Air Refueling Cheat

[Harlikwin]

37 minutes ago, Черный Дракул said:

Well, that's the drawback of Flanker damage model that models everything with HE. Unlike Maddox Games' IL-2, where everything was modelled through shrapnel (giving overall far better results, but producing weird artifacts at HE pressure wave ranges). At least nowdays ED is updating the damage model -- who knows, maybe shrapnel for ground units is still possible. 

That damage model has needed fixing for a decade or more, whats ED's excuse? Literally they could rip off a "free" game from the early 1990's to do better, steel panthers... 

 

Quote

Well, there's only one way to improve this. 

Anyway, as was mentioned before, for a study sim to be a study, aids of all sorts are required. Some are provided, while AAR ones are not. And considering

-- only if you're learning it right, where the effect is multiplied. 

IDK, every proposal I've hear to "teach" AAR sucks... You need to learn basics like formation flying, something any cadet in any airforce will be washed out for if they can't do it. It takes time, it takes pracice. But here in ED-land, "BROS" can't be bothered....

 

Cuz BOOM BANG, GTA5 level of skill and attention span.

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

46 minutes ago, freehand said:

Carrier landing was one of the most difficult things todo when the f18 arrived just check out jabbers video so it is very good comparison. 

 

That being said I have no problem with aids for people because after all it's just an option some one can use as long as ED do not take any longer than 3 seconds to incorporate as they have more useful things to-do with there time 

 

On a serious note does not bother me ether way. 

 

 

Well IRL they are hard.... OFC DCS softballs it... The new "burble" model from HB at least tries to raise that bar.

[Exorcet]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

As for AAR, its really not that hard to learn. Just takes time and effort, just like carrier landings, should ED put in some magic "autoland" cuz new players find landing hard and can't be bothered? Or does that take something away from a flight simulator. I'd argue the latter.

 

 

Autoland can't really take anything away from the sim as long it doesn't prevent realistic landing, so like any hypothetical AAR assist, or any assist, I don't see the issue.

12 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

IDK, every proposal I've hear to "teach" AAR sucks... You need to learn basics like formation flying, something any cadet in any airforce will be washed out for if they can't do it. It takes time, it takes pracice. But here in ED-land, "BROS" can't be bothered....

 

Cuz BOOM BANG, GTA5 level of skill and attention span.

 

 

 

 

This is missing the point a bit, you've kept repeating practice practice as if people are against it but no one is. Learning assists don't replace practice.

 

AAR isn't necessary to learn in DCS, some players will want to learn it and some won't. For those who want to learn some might want help in the form of an assist. Saying it's only about drive or attention span is to drastically oversimplify the issue and to ignore other points of view.

[Harlikwin]

17 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

AAR isn't necessary to learn in DCS, some players will want to learn it and some won't. For those who want to learn some might want help in the form of an assist. Saying it's only about drive or attention span is to drastically oversimplify the issue and to ignore other points of view.

 

I mean it its not, if you want to play a certain way. And DCS rewards that Low/no skill "mechanic" which is pretty far from RL. Same thing with not knowing basic bomb stuff. OR basic AA stuff. Its alot for new players I get it, but bottom line is no "real" fighter pilot would be allowed to drop a bomb IRL if "they" couldn't fly in formation, which is the basic AAR skillset. But DCS is what it as and the "ACE FIGHER BROS" can't be bothered. So it is what it is. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

IDK, every proposal I've hear to "teach" AAR sucks... You need to learn basics like formation flying, something any cadet in any airforce will be washed out for if they can't do it. It takes time, it takes pracice. But here in ED-land, "BROS" can't be bothered....

 

Funnily enough, this is another thing that ED can learn from another simulator, and add as a function that can be turned off: A formation 'dot'. Basically, when a player spawns into a squad leader position in that game, they don't see this dot, but everyone else does, and that dot shows them where they're supposed to be in the formation. This could take the form of a HUD indicator, or as a little grey dot that appears in a point in space with the thing you're trying to form up on (in this case, the tanker). Once it's 'your turn' to refuel, the tanker can give you audible instructions on what to do next, and a pop-up... well... pops up similar to the meatball for the SCM. It's a thing that can be turned off for those that don't need it (although the audible stuff is in dire need anyway so the tanker can manage the chaos of planes lining up for gas).

This is I think the best way to help people learn. Remember, you cite real pilots, but they spend hundreds of hours in a simulator learning how to do it before they do it for real, and they also benefit from things that we sim pilots will never have, like actual depth perception and aircraft feedback (IE, a real pilot can feel what his plane is doing much better than we can in DCS).

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Tank50us said:

This could take the form of a HUD indicator, or as a little grey dot that appears in a point in space with the thing you're trying to form up on (in this case, the tanker).

How are you guys so befuddled with this stuff?! It’s not a secret where you’re supposed to be when you’re refueling. You don’t need an arcade gamey dot to tell you. You go fly to where the thing is and put the thing in the other thing! 

4 hours ago, Черный Дракул said:

You can see how someone else does it when watching a video.

It’s not a multiple choice question. There’s only one place you need to fly to put the thing in the thing. Anyone doing it successfully will show you the same position. 
 

 

[Tank50us]

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

How are you guys so befuddled with this stuff?! It’s not a secret where you’re supposed to be when you’re refueling. You don’t need an arcade gamey dot to tell you. You go fly to where the thing is and put the thing in the other thing! 

 

Very. Actually. And again, it'd be an option that can be turned off if the player doesn't want to have it, just like the dots and labels we already have in DCS. It doesn't magically make you better at flying the plane, it's just an aid to give pilots a visual reference where they need to be in order to perform one of the most complex tasks in all of aviation. Sure, to someone who's done it hundreds, if not thousands of times ever since DCS was just LOMAC, it's "easy", but imagine yourself as someone new to the game, trying to learn it all for the first time, and for bonus points, we'll say that this person isn't in a group willing to help him learn. The videos show you the technique, but not everyone learns by watching a 20min tutorial video on YouTube (I certainly don't). Many learn by actually performing the act in question, preferably with someone watching them in F2 guiding them. Those "arcade gamey dots" can help you figure out "Ok, this is where I need to put my aircraft in order to be formed up with the tanker.", then it moves to where you would have to be in order to call pre-contact, and then you get the visual indicator (again, similar to the meatball for the SCM) that gives you a visual aid to help you link up. That's all it does. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't do the job for you, it's no 'easy mode', it's just "Fly here, now here, now here", similar to the other training aids and even the tutorials for literally everything else in the game.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Tank50us

[cfrag]

12 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

2. I mean, I am/was a real pilot, so understanding that hey, weather is a thing, or that holy shit navigating from point A to B is a "Skill" is what I'm talking about. Most guys don't care about that and get their E-viagra points by lobbing an AAMRAM at a mig15 and slapping themselves on the back. I guess its "cool" but frankly a sim should be more than that IMO.

 

Hmmm. I'm a fellow RL pilot. I don't know about you, but even though I learned all the navigation skills (and then some), I sill never enter a cockpit without a flight certified GPS in my bag. I fly recreational only, and I don't need the stress ("Thrill?? You want to experience *thrill* flying? Get out of my cockpit!"  ) of potentially having to rely on my skills to locate myself unless I *really* have to. So I fly with GPS and other amenities (moving map on an iPad, fully indexed digital Jeppesen) to make my experience enjoyable, at the peak comfort of whatever is possible (and yeah, I use flight following where available). Why should I fly differently in DCS?

 

Your "Viagra" comment seems to indicate a somewhat derogatory stance towards people who enjoy playing DCS using aids or at less than maximum difficulty. In DCS, I like a certain level of comfort and the fact that I can scale the difficulty of today's challenge to my momentary need. I certainly do not look down on those who enjoy a lesser challenge which - forgive me if I misread you - you seem to do. It's a game, and people should be able to enjoy it as they wish, not at what some other person deems to be what "a sim should be". ED understand that, and since they need to put bread on their tables, they strive to broaden DCS's appeal by allowing a difficulty scale. You and I may not always like that, but that is the way to go in a market. To me, people who enjoy an easier way of flying DCS are in no way lesser players - they merely enjoy playing the game different from the way you and I play it. Some of the hardcore players here too often seem to forget that they are playing a game - a product from the entertainment industry made for the masses to be entertained. The players don't risk their lives each time they take off, fly or land a plane and yet some of them bull**** themselves into believing that they above all want 'realism'. It's entertainment they got, pure and simple; because - truth be told - if their life was on the line, they too would use every aid, help or other advantage available to them. They rely on the ever-present crutch of game-immortality, which allows them to mistake recklessness for "training at maximum difficulty" - without having to pay the consequences. You and I know differently. That's why I feel that people should be able to enjoy that game any which way the pretty well please; playing DCS with aids is exactly as good (or bad) as without. "E-viagra" doesn't enter the picture for either.   

 

10 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

I mean it is in a way. If you can't land a plane, you shouldn't be playing fighter bro slinging AAMRAM's or JDAM's... Same with AAR IMO.

 

Although I tend to agree, I can't find a convincing answer to the question "why not?". Different players, different styles. Who am I to judge how you should enjoy your game? It doesn't make much sense in our frame of reference. That doesn't mean that others might enjoy it - and they have the same right to enjoy DCS as you and I have. So why shouldn't they? It's just your (or mine) 'feeling'. That doesn't really count.

 

 

[Tippis]

8 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

IDK, every proposal I've hear to "teach" AAR sucks..

Could you please elaborate on what sucks about the proposal?

 

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

How are you guys so befuddled with this stuff?!

You should ask yourself that question. You seem vastly more befuddled by the conversation than anyone else since you constantly come up with all these new fantastical misrepresentations of what is actually being asked for.

 

Have you tried reading what people actually write?
Have you tried responding to the points being made?

Have you tried considering the pros and cons of the suggestions offered?

 

Or are you just deliberately staying ignorant because it's your only method to make it seem like you have anything to say, and to derail the conversation like you always try to do?

 

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s not a multiple choice question.

Yes it is. The fact that you have yet to grasp this, and why it is so, is the main reason why your input on the matter is completely worthless: because you don't actually understand what is being asked for and how it would help, in spite of it having been explained to you extensively. You are either incapable of understanding, or you deliberately ignoring the explanations. So at best, you're just adding noise that shows how much interest there is in this feature; at worst, you're a troll, which shows that this feature is needed.

 

You get to pick which one actually applies to you, but it is one of those two and nothing else.

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Tippis

[Черный Дракул]

9 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

That damage model has needed fixing for a decade or more, whats ED's excuse?

IDK. Probably that would require addition of actual missile frag patterns? At least they are attempting it now, which gives hope for frag patterns for air-to-ground ordnance. 

 

9 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

IDK, every proposal I've hear to "teach" AAR sucks... You need to learn basics like formation flying, something any cadet in any airforce will be washed out for if they can't do it. It takes time, it takes pracice.

Having a visible envelope with a visible sweetspot definitely does not suck. Having a grid around does not, either. Having visible command lights, as well. Formation flying? Remember it's also rejoin and position switch, as well as holding exactly the same position. 

Besides, DFUA lights and TACAN on the tanker are already an attempt at this exact function, just with old technology: they tell you how much are you missing the spot and where you should move towards. And like all the old technology they are hard, especially for people with no prior skill. Actual pilots in the 80's didn't have more than this, their flight instructors and probably some simulations to help them -- but we're not in  the 80's and not in the actual sky, so we can use more tools to learn and practice complex stuff. 

 

8 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

no "real" fighter pilot would be allowed to drop a bomb IRL if "they" couldn't fly in formation

And no real fighter pilot would be allowed to drop a bomb IRL if they couldn't do AAR as well?  Moving into the exactly defined spot in the exactly defined matter and holding there for quite some time is not a "formation flying". 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s not a multiple choice question. There’s only one place you need to fly to put the thing in the thing. Anyone doing it successfully will show you the same position. 

Yup, and then you just need to imagine where it is on your system, imagine the envelope around it and just judge how far you are missing it and correctly (! if not, you'll be practicing wrong) judge why is that so. Simple, right? Well, it can be helped with, you know, visualizing the whole thing, like People of Old were trying to (see my response to second quote above), but with modern technology and game engine. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Черный Дракул

[Tank50us]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

Your "Viagra" comment seems to indicate a somewhat derogatory stance towards people who enjoy playing DCS using aids or at less than maximum difficulty. In DCS, I like a certain level of comfort and the fact that I can scale the difficulty of today's challenge to my momentary need. I certainly do not look down on those who enjoy a lesser challenge which - forgive me if I misread you - you seem to do. It's a game, and people should be able to enjoy it as they wish, not at what some other person deems to be what "a sim should be". ED understand that, and since they need to put bread on their tables, they strive to broaden DCS's appeal by allowing a difficulty scale. You and I may not always like that, but that is the way to go in a market. To me, people who enjoy an easier way of flying DCS are in no way lesser players - they merely enjoy playing the game different from the way you and I play it. Some of the hardcore players here too often seem to forget that they are playing a game - a product from the entertainment industry made for the masses to be entertained. The players don't risk their lives each time they take off, fly or land a plane and yet some of them bull**** themselves into believing that they above all want 'realism'. It's entertainment they got, pure and simple; because - truth be told - if their life was on the line, they too would use every aid, help or other advantage available to them. They rely on the ever-present crutch of game-immortality, which allows them to mistake recklessness for "training at maximum difficulty" - without having to pay the consequences. You and I know differently. That's why I feel that people should be able to enjoy that game any which way the pretty well please; playing DCS with aids is exactly as good (or bad) as without. "E-viagra" doesn't enter the picture for either.   

 

Yup. This. Very much this. All of it.

If I pull a hard turn in my Tomcat, and the wings snap off, and I eject, oh well, I just respawn. I won't get a bill from Congress for the $35,000,000 pile of scrap that landed on someone's $150,000 house, and I won't be facing charges for the countless lives my reckless actions put at risk.

 

If I shoot down an enemy plane on the wrong side of a DMZ, there's no war kicking off, no need to get ambassadors to a negotiating table to try and avert a major conflict.

If I land my plane on an airfield I'm not supposed to, I'm not facing charges for it, I'm not getting questioned my multiple DAs, with my JAG constantly telling me "Don't answer that".

It's a game at the end of the day, there's no real world consequences for making a mistake other than just having to respawn and try it all again. Heck, I don't even have an Instructor chewing me out while I'm in Front-Lean-and-Rest for making a bone-headed mistake in a simulator.

 

As @cfrag stated, we should welcome every training aid suggested here, and talk about the merits of any specific idea, and maybe come up with something that will help those new players before they get frustrated and give up. We want this game to expand, and more people trying the game means more people buying modules which funds the development of new modules so that we finally get the planes we really want. The people who are here love aviation, and are currently starved for a realistic portrayal of modern aircraft, which DCS offers, and few other games even attempt. War Thunder? They're stuck at mid cold war right now, and even if they do add more modern jets, it will take years for most players to get access to those planes, unless they are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to get access to them... far more than what it costs to get a single module in DCS.

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, Tank50us said:

but imagine yourself as someone new to the game, trying to learn it all for the first time, and for bonus points, we'll say that this person isn't in a group willing to help him learn.

I figured it out that way. It’s not a big stretch to know where your aircraft is supposed to be. The big part is all the practice. That wouldn’t change if your keeping position with dots in the sky or the tanker. IMO what you’re suggesting just wouldn’t help. 

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

I figured it out that way. It’s not a big stretch to know where your aircraft is supposed to be. The big part is all the practice.

…and your choosing to do it the most inefficient, impractical, and potentially harmful way possible doesn't mean that the practice you preach so much shouldn't be aided by far better learning and teaching tools. So why should others have to go through the wasteful slog? “I did” is not a valid response.

 

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

That wouldn’t change if your keeping position with dots in the sky or the tanker

Of course it would.

You see, dots in the sky can do something the tanker can't: actually indicate where you're supposed to go; what you're supposed to do next; and how much you're supposed to do it.

 

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

IMO what you’re suggesting just wouldn’t help. 

Why? You just keep stating it as a given but you have at no point been able to articulate anything that even remotely resembles an actual reason or argument in favour of your stance. All you've offered is long-disproven nonsense that you put on repeat in the hopes that repeating it will somehow make it true.

[maxTRX]

I know I can't bunch everyone here in a single group. Different ages, backgrounds. etc. Game/sim, doesn't matter... for most folks here it is always about competing, even when learning.

It feels different when you learned something without silly crutches.

If someone doesn't want to join a group, it's an extra kick when you find your own crutches and raise that bar on your own.  There are no shortcuts or revelations... formations, formations and more formations will get this done. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Черный Дракул said:

and then you just need to imagine where it is on your system

I still don’t understand the confusion. You don’t need to “imagine” the position you need to be in. You can see it. In the probe & drogue aircraft or the A-10 you can literally see which thing needs to go to that thing. And the in other USAF planes you can see the belly lights, there’s already a guide for you right there.  It’s abundantly obvious. What purpose would be served by extra graphics?

Edited June 27, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Harlikwin]

10 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

Funnily enough, this is another thing that ED can learn from another simulator, and add as a function that can be turned off: A formation 'dot'. Basically, when a player spawns into a squad leader position in that game, they don't see this dot, but everyone else does, and that dot shows them where they're supposed to be in the formation. This could take the form of a HUD indicator, or as a little grey dot that appears in a point in space with the thing you're trying to form up on (in this case, the tanker). Once it's 'your turn' to refuel, the tanker can give you audible instructions on what to do next, and a pop-up... well... pops up similar to the meatball for the SCM. It's a thing that can be turned off for those that don't need it (although the audible stuff is in dire need anyway so the tanker can manage the chaos of planes lining up for gas).

This is I think the best way to help people learn. Remember, you cite real pilots, but they spend hundreds of hours in a simulator learning how to do it before they do it for real, and they also benefit from things that we sim pilots will never have, like actual depth perception and aircraft feedback (IE, a real pilot can feel what his plane is doing much better than we can in DCS).

 

Like I said I don't mind stuff like this as "aids" but again, I question its utility. As sharpeXB stated tanking is more or less a put TAB-A into SLOT-B procedure, and at least for the basket tankers you pretty much can see where to put tab-A. The skill part is actually doing it. If someone can come up with some sort of box or whatnot representation of where you should be thats fine, but I think the actual skill is gonna be a) getting into that box, and b) staying in the box

[Tippis]

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I still don’t understand the confusion.

It has been explained in full, here and in other threads that you've tried to derail with this wilful ignorance. Have you tried reading the posts?

There is no confusion other than on your part, and that confusion is only there because you are dead set against actually reading the multitude of explanations offered to you.

 

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You don’t need to “imagine” the position you need to be in.

Yes you do. You see, what you're being shown on someone else's system is not the same thing as what you will see on your own.

How they've set up their system and their views will not correspond to how you've done it.

Getting your eye in is a huge part of the equation — so huge that you even reference it yourself — but here's the thing: it's about getting your eye in, not someone else's. If all you ever do is look at someone else's view of the position, the only way to translate it into something that applies to you is to… [drum roll]… imagine it. Shocking, I know.

 

Or, it could just be shown to you interactively so you don't need to rely on some imagined translation of someone else's view, but rather be your own from the very start. It's infinitely more helpful that way.

 

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

In the probe & drogue aircraft or the A-10 you can literally see which thing needs to go to that thing.

You mean the thing that you're not supposed to look at, as you are so fond of telling people? Wow, that's helpful  

 

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And the in other USAF planes you can see the belly lights, there’s already a guide for you right there.

…things that need to be pointed out to you (if they're at all visible, which is a long-standing issue in DCS) and which need to be interpreted, but where good real-time instruction and indications would help clarify a whole lot. So really, what you're saying here is that your earlier spiel about how these things that guide you to where you need to be are unrealistic and distracting, is actually not true — it's something that exists. It's something that can be enhanced, enlarged, made clearer, made more obvious, and all that without being distracting.  

 

 

44 minutes ago, Gripes323 said:

If someone doesn't want to join a group, it's an extra kick when you find your own crutches and raise that bar on your own.  There are no shortcuts or revelations... formations, formations and more formations will get this done. 

There are plenty of shortcuts to be had if the repetition and practice is properly guided, and if there are ways that help you raise that bar one step at a time.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Like I said I don't mind stuff like this as "aids" but again, I question its utility

So, again, could you comment on the many proposals being made, and why they wouldn't help in acquiring those two skills you list?

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

 

Hmmm. I'm a fellow RL pilot. I don't know about you, but even though I learned all the navigation skills (and then some), I sill never enter a cockpit without a flight certified GPS in my bag. I fly recreational only, and I don't need the stress ("Thrill?? You want to experience *thrill* flying? Get out of my cockpit!"  ) of potentially having to rely on my skills to locate myself unless I *really* have to. So I fly with GPS and other amenities (moving map on an iPad, fully indexed digital Jeppesen) to make my experience enjoyable, at the peak comfort of whatever is possible (and yeah, I use flight following where available). Why should I fly differently in DCS?

 

Your "Viagra" comment seems to indicate a somewhat derogatory stance towards people who enjoy playing DCS using aids or at less than maximum difficulty. In DCS, I like a certain level of comfort and the fact that I can scale the difficulty of today's challenge to my momentary need. I certainly do not look down on those who enjoy a lesser challenge which - forgive me if I misread you - you seem to do. It's a game, and people should be able to enjoy it as they wish, not at what some other person deems to be what "a sim should be". ED understand that, and since they need to put bread on their tables, they strive to broaden DCS's appeal by allowing a difficulty scale. You and I may not always like that, but that is the way to go in a market. To me, people who enjoy an easier way of flying DCS are in no way lesser players - they merely enjoy playing the game different from the way you and I play it. Some of the hardcore players here too often seem to forget that they are playing a game - a product from the entertainment industry made for the masses to be entertained. The players don't risk their lives each time they take off, fly or land a plane and yet some of them bull**** themselves into believing that they above all want 'realism'. It's entertainment they got, pure and simple; because - truth be told - if their life was on the line, they too would use every aid, help or other advantage available to them. They rely on the ever-present crutch of game-immortality, which allows them to mistake recklessness for "training at maximum difficulty" - without having to pay the consequences. You and I know differently. That's why I feel that people should be able to enjoy that game any which way the pretty well please; playing DCS with aids is exactly as good (or bad) as without. "E-viagra" doesn't enter the picture for either.   

 

 

Although I tend to agree, I can't find a convincing answer to the question "why not?". Different players, different styles. Who am I to judge how you should enjoy your game? It doesn't make much sense in our frame of reference. That doesn't mean that others might enjoy it - and they have the same right to enjoy DCS as you and I have. So why shouldn't they? It's just your (or mine) 'feeling'. That doesn't really count.

 

 

 

Yeah, I get it everyone uses GPS these days and other fancy equipment, I started flying long enough ago that I had to learn it the "hard" way first. Part of the charm of DCS for me is using the older stuff, without the actual RL consequences of getting it wrong. My comment was really aimed at the "DCS aces" that couldn't be bothered to punch in coordinates, for airfields, or targets etc. on their fancy nav or weapon systems. Or know how to use the ILS system on the Viper etc. So at some point I just roll my eyes at it all. Its not so much about difficulty at that point, its just the attitude of "I know one way to do a task" (and incorrectly at that per actual RL procedures) so I'm just gonna stamp my feet until the server lets me do it my way and its sadly a prevalent attitude on many online servers. And then it snowballs into topics like expecting unrealistic performance from AC or weapons because they don't know how or why they are actually employed the way they are. And the attitude is that they are the greatest fighter ace on the server cuz they can sling an aamram and exploit the rather "cheaty" DCS mechanics relating to air to air combat. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Tippis said:

 

So, again, could you comment on the many proposals being made, and why they wouldn't help in acquiring those two skills you list?

 

I mean I just think that getting into the box or whatnot isn't really the issue. Its staying there thats the hard part and nudging up to the basket with small fine movements without overcorrecting IMO, and I don't really see how the "dots" or "boxes" are gonna help you with that. I mean I absolutely can see when I overshoot the basket or if I'm too low or high, I don't need a box to tell me that. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Tippis]

44 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

I mean I just think that getting into the box or whatnot isn't really the issue. Its staying there thats the hard part and nudging up to the basket with small fine movements without overcorrecting IMO, and I don't really see how the "dots" or "boxes" are gonna help you with that. I mean I absolutely can see when I overshoot the basket or if I'm too low or high, I don't need a box to tell me that.

How far in advance can you see that? How long did it take you to see it that far in advance? When did you pick up on what your point of reference for this misalignment was? You don't need a box to tell you these things, but you already know what to look for. How do you transfer that tacit knowledge to someone who doesn't? How do you show them when you can't be there to guide them? How do you tell that they're looking at the wrong thing? How do you direct them to the right thing?

 

But more to the point, what makes you think that breaking this learning process down into discrete steps that can be handled one at a time - both the seeing things and the precision control part - wouldn't help in creating an actual learning curve rather than the steep all-at-once cliff that it currently is?

 

You've said, and repeated, what you think but you haven't really explained why, or addressed why the suggestions offered would not work or would have no effect. Why would the breakdown of "getting your eye in" that I describe not be helpful? Why would a similar breakdown of manoeuvring the aircraft not be helpful?

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

How far in advance can you see that? How long did it take you to see it that far in advance? When did you pick up on what your point of reference for this misalignment was? You don't need a box to tell you these things, but you already know what to look for. How do you transfer that tacit knowledge to someone who doesn't? How do you show them when you can't be there to guide them? How do you tell that they're looking at the wrong thing? How do you direct them to the right thing?

 

But more to the point, what makes you think that breaking this learning process down into discrete steps that can be handled one at a time - both the seeing things and the precision control part - wouldn't help in creating an actual learning curve rather than the steep all-at-once cliff that it currently is?

 

You've said, and repeated, what you think but you haven't really explained why, or addressed why the suggestions offered would not work or would have no effect. Why would the breakdown of "getting your eye in" that I describe not be helpful? Why would a similar breakdown of manoeuvring the aircraft not be helpful?

 

I'm not saying that they wont work, I just don't really see the utility vs a video instructing you how to do it and it seems like it would be a major lift for ED to do it, and IMO you'd get 90% of the same value from a video. 

[Черный Дракул]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

You don’t need to “imagine” the position you need to be in. You can see it.

Sadly, you cannot. The position is always a virtual one, with no clear indication of both the sweet spot and the envelope around it. 

 

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

And the in other USAF planes you can see the belly lights, there’s already a guide for you right there.  It’s abundantly obvious. What purpose would be served by extra graphics?

Let's take F-15C, for example. The refuelling orifice is on the left wing, so you can't use tanker centerline to guide yourself horizontally (the crutch in DCS is aiming at the tanker's right wing root). The height guide is "a bit below the boom lower end you can no longer see -- and keep it that way". If that's not vague, I don't know what is. Sink rates are not aparent (especially slow ones) and, unlike the real plane, you can't feel these. Slight speed mismatch is not felt until it requires for corrections, and throttle settings can vary. 

The extra graphics would easily solve these problems. 

 

4 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

nudging up to the basket with small fine movements without overcorrecting IMO, and I don't really see how the "dots" or "boxes" are gonna help you with that. I mean I absolutely can see when I overshoot the basket or if I'm too low or high, I don't need a box to tell me that. 

With the probe-and-basket method it's much more easy since the basket is effectively displaying the sweet spot for you. It can still be made better, with some tanker-attached grid to inform you that you are speeding/sinking, while displaying how far you can deviate before it disconnects -- but the main problem is, of course, with aircraft using boom behind the cockpit method, like F-16 or F-15. There, the sweet spot is purely virtual with no clear indication. You can approximately guess it from the tanker view, but this requires long adjustment and practice -- that's where the main benefit of visual aids could come into play. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

I'm not saying that they wont work, I just don't really see the utility vs a video instructing you how to do it and it seems like it would be a major lift for ED to do it, and IMO you'd get 90% of the same value from a video. 

I went over all of that in my post.

The tl;dr is quite simple: lolno.

 

The difference compared to a static, non-interactive video is obvious and massive.

The vast majority of the parts are already in place.

A video would give you 10% of the value because, again, it's static and non-interactive.

[SharpeXB]

34 minutes ago, Черный Дракул said:

It can still be made better, with some tanker-attached grid to inform you that you are speeding/sinking, while displaying how far you can deviate before it disconnects

I don’t quite understand how you’re so confused, but you can literally all see this by watching the tanker. Some “grid” or graphics in the game would just be confusing and distracting and a bunch of needless work for ED. You can see your own relative speed, climbing, sinking etc visually without any extra aid except your own eyeballs. The boom is marked with colored bands where you can see it’s range of motion and there are lights on the tanker (for USAF) which show your height and relative speed limits. I think the problem here is that you just need to learn how to do this correctly before making all these suggestions. All of what you’re asking for is already shown to you. 

34 minutes ago, Черный Дракул said:

but the main problem is, of course, with aircraft using boom behind the cockpit method, like F-16 or F-15. There, the sweet spot is purely virtual with no clear indication.

Again there are lights on the belly of the tanker to show you the correct position. Learn what these are instead of saying there’s “no clear indication”. The F-16’s port is right in the center so aligning down the center of the tanker is easy. For the F-15 just find a visual cue on the tanker to align yourself to and look at the lights. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t quite understand how you’re so confused

He's not.

The phrase that seems to befuddle you so immensely is “be made better”.

Once you come to grips with what that means, your understanding will improve massively.

 

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Some “grid” or graphics in the game would just be confusing and distracting and a bunch of needless work for ED.

How would it be confusing when, according to you, it already exists? For the same reason, how would it be distracting? Also, what are you even basing those assertions on? Is it just your own inability to visualise how it would work, or your own inability to process multiple visual cues at once, and then baselessly generalising that individual inability to everyone, when you haven't got a clue about how other people process visual information? You have not once indicated any kind of understanding of any of the proposals, so why wouldn't we assume that your fictional “confusion” stems from nothing more than your imagination of a worst-case scenario that you've purposefully constructed for yourself just to make it as confusing (to you) as possible, whereas an intelligent and sensible solution would be nothing like the mess you've wilfully and maliciously constructed for yourself?

 

How much work would it entail, and how do you calculate that?

By what measure is it “needless”?

 

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The boom is

…that thing that you always insist you shouldn't be looking at. So why are you now suggesting that people should look at it? Wouldn't that be very confusing and distracting?

 

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I think the problem here is that you just need to learn how to do this correctly before making all these suggestions.

So why are you so adamantly opposed to all the suggestions that would make it easier to learn how to do it correctly? Isn't that pretty contradictory and self-defeating?

 

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Again there are lights on the belly of the tanker to show you the correct position. Learn what these are instead of saying there’s “no clear indication”. The F-16’s port is right in the center so aligning down the center of the tanker is easy. For the F-15 just find a visual cue on the tanker to align yourself to and look at the lights.

You do know that these lights are pretty famous for not being all that clear, right? And how do you propose to “find the visual cue” if you have no idea what it is beforehand? Oh, and wouldn't a visual cue be — per your previous assertion — confusing and distracting? Have you actually done any of the things you're suggesting here or is it all based on assumption and guesswork without any actual research or personal experience, as have so often been the case with your non-arguments before?

[maxTRX]

If ED makes a 'funnel'/grid/point/gates' or any other type of visual indicators to guide the rookies who skipped FORMATION training...  good luck.

If they create some sort of force field inside a funnel that will 'nudge' the rookie to stay in the funnel and correct the speed when needed, that might work, until rookie realizes he won't be making any learning progress and decides to follow the universally accepted training syllabus and takes FORMATION course.

Anyways, 

Regardless if it's a basket or a boom, the initial approach will be similar. Once joined up the left side of the tanker (right side is cool too if that what the group wants to do) in observation position which can be slightly above the tanker or below, wait your turn. Scoot over to a position behind and below the tanker, remembering not to hit the wake turbulence.

Now, you have to know beforehand what visual cues for what airframe you will be lining up on. As it was mentioned already, what difference does it make whether your reference is some point on the refueler and how it lines up with your canopy bow, mirror, whatever... or the GRID.  The lights on the boom type tankers work pretty good but they are not necessary.

Orbiting AI tankers create a bit of a problem, for me at least. Every time I bank, the VV dips a tiny bit. Leveling up brings the VV up. Adding even a smidgen of power, bumps the VV up, not much just enough to throw me off. So... it took me quite a few times to get the handle on all this.

In a Hornet, there is already a crutch that could be very helpful when gassing up from an orbiting tanker or in other difficult conditions. ATTH... (I can see some old timers frowning already )

It helps tremendously to stabilize the flight path. 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Gripes323