Changing seat in multiplayer

[haze1]

Is it possible somehow to change to the RIO seat from the pilot seat in multiplayer like in singleplayer? 

[draconus]

No.

[haze1]

5 minutes ago, draconus said:

No.

:I

[WelshZeCorgi]

Would be interesting if with the other player's permission, you can switch seats. (pilot goes to RIO, rio goes to pilot).

 

Though I kinda think that might be "cheating" in a sense. 

[QuiGon]

The pilot in command can't switch seats in multiplayer in DCS. It's an engine limitation (same with the Huey).

[IronMike]

We're currently discussing with ED, if we could not find a solution for this in the long run. We wish it was possible, too. However, please do not keep your hopes up, if at all, it will take a rather long time till we can have it.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

Can you clarify exactly what you're trying to negotiate with ED for the longer term?

 

Do you mean the ability for a human Pilot / RIO to swap seats without re-spawning? Or the idea that a single player could hop between the 2 seats in multiplayer in a similar way to how single player works now?

[IronMike]

We're not negotiating anything for now, to clarify that. We started by carefully asking why it isn't possible. It's a complex issue, and we'll see where it leads.

But if we were discussing solutions already, which we are not (far from it), it would be about swapping seats for a single Player. To swap pilot and RIO around is rather unrealistic and would likely require for one to vacate the slot, so the other can join. So I doubt that will ever be possible, apart from else one leaving the aircraft making it possible for the other to swap around.

Mind you though, we are talking about castles in the air at this point. It will be a definitive "no" for a while to come...

Edited January 29, 2021 by IronMike

[AH_Solid_Snake]

Sorry, I should probably have been more careful with my language, understood that this is all completely blue sky thinking.

 

I was curious though because I do see a short term answer to that problem....just having the RIO keybinds available from the pilot seat, much like the LANTIRN mod currently does.

 

Its far from optimal and literally jumping onto the backseat to see the DDD etc would be far better, and trying to juggle an HCU / LANTIRN stick while flying the plane is an absolute handful....but its not lightyears different from pressing 1, doing some tasks, pressing 2 and doing some other ones. Its also, as I understand it based on the mod, possible to achieve right now, regardless of the future discussions whether they take place / lead somewhere or not?

[Warmbrak]

The keybinds option is problematic as there is no feedback on the warmup of the Lantirn pod and things like that from the back seat. I have tried the keybind mod in the past and it can work, but there are cases where it is easy to break the functionality and the pilot in front would have no idea what is going on. Your keybinds idea could work if HB implemented a simple Jester functionality that ensures certain systems are up and running in order for keybinds to work up front at all times. I am just not interested in learning the back seat, so switching seats do not appeal to me.

 

Having Jester do Lantirn is one of the main reasons I got the F-14 when it was originally released, and I am still patiently waiting.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

I never once said it was perfect, but announcing that option A is perfect but impossible so we have discarded option B as well is straight up perfect becoming the enemy of the good?

[QuiGon]

22 hours ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

I was curious though because I do see a short term answer to that problem....just having the RIO keybinds available from the pilot seat, much like the LANTIRN mod currently does.

 

I disagree. The solution to that problem is Jester, including the ability for him to use the LANTIRN.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

10 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

I disagree. The solution to that problem is Jester, including the ability for him to use the LANTIRN.

 

I'm curious then, for the features Jester does currently control such as the radar, do you find him effective? My experience has been that he is mostly good, but with some annoying tendencies not to crank the antenna elevation up or down, hooking unhelpful TWS targets during an attack, and sometimes being a bit slow with IFF.

 

To me the simplest answer is to just be able to bind the radar elevation as just another control available to the pilot - we're already having to tell him what to do via the Jester menu, this just seems to me like acknowledging AI limitations and having a workaround?

 

[QuiGon]

12 minutes ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

To me the simplest answer is to just be able to bind the radar elevation as just another control available to the pilot - we're already having to tell him what to do via the Jester menu, this just seems to me like acknowledging AI limitations and having a workaround?

 

As the pilot you don't have direct control over things like radar elevation in the Tomcat. That is true in real life and should be true in DCS.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

And yet it isn't real life? I'm already as the pilot directing my RIO to perform actions using the radar that he's failing to do...that also seems unrealistic as it would mean I had a RIO unqualified to use his radar?

 

I'm all in for realism in DCS but I'm completely opposed to what seems like dogmatism. If we're going full on realism why not say there is no single player you need 2 human crew, because that's how it was in real life? The answer is its a compromise accepting that we're simulating reality as best we can? If Jester is perfect why is there any inputs on the Jester menu to direct the RIO how to use the radar? Again..its a compromise accepting that AI are really good at certain things....and less so at others.

[draconus]

3 hours ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

If Jester is perfect why is there any inputs on the Jester menu to direct the RIO how to use the radar?

He's not and please read the FAQ:

Quote

Jester is still a young and inexperienced RIO and will follow and require your orders, 100% of the time.

 

[AH_Solid_Snake]

That’s pretty much my entire point?

 

Everyone agrees that some interface is needed for the pilot to perform RIO actions, that seems undisputed and we can move on.

 

What I can’t wrap my head around is the opposition to simple inputs for it.

 

if ED/HB think it would be reasonable (if possible) in the future for one human player to take on both roles in SP/MP then quite literally I’m arguing that we can do that now, and avoid a button press, with the caveat that some actions are taken blindly.

 

option A - jump to RIO seat, move axis binding for radar elevation 

 

option B - add binding for radar elevation to pilots seat

 

what about option A is realistic where option B isn’t?

[QuiGon]

In option A you ARE the RIO and hence can use the RIO controls, while in option B you are not. The ability to swap cockpits in the air is a necessary concession for people to do RIO stuff in singleplayer, as there is no such advanced pilot AI, that you could stick to the back seat for an entire mission. There is an advanced enough RIO AI though (at least once Jester learned to use the LANTIRN), that can basically do everything needed that a player can perform entire missions just from the front seat, so there is no necessity to break the simulation by giving the pilot magic abilities to use controls in the backseat from the frontseat.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

I think that depends a great deal on your point of view. 
 

Im arguing the player should have some degree of telekinesis, as a concession to the game.

 

You are arguing against it in favour of apparently full on body swapping whereby the pilot can just swap minds with his RIO.

 

It’s heavily skewed by exactly what ‘realism’ means to you.

 

I actually prefer the same option that you do, in the long term, if it’s possible. But I’m also saying we can make a change that’s possible right now that I see as no less ‘realistic’ and is an improvement on what we’ve got.

[draconus]

50 minutes ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

Im arguing the player should have some degree of telekinesis, as a concession to the game.

I'm against this. If it takes removing jumping between seats for reality sake then so be it. At least if you change seats you're not doing two roles at the same time with unrealistic capabilities.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

You chose to only partially quote me however, I'm saying that we've already apparently accepted that one human in real life is going to perform the actions of 2 humans in the game. Having already accepted that all we're splitting hairs over is the interface.

 

My fundamental argument here is that where we land on the "realism" spectrum means very different things to different people, and that I'd like a better counterargument than "I think A because realism"

 

 

[RoyMi6]

Have to agree with @AH_Solid_Snake on this one.

 

Unless you have unlimited options burried in a nested list of 8 possabilty, having meaingful control with jester is never going to be perfect. In my mind, being able to change the radar elevation directly with a binding is an annology for simply having a conversation with a real RIO and asking him to "move it down a bit" rather than being stuck with sepcific options.

 

But then again, I'm also finding it impossibly hard to understand the viewpoint that we don't just get the option to have what Snake is sugesting. Some folk want it all via the RIO, fine, some people want to swap seats, fine, some people want to have pilot keybinds, fine. The literal difference between the three options is what key you press before you then press keys to control the RIO cockpit.

 

 

[draconus]

There's a huge difference between a binding that asks Jester to do sth and binding that actually does that in the back. I'm fine with the former while the latter belongs to game mode or some community mod.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

And all I'm asking is for anyone with this point of view to elaborate on what makes it a huge difference and why one is acceptable and one is not? 

 

And please, no one word answers with "realism" or similar.

[draconus]

9 minutes ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

And please, no one word answers with "realism" or similar.

But it's only about that - nothing else - just proper simulation, not more fake capabilities. You ask for something that was not possible IRL and that always raises opposition in a sim world.