Tippis
-
Posts
2797 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Tippis
-
-
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:
It’s the first item in this interview with Simon from ED. Also discussed are the crewed modules and the observation that hardly anyone uses the back seat So a multiplayer-only crew-only module in DCS seems like a tough sell
Could it be that it's so rarely used because, if you buy the full module, it's because you want to fly the plane and you spend the most of the time in the front seat for the reasons Simon suggests, leaving people less familiar with the back seat and also less able to find someone who's willing to spend time there. You're assuming cause where there might be effect. It's also kind of funny how they keep discussing the design multicrew in a way that is actually completely contrary to how the game factually already works. I guess that's just GR videos for you.
And given what he actually says in the segment you didn't really link to, it shouldn't be a hard sell if they're actually going to give MP the level of attention he's saying they will. Quite the opposite: this would be exactly the kind of change that would help achieve that goal.
2 hours ago, cfrag said:Not knowing anything about the processes at ED I would just guess (back of an envelope) that there are some effort attached to the following steps, split between ED and Heatblur
Ok. That's a decent list. Some of them seem a bit overdramatic to state as added costs since they are already in place and inherent in the business they're already running. The two main points I can see left outstanding are the upgrade path (which we sort of already have with other upgradeable modules), and the update to the manual.
-
On 9/10/2021 at 4:18 PM, Elphaba said:
Hi. Yes I've tried doing the user curve. It's horrible, inaccurate and changes the curve from linear everywhere else. It's not good enough.
How do you mean? It's as linear as you make the numbers. There's maybe a very slight bend in the kink created by the AB position, but on both sides of that position, the response is as linear as needed and you'd be hard-pressed to notice any variation.
-
5 hours ago, cfrag said:
Then again, the entire point is mostly moot from my perspective, as I agree with your opinion that the MP slice of DCS players seems lamentably thin - too thin for a MP-only, RIO-only license to make financial sense (do you have any source for the 10% number? I heard is was even lower, but never could get any hard facts - I'm hoping it is higher)
Lol @ asking him for sources for his headcanon.
Anyway…
When it comes to the financial sense, though, what costs are you envisioning that would make it not worth-while? All it really is is a slot restriction — something that is already in place in the code — for something that also already exists. It's a lower price for a lesser capability, with the point being that this is low enough a threshold to create sales that otherwise wouldn't happen. Even if they're few in numbers, that's still more than the zero that would be the alternative, hence the question of what the cost would be to create that added revenue?
I could conceivably see some support costs, but any issues would already have to be handled by the regular licensees since they'd see the same problems.
-
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:
All of those will only be running the latest version so when the OB cycle comes along, you’ll need to run that in order to play online. If not then there won’t be any other option.
Yes there will be. In fact, there already is, and always have been, a number of other options.
Again, this is just some assumption you're making based on what can only be a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how DCS multiplayer works. Either that, or you wilfully skipped out on the other presuppositions that invalidate your “problem”.
The simple fact of the matter is that you imagined problem is just that: imaginary. The game has already solved it. The problem doesn't exist.
-
5 minutes ago, twistking said:
But what's up with the SA-24? How are they identical, why is it incorrectly named and why haven't i found it in the mission editor?
We have two “SA-18”s in the game: the Igla and the Igla-S. The latter is not an SA-18, but the SA-24. Not that it matters because both use the exact same unit and missile definitions so it just ends up being a way to use labels separate two different skins. This happens a lot with anti-air in DCS.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, twistking said:
Then maybe all other point defense air defense are to weak in DCS?
Nah. They're just obsolete.
SA-13 is from the mid-70s
Shilka is from late Ordovician.
The “SA-18” we have is identical to the incorrectly named SA-24, which we also have, and which is from 2004.
That said, yes, most SAMs are a bit too weak and easy to defeat, unless we're talking about the naval systems. This includes the MANPADs.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:
Yup! An official launcher like Skatezilla's with support for a mod repository/user files would be most welcome.
If we're allowed to feature creep, add auto-downloading with server white/blacklisting as an option on top of that.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:
What I meant was a multiplayer-only module would essentially require the owner to run the OB about 3/4 of the time since that’s where all the players are. If for whatever reason they didn’t want to run OB they’d be practically unable to use it.
Lolno.
That's not how multiplayer works; that's not what is required; and that is not what dictates what you can and cannot use.
They'd be able to use it just fine. You should know this already since it has been explained to you on multiple occasions.
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, cfrag said:
Anyway, I believe people are overthinking this. I don't think there is a real market for crew-only licenses, seeing that a) the MP player market is (heartbreakingly) small, and b) I seriously doubt that there will be many people willing to 'just' learn a crew spot (remember - all training has to be MP, always. You can't RIO-only in SP). There will be some, yes. But not enough to build this into a product category.
Quite. Chances are that a huge portion of the benefits with this kind of feature could be handled via the trial program. If it's that good to be in the back, it will show within that period and then be worth-while to pay the price of admission for. Alternatively, if there is a genuine argument to be made for the backseat not being worth it, it almost sounds like it would be better to just allow for a trial extension — you can't fly it, but you can pick backseat slots (assuming the server is set to allow trial accounts).
It comes down to a pretty standard cost-benefit analysis in that case: how much is lost in sales from backseat-only people staying free vs. how much is gained from a potential increased interest in flying the module now that there are plenty of jester replacements?
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:
Getting a warbird ride in a video game isn’t that exciting… not like getting a ride in a real one.
I guess we should just shut down the entire sim genre then since it's apparently not worth-while ever developing any features that go into it.
4 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:In terms of the resources, it probably wouldn't be that much to tackle considering the FM is all there. In terms of bringing in more new players, it is currently the tool being used to introduce people to DCS WWII, so modeling the rear seat would simply add to that ability.
The biggest issue has always been control syncing, so a lot of it comes down to how much duplication and redundancy there is between the front and the back seat. It sort of goes both ways: if there's a lot of the same, then on the one hand, it's already there and largely done, but on the other hand, it means more that has to be synced.
-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:
However I would bet that the two-seat functionality in DCS goes largely unused.
What do you base this assumption on?
Have you been paying attention to the hubub surrounding, say, the UH-1, the Mi-28, the F-14, and the AH-64? Your bet doesn't jive well with how some of the most anticipated, celebrated, and talked-about things added to the game in the last year have been exactly that supposedly “largely unused” feature.
5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:It would be fun but I don’t think it would help bring in new players very much.
So? Is anyone suggesting that it would? Also, as always, what do you base that assumption on?
-
1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:
Your assumption that “others in the community prefer instructions and interaction “ is also an irrelevant assumption and personal preference.
It's not an assumption, nor is it irrelevant.
It's not an assumption because this very thread shows that such preferences exist.
It is not irrelevant because it's the very heart of the topic: does a market exist for the proposed kind of module?
The relevant non-assumption is also not a personal preference. It's just a statement of fact, again as the thread itself demonstrates. The preference for realism, community and interaction is indeed a preference but again, that preference is exactly what creates the market interest. As such, it's quite worth bringing up and discussing, whereas preferences to the contrary don't really ad much of value. It matters how many would buy a product; it much pretty much none at all how many wouldn't.
And no, I'm not going to keep my thoughts to myself. That would rather defeat the point of all of us being here to begin with. However, I'm not going to conflate that with some imaginary problems, nor am I going to make faulty generalisations from my preferences. In fact, I'm not going to use my personal preference as an argument for (or against) anything beyond the regular ‘+1’ answer here and there. So sorry, you don't get to backseat-moderate this one — you're simply going to have to live with how I rip apart weak attempts at argumentations.
1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:or you could just be nice for once….
Nah. Especially not when it comes to his standard procedure of trying to shut down any and all discussion about features that would not benefit him for spurious and nonsensical reasons.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:
Can’t you just use the Yak?
It's far too trivial to operate and fly (and especially land) to really teach you anything about the warbird experience.
The only things that would translate is that you hear a constant droning from the propeller, and that you need to prime your fuel system. In all other aspects, you might as well use the Albatros or Aviojet — at least those have some quirks in their flight dynamics that you need to manage, and you also actually have to manage your engine.
-
2
-
-
Just now, SharpeXB said:
I don’t think the lack of real world-like training is the obstacle to bringing new players to DCS.
No-one said it was.
Just now, SharpeXB said:Novice players are more attracted to making stuff go boom than patiently getting instruction.
And you know this, how, exactly? Your posting history only ever shows one consistent theme: that you are wholly unfamiliar with the new player experience and will argue against anything and everything that would help them. So what imaginary well are you drawing this fantastical assumption from?
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
The problem with a multiplayer-only module for DCS, which is what this would be, is that MP is effectively restricted to Open Beta about 3/4 of the time.
You do realise that you can run multiplayer without connecting to one of those servers, right? That if for some reason you don't want to run Open Beta, you can still use your multiplayer-only module just fine. And that, in many cases, you wouldn't want to use a public server anyway? So that's not even remotely a problem.
3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:So unless someone is willing to be a Beta Tester and have dual installs of the game they wouldn't be able to use this WSO/RIO module most of the time.
Also, you do realise that you never have to have dual installs, right? Especially not if you run the beta branch.
-
4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:
So I don’t think
Setting aside the rare accuracy of this statement, what you “think” is irrelevant.
Do you have any actual numbers to support your random assumption? Any sales figures for the modules we already have that do exactly this?
The “problem” you're stating is not an actual problem — it's just your personal preference. Others prefer realism, and community, and interaction with other players, and being instructed rather than fumbling around blindly with all the ill effects this entails.
-
3
-
-
44 minutes ago, Furiz said:
This straw picking is amazing.
You pretty much asked for that one, though…
And you can't really chastise people for doing the same thing you are.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, upyr1 said:
I figure this would be a multi stage thing step 1 a total black out
Hmm. The question would be how the other stages would work, then. Or perhaps rather, how logical should they be?
It might still be possible to steal code from the zone destruction trigger, except instead of randomly replacing buildings with their destroyed models on a percentage basis, you'd switch them to black-out (i.e. daytime) textures.
If you'd want it to be more realistic, with specific buildings getting grid prioritisation and others always being dark because you'd want to hide them (or because they're low-priority), things would get trickier. Also, come to think of it, I don't actually know how the destruct zone affects things like power pylons and their collision warning lights.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Raviar said:
The pre-flaring is really effective but then why not the flares after launch?!
IRL you mean? It's because once launched, the difference in movement and heat makes it reasonably easy to reject flares as not the target you were going after to begin with.
In DCS, however, pretty much the exact opposite is true: pre-flaring does not really affect target acquisition, whereas flares after launch are — as previously mentioned — just die rolls for whether or not the missile should randomly go after them or not.
-
Should be easy enough with the current model too: just swap the structure textures from the regular nigh-time, full-bright ones to the (equally) regular day-time textures, except they also show at night. The only conceivably tricky bit would be to have it only apply to a trigger zone, and even then, the trickiness is mostly from the perspective of how unreliable things like destruction zones and clear-object zones are in multiplayer.
-
18 hours ago, G.J.S said:
Its not a proper Phantom if you can see forward
.
6 hours ago, QuiGon said:It's also not a proper Phantom if it has MFDs
I mean what's even the point of putting instruments in if the pilot doesn't use them to fly?
-
5 hours ago, Mike_Romeo said:
There is no option in the mission editor to set a race-track like the DCS manual suggests.
Yes there is.
It's just not immediately obvious how it works.
On a flight, set two waypoints as the anchor points for your race track.
On the first of these waypoints, set the action Perform Task > Orbit, check the “racetrack” box. It is this combination that makes the racetrack work.
You need both waypoints to define the track, but only one action. You also should not set any other actions on the second race track anchor point.
You often also want to set some kind of stop condition — a specified time, duration, or trigger flag depending on your needs — for the orbit action, otherwise the AI will happily follow the route until it goes bingo, and then fail to fuel manage its way back to an airport. If you want any specific settings (reactions to threats, invisibility, radar usage and all that), it's better to set that up on the waypoint immediately preceding the orbit waypoint. Basically, keep the two racetrack-defining WPs as clean as possible.
You can also use triggered actions to break the flight out of the racetrack loop, using “skip to waypoint” to send them off to where it needs to go next.
-
2
-
-
Quite.
There's some very odd interactions between that non-breaking setup and the way its flex box setup is… well… set up, that causes the whole thing to collapse in on itself.
I'm seeing this in Firefox, Chrome, and Safari. Haven't checked any other browsers.
-
7 hours ago, sirrah said:
This would avoid also having to deal with the 2+ engines issue
This needs to be highlighted.
One of the most common limitation that is always brought up by almost every developer in relation to heavier aircraft is that more than two engines is horrid, for… reasons. Whether clearly explained or not, that reason must sill temper any and all expectations for rumoured future modules.
Unless they have been contracted by an outside party to create a new engine sim (similar to how the Yak and CE2 came about), it's supremely unlikely that this rumour would yield a modern 4+ engine aircraft… or even a 3-engine Junkers. This quite significantly reduces the odds of it being a modern aircraft.
Maybe MANPADS are op?!
in Weapon Bugs
Posted
…and it should be mention that this is with a few performance perks that have been given to them, such as adding various levels of countermeasure immunity to (in particular) IR missiles. Even then, just about all of them can be spoofed in DCS by just adding more spam since that simply triggers more die rolls for confusing the missiles. Barring absolute immunity, one of them will cause a miss sooner or later. As such, the only thing that really causes a hit is if the target doesn't have time to react, usually by not seeing or being warned of the launch.
Even that part has proven to be under-modelled and underperforming for a number of SAMs for the longest time (looking at you SA-2), so… yeah. Anit-air in DCS is often not treated with the respect it deserves from pilots because they don't need to. So on the few occasions when that need actually comes up, a DCS regular is quite likely not to be fully prepared.