A/A refueling for trainees

[Salty Buckets]

13 hours ago, bfr said:

And plenty of other sim titles have various levels of aids that soften what can be a considerable learning curve (e.g. driving games with ideal line/braking indicators, gear change and traction/braking behaviour assists). If you want a slightly dumbed down experience in some areas for single player then you can have it. If you want a hardcore-only experience in multiplayer or campaigns you create then you can enforce what is/isn't available to users (as you already can in some areas of the game that could be considered as cheats, like highlighting enemy units, certain view and map modes etc).

And just going based off of what we have in DCS, what do we have in game that has been gamified to a point where, as what I've seen recommended in this channel, (which, mind you, would take time away from the developers who are trying to appeal it seems more to what you call the hardcore-only experience) would auto-guide your plane into aerial refuel and contact? What's the point at that point? That's why I stress that this is a simulator, is because ED treats it as so. They even backed this up moreso when they deleted the gamified versions of FF module's flight models. Support of FC3 has completely ended and ED has said multiple times that they have no plans of adding more to FC3 other than minute changes and bug fixes. 

The only thing, like I stated before, that I can see even slightly corresponding to what ED has done in the past for, say, the Supercarrier is have a pop out window that exactly copies the line-up lights that are on the tanker you are refueling off of. And that's really all is "needed" for people who have worse resolution, and it may help some folks that struggle seeing the line-up lights while tanking.

 

13 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Reading the rest of your post I think you meant to say the opposite here. Didn’t you mean DCS is easier than IRL?

 

Huh, idk how I missed that, but yeah lol.

[cfrag]

15 hours ago, Exorcet said:

On 4/12/2023 at 6:52 AM, Salty Buckets said:

This. Is. A. Simulator.

ie the type of software that very commonly gives users options to tailor their experience.

I believe that is a very salient point. A sim can, but does not have to be limited by real world. A couple of years ago, I was invited to try out an Airbus 340 full (professional 6DOF) simulator. We departed Dallas (KDFW), and since I've never flown from there (much less as PIC), I requested a progressive. The cool thing about this sim was that, in addition to real people in Ground/Tower directing me aurally, the sim also superimposed symbols on the ground to guide me to help me familiarize myself with the airfield and reduce workload. That idea is something I'd like to see utilized more in DCS: smart, active graphical helpers on request for neophytes: gates to fly through for people learning to land - on any airfield they approach. Same with vectoring: put up a virtual marker to the point you are being vectored to. Some aircraft (e.g. Hog) can do this when the waypoint is programmed into their data base, so why not make this dynamic - on demand by a player. Expand and enhance the experience. Marks on the ground to guide a pilot to the active. Highlight traffic around them while approaching or departing airfields. Same for IMC approaches to augment ILS. And yes, maybe a graphical 'tunnel' and speed indicators for teaching you how to AAR and do carrier landings. I'm not talking about otto driving your bird. I'd like to see some visual aids for beginners. I'd like taking advantage of the simulator environment to expand on reality, to leverage the game's abilities for a better game experience. I mean: if the pros use it to become better, why shouldn't we? And yes, before the 'cheater!' faction jumps down my throat: yes, this function should be a server option, just like F10 see all and similar.

[bfr]

5 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

And just going based off of what we have in DCS, what do we have in game that has been gamified to a point where, as what I've seen recommended in this channel, (which, mind you, would take time away from the developers who are trying to appeal it seems more to what you call the hardcore-only experience) would auto-guide your plane into aerial refuel and contact? What's the point at that point? That's why I stress that this is a simulator, is because ED treats it as so. They even backed this up moreso when they deleted the gamified versions of FF module's flight models. Support of FC3 has completely ended and ED has said multiple times that they have no plans of adding more to FC3 other than minute changes and bug fixes. 

The only thing, like I stated before, that I can see even slightly corresponding to what ED has done in the past for, say, the Supercarrier is have a pop out window that exactly copies the line-up lights that are on the tanker you are refueling off of. And that's really all is "needed" for people who have worse resolution, and it may help some folks that struggle seeing the line-up lights while tanking.

 

Huh, idk how I missed that, but yeah lol.

You'd have to ask ED why they ditched 'game mode'. Was it too much hassle to continue to support? Was hardly anyone using it?  Clearly a decent amount of interest exists for some kind of AAR assist as this thread and many other previous ones testify.  And you look at some third party campaigns that've adapted to those who struggle with AAR and they've adapted those so people can get by without actually hooking up.

And yes, repeating the line up lights a la Supercarrier would be a start.  And to be honest, i've no opposition to a configurable auto-refuel mode that does some/most of the work for you once you've formed up with the tanker. 

Certainly there is a wider balance to be struck of convenience v realism but I fail to see how softening the considerable learning curve for newbies or people who can't pour hours and hours into the game to practice is harmful. It might make the difference between someone buying into DCS or not and more sales/users is good for everyone. 

[draconus]

13 hours ago, Tank50us said:

...but there are people out there who would probably enjoy DCS a lot... but aren't able to because of a serious disability. One guy I know of through a DCS FB page lost both his legs in an accident for example... how's he supposed to operate without rudders and differential breaking? Well, for the aircraft that rely on the latter, there's a special option check box that allows it to be bound to whatever you bind your rudder to. Ergo, he could fly anything that requires DB, without issue. Who's to say such measures can't be taken for those who suffer other debilitating issues that prevent them from performing tasks most of us find easy.

Don't make them look more disabled than they wish themselves. I don't have rudder pedals so I'm in the exact same situation flying in DCS - I use paddles on the throttle as rudder and two buttons on the stick base as DB. Besides it can be done with one hand if needed, I see no excuses:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3319884/

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, cfrag said:

Marks on the ground to guide a pilot to the active.

Unlike reality in DCS you can just look at the F10 map to see where you’re going. Taxi guides for every runway and airport and every parking space seems a bit overwhelming as a task. This sort of way finding I see as a problem in other sims but not DCS  

 

5 hours ago, cfrag said:

maybe a graphical 'tunnel' and speed indicators for teaching you how to AAR

But again, the challenge with AAR is not the path you follow in the air, that’s rather obvious. And you’ve got a speed indicator in the form of a tanker in front of you. 

Edited April 13, 2023 by SharpeXB

[cfrag]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Unlike reality in DCS you can just look at the F10 map to see where you’re going.

Indeed. The great thing about computers is that they can automate busywork and make the entire experience better for the user. This would be exactly what they were made for.

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Taxi guides for every runway and airport and every parking space seems a bit overwhelming as a task. 

Agreed, it's currently (I've started such a script) arduous with current maps. Then again, I hear that ATC is being revamped, and naïve me thinks that if ED is working on ATC, ground will also have a fair shake at being overhauled. In order to build the ground instructions "Viper one, taxi via bravo, hold short of 29 left", they would need the entire airfield layout in a processable form. If they can build (map) the route to the active's hold short in voice, they can easily (actually much more easily) mark it on your view. In order to have realistic ground control instructions, they must have implemented this for every airfield, and visualization is trivial after vocalizing it.

And of course, having scripting access to this would be the icing on the cake.

[Wrcknbckr]

Best training would be to place a large object in the air that moves with constant speed and altitude (let's call it a tanker),and a smaller object that moves with same speed and altitude (let's call it a basket), the latter one requires more precision flying but in the end it only means flying straight and with appropriate speed. To make it easier you should ignore rudder. It is not needed for AAR and one degree-of-freedom less...

[SharpeXB]

16 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Then again, I hear that ATC is being revamped, and naïve me thinks that if ED is working on ATC, ground will also have a fair shake at being overhauled. In order to build the ground instructions "Viper one, taxi via bravo, hold short of 29 left", they would need the entire airfield layout in a processable form. If they can build (map) the route to the active's hold short in voice, they can easily (actually much more easily) mark it on your view. In order to have realistic ground control instructions, they must have implemented this for every airfield, and visualization is trivial after vocalizing it.

That seems like a good thing for the revamped ATC. It’s mind blowing that the civy sims do this for thousands of airports all over the world. 

[cfrag]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

It’s mind blowing that the civy sims do this for thousands of airports all over the world

Agreed. I rather view it as a sin of omission by ED. To do this, all you would need is a little grid of taxiway intersections and connectors between the grid points to form a network/graph (i.e. which point connects to what other points, this even allows directionality). For each airfield this results in a rather small network, with even big ones having less than 30 nodes. Solving for the best route between two arbitrary nodes on such a network is a standard problem that even I have solved multiple times, more than 20 years ago. Today we have standard libraries like Dijkstra's or A* algorithms, so I wager that the most time-consuming part of the implementation would be setting up the grid/network for each airfield on the map (that's what holding up my implementation; I put it on hold because I'm hoping/waiting for ED to implement it better). I have big hopes for the new ATC, as this is not a difficult problem to solve, and that is present in so many offerings from the wrong side of the aisle  

 

[Salty Buckets]

7 hours ago, bfr said:

And to be honest, i've no opposition to a configurable auto-refuel mode that does some/most of the work for you once you've formed up with the tanker. 

The issue is, while being realistic, ED will not add this to the base game. It's as simple as that, and to an extent, why are we still talking about it? ED has already confirmed that this will not be added. The more I realize about this topic (and in a broader spectrum the DCS Wishlist as a whole) is simply a bunch of daydreamers that, in most cases, will never see their ideas come to fruition. Gamifying a simulator is already a red flag for me since if ED were to add this to the game, it would be a statement to the community that they are more invested in lowering the learning curve for new players instead of making the sensors, flight models, and what interacts with the player in-game as accurate of what is capable in a commercial sim.

And the argument for developing an "easy" mode for DCS is simply ridiculous. The amount of time and money that ED would lose in investing into, not only an "easy" mode of the game while also simultaneously trying to now still support a, what you all seem to call a "hardcore" mode of DCS is just silly. They have much better things to do than appeal to, what I see, is a niche part of the community that is asking for this. 

 

9 hours ago, cfrag said:

I believe that is a very salient point. A sim can, but does not have to be limited by real world. A couple of years ago, I was invited to try out an Airbus 340 full (professional 6DOF) simulator. We departed Dallas (KDFW), and since I've never flown from there (much less as PIC), I requested a progressive. The cool thing about this sim was that, in addition to real people in Ground/Tower directing me aurally, the sim also superimposed symbols on the ground to guide me to help me familiarize myself with the airfield and reduce workload. That idea is something I'd like to see utilized more in DCS: smart, active graphical helpers on request for neophytes: gates to fly through for people learning to land - on any airfield they approach. Same with vectoring: put up a virtual marker to the point you are being vectored to. Some aircraft (e.g. Hog) can do this when the waypoint is programmed into their data base, so why not make this dynamic - on demand by a player. Expand and enhance the experience. Marks on the ground to guide a pilot to the active. Highlight traffic around them while approaching or departing airfields. Same for IMC approaches to augment ILS. And yes, maybe a graphical 'tunnel' and speed indicators for teaching you how to AAR and do carrier landings. I'm not talking about otto driving your bird. I'd like to see some visual aids for beginners. I'd like taking advantage of the simulator environment to expand on reality, to leverage the game's abilities for a better game experience. I mean: if the pros use it to become better, why shouldn't we? And yes, before the 'cheater!' faction jumps down my throat: yes, this function should be a server option, just like F10 see all and similar.

That is a fair point, yet this is not really a sim set up to teach. It's a game at the end of the day, and no one in these forums are training to fly an F/A-18C or F-15C and train to A2A refuel for the first time. It's something that I stressed above that I will restate: both ED and the 3rd parties have better things to like fixing visual bugs, continuing to work on the AI combat, make new modules to earn more money, etc etc etc. than trying to implement this idea of having autoguiding an aircraft into contact or this new idea of having rings to guide your plane in that, mind you, seems to be an issue that could be easily fixed with research and practice.

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, Salty Buckets said:

It's something that I stressed above that I will restate: both ED and the 3rd parties have better things to [do]

I agree that ED, as a company, must do (and they are) whatever brings in most money. If ED discover a way that makes DCS more appealing to many more people, resulting in a spike of popularity and sales, they surely will pursue that avenue. I do not claim to know what their marked data says, nor what their resulting priorities are; except what little we can extrapolate from their current and announced products. All I know is that I like DCS, a lot, and that I want ED to succeed. That's why, along the way, I'll mention ideas that could make the game better - from my personal point view. I don't know if they are good or bad in ED's eyes - that's for ED to decide. It's important to me that they are talked about. And I think that's the entire raison d'être for this forum section: to hatch ideas and dream.

[bfr]

3 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

The issue is, while being realistic, ED will not add this to the base game. It's as simple as that, and to an extent, why are we still talking about it? ED has already confirmed that this will not be added. The more I realize about this topic (and in a broader spectrum the DCS Wishlist as a whole) is simply a bunch of daydreamers that, in most cases, will never see their ideas come to fruition. Gamifying a simulator is already a red flag for me since if ED were to add this to the game, it would be a statement to the community that they are more invested in lowering the learning curve for new players instead of making the sensors, flight models, and what interacts with the player in-game as accurate of what is capable in a commercial sim.

And the argument for developing an "easy" mode for DCS is simply ridiculous. The amount of time and money that ED would lose in investing into, not only an "easy" mode of the game while also simultaneously trying to now still support a, what you all seem to call a "hardcore" mode of DCS is just silly. They have much better things to do than appeal to, what I see, is a niche part of the community that is asking for this. 

 

I'm not sure why you mention 'easy mode for DCS' as I didn't suggest any such thing. It would be a very specific assist in what is a pain point for a lot of users.  A game that already has quite a few assists/cheats in it should you wish to take advantage of them or not.

Edited April 13, 2023 by bfr

[Ironhand]

I just love these threads. Someone asks for something. No one asks him to expand on his thoughts of how this might work but plenty of people are ready to advise him that his request is ludicrous and, besides, ED and third party developers have better things to do with their time.

Why not, after asking him to expand on his thoughts, let ED and those third parties make those decisions?

[Wiggo]

5 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

The issue is, while being realistic, ED will not add this to the base game. It's as simple as that, and to an extent, why are we still talking about it? ED has already confirmed that this will not be added. The more I realize about this topic (and in a broader spectrum the DCS Wishlist as a whole) is simply a bunch of daydreamers that, in most cases, will never see their ideas come to fruition. Gamifying a simulator is already a red flag for me since if ED were to add this to the game, it would be a statement to the community that they are more invested in lowering the learning curve for new players instead of making the sensors, flight models, and what interacts with the player in-game as accurate of what is capable in a commercial sim.

And the argument for developing an "easy" mode for DCS is simply ridiculous. The amount of time and money that ED would lose in investing into, not only an "easy" mode of the game while also simultaneously trying to now still support a, what you all seem to call a "hardcore" mode of DCS is just silly. They have much better things to do than appeal to, what I see, is a niche part of the community that is asking for this. 

 

That is a fair point, yet this is not really a sim set up to teach. It's a game at the end of the day, and no one in these forums are training to fly an F/A-18C or F-15C and train to A2A refuel for the first time. It's something that I stressed above that I will restate: both ED and the 3rd parties have better things to like fixing visual bugs, continuing to work on the AI combat, make new modules to earn more money, etc etc etc. than trying to implement this idea of having autoguiding an aircraft into contact or this new idea of having rings to guide your plane in that, mind you, seems to be an issue that could be easily fixed with research and practice.

There are already green gates in the air to fly trough, at least in tutorials  But yeah I get your point. And that is not actually a bad idea. New users for dcs = also more stuff for purists. What DCS really needs is better tutorials. In game tutorials. And stuff like this for example. While DCS already has even these kind of things, it is not really hard job to put em in action also outside tutorial missions...

[SharpeXB]

20 minutes ago, Wiggo said:

What DCS really needs is better tutorials.

With regard to AAR it’s not the instruction that’s difficult, it’s the doing part. A tutorial for AAR is very simple and can be found on the many YouTube channels for this game. There’s no shortage of instruction on this. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Ironhand said:

No one asks him to expand on his thoughts of how this might work

Well the OP by their own admission hasn’t mastered doing this so I can’t imagine they are in the position to devise a way to teach it. Those who can do it will give the obvious advice to practice a lot, which isn’t what some people wan to hear. They just want an easy button. Which ED already said they aren’t doing. Yet the discussion continues…

[Ironhand]

33 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well the OP by their own admission hasn’t mastered doing this so I can’t imagine they are in the position to devise a way to teach it. Those who can do it will give the obvious advice to practice a lot, which isn’t what some people wan to hear. They just want an easy button. Which ED already said they aren’t doing. Yet the discussion continues…

Like I said, no one bothered to ask him what he thought he needed. An “easy button”? What exactly does the easy button do?

[Dangerzone]

47 minutes ago, Ironhand said:

Like I said, no one bothered to ask him what he thought he needed. An “easy button”? What exactly does the easy button do?

That's a valid question.

As for an easy mode that 'assists' you but you're still in control -  I think this is the wrong approach. There's been some good points made, in that making it 'easier' is counter-productive in that it could train bad habits, making it harder to actually learn later.  Secondly, I (with my limited brain  ) can't see a clean way of actually doing this. 

Instead, have an option in the special section that allows for 'simple air refueling' or similar that simply changes the condition on when fuel flows.

So when this option is active, as soon as the player calls "ready precontact" and the basket extends - the fuel starts flowing into the aircraft immediately. There's no need for them to be hooked up to the basket - they just simply need to be behind the tanker within range of when they could call 'ready precontact'. 

The benefit of this approach is 2 fold:

First, I suspect (total assumption here) that it would be much simpler to implement as it's just a change of condition as to when the fuel starts flowing out of tanker and into aircraft. Instead of proximity or connection to basket, it's proximity to tanker of a greater distance.

The other bonus is that it allows the player to still attempt to learn to refuel under normal  simulator conditions. No bad habits to learn. They also can still try and hook up to the basket, or keep popping out as many times as happens - except it doesn't stop the refueling process. This gives them the benefit to try and learn under real conditions till if they want with no 'easy mode', but also allows them to continue the mission even if they fail or are unable to as they'll still fill up regardles. There's less frustration because they can give this a go during gameplay and still continue on if they fail. If anything - it would probably assist people to actually try more. It would potentially help them to learn to do it for real. They don't have to be scared or excluded on missions that require in flight refueling and can have a go knowing that they can't really fail. 

[Salty Buckets]

6 hours ago, bfr said:

I'm not sure why you mention 'easy mode for DCS' as I didn't suggest any such thing. It would be a very specific assist in what is a pain point for a lot of users.  A game that already has quite a few assists/cheats in it should you wish to take advantage of them or not.

 

The issue is, With the implication of this addition, ED is then making a statement to the community that they are not concerned with realism and are now more focused on "gamifying" DCS, which would not only upset more than half the community, but also be implied that other sorts of things that give the player handholding to this scale are now possible additions in DCS. That is the issue I have (and many others in the community would agree) with this, is that once something like this happens in game (which it probably won't for the foreseeable future) it means that ED is looking to turn DCS more into a game (which yes, it is a game) than a simulator. They've already technically hinted at it with them caving to the community with adding x4 HARMs on the F-16C, but luckily, nothing of the level of something like auto A2A refueling in-game.

[Dangerzone]

3 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

The issue is, With the implication of this addition, ED is then making a statement to the community that they are not concerned with realism and are now more focused on "gamifying" DCS, which would not only upset more than half the community, but also be implied that other sorts of things that give the player handholding to this scale are now possible additions in DCS. That is the issue I have (and many others in the community would agree) with this, is that once something like this happens in game (which it probably won't for the foreseeable future) it means that ED is looking to turn DCS more into a game (which yes, it is a game) than a simulator. They've already technically hinted at it with them caving to the community with adding x4 HARMs on the F-16C, but luckily, nothing of the level of something like auto A2A refueling in-game.

Respectfully SB, if adding this in is ED making a statement, then it would seem the statement is already made, so that horse has already bolted. Because we have auto-rudder, auto start/shutdown, labels, padlock, etc, so this actually argues for, and not against considering this as ED have already shown themselves to be thoughtful to people less skilled. 

As for "upsetting more than half the community",  kindly - I reject that assertion. (But I'm open to being proven wrong if you have evidence to back it up). You see, my strong DCS experience has been that the vast majority of the community is accommodating, and inclusive - helping people to learn, taking time out and wanting to see people succeed, and being OK with people using aids as necessary. (OK - with fun banter thrown in their direction  , but in kind fun).

I certainly didn't see more than half the community upset when Campaign makers added in the option for other people to continue the campaign without air-air refueling such as Raven One. I dare say because most of the community doesn't care. If it doesn't affect them - and helps others - it's seen as a good thing. The more players onboard - the better, and the developers showed that they cared about including more people. DCS thrives on people with passion that help other people enjoy DCS more. 

There's only one valid reason for not implementing this that I have seen raised so far: It may take resources from ED that could be used in other areas. And as @Ironhandsaid above that's a decision for ED to make. And ED has so far made that decision against this, so it appears not.

Personally, while I don't mind this idea - I personally have other areas I'd like to see supported better first too. But it seems far more productive to discuss the pro's and con's of how it could be implemented and the negative or positive effects that those methods might have on the game/sim and players, rather than making assumptions on how many people may or may not get upset over how 'other' people do things. 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Dangerzone

[draconus]

3 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

As for "upsetting more than half the community",  kindly - I reject that assertion. (But I'm open to being proven wrong if you have evidence to back it up).

Not a proof per se, but just FYI.

 

@Ironhand ED recently made a try to do something about naysayers by providing this info (you know it already):

Quote

We do not have time to read through a 30 post thread of two people arguing why something is bad, in fact most times we will just read the first post for the idea and move on from there, if there are 30 posts and a good star rating we will just assume everyone loves the idea. Yes that means that those of you that love arguing about ideas you don't like will actually help the idea get views. So if you don't like it, don't respond, give it 1 star. And be nice to each other.

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/319178-welcome-to-the-core-game-wish-list-section/

by I guess it doesn't stop them - they just want to keep gatekeeping You can take on any of the wish thread you don't like and make "ED has better things to do" argument but if someone is bored enough...

Edited April 14, 2023 by draconus

[cfrag]

15 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

The more I realize about this topic (and in a broader spectrum the DCS Wishlist as a whole) is simply a bunch of daydreamers that, in most cases, will never see their ideas come to fruition.

So what is bad about that? Better to talk about dreams even if they never come to pass than missing their one in a million chance that they do. You can only win if you show up, and on this forum, people show up. I fail to see the danger or damage that this wish list - even if people wish for things I intensely dislike - represents.

15 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

Gamifying a simulator is already a red flag for me

I believe here we are getting to the heart of it. You seem to make a distinction or project onto the meaning of 'simulator' and how that term relates to games. DCS is a game. ED, as producer of games, have exactly one job: to entertain their customers. If they fail to do that, the product dies and all of us here who love DCS lose. That is why this whish-list discussion has merit for me: to help ED to gauge what kind of entertainment people seek, so they can explore how to best meet them. 

There are people here who somewhat erroneously believe that "realism of a simulation" is the main mark of quality for DCS. "Realism" doesn't enter the definition of simulation ("to model a real or imagined process over time"), so it can't be a mark of quality (see the flat earth simulator). Therefore "realism" only applies in terms of quality to DCS as long as people are entertained. ED have done a tremendous job so far in balancing this, and provide some completely unrealistic means to dull the edge of realism (e.g. three minute field repairs). Game-fication is not a red flag, the opposite is true: it's where the real work in game design begins. In entertainment, that is where the rubber meets the road. ED truly excel here, and whenever I feel that some other part of the game can be made more accessible (on reflection: to people who are like me), I speak up, and then trust ED's judgement.

15 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

if ED were to add this to the game, it would be a statement to the community that they are more invested in lowering the learning curve for new players

And that would be a GOOD thing. ED are very, very much interested in doing that, as the perceived high learning curve is what is currently regarded as one of the most important barriers for new customers to enter the game. That's why ED advertise DCS in videos as not requiring HOTAS, that everyone can play it using only mouse and keyboard. ED is interested in dialing up the fun first (to make this game more popular), accessibility second, everything else third. They sell entertainment, and want/need to maximize sell-through to remain successful.

5 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

With the implication of this addition, ED is then making a statement to the community that they are not concerned with realism and are now more focused on "gamifying" DCS

That is your interpretation, and may result from a projection of your priorities onto ED's. And yes, if ED are more concerned (as opposed exclusively concerned as you seem to imply) with playability than realism, that is a mark of quality, not - as you seem to think - a detriment. ED sell games. Gamifying is their core competency.

5 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

"gamifying" DCS, which would [] upset more than half the community

For simplicity, I recommend people try to speak for themselves. Gamefication may upset you, but not me. It may even upset the majority of the people on this (self-selected) forum of enthusiast. I have no idea, nor reason to believe, that we represent the majority of players. I don't think that you are speaking for the majority of the community.

5 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

with them caving to the community

Uh. That phrasing makes it appear as if you think that doing what the community requests is a bad thing. If that was your intention, I submit that a bit of reflection could be advantageous. Plus, from a purely logical standpoint, I would think that "caving" to the community (i.e. doing what they want) couldn't "upset more than half the community". I think you are referring to your personal likes and dislikes.

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by cfrag

[Dangerzone]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Not a proof per se, but just FYI.

 

Thanks Draconus. However that poll will give an indication of how many people want it - not how many people would be upset if it was implemented. A subtle but significant difference.  

I could put up a poll how many people will use the F4 for instance and have more say no than yes potentially - but you haven't got a bunch of people getting upset that it's being made, on the contrary most who aren't going to buy it are still happy for those who are excited for it.  

What's surprised me about that poll (and thanks for having the foresight to put that up back then) is that roughly 1/3rd of the voters would be for it, which honestly I didn't expect. I thought there would be far less than that - maybe 10-15% was my guess -  which if anything shows that there's actually more need for it than I gave it credit.

 

1 hour ago, draconus said:

@Ironhand ED recently made a try to do something about naysayers by providing this info (you know it already):

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/319178-welcome-to-the-core-game-wish-list-section/

by I guess it doesn't stop them - they just want to keep gatekeeping You can take on any of the wish thread you don't like and make "ED has better things to do" argument but if someone is bored enough...

 

True that. I guess my incredible idea of how it could be implemented on post 5 of page 2 that I put so much time and effort into will go unnoticed.    

Edited April 14, 2023 by Dangerzone

[Ironhand]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

@Ironhand ED recently made a try to do something about naysayers by providing this info (you know it already):

 Very aware. Just doing my part to keep the thread alive with an observation or two.

[Exorcet]

On 4/13/2023 at 8:02 AM, SharpeXB said:

Taxi guides for every runway and airport and every parking space seems a bit overwhelming as a task. This sort of way finding I see as a problem in other sims but not DCS

This has to be in game partially already or the AI would not know how to use airports.

On 4/13/2023 at 8:02 AM, SharpeXB said:

But again, the challenge with AAR is not the path you follow in the air, that’s rather obvious. And you’ve got a speed indicator in the form of a tanker in front of you.

"You can see the ground just by looking out the window, why did the waste time adding an altimeter to the plane?"

11 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

The issue is, With the implication of this addition, ED is then making a statement to the community that they are not concerned with realism

How? This is in no way even remotely implied. We can see that from all the other simplification features that exist like rudder assist, immortality, invisibility, unlimited ammo, crash recovery, etc.

11 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

other sorts of things that give the player handholding to this scale are now possible additions in DCS.

In other words, nothing has changed?

11 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

That is the issue I have (and many others in the community would agree) with this, is that once something like this happens in game (which it probably won't for the foreseeable future) it means that ED is looking to turn DCS more into a game (which yes, it is a game) than a simulator. They've already technically hinted at it with them caving to the community with adding x4 HARMs on the F-16C, but luckily, nothing of the level of something like auto A2A refueling in-game.

So you've even seen an example of what you're labeling as gamification, and it wasn't a big deal. So why is AAR assist a big deal?