not planned Easy/Medium/Hard/Realistic refueling options.

[PhantomHans]

9 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Here, most such accommodations are met with pure vitriol and shouted down as “dumbing down” the game for no reason that the detractors can articulate.

Certainly the feeling I have gotten.

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Sure it can be a training aid. AFAIK you can still attempt refueling with this enabled. So if you’re not confident in your AAR ability but want to fly a mission with it, you can still practice and if not successful you haven’t spoiled the flight. If you want the broader experience of managing the fuel then that’s a reason to learn AAR. 

Again unlimited fuel isn't the solution. It removes fuel management. As people are interested in the sim aspect of DCS, an AAR assist would be preferable.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m not aware of any game no matter how arcadish that has helpers on the level of actually playing the game for you. So what’s being asked for here just isn’t done in games at all. At that point they wouldn’t be games anymore they’d be videos. Key word in interactive entertainment is interactive. 

One example is DCS, where the game manages the rudder for you on take off if you so wish, or starts the plane for you. There are also racing games where you can pass control to the AI, as you can in DCS by using the jump plane function.

[freehand]

Why do you need fuel management if your just practicing hooking up to the tanker ? 

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Again unlimited fuel isn't the solution. It removes fuel management.

You can just pretend you’re managing the fuel. How is that different than pretending that your refueling?

[Exorcet]

3 minutes ago, freehand said:

Why do you need fuel management if your just practicing hooking up to the tanker ? 

There are more situations that just that one, as was explained. If you don't have to worry about being able to successfully AAR, then you can fly any mission regardless of fuel requirements or length. In that case having fuel management is a plus as it's part of the mission experience.

Though even in the simple AAR in a vacuum mission, fuel management is extra realism. So why not have the option?

  

Just now, SharpeXB said:

You can just pretend you’re managing the fuel. How is that different than pretending that your refueling?

Then pretend you're flying a plane and save yourself $60 on a module.

Edited April 10, 2024 by Exorcet

[freehand]

1 minute ago, Exorcet said:

There are more situations that just that one, as was explained. If you don't have to worry about being able to successfully AAR, then you can fly any mission regardless of fuel requirements or length. In that case having fuel management is a plus as it's part of the mission experience.

Though even in the simple AAR in a vacuum mission, fuel management is extra realism. So why not have the option?

I thought this was about making contact and refuelling. 

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, Exorcet said:

Then pretend you're flying a plane and save yourself $60 on a module.

Why is one sort of imaginary any better than another? Unlimited fuel is at least already in the game. It requires no extra work from the devs. 

[Tippis]

14 minutes ago, freehand said:

Why do you need fuel management if your just practicing hooking up to the tanker ? 

You don't. That's why unlimited fuel does not help. It's just some magical words that people try to use to make the scary topic go away.

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You can just pretend you’re managing the fuel. How is that different than pretending that your refueling?

Because the whole point is that you don't want to pretend on either of those points. Unlimited fuel forces you to. That's why it's not a solution here either.

Oh, and by that logic, let's remove all teen fighters from the game. You can just fly the TF-51 and pretend it's actually a Tomcat.

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Unlimited fuel is at least already in the game. It requires no extra work from the devs.

Unlimtied ammo is also already in the game and requires no extra work. It contributes just as much, i.e. not at all.

Ceasing all support and development on all teen fighters would not only require extra work, but would free up devs to do something else. And you could still pretend, right?

Edited April 10, 2024 by Tippis

[Exorcet]

1 minute ago, freehand said:

I thought this was about making contact and refuelling. 

The subject covers a lot of things. Though even in that case, fuel weight and management does play a role. If your fuel is fixed to a specific amount you're losing part of the experience, which can be a hindrance to learning depend on what you want to do. If it's just AAR for the sake of AAR I guess it's not a big deal, but I'd think some people would want to learn AAR to perform in a mission environment.

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Why is one sort of imaginary any better than another? Unlimited fuel is at least already in the game. It requires no extra work from the devs. 

Stopping all development of DCS also requires no extra work from the devs.

Why would AAR assist be better than unlimited fuel? For the reasons mentioned many times now: more realism, better learning, and the ability to assist mission makers/testers.

[freehand]

Well if this is the case then just make a poll vote ED can see it and done job, if they think it is important then will be done If not then they will not.

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

One example is DCS, where the game manages the rudder for you on take off if you so wish, or starts the plane for you.

The level of help being asked for here is more like Easy Auto Takeoff or Landing. Not just assisting with one control axis. The trouble with that sort of progressive help in AAR is it seems like it would require new flight models. Like Game Mode which if you notice has been discontinued. If the player’s goal is to progressively improve then they can do that without a helper and indeed that’s probably less interfering. I imagine a slider helper for the flight model actually interfering with learning of these reflexes. 

[Jackjack171]

1 hour ago, PhantomHans said:

Honestly having met the lovely community here I would be more than happy to accept a refund and go play War Thunder instead.  In fact I really do regret having given DCS a try now thanks to the people here.

The thing is, you weren't insulted in any way. You were given honest thoughts, ideas and opinions on an issue. The community tried to help you. If you choose to leave, that's on you. We can help but clearly, you don't want it! Maybe War Thunder suits you better and I wish you well. 

[Exorcet]

1 minute ago, freehand said:

Well if this is the case then just make a poll vote ED can see it and done job, if they think it is important then will be done If not then they will not.

You're not really going to be done with this topic as it's popular enough that new people will pop in and ask for it every now and then. A poll was already made showing a good amount of support for the feature, but this topic has come up multiple times over the years that a poll isn't all that necessary to see that it's something that people want.

As of now ED has no plans for a refueling assist, but it's good to let them know what players want.

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

The level of help being asked for here is more like Easy Auto Takeoff or Landing. Not just assisting with one control axis. The trouble with that sort of progressive help in AAR is it seems like it would require new flight models. Like Game Mode which if you notice has been discontinued. If the player’s goal is to progressively improve then they can do that without a helper and indeed that’s probably less interfering. I imagine a slider helper for the flight model actually interfering with learning of these reflexes. 

Or just refine the exist AI control of player aircraft. Done, no new flight model needed.

There are many ideas that have been proposed if you have a problem with one, there are many others. Although since it would seem you're not interested in using the assist, you shouldn't care in the first place.

Just now, Jackjack171 said:

The thing is, you weren't insulted in any way. You were given honest thoughts, ideas and opinions on an issue. The community tried to help you. If you choose to leave, that's on you. We can help but clearly, you don't want it! Maybe War Thunder suits you better and I wish you well. 

You can provide AAR tips if you want, but that's not what people are asking for. So it doesn't really help. WT has nothing to do with this as people would just play it if it suited them better than DCS with an assist.

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, freehand said:

Well if this is the case then just make a poll vote ED can see it and done job, if they think it is important then will be done If not then they will not.

Already been done. It’s like 2:1 against.

 

[Jackjack171]

1 minute ago, Exorcet said:

You're not really going to be done with this topic as it's popular enough that new people will pop in and ask for it every now and then. A poll was already made showing a good amount of support for the feature, but this topic has come up multiple times over the years that a poll isn't all that necessary to see that it's something that people want.

As of now ED has no plans for a refueling assist, but it's good to let them know what players want.

Some players want, not all! We've been wanting and waiting for better ATC and yet...

5 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

You're not really going to be done with this topic as it's popular enough that new people will pop in and ask for it every now and then. A poll was already made showing a good amount of support for the feature, but this topic has come up multiple times over the years that a poll isn't all that necessary to see that it's something that people want.

As of now ED has no plans for a refueling assist, but it's good to let them know what players want.

Or just refine the exist AI control of player aircraft. Done, no new flight model needed.

There are many ideas that have been proposed if you have a problem with one, there are many others. Although since it would seem you're not interested in using the assist, you shouldn't care in the first place.

You can provide AAR tips if you want, but that's not what people are asking for. So it doesn't really help. WT has nothing to do with this as people would just play it if it suited them better than DCS with an assist.

Only mentioned WT because that's where he said he wanted to go! 

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Stopping all development of DCS also requires no extra work from the devs.

Most people want EDs effort spent on more worthwhile things. 

[Exorcet]

2 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

Some players want, not all! We've been wanting and waiting for better ATC and yet...

And that goes for everything. If we needed 100% approval for new features, would DCS have any features at all?

You're waiting for ATC and so am I. How many people at ED work on both? I don't know. Unless somehow AAR assists and ATC were totally mutally exclusive I see no reason to be against one or the other. Giving your opinion on what is higher priority is fine, anything else beyond that without even knowing how ED works internally just seems odd.

  

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Most people want EDs effort spent on more worthwhile things. 

And worthwhile is a subjective assessment, meaning it will vary from person to person, meaning AAR assist could be among the most worthwhile additions to DCS.

Edited April 10, 2024 by Exorcet

[Tippis]

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The level of help being asked for here is more like Easy Auto Takeoff or Landing.

Funnily enough, those exist already on a level that would be comparable to what the OP is asking for.

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The trouble with that sort of progressive help in AAR is it seems like it would require new flight models.

There's nothing to suggest anything of the kind. This is just something you dreamed up and it only “seems like it” in relation to your imagination. In the real world, where the rest of us exist, the existing flight models can take care of this fully. In fact, adding new flight models would go completely contrary to the whole idea.

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If the player’s goal is to progressively improve then they can do that without a helper and indeed that’s probably less interfering

They can do it even better with helpers and more interfering. So why shouldn't those tools be implemented? Why should AAR be excluded from the ways in which DCS strives to fulfil its goal of hand-holding new players? Again, just because you can do it in the most stupid and grindy way imaginable doesn't mean a more intelligent and efficient method should not be implemented.

 

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Already been done. It’s like 2:1 against.

In other words, the market for this kind of feature would be a full third of the player-base — more than any other feature in the game. That's not actually an argument against its implementation. It would literally be the most worth-while thing they could possibly spend their time on if that poll is representative. And if it's not, then it could be ∞:0 against and it would still not matter. See how that works? You keep falling into this trap of trying to use some very marginal majority poll result to suggest that something has no audience, when what those polls in fact show is that there is a huge number of people who do want it… and if that minority is large enough, it doesn't matter how many don't.

Edited April 10, 2024 by Tippis

[freehand]

Nearly 50/50 on the votes interesting for sure.

[MAXsenna]

Maybe I wasn't clear.  I didn't wish for advice or youtube tutorials.  I wished for an easier AAR experience in game. 
 
So thanks for all the tutorials and advice I guess.  That would be like wishing for an F-22 and getting an F-105, but what are wish lists for amirite?

It'll take you less time to "just do it", compared to waiting for the features you want.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Jackjack171]

11 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

And that goes for everything. If we needed 100% approval for new features, would DCS have any features at all?

You're waiting for ATC and so am I. How many people at ED work on both? I don't know. Unless somehow AAR assists and ATC were totally mutally exclusive I see no reason to be against one or the other. Giving your opinion on what is higher priority is fine, anything else beyond that without even knowing how ED works internally just seems odd.

  

And worthwhile is a subjective assessment, meaning it will vary from person to person, meaning AAR assist could be among the most worthwhile additions to DCS.

 

ATC is not a priority for me...nothing is. I used ATC as a point. ED already squashed this some time ago. Personal scheduling time and skill are not something that ED can program out or in. That is a personal problem!

Helpers don't help if the person being helped only wants someone else to do the work!

The OP made it very clear. All this is, is wheel spinning! 

Edited April 10, 2024 by Jackjack171

[Tippis]

Just now, Jackjack171 said:

Personal scheduling time and skill are not something that ED can program out or in.

Sure they can.

By adding in tools and options to make things less of a needless grind, players can get more out of their available playtime. If it's about skill acquisition, then this translates into more skill for less time expenditure, which is a win for everyone.

We're tool makers. We do this for that exact reason.

[Jackjack171]

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

Sure they can.

By adding in tools and options to make things less of a needless grind, players can get more out of their available playtime. If it's about skill acquisition, then this translates into more skill for less time expenditure, which is a win for everyone.

We're tool makers. We do this for that exact reason.

Sure!

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, freehand said:

Nearly 50/50 on the votes interesting for sure.

36/64 against. Not even close. 
 

15 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

And worthwhile is a subjective assessment, meaning it will vary from person to person

See above. 64% think it’s not worthwhile. 

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

See above. 64% think it’s not worthwhile. 

That's not what the poll is saying, though, now is it?

It says that 36% want it badly. “Worth-while” is not the question. More than a third of the responders would clearly find it useful, which is a huge portion. The ones who don't want it badly don't really matter in relation to that.