Tippis

Sure, but that's mainly because the inability of some to read a simple statement and understand it as written as opposed to trying to make it mean something else. Yes, the whole point is that there is a split. By design and intent. This was explained in both of the other threads: no, by our logic, only this module causes this split because only this module restrict participation by its mere inclusion, and by even the tiniest inclusion. No other module does that — in particular, no other asset pack does that. I can add stuff to my heart's content from any asset-providing module, even SC and CAP (ok, so the latter one is a bit of a cheat argument but… ) and not have to worry one whit about accidentally locking someone out of joining. They may not be able to fly or use the vehicles I add, because I didn't do my research and only added weirdo trainers that only a handful have bought, but they can still join. They can still participate and play, even if it's just via SRS EAM and the F10 map. The WWIIAP is the only module that locks out people so they can't even do that. The cause for that lockout is nothing other than the WWIIAP module itself. It's part of how it's coded. Other modules may lock out slots and spawn points; the WWIIAP locks out the entire server. Only the haves may join it; the have-nots may not. The only way to get around this lockout is to not use the WWIIAP — there is no option to provide alternate tasks, slots, or roles like there is with every other kind of asset you'd think of including. Yes there is. There's a third, fourth… up to (at least, and conservatively speaking) a seventh option. You can join the server and fly some other plane off of the SC. If you don't have the SC, you can join the server and fly some other plane off of a non-SC carrier. If you don't have a carrier plane, you can join the server and fly some other plane off of land. If you don't have any planes, you can join the server and drag boats around on the map or putter around in a tank somewhere. If you don't have CA, you can join the server and warn everyone of incoming MiGs or direct them to bombing targets. If you don't have anything on the F10 map, you can punch your friend in the dangly bits because he designed a mission that deliberately excluded you, but that's on him — not just for not adding alternatives, but for also actively and explicitly locking down and removing all the other things you could have done. That's something he did, not something caused by the modules included in the mission. From the other perspective, as a mission maker who prefer my dangly bits to be intact, I choose not to include WWIIAP assets. Because that's the only option available to avoid this active and deliberate exclusion. Quite. That's how you end up having to deal with it, and that is also the larger-scope problem: the exclusionary way the WWIIAP has been implemented inherently causes there to be less content for the WWIIAP. This reduces its value and worth-while:ness for anyone thinking of buying it. And thus we're immediately in the downward spiral: Don't use the WWIIAP to maximise participation -> WWIIAP has less associated content -> WWIIAP becomes less worth-while to get -> WWIIAP gets fewer users -> content using WWIIAP has a smaller audience -> less content is produced with the WWIIAP -> WWIIAP becomes less worth-while to get … repeat … -> ultimately, ED figures it's not really worth-while for them to create asset packs to begin with. The split is a problem in and of itself. The consequences of that split is also a problem, and arguably an even bigger one. This was the logic that ultimately changed the SC to not use the same exclusionary design as the WWIIAP, but instead did the more intelligent thing of locking use and functionality behind the paywall, rather than the assets themselves. Faced with the possibility that all the work they had put into the SC would come to naught because some of the biggest subcommunities and content promoters would issue blanket judgment of “nah, don't get it — it will never be used around here”, they realised that they'd actually end up selling more modules if they made the assets available to everyone. The inclusion of these fancy assets would serve as promotion and as a reason for people to buy the functionality. Making the assets appear everywhere (because they were the hot new thing, and also let content creators do neat things), would make that promotion reach a far wider audience. And with no reason not to include it, there would be plenty of associated content that made it worth-while for people to buy the functionality, even as that functionality was (and still remains) pretty bare-bones and incomplete. This particular discussion is about a non-WWII asset being locked behind the unique community-splitting paywall of the WWIIAP, making it impossible to include it to liven up missions not set in WWII without invoking that split. More generally, the discussion is that there are some neat things, in the pack and even some neat functionality, but the second you include even the slightest bit of it, the whole mission locks out the have-nots. The asset pack as a whole may be worth it (that's really a different discussion), but as a content creator, what's more valuable: that I can have a search light sweep the sky because that looks really neat, or that I can satisfy the content cravings of 250 people instead of just 5?

Good. Then you already know how I helped in the past, and how I've offered to help, and you can drop that ad hominem nonsense. …aside from the whole thing about $30 being the problem. The price of the module does not create the restrictions and buying the module does not remove them. Indeed, the restrictions are what supposedly justifies the price so the cause and effect is if anything the exact reverse of what you're assuming. So you can drop that red herring nonsense as well. But I love ice! Ok, fine… [grumble grumble]. Good luck convincing the usual crowd that there is indeed a lock-out happening, though… Oh, and yes, not-WWII assets should probably as a general principle not be subject to the WWIIAP restrictions. As an even more general principle, assets should not be restricted at all, and it should be functionality and use that dictates the value proposition, but ED have been pretty firm on that point as far as the asset pack goes, so…

…yes? And? The stated value of the module is still $30. Here on Earth, there is this thing we call a “truism” — something that makes so much sense it is always true. Like in this case: X isn't The Problem, so ‘solving’ X does not solve The Problem. Instead, it solves a different (supposed) problem. The problem still exists because price is not a factor. In fact, even at a purchase 0$, the problem would still exist: there are haves and have-nots. In order for this problem to not exist, and for the split to be a myth like you claim, one of the following must be true: There is no difference between haves and have-nots because there are no “haves”, not even you and me. There is no difference between haves and have-nots because there are no “have-nots”, everyone inherently owns the module — it's not even a purchase. There is no difference between haves and have-nots because those who don't have the module actually do have it. There is no difference between haves and have-nots because who do have the module actually don't have it. Your “solution” only solves the actual problem if we are dealing with #2, but if that's the case, then your “solution” doesn't even exist. Since you keep suggesting buying the module as a solution to… who knows — you've never been able to explain what the problem is supposed to be that this fixes — you are implicitly stating that we're not in a #2 state of affairs (since, again, that solution is not available in that particular case). Instead, it it solves… something… in one of the other three cases. I'd be curious to know which case this is and the logic by which the distinction between haves and have-nots is removed. I already did. Deal with it. The split still exists in spite of that. In fact, the split exists in large part because of that. Deal with that as well. You should probably have read what was written in those old threads, then, since it was extensively explained how we not just offered, but actually have repeated helped. No matter how much you refuse to accept it, the price is not the problem. The very read split is. Your misattribution of this split and catchy but wholly disproven $14 catchphrase will not change this fact.

O_o Hax! Also, +1

Then you should quote the actual value whenever you're discussing it. Otherwise, you are indeed suggesting that the full value isn't what the module is worth. I already own it, and you know this already. And since the price isn't the problem, buying it does not solve the problem. The problem exists whether you buy it or not because buying it does not remove the inherent split between haves and have-nots that comes from having restrictions on participation — it just shifts the two groups around a tiny bit. This has been explained to you a gajilliion times but you refuse to try understand it. The split is still not a myth. Deal with it. If it were, your proposed solution wouldn't be necessary — hell, it wouldn't even exist.

Sure, and the way to deal with it is exactly why you got the outcome you saw, where restrictions that split of the community mean it's not worth-while to create a lot of content using those assets, which in turn ends up reducing the value proposition of the module to the point where you're having problems giving it away for free — the $30 value it it supposed to provide just isn't there. This is bad for everyone, even for you who feel you got your money's worth (but only at half cost). Again, and just like before, you're just illustrating the point that was made all along: the price is not the problem; the inherent and deliberate community splitting (or more specifically, the restriction on participation that is the underlying cause said split) is because it gives rise to the very thing you experienced. The split is still not a myth. Your experiment demonstrates this better than an entire essay on my part could.

That's not really a contradiction though. And the fact that it splits the community is… well… just inherently a fact. It is unavoidable and it does so by very definition. There are the haves and the have-nots. The module is purposefully designed to split the community that way, and there is no way or argument around this. You are just on one side of that split and can no longer see what it's like on the other side of the split. All your experiment does is give you an insight into the other side (well… insight, that is, unless you choose to wilfully ignore or think about the well-established reasons for the outcome), where no matter how much you think it's a great deal, it just ends up being worthless to too many people because of the equally inherent consequences of that intentional split. The mechanisms of this have already been explained to you in full and no amount of sticking your head in the sand will make this split become the myth you so desperately want it to be. Every time you've tried to prove this, you've managed to illustrate the exact opposite of what you intended. Again: by its very design, by its very intent, by its very means of distributions — it splits the community. It's what it is meant to do. No amount of wishing it were a myth will make it one. The only way for it to be a myth would be if your experiment was impossible to perform, but since you could perform it, the split simply cannot be a myth.

Nah, you just saw the consequence of that situation: it is almost universally useless because of the lock-in and community-splitting it creates. Your experiment illustrated the problem more than anything.

Another endorsement here from the admin of (the admittedly relatively minor) Airgoons. As an addition for the next version, and especially since we've been hearing these vague mentions of improved ATC, is a series of APIs related to that functionality, and to airports and navigation in general. Some of it even exists as stubs in the code and mostly needs to be finished — things like a full set of nav beacon controls, control over airport functions (landing lights, active runway, runway damage) — in addition to the warehouse controls that are suggested in the document.

Moving the goalposts, huh? Well, you'll be happy to hear that DCS can also do an “air mass simulation” if you ask it to. And as mentioned, it has the turbulence you started out claiming didn't exist. As always, what you believe and how things actually are — in particular what DCS works — are wholly separate from each other with zero overlap.

Good news. You can do that in DCS too. You just have to set it up right, but of course, that requires being familiar with a bit more than your single aircraft and the process of jumping onto your regular, bog-standard, conventional MP server where it's the clear skies, no wind preset 24/7. …and it's pretty much like that. So why were you saying before that it didn't exist?

…and the competition between the myriad of third parties trying to get the slice of that chunk is much fiercer. You know, like he said? Or did you do your usual thing where you failed at reading and instead just assumed something that you responded to instead, thus making your response wholly unrelated to the thing you were supposedly responding to? Maybe read it again and note that he's not comparing DCS vs the other sim — he's comparing the market space within each sim. What numbers do you have to support your assertion that there is less competition? Do you have anything to support your thinking? In other words, there are a ton of vendors trying to squeeze an earning out of that marketplace, whereas for DCS there are a lot fewer. Meaning, there is less competition here than it is over there. Just like he said. So you're contradicting your own claim here. Third parties would indeed face more competition on this much more crowded market than they would if they developed (or just co-released) the same thing in DCS. In particular since you've demonstrated that there is a significant overlap between the two customer bases, suggesting that a military aircraft — even an unarmed one — would appeal to a sizeable crowd in the DCS community. Again, reading the original claim helps if you're going to try to refute it and not do what you accidentally just did and further reinforce and support that initial claim.

You mean the graph that says 20–30%, depending on what you count as “play”, putting DCS at a player engagement that is 40% of what the biggest sim on the market achieves? That graph? The one that doesn't say what you wish it did? He's not talking about wake turbulence. Notice the mention of the weather settings — the place where wake turbulence isn't set? Again, your wholesale unfamiliarity with DCS and absolute ignorance of its feature set is not doing you any favours when you're trying to make a point of what this game does and does not have. You keep faceplanting in this hilarious way over and over again, where you make a categorical claim about DCS based on nothing but what “you think”, but what you think — in particular — never aligns with reality or with how DCS operates. They're all just inventions pulled from your lower back with no relation to any known reality because you are too clueless about the sim(s) you claim to play to ever be able to say something accurate or factual about them. Turbulence exists in this game, in multiple forms. Suck it up. You're wrong about this, just like about everything else. Seeing as how you don't know that it is done at all in DCS suggests that your opinion on the matter is not just worthless, but actively wrong. It takes a lot for an opinion to be wrong, but you manage that feat none the less.

Your point contradicts reality and also relies on a causal relationship that you have no way of proving anyway.

You mean like the Yak-52? Yes, we've seen that. And the pure training variants — the C-101EB and L-39C — sure straddle that line pretty hard. And that's before we get into the modules that operate far better in GA tasks than as actual combat aircraft (UH-1, Mi-8), and the numerous community mods that have no combat capability whatsoever. Your “no” here tells me that you aren't paying attention enough to have an informed, or even worth-while, opinion on the matter; that, as always, you're just trolling another wishlist thread because it does not conform to your strict, narrow, ignorant, and actively destructive desires as to what DCS should be to ensure it does not appeal to anyone else but you. This level of wilful ignorance is not a solid foundation for arguing your case against improvements to the game.

Yes. If you haven't, the only explanation is that you haven't actually played the game that much and that you only ever do quick air-start missions where you never really come across other aircraft. So, again, it helps if you try to base your argument in some kind of known reality rather than rely on assumptions borne out of nothing but your own ignorance and inexperience. e: Oh, and I know that you know this exists and that you have experienced it too — at least one of the forms that exist in DCS — since you bring it up every time you troll a thread on the topic of air refuelling to keep it from being improved as well. So the level of honesty you're exhibiting in this line of argument is… low, let's call it. How is it doubtful when they are already doing exactly that? Again, you're doubting actual reality as it exists… you know… out there — outside of your dreamworld — in that mystical place where the rest of us live. Why? It fits all the true scotsman qualifications you keep piling on to try to categorise DCS as something it is not.

In other words, since it's a military aircraft use the world over, and since it fulfils not just the same function as the TF-51D, but has seen (and still is in) active use in non-training operations, the 172 fits the description of DCS perfectly. You have yet to demonstrate how or why it can be considered a flop. Just because it's not appealing to you, doesn't make it appealing to other people. You are irrelevant and your well-established ignorance of DCS and everything it has to offer can never be used as a basis for generalising anything related to this game or its customer base. No it isn't. If you're going to go down this idiotic route of absolute nonsensical pretzel logic, at least try to base it on some kind of known reality. You're not living in the future. The year is 2022. Do the maths. Oh, and realise that by your logic, your darling Hornet module — the one aircraft you have any familiarity with — is a flop because unlike the CE2, it was released into EA in 2018. You're just outright lying now to try to cover up your lack of awareness of how anything related to this topic works, when your usual insipid and ignorant trolling doesn't make any headway. You know how this will end: with the mods coming along and telling you to sopt.

Quite the opposite. This is exactly why such calculations are needed and why you can't use theoretical ranges as the basis for anything. This is also why bingo settings exist, and why it's helpful to have a tool to calculate the value of that setting — something you have to completely pull out of nowhere at the moment. Oh, and since we're talking about time as a parameter to input, the fuel consumed would be a known value and would ultimately provide exactly the kind of margins that this sort of planning is meant to provide. Irony overload.

You know that most racing sims do have non-racing cars, right? And as you can clearly see from what's on offer in the module list, DCS is not “a combat game” to nearly the extent you so desperately wish it to be to make your argument work. Ultimately, every single one of your attempted arguments so far has only served to demonstrate why the 172 should be in DCS, completely contrary to your stated stance — it's one of the unfortunate side-effects of not having a solid factual basis to stand on and trying to replace it with assumptions and guesswork instead…

Because you're assuming that “it fits” just because it's a trainer aircraft, while deeming it not worthy to extend the same logic to a different plane that fills the same role on top of being an aircraft that is in active non-training use by various armed forces. This makes it not just an opinion, but a highly hypocritical one. Where can we see that, exactly?

More to the point, it applies equally to the 172, probably more so than the TF-51 since it has seen actual in-theatre use…

So obviously, the Hornet is an even larger commercial failure since it has been around for even longer and still hasn't been able to get out of the EA phase. Is this your argument? Is this how you assume — without any shred of evidence or basis — that work on modules is prioritised? So is a fair portion of the modules in the game, and they keep making those modules so it's clearly a niche that has a sufficiently large market for them to keep doing it. Just because you have no idea about how these planes are used doesn't mean they are out of place — it just means you have no idea. That is all. Don't generalise from your cluelessness. Also, if you bothered to get over your standard aversion to research and looked the plane you, you'd quickly notice that it's also a military aircraft. Are you saying that those have no place in this supposed combat game you're envisioning?

Eh, no. But the Hornet has — they're very different things. But ok, never mind how you managed to confuse those two, so what? What has the status of dozens of module to do with the requirements for what's being suggested here? Even given your normal proclivity for fallacious reasoning, this non sequitur is pretty extreme…

It makes as much sense as, oh about 20% of the aircraft already in the game. In fact, given its extensive military use, it makes a lot more sense than a fair few of the modules we already have. But of course, that would require knowing anything about what DCS is, what it offers and what those offerings actually represent… Maybe try that.

…in which case they should not be marked as waypoints, but as something else. They're separate things for a reason, and there are a number of ways to handle that in the ME. Maybe you should actually take the time to check how these things operate before imagining things and using those fantasies as a replacement for a factual basis for your argument. One that you set up that way. Just like he said. Just because you don't fly any of the multitude of aircraft that DCS has on offer and just because you have never had to do any mission planning for them doesn't mean that the situation you're having a hard time imagining does not exist. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy for a reason. …entirely theoretical and not actually applicable to the practical use of said aircraft, especially not once you add in things like loitering time, marshalling points, loadouts, package coordination etc etc etc. That's why you need — and why mission planning uses — these kinds of tools to make sure that you have plenty of margins for the plan you're putting together. Again, you're not really giving any intelligent or cogent reason why such tools should not exist and why DCS should not be made a better game and a better simulation of actual mission planning by having them. You're only offering assumptions based on wilful and admitted ignorance, with no logic connecting any of that to your conclusion that the game must under no circumstances be improved.