Northstar98

Yeah, though I hope this still be something that can be done in the future. The 2 really shouldn't exist as separate units as IRL they're the same, just when configured as a tanker it equips a buddy store (which aren't supported in DCS). This would also be important for the A-6E and A-7E - it would be a pain to have dedicated entries for something that should just be a loadout option. If/when it does happen, then the S-3 Tanker can be removed from the unit listing (though should probably be kept in the files so as to not break existing missions).

Maybe we'll get them together? The only other thing I'll say is that the AI A-6E was announced just over 5 years ago, the Phantom wasn't teased until a little under 2 years ago and wasn't formerly announced until early last year. Meanwhile the AI A-6E, was shown off in game just under a year prior (just so people are aware of it, I did bring this up on hoggit, to which this was Cobra's reply, if anyone is interested in reading it). Now don't get me wrong, I don't really have any preference for what I'd like to see first, just that the AI A-6E, at least superficially, looked to be closer to release compared to the F-4E (though I assume the latter has priority, I am aware that the A-6E is last in line for HB to deliver, out of their currently announced projects). In any case, they're both occupying close to my top spot for what I'm most excited to see in the near future and I'm completely confident they'll both be incredible once they get released.

Yeah, many of them have been teased for quite a while now. HB did plan to have the AI A-6E (& KA-6D?) out this summer, so hopefully they'll make 2.9.

JDAMs have teased a few times, so I imagine they'll probably be on the list.

Well, by the looks of it you weren't reading much of it anyway - common theme with this one it seems. I didn't, you just cherry picked one example I gave and pretended that's all I said, when it clearly wasn't. I've addressed this twice already. It isn't my fault you invented a problem and then didn't acknowledge the solution to it. It's called an analogy and it is, to the letter, the exact same concept. Only, what would be necessary has already been developed, so no it isn't, in the slightest. I swear I already said this. Which is completely baseless. *In your opinion.

How, exactly? You said you "need" to do it, I showed that you don't actually. And yes, you can't assume it for all players, which is why I didn't, after all the very next thing I said was this: So, I still don't "need" it, even if I don't exclusively play my own missions. The mission then might use liveries unintended by the designer, but then there are solutions to that as I said. If it doesn't matter what liveries whatever aircraft has, then so what? If it does matter, then, that's what compatibility checkers like the integrity checker (something that already exists, it just doesn't check liveries) is for. Again, I can already delete liveries left and right, so I can test whether what you're saying actually holds water. And this is already a problem for user mods, using liveries or models not included with the base game, so it's a problem that already exists with the current system, without needing to delete anything. Which is why I then talked about maybe doing a compatibility check, for which the relevant technologies already exist. What? If a developer makes a mission using the Persian Gulf map, and I uninstall the map (something I have all the tools to do), how on Earth would it be the developer's problem? Surely the only thing to be said in such a case, is either reinstall the map, or you can't play my mission. I then have 2 choices - I either keep the map uninstalled meaning I can't play that mission, or reinstall it the map. As far as I'm concerned the choice should be mine to make and if I'm going to make the bed, then I should be the one to lie in it. The same exact thing absolutely applies here. But it's even better; simply deleting liveries doesn't actually prevent me from playing a mission, even if that mission uses those liveries - it just reverts to the default livery, or if that's been deleted the missing texture. If I'm okay with that, then what's the problem? If you're not okay with that, then you need to decide whether playing the mission is a more important than deleting whatever you've deleted, which should be (and already is, beside them being automatically redownloaded) you're choice to make. Now it's perfectly reasonable to want to enforce certain liveries be installed, in which case, that's what compatibility checking is for - the integrity checker is an example, as I've already said.

If I exclusively fly my own SP missions, then no I don't. But even if I don't do that, all that happens when there's an aircraft or whatever asset using a livery that you don't have, is that it uses the default livery, which probably shouldn't be deleted. But this is an issue already without needing to delete anything, if a mission users user mods that you don't own (be it a single livery or whole new assets). But even so there are solutions here - you can have a compatibility check, which, once again, DCS already has a system implemented to perform this - the intergrity checker and the repair utility: The former is able to see what files have been modified and will return false if they have. If you want to fly on a server that's enforcing pure files, then you won't be able to join - you then have to weigh up whether you'd rather keep your files the way they are, or to return them to their default state so you can play on that mission. The latter is able to check for what files are installed and what aren't installed and, like the integrity checker can check for deviations between your files and the files on ED's servers. They don't need to - if a player is trying to run a mission (be it SP, MP or as part of a campaign), which relies on files that you don't own, then that's not really the developer's problem is it? You realise that people can care about more than one thing at once, right? People talking about this, doesn't mean that they don't think any of the things you listed aren't issues? And people can have plenty of storage space (like me) and still feel like they shouldn't need to store files they don't need to store. Hang on, getting some deja vu here - I swear I said something along the lines of straw men and how a running theme with people opposed to this aren't actually reading what's being said. I have 1 TB of storage dedicated to DCS, it has loads of space on it left. Why does that mean I should store files I don't use, don't need and don't want? I mean, I don't store things I don't want, need or use in the place where I live, I don't do it with the car I drive, why should I do it with my storage drive? But even if I've filled my drive (as in the OP's case), but there's something I want to store that's only a few gigabytes, why should I choose buying a new drive, if I can simply delete a few gigabytes of files I don't need, want or use? Something that can be done, for free. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not spend the money if it isn't necessary to do so (which, it isn't). You said yourself - DCS already demands expensive hardware, why should I spend even more money, if I don't actually need to do so, if I can use my current drive at no extra cost, if I delete some files and stop them from being downloaded? I can already uninstall modules, terrains and even things as small as campaigns with the module manager, that doesn't seem to be a problem, but taking, to the letter, the exact same system and applying it to things like liveries is a big no no?

Except here it absolutely can and DCS already has all the prerequisite technologies - look at the module manager. Same exact concept, actually implemented in DCS. EDIT: Heck, you can already delete liveries left and right as is and particularly if you're playing SP you will face no consequence for doing so, they'll just get redownloaded again every time you run a repair or run an update - all this would need is a way of excluding files from being redownloaded, which, again, is something the module manager already does, just not for this.

TIL. I take it with this back-up mode, the GBU-15 lacks MITL/DL capability?

Why should people spend any amount of money to store files they don't need (well maybe for multiplayer, not for single player), want or use? Seriously people, nobody has asked for this, even in the slightest. What is it with these threads and people not actually reading what's being said and just inserting their own straw man interpretation of it? It is perfectly possible to have development be completely unhindered, while giving the users the choice of what they store - this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone as this is exactly what the DCS module manager already does. And before anyone talks about how "it's only 6 GB and $1 in storage space" and whatever, the module manager does it for things like campaigns - also pretty small and tiny fractions of the total space a drive would have and the installation size of DCS.

Interesting - GBU-15 (which was a DMAS weapon according to the manuals), but no TISEO?

The Mirage 2000C at least treats all jammers as noise jammers if its in its search modes, but treats them as track breaking deception jammers when in its STT (PSIC) mode.

This one is really difficult to answer, because I kinda want them all. With the Kola Peninsula map we'll have airbases for 3 of them (MiG-25RB, Su-15 and Yak-38), but for the latter, I'd want an 80s Kiev to go with it (and a few more Soviet surface combatants, namely the Sovremenny, Udaloy I and Kresta II). For our current maps, the MiG-25 fits over Syria, the Su-15 fits over the Caucasus and the MiG-25 kinda fits over the Sinai. For the Syria map, the MiG-25 was used by both Syria and Iraq. While we don't have much of the latter, we do have one airbase group (H-3) for them. For the Caucasus, the Su-15 fits, being based at Gadauta (and Marneuli, though despite the Caucasus map covering the area, the airbase isn't present). For the Sinai map, Soviet MiG-25Rs were briefly based at Cairo West in the early 70s, being used to perform reconnaissance over Israel. Well, you say that, with the Kola Peninsula map we'll hopefully be getting a former (though still clearly extant on satellite imagery) PVO airbase that based the Su-15 (Afrikanda - home to the 431st Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO), fun fact, a Su-15 from this airbase was responsible for the downing of Korean Airlines Flight 902 in 1978. I'm pretty sure it was also based on airbases we have on the Caucasus map (Gudauta). To the north there's Monchegorsk (which is on the list of bases confirmed), which still bases the MiG-25RB, with the 98th Independent Reconnaissance Aviation Regiment. So I think there's at least some precedent for them.

From around the late 60s up to 1982, the only weapons Forrestal had were BPDMS (2× Mk 25 GMLS, each w/ 8× RIM-7E missiles), using the Mark 115 director (unsure how many). Note - it should be stated that the RIM-7E should have a shorter range and be more susceptible to jamming and clutter (being based on the AIM-7E). The Mark 115 directors are manually operated and while they supposedly had a large enough beamwidth to allow for aiming errors, I think it's more reasonable to have delayed target acquisition times, particularly in low-visibility. Prior to that, Forrestal had 4× 5"/54 Mark 42 guns (this is the fit accurate to Forrestal's brief time in Vietnam), though was originally built with 8 (the 4 forward guns were deleted in the early 1960s (probably 1961)). For sensors, from the early 1960s to somewhere prior to 1982, the primary air-search radars Forrestal had, were the AN/SPS-30 and AN/SPS-47. These replaced the AN/SPS-8 and 12(?) Forrestal was commissioned with, in the mid 1950s. The AN/SPS-30 was replaced by AN/SPS-48C sometime before SLEP but I'm not sure exactly when (if the caption is accurate, this picture [source] depicts Forrestal w/ AN/SPS-47 and AN/SPS-48 and is dated 1978). The -47 was replaced by -49 during SLEP (and is what we have, despite being somewhat the wrong shape). After SLEP (mid 1986 - note, I had the date muddled up), Forrestal had what we see now (mostly), with 3 Mk 29 GMLS for NSSMS/IBPDMS, firing the RIM-7H (later upgraded to RIM-7M, which is what we have) and 3 Mk 15 Phalanx Block 0 (not sure if Forrestal was upgraded to Block 1 Phalanx, though Block 1 is what we see in DCS (longer magazine), if it was it would've been after 1989). In any case, if HB want to be particular about it, our version of the Forrestal should, at the earliest (it's not like the difference between Phalanx Block 0 and 1 is modelled) should range from June 1986 to September 1993 (though was redesignated as a training carrier in February 1992).

Yeah, that's fair enough. For the most part I don't delete fictional liveries (espeically when I've got plenty of space), but for some liveries I have made edits to the description.lua, such that they're sorted by country (as I think they should be) and in some cases I've renamed them to make liveries less ambiguous and in a way that's more consistent - this way I don't have several unique liveries for the same plane that are called the exact same thing, so I don't which is which just from the name.

Yeah, quite a few do. MiG-21bis for instance has Argentine, British, Swedish and even liveries for wholly fictional countries like Northeria and Southeria (and none of its liveries are sorted by country either, every livery is available to every country, meaning if you pick say, the USSR, you'll get all 70 or so of its liveries to scroll through when it could be condensed into the half-dozen or so actually applicable to the USSR); the Ka-50 has at least British and American liveries; F/A-18 and A-10 both have at least Russian liveries. Depending on where you drawn the line, technically every livery that isn't the US is fictional for our variant of the F-16C (though at least the majority of other liveries are former/current operators of the F-16, just not of the CM Block 50).

It does and some of them would be pretty good fits for our maps. Though, at least for the Cold War there's only the base S-125 and S-125M1 (us having the S-125M already). Though there it would be good if it got its guidance profile (command guidance with either lead or 3-point, as opposed to SARH, same for the SA-2). Wiki seems to think it was exported to Warsaw Pact members (and successor states to the Soviet Union) and a couple of others. Even so, we're getting 2 maps which had the USSR on them, so not totally out there. Only thing I've come across so far is this, which, yeah probably not what developers have in mind. Unfortunately my usual points of call (ausairpower and Vestnik PVO) don't seem to have much at all, if anything on it.

I mean, extra UI would be nice (kinda like the existing module manager), but I at least would be satisfied with just the option for the repair utility to just ignore certain files - even if it means creating a list for folders/files it should ignore in a configuration file or something. Oh and I might've been being a dimwit by posting a reply but not finishing that sentence - sorry about that I mean, I would be perfectly fine with that suggestion. And yeah, I'm fine with their being more and more liveries, there's liveries that I would like to see and would go with my scenarios very well. But equally there are some liveries I don't see a usage for (particularly some fictional ones) and liveries where I've made some fixes. However, when running a repair or running the updater, this will all get overwritten and originals redownloaded. I've got all the fixes saved so I can fairly easily drag and drop them back in and delete any duplicates, but this is time that adds up, when a livery manager or just something that blacklists certain folders and files from being redownloaded would mean I would only need to do it the once. Of course, if you want everything, then you should be able to have it and I think by default, it should leave things as they are (be they downloading everything and the integrity checker if that were to be incorporated too), such that only people who want to remove them need to touch anything. I might be mistaken, but I don't think servers will send over files that you don't have (which would put an end to the issue of wanting to run a server with user mods (even if they're just liveries) but people who don't have them installed not seeing them). Yeah, definitely agree with that.

Yeah, that would be nice, luckily there should be many to do and hopefully it would be at least slightly easier to do other low-digit SAMs (the only one missing outright is the SA-4 and SA-1 (though that was only used around Moscow if I'm not mistaken). Past that, what else is there? A few versions of the SA-2? Maybe the SA-6?

Well, to be honest, the easy majority of all the points I keep making is stuff I've already said, sometimes many times over. I wouldn't have felt the need to do that, if you would just, y'know, read and acknowledge the point being made. Oof, scathing! Just one small problem though - where have I said this is an especially prevalent issue? Where have I said that this should be prioritised over "important things"? Was it... Nowhere? Oh dear, you're not just making stuff up again are you? It's almost like the horror that I can care about more than one thing at a time! It's almost like, I can care about major things AND minor things! Incredible, isn't it? This is, in essence, exactly what a livery manager would need to do - I can already delete liveries I don't want, the problem is that they get redownloaded again, a simple way of excluding those files from being redownloaded again, would solve the issue perfectly. Only, I'm not calling anybody any names here? Do you think that filling up your space (be it drive space, space where you live etc), with unnecessary stuff you don't want, need or use is not the mentality of a hoarder? Personally, I'm pretty tired of people not reading what's actually being said, not acknowledging any point that's made and then continuing to argue against something that's already been addressed, multiple times over. Positively sick of it in fact. In fact, sometimes I wish that there was a rule against doing that, would probably cut out a lot of this nonsense. Which is all I've wanted from the very start. Well, I'm very sorry you don't like me defending the points I'm making, but if so adios amigo!

So, something that people who run mods that break the IC already have to deal with? In which case, so what? And this is only the case when trying to join an enforced server, not "any time they wanted to play online". It's ostensibly been worth the trouble for campaigns, also such a small part of the install, so why can't it be done here? Sounds to me like this storage space argument you love so much, is totally irrelevant. And?

And it would remain just as invisible to people who don't screw around with their liveries. If I'm to screw around with the liveries (something I already do), then I just have to deal with the consequences that I won't be able to join servers that require all liveries in an unmodified state to be installed; just as people who run integrity checker breaking mods have to do now. I have a sneaking suspicion that, as someone who 99% of the time plays single player and for the remaining 1% plays on multiplayer servers that I myself host, this won't be an issue for me in the slightest. What's the problem here? If you want to play on servers enforcing all the liveries but you want to delete some of them, then you have to weigh up what's more important for you, something that should be entirely your call to make. Why, exactly? There wouldn't need to be a solution, because nothing proposed here would lead to this problem you've just invented.

Yes. What's your point? If you improve an imperfection, it won't be as imperfect there, will it? Then as far as I'm concerned, we're done here, there's no argument to be had. But in that case, why are you seemingly arguing against something if you are by your own admission fine with it being incorporated? But, for however many times I've said it, having a good, high capacity storage drive (which I have), doesn't justify why I should store files I don't want, use or need, that can be deleted with little to no consequences (less so in multiplayer, but definitely so in single player). I don't know why people keep bringing up this point when it's irrelevant in that it doesn't justify, nor does it follow at all that you should store unnecessary files you don't want or need, because they're small and storage is cheap. Which doesn't justify keeping it full of slings and arrows. Things simply being the way that they are, doesn't justify keeping them that way, does it? And if it doesn't justify keeping things the way that they are (especially things that can be improved), then what point are you trying to make here? You're just saying a whole lot of nothing. Worse, is that this logic is completely useless, if everybody had this mindset nothing would get done, nothing would be improved. No bugs would be fixed, no new features would ever be developed. Is that what you want?

All but the 2nd option is something that already happens with the integrity checker as it is, if it's not a problem already, it won't be so with the liveries, especially if its default behaviour remains as it is now (i.e liveries unenforced). "Yes we can!" Followed by a complete non-answer, that's been addressed over and over again, only to be totally ignored. Shocking. And why does that mean that none of the imperfections should be improved? Oh, so it's fine to have a system for campaigns (which, some of those are only a few gigabytes and a very small percentage of the install size), but not for liveries? I mean, clearly if we can remove stuff using manager that's also small and that's not an issue in the slightest and nobody wants to have it removed, then it being small isn't an argument against a livery manager then, isn't it? So we can discard both arguments as being irrelevant nonsense whose conclusion doesn't even follow, can't we? And it would take up less space if there was a way of stopping it from redownloading things you don't need, want or use. Even if I've got loads of space, why should I store files (even if they're only small files) that I don't need, want or use?

Why should anybody, spend any amount of money, on a new drive, just so they can store files they don't want, don't use and don't need to store? Nobody can seem to answer this one. The only thing I've got so far is "there's the potential to cheat" - which is already perfectly possible already, as a consequence of them not being something the integrity checker checks for; the game doesn't stop you from deleting liveries you don't want, need or use nor does it stop you from making edits to them. The only thing that happens is that it redownloads missing liveries/the originals whenever you update or repair. Fortunately, the core technologies required to facilitate this have already been fully developed to adequately achieve this.