Jump to content

Tippis

Members
  • Posts

    2289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Tippis

  1. You realise that this works the exact opposite to your previous argument, right?
  2. Heck yes. If your problem is self-inflicted,, then you can self-uninflict it without issue. I'm talking about his very sensible suggestion. Having servers report back bans to a central repository is trivial Pulling that data out with the user info is equally trivial. The only question is what's the best presentation from a UI perspective, but a simple hover list would work. It can. Is the problem here that you don't use the tools at your disposal and are upset that others do so you want to nerf them rather than fix yourself? That's not what he said, now was it? Not only would that turn the “PvP community” into something far worse — a political squabble — but what you're asking for makes no sense. ED has no — and cannot possibly have any — control over how players run their servers. Unless you're suggesting that ED kill off the entire MP scene, and PvP in particular since it's such a vanishingly small segment of a very tiny niche as to be wholly irrelevant to everything and everyone, and making it so all servers are effectively ED-run (which coincidentally means someone with your history will not be able to play on them), your idea is as unfeasible as counterproductive. Like with the TIR example above, you should probably not rely on your own assumptions so much and instead try to actually use the kit you're commenting on…
  3. All of them except FC3. In fact, that's the very thing that sets FC3 apart.
  4. That's not actually how development works, but never mind… Who said anything about it being easy to complete and fix DCS' track recording and replay feature? Importing tacview would be easy for the simple reason that it already is easy. But as mentioned, that wouldn't fulfil the original request — only the part where we'd have a system like tacview (by virtue of it being tacview). The insight has already been provided: the problem with DCS' (single-player) track recording is that it records control inputs and that those do not deterministically yield a reliable and repeatable outcome. Be it sampling errors or randomisation or other details not related to input, this input focus is nice in that it allows for taking control in the middle of a recording (and occasionally for debugging systems scripting) but not very good for actually recording the full state of the game… much less replaying it. Now, the multiplayer recordings on the other hand…
  5. And yet you're arguing against it. You don't see how a track replay software that can record and export some data from DCS relates to DCS' capability to record tracks and then replay them — a capability DCS has for the same reason the track recording software exists? Really? Are you quite sure this is the line of reasoning you want to go with? Good thing no-one has suggested that, then. But actually, yes, it really could be that easy even if that wouldn't fulfil the original request.
  6. Because you're arguing against it. You're even arguing against it on the basis that there is a mod — something you've declared a gigantic waste of time — that does some of the things that are being asked for, but without the full integration in the game.
  7. Guess what would help them become a bigger developer with more resources…? Check that list of names again for further inspiration. The simple fact is, not only is your opinion irrelevant — it is wrong, which is not something opinions often even can be, but you've managed it. Again. True enough. The problem is that there are those who don't know better and who might end up believing his hallucinations are real if they're left to spread freely. Think of the children!
  8. No. This has been explained to you before, by the actual moderators of this very forum. If you disagree with a wishlist item, you show this by not posting. If you think mods are a gigantic waste of time, nothing you can possibly say is in any way, shape, or form relevant to a topic discussing how the tools to manage them in the game can be improved. Your opinion adds nothing to the topic at hand. It is inherently worthless. LMAO. So not only are you thoroughly clueless about everything related to DCS, but everything related to video games as a whole. Let's drop a few names here and see if you recognise any of them. Microsoft? iD? Epic? Valve? Bethesda? There's a common theme among those that you should look into before you try to claim that your lack of knowledge somehow counts as a definition.
  9. Your opinion is noted and irrelevant. So is your posting in this thread, by this very admission. Do you remember what the mods keep telling you? There is also a built-in mod manager and such. There is no intelligent or cogent reason for not improving it.
  10. No. It's a third-party product that is not in any way related to DCS. No. Tacview is an extension and continuation of the functionality that existed in comparable products go back 30+ years — the very functionality that made them create the replay feature to begin with. Except DCS' implementation is… lacking. Severely so. Because they already have. Just poorly and backwards. They should finish the feature they started building and make it work properly, like the features that inspired it always did. Because it's is not particularly sensible or worth-while to leave features broken and rotting away in the background rather than finishing them an making the game a more full-featured and functional experience.
  11. Because they're the only ones who can do it since such management is infinitely more useful if it's an integral part of the game. And because improving the support for mods is perhaps the fastest, easiest, cheapest, and most massively rewarding way of making the game far better and far more appealing to a far wider audience.
  12. It will not affect balance in the slightest. Largely because it does nothing. It will only affect the excuses people will weakly try to offer for why they were shot down, since it couldn't possibly be that the other player simply played the encounter better than they did. Coincidentally, players without headtracking have access to a feature that provides even better tracking and even more “unrealistic head movement” than TIR or VR can offer. Being able to see if a player consistently gets thrown out of other servers seems to be entirely in line with that kind of idea. I can only think of one reason why anyone would be against that…
  13. Fundamentally, that's the main feature that a new system really needs: to no longer be based on inputs but on outputs. All the problems and limitations we have with the current system are borne out of the non-deterministic path between the former and the latter, and for a track to really be worth anything outside of a 30-second test, the outcome is really all that matters. The tricky part then becomes a bit of the opposite: how do you create a track system that records and replays outcomes, but which still allows you to jump in and take control half-way through? That's the (one) benefit the input-based system gives, and which is hard to recreate without simply running the two recordings in parallel.
  14. The OP's solution does that. All you're doing there is arguing against your own initial objection. It's a genuine graphic option, same as, say, removing shadows or reflections or other visual effects that can cause artefacting and slowdowns. It is also a visual option same as stick- and pilot hiding to remove obstructions that don't need to be there. No-one said it was.
  15. Not really. It's just a consequence of how the two interact. Outside of the smoothing issue, the old pop effect was also worse for your frame rate. Define “better”. And explain why you're sure of this. Or, just in general, explain why you are so adamantly against a very simple and obvious option that would improve the game.
  16. Not if you want to maintain your stance of using as little dev time as possible. Consistency is a core component of credibility, you know…
  17. Quite. The thing about horribly old solutions like TrackIR is that, being horribly old. they've had a lot of time to mature — both in hardware and in software. Tobii isn't quite there yet, and that's especially true for the headtracking feature. While you can get around some of it by tweaking the hell out of third-party solutions, the underlying tech is still not quite there yet. What I noticed before I made the same decision as you and shelved it in favour of older but more reliable and tweakable solutions is that a lot of it seems to come down to range — I could get it to track pretty darn well if I was close enough to the sensor to have my face lit up properly by the LEDs, but if I were that close, I could no longer sit far enough from the table to use my controls properly. Hell, I could barely fit my keyboard between my monitor and the table edge… It feels like a lot of this is stuff that could be fixed in a few more hardware and software iterations (the software in particular needs to stop trying to be “easy” and look good, and instead actually allow for proper hardware control), and since Tobii doesn't live or die by its game peripherals there's some hope for the future.
  18. …you don't have the experience with the current crop and how they work in DCS. Sorry. What you've read is just that: what you've read. This is commonly called hearsay. You can be just as selective in your reading and arrive at the exact opposite conclusion — again,.see all the people who simply can't play DCS without it because of what a gamechanger and killer feature it is. Is it still maturing? Yes. That means DCS should improve its support for it and add more and more options as they become possible and as the need for them is recognised.
  19. …and you'll find people in the same thread that says the exact opposite. If you play with people who use VR, you'll also come across the entire “never going back” segment. So yes, it does indeed seem so if you go beyond a sample of one. Oh, and of course, one person not feeling it doesn't change the fact that you're still arguing from a position of ignorance about something you have no experience with.
  20. If you have so little faith in ED's abilities to do something as ridiculously simple as adding a bind for a functionality that already exists, you should probably worry more about why you're even here. Fixing oversights is never silly.
  21. Then you have clearly not used VR headsets enough (and/or not used enough VR headsets). Because they're very good in sims like this, and motion smoothing is not a factor in that. You're arguing form a position of ignorance against a QoL improvement that removes a disadvantage to “the other guy”. That's your whole shtick, after all.
  22. Non sequitur. And still doesn't really matter even if it weren't.
  23. Your entire posting history says otherwise. And on the vanishingly small chance that that's actually true, you have no reason to argue against this sensible fixing of an obvious oversight as a cheap and simple improvement to the game.
×
×
  • Create New...