Air Refueling Cheat

[Harlikwin]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

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

 

Fair. I don't tank with the A-10 cuz, well it never really needs to. 

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Fair. I don't tank with the A-10 cuz, well it never really needs to. 

 

A-10 Pilots: "What is this maximum range you speak of?"

 

Still though, if that system were implemented, and made optional, would you have an issue with it?

[randomTOTEN]

Nice thing about A-10C Red Flag missions on the NTTR is that you will often take off nearly full, and come back with only 2,000lbs. AAR in that bird is a "fun to do," not, "have to do."

 

It's a cool campaign, you guys should check it out...

Edited June 29, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[Tippis]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

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

Yes. This has been explained to you in full. Multiple times. You've just chosen to feign ignorance as to why it would be so. Or possibly, you're just clueless as to what unlimited fuel actually does in DCS.

 

Compare the following two scenarios:

 

1. You set your aircraft to 1% fuel; you load up every pylon to the absolute maximum with ordnance because weight is not a factor since you don't need to carry any fuel; you afterburn 200nm to the combat area at 50m AGL because fuel is not a factor and you want to easily avoid all the air defences in the area; and you loiter for hours to expend all that ordnance on every last thing present; and then you afterburn back.

 

2. You set your aircraft to 100% fuel and add fuel bags because you have quite some way to travel; you carry a select few weapons because that's the load limit of your aircraft; you expend a fair amount of fuel to climb to a good altitude, where you auto-refuel; you carefully weigh altitude against speed against range as you have to thread your way through air defence coverage arcs, because you have to get there and back again with only what you can carry, and you only really have one run at the target because of the limited ordnance you are able carry. On your way back, you probably have to auto-refuel again to make it back to base.

 

The fact that you think the first one is more realistic than the second means that you have proven beyond any doubt that you don't understand any detail of this topic. Anything you say here must inherently be considered complete nonsense because of how poorly you comprehend any and all aspects related to not just AAR but DCS in general, to say nothing of the whole concept of "realism".

 

Quote

If you’re going to go that route DCS already has an “Easy AAR” feature. Just select Unlimited Fuel

...except that unlimited fuel does not in any way, shape, or form replicate what an easier AAR would do. In fact, it does the exact opposite by making not just AAR pointless, but also massively reducing the realism and difficulty overall. This goes completely contrary to the whole point of having such a feature.

 

Why is this very simple concept so massively beyond your limits of comprehension?

Edited June 29, 2021 by Tippis

[Exorcet]

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Sure. That’s the incentive to learn it.

 

The incentive to learn what? Either way the list I provided are very clear differences between AAR assist and unlimited fuel. There are quite different in terms of realism.

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

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

Easy AAR is more realistic, which is what you originally argued against. It's also more likely to generate interest in learning to AAR without assists, afterall unlimited fuel just lets players ignore an important resource completely.

 

Also in my opinion the benefits of assisted AAR outweigh those of your free suggestion of doing nothing to develop DCS further.

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

The incentive to learn what?

There should be an incentive in the game to learn something as difficult as AAR. The reward is that you get to experience greater realism, more features, greater variety of missions etc. 

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Easy AAR is more realistic

So it’s more realistic to just imagine that you can AAR? If you’re just going to fantasize, then why not just have those fuel limits be in your imagination too? Again my suggestion doesn’t cost ED any money…

Edited June 29, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Exorcet]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

There should be an incentive in the game to learn something as difficult as AAR. The reward is that you get to experience greater realism, more features, greater variety of missions etc. 

The incentive is that it's there. DCS aims for a fair degree of realism because that's what its players want. Artificial incentives are a good way to spoil the learning process in my opinion.

 

  

Just now, SharpeXB said:

So it’s more realistic to just imagine that you can AAR? If you’re just going to fantasize, then why not just have those fuel limits be in your imagination too? Again my suggestion doesn’t cost ED any money…

 

It's more realistic to have to care about fuel than to not, yes. Why would you want to imagine fuel limits if the point is realism?

 

Your idea may not cost money, but it also doesn't increase sales, so there's that.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Exorcet

[SharpeXB]

8 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Artificial incentives are a good way to spoil the learning process in my opinion.

How is what I just pointed out artificial?

9 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Your idea may not cost money, but it also doesn't increase sales, so there's that.

New players don’t buy DCS to do AAR. It’s an advanced skill.

10 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Why would you want to imagine fuel limits if the point is realism?

The type of player who would use game assists like this wouldn’t care about realism.

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

There should be an incentive in the game to learn something as difficult as AAR.

You know what would create that incentive? The availability of missions that made heavy use of it.

You know what would create an incentive to make those? The availability of users who can play such missions.

You know what would create that availability? The existence of learning tools and helper systems that would open it up even to new players.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

So it’s more realistic to just imagine that you can AAR?

Yes. You'd have to have thought about it for exactly zero seconds to believe otherwise. You keep arguing that the second most unrealistic option available in the game is somehow more realistic than not using that option, which leads to the conclusion that you haven't spent one whit more than those zero seconds to think. Or you just don't know enough about AAR or DCS missions or just… you know… fuel to really have a valid opinion on the matter.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

New players don’t buy DCS to do AAR.

New players don't buy DCS at all. Nor do old players. Are you quite sure you even know what DCS is because it's sounding more and more like you haven't actually played the game.

 

New players download DCS because they want to fiddle around with buttons and dive into the complexity of fully simulated systems. If they like it, they start buying modules. But there will be a bias towards modules that are simple to play, modules that have a lot of content, and modules that come with good tutorials and practice missions. No-one buys a module to AAR the same way no-one buys a module to land or to IFR navigation — they're just things that are there that the player may end up learning. They're therefore things that can be taught using the tools available in the game, and which thereby increases the attractiveness of a given module if they're made available. There's only one exception to this: AAR, because there are not tools available to teach that. If there were, there could be “that one module that is really good at teaching AAR” because of the tutorials it has. There could also be “that one module that has an absolute crapton of really good missions (that unfortunately require AAR)”, which would incentivise people getting it, especially if they knew they could get through the AAR bit using some helper systems.

 

Seeing how AAR helpers would help with sales is trivial. Again, you just have to think about it for just slightly more than zero seconds. You haven't spent that time either, clearly.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

How is what I just pointed out artificial?

For one, the rewards you list don't actually exist. They all really just collapse into the common rubric “content”, but as you've pointed out yourself, there is very little of that, and the reason is because it's not worth-while to create content for something that a lot of people will struggle with. If that kind of content was accessible to a broader audience, it would suddenly become worth-while to create, which would create some of the incentives you're looking for… but they only exist in the exact opposite scenario than the one you're suggesting.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

The type of player who would use game assists like this wouldn’t care about realism.

Demonstrably false. This is just you generalising your proven disinterest in realism and in game assists and thinking that they're somehow linked for no adequately explained reason.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Tippis

[Tank50us]

49 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The type of player who would use game assists like this wouldn’t care about realism.

 

Actually given that such things are coming to real world aircraft anyway (for example the HMD for the F-35), it's not that much of a stretch to think that these assists would exist in real world aircraft. Sure, if you're talking about a P-51 vs a BF-109 those assists don't exist, because the tech of them didn't. But at the same time, you're much closer to your opponent in those instances, so the assists wouldn't be needed since you can't shoot at the other guy until after you've merged anyway.

For more modern jets, those assists can be justified as many of them are still in service today receiving upgrades, with some getting HMDs that can do some of what those assists do anyway. On top of that, those people who merely treat those assists as training wheels to be kicked off eventually are ultimately better for it in the end, especially given that most of us play on flat monitors, and not wrap-around projections or VR.

 

Gamifications are not a bad thing my dude, have you ever lined up on a catapult and been ever so slightly off? In the real world, you're off the cat, back arund, and try again. In DCS, the game goes "Eh, close enough", and lets you hook up. In DCS, there's no real penalty for having a poor approach to a carrier other than a bad score (if it scores you at all). In the real world, too many of such approaches, and you're back to CVQC, To many trips back there, and the Navy punts you like a football to the Army (ironically, that's sometimes where those guys end up!). That's why I say that these visual aids should be treated like training wheels, just something to get a person by until they are confident enough to move on to the next stage, which should be something that they determine, and no one else. No one told you when you had to run for the first time, you just did when you felt like it.

[shagrat]

14 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

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?

Well, just look at how other combat flightsims do it successfully.

That's where professionals found a great solution a decade or so, ago...

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

 

New players don’t buy DCS to do AAR. It’s an advanced skill.

 

The type of player who would use game assists like this wouldn’t care about realism.

Definitely just your made up opinion.

...and already proven wrong.

Because I know enough people who started of with just these "game assists" to get their footing and then moved on to the next level, deactivating things like rudder assist and easy comms and finally joined a virtual squadron to get into full real flying and procedures.

 

Please stop making assumptions and generalizing them to fake some "pseudo facts".

 

Maybe you can finally answer my question: how do you know no one, anyone or everyone is using or not using the auto start-up cheat in Multiplayer? Or the rudder assist on a Warbird? So how would you even know that someone uses an easier AAR with a more relaxed contact box? So how would this in any way affect your personal experience in DCS? I am really curious, as this is the re-occuring argument.

Edited June 29, 2021 by shagrat
Typos

[Черный Дракул]

18 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Funny they seem to work well enough for the real Air Force. You should email them and tell em they got em backwards! 

Without a synched data modem and powerful processor, I presume that was the best the engineers could come up with. With the help of PI and proper training, this results in decent success, which is good enough. In no way this means it can't be made better, especially in the sim. 

 

19 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

s. These are mine  

 

These sorry boom copulation attempts make me cringe -- it's literally painful to watch (I couldn't even finish watching the first video). Like I successfully informed-guessed, you can't properly into AAR -- obviously, because of this backwards self-training you've subjected yourself to. 

This is how the properly trained individuals do it:

Assisted training in DCS should bring you at least close to the performance demonstrated above. Being all over the place you demonstrated is not close, not by a mile. 

 

19 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m expecting to be proved wrong any moment by somebody doing this with a gamepad. 

Like I said, people do crazy and unique stuff like completing DS series in one run with not being hit. It's crazy and unique for a good reason. 

[shagrat]

43 minutes ago, Tippis said:

You know what would create that incentive? The availability of missions that made heavy use of it.

You know what would create an incentive to make those? The availability of users who can play such missions.

You know what would create that availability? The existence of learning tools and helper systems that would open it up even to new players.

 

Yes. You'd have to have thought about it for exactly zero seconds to believe otherwise. You keep arguing that the second most unrealistic option available in the game is somehow more realistic than not using that option, which leads to the conclusion that you haven't spent one whit more than those zero seconds to think. Or you just don't know enough about AAR or DCS missions or just… you know… fuel to really have a valid opinion on the matter.

 

New players don't buy DCS at all. Nor do old players. Are you quite sure you even know what DCS is because it's sounding more and more like you haven't actually played the game.

 

New players download DCS because they want to fiddle around with buttons and dive into the complexity of fully simulated systems. If they like it, they start buying modules. But there will be a bias towards modules that are simple to play, modules that have a lot of content, and modules that come with good tutorials and practice missions. No-one buys a module to AAR the same way no-one buys a module to land or to IFR navigation — they're just things that are there that the player may end up learning. They're therefore things that can be taught using the tools available in the game, and which thereby increases the attractiveness of a given module if they're made available. There's only one exception to this: AAR, because there are not tools available to teach that. If there were, there could be “that one module that is really good at teaching AAR” because of the tutorials it has. There could also be “that one module that has an absolute crapton of really good missions (that unfortunately require AAR)”, which would incentivise people getting it, especially if they knew they could get through the AAR bit using some helper systems.

 

Seeing how AAR helpers would help with sales is trivial. Again, you just have to think about it for just slightly more than zero seconds. You haven't spent that time either, clearly.

 

For one, the rewards you list don't actually exist. They all really just collapse into the common rubric “content”, but as you've pointed out yourself, there is very little of that, and the reason is because it's not worth-while to create content for something that a lot of people will struggle with. If that kind of content was accessible to a broader audience, it would suddenly become worth-while to create, which would create some of the incentives you're looking for… but they only exist in the exact opposite scenario than the one you're suggesting.

 

Demonstrably false. This is just you generalising your proven disinterest in realism and in game assists and thinking that they're somehow linked for no adequately explained reason.

 

The fact that campaign creators already made 3 campaigns for the F/A-18C with different "workarounds" to cover the missing AAR training options, is indicating pretty much how the topic is relevant for sales. Otherwise the campaigns would simply state: AAR required so "gIt gud". The fact they developed 3(!) different workarounds instead says a lot!

[shagrat]

5 minutes ago, Черный Дракул said:

These sorry boom copulation attempts make me cringe -- it's literally painful to watch (I couldn't even finish watching the first video). Like I successfully informed-guessed, you can't properly into AAR -- obviously, because of this backwards self-training you've subjected yourself to. 

This is how the properly trained individuals do it:

Assisted training in DCS should bring you at least close to the performance demonstrated above. Being all over the place you demonstrated is not close, not by a mile. 

 

Like I said, people do crazy and unique stuff like completing DS series in one run with not being hit. It's crazy and unique for a good reason. 

The first video also shows how the boom is not lowered into position while the aircraft is in the box, but before(!). IRL you approach on a shallow ascending path and keep the tip of the boom aligned with the nose of the tanker, what gives you a good reference to get into the box naturally. Only as the pilot is stable and in position the boom is moved (by the boom operator) into the receptacle. In DCS it feels more like the boom operator is trying to stab the boom at you when getting closer... 

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, shagrat said:

In DCS it feels more like the boom operator is trying to stab the boom at you when getting closer... 

“Feels like”?! My first successful hookup in the A-10 was when the boom operator shoved the boom through the pilot's head and killed him. In the two minutes it took for me to compose myself and stop laughing, the hog hadn't unhooked itself because of how stably it had been set up.  

 

Two lessons learned from that: “successful hookup” doesn't necessarily mean that anything has hit the receptacle; and the A-10 damage model has some really funny side-effects.

[shagrat]

46 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Sure, if you're talking about a P-51 vs a BF-109 those assists don't exist, because the tech of them didn't.

Actually, especially the warbirds have these game aids: "rudder assist" to enable players with a twist stick or no legs, using the analog levers on the TM16.000 HOTAS to at least take off... Auto rudder for people who don't have rudders at all, and funny enough none of these aids are even visible / noticable by other players. When you fly online with someone without legs and using auto rudder instead of pedals, you won't notice until he tells you. 

That is why "it affects my game experience" is a total bogus argument. We have half a dozen game aids client side since forever and actually nobody notices if they are in use unless being told.

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

How is what I just pointed out artificial?

You're trying to arbitrarily limit the player to two choices, AAR or unlimited fuel. You're denying a large part of the simulation to those who would want assistance with AAR for no reason.

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

New players don’t buy DCS to do AAR. It’s an advanced skill.

You might be surprised, some people get into DCS without even intending to use the combat side of the sim. But I wasn't saying that AAR was a major selling point. I was saying that accessibility is a selling point and definitely something that can drive sales.

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The type of player who would use game assists like this wouldn’t care about realism.

That's wrong. The options are changeable for a reason. People's preferences can change over time, and they might only use assists in the first place to help them learn the realistic methods.

 

If you've seen any thread on labels there are plenty using an assist (labels) but wanting a realistic experience.

 

I myself once used the simple radio as I came from FC3 and over time switched to realistic radio. I don't really know why you'd think people will just stick to assists once they've started using them. It just doesn't work that way in so many cases, from training wheels on bikes to driving/flying with an instructor before going solo.

[Flyer0001]

19 hours ago, Tippis said:

That wouldn't really solve anything because it would functionally and effectively be the exact same thing. Hell, for some aircraft, it would be better than the unlimited options (mainly due to bugs in how they handle stores, granted).

 

19 hours ago, Tippis said:

The thing is, this would be completely contrary to the purpose. One of the main reasons to add these kinds of aids would be to not skip the tanker bit, and to actually have to worry about fuel level and the associated calculations. Such aids would allow for far more complex, difficult, and realistic scenarios to play out, even if you're shaky on the actual refuelling bit. Giving back stores and fuel at the press of a button would still remove all that, and would therefore remove the complexity, difficulty, and added realism that AAR aid options would allow.

I don"t think you understand at all what I was proposing.  Not at all.

[Furiz]

38 minutes ago, shagrat said:

The fact that campaign creators already made 3 campaigns for the F/A-18C with different "workarounds" to cover the missing AAR training options, is indicating pretty much how the topic is relevant for sales. Otherwise the campaigns would simply state: AAR required so "gIt gud". The fact they developed 3(!) different workarounds instead says a lot!

 

That's not true, it doesn't have to be because there is missing AAR training options, you don't need AAR training options, you need to sit in the cockpit and train AAR and stop being a , it is because they wanted to sell to more people, those that can AAR and those that can't.

[shagrat]

11 hours ago, Tippis said:

Yes. This has been explained to you in full. Multiple times. You've just chosen to feign ignorance as to why it would be so. Or possibly, you're just clueless as to what unlimited fuel actually does in DCS.

 

Compare the following two scenarios:

 

1. You set your aircraft to 1% fuel; you load up every pylon to the absolute maximum with ordnance because weight is not a factor since you don't need to carry any fuel; you afterburn 200nm to the combat area at 50m AGL because fuel is not a factor and you want to easily avoid all the air defences in the area; and you loiter for hours to expend all that ordnance on every last thing present; and then you afterburn back.

 

2. You set your aircraft to 100% fuel and add fuel bags because you have quite some way to travel; you carry a select few weapons because that's the load limit of your aircraft; you expend a fair amount of fuel to climb to a good altitude, where you auto-refuel; you carefully weigh altitude against speed against range as you have to thread your way through air defence coverage arcs, because you have to get there and back again with only what you can carry, and you only really have one run at the target because of the limited ordnance you are able carry. On your way back, you probably have to auto-refuel again to make it back to base.

 

The fact that you think the first one is more realistic than the second means that you have proven beyond any doubt that you don't understand any detail of this topic. Anything you say here must inherently be considered complete nonsense because of how poorly you comprehend any and all aspects related to not just AAR but DCS in general, to say nothing of the whole concept of "realism".

 

...except that unlimited fuel does not in any way, shape, or form replicate what an easier AAR would do. In fact, it does the exact opposite by making not just AAR pointless, but also massively reducing the realism and difficulty overall. This goes completely contrary to the whole point of having such a feature.

 

Why is this very simple concept so massively beyond your limits of comprehension?

 

...and if you now exchange "auto refuel" with a slider on the special menu with "AAR assist" that increases the contact box of the boom tip or basket from 5 inches to a maximum of 5 feet and increases the coefficient to keep contact it would greatly enhance the ability of new pilots to participate in more complex missions without jeopardizing it for the rest and actually help them to learn AAR in a more realistic setting. The better they get holding position and get used to the procedure, they can then gradually dial down the assist and deactivate it completely...

Edited June 29, 2021 by shagrat

[shagrat]

10 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

That's not true, it doesn't have to be because there is missing AAR training options, you don't need AAR training options, you need to sit in the cockpit and train AAR and stop being a , it is because they wanted to sell to more people, those that can AAR and those that can't.

Yep, as I said. They want to enable more customers to be able to play the campaign they paid for and are aware, that some may not have the "equipment", time, nerves, skills to train AAR for a couple of months to actually progress beyond mission no. 3...

One possible way to address these crazy workarounds would be to give learners a way to train the skills with holding their hands, until they get the hang of it.

Edited June 29, 2021 by shagrat

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, Flyer0001 said:

I don"t think you understand at all what I was proposing.  Not at all.

I do.

I'm simply pointing out that what you're proposing does not actually fulfil the purpose of what is being discussed in this thread (and many others). It's an alternative to infinite fuel (and stores), but those were never what was being asked for.

 

8 minutes ago, Furiz said:

That's not true,

What part of it?

The fact that different workarounds have been implemented?

The fact that those workarounds wouldn't have been needed if the game had such functionality built in?

It can't be the fact that these workarounds were implemented to sell more, because you then go on to say the exact same thing yourself.

 

As for not being needed, sure, nothing is ever truly  “needed” in DCS, but it's there anyway because it sells and/or is immensely helpful. That's why the game already has all these training options. Just because you can sit in the cockpit and train AAR doesn't mean that training options wouldn't help helpful — quite the opposite. It they would simply make that cockpit time far more efficient and effective. It would also relieve mission makers from the need of making all those extra implementations, so they could instead spend that time on making more content for you and everyone else. You do want more content… right?

[Furiz]

8 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Yep, as I said. They want to enable more customers to be able to play the campaign they paid for and are aware, that some may not have the "equipment", time, nerves, skills to train AAR for a couple of months to actually progress beyond mission no. 3...

One possible way to address these crazy workarounds would be to give learners a way to train the skills with holding their hands, until they get the hang of it.

 

 

I'm completely for those training missions, do them pls, I'm just against enabling easy cheat mode in game.