Jump to content

Tippis

Members
  • Posts

    2189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

About Tippis

  • Birthday 01/01/1870

Recent Profile Visitors

9921 profile views
  1. …make use of the ridiculously powerful hardware and memory capabilities of a modern computers to simulate the most basic functionality that has existed in aircraft since before they even successfully got off the ground the first time, and add the universal ability for pilots to jot down notes and annotations on whatever surface is available. You know. As if it was a flight simulator or something. That would be infinitely better than some boneheaded inapplicable non-universal external non-solution that shouldn't even be needed, just to solve a problem that should never have existed to begin with.
  2. Excellent. No argument against then. Your approval of the idea has been noted. Clicking “export as PNG” does not take a long time, even for a developer with access to the source assets and an auto-build tool.
  3. Also, more as a question to @NineLine, before we go off and try to think up other ways of structuring things, I'm guessing that part of this hierarchy is just inherent in how the forum software works? As in, you still want 3rd-party sections because you can set up moderator groups to give those devs a small section of their own to control without that spilling over into other parts and without having to create complex “a bit from column A, a bit from column B” control definitions? Same with the various bug forums that can then be handed out as limited-access control sections to various internal teams. Because if that's part of the logic, that puts some limitations on what other groupings are even sensible and manageable to suggest.
  4. Agreed. This is indeed a “cleaner” look, but that cleanliness is somewhat achieved by sweeping things under the rug that really ought to be exposed. This setup just begs for more threads being created in the first available first- or second-level forum rather than where it actually belongs, because there's little to no indication that those more appropriate locations even exist.
  5. Modding by definition is enabled Eagle Dynamics. By its implementation, it is also supported by ED. By virtue of their official repository of mods, it's even actively encouraged by ED. So it has everything to do with them. This is a good thing, and ED knows it. Good thing no-one is asking for that, then. They do, actually, albeit indirectly. That's why ED are so interested that they are already managing the modders' work. This is just an extension and modernisation of what they're already doing. You've once again completely misunderstood the very nature of the topic at hand and are just pulling random statements out of your lower back without actually having any idea of whether what you're saying is true or not. As always, the “or not” part is the most applicable…
  6. …and as the ultimate signifier of community attachment, they're something the developer can safely jump through some extra hoops for and be assured of utterly insane returns on those investments. There are entire companies that produce rather poorly made games that are made to shine — and that keep the company ridiculously well-fed — simply because of how they embrace the modding community. As such, a tool that makes modding easier; that gives the players more options; that increases the attractiveness of the game; that reduces friction between those who have an interest in mods and those who do not — all of it is such a no-brains thing to do for ED to massively improve the platform and make it more likely that people flock to it and give them money for it. ED is already aware of this since they have made sure a basic platform for user content exists — it's just that it's stuck a decade in the past rather than embedded in the game the way a more modern approach would handle it. One of these days, you're going to have to find someone who can teach you some rudimentary reading skills. Then you'll stop using these deeply idiotic and laughable misreadings of stuff that no-one has ever suggested but yourself. Well… that, or you'll keep using them because you are nothing but a troll who wants DCS to die a slow death of obsolescence and irrelevance. No, no-one is asking them to do extra work to incorporate freeware aircraft. This is just some incoherent drivel you've dreamed up because you have no idea how modding works in DCS and how it affects the game in its three main modes of operation. No, these aircraft don't compete with ED's business since they fall into two categories: stuff that is so commercially viable that they will be turned into actual for-pay products, feeding ED's business of selling them; or stuff that has no commercial viability and which therefore won't yield ED any cash in sales regardless and especially won't be something ED themselves have any interest in creating or selling. No, it is not odd to ask ED to extend and incorporate their user file repository into what could be an updated, integrated, and customer-friendly front-end that would do the same thing you see in a multitude of other games that have started to lean more heavily into the user content side of things.
  7. It's really not. It's how it already works, except there's no optionality to it and you get far more odd substitutions — eg. everything is a Flanker. Being able to select more appropriate fall-back models would make it far less odd than the current situation.
  8. Not so few when you own 40+ aircraft and 5+ devices that all want to auto-bind themselves to those aircraft in various (invariably nonsensical) ways… Don't assume that your non-use of at most one module, and thorough unfamiliarity with that single aircraft (and its settings and options), is somehow indicative of generalisable to everyone else.
  9. What GR say should, as always, be taken with a steamer trunk of salt, and neither they nor Simon actually say anything of the kind. Unless you're referring to some completely new source rather than your own invention when your previous assumptions of what was and wasn't said were shown to be wrong… in which case, [citation needed]. Again, you really should stop generalising from yourself and putting your words in other people's moths. …in the same sense as the Hornet is a mod.
  10. Now apply that to yourself. You, more than anyone, needs to learn how to do that since that is the only thing your non-existing arguments are based on. Oh, and just about everyone I've talked to who has the F-14 module has been in both seats. It's kind of the point of the module, after all…
  11. Nope. Quite the opposite: I'd probably have a hard time convincing anyone to be the bus driver for any of those things… If that's the quality of your guarantees, make sure you stay out of the insurance business.
  12. “Apparent” to whom? Based on what? Because here in the real world, it's readily apparent if you bother to look around bit that people actually do that. Again, this is just you making assumptions based on your preference rather than any sort of observation of reality. For the same reason you'd want to play the RIO in the F-14. Or the pilot, for that matter: because it's fun to play with other people, because it's an interesting task, because there's a challenge in the teamwork, or just because it's a lot of buttons to press. What attack planes? The ones that are needed for completely different tasks? The ones making sure that the objective is only lightly defended by the time the BUFF gets there? The ones that are simply too few or too lightly armed to be able to make any kind of worth-while dent in the target? Once again, you're only offering an appeal to incredulity: you refuse or are just incapable of imagining something so therefore it is impossible and cannot exist, even if (especially if) it actually already exists. Unfortunately, in the real world, your lack of imagination is not a limiting factor to everyone else, so these things exist in spite of your wishing they didn't. The BUFF is inherently MP — you even say so yourself, and need to make up your mind — so it very clearly fits in. Doubly so if you design missions that are not airquake (which is what “general MP” must mean to you) but rather ones that are suited to the full set of modules included. That's not something Nick said, though, now is it? That's the interviewer shooting the question down based on his own narrowminded and non-generalised preferences — something that explains why you like the argument because it's just like the ones you're offering, and just as wilfully ignorant and fallacious. Or did you do that thing you do, again, where you didn't actually listen to or read the source you were referencing? Unlike what the interviewer says, DCS isn't actually “ultra-realistic”; it's shock-full of simplifications and shortcuts and systems being skipped over or just not included at all. That's just the nature of the game. What Simon says is that it's not currently their niche. That is all. And in fact, when he tries to challenge some of the assumptions and baseless assertions of the interviewer, he's immediately silenced and being talked over so he doesn't get a word in… If you pay attention a bit, you'll notice that DCS does not only do full fidelity, so that's a stupid and just outright false assumption to base any argument on to begin with. Moreover, who's to say that all crew positions must necessarily be simulated at all, much less “full fidelity”? And guess what — players clearly want that. So why design a module with sufficient fidelity to draw in the crowd, where you can choose to fill additional crew positions as needed? Because it sells. Not to you, perhaps, but you are irrelevant. Your basing your argument on a wholly ignorant view of the game;, on a wholly irrelevant generalisation of your own very narrow preferences; on a catastrophically incomplete level of experience with all aspects of MP, SP, and mission design — anythign outside of airquake, really, by the sounds of it; and now you're also adding outright lying about what the devs are saying to that illustrious list of things that are useless as a basis of any kind of rational argumentation or thought. Again, as always, you are just trolling because you don't want to see DCS be improved by additions that do not specifically cater to your minute and reductive playstyle.
  13. So what? They wouldn't even be playing DCS if they were that fragile since none of the modules, past, present or future, would live up to their standards. Good news: DCS is not limited to a single era. In fact, the way it is set up at the moment, it cannot even be a single era since that's not supported by the collection of units available.
  14. Ok. I imagine it wouldn't be 4-5 of them, but just one that did everything. Any need for them to talk to “each other” would be black-boxed and you wouldn't even see it. Quite simple, especially compared to having to wrangle a full set of wingmen who refuse to do anything you tell them to. What matters is the set of functions and actions that can or need to be offloaded to other stations, and that set is pretty much the same no matter the aircraft. It can be a crew of 2 or 5 or 15 and still be four or five distinct functions: navigation, comms, weapons setup and delivery, maybe ewar — just because there are more people manning them doesn't mean the set of actions is also increased.
  15. Yes you would. Stop assuming airquake as the only available mission setup. Not with the same amount of firepower, no. That's kind of the whole point of a heavy bomber, after all… You haven't been keeping up with current events, have you? Jfc that's just insulting levels of not paying attention.
×
×
  • Create New...