Jump to content

Tippis

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2796

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Tippis

  1. Tippis
    Does this happen if you set it to go off on a timer rather than (presumably) on a MISSION START trigger?
  2. Tippis
    Lolno. You've spent three pages proving that you had no idea what the OP was even asking for, and not understanding why your feigned concern was never a real issue to begin with. It's nice to see that, now that you have read it, you seem to temporarily grasp that it was handled from the very start. No. Because DCS servers do not work like that and because, as explained to you on numerous occasions, making it a server option would make it a whole lot worse for everyone (yes, for you too) than what the OP is suggesting. He's asking for it because it's something DCS simply cannot provide at the moment. Yes, there are game modes like this already, but you'll find those in other games — not DCS — and you're still operating on the naïve assumption that DCS has the same capabilities when in reality, it's lagging far behind. And before you read the OP and shifted foot to now try to say that you agreed with it all along, you were actively arguing (well… asking for, really, since you didn't have any real argument to speak of) to keep DCS a lesser game.
  3. Tippis
    Doesn't really matter, now does it. That's the whole point of having options, after all: there are those who want to tick that box and there are those who don't. The option satisfies both. And good on you for finally reading the OP. Wouldn't this whole thing have been a whole lot easier if you had started with that?
  4. Tippis
    In other words, you are fully onboard with it. You should probably read the OP to understand why this is the case. You should probably also read up on (or possibly just experiment with) how DCS settings work to understand why this is would not be regulated via a server setting — indeed, why it would be a much worse idea if it was implemented as something as inexact as a server setting, and why the OP's idea is a much better solution than that.
  5. Tippis
    Nope. Read the OP. A need to restrict players from choosing hot starts is not a argument why this idea is a bad one, and for a very simple reason: you're not actually presenting a case that would be negatively impacted — or indeed affected at all by the idea. So no, that quite literally can't be the reason. That's not how DCS works. In other words, you are fully on board with the OP's idea and you don't actually have any kind of argument why the idea would be a bad one. Check. Maybe you should read the OP so you understand what you're supposedly opposing, as well as why you're not actually opposed to it.
  6. Tippis
    …and? You forgot the part where you were supposed to present an actual argument why this idea is a bad one.
  7. Tippis
    “A certain degree” is not good enough. Complacence and defeatism will only lead to a dead game. I can only conclude that this is your end goal. Not really, no. And even if there were, DCS is nowhere near that limit, nor will it ever get close to it if we resign ourselves to keeping it a lesser game the way you want us to. You never answered that, by the way: why are you so vested in not letting the game be improved? No. And no. And also no. In that order. No, that's not how DCS works. No, that's not what servers control. No, this feature does not affect that in the slightest. Maybe you should read the OP to check out what he's asking for. Again, you're arguing from wilful ignorance to keep the game from being improved. That is all. You're just trolling. Keep at it, because I'm sure that will end well for you. If not, how about this: try to explain how the OP's idea would in any way, shape, or form cause any problems with play styles. Do it without inventing a completely different thing than what the OP actually suggests. Try presenting an actual argument for why this idea is a bad one. Try to actually discuss the topic at hand. If you can't, again, you should probably read BIGNEWY's post and consider your intent and your options…
  8. Tippis
    Because I prefer it to be good, full-featured, widely appealing, and catering to many play styles — the entire wishlist section of the forum is sort of entirely intended to deal with ideas for doing that, you know… So of course I'm here. You should probably read BIGNEWY's post at the top of the page and (re)consider your insistence on doing exactly what he asks you not to do. At the end of the day, this section and your preference for how DCS should work simply aren't compatible. You haven't done the maths, then. Even the very simple equation shown earlier.
  9. Tippis
    Because I have made a fair few missions. I know what the options look like. I know what capabilities there are. Al the components and behaviours already exist. They just need to been disentangled and no longer be gated behind unrelated settings. Yes, huge. If you bothered to read what you could suddenly create with almost zero extra work, you'd quickly get a feel for how huge a difference it would make. Whether it would get locked out or not is anyone's guess — we only know that you can't be sure. The reason you can't is because you're applying some good old confirmation and availability bias as the only foundation for your assumptions about what people prefer or not. As mentioned, you're getting cause and effect backwards: preferences are not what dictates what servers offer at the moment — feature availability does. You therefore cannot conclude that making a new feature available would be pointless because there is no preference for it: the preference you're imagining only exists because the feature doesn't exist. This would allow for much more content that makes money. In particular, it is something that needs to happen to make a competitive and viable dynamic campaigns possible. So, again, in your desperate flailing around to try to invent some reason why DCS should remain a lesser game and not have this very common and very obvious feature, you only manage to come up more reasons why your wish should not come true. As it is, you still haven't come up with a single valid reason why this idea should not happen. Your personal preference for a bad, featureless, narrow-niche, one-playstyle-only game is not a reason, much less a valid one. Quite the opposite… If that logic was ever applied to all the tiny bits and bobs in DCS that only affect some small portion of a tiny fraction of players. most of DCS would never exist. Narrow-mindedness is not a valid excuse for not improving the game.
  10. Tippis
    Then you no longer have any reason to post in this thread. Your input is not needed, and indeed never was, like the mods like to remind you. And seeing as how it's such a minor change with such huge ramifications, it's also very obvious that it's not something that need to wait until the heat-death of the universe (aka “Dynamic Campaign” to happen. Indeed, for such a campaign feature to be possible, this needs to happen first since it would be a very important component in that larger feature. Pretty much. The OP's idea of simply tying it to the start-up WP action makes pretty darn flexible. It would probably need to be two different selections, though: hot/col (which might be built into the starting position, much like how it is now, just to reduce the dev work needed) + “allow client override”. So visually, you'd only really end up with one new option, unless you want to go hog wild and revamp the WP action database, with all the legacy mission breakage this would entail…
  11. Tippis
    Then you didn't read the OP. Try again. Try to understand what he's really asking for (in spite of this having been explained to you on multiple occasions). If you can't grasp it, ask nicely for yet another explanation, and we'll give it one last shot. And no, what's being asked for here cannot be done. DCS does not allow it. The reason you think it can is solely because you haven't actually tried and are just guessing — it's one of the main ways in which you prove to everyone that you do not understand this discussion or the topic in general. Improvements to the game are always needed. And if that's your attitude, you should probably listen to what the mods say and just stay out of the Wishlist forum entirely because it's not a good fit for you.
  12. Tippis
    This was explained from the get-go, and shouldn't even need any explanation to someone who opines on this topic. It's one of the most basic and fundamental things you get to learn when you create missions. If this needed to be explained to you, I can only offer one further suggestion: go troll somewhere else. This thread is not for you. You do not understand the topic, the problem, or any part of the discussion. Your thoughts and opinions on the matter are pointless, inapplicable, invalid, and uninformed. Go read the DCS manual, create and test a dozen or so multiplayer missions, and then come back when you got some experience to speak from. Jeez. You never did read the op did you? Yes, exactly. Add the option the OP is suggesting. Problem solved. I can only (once again) assume that you're in favour of this option, then, since you are now suggesting the exact same thing. You know how I listed “how servers work” among the DCS-related things you are not familiar with? Yeah, this is why. Servers do not work like that. I mentioned that it will not affect how servers operate — I did that for a reason. This is not a server option because the server doesn't care about these things. This is a mission option. In fact, it's not even that; it's a waypoint option, just like how the OP described it. You should probably go read it.
  13. Tippis
    So you were just trolling then when you said that it would. That's nice. It wouldn't matter for scripting purposes. That's why I said that the starting mode does not affect scripting. It's a complicated logic, so are you with me so far? The problem is, you currently can't create a group that consists of both hot and cold starts. It's one or the other, for the entire group. Again, very complicated. Are you still with me? So: since it would not cause any issues and would solve a current problem, the OP is suggesting an option that disentangles the starting position from the starting state of the aircraft. If the mission allowed for it, players could simply choose their preferred starting state — everything else would be exactly the same for everyone. This would: Not affect scripting. How the plane spawns is not something you ever base your scripts on, because there's no real way of doing it, and no benefit to doing so even if it were possible. Not affect mission intent, per the description in the OP. If you're still unsure why, I would suggest you read the OP. Not change anything about how servers are run, and what kind of playstyle they cater to. Not affect the workload for mission design, unlike having to duplicate every group, adjust all of their navigation data, deal with complex timing issues, deal with lack of spawn points, and adding N² extra trigger checks. Still let group-based game mechanics and functions operate like they always do without any need for extra work-around on the client's or the mission-designer's end (if such work-arounds were even possible to begin with, which they aren't always). Thus, no problems would exist It would just be a very simple solution to a very silly problem that a lot of sims don't even have, and which shouldn't even have existed to begin with. Sure we are. You're just not familiar enough with how DCS works — specifically, how spawn points work, how waypoints work, how unit groups work, how servers work, and how scripting works — and you can't be bothered to research the matter or even just listen to what you're being told. All this would work out much better for you if you stopped posting from a position of complete ignorance and trying to actually read a little. You'd quickly notice that the concerns you've invented don't actually exist. You'd notice that the concerns presented by the OP do exist. You'd notice that your “solution” would actually create vastly bigger problems than the ones you're imagining (but which as explained fully many times over, would not actually be the case) for the OP's simple solution.
  14. Tippis
    No. It wouldn't affect the scripting in the slightest whereas splitting them up would. How on earth did you manage to read what he wrote (you did read it, right?) and come to the exact opposite and completely wrong conclusion. Let's repeat that again: the starting mode does not affect scripting. It cannot, because the scripts don't care about how you start your plane. They do care about what groups those planes are in, which is why it's a huge, brittle, bug-prone and effort-intensive faff to try to split the group into two. That's on top of the stuff that simple doesn't work if two planes are not in the same group. So why do you oppose it at every turn? Especially in cases like this when there are zero downsides and only benefits. Irrelevant even if it were true. At best, it further highlights the need for this option. Is that what you're trying to say here? That you approve of the option, except in the most obstructive way possible? They wouldn't care in the slightest. I don't just “think” this like you (very questionably) claim you do; I know this because… you know… I read the OP. You should try doing the same. Doing so will completely cure you of this delusion you're suffering from since you keep coming back to the same disproven nonsense. It would not affect the intent of the mission design. Again: it would not affect the intent of the mission design. And again: it would not affect the intent of the mission design. You would know this and stop repeating the same drivel if you read the OP and what he's actually asking for. …and they still would because… It would not affect the intent of the mission design. It would not affect the intent of the mission design. It would not affect the intent of the mission design. It would not affect the intent of the mission design. Let's see if you are capable of spotting a pattern. But just to make sure, let's try clarifying something: It would not affect the intent of the mission design. Do you understand what this means as far as this option affecting the restrictions under which players operate? Do you understand what this means as far as the intent of the mission design? If you do, and still feel that there is a problem, please clearly explain how that would happen, seeing as how nothing would change for them. Explain how everything being just as it were would somehow change things. I'm all ears — it would be a fascinating read. You should also try reading what everyone else has written so you can come to grips with the blindingly obvious fact that it simply can't solve the problem. DCS does not allow for it. That's not how DCS works. People who have actually worked with this problem have explained this to you in full. Repeating this same ignorant and demonstrably false spiel of will not suddenly make it any more true. Read what people write. READ. For crying out loud. Just read. Otherwise you are just a troll repeating copy-pasted spam.
  15. Tippis
    No. Because script timings do not depend on the starting method. In fact, it's exceedingly difficult to figure out the starting waypoint type by way of scripting. No. It only changes the state of the aircraft as the player occupies it. It doesn't create two groups for the same reason as why turning your hot-started engines off does not suddenly create a new group. …and again, if you could ever be bothered to read the OP, you would know that this would not change that in the slightest. Read the OP. Read the OP. Read the flipping OP. And don't try to claim that you did if you're still harping on about this. Every time you return with this complaint, you prove that you have not read the OP. The “problem” you're inventing here has already been accommodated and solved and does not exist with this proposal. Stop using it because it was a failed argument from the get-go and it only weakens your credibility and proves that you are only here to troll a topic you don't like. Again: Read. The. OP. And realise that the repetition of this nonsense is nothing but wilful ignorance on your part. Yes you have. You just choose to ignore it. Alternatively, you haven't and therefore have far too little experience with the game and its online component to be able to offer anything of value to the discussion. Either way, your anecdotal evidence is worthless and irrelevant to the topic at hand. And as mentioned earlier, even if it had some value, it would only be to support the OP's idea since you're only proven from that there is a problem in what missions can be created in your sample group. Yes. In fact, F-16-oriented sims (and many like it because it's such a blindingly obvious thing to do) have been doing this for the better part of three decades. But apparently, DCS must not be allowed to stay abreast with such old competition. Because [no actual reason] There's also the complication of how some on-board systems are heavily reliant on the game-mechanical “sameness” of the group, so splitting one group into two will immediately break those systems or require very tedious prep-work for everyone involved. For the ones who pick a cold start rather than a hot one tedious prep-work was kind of the point to begin with so no real loss there… probably. For the other way around, it's not quite as convincing a case. The “group” in DCS is not just a way to add more aircraft, but also serve a very real set of game-mechanical functions that will not exist if you split the group into two. If we were to be really insane, and add AI planes to the mix, the whole thing becomes outright impossible because they are entirely tied to the group mechanic and groups cannot mix, co-mingle, or share AI control in any way.
  16. Tippis
    That doesn't really make the topic moot, now does it? Quite the opposite: it demonstrates the need for this exact thing, and why your proposed workaround doesn't work. This is simple the classic argument from incredulity fallacy on your part, which, not very shockingly, is not an actual argument. It's just you not being able to come up with an actual argument why the game should not be improved and using your own lack of effort as the basis for that. To put it clearly: there are no arguments against this. None. You certainly haven't provided any. But there are multiple arguments for it. Ironically, you have accidentally provided some of those in your attempts to do the opposite. Well, you're not really qualified to take part of this discussion, then, since you're admitting that you're arguing from a position of ignorance and lack of experience. The mere existence of this thread proves this wrong. This is just you generalising from your irrelevant preference and lack of experience again. No, the problem does indeed exist — but it happens behind the curtain, where you have never seen it because you simply haven't looked. The solution only exist as an obvious capability in the code, but it is artificially and arbitrarily limited by how aircraft spawning is set up with hard-coded and hard-mapped assignments that cannot be mixed and matched to suit your needs. There's nothing the mission-designer can do about it because you can only do what DCS allows you to do, so they go for the easiest option. This solution would allow for a much larger variety of setups, a very easy way for designers to cater to a larger audience with pretty much zero extra work, which is a vast improvement over having to do two or three times as much (if it is even possible to begin with, which again isn't necessarily the case). Indeed. The reduction in error-potential, needless duplication, and general complexity alone would be huge. It would make life a whole lot easier for the clients as well since they wouldn't have to scroll through a hugely bloated unit list just to try to figure out which slots are which (and where),
  17. Tippis
    You are, as it happens. You're the one trying to make sure it does not improve (for no adequately explained reason). That makes it a lesser game, pretty much by definition. If you take X+1, but don't add the +1, you end up with just X, which is less than X+1. Oh, and you still haven't explained why this should be DCS' fate. They are designed within the constraints of what functionality the game has on offer. One of those constraints is the mutual exclusivity of the spawn point options — hell sometimes it's not even mutually exclusive, but just exclusive, period. Irrespective of what players want, the mission designer can't provide it because the functionality isn't there. For MP missions in particular, the complexity and number of aircraft involved also makes your workaround wholly impracticable. …and if you had read the OP, you'd know that they do. But the problem is that there are some very silly limitations to how this can be done that keep it from being done right. Hence the OP's suggestion to remove that limitation and provide that option.
  18. Tippis
    You're fond of repetition, I'll give you that so… I guess I'll give you exactly that: …but you didn't say “mission”, now did you? The explanation for all of this was right there in the post, but much like with the OP, it seems like you skipped it. You still don't have an argument, by the way, and your workaround doesn't actually work. You still haven't explained why you feel so strongly that DCS must remain a lesser game.
  19. Tippis
    Nope. Because they don't have the required tools. But you didn't say “mission”, now did you? The explanation for all of this was right there in the post, but much like with the OP, it seems like you skipped it. You still don't have an argument, by the way, and your workaround doesn't actually work. You still haven't explained why you feel so strongly that DCS must remain a lesser game.
  20. Tippis
    Nope. Respond to the points made earlier — don't just repeat the same nonsense over and over again. That is not an argument. Unfortunately, players do not have the tools required to do that. Yes, I know what you were attempting to say, but you have long since exhausted any good-faith, charitable reading — so no, creating maps is not something mission-makers can do. And again, multiplying the workload is a laughably stupid workaround to something that shouldn't even be a problem to begin with — a workaround that isn't even possible or applicable in many cases. You would know this if you had actually attempted what you're suggesting. Again, you need to actually respond to the points being made, or you will only ever end up proving the exact opposite point to the one you're (not really) trying to argue. Remember what you were told the last time? “This is a wishlist item, if you dont like it or dont want it, dont comment on it” — and yet, here you are, desperately trying to shut down yet another conversation about a topic you do not understand and do not like by just repeating the same disproven thing over and over again, because for some unfathomable reason, improvements to DCS must not be allowed to happen.
  21. Tippis
    …or possibly the Bell 222.
  22. Tippis
    Why? Because you must have the last word or ensure that any wishlist item you do not approve of must end up getting locked so you kill the conversation that way? You're on an open forum. You do not get to dictate how other people discuss a topic, even if (especially if) you don't like that topic. Present an actual argument to keep the game bad and maybe I will stop. But since your goal here — and let's be very clear about this — is to keep the game less capable; to give mission-makers fewer tools to design missions with; and to generally keep everyone from playing the game in the way they like, it needs to be a spectacularly, mind-blowingly good argument. Just note, things that do not qualify as arguments (much less spectacular or mind-blowing ones) include: strawmen, misunderstandings of game mechanics, inventing problems that don't exist and/or are already accommodated in the suggestion. Very bad workaround sort of work as arguments, but only to the opposite point of the one you want to make…
  23. Tippis
    No, it wouldn't. The reason why it wouldn't is explained in the OP. You should read it. No, because it's not a server option. You may have noticed I kept repeating “this has nothing to do with the server”. That's because it has nothing to do with the server. It's a waypoint option; it's something you set in the mission; it's something the mission designer chooses. This is pretty clearly explained in the OP. You should read it. There is no such controls in the current set of server options, so no. Well, except yes: just like now, it wouldn't have anything to do with the server, since it would be a mission (and even more specifically, a waypoint) option, as explained in the OP. You know what this means you should do next… It can't be done now because DCS doesn't allow it. It doesn't allow it because we are talking about an artificially limited resource that has no reason to be limited to begin with (at least not in this particular way). A spawn point is set to a specific hot/coldness, and once that point is set, it is… well… set. There is no way to double-assign it so it can do both.The options are mutually exclusive, and using one will often make the other impossible to use at all. Not to mention — again — that the hot and cold starts aren't equally available. What you're talking about is an ugly, cumbersome, more-than-doubling-your-workload, and often simply not available (because there aren't enough available spawn points, and “start on ground” will not cover all bases) workaround. It specifically does not offer the flexibility and wider intent that the OP's suggestion would offer, and the workaround is far too cumbersome to be practicable except in the most uselessly minute circumstances. So, once more with feeling: you haven't actually presented an argument against the OP's suggestion — only a suggestion for a workaround that shows you have not actually tried to do what you're suggesting, much less tried to accommodate what the OP wants. The lack of this very simple option, and the ugliness of the not-actual-workaround makes this a fair bit different from the kind of flexibility (for both the client and the designer) simulators often have. It makes DCS a lesser game. Suggesting that mission designers put in twice the work to ultimately fail to provide a very sensible user choice is not a solid argument against improving the game. Quite the opposite — as always, you're only managing to prove the OP's point.
  24. Tippis
    So you understand that this has nothing to do with circumventing any kind of design intent, but to allow that intent to be more dynamic, responsive, and open to player choice. You understand that the subversive intent you ascribed to me was entirely of your own invention and not something anyone but you has actually suggested — it was a silly strawman and not any kind of reasoned or rational objection. And yes, seeing as how you have yet to actually present any kind of argument against this idea, and have only managed to accidentally demonstrate how useful and sensible it would be, we can (still) safely conclude that you're actually on board, in spite of your protestations that the game should not be improved.
  25. Tippis
    …and this would not change that, but would rather allow a wider range of options for the designer. What is your argument against allowing that extra level of freedom in the design? No. Read it again. Actually read it this time. Stop assuming things and argue against what has actually been said and described. Stop relying on strawmen as a replacement for your lack of an actual argument against improving the game. Form a real argument instead, if you have one. Otherwise, you're just going down your usual route of obstructionist trolling.
×
×
  • Create New...