not planned Easy mode AAR

[Jackjack171]

14 hours ago, Tippis said:

Good thing I'm not doing that, then. I'm simply saying that if you've run so dry that you have to go on the fallacy parade to even have something to post, you really have nothing of value to post at all. It's just a function of how fallacies work and of when they start creeping into the discussion.

 

See? Learning is fun.

 

I have no idea who you're addressing because I haven't mentioned any such hand-holding option. It's SharpeXP who keeps trying to offer that nonsense as an option while being utterly incapable of explaining (or even understanding) how that would work.

 

So no, quite the opposite: unlimited fuel is not there as an option. It offers no hand-holding and it's not a useful for any of the purposes of what is being discussed here. The reasons why it is not a valid option and why it offers no useful hand-holding have been extensively explained. The reason it is “not enough” is blindingly obvious: because it doesn't even remotely serve the purpose of what people are asking for.

 

It's a bit like burning a guy's shed down, and then wondering why this is “not enough” to fulfil his wish for a better shed.

 

You speak of fallacies a lot. It only seems to be as such when you decide it is. The same could be said about your points. Careful!

Either way, the function for unlimited fuel is there. As for what people are asking for, I'll say this again, help was not what the OP was asking for. I'm all for a training mission or an aid. Knock yourself out! The OP's language sounded a lot like "do it for me". 

And I wouldn't burn down anyone's shed unless the jack wagon had a solid plan!

 

[Jackjack171]

16 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

It is not. The new forum system does odd things that mix posts and quotes and delete even your text when it automatically combines your replies. Had it happen twice already where suddenly post just didn't have the written text but just the quotes, and it shows even other people posts with wrong quotes that doesn't make sense, and then when you post reply it mix them odd manners. Something to do with the automatic notifications and refreshment system, as usually posts orders get wonky before you refresh the page. 

These cause just more trouble than should in discussions. 

 

I see what you are saying. I just didn't view it as trouble. Some feathers get ruffled and that's healthy, but at the end of it all, it's just go old back and forth!

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Jackjack171 said:

Either way, the function for unlimited fuel is there.

 

 

 

Quote

As for what people are asking for, I'll say this again, help was not what the OP was asking for. I'm all for a training mission or an aid. Knock yourself out! The OP's language sounded a lot like "do it for me". 

 

Let's see what is wished for:

 

"It would be nice if we had an option to allow an easy mode AAR so we could design more of our campaign missions with AAR."

 

"I would suggest either an autopilot AAR, or preferably ( and probably easier to implement ) a radius based AAR, if you are within X meters of the tanker you get refueled, only allowing AAR within a certain cone behind the tanker would be good also."

 

What the OP is asking, is an assisted refueling where such a careful flying is not required but allows some movement (shaky hands, difficulties to see, easily getting nervous, ghosting joystick axis etc etc) while just requiring to fly in general formation with the tanker.

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Fri13

[Jackjack171]

Just now, Fri13 said:

 

 

 

 

Let's see what is wished for:

 

"It would be nice if we had an option to allow an easy mode AAR so we could design more of our campaign missions with AAR."

 

"I would suggest either an autopilot AAR, or preferably ( and probably easier to implement ) a radius based AAR, if you are within X meters of the tanker you get refueled, only allowing AAR within a certain cone behind the tanker would be good also."

 

What the OP is asking, is an assisted refueling where such a careful flying is not required but allows some movement (shaky hands, difficulties to see, easily getting nervous, ghosting joystick axis etc etc) while just requiring to fly in general formation with the tanker.

 

 

 

 

I'll buy that for a dollar brother! I recall @shagrat mentioning this.

[Fri13]

 

So these are the suggestions made here:

 

 

 

1. We have my "force tractor beam" with requirement for aircraft speed and angle changes (roll, pitch) relative to basket, so that aircraft would be "pulled in" to basket from its AAR nozzle. If the pilot can't fly in the configured parameters (ie approach too fast or makes too fast corrections) then aircraft is not pulled in gently. The values are configurable, they can be assigned for the tanker, the specific basket on tanker or specific aircraft in the mission (ie unique player), so there can be two tankers where one has this, or one tanker where only one basket has this. The "tractor beam" would have the strength set so it would have only specific percentage authority over the aircraft movements, it doesn't do anything to flight controls or aircraft control surfaces. So aircraft needs to be in flight parameters to be guided for connection. No connection = No fuel. 
2. We have suggested zone around the tanker, so just fly anywhere inside that zone and you get fuel.
3. We have a area behind the tanker here you would need to fly to receive fuel.
4. And then we have as well OP suggested a cone behind the baskets where you need to fly to receive fuel. 

 

We could have all the other zones as well require specific speed range relative to tanker and as well maintain X degree roll angle relative to tanker (so if tanker starts turn in 15 degree then player needs to have +/-5 degree from it to receive fuel.  So just staying inside the zone wouldn't be enough but require to concentrate little bit to the formation flying. And if you do not have made correct radio procedure, you do not receive fuel. So you can't just "tap in" and "tap out" but need to communicate with the tanker (affections to Easy Radio functions).

 

These systems would require players to learn the procedure in their missions to use and have availability for In-Flight Refueling.

The player would be required to be aware of their fuel status and consumption.

Required to know how to navigate and find the tanker.

Required to take consideration the other players flights.

Mission designers are required to maintain the tanker fuel levels. 

Players are required to know how to have basic flight skills (formation flying)

The tankers can be used in the missions as strategic targets to be protected and targeted etc.

 

Basically everything stays as is, except that some players would get the assisted means to receive fuel. They can play with others and have fun, they are not forcing their handicap to others so if someone who masters the IFR can still use their skills. Only problem is that some of these who masters it might feel threatened that someone might get more easily and so on their elitist ego can't take it and can go to rage on forums "I will not play with n00bs!"

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Fri13

[Jackjack171]

Just now, Fri13 said:

 

So these are the suggestions made here:

 

 

 

1. We have my "force tractor beam" with requirement for aircraft speed and angle changes (roll, pitch) relative to basket, so that aircraft would be "pulled in" to basket from its AAR nozzle. If the pilot can't fly in the configured parameters (ie approach too fast or makes too fast corrections) then aircraft is not pulled in gently. The values are configurable, they can be assigned for the tanker, the specific basket on tanker or specific aircraft in the mission (ie unique player), so there can be two tankers where one has this, or one tanker where only one basket has this. The "tractor beam" would have the strength set so it would have only specific percentage authority over the aircraft movements, it doesn't do anything to flight controls or aircraft control surfaces. So aircraft needs to be in flight parameters to be guided for connection. No connection = No fuel. 
2. We have suggested zone around the tanker, so just fly anywhere inside that zone and you get fuel.
3. We have a area behind the tanker here you would need to fly to receive fuel.
4. And then we have as well OP suggested a cone behind the baskets where you need to fly to receive fuel. 

 

We could have all the other zones as well require specific speed range relative to tanker and as well maintain X degree roll angle relative to tanker (so if tanker starts turn in 15 degree then player needs to have +/-5 degree from it to receive fuel.  So just staying inside the zone wouldn't be enough but require to concentrate little bit to the formation flying. And if you do not have made correct radio procedure, you do not receive fuel. So you can't just "tap in" and "tap out" but need to communicate with the tanker (affections to Easy Radio functions).

 

These systems would require players to learn the procedure in their missions to use and have availability for In-Flight Refueling.

The player would be required to be aware of their fuel status and consumption.

Required to know how to navigate and find the tanker.

Required to take consideration the other players flights.

Mission designers are required to maintain the tanker fuel levels. 

Players are required to know how to have basic flight skills (formation flying)

The tankers can be used in the missions as strategic targets to be protected and targeted etc.

 

Basically everything stays as is, except that some players would get the assisted means to receive fuel. They can play with others and have fun, they are not forcing their handicap to others so if someone who masters the IFR can still use their skills. Only problem is that some of these who masters it might feel threatened that someone might get more easily and so on their elitist ego can't take it and can go to rage on forums "I will not play with n00bs!"

 

 

Nice graphic!

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Jackjack171 said:

You speak of fallacies a lot.

That's because the opposition to this improvement uses them a lot.

It shows how little of an actual argument they have.

 

1 hour ago, Jackjack171 said:

Either way, the function for unlimited fuel is there.

So is the function to destroy all building in a trigger zone and the function to place TV towers on the map and the function to turn a tourist bus into an FM talk radio station. None of those really help with the issue at hand, and unlimited fuel in particular would do the exact opposite of what's being discussed.

 

1 hour ago, Jackjack171 said:

The OP's language sounded a lot like "do it for me".

…because he (or more accurately the people he's flying with) can't, for very legitimate reasons. And they should be accommodated like everyone else.

 

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Knowing that such option may take years or never actually happen, relying on it is highly disrespectful for the elders that he tries to help.

Wishing to accommodate older people in the full range of game activities that the community engages in is highly disrespectful? That's an… interesting take. As for having no place in MP, that's where it would do the most good, so that would be a fairly wasteful limitation. There are already a number of “Player”-bound functions that desperately need to be ported over to also apply to “Client” units — funnily enough ones that would increase the realism of MP, but for some reason, the people clamouring for that realism never seem to bring them up…

 

Of course, mission options are always mission options — if you crave absolute equality of setups, that's where you go for that.

[Jackjack171]

Just now, Tippis said:

That's because the opposition to this improvement uses them a lot.

It shows how little of an actual argument they have.

 

 

Again, that's subjective and you know it. Just because you think you are right, doesn't make it so!

[Tippis]

12 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

Again, that's subjective and you know it.

No. It's a matter of argumentation logic (or more accurately, the lack thereof).

It has nothing to do with being right or wrong — it has to do with how you construct your arguments to try to prove you're right. You can have a completely correct conclusion but arrive at it through a logic and argumentation that does not actually support what you're saying (and of course the opposite is true, you can have a perfectly logical line of reasoning but end up being wrong because some of the premises you're working on are false).

 

That said, just as tip if you want to try this avenue of attack, I'll suggest you read up and start looking for the fallacy fallacy (this ties into the whole “being right, but for the wrong reasons” thing above). It doesn't really apply here since it would require me to comment on the conclusions drawn from the faulty logic rather than the faulty logic itself, but it's a nice tool to have when someone you're talking about starts throwing the word fallacy around.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Tippis
Moar autocorrect is gooder autocorrect.

[Fri13]

Addition to those few suggested modes, I think my suggestion is most helpful for the beginners and those who can't (for various reasons) connect easily with the basket for In-Flight Refueling. 

 

The zone ones are of course always the easiest ones for the player, like I could see the large zone behind a tanker as GAME MODE feature where you just need to get behind tanker to receive fuel. The large zone around the tanker IMHO is most invalid as it just allows player to be anywhere inside that zone, even front of the tanker or how ever. 

The cones behind each basket is OK idea. Could even be so that further you are then less fuel you are receiving so you at least need to try to get close to it, but it will just teach wrong thing that is to focus the basket instead the tanker. 

 

In my idea the player is required to focus to the tanker, keep an eye on the closure speed and keep relaxed small stick movements in control while required to not just fly near the tanker but actually approach it correct from the left and low etc. And when player is connected to the basket, it is requirement to fly in the formation with the tanker in the limits of the basket movements. As it doesn't affect to that part at all, only to assist to make the connection with basket. 

 

When player is still required to learn to find a tanker, approach the tanker, communicate with it, and then fly toward the basket to make the connection.... Then the system is teaching the player that how the process works. The player learns how to fly in formation (what part to look at, where to aim on each airframe, where the basket should be placed in corner of eye when focusing to tanker etc. All the time the player is required to as well check the speed and how to relax with controls.  And yet in the end the player gets successful experiences, training and getting comfortable with the whole process. So that eventually players can start to adjust tractor beam sensitivity values smaller and smaller until finally not needing it at all. 

 

So even if easy implementation would be a "press button X to allow AI take control and perform air refueling for you, press X again to return controls back to you" it wouldn't teach them much, it would look cool and it would do the process but player wouldn't be required much for anything. 

[Fri13]

9 minutes ago, Tippis said:

You can have a completely correct conclusion but arrive at it through a logic and argumentation that does not actually support what you're saying (and of course the opposite is true, you can have a perfectly logical line of reasoning but end up being wrong because some of the premises you're working on are false).

 

Well said. 

 

Like in mathematics, it doesn't matter if you get a correct result if you made mistake in the calculations. It is better to have a correct calculations and end up with wrong result, but it is still wrong

 

The challenge is like: "He speaks the truth by saying that he always lie"

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Fri13

[Jackjack171]

Just now, Tippis said:

No. It's a matter of argumentation logic (or more accurately, the lack thereof).

It has nothing to do with being right or wrong — it has to do with how you construct your arguments to try to prove you're right. You can have a completely correct conclusion but arrive at it through a logic and argumentation that does not actually support what you're saying (and of course the opposite is true, you can have a perfectly logical line of reasoning but end up being wrong because some of the premises you're working on are false).

 

That said, just as tip if you want to try this avenue of attack, I'll suggest you read up and start looking for the fallacy fallacy (this ties into the whole “being right, but for the wrong reasons” thing above). It doesn't really apply here since it would require me to common on the conclusions drawn from the faulty logic rather than the faulty logic itself, but it's a nice tool to have when someone you're talking about starts throwing the word fallacy around.

 

Avenue of attack? Funny! No dude, it's just good old plain English. I made my points earlier. 

And thanks for the suggestion on reading. I would suggest Bulletproof Alpha Male  and The Art of War by Sun Tzu for you if you are interested! We studied fallacies in one of my Leadership courses. And you used a few red herring arguments yourself! 

[Tippis]

Just now, Jackjack171 said:

Avenue of attack? Funny!

Indeed. Like you(?) said before, this is just a discussion we're having for the fun of it.

 

Just now, Jackjack171 said:

We studied fallacies in one of my Leadership courses. And you used a few red herring arguments yourself! 

See? Learning is fun.

[Jackjack171]

20 minutes ago, Tippis said:

No. It's a matter of argumentation logic (or more accurately, the lack thereof).

It has nothing to do with being right or wrong — it has to do with how you construct your arguments to try to prove you're right. You can have a completely correct conclusion but arrive at it through a logic and argumentation that does not actually support what you're saying (and of course the opposite is true, you can have a perfectly logical line of reasoning but end up being wrong because some of the premises you're working on are false).

 

That said, just as tip if you want to try this avenue of attack, I'll suggest you read up and start looking for the fallacy fallacy (this ties into the whole “being right, but for the wrong reasons” thing above). It doesn't really apply here since it would require me to common on the conclusions drawn from the faulty logic rather than the faulty logic itself, but it's a nice tool to have when someone you're talking about starts throwing the word fallacy around.

 

Back on Topic: @Fri13just put out some awesome gouge.

Just now, Tippis said:

Indeed. Like you(?) said before, this is just a discussion we're having for the fun of it.

 

See? Learning is fun.

Yes sir! The school of hard knocks and the Collegiate can coexist! I love to watch the magic happen!

[ST0RM]

What's funny, in the time that has been spent in this stupid thread, the ones who cant AAR, could have practiced and learned it already. 

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, ST0RM said:

What's funny, in the time that has been spent in this stupid thread, the ones who cant AAR, could have practiced and learned it already. 

Nope.

 

What's really funny is that this was explained in full earlier, and that after all this time, no-one has been able to cobble together a cogent reason why this feature shouldn't be implemented. They've certainly had more than enough time for that.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Tippis

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, ST0RM said:

What's funny, in the time that has been spent in this stupid thread, the ones who cant AAR, could have practiced and learned it already. 

 

That claim is already countered so many times that it is not even funny anymore.

[ST0RM]

Well, I'm off to AAR. Why? Because I can. 

 

[Fri13]

Just now, ST0RM said:

Well, I'm off to AAR. Why? Because I can. 

 

And how about those who can't?

You don't want them to be able do it if they require assistance to succeed in that?

 

[ST0RM]

Look dude, this is a game, not a requirement in life. 
When I cant do something, I WORK at it until I can. I dont ask for special conditions or whatever. 

You've been given some solutions, but you dont accept them in the name of "realism". Instead you've just badgered people. 

Whatever. 

[Tippis]

43 minutes ago, ST0RM said:

Look dude, this is a game, not a requirement in life. 

…and thus, there is no reason why it shouldn't accommodate the full range of players it is aimed at.

 

Quote

When I cant do something, I WORK at it until I can.

Good luck holding on to that attitude as the years start creeping up on you.

Did you actually read the OP and subsequent posts, or are you just making assumptions about what the issue is so you can make disparaging remarks for no good reason?

 

Quote

You've been given some solutions

No solutions have actually been given, though. Instead, the OP and people who would like to see the game evolve and improve have been badgered by those who don't accept the premise of the thread for no clearly defined reason (often in the name of some kind of “realism” that they also can't really define).

Edited March 27, 2021 by Tippis

[Jackjack171]

2 minutes ago, Tippis said:

…and thus, there is no reason why it shouldn't accommodate the full range of players it is aimed at.

 

Good luck holding on to that attitude as the years start creeping up on you.

Did you actually read the OP and subsequent posts, or are you just making assumptions about what the issue is so you can make disparaging remarks for no good reason?

 

No solutions have actually been given, though. Instead, the OP and people who would like to see the game evolve and improve have been badgered by those who don't accept the premise of the thread for no clearly defined reason (often in the name of some kind of “realism” that they also can't really define).

 

I wouldn't call it badgering at all! It may be a little spicy but it's just a difference of opinion. Fri gave some good ideas as well as Shagrat but we all just have a different in opinion. There's nothing wrong or right about that!

48 minutes ago, ST0RM said:

Look dude, this is a game, not a requirement in life. 
When I cant do something, I WORK at it until I can. I dont ask for special conditions or whatever. 

You've been given some solutions, but you dont accept them in the name of "realism". Instead you've just badgered people. 

Whatever. 

I'm tracking you brother. Now the Handicap guys is where I have to show some empathy. That's not their fault!

[Fri13]

49 minutes ago, ST0RM said:

Look dude, this is a game, not a requirement in life. 
When I cant do something, I WORK at it until I can. I dont ask for special conditions or whatever.

 

This is not about You, and this is not about Me. 

This is about players who can't do it for various reasons and they require assistance. 

It is not difficult thing to comprehend. 

 

Do you know why we have these in various places?

 

 

 

 

 

Are you the person who goes and say to elderly people "WORK FOR IT, BECAUSE I CAN!"?

Are you the person who say to handicapped people "WORK FOR IT, BECAUSE I CAN!"? 

Are you the person who say to young people "WORK FOR IT, BECAUSE I CAN!"?

 

Yes, you are....

You do not accept the fact that there are people who requires assistance because THEY CAN'T DO IT NO MATTER HOW YOU CLAIM THEY CAN!

It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be playing DCS World at all or even consider to be able perform the In-Flight Refueling. 

It is not away from anyone to help these players who for what ever reason can't do it. It can be because they are beginners, because it is temporal, because it is how the life just is!

 

49 minutes ago, ST0RM said:

You've been given some solutions, but you dont accept them in the name of "realism". Instead you've just badgered people. 

Whatever. 

 

I don't accept some solutions in the name of realism? 

Please, point out some of those to support now your argument...

 

[ST0RM]

6 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

I'm tracking you brother. Now the Handicap guys is where I have to show some empathy. That's not their fault!

Yes, there I'd make a concession.

Fri gave some examples of how auto AAR could work. On the flipside, how would it be implemented on servers? A special server with less restrictions? 

To each their own. Back to my thing. 

[draconus]

1 hour ago, ST0RM said:

What's funny, in the time that has been spent in this stupid thread, the ones who cant AAR, could have practiced and learned it already. 

Not one of the "victims" came here to comment or asked for the option.

Guys just like to discuss for the sake of it.

The OP could have made 5 minutes mission changes and let elders take off first and save the day superhero way. Instead he came to wishlist asking ED to do something and let the elders wait for years for a solution that may never come. That's the disrespecful part, @Tippis

@Fri13 When someone has shaking hands or controller problems he also can't land, fly formation or aim unguided weapons. The AAR is his least worry.