't read the manual, in which a picture of the perspective of the tanker in the pre-contact position is given, and a depiction and explanation of the lighting system was given...

 

what just happened here?

Edited January 11, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[Cthulhus]

I love the idea to have some "IA Auto actions" for some cases like refueling, landing on carrier or ground, for those who don't want or don't have yet the level for this. I personally don't need that but some of my friends can't manage to refuel. So why not. For MAC, this is something you need to think about. (and for DCS as well)

[MisterVince]

On 1/10/2021 at 3:40 PM, Desert Fox said:

 

Would this be something being possible maybe? @NineLine @Wags

 

 

 

 

 

I think this would be great.

 

I would not totally be in favor of implementing an 'auto-AAR' thing, but dedicated training missions, or tools to better visualize the position of your aircraft with respect to the boom/basket, would be a great addition, in my opinion.

 

My idea for an 'auto-AAR' thing would be to have a button that almost blocks your flight controls so that you can only steer your aircraft very gently, a bit like an autopilot.

Your speed is locked to the tanker speed +1 knot when you are behind it, and locked to tanker speed when connected.

This solution would compensate for the lack of training, or for the bad hardware, as I think they are the predominant causes for players not being able to AAR.