Air Refueling Cheat

[Furiz]

2 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Well what was asked for is to provide a) a way to "enhance" the AAR box for the connection and may be a tether that keeps the connection to the basket/boom similar to how another combat sim does it. As this will be a client/single player option you wouldn't even notice that refueling is different for the other guy as nothing (!) changes on your side.

b) training missions that correct you, with a tanker calling out turns in advance, a boom operator that talks to you other than "return pre-contact" and maybe some overlay guides (again client side) to give you indications what exactly you do wrong and help you improve rather than learning bad habits.

 

a) that would make everyone just use the option cause it would be easier, and then the sim slowly but surely is turning into arcade game, piece by piece.

b) training missions, I'm completely fine with that, make training missions with all the help there is, just don't transfer that help into the actual game because of "a)"

     When they learn in training mission with aids then they can refuel the normal way right?

 

As for comms, yea that should be improved to more than just "ready pre-contact", turn announces, distance from boom calls, amount of fuel transferred etc..

[shagrat]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Well if a campaign uses it that’s a good reason to learn. I learned it for a particular campaign. Before that I had no real use for it. And afaik all DCS campaigns let you use any realsm setting you like. 

Yeah, but fighting and landing with 100% unlimited fuel is not working out exactly as the campaign designer intended... And as you said before you need to buy a decent Joystick, head tracking etc. to make it work.

I guess a lot of new customers aren't exactly happy about that "extra investment". 

I have no idea why you oppose the idea of a help that doesn't even change anything on your end and wouldn't even be noticable, other than pure spite and a weird feeling of getting your feel of "achievement" reduced.

As far as I can tell, "Git gud" doesn't cut it, and is nothing like EDs mantra behind DCS to provide a simulation that allows beginners to hardcore sim enthusiasts to learn, enjoy and progress and adjust their game experience to their level.

[Tank50us]

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Hey the stuff ED says they are actually working on takes years to finish. So something they have “no plans” for? Don’t hold your breath waiting…

 

Except, they said that about the AH64, mere months before they announced that they were working on it. So the idea of them changing their mind depending on which day of the week it is, isn't that far fetched.

 

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

It sounds like the opposite. If your eyes are drawn to the thing that is giving you feedback on how well you're doing, that's a good thing.

 

This would be especially true if the visual aids are in the places your eyes are supposed to be looking anyway.

3 minutes ago, shagrat said:

I guess a lot of new customers aren't exactly happy about that "extra investment". 

 

Because that 'extra investment is typically very expensive, and for a period of several months, prohibitively expensive due to a lack of supply.

[Furiz]

5 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

Except, they said that about the AH64, mere months before they announced that they were working on it. So the idea of them changing their mind depending on which day of the week it is, isn't that far fetched.

 

I doubt they will change their mind with you and Tippis posting around 50 times in this thread with nonsense arguments just to keep the thread up, and the OP which is long gone who asked for this cheat cause he cant refuel with a gamepad controller.

 

Sorry I just don't see them even rethinking their decision about this matter.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Furiz

[shagrat]

38 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

a) that would make everyone just use the option cause it would be easier, and then the sim slowly but surely is turning into arcade game, piece by piece.

b) training missions, I'm completely fine with that, make training missions with all the help there is, just don't transfer that help into the actual game because of "a)"

     When they learn in training mission with aids then they can refuel the normal way right?

 

As for comms, yea that should be improved to more than just "ready pre-contact", turn announces, distance from boom calls, amount of fuel transferred etc..

You shouldn't assume everyone works like you. I know for a fact a lot of people used some of the existing helpers to get a feel and idea how to do things, and dialed them down, and/or deactivated them when they found their ground.

I started the Bf.109 with rudder assist active and dialed it down as I got better at anticipating the torque and wind impacts... Same for unlimited ammo or fuel. It is a big help when you try focusing on learning bombing runs, to not need to watch the fuel gauge or have only 2-4 bombs, but as soon as you learned the parameters and queues this option is deactivated in all "none bomb practice missions". And even IF AAR would be easier for everyone but you, what is YOUR loss? No longer the cool kid on the block? I mean you have any idea how many people use the auto start-up cheat? Sure everyone is using it, as it is "easier", so maybe I am the only one doing real start-up with my personal checklist and everyone else does auto start-up and I just can't tell?

But what would be the effect for me? I can't think of anything that would affect my gameplay.

Edited June 28, 2021 by shagrat
Typos corrected

[Tippis]

18 minutes ago, Furiz said:

I doubt they will change their mind with you and Tippis posting around 50 times in this thread with nonsense arguments

Just because no-one has been able to address, much less refute, those arguments doesn't make them “nonsense”. Quite the opposite.

 

18 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Sorry I just don't see them even rethinking their decision about this matter.

Why would it be any different from their other decisions about things that they had no plans for but which then came to pass? Especially when it is in line with how they describe their product?

 

  

24 minutes ago, Furiz said:

that would make everyone just use the option cause it would be easier, and then the sim slowly but surely is turning into arcade game, piece by piece.

The game as it exists right now, with the options it has to make all kinds of things easier, already disproves this even if slippery-slope arguments weren't bogus pretty much from the start. Adding training tools to a study sim does not turn it into an arcade game — they turn it into even more of a study sim. That's why the options to do that already exist, and why it hasn't become an arcade game yet even though it apparently should have if that logic held true.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Tippis

[shagrat]

42 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You’re really holding out hope based upon that? “at this point”? 
Hey the stuff ED says they are actually working on takes years to finish. So something they have “no plans” for? Don’t hold your breath waiting…

You would be astonished how many little things have been added e.g. in the Mission Editor that were "not planned" a couple months ago. Mostly sneaked in internally and some not even mentioned in the changelogs.

You know there were requests to have a way to build a FARP without the need for the "Aztec hill" that sneaked in under the radar, because actually ED and the Devs listen to us. Sure there is and has to be(!) a priorisation and management of ressources, but that is something that's in a constant flux. So yes, I actually have high hopes there is already a line in the to do list and some point in time it either gets a priority or fits into the schedule/work planned for say the AAR overhaul to improve the voice over interaction, boom operator behavior etc. 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by shagrat
Typos

[SharpeXB]

53 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Yeah, but fighting and landing with 100% unlimited fuel is not working out exactly as the campaign designer intended

The only campaign I know of which requires AAR is Maple Flag because it’s part of the whole Qualification Course. I don’t think any other campaigns require you to since it is actually such a difficult task. They all have workarounds for it. 

56 minutes ago, shagrat said:

And as you said before you need to buy a decent Joystick, head tracking etc. to make it work

You need these really to play DCS decently at all. Not just AAR.

[SharpeXB]

58 minutes ago, shagrat said:

I have no idea why you oppose the idea of a help

Because:

- it’s a waste of resources which could be better spent elsewhere

 

 - It wouldn’t actually help or make the task any easier, probably it would just hinder learning. 
 

- It would become yet another server setting and be divisive online 

 

- And it wouldn’t end any of these AAR debates because players would just argue endlessly about the nature or design of the assistance. 

 

All around it’s just not a good use of resources IMO

 

[shagrat]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You need these really to play DCS decently at all. Not just AAR.

Actually you don't. A simple Logitech 3D is quite ok, for most things.

By that logic, to play DCS "decently" you "need" a center mount and stick extension, 2nd or better 3rd gen VR-headset (and PC to specs), VoiceAttack and VaiCom to work the comms in VR and a force feedback seat doesn't hurt either, though it isn't strictly necessary.

You should be able to at least manage to do all things required with a basic setup (4-Axis Joystick with a hat), keyboard, mouse and normal monitor.

From there you can upgrade (sky is the limit), but it isn't a requirement.

I still miss anything explaining why an AAR help that does not affect your gameplay (same as auto start-up) is something that you oppose so heavily?

Is it really just about ego? Or is their a gap in communication and you don't understand what "no impact" / "not noticable" means?

How do you currently identify the cheaters who use auto start-up to make it easier for them?

[shagrat]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Because:

- it’s a waste of resources which could be better spent elsewhere

 

 - It wouldn’t actually help or make the task any easier, probably it would just hinder learning. 
 

- It would become yet another server setting and be divisive online 

 

- And it wouldn’t end any of these AAR debates because players would just argue endlessly about the nature or design of the assistance. 

 

All around it’s just not a good use of resources IMO

 

That is a decision done by ED, not you, luckily. And if someone is reworking the AAR (which is already planned, maybe worked on in the backgroun, like ATC) it is a good idea to integrate any AAR related work, rather than later start over...

Depending on how the code works, it may be even a simple addition of a slider to change values for the connection box. Or the force required to disconnect... but I have no access to the code, so I am careful to say "it's easy".

And as you are too lazy to read what is proposed in all the threads about AAR helper: It MUST be client side! NOT a server setting! As the flightmodel processed LOCALLY on the client. So like the auto start-up, you would not even notice.

Or does the auto start divide the player base in any noticeable way?

It would look on your side as if an AI aircraft refuels.

Actually that would be the easiest helper, select "Refuel me" from Tanker Radio menu, deactivate client controls (like when you switch units) and let AI do the tanking, in the reform area take back control...

 

[SharpeXB]

38 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Actually you don't. A simple Logitech 3D is quite ok, for most things.

Yeah. A joystick. I also think head tracking is just about as vital. I think I’d rather play this with an Xbox controller than without TrackIR. And it’s possible to make free head tracking devices so it’s really not much of an obstacle. 

[SharpeXB]

30 minutes ago, shagrat said:

so I am careful to say "it's easy".

Nothing is easy. 
 

It’s especially ridiculous for players who can’t do this to keep thinking they have the best ideas to make it easier. How can you design aids & helpers for something you don’t have the ability to do?

[Tippis]

30 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah. A joystick. I also think head tracking is just about as vital.

It's really not. Not even a joystick is “vital” since the game is purposefully designed around the idea of being playable with all kinds of input devices.

Maybe you just need to practice more, and stop generalising from your favourite deeply flawed sample of one. You've already demonstrated in great and glorious detail how unfamiliar and confused you are by even the most basic facts about the game, so when you make statements like this, they just further cement the impression that you're not qualified for having a discussion on this topic — you just don't know the game and its functionality to be able to say anything about it.

 

24 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Nothing is easy. 

This is blatantly false.

The problem you keep having in this thread (and indeed all others your respond to) is that you always base your assumptions on these kinds of hilariously fantastical and counterfactual propositions, and then you end up having to tie yourself into a pleated knot when you futilely try to defend these fabrications with layers upon layers of new fictions and lies.

 

…not to mention that if it were true, all you've done here is provide the best reason ever for ED to spend the majority of their time on implementing what would have to be universally applicable helper systems rather than some niche-interest aircraft modules. Oops.

 

24 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s especially ridiculous for players who can’t do this to keep thinking they have the best ideas to make it easier

How is it ridiculous that those who are having problems are good candidates for knowing what the problem is? For knowing what they're having trouble with? For having a pretty much innate feeling of what is hard and what is easy, and how the hard bits can be made easier? In fact, no-one is more qualified to point out what could be made easier than the ones that are having problems — if you know what to do, it's all easy, so you no longer have that perspective and you have to think harder (and have a much higher chance of being wrong) to figure out what needs fixing. Doubly so if you've campaigned to make it impossible to demonstrate these kinds of things… oops, again.  

 

There's nothing ridiculous about that at all and it's more than ridiculous to make such an ignorant and sweeping statement. The only thing that could conceivably be more ridiculous than that is to make presumptions about what players can and cannot do, and then dismissing their ideas based on nothing but this inherently invalid assumption.

 

24 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

How can you design aids & helpers for something you don’t have the ability to do?

It's pretty trivial if you have even a single analytical bone in your body.

This may explain why you're having a hard time understanding how easily it's done and why you think all things are difficult.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think any other campaigns require you to since it is actually such a difficult task. They all have workarounds for it. 

Do you think that maybe there's a reason for this? That maybe there would be more campaigns that did it, and without resorting to workarounds, if there were tools available that let more players play those campaigns at whatever skill level they had? Hmmm… it's almost as if deliberately denying access to content to some players leads to there being less content for all players.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Tippis

[Tank50us]

Since I've had to explain it several times by now, and people still think it would be bad to have, I created this handy concept of how I think it should look, and designed it to be as unintrusive as possible, as well as something relatively easy to understand.

This screen cap was taken while one of my unit members was doing some AAR practice, I opened up Paint Tool Sai, and added the bits I've been talking about. In this shot, you can see he's slightly behind and off center, but still has contact (the red CTCT in the bottom left), his throttle (the red bar) is in 'the zone' to maintain position, and as he has no use for the air brake, it's grey (if it were a different color, he'd have to use it, if it flashed, he'd have to break off).

Fairly simple concept, no more intrusive than the IFLOLs bit on the Super Carrier, and if this was present in the game, and he was online, and he had it turned on, there wouldn't be an issue as it would be local to him, and him alone. And given that these are simple graphics, it would mean that people playing the game on potato powered PCs could still use it when the lights on the tanker aren't working as advertised.

 

Now, if someone can come up with a valid reason why this system wouldn't work, and has an actual critique and or better design, then I'll happily redesign it. But until then, I think I'll submit this to some of the ED guys I have talked to, and see what they have to say about it.

[SharpeXB]

57 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Actually that would be the easiest helper, select "Refuel me" from Tanker Radio menu, deactivate client controls (like when you switch units) and let AI do the tanking, in the reform area take back control...

That’s hilarious. So selecting Unlimited Fuel isn’t realistic but watching your plane fly and refuel itself is?

If you’re going to go that route DCS already has an “Easy AAR” feature. Just select Unlimited Fuel, go to the Mission Planner and give yourself whatever level you think is sorta realistic. Then while on your mission, just pretend you’re low on fuel, navigate over to the tanker, maybe even try to connect. Then pretend you’re all topped off and carry on. Literally no different than what you’re suggesting except it doesn’t require any work from ED and it would be more immersive as gameplay.  

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Now, if someone can come up with a valid reason why this system wouldn't work, and has an actual critique and or better design, then I'll happily redesign it.

I could almost… maybe… imagine having the belly light graphic on the screen, like the IFLOLS for the Super Carrier. But… again your attention is diverted off to the side of the screen and you’re gonna try to fly looking sideways at this and it just makes things worse. Also I think your graphic isn’t bold and clear enough for peripheral vision to pick up. The belly light graphic might be. And the other issue is that those lights are really only useful for 2 planes in DCS and not realistic for all the others. 

[Tank50us]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And the other issue is that those lights are really only useful for 2 planes in DCS and not realistic for all the others. 

 

3 (F16 [pictured], F15C, and A10), with more on the way. If this were a Hornet, and you were trying to hook up to an MPRS, the 'line-up' indicator would be on the reel, as that is where you're supposed to be looking anyway.

 

As for the throttle graphic, I don't know about you, but when I'm looking at my screen when flying, my eyes tend to be all over the cockpit anyway (as I primary the Tomcat), so seeing that on screen if I was hooked up would just be another thing to check every couple seconds while I'm taking fuel... along with all the other things I'd be checking while taking fuel.

[Exorcet]

13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s hilarious. So selecting Unlimited Fuel isn’t realistic but watching your plane fly and refuel itself is?

 

Well let's do a quick comparison

 

Advantages of AAR assist in terms of realism:

 

Player must manage fuel, and fuel use is physics based (ie realistic and consistent with other players)

Players must consider fuel in loadout (no flying 10000 miles on internals with 20 bombs loaded on the wings)

Because of the two above factors, aircraft performance is realistically penalized

Player must be aware of position of tanker and how to interact with it (TACAN, radio, etc)

 

AAR assist sounds vastly more immersive and realistic all over. And if you're content with people "pretending" about their fuel state, I don't think you can claim to care much about realism anyway.

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The belly light graphic might be. And the other issue is that those lights are really only useful for 2 planes in DCS and not realistic for all the others. 

It's fine, that graphic could serve as an accurate indicator of position. Once a player is lined up according to it, they can take their eyes off it and look at the tanker and then memorize the tanker's position for future AAR without assists. Not to mention flying with the indicator on would allow building muscle memory. Could be especially effective in a training mission.

[randomTOTEN]

17 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Since I've had to explain it several times by now, and people still think it would be bad to have, I created this handy concept of how I think it should look, and designed it to be as unintrusive as possible, as well as something relatively easy to understand.

 

...Now, if someone can come up with a valid reason why this system wouldn't work, and has an actual critique and or better design, then I'll happily redesign it.

Nobody should be looking down at the bottom left of their screen during AAR. If you think it's okay to do that, it's very likely the reason you still struggle with AAR. Your eyes should not spend a single moment over there. They should not be spending time on the HUD. Your eyes need to be glued to the bottom of that tanker. Exactly where the green diamond is. The green diamond is useless.

You should never be using the air brakes during AAR. You should never be looking any UI that tells you to extend an air brake.

You should never be looking at any UI element that tells you whether the boom is connected. Connecting the boom is not your job. It's the boom operators job. Your job is to maintain position. You've added a redundant UI element way down on the bottom left which takes your eyes away from the tanker to see it? Why can't you use the AR status lights directly to the right of the HUD? That's why they're there. They are realistic lights, in a realistic position in the real jet. In DCS the boom operator is nice and will give you radio calls when you are connected. Useless UI.

 

There are 2 visual indications which inform you of the required throttle position. 1st and primary is the geometry and position of the underside of the tanker on your screen. That is your primary throttle control. 2nd is the AAR lights on the bottom of the tanker. Both are on the bottom of the tanker, because that is where your eyes should be, not getting disoriented looking down at some random UI on the bottom left of the screen.

 

The primary visual indicator of roll is the tanker's wings, and the yellow alignment stripe on the bottom of the tanker.

 

The main reason you have problems with the tanker turning is because you're not looking at the tankers wings. If you roll off horizontal in straight refueling, the tankers wings bank on your screen. If you're in straight refueling and the tanker turns, you see the tankers wings bank. It doesn't matter what's going on, turns don't matter. If you only watch the tanker's wings for roll indication tanker turns become trivial.

 

Tanker geometry and screen position indicates for pitch. This is also a function of the AAR lights. Again, the AAR lights are realistic, and are on the bottom of the tanker, exactly where your eyes need to be.

 

This is primarily why I have problems with UI like this. It does a good job of making AAR much harder than it has to be, by instilling terrible habits which confuse the learning process. You're teaching people that their eyes need to be looking everywhere other than WHERE THEY NEED TO BE, which is on the delivery aircraft. Your UI denies them the chance to learn the real visual aids which are specifically designed to enable this maneuver. It teaches them bad flying habits which are completely unnecessary and possibly dangerous in the real aircraft.

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

3 (F16 [pictured], F15C, and A10),

In the A-10 you can see the colored stripes on the probe so you don’t need the lights. Plus they’re sorta blocked from your view by the probe. I imagine they aren’t as useful for that plane. 

21 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

I was hooked up would just be another thing to check every couple seconds while I'm taking fuel... along with all the other things I'd be checking while taking fuel.

Some advice… the only thing you’re looking at when AAR is the tanker. Not anything in your cockpit. Just look at the real aircraft, does it have any kind of colored gauge inside the cockpit that you’d be looking at as guidance? Or just the giant tanker out in front of you. All the cues you need are right there. 

[randomTOTEN]

You should already have the throttle position pretty much set, even before you reached the pre-contact position. Adjusting the throttle should be trivial at this point. The throttle was set when you joined up on the wing of the tanker in formation.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

Advantages of AAR assist in terms of realism:

 

Player must manage fuel, and fuel use is physics based (ie realistic and consistent with other players)

Players must consider fuel in loadout (no flying 10000 miles on internals with 20 bombs loaded on the wings)

Because of the two above factors, aircraft performance is realistically penalized

Player must be aware of position of tanker and how to interact with it (TACAN, radio, etc)

Sure. That’s the incentive to learn it. 

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

And if you're content with people "pretending" about their fuel state, I don't think you can claim to care much about realism anyway.

Well Easy AAR isn’t realistic either. My suggestion is at least free and already in the game. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I could almost… maybe… imagine having the belly light graphic on the screen, like the IFLOLS for the Super Carrier. But… again your attention is diverted off to the side of the screen and you’re gonna try to fly looking sideways at this and it just makes things worse. Also I think your graphic isn’t bold and clear enough for peripheral vision to pick up. The belly light graphic might be. And the other issue is that those lights are really only useful for 2 planes in DCS and not realistic for all the others. 

 

3 planes

A10

F16

F15

 

And I 100% agree with you, its easy natural and normal to look up, and I use VR, so "resolution" isn't "great" but its good enough.

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Harlikwin

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

3 planes

A10

F16

F15

Well I said “useful for” because the A-10 can just look at the colors on the straw.