not planned Easy mode AAR

[Tippis]

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I wish DCS had a Dynamic Campaign and spent time working on that rather than an Easy AAR feature. 

Good news: one would most likely  not impact the other in any way since they deal with such very different aspect of the game.

 

Oh, and if you're going to wish for a campaign, don't go for something as simplistic as being merely dynamic. At least wish for a seamless and continuous real-time one since that's the part that everyone miss from older sims.

[Fri13]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I wish DCS had a Dynamic Campaign and spent time working on that rather than an Easy AAR feature. 

 

So do you claim that same developers would work these two projects simultaneously?

[Furiz]

14 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

So.... Test pilots and many other pilots are not a real pilots who have experience with tens, if not hundreds of aircraft, with mastery to tens of aircraft, while just experience with most for comparisons etc, accumulating together thousands (10000-20000) flight hours? 

Should someone who meets a pilot who has career as such to tell them that they are not a real pilots but just "jack of all trades"?

If the learning curve is so huge, why it would take just a few months from a non-pilot to be able manage air refueling, carrier landings etc? Like how many hours should a virtual pilot put to learn those relative to real pilots?

 

You sir are just looking for someone to fight with, so you'll write whatever to get into an argument, it is perfectly clear what I was trying to say. Not going to argue with you about that nonsense you just wrote. You are completely off topic.

 

How many hours? as much as it takes cause if you don't learn it, you cant do your mission right?

[Fri13]

On 3/23/2021 at 7:56 AM, Furiz said:

it is perfectly clear what I was trying to say.

 

So now the "you know what I mean" argument. 

No, none knows what you mean when you don't know how to explain it, as otherwise you would have wrote differently than you did.

 

You made very clear that argument was about "more than two and you are not a real pilot" as it is so difficult to master more. 

When in likely the case is that pilots do not get in service enough flight time to fly more than two before retirement.  What are typical flight hours in total in service? Like if you are given change to fly in service for 1500-2000 hours, then you are not going to jump all the time between different planes because you want to do so. You are given change to tell your interest what you want, but you go to fly what is given to you.

If you are not in a position to request different planes to fly, you basically fly just one or two. And that doesn't make you "true pilot" and it is not a sign that "it is to challenging to fly more than two in your career".

 

On 3/23/2021 at 7:56 AM, Furiz said:

Not going to argue with you about that nonsense you just wrote. You are completely off topic.

 

You used an fallacy as your argument, you got bad feeling about it when it was pointed out and now you attack the person by claiming he writes nonsense and that it is off-topic that what you wrote.

 

You just could not counter the arguments why assisted air refueling is a good thing and that should be added. So you used fallacy as argument and it didn't work.

 

 

[Fri13]

On 3/22/2021 at 8:55 PM, sthompson said:

They seem to forget that this is a wish list and their comments only make sense here if they are wishing that DCS not be accessible to less capable pilots.

 

Making things more realistic and so on challenging shouldn't be a only way, it should the primary goal but not in expense that most people can't enjoy and play it.

Hence options. Difficulty features to alter learning curve and help people to use various features.

 

If these kind features would be exclusive that they remove realism from everyone, then it would be bad and unacceptable. But it doesn't. It is optional feature to be enabled by those who want to for their needs.

 

OP presented their need well, and ED should really consider it to be added ASAP.

 

 

 

 

[Tippis]

15 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

You guys really already managed to accumulate another three pages of nonsense about a non-topic Keep it up, disc space is cheap!

Your not understanding the universal benefit does not make something a non-topic, nor the discussion of it nonsense. If you don't understand, just ask questions; if you don't like suggestions for game improvements, maybe stay out of the wishlist section; and if your only wish is to stop people from posting about things you have no interest in, maybe a public forum just isn't your scene…

 

The reason this blindingly beneficial topic keeps accumulating pages is because it's so utterly trivial to come up with ideas for implementation and figure out different ways in which it could help and improve the game for a huge number of people, and because some are utterly adamant that the game must receive no such improvements for no intelligent or articulate reason whatsoever other than their own utter ignorance and blindness. This is also quite easy to understand.

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Making things more realistic and so on challenging shouldn't be a only way, it should the primary goal but not in expense that most people can't enjoy and play it.

Hence options. Difficulty features to alter learning curve and help people to use various features.

 

If these kind features would be exclusive that they remove realism from everyone, then it would be bad and unacceptable. But it doesn't. It is optional feature to be enabled by those who want to for their needs.

The funny thing is that there's not even any contradiction between the two goals. This kind of thing would both offer more realism and challenge and make more people enjoy the game in more ways. There are literally only upsides. And yet, we always get these self-contradictory and self-defeating arguments like the ones seen in this thread, where increased realism is rejected on the grounds that it is somehow less realistic, or that we shouldn't add something that helps with learning because people should just learn instead.

 

Anything that isn't The One True Way™ must be eradicated — no need to actually be logical or coherent in explaining why.

 

14 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

Oh, i understand it.. there's been four topics about that or so already and all went stupid asap like this one.

Well, that's what you get when some are stuck in some antiquated and counter-productive mode of thinking where the mere idea of games being made better somehow becomes threatening to them. I guess that neatly explains why their (complete) lack of arguments becomes so obvious and yet so fierce: the very foundation of what they want is inherently stupid, and their failed attempts at articulating why the game should be kept bad unattractive just poisons any and all sensible discussion of improvements by their mere existence.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Tippis

[cfrag]

In all honesty, as much as I'm sometimes glad / sometimes sad about the fact that ED seems to happily ignore these discussions (which appear to deteriorate into a mud slug festival between the accessibility vs realism crowds), the fact remains that ED is a business first; they rely on sales. It's very seldom that ED can re-finance via upgrades (A10C II was the only one IIRC in the past 4 years), so they need additional sales. Additional sales mean new users after they sold every module to existing users. So, realistically (hu, a pun!), we should expect accessibility to win out over difficulty/realism of an aspect. Some form of simplified AAR is clearly advised - a dead giveaway is when mission designers start to expend effort to provide support for this on their own dime. Just run the figures how many more copies of Serpent's head 2 have to be sold just to re-finance the (assumed) additional 4 days of effort for 'simplified aa refueling' (at a 50% revenue share, that's USD 5 per sale, and to make 2000 USD - 4 days at 500 - you'd have to move 400 more units just to break even). Badger clearly saw it as a savvy business move. If your own content provider deem it necessary to broaden appeal, you better move your own product in the same direction. So, ignoring the debate of realism vs. accessibility, it appears the content providers have seen the writing on the wall that increased accessibility translates into greater sales. I believe that it's a matter of time until ED gets around to the same conclusion - if they haven't already slotted it onto the dev track for later. Simplified AAR seems to be quite an obvious improvement (but less obvious than being able to save missions in progress) from the business perspective.

[cfrag]

Actually, ED could release this feature rather quickly via ME -- simply allow managing a unit's fuel via mission actions(which might run into MP issues with the current mission scripting framework) and add a 'unit's distance to unit is less than' condition, and we (well, mission designers) are all set.

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by cfrag

[SharpeXB]

46 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Some form of simplified AAR is clearly advised - a dead giveaway is when mission designers start to expend effort to provide support for this on their own dime.

Well this is another reason why ED doesn’t need to spend time on this. The makers of these DLC campaigns obviously know that this isn’t a task everyone can do. So it seems most either don’t require it, make it optional or have some creative work around. 
AAR isn’t mandatory in DCS. Most missions and campaigns can be completed without it, you can fly quite a long mission in the F-18 without it, probably as long a session as most people are willing to do. And the Hornet is a gas guzzler. Aircraft like the A-10C or M-2000C will really just never need it in the course of a normal gaming session. 

[cfrag]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well this is another reason why ED doesn’t need to spend time on this. 

 

That is an interesting inversion of logic. It clearly is in ED's interest to do this to increase sales (if only of their "gas guzzler" modules - which, last time I checked, was one of their main revenue streams).

 

[Exorcet]

  

18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well this is another reason why ED doesn’t need to spend time on this. The makers of these DLC campaigns obviously know that this isn’t a task everyone can do. So it seems most either don’t require it, make it optional or have some creative work around.

Well the downside here is a bit of a restriction on mission design. If easy AAR existed then anyone could make a mission that requires AAR because everyone would be able to complete the refueling session.

 

As far as developer resources go, ARR needs some updating as is. The AI could be better at it and we're missing some of the physics (booms/baskets aren't physical and don't put forces on refueling aircraft). When ED goes to improve these aspects, it would also be a good time to add easy AAR as they would already be working on the code and have people assigned to the task.

[Buzzles]

Gonna be honest, last time I posted in the other Easy AAR thread, I was against it.

 

However, I've been convinced by some complelling arguments with decent solutions, namely the one saying you still have to get into position and roughly hold it.

Yes it makes it a bit easier you don't need to go the full hog and be super precise which I'd normally be for, but the point of EAAR unlocking more missions for people and therefore removing the use of Unlimited Fuel as an option is what swung it.

 

I'd much rather see people doing Easy AAR than using unlimited fuel.

[sthompson]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Well this is another reason why ED doesn’t need to spend time on this. The makers of these DLC campaigns obviously know that this isn’t a task everyone can do. So it seems most either don’t require it, make it optional or have some creative work around. 
AAR isn’t mandatory in DCS. Most missions and campaigns can be completed without it, you can fly quite a long mission in the F-18 without it, probably as long a session as most people are willing to do. And the Hornet is a gas guzzler. Aircraft like the A-10C or M-2000C will really just never need it in the course of a normal gaming session. 

You have that exactly backwards. The fact that campaign designers feel compelled to offer work arounds is an acknowledgement that it is a problem that many customers can't complete the task. If it wasn't a problem they would just require AAR in their missions and live with the consequences (reduced sales at least) when customers couldn't complete the missions. 

[Wrcknbckr]

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

OP presented their need well, and ED should really consider it to be added ASAP.

 

 

 

 

 

Good luck with that. As mentioned in a somewhat equivalent topic (on introducing autopilots for WWII aircraft) ED's reaction was: 'We are actually considering removing game flight and avionics, it is not used very often and creates more problems than it solves'.

 

 

Guess the unlimited fuel option is here to stay. Maybe the 'bigger area' option could be considered, but you can forget about adding helper functions.

 

 I am curious if players would consider migrating to MAC for easy AAR...

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Well this is another reason why ED doesn’t need to spend time on this. The makers of these DLC campaigns obviously know that this isn’t a task everyone can do. So it seems most either don’t require it, make it optional or have some creative work around. 

So true to form, you defeat your own argument and explain exactly why ED should spend some time on this: because it would be optional and because it would offer a creative work-around for the vastly less realistic (and game-breaking) idea you're offering.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

AAR isn’t mandatory in DCS. Most missions and campaigns can be completed without it

…and imagine how fun it would be, and how much more content could be made available to a much larger audience if the game didn't have this obvious missing gap in its feature list, even though very similar functionality exists for almost all other parts of the game. With this feature, AAR could be made mandatory and no-one would be left out — everyone wins. Mission-makers wouldn't have to come up with brittle, cumbersome, and highly unreliable “work-arounds” that only work in very specific situations and can't be generalised (something that means you get less content for your preferred gameplay — that is the inevitable consequence of your quest to make the game unappealing).

 

Again, there are no intelligent arguments against this improvement to the game. Even your attempts to argue against it actually only serve to further illustrate what a massively good idea it is — that's how difficult a time you're having articulating a reason why the game should be kept unappealing.

 

8 minutes ago, Wrcknbckr said:

Guess the unlimited fuel option is here to stay. Maybe the 'bigger area' option could be considered, but you can forget about adding helper functions.

Nah.

For one, not-one is suggesting that anything should be done about unlimited fuel. It's just that some love to drag out the utterly braindead argument that unlimited fuel is a good option to (somehow, they always fall to explain how) create more realism, as opposed to the option of actually having to care about fuel and loadouts.

 

For another, they are already adding helping functions on the sly on a semi-regular basis. It says right in the product description that this is an intended part of the game and its development, so that's hardly shocking — they're simply (very slowly) doing exactly what they say they want to do. The problem with game mode is that, over time, it has been shown to to be any help at all — it actually in many cases makes it harder to fly because it creates unreliable and inconsistent behaviour in various airframes. Game mode is working at cross-purpose to its original intent, so it makes sense to just scrap it.

[StevanJ]

Games are supposed to be fun, not stressful. Its okay if you cant air to air refuel.
If you want an 'automated' air to air refuel- I support it.

And if anyone ever needs help, in 'trying to refuel in the air', Just send me a message. Im sure i can point you a few tips no one else has mentioned, to help with the training..

[Northstar98]

For the OP I don't have a problem with there being an optional increased zone where you can be refuelled, so within a certain radius you get refuelled - though I'd personally prefer to have this done via the triggers (obviously we'd need a triggerable action to increase the fuel of units - preferably going by a rate).

 

I can see autopilot AAR being a pain in the backside as far as development is concerned, and maybe the work required would be better utilised improving the AI across the board.

 

One thing that bewildered me about the whole thing is the lack of training missions for this, which can even be extended to airmanship wholesale. Maybe a practice mission and maybe a mission that tests you and grades you. I did quite like Desert Fox's idea of essentially having moving gates to tell you where to go.

 

And this comes from someone, who in nearly 6 years of being with DCS, has never once managed to aerial refuel in any aircraft, or even fly in formation for more than a few minutes, once or twice - let alone do it with any precision or finesse.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Wrcknbckr said:

 

Good luck with that. As mentioned in a somewhat equivalent topic (on introducing autopilots for WWII aircraft) ED's reaction was: 'We are actually considering removing game flight and avionics, it is not used very often and creates more problems than it solves'.

 

What problems it creates that it doesn't solve?

And how is that a equivalent topic?

 

1 hour ago, Wrcknbckr said:

Guess the unlimited fuel option is here to stay. Maybe the 'bigger area' option could be considered, but you can forget about adding helper functions.

 

Why it can be forgotten when it is not same thing?

 

1 hour ago, Wrcknbckr said:

 I am curious if players would consider migrating to MAC for easy AAR...

 

Why would people migrate from DCS World to Modern Air Combat to do Air-to-Air Refueling if they need to leave everything else to DCS World?

 

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

Actually, ED could release this feature rather quickly via ME -- simply allow managing a unit's fuel via mission actions(which might run into MP issues with the current mission scripting framework) and add a 'unit's distance to unit is less than' condition, and we (well, mission designers) are all set.

 

Yes that would be one solution to it, just get the player to fly in some kind formation of the tanker and fuel is received. But, it doesn't actually do what is asked as you need to fake the refueling process itself instead required to wait in the line, get to the position, control the speed and communicate with the tanker. All that can of course be done and fail as you anyways receive fuel there but it is not so much assisting to start learning to do the process. That is not so much different from my suggested "refueling box behind a tanker" where you would need to fly to receive fuel. But all these are step to better direction from what DCS has now to offer for everyone. 

[Fri13]

50 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I can see autopilot AAR being a pain in the backside as far as development is concerned, and maybe the work required would be better utilised improving the AI across the board.

 

My suggested "force tractor beam" would be usable exactly with the AI as well, as it doesn't take away the controls from the pilot (pilot is required to fly in the assistant envelope to be guided) or require player to be there. Currently we have a problem with AI that it reacts to things way too instantly. Like have a AI wingman flying with you and it manages to mirror your movements almost perfectly. There is no "rubber band" effect where you do suddenly something and AI would be caught by surprise that you just did 9G pull upward or you rolled toward it. 

 

We anyways need AI to perform different formation flights with the player, as well player to fly in formation with the AI. And this my idea could be utilized well with the both separate things. It could be used for training in a proper landing to ground or carrier as the "glide slope" would act as such.

 

We have players that are just 5 years old to who are over 80 years old. We have those who might have just one eye instead two, have a one arm instead two, people without legs, people with neck problems, back problems, about anything. Isn't it wonderful if we could help some other people to fly as well, who are interested about it, but can't do it well?

Like how many is suffering from the gameplay experiences because their hardware is not the $1200 custom made HOTAS but $45 second hand one?

 

So sure ED needs to weight different option to offer at various people. It doesn't mean that they need to make it so that completely blind can fly etc, so nothing absurd.   

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

One thing that bewildered me about the whole thing is the lack of training missions for this,

I’m pretty sure the aircraft which actually need AAR have training missions already. The F-18 does and I know the Harrier does. 

1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

Games are supposed to be fun, not stressful.

Stressful IS fun 

This isn’t Farming Simulator...

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, sthompson said:

The fact that campaign designers feel compelled to offer work arounds is an acknowledgement that it is a problem that many customers can't complete the task. 

It’s not a “problem” that the sim is difficult. That’s the whole point of a realistic sim title. The “problem” is that people won’t practice it and then expect the game to fly the plane for them. 
 

If and when you guys finally learn to do this you’ll see how silly this argument is. I can tell by the discussion most people haven’t even tried or think it’s impossible. It only seems impossible until you get it. Spend as much time on this as you spend making stuff go boom and you’ll get it in no time. 

[Fri13]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

This isn’t Farming Simulator...

Tells that you don't have real understanding what a farming is.

 

In real world farming, farmers put every year everything they have on risk that is depending to get a good harvest on that year. 

And once they have invested all the money to the seeds that is put in the ground, they can't do much at all as everything is depending about weather for the whole season. 

 

If you would be required to place everything you own every year on such risk, you would be stressful how you are going to feed your family in the future.

I don't think you have couple millions of dollars invested to your equipment in your name, it is easy to be a fighter pilot when the government pays the aircraft and all. 

 

 

And yes, farming simulators actually does simulate that thing but it is just a game, so you don't care so much if your farm fail because your economy skills were bad or thunderstorm destroyed your crop and so on. Just like DCS World is just a flight simulator, when you crash you don't die etc.

 

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I can tell by the discussion most people haven’t even tried or think it’s impossible. It only seems impossible until you get it. 

 

I can tell you have not read the discussion, as for some people it simply is impossible no matter how much they invest time to it. Hence the wish!

[Northstar98]

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m pretty sure the aircraft which actually need AAR have training missions already. The F-18 does and I know the Harrier does. 

 

No, the F/A-18C doesn't have a training mission for AAR - at least not in the training folder. There is an AAR qualification mission but that's it.

 

Can't speak for the Harrier.

 

As for other AAR capable aircraft:

• The F-14A/B doesn't
• The A-10Cs don't
• The F-16CM doesn't
• The Su-33 doesn't
• The Mirage 2000C doesn't

 

[Tippis]

36 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s not a “problem” that the sim is difficult. That’s the whole point of a realistic sim title.

No. That's a wholly inaccurate understanding of both the word "realistic" and the  word "sim". It is also a very daft interpretation of what a "study sim" is supposed to do.

 

And yes, it is a problem that the sim is artificially and arbitrarily difficult in one specific are and not others when the stated goal of the sim is to hold players' hands through a wide range of skill levels.

 

Quote

The “problem” is that people won’t practice it and then expect the game to fly the plane for them. 

Except, of course, that this is just a strawman that you've concocted because you are unable to actually provide any reason why the game shouldn't do what it is supposed to, and why it should only fail to do so in this one area. No-one is expecting that - only you do because you refuse to read what people actually write since that would destroy your entire line of reasoning. And practice is one of the main issues here: you are actively trying to deny people the tools to let them do what you're saying they should be doing. For no reason.

 

Quote

If and when you guys finally learn to do this you’ll see how silly this argument is.

The only reasons that argument is silly is because it's just some random BS you made up to compensate for your inability to actually engage in a valid discussion about the pros (I would say "...and cons" but no-one has been even remotely able to demonstrate any) of this idea. It's silly because every time you try to argue against improving the game, you end up illustrating why such improvements would be good and indeed necessary.

 

Your need to attack the people rather than the arguments just prove beyond any doubt that you have no point and no argument - just an insatiable wish to troll and to keep DCS from becoming better. And that is a very silly position to hold.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Tippis