Can you program your "pitbull" range for the AIM-120?

[Maximus_Lazarus]

We're not talking reality anymore for a while now . These are just examples of why it would be too OP if we could "program" our amraams. (in the game)

[lunaticfringe]

Next time you want to go sit in the corner and mumble about "not talking reality anymore", be sure and delineate this for the rest of the forum.

 

So that you can be ignored, and others can refrain from wasting their time.

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Man, it would be pretty OP if you could actually program the time to active time

 

Or better yet, never let it go active at all ! Probably not possible in TWS because crappy update time though.

 

OR , be able to choose the time to active time while the missile is IN FLIGHT :pilotfly:

 

Nobody would ever dare to go even near an F15 then though

 

2 pages back :)

[Frostie]

What on earth are we being presented with here, when did the CoD brigade infest our nest with their nonsense. It's like a childs view on how the world should be run. Get these boards back on topic please.. ahem ..simulation, not kids game please.

[lunaticfringe]

^ What he said. ^

[Nerdwing]

Agreed, better throw an extra $30 on the game's price-tag ala Maxis Games to prevent new players from getting into the sim genre to begin with. :doh:

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Look frostie, it is what it is.

 

The topic shifted towards a "what if" scenario some pages ago.

It's not my fault that you feel embarrassed for missing that and are now trying to overcompensate with an insulting post directed at me, instead of just saying: "oh i missed that my bad" like a true gentleman would.

[Frostie]

Look frostie, it is what it is.

 

The topic shifted towards a "what if" scenario some pages ago.

It's not my fault that you feel embarrassed for missing that and are now trying to overcompensate with an insulting post directed at me, instead of just saying: "oh i missed that my bad" like a true gentleman would.

The only insults here are you wasting everyones time and turning a serious thread into your own debate about utter nonsense, just to be clear you're the only one in this thread trying to shift the topic.

A prudent person would have made their own thread in the chit chat section instead of confusing everyone by shamelessly derailing somebodies serious thread into a joke about nothing to do with real world simulation.

 

That's all there is to it, don't chat crap for chat sake and everyone will get on fine. ;)

[lunaticfringe]

Unfortunately, Frostie, he tried derailing the thread and never picked up on the fact that the rest of us weren't going along for the ride.

 

Yes, a new thread that can e ignored would have been awesome. Instead, we get told that we're not paying attention to something that actually didn't happen.

[lunaticfringe]

Agreed, better throw an extra $30 on the game's price-tag ala Maxis Games to prevent new players from getting into the sim genre to begin with. :doh:

 

You're making the assumption that it is only by pure numbers (players and dollars) which constitute success for the developers. By that measure, they might as well throw in the towel, as DCS will never reach the volumes that Ace Combat will.

 

Simulation by its very nature is not accessible, except by those who have the drive to learn- competency becoming a means to its own end. But a simulation that instead lowers its difficulty, not for the lack of sufficient modeling data, but for the aim of "bringing in the unwashed masses", is not a simulation. It's not even a game, really- it's a circle jerk.

 

There are enough rabid true-simulation fans on the planet willing to spend their money on ED's products that, should they continue the stream of releases that those show interest in, the firm will never go hungry. But you cannot maintain their passion by, for lack of a better way of putting it- "selling out". You won't keep your best customers- those who make the mods, those who bring people in as advocates, by lowering the quality.

 

And that goes for the nature of players brought in as well. Working on a board wargame simulation that is more advanced than anything else on the civilian market, and operates in a very small space of what DCS would do comparatively, I've had this conversation with a lot of people- it's not always the product; sometimes, the one at fault really is the customer, and their inability to discern what it actually is that would be a better expenditure of their dollars to find what they're looking for. Just because the customer wants something easier or "more accessible", it doesn't mean that the design staff has cause to create it. If they have the mind, they can devise an entirely separate product and line.

 

If one wishes to abide by a standard, then they should abide by it, and do their utmost to attain. Otherwise, they're only fooling themselves.

[Nerdwing]

You're making the assumption that it is only by pure numbers (players and dollars) which constitute success for the developers. By that measure, they might as well throw in the towel, as DCS will never reach the volumes that Ace Combat will.

 

Simulation by its very nature is not accessible, except by those who have the drive to learn- competency becoming a means to its own end. But a simulation that instead lowers its difficulty, not for the lack of sufficient modeling data, but for the aim of "bringing in the unwashed masses", is not a simulation. It's not even a game, really- it's a circle jerk.

 

There are enough rabid true-simulation fans on the planet willing to spend their money on ED's products that, should they continue the stream of releases that those show interest in, the firm will never go hungry. But you cannot maintain their passion by, for lack of a better way of putting it- "selling out". You won't keep your best customers- those who make the mods, those who bring people in as advocates, by lowering the quality.

 

And that goes for the nature of players brought in as well. Working on a board wargame simulation that is more advanced than anything else on the civilian market, and operates in a very small space of what DCS would do comparatively, I've had this conversation with a lot of people- it's not always the product; sometimes, the one at fault really is the customer, and their inability to discern what it actually is that would be a better expenditure of their dollars to find what they're looking for. Just because the customer wants something easier or "more accessible", it doesn't mean that the design staff has cause to create it. If they have the mind, they can devise an entirely separate product and line.

 

If one wishes to abide by a standard, then they should abide by it, and do their utmost to attain. Otherwise, they're only fooling themselves.

 

My comment was about community members acting venomously towards someone with apparently little experience in the sim-genre, rather than either shrugging and ignoring em at worst.

 

Playing a "HEH CoD" card is prime elitist-behavior.

[Frostie]

My comment was about community members acting venomously towards someone with apparently little experience in the sim-genre, rather than either shrugging and ignoring em at worst.

 

Playing a "HEH CoD" card is prime elitist-behavior.

Its has nothing to do with being elitist and everything to do thread discipline. This forum is about DCS:FC3 not Space virgins with laser guns. You can't have a serious discussion about a serious sim if someone passes from serious to hysterical fantasy mixing it up in a matter of posts, and then argue the fact that this fantasy should work a certain way, how can you take discussions on these boards seriously if such nonsense starts creeping in.

The CoD reference is DCS being a sim based on reality and CoD being a game based on no reality but maximum fun arcade, you can't have both, but you can discuss it in the chit chat section.

 

I like Maximus, it's obvious he has a passion for DCS, but lets keep clear of fantasy.