Tippis

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.

Just changing the flight plan line from solid to dashed if the end WP's calculated fuel state is zero should be plenty. Or, again if they want to be fancy, it could be a two-stage thing, where it shows both bingo and no-fuel thresholds (but figuring out the bingo value would effectively require two calculations for every WP, and depending on the refresh rate, it could be pretty annoying when you move the waypoints around).

Absolutely. It's something that should be pretty darn trivial (except for one thing…), would improve the editor massively, is very obvious as a part of mission planning in general. As a bonus point, the one thing that isn't trivial — that is, a mission profile display of some sort, with the ability to define ascent/descent profiles — that would be needed to make those calculations sensible would in and of itself be a hugely beneficial addition to the planning capabilities of the game. +1 If you tried to read the OP for once — either of this thread or that one, and preferably both — even the slightest hint of cognitive capability on your part would lead you to the conclusion that no, they're not the same. In fact, one is an expansion of the ideas and critiques of the other and creates quite a different suggestion altogether. But as we all know, doing any of that makes you break out in hives so of course you didn't and instead said something very uninformed and silly, as always…

That's not an explanation. That's just evasion. So presumably, you can't actually explain or you would have. That would also explain Sharpe's obsession with some mythical hypothetical in-cockpit planning tool as being the clincher as to whether the mission editor should be expanded with one of the most obvious mission planning features ever.

The reason they can AAR is because they have planned their fuel usage and because they know how long they can stay up; how long they have to chase down the tanker; how long it takes to get back. You keep saying this. What are you basing this on when we know for a fact that fuel planning is a core component of a mission package? You keep harping on about some supposed non-existence of a largely irrelevant on-baord system but what on earth does that have to do with the planning tool discussed here? Is this just another case of your never having actually used this part of the game and just throwing out random guesswork about it because you once again don't want to see DCS improve in any way? More to the point, why shouldn't DCS include something that is both entirely in line with how things work in the real world and is also a fairly easy thing to implement in the editor? Where does this opposition to making the game more realistic and fully-featured come from?