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

[Tippis]

21 minutes ago, Furiz said:

I think this is going in the same direction as other threads,

Well, why don't you try to steer it in a more sensible one? Let's all try to stay away from the incessant trolling that shut those down and instead have a sensible discussion.

As in: rather than just naysaying and going for various ad-hominem fallacies, present an actual rational argument against why this feature should exist, or the pros and cons of various implementations.

And again, remember what DCS is supposed to do: “to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator”. How is something that would hold the hand of novice pilots not needed for AAR when it is available in so many other places? If you want to make it an argument of prioritisation, then argue what the priorities should be to make sure DCS achieves that design goal. If you want to make an argument that it might be something the game needs, but the effort is just too much, then show why that is — the amount of programming that would be needed to create any of the many suggestion implementations, and how that would steal resources from everything else.

“Not needed” isn't an argument — nothing in DCS is needed. New modules aren't needed. New mechanics aren't needed. Performance improvements aren't needed. Bug fixes aren't needed. After all, you can just work around them…

Edited April 9, 2024 by Tippis

[Grodin]

2 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

Okay that's fair enough.  So we can dive into that argument a little bit.

Programming a complex system of multiple levels of difficulty to allow the player to slowly remove the "training wheels" may take lots and lots of time.  Sure.  That would be my ideal solution so that as I gradually 'suck less at life' I can turn the assist down until it's off.

 

How about using already programmed functionality to make a work around and simply offer "Realistic" and "Arcade" fueling options?

For "Arcade" AAR:
Open the comms menu.
Select Tanker.
Request Refueling.
Fly to precontact position.
Tell tanker you're at precontact.
Tanker says "Cleared Contact".
"ARCADE AAR IN PROGRESS" displays on screen to publicly embarrass anyone making a YouTube video.  Control of the player aircraft switches to the AI.  The AI moves the player aircraft into position, takes fuel until the tanks are full, goes idle throttle, deploys the speed brakes, and hands control back to the player.

That's not ideally what I want, but that would be enough for me to not be angry when flying and finding out that AAR is required or my best option, and to stop me from wanting to come here and offend all the aces on the forums.

My point is even that kind of system would take some serious coding.Having autopilot fly the players plane to the boom or well any specific position other than what the module is already programmed to do is some serious work and every module would have to implement it differently. Its very unlikely the player plane could be autopiloted like an AI plane because the AI flight model that is used for the AI planes to refuel is 100% different to how player planes are controlled. They would have to write a completely new mode to every planes autopilot system. Weeks or months of coding i would guess.

Slightly more plausable system would be a trigger zone near the tanker that would refuel the plane when you fly close enough to the tanker, would require some additions to mission editor.

 

But even then my point is if the devs made a poll "What should we code for the next month?" and the poll has options like "Add undo feature to mission editor", "add f16 sniper pod", "finish supercarrier briefing room", "make dedicated server multi threaded", "implement vulcan", "code a smarted sam/iads system", "make a dynamic campaign" etc i would imagine option "easy AAR feature" would not be on top of the poll.

Yeah sure some of the backlash you get could be about "only worthy pilots can join my "wohoo i can AAR" club" but i'm sure most people would just like the devs to focus on what they think is most important at the moment and frankly easy AAR is not very high on that list for vast majority of DCS players.

[lmp]

49 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s indeed a tough one but I imagine you’re using visual references on the tanker which are very visible. For any of the other aircraft a screen graphic isn’t needed because you can clearly see where your plane needs to be. Knowing where you need to be isn’t the problem. Doing it is what takes practice. 

I couldn't see where I need to be in the Hornet until I found the right spot by trial and error and looking at videos that ED did not provide. The lack of depth perception played a big part in this. Once that happened, I saw it every time and practice commenced. Before it was fumbling in the dark. In order to practice any mechanical skill you need to do it right. Otherwise the only thing you're doing is creating bad habits. Which you will then have to unlearn. And in order to do it right, you need guidance and feedback. DCS provides very little of either and this shouldn't be something delegated to content creators.

49 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

A little savvy goes a long way in determining who knows what they’re doing. It’s not too hard to figure out.

But why should people have to? This knowledge should come from the module creators, presented in an effective, easily digestible way. Customers should not have to sift through forums or YouTube.

49 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Certainly having more training missions for this isn’t such a bad idea but that’s not the obstacle. 

You can't cheat your way out of practice but you can waste a lot of practice if you practice the wrong thing.

This issue of AAR comes up repeatedly on the forums even though it's not really more difficult than CASE 1s, warbird take offs and landing, and a lot of the helo stuff. I'm not saying tutorials, learning aids and maybe even videos - but coming directly from source - will fix this for everybody, but they will clearly help.

Edited April 9, 2024 by lmp

[Tippis]

1 minute ago, Grodin said:

My point is even that kind of system would take some serious coding.Having autopilot fly the players plane to the boom or well any specific position other than what the module is already programmed to do is some serious work and every module would have to implement it differently.

Is it, though? All planes can already fly themselves. All of the ones capable of in-air refuelling are able to do so without any player input. Yes, they have different flight models, but does that mean it is wholly impossible to switch on the fly? Because if it isn't then there's not a lot “serious coding” that would be needed at all.

[PawlaczGMD]

7 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Well, why don't you try to steer it in a more sensible one? Let's all try to stay away from the incessant trolling that shut those down and instead have a sensible discussion.

As in: rather than just naysaying and going for various ad-hominem fallacies, present an actual rational argument against why this feature should exist, or the pros and cons of various implementations.

And again, remember what DCS is supposed to do: “to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator”. How is something that would hold the hand of novice pilots not needed for AAR when it is available in so many other places? If you want to make it an argument of prioritisation, then argue what the priorities should be to make sure DCS achieves that design goal. If you want to make an argument that it might be something the game needs, but the effort is just too much, then show why that is — the amount of programming that would be needed to create any of the many suggestion implementations, and how that would steal resources from everything else.

“Not needed” isn't an argument — nothing in DCS is needed. New modules aren't needed. New mechanics aren't needed. Performance improvements aren't needed. Bug fixes aren't needed. After all, you can just work around them…

 

You're playing semantics. Yes, in the broadest possible interpretation of the word, nothing is really "needed", so does this justify implementing every feature imaginable because either everything is needed or nothing is?

Arcade AAR is not needed, because it is not in the spirit of the SIMULATION, it does not provide anything to most players who know how to AAR or simply don't use it, it is negative training for those who think they want it, it can already by circumvented by simpler unlimited fuel cheat, and it requires a relatively complex implementation that takes dev time away from priority features. The answer to this feature request is practice. The game gives you everything you need to do it without such aids. If it doesn't exist in reality, and doesn't serve a purpose that is strictly to do with the fact that DCS is a computer simulation and not real life, and limitations that come with this, it doesn't belong in the game, and doesn't justify time spent on implementation.

[Furiz]

32 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

I think we agree, this is going the wrong direction.

It is packed full of toxic gatekeepers who are providing all the wrong reasons and excuses for the lack of a key feature, and all they have to do is stop telling others how to play the game.

We are discussing and you start calling people toxic... not really nice,

there is no reason for AAR sorry, I already explained why.

[Grodin]

8 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Is it, though? All planes can already fly themselves. All of the ones capable of in-air refuelling are able to do so without any player input. Yes, they have different flight models, but does that mean it is wholly impossible to switch on the fly? Because if it isn't then there's not a lot “serious coding” that would be needed at all.

Player planes only fly themselves to the extent their autopilot is modeled. AFAIK while some of the autopilots can follow a tacan none of the autopilots in the game can automatically match the speed of another plane - you would need to model a new system for the plane to do that.

Switching to the AI flight model and letting AI completely control the plane might be easier, but if AI was to take control of the player plane the cockpit would go haywire because the AI flight model doesnt use any of the sensors or inputs from the player cockpit, currently you cant look inside a cockpit of a plane that is flown by AI so there is propably a lot more to code than you would first think.

Edited April 9, 2024 by Grodin

[SharpeXB]

35 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

If I wanted to spend a few hours training for it, then I would spend a few hours training for it.  If all it took to fly with the Blue Angels or the Thunderbirds was spending the time to "Get Gud Scrub" then any and every pilot could do it, right?

A few hours here and there is all it takes. Ok a lot of hours. But anyone can learn. Like anyone can learn to ride a bicycle. It’s kinda the same. 

37 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

Maybe I want to jump in and fly a mission without the frustration of coming up on a surprise roadblock that I can't pass.

It’s not a roadblock. As far as I know every campaign has a workaround for it. And again there’s unlimited fuel. 

39 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

Do you not recognize the vast difference between unlimited fuel and easier AAR?

They’re both imaginary. How is imagining your plane magically fills itself up any different than it magically not running out of gas? And the other game aids like unlimited ammo or fuel don’t actually play the game for you. Wanting the game to actually do things for you is a whole other level of handholding you don’t see in PC games at all let alone sims like this. How about an autopilot that just flies the whole mission for you while you watch?

35 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

the lack of a key feature

But it’s not a key feature or necessary task in the game. You can play this game for hundreds of hours and do lots of things and hardly run out of challenges without ever doing AAR. Why do you just want to pretend you can do this? How about just learning for real?

[PhantomHans]

16 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Is it, though? All planes can already fly themselves. All of the ones capable of in-air refuelling are able to do so without any player input. Yes, they have different flight models, but does that mean it is wholly impossible to switch on the fly? Because if it isn't then there's not a lot “serious coding” that would be needed at all.

Can't we already "Jump" into and out of aircraft in flight?  That seems pretty realistic.  No wait someone will be along to explain to me why it's useful...

I'd be perfectly happy not to make it an autopilot function but to simply make it "Please Wait, the AI will refuel you now..." even if it isn't my ideal solution.

 

But, given how this discussion has gone, if anyone from Eagle Dynamics would like to offer me a full cash refund, I would be perfectly happy to save them all of their programming time by taking my money back and leaving forever.  I'm always in favor of a frustration free solution that would make everyone happy!

Edited April 9, 2024 by PhantomHans

[SharpeXB]

18 minutes ago, lmp said:

I couldn't see where I need to be in the Hornet until I found the right spot by trial and error and looking at videos that ED did not provide.

You can see the probe from the Hornets cockpit. How is it a mystery to know where you’re supposed to be? 

21 minutes ago, lmp said:

But why should people have to?

At some point in any endeavor you have to help yourself just a little bit. Yeah they could have training missions but anyone willing to put in the effort can teach themselves this stuff. I’m sure the vast majority of players never touch AAR. It’s rather an advanced skill. 

[Tippis]

36 minutes ago, Grodin said:

Player planes only fly themselves to the extent their autopilot is modeled. AFAIK while some of the autopilots can follow a tacan none of the autopilots in the game can automatically match the speed of another plane - you would need to model a new system for the plane to do that.

Switching to the AI flight model and letting AI completely control the plane might be easier, but if AI was to take control of the player plane the cockpit would go haywire because the AI flight model doesnt use any of the sensors or inputs from the player cockpit, currently you cant look inside a cockpit of a plane that is flown by AI so there is propably a lot more to code than you would first think.

I was debating back and forth with myself as to whether I should follow my own advice and not try some kind of cute setup, but I was too slow to edit it out. Sorry about that.

I'll just not be coy or vague about this: the switch between flight models I'm asking about is already possible. You can already grab control of and jump into an AI aircraft, flipping it from AI to player flight model, and then jump out of it and flip it right back.

The only issue with that is almost completely separate: taking control over AI aircraft make them abandon their flight plan, so the coding needed would be to either just continue what they were doing before the player intruded (which arguably is a needed fix anyway), or — in this case — be context sensitive enough to figure “oh, I'm being activated in a refuelling scenario, so let's refuel from this tanker right in front of me”. Remembering what waypoint they were on, or doing a specific in-flight task when called upon through some UI mean that explicitly says “do this task” shouldn't be a huge coding hurdle. It's a contextual auto-generated pushTask for one of the most trivial tasks in the game.

e: In fact, it was brought up earlier, and if we're going for a full-on self-flying scenario, I'm not sure any flight modelling at all is even needed. It's already possible to snap the player in place relative to a moving unit. An extreme case would be to apply that existing functionality to the appropriate position relative to the tanker. Whether you'd want to go that far is of course entirely up for debate. It certainly risks looking ugly.

 

26 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

Can't we already "Jump" into and out of aircraft in flight?

Yes we can. That was the bit I was alluding to, but rather than be constructive about it, I tried to be cute instead. Again, sorry to Grodin for that one.

 

38 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

You're playing semantics. Yes, in the broadest possible interpretation of the word, nothing is really "needed", so does this justify implementing every feature imaginable because either everything is needed or nothing is?

I'm playing semantics to show what a non-argument “not needed” is unless it's padded out with a whole lot more context. Is it not needed because the function already exists? Is it not needed because it's outside the scope of what the game is trying to do? Those are really the only two options and neither applies in this case.

38 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

Arcade AAR is not needed, because it is not in the spirit of the SIMULATION, it does not provide anything to most players who know how to AAR or simply don't use it, it is negative training for those who think they want it, it can already by circumvented by simpler unlimited fuel cheat, and it requires a relatively complex implementation that takes dev time away from priority features

Simplified AAR is needed because it is fully in line with the stated goal of the game “to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator”. If “both hardcore realistic and casual gameplay modes and options” are to be available as key features, why should AAR of all things be excluded from that?

Simplified AAR is needed because it provides those who don't know how to AAR a means to still take part in missions where AAR is needed. Consequently, it removes a hurdle for mission makers in that they have to either make special considerations for those who can't, or limit their audience — i.e. it allows for more content for everyone. Depending on how it's done, it also provides a better learning environment for those who don't know yet, and for the mission makers who want to create those teaching scenarios. It provides a lot of things to a lot of people. To almost everyone, in fact.

Simplified AAR is needed exactly because it can avoid creating the kind of negative learning that self-guided practice invariable creates. Again, if implemented sensibly, it would create an environment where common mistakes can be pointed out and not made by the learner to begin with.

It cannot be circumvented by unlimited fuel — in fact, unlimited fuel does the exact opposite.

There is nothing to suggest that it requires much in the way of complex programming. And even if it did, that doesn't mean it's not needed for a myriad of other reasons.

Edited April 9, 2024 by Tippis

[Furiz]

Back and forth, pointless request.

It has been said before over and over, practice AAR instead of dropping bombs, and you wont need any aid. Practice makes you better;)

[PhantomHans]

1 minute ago, Furiz said:

Back and forth, pointless request.

It has been said before over and over, practice AAR instead of dropping bombs, and you wont need any aid. Practice makes you better;)

At this point I'd be happy to take a refund and play something else.

[Furiz]

2 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

At this point I'd be happy to take a refund and play something else.

Sorry to see you go and give up so easy, you can read EULA about that or contact support.

Edited April 9, 2024 by Furiz

[PhantomHans]

16 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Sorry to see you go and give up so easy, you can read EULA about that or contact support.

 

I'm sorry to have joined this "community".  It's apparently a waste of both my time and money.

 

I would be more than happy to be offered a full refund to go play something else.  Anyone from ED is welcome to reach out to me.

[Furiz]

3 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

I'm sorry to have joined this "community".  It's apparently a waste of both my time and money.

 

I would be more than happy to be offered a full refund to go play something else.  Anyone from ED is welcome to reach out to me.

Yeah, if you want to get the most out of this sim you can reach out and ask for advice from the community, if you go through the forum there are lots of people helping out. 

I see you only have 29 posts, most of those in this topic, which means your a new, but you came to this forum and you ask for ED to change the game for you instead of asking for advice on how to do aerial refueling.

even tho we all have our differences, this community is the best I've seen so far.

[PhantomHans]

Sorry.  I'm not interested in participating any further.

I'd love a full refund on both everything I have and my unfilled pre-orders. Then I can leave and be happy.

[lmp]

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You can see the probe from the Hornets cockpit. How is it a mystery to know where you’re supposed to be? 

Because of a lack of depth perception due to not having a VR headset. I have never sat in a Hornet, my brain doesn't have a reference for how far the probe is from my eyes and how big the basket is. That threw me off, I thought I was flying the probe into the basket, but I was off. Back in those days the S-3 tanker, and it's drogue, had a very low quality model which also fooled my brain.

3D graphics on a 2D screen are just a mind trick, it works on some people better than on others. That's why I consider it an accessibility feature.

39 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

At some point in any endeavor you have to help yourself just a little bit. Yeah they could have training missions but anyone willing to put in the effort can teach themselves this stuff. I’m sure the vast majority of players never touch AAR. It’s rather an advanced skill. 

But does that mean we shouldn't want the game to become better? I learned AAR without any tutorials and aids. I could have learned it sooner if I had good information and a good feedback loop available to me. I want others to have a less frustrating time than I did. If we gatekeep this hobby of ours because "we had to put in the effort so others should too", it will die.

[MAXsenna]

Okay that's fair enough.  So we can dive into that argument a little bit.
Programming a complex system of multiple levels of difficulty to allow the player to slowly remove the "training wheels" may take lots and lots of time.  Sure.  That would be my ideal solution so that as I gradually 'suck less at life' I can turn the assist down until it's off.
 
How about using already programmed functionality to make a work around and simply offer "Realistic" and "Arcade" fueling options?
For "Arcade" AAR:
Open the comms menu.
Select Tanker.
Request Refueling.
Fly to precontact position.
Tell tanker you're at precontact.
Tanker says "Cleared Contact".
"ARCADE AAR IN PROGRESS" displays on screen to publicly embarrass anyone making a YouTube video.  Control of the player aircraft switches to the AI.  The AI moves the player aircraft into position, takes fuel until the tanks are full, goes idle throttle, deploys the speed brakes, and hands control back to the player.

That's not ideally what I want, but that would be enough for me to not be angry when flying and finding out that AAR is required or my best option, and to stop me from wanting to come here and offend all the aces on the forums.

Why do you need the AI to tank the plane. Wouldn't it be sufficient to just have the plane filled up, or if you are close enough to the basket/boom (larger hit box), you get to tank? That would actually be somewhat of a practice.
Again! The Su-33 is the easiest. Try it.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Is it, though? All planes can already fly themselves. All of the ones capable of in-air refuelling are able to do so without any player input. Yes, they have different flight models, but does that mean it is wholly impossible to switch on the fly? Because if it isn't then there's not a lot “serious coding” that would be needed at all.

George and Petrovich comes to mind. And George still haven't found his way to the Mossie yet. So who knows.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Tippis]

4 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Why do you need the AI to tank the plane. Wouldn't it be sufficient to just have the plane filled up, or if you are close enough to the basket/boom (larger hit box), you get to tank? That would actually be somewhat of a practice.

The case I can see for auto-fly is to show the correct visual line-up between cockpit and tanker elements. The whole “don't look at the basket” bit. It can probably be done in other less extreme ways to offer a more flexible option and more teachability in one go, but if we're talking about giving that for minimum effort, just having the AI take over the flight controls fully is probably the easiest route.

 

7 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

George and Petrovich comes to mind. And George still haven't found his way to the Mossie yet. So who knows.

Having a very fine-tuned Iceman would be another interesting point of comparison. As it is, he's a bit rough on the controls and slow to respond to player input.

[PhantomHans]

9 minutes ago, lmp said:

I want others to have a less frustrating time than I did. If we gatekeep this hobby of ours because "we had to put in the effort so others should too", it will die.

I came here wanting a less frustrating time.  But tbh they can gatekeep DCS all they want.  I just want my money back and I'll leave and never return.

[cfrag]

26 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

I came here wanting a less frustrating time.

This is a wish list, and you have come to the right place. Unfortunately, this topic "AAR Helper" is know to be irresistible for some of the, uh, more outspoken "git gud" crowd, with motivations I try not to speculate too much about. In case you haven't yet used it, there is a very helpful function available to you that can make this entire discussion (albeit not AAR) a lot more palpable: the 'Ignore' function that can tune out those whom you deem not worth your while. I use it sparingly, yet I notice that I only see half of all the messages in this thread. Go figure. 

So is an AAR helper a legitimate wish? Yes. Why? Because you wish it.   

Edited April 9, 2024 by cfrag

[Grodin]

2 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

I came here wanting a less frustrating time.  But tbh they can gatekeep DCS all they want.  I just want my money back and I'll leave and never return.

Simulators usually are a bit frustrating at first, they are not just plug and play console games. iRacing does not have auto-pit, Arma does not have auto-aim. Certain amount of learning curve is to be expected. Target audience often invests so much time and money to this hobby that when someone wants more hand holding aids you start wondering what they need next when they get to the more challenging parts of the game - someone wants autoland, someone auto takeoff, someone wants dumb bombs to auto hit because they are hard to hit etc etc, it never ends.

15 minutes ago, Tippis said:

The case I can see for auto-fly is to show the correct visual line-up between cockpit and tanker elements. The whole “don't look at the basket” bit.

Well you could look at a track of someone doing AAR within DCS to see what it looks like and you can even take control during any part of the replay to practice keeping the probe in after connection if you want to.

[Tippis]

5 minutes ago, Grodin said:

Well you could look at a track of someone doing AAR within DCS to see what it looks like and you can even take control during any part of the replay to practice keeping the probe in after connection if you want to.

True enough, but it hinges on the guy recording the track doing it properly which is… well… an unsafe assumption to make.

In previous threads, some of the “I learned this all on my own so you can too” showed off their skillz in various videos, and let's just say that they were far from exemplary in how it should be done. Still a track, even from those attempts beats watching it passively on youtube, so there's still that.

But it highlights how a lot of the bits are there already — they just need to be tied together in fully exposed functionality that lets you build good teaching tools. I really do think it's much less of a chore than the detractors want to imply.

Edited April 9, 2024 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

44 minutes ago, lmp said:

Because of a lack of depth perception due to not having a VR headset. I have never sat in a Hornet, my brain doesn't have a reference for how far the probe is from my eyes and how big the basket is. That threw me off, I thought I was flying the probe into the basket, but I was off. Back in those days the S-3 tanker, and it's drogue, had a very low quality model which also fooled my brain.

3D graphics on a 2D screen are just a mind trick, it works on some people better than on others. That's why I consider it an accessibility feature.

Although VR might indeed be a help with AAR the majority of player are using monitors. Imagining 3D on a 2D screen is something everyone does their whole life of watching video and playing games on a screen so it’s no too unusual. 

1 hour ago, PhantomHans said:

I'm sorry to have joined this "community".  It's apparently a waste of both my time and money.

Sorry to see you have inadvertently stumbled on a well worn topic here. It’s all been discussed at length many times

I’m curious what sort of gameplay or module you are trying to do in DCS. Because as a new player AAR isn’t something you should attempt right away or maybe never do. Again it simply isn’t essential for playing DCS. 

 

Edited April 9, 2024 by SharpeXB