Optional Refueling Assist

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

No, you are factually incorrect. You claim to somehow infer people's personality from how they enjoy simulators.

Personality? I don’t think I mentioned that anywhere. This is the English language forum so if that’s not your primary language you’re probably missing something. I’m comparing the ability and effort to learn AAR to other life skills, that comparison certainly has a basis in fact. 

13 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

And it happens yet again.

Autopilot will indeed keep your plane under control while you’re busy. That’s a fact. The OPs suggestion is a bit ridiculous and reaching for justification, Easy AAR wouldn’t be a good substitute for autopilot. 

[Exorcet]

34 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Personality? I don’t think I mentioned that anywhere.

It's the basis for your argument and in most of your posts.

34 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Autopilot will indeed keep your plane under control while you’re busy. That’s a fact. The OPs suggestion is a bit ridiculous and reaching for justification, Easy AAR wouldn’t be a good substitute for autopilot. 

It should have been obvious that I wasn't talking about autopilot. I was talking about you making things up by editing Dangerzone's post and claiming to have "fixed" it. You, again, pretend that being OK with an assist means people refuse to learn and consider no other point of view. You are again factually wrong.

But it turns out, you're also wrong about autopilot, so I guess I got lucky. Autopilot won't keep formation with the tanker. If it is even available on the plane in question. However, what's more interesting is that you're perfectly fine with this "assist" being used, because you don't care about contradicting yourself.

[SharpeXB]

31 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

It's the basis for your argument and in most of your posts.

How so? If by that you interpret my observation that some people approach something difficult as a challenge to be mastered vs others who simply make excuses and ask for tasks to be made easier, that’s not really “personality”. Rather a quality or trait if that makes sense. I would say it’s a safe observation that people who are generally tenacious are going to be more successful at learning AAR.

 

31 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

But it turns out, you're also wrong about autopilot, so I guess I got lucky. Autopilot won't keep formation with the tanker. If it is even available on the plane in question.

Go back and read the quoted post. The OP was attempting to justify the “stay connected” feature as a form of gamey aerial parking spot players can put their plane when busy. This really doesn’t make sense because afaik all the aircraft which can AAR have autopilots which would do the same thing.

Edited October 6, 2022 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

22 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I was talking about you making things up by editing Dangerzone's post and claiming to have "fixed" it.

Fixed because the vast majority of players who “can’t” AAR really should be described as “won’t” meaning they actually have the inherent ability which they just don’t put in the effort to develop. 

Edited October 6, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Dangerzone]

24 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

It should have been obvious that I wasn't talking about autopilot. I was talking about you making things up by editing Dangerzone's post and claiming to have "fixed" it. You, again, pretend that being OK with an assist means people refuse to learn and consider no other point of view. You are again factually wrong.

Exorcet - do yourself a favour and ignore him (or add him to your ignore list). Just look at his antagonistic response to my message about people with health conditions/injuries implying they can't because they choose not to learn (regardless of their injury or health) - they still should be able to do it just because he can, or to try and twist it back into the margins of his argument.

You're not going to have a decent conversation replying to his posts. His responses ducks and changes, ignores partial responses and twists things to suit his own convenience better than any politician I've seen - sometimes making the wildest of claims. Personally - I suggest adding him to your ignore list - because his responses just keep deteoriating and become more rude & obnoxious. Replying to his posts only keep feeding this behaviour. He just likes to argue, not have decent discussions. (I know - was trying to have a civil discussion on another thread  and found myself in the same repetitive loop until @shagratI believe it was pointed out what was going on and I had a lightbulb moment to just ignore his posts). 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Dangerzone

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, Dangerzone said:

people with health conditions/injuries implying they can't because they choose not to learn (regardless of their injury or health) - they still should be able to do it

I’m pretty sure this does not describe the vast majority of players who are non-AAR capable. This is again really reaching to try an justify another game aid. If people truly cannot AAR then they can certainly still play DCS without it. I’m sure the greatest number of DCS players never do AAR and are able to enjoy the game just fine. It’s not required in the game. 

[Exorcet]

13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m pretty sure this does not describe the vast majority of players who are non-AAR capable. This is again really reaching to try an justify another game aid. If people truly cannot AAR then they can certainly still play DCS without it. I’m sure the greatest number of DCS players never do AAR and are able to enjoy the game just fine. It’s not required in the game. 

And wrong again. There is nothing to justify. People want the feature, that justifies it from the beginning.

30 minutes ago, Dangerzone said:

Exorcet - do yourself a favour and ignore him (or add him to your ignore list). Just look at his antagonistic response to my message about people with health conditions/injuries implying they can't because they choose not to learn (regardless of their injury or health) - they still should be able to do it just because he can, or to try and twist it back into the margins of his argument.

You're not going to have a decent conversation replying to his posts. His responses ducks and changes, ignores partial responses and twists things to suit his own convenience better than any politician I've seen - sometimes making the wildest of claims. Personally - I suggest adding him to your ignore list - because his responses just keep deteoriating and become more rude & obnoxious. Replying to his posts only keep feeding this behaviour. He just likes to argue, not have decent discussions. (I know - was trying to have a civil discussion on another thread  and found myself in the same repetitive loop until @shagratI believe it was pointed out what was going on and I had a lightbulb moment to just ignore his posts). 

 

Believe it or not I'm familiar with it already. I just really dislike dishonest arguments and attempts to control people. At this stage though, my point is basically being made for me, so there might not be much more to say and I think you have the right idea.

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

People want the feature, that justifies it from the beginning.

Anything is justified merely by wanting it? In what world is that true?
Gee this wish better get in line behind every other topic on this forum. ED is going to be busy for the next 800 years…

Edited October 6, 2022 by SharpeXB

[cfrag]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Fixed because the vast majority of players who “can’t” AAR really should be described as “won’t” meaning they actually have the inherent ability which they just don’t put in the effort to develop. 

My significant other and I enjoy cooking. While I really enjoy the company and creating something together, she also loves doing the small stuff: cleaning and preparing vegetables, paring and preparing meat, mixing dough etc. - stuff that I gladly let her do, because to me that's not fun at all and feels like a chore. What counts is that we have fun together and share a great experience. And, I might add, I never hear her brag about being able to clean vegs or peel potatoes. 

DCS is also about having fun; it's a game, something designed to enhance your quality time. If people feel something in DCS to be a chore, they will prefer (and should) do something else. AAR (among others like cold-starting, which we have talked about to death, for exactly the same reasons) is a chore to some. It's not that most can't do it, it's that they prefer to do something else that is more worth their while. DCS isn't about 'being manly enough to do AAR'. It's about having as much fun as you can in the short amount of free time that we have. Some people have immense fun doing AAR. Others, I might point out, immensely enjoy collecting stamps. Both are valid forms to have fun, neither is better. Both are choice. If people don't collect stamps, a stamp collector will not berate them for not wanting to put in the effort to collect, order, authenticate and catalogue stamps. It's a non sequitur for anyone lacking that inclination. 

To me, AAR assists are only relevant in some instances:

• MP missions with mixed-preferences player groups. If AAR is a requirement, that mission is out for any group of players that contains someone who doesn't like AAR. That group will fly a different mission that's fun for everyone
• Professional mission designers have taken note of the fact that a mission that contains enforced AAR lowers potential sales. They have thus have started to provide means to make it optional, to make it more enjoyable for a broader audience. They know that if people don't have fun, the mission won't sell. They then ensure that the mission doesn't contain show-stops for the 'non-stamp collectors'. 

So, offering an option that allows others to join a mission with AAR makes perfect business sense for ED: it helps to broaden mass appeal in an increasingly multiplayer world. It doesn't affect the individual's experience for AAR enthusiasts while not excluding everyone else. It's win-win and worth the development effort.   

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all, 

please keep it civil when discussing ideas and wishes. 

We have no plans to add a refuelling assist. 

We do have plans to improve air to air refuelling, but we have no timeline, it will be something for the future. 

thanks

[HILOK]

some get the hang of it some dont, being due to lack of proper hardware (unprecise joysticks, bad framerates) or any other reasons. in a world that tries to be more inclusive, i dont see why some people would feel so bothered by an option to simplify AAR.

even, if this is a high end simulation, after all it's just a game

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, HILOK said:

some get the hang of it some dont, being due to lack of proper hardware (unprecise joysticks, bad framerates) or any other reasons. in a world that tries to be more inclusive, i dont see why some people would feel so bothered by an option to simplify AAR.

even, if this is a high end simulation, after all it's just a game

Let's also not forget that in the real world, you're sitting in these cockpits, you have full depth perception, and you can feel what's going on with the aircraft even if it has advanced FBW. The problem that some people can't seem to wrap their heads around is that we aren't these professional pilots, where "Some get it, and some don't" is usually a career killer for those that "Don't get it". We also don't have the literal months of classroom and simulator training required to actually do this in the real world, and as stated before, not everyone really has the time to dedicate to learning just that one thing. Let's face it, more people want to learn how to put warheads on foreheads, or land on a carrier, then learn AAR. This is especially true for those just getting in. The sheer number of people who've joined my unit wanting to learn how to land on a carrier or deploy a AGM-65, or learn helicopters is staggering. Yet, our live-fire server has tankers, and few ever utilize them.

 

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

We have no plans to add a refuelling assist. 

We do have plans to improve air to air refuelling, but we have no timeline, it will be something for the future. 

I do hope that you'll at least consider the option that I put forth. I'm not asking for a full assist, where the moment you call the tanker to the moment you leave the computer takes control. I'm asking for something that will keep the plane hooked up once you've made contact until you either move the stick or the tanker calls "Transfer complete". Something I feel would be useful for far more people, than just those who struggle to stay connected.

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

I do hope that you'll at least consider the option that I put forth. I'm not asking for a full assist, where the moment you call the tanker to the moment you leave the computer takes control. I'm asking for something that will keep the plane hooked up once you've made contact until you either move the stick or the tanker calls "Transfer complete". Something I feel would be useful for far more people, than just those who struggle to stay connected.

improved basket physics will help as I understand, but we will have to wait and see, at the moment I have no timeline. 

[Bremspropeller]

ERM@GHERD, MUH SKILLZ!

I can tank without momma's little helper, but I don't see the neccessity for being a proverbial lil Richard about it. If you don't like the proposed feature, switch it off and let others enjoy the benefits of a greater accessibility to more realistic'ish missions for people with less time sunk in the game.

It's a friggin game. Relax.

 

[shagrat]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb SharpeXB:

It must bother someone, how are we on page 3 of this, yet another “this game is too hard” thread…?
I guess putting in some effort and accepting a challenge are “outdated ways of thinking”

 

It's not "this game is too hard" it is "this game would benefit from training aids and accessibility, like we have for other things, like auto start-up, take-off assist, auto-rudder, active pause..."

[shagrat]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb SharpeXB:

Anything is justified merely by wanting it? In what world is that true?
Gee this wish better get in line behind every other topic on this forum. ED is going to be busy for the next 800 years…

 

You are aware, that this is why there is a whole branch of businesses and specialists around "market analysis", basically trying to find out and anticipate what people "want"? So, yes, even finding out what people want is worth a considerable investment, let alone actually delivering what people want...

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

You are aware, that this is why there is a whole branch of businesses and specialists around "market analysis", basically trying to find out and anticipate what people "want"? So, yes, even finding out what people want is worth a considerable investment, let alone actually delivering what people want...

That doesn’t mean everyone gets everything they want. There are requests here for volcanoes and hurricanes too but those aren’t justified merely because somebody asked. 
ED “market analyzed” this request and decided against it several times. So…

And this “market analysis” is 2:1 against

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Jayhawk1971]

[Tank50us]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

That doesn’t mean everyone gets everything they want. There are requests here for volcanoes and hurricanes too but those aren’t justified merely because somebody asked. 
ED “market analyzed” this request and decided against it several times. So…

And this “market analysis” is 2:1 against

 

 

And that was two years ago. Things change. Around the same time they were saying that the C-130 would never be flyable, they weren't working on the AH-64 and had no plans to do so... the list of things they "aren't working on" or "won't work on", and then they announced that it is being worked on, is quite numerous.

[SharpeXB]

42 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

And that was two years ago. Things change.

Not with this. They just said again here it’s not planned. The changes in plans you’re mentioning here are with regard to modules which is easy to understand. New information or third party involvement can change. This is a core gameplay mechanic where I can’t see a reason for them changing their stance on. What has changed in these two years with regard to AAR? The only change they said they are working on is to make it better so it actually seems ridiculous that they’d put in that effort and then also add a cheat to circumvent it.

Edited October 7, 2022 by SharpeXB

[cfrag]

6 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

it actually seems ridiculous that they’d put in that effort and then also add a cheat to circumvent it.

They have a complex damage model and optional invulnerability.

They have complex weapons management with optional unlimited ammo. 

They have complex start-up procedures and optional auto-start.

They model complex radios and have optional easy communications.

It's called "accessibility" and it's a smart business move to grow the market for their products. 

Edited October 7, 2022 by cfrag

[Tank50us]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

It's called "accessibility" and it's a smart business move to grow the market for their products. 

I mean... we've all seen that XBox commercial where a disabled kid is able to beat a game with a controller built specifically for him. 99% of us will never become fighter pilots, and very few of us who play DCS do it full-time, and those that do are usually doing so for a good reason (like Cap), So the idea of having something in the game that makes it easier to drop in and fly is just as good a move as adding a popular fighter plane. The more people who can fly, the better EDs bottom line is. Does it have to be Ace Combat levels? No. But it can still be the study-level sim that it is, while at the same time acknowledging that there are people who simply do not have the hundreds of hours required to perform the most complex tasks, or, lack the proper hardware, or worse... lack the physical ability to do those tasks.

I mean heck, how many dads play this game right now, and want to share the experience with their kids? I know I would if I had a kid.

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, cfrag said:

They have a complex damage model and optional invulnerability.

They have complex weapons management with optional unlimited ammo. 

They have complex start-up procedures and optional auto-start.

They model complex radios and have optional easy communications.

It's called "accessibility" and it's a smart business move to grow the market for their products. 

Most of those features have a role in training or practice whereas Easy Auto AAR especially as described in this post would just be a crutch. Perhaps that why they don’t feel like adding it.  

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Tank50us said:

there are people who simply do not have the hundreds of hours required to perform the most complex tasks

The funny thing is I’ll bet lots of people who haven’t learned to AAR still have hundreds of hours in this game. They just choose to spend those hours doing something else. That’s fine but recognize that this is a choice, not an obstacle. If anyone wants to put the effort towards this they can do it. It only seems impossible until you get it. 

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Most of those features have a role in training or practice whereas Easy Auto AAR especially as described in this post would just be a crutch

I said "accessibility", not "training aid". Please don't move the goalpost.