Add possibility to be Boomer (for refueling)

[Phil C6]

Hi should be great to modelized boomer post for refueling

 

Best regards

[mytai01]

This Would be a great module... But, I fear psychotic boomers batting planes out of the sky...

[Phil C6]

Hi
lol and spotters boomer more concentrate on the screenshot than refueling
Best regards

[BMGZ06]

I posed this very option weeks ago and was met with several people that think it is a dumb idea. I am with you though. People are focusing too much on open public server bullshit going on and not the massive improvement it would make to planning and conducting missions for private server run air groups. That said we need to be able to fly the tankers so we can have more flexibility in mission planning and changing the positions of tankers on the fly.

[SharpeXB]

Sorry... that just sounds really boring. Who’s going to sit at this station for hours doing nothing while everyone else flies actual missions?

1 hour ago, BMGZ06 said:

massive improvement

Really? Massive? A job flying in a racetrack that an AI can do? 

Edited April 9, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Furiz]

What SharpeXB said,

I really don't think this would be a massive improvement to the sim, I think it would be a boring job, I know in real life it is challenging but in the game... imagine sitting in a plane for 2 hrs just to have 10 - 15 mins of action, where you point the boom at a plane and they you wait for it to take its fuel and press disconnect, when planes come back from a mission (and if you are all about that realism they wouldn't fill up full, just enough to get them home), it is much easier to let AI do that don't you think.

 

ED would have to spend time (and time equals money) to model that, and then when they do, they would have to charge that, and I don't think many would pay to sit in a back seat of a plane for few hours waiting for some one to refuel, so economically not a good idea.

not to mention an assist cause some people wouldn't be able to direct the boom properly or maybe make an overlay for all that too.

 

It would be a good idea to be able to move those tankers to new positions, although I saw on some servers they do move depending on the mission stage (no idea how they did that, probably in the ME).

[Tippis]

Absolutely.

 

It would be something that requires good coordination for both parties and which really wouldn't be much different from how all other activities in the game play out in terms of action/inaction sequences. Perhaps even more so if it was handled like CA unit control and you could jump in and out pretty much freely when needed. Since the AI would do the flying, the player can concentrate on the actual difficult part.

 

5 minutes ago, Furiz said:

It would be a good idea to be able to move those tankers to new positions, although I saw on some servers they do move depending on the mission stage (no idea how they did that, probably in the ME).

It's pretty trivial to do with triggered tasks.

[sirrah]

39 minutes ago, Furiz said:

What SharpeXB said,

I really don't think this would be a massive improvement to the sim, I think it would be a boring job, I know in real life it is challenging but in the game... imagine sitting in a plane for 2 hrs just to have 10 - 15 mins of action, where you point the boom at a plane and they you wait for it to take its fuel and press disconnect, when planes come back from a mission (and if you are all about that realism they wouldn't fill up full, just enough to get them home), it is much easier to let AI do that don't you think.

 

ED would have to spend time (and time equals money) to model that, and then when they do, they would have to charge that, and I don't think many would pay to sit in a back seat of a plane for few hours waiting for some one to refuel, so economically not a good idea.

not to mention an assist cause some people wouldn't be able to direct the boom properly or maybe make an overlay for all that too.

 

It would be a good idea to be able to move those tankers to new positions, although I saw on some servers they do move depending on the mission stage (no idea how they did that, probably in the ME).

 

In addition, and please correct me if I forgot any, currently I roughly counted 3 (soon© 4) modules that actually use a boom to refuel (A-10C, F-16C and F-15C (+ the F-15E soon©))

The majority (eight I believe) of modules use the drogue (F/A-18C, JF-17, F-14A & B, AV-8B, M2000, Su-33 (Eurofighter soon©) and don't need a boom operator.

 

As I learned you have to be really careful on what you say on this sub-forum... I don't want to rain on anyone's parade and this is a wish list so, all respect to those who want this. But, as Furiz also mentioned, I personally don't think it will be very cost effective for ED to spend their valuable recourses on.

[Tank50us]

21 hours ago, sirrah said:

 

In addition, and please correct me if I forgot any, currently I roughly counted 3 (soon© 4) modules that actually use a boom to refuel (A-10C, F-16C and F-15C (+ the F-15E soon©))

The majority (eight I believe) of modules use the drogue (F/A-18C, JF-17, F-14A & B, AV-8B, M2000, Su-33 (Eurofighter soon©) and don't need a boom operator.

 

As I learned you have to be really careful on what you say on this sub-forum... I don't want to rain on anyone's parade and this is a wish list so, all respect to those who want this. But, as Furiz also mentioned, I personally don't think it will be very cost effective for ED to spend their valuable recourses on.

Technically there's only 2 CATOBAR flyable aircraft in DCS, plus a mod, and only one more confirmed to be on the way. So it's kind of a moot point. That said, having the option to take over the seat would be nice, especially for groups running campaigns when people are 'dead' they can still contribute to their sides success.

[Exorcet]

It would be nice if CA was expanded to include things like this. Allowing players to fill traditional AI roles could help get around some AI limitations, not to mention they would be fun roles to play (tanker, AWACS, ATC, GCI, etc).

[sirrah]

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

Technically there's only 2 CATOBAR flyable aircraft in DCS, plus a mod, and only one more confirmed to be on the way. So it's kind of a moot point. 

 

Do you mean, there's only 2 CATOBAR aircraft and still we have a carrier module? (In that case I understand your point)

If not, I don't understand what CATOBAR has anything to do with AAR.

 

Either way, I'm definitely not against the option to control the boom, it's just that personally I'd say the man hours to make it possible are better spend on other stuff

Edited April 10, 2021 by sirrah

[Tank50us]

16 minutes ago, sirrah said:

 

Do you mean, there's only 2 CATOBAR aircraft and still we have a carrier module? (In that case I understand your point)

If not, I don't understand what CATOBAR has anything to do with AAR.

 

Either way, I'm definitely against the option to control the boom, it's just that personally I'd say the man hours to make it possible are better spend on other stuff

 

Yeah, the first option is what I mean.

 

That said, it could also make for a good addition to the combined arms module, as well as a proper AWACS screen as well. Think that would be a good compromise?

[SharpeXB]

I don’t understand why a human player needs to control this position or would make any difference compared to the AI. Likely they’d just be as bad or worse. Many people who can’t AAR use the AI boom operator as an excuse. If you can’t fly formation with the tanker then a human boom operator wouldn’t make any difference. And again this role in DCS would be way too boring for any player to actually want to do, so nobody would use it. This feature would be a waste of resources which would be better utilized elsewhere. 

[Northstar98]

On 4/9/2021 at 7:13 AM, Furiz said:

What SharpeXB said,

I really don't think this would be a massive improvement to the sim, I think it would be a boring job, I know in real life it is challenging but in the game... imagine sitting in a plane for 2 hrs just to have 10 - 15 mins of action.

 

Haven't you just described basically every realistic mission?

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Haven't you just described basically every realistic mission?

 

Sure DCS could be more realistic...

 

 

[Tank50us]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t understand why a human player needs to control this position or would make any difference compared to the AI. Likely they’d just be as bad or worse. Many people who can’t AAR use the AI boom operator as an excuse. If you can’t fly formation with the tanker then a human boom operator wouldn’t make any difference. And again this role in DCS would be way too boring for any player to actually want to do, so nobody would use it. This feature would be a waste of resources which would be better utilized elsewhere. 

Way too boring? In a game where people set up 8hr long missions for the lols? I think you massively underestimate what people will find enjoyable in this game.

As said previously, if it was an option for someone to use in Combined Arms, it could help when the AI decides to go stupid, like those times when you're in the right position to refuel, and the stupid tanker is going "Return pre-contact" and you're about to shoot the fucker out of frustration. Having a human player that's down and out hop in and potentially correct the issue (like they can when the tanks decide to start dancing around a tree at random)would be nice

[SharpeXB]

12 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Way too boring? In a game where people set up 8hr long missions for the lols? I think you massively underestimate what people will find enjoyable in this game.

Not just boring...  super boring! 

I think you overestimate what people would find entertaining. 

15 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

it could help when the AI decides to go stupid, like those times when you're in the right position to refuel, and the stupid tanker is going "Return pre-contact" and you're about to shoot the fucker out of frustration.

Easily solved with a simple radio command. Looks like people just don’t know how to AAR at all. You want a human controlled module because your squad mates can’t figure out the radio?

[Tank50us]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Easily solved with a simple radio command. Looks like people just don’t know how to AAR at all. You want a human controlled module because your squad mates can’t figure out the radio?

 

That's my point. Having a human take over when the games AI screws up and needs manual correcting.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

 

That's my point. Having a human take over when the games AI screws up and needs manual correcting.

I think the AI works ok, it’s you that’s confused 

Edited April 10, 2021 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

Just now, Desert Fox said:

I sometimes get some food and casually sit in a servers LSO watching people come and go.

 

Why not sitting in a KC directing my boom into other peoples receptacle?

Wow I really have better things to do....

[Tank50us]

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I think the AI works ok, it’s you that’s confused 

 

I've seen bombers crash on taxi, I've seen tanks decide to start dancing around a tree at random, I've seen aircraft with waypoints and a full load of external tanks take-off and immediately RTB, I've seen planes get stuck trying to take off.... and I've seen all of this happen in Multiplayer. Trust me when I say having some way for a player to come in an 'clear the jam' as it were, would be immensely useful in DCS.

[SharpeXB]

56 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

I've seen bombers crash on taxi, 

Bombers do crash on taxi sometimes. It’s actually authentic to see AI screw up, if that was part of their programming. Real pilots aren’t perfect either. Ok sure ED could put some effort into improving the AI. That’s worthwhile. “Good” AI should actually fly into the ground, collide with each other etc though. 
I don’t think I’ve ever had enough any with the tanker though. Not enough to justify a player controlled module. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Tank50us]

36 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Bombers do crash on taxi sometimes. It’s actually authentic to see AI screw up, if that was part of their programming. Real pilots aren’t perfect either. Ok sure ED could put some effort into improving the AI. That’s worthwhile. “Good” AI should actually fly into the ground, collide with each other etc though. 
I don’t think I’ve ever had enough any with the tanker though. Not enough to justify a player controlled module. 

 

I'm not saying a full module though, I'm saying make it part of Combined Arms, so that a player can take control if they want to (and, potentially, fix issues that arise). A full module would be a hard sell. Not impossible obviously (I mean, look at the response to the Super Herc mod), but it would be a hard sell. But, making it part of CA would mean that those people who have it now get more options, especially if controlling other cargo aircraft was part of it (some people actually do like doing cargo runs, at least 8 people who joined my unit did so specifically because they want to fly the Herc in a campaign). So, there is certainly a market for doing more in a MilAirSim than just making things blow up.

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

so that a player can take control if they want to (and, potentially, fix issues that arise)

What issues exactly? I don’t think I’ve ever seen the AI have trouble with this. It’s just flying a racetrack and responding to 2 radio commands. 

[Tank50us]

20 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What issues exactly? I don’t think I’ve ever seen the AI have trouble with this. It’s just flying a racetrack and responding to 2 radio commands. 

Any issue. Because the programming isn't perfect, and shit can, and does, happen.