Removed

[rrohde]

Hmm so first Zeus said there wouldn't be a pilot body because the cockpit was tiny and a pilot would cover up a lot of switches. Then there was a big outcry by some that a pilot body was indeed very much needed and the covered switches were no problem at all because the body can be switched on and off by keyboard. Now you get the body and you're saying: "Man, he's covering up all the switches! :("

 

Oh boy... ^^

 

 

Well yeah, just like in real life (arms and legs cover a lot of stuff up), and just like in other DCS modules that feature a pilot. That's why ED allows us to toggle the pilot on/off as we need it. It's a non-issue, really. The bigger issue is not having a pilot body at all - which I am glad RAZBAM is fixing. Big shoutout and "thank you" to RAZBAM! :)

[WinterH]

Pilot body is one of those "love it / hate it" type of features I guess. I'm glad it is done, for people who seem to really care a lot for it. Yet, I'm even more glad that it's optional and I can keep the thing off :D.

[zaelu]

Very nice pilot model!

 

If I can make a suggestion, the bullet holes quite a lot of them) are a bit not realistic as no plane would fly riddled with bullets like this. They are way way way too many and way to spread all over the plane.

[Sk1nn3r]

Here is the mission I modified (thanks to whoever made the original). Key thing with it is to make sure when you take off is to ensure you're following the WP's to hit the trigger to activate the JTAC.

 

It only contains 1 Mirage with a Bomb Truck Load out. You can dump the fuel tanks right away.

Mirage TRAINING_1_v11.miz

[Enduro14]

Awesome pilot model!! be great for vr thank you. Now if only the A10c would get one

[NeilWillis]

Good progress. I am pleased that Razbam is listening to their customers. All we need to do now is work out which ones are right!

 

The addition of a pilot should be of absolutely no concern to those who don't like pilots cluttering up the cockpit. It is so simple to choose whether he appears or not, so why there needs to be another we want it/we don't want it debate is beyond me.

 

zaelu, who says it'll continue to fly when it is so riddled with bullet holes anyway? Had it not occurred to you that it may be about to go ballistic as soon as the damage is taken? Or that although the bullet holes are all modelled, maybe the damage model will add just some of them in any given situation? Just because they're there in a work in progress screen shot, doesn't mean you'll see them in that way when it is completed. Just let the guys work on it. At least no one has pointed out the missing pilots head in some of the images!

[Enduro14]

Good progress. I am pleased that Razbam is listening to their customers. All we need to do now is work out which ones are right!

 

The addition of a pilot should be of absolutely no concern to those who don't like pilots cluttering up the cockpit. It is so simple to choose whether he appears or not, so why there needs to be another we want it/we don't want it debate is beyond me.

 

zaelu, who says it'll continue to fly when it is so riddled with bullet holes anyway? Had it not occurred to you that it may be about to go ballistic as soon as the damage is taken? Or that although the bullet holes are all modelled, maybe the damage model will add just some of them in any given situation? Just because they're there in a work in progress screen shot, doesn't mean you'll see them in that way when it is completed. Just let the guys work on it. At least no one has pointed out the missing pilots head in some of the images!

 

Fact!

[zaelu]

Good progress. I am pleased that Razbam is listening to their customers. All we need to do now is work out which ones are right!

 

The addition of a pilot should be of absolutely no concern to those who don't like pilots cluttering up the cockpit. It is so simple to choose whether he appears or not, so why there needs to be another we want it/we don't want it debate is beyond me.

 

zaelu, who says it'll continue to fly when it is so riddled with bullet holes anyway? Had it not occurred to you that it may be about to go ballistic as soon as the damage is taken? Or that although the bullet holes are all modelled, maybe the damage model will add just some of them in any given situation? Just because they're there in a work in progress screen shot, doesn't mean you'll see them in that way when it is completed. Just let the guys work on it. At least no one has pointed out the missing pilots head in some of the images!

 

The bullet holes exists now and the plane still flies when it is absolute Schweitzer. I know it is a beta, I know it is WIP but it can also be the way RAZBAM chose to depict some generic not so bad damage and that could affect the final product.

 

Until RAZBAM states this will be changed to more realistic it is a genuine and fair concern.

 

Please stop chasing my posts just to struggle to be negative about them! If you don't I will gather them all and report you. You are doing the same with others.

[TomOnSteam]

That video looks fantastic! It already makes a big difference for immersion. Seeing your body when inside VR is a very weird and immersive feeling.

 

What would be cool though is if parts of the body faded and became temporarily transparent when you moved your mouse near the switches.

[shagrat]

Very nice pilot model!

 

If I can make a suggestion, the bullet holes quite a lot of them) are a bit not realistic as no plane would fly riddled with bullets like this. They are way way way too many and way to spread all over the plane.

It is a visual representation of generic damage. The visual damage model is separate from the effects modeled in the plane. At least as far as I know, currently.

What "appears" to be bullet holes has to represent shrapnel damage from missiles, as well as damage from contact with the ground...

Razbam could reduce the "bullet holes", but it would be unrealistic for SAM /shrapnel damage etc.

 

Only option is to have multiple layers, based on damage level, which may be an option for later.

[zaelu]

My only "isue" with the current representation is that it looks like those cars with bullet holes stickers on them. It's like the plane flew through a shower of Tommy Guns firing at exactly lateral 90º. I know about the technical limitations. Especially the fact that the DCS engine does not make difference between the types of damage. If you hit something while rolling on the tarmac... you get your plane in Schweitzer/Gangsta mode. And you can fly with it like this.

[NeilWillis]

 

Please stop chasing my posts just to struggle to be negative about them! If you don't I will gather them all and report you. You are doing the same with others.

 

If I was being negative - which I am not, then I could understand your concerns. It is in fact the contrary. I am adding a little balance to the unfair criticism that ALL developers get on the forum. Your comments, and everyone else's are open to scrutiny, so don't get all uptight just because someone has a different and equally valid view.

 

If you think Razbam don't have the imagination to see that a lot of bullet holes might be an issue, then you severely underestimate them I think.

 

Report bugs, yes. But if you try to each granny to suck eggs, why are you surprised you get comments?

 

You also added yourself that you know it is a DCS World limitation on damage modelling, so hardly something Razbam control anyway.

[TomCatMucDe]

Awesome pilot model!! be great for vr thank you. Now if only the A10c would get one

 

i am looking for his res VR but will it be useable with the pilot body hiding the radar pannel? you wouldnt have access to the keyboard and the warthog switches aren't enough. I am wondering how this will be solved.

[T_A]

That video looks fantastic! It already makes a big difference for immersion. Seeing your body when inside VR is a very weird and immersive feeling.

 

What would be cool though is if parts of the body faded and became temporarily transparent when you moved your mouse near the switches.

 

This

[zaelu]

Report bugs, yes. But if you try to each granny to suck eggs, why are you surprised you get comments?

 

What is your title on these forums that you decide what report is a valid 100% bug/ suggestion/ observation that you bash anyone who dares to point something to some of the 3rd parties (especially one of them you know very well who)? You add negative comments (in the ball park of "you think this 3rd party dev doesn't know blah blah...?!?") to a lot of people pointing bugs or issues with some modules like you are suppose to be some religious zealot that feels entitled to defend his self proclaimed god. In fact you are a constant nuisance to a lot of reports about issues or bugs and if one would ask all people bashed by you I am sure a lot would report also negative rep points from you. Which indicates that your intentions are not so good.

 

This is what you do not what you claim... What you claim is just a weak rationalization of your negative practices.

 

You also added yourself that you know it is a DCS World limitation on damage modelling, so hardly something Razbam control anyway.

 

That's why they should have not chosen such type of damage from beginning. The other modules have little to none bullet holes instead opting for ruptures that work no matter the damage origin. The fact that they did shows that maybe they are not aware. Like other issues were chosen by them not being 100% aware of things. Like the Heads down display that got downsized because it felt right for them that are not using headtracking.

 

It is not about criticism but about fair feedback.

 

If people wouldn't had pointed the necessity of FFB effects for such joysticks/HOTAS those effects would have been further down the pipeline in development. That... only because RAZBAM was unaware of how many people use FFB sticks and how distorted is the flying without FFB effects for people with such setups. RAZBAM declared through Zeus that they don't have such setups. And there are other examples with other devs.

 

In fact, all the issues are debatable and could be false reports or not important but is no you the one in charge here to settle them arbitrary after your own likings. Here is RAZBAM and they can say if a report is not OK. Your negative sayings are just futile arrogances and forum disruptions as some reports might get overlooked just because in the little time a dev can have to check the reports he could see a negative reply (like yours) to the reported issue and consider that it is not important or something the community can deal with internally.

 

 

 

 

 

What would be cool though is if parts of the body faded and became temporarily transparent when you moved your mouse near the switches.

 

Maybe a better option would be that where is necessary the legs, arms or even the body would move away a bit by animations when the mouse is hovered above a panel with not best view. It would work in the future very well with devices like Oculus Rift etc.

Edited January 24, 2016 by zaelu

[NeilWillis]

Zaelu, first, can I point out that the so-called bug you were so uptight about was a comment about a preview picture, and as such it wasn't a bug report at all.

 

If you have a bug report to make, make it, and don't just comment in the forum. That isn't a bug report, it is just unfair, unreasoned criticism, and frankly your statement is a lot closer to breaking rules than it is for me to point out that you are wrong to make the comment.

 

If you were making a genuine bug report I'd have left you to get on with it. What you fail to accept is that it is simple negativity - and AGAIN I say I was not the negative one in the first place, so DO NOT turn this around and make out I am the villain here, because I choose to question your judgement. Saying something doesn't look right to you isn't a bug report. Period!

 

In the past, with other developers, there has been a complete change in their policy about how they talk to the forum, and the reason is precisely the same as the one you have taken up here. Not only did the policy change, but it caused a guy to resign from their team. THAT is why I took objection to a casual, and uninformed comment from you.

 

And as for reporting my comments to the moderators, just how far do you think you will get? I have never made any personal remarks about you, but you have made plenty regarding me, in questioning my motives, my status here, and even publicly threatening to report the matter. I am merely providing some balance. You on the other hand were criticising something you saw in a pre-implementation screenshot. How on earth do you interpret that as anything but a breach of the rules regarding negativity towards developers?

 

You may not like what I say, but in an open forum, what makes you think you are above being criticised in a reasonable, and civilised manner? So you disagree, big deal.

[Farlander]

I don't see his initial comment as very "unfair" or "unreasoned critisism".. It is fair to say that the visual representation could be better. And it really is not a "bug", but rather a fully functional feature that he suggest should be changed in the future for more realistic look.

 

I really think you guys should take the presonal comments somewhere else, it has nothing to do with the topic..

 

So far im loving the updates!

[zaelu]

Zaelu, first, can I point out that the so-called bug you were so uptight about was a comment about a preview picture, and as such it wasn't a bug report at all.

 

Is not a preview, is how it is now in game.

 

The rest of your comments don't look like are addressing to me. My discussion with you is over.

[Sarge55]

:megalol:Thank goodness. Next time get a room guys....:D

[KEULE]

:megalol:Thank goodness. Next time get a room guys....:D

 

Some days ago I wished to much to have that....

[TomCatMucDe]

Please NeilWillis don't hunt people down for saying their opinions and remind us that dev do what they want and customers have no say. We all love DCS and appreciate Razbam for that they did and what they do. You are acting like a fanboy attacking anyone who emits a tiny criticism.

[NeilWillis]

Look again TomCatMucDe, I criticise what I consider unreasonable statements as a direct result of previous witch hunts that have been conducted against other developers.

 

If criticism is based on empirical data, or obvious and reproducible flaws, that is called a bug, and that is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss.

 

If however a contributor merely has an opinion which is based on nothing but spurious opinion, then that is just an opinion, and has no place in error reporting.

 

For example to say that "there are too many bullet holes - a module simply couldn't fly like that" and to draw that conclusion based purely on a hunch rather than looking at actual battle damage images and whether or not an airframe could make it home. That is purely an opinion, and speculation.

 

If you don't believe a slightly damaged plane could fly, take a look at actual battle damage, and see just how durable some aircraft are. There are loads of examples out there, and if you saw one without knowing the facts you'd say they could never fly. And yet they did. F-15 minus a whole wing, B-17s with all the fuselage forward of the cockpit completely missing, A-10C with an entire side of the empennage missing.

 

Shrapnel damage to a fuselage may of course render an airframe unflyable, but then again, it could miss every single essential system, or just remove a few. So to say it couldn't or could fly is utterly spurious.

 

To top it all, the M-2000C - which was released very recently in DCS World terms - has loads of actual issues that need fixing right now, none of which is less important than a cosmetic issue that RAZBAM are no doubt already aware of.

 

The alternative to challenging the stupid comments is to allow the forum to delcare open warfare on the developers, and that results in far more sinister outcomes than you or anyone else here who imagines all criticism is fair criticism.

 

I don't say don't criticise, even if you feel there are too many bullet holes. However, when someone says something crass and purely speculative, why shouldn't they have that pointed out to them?

 

Peoples careers have been affected by our comments here, never forget that! That is someone with a family to support, and I am afraid that is far far more important than how many or how few bullet holes constitute feasible damage. Why is it so terrible to redress the balance occasionally?

 

Just what percentage of comments and criticisms do I take issue with? 5%, 10%? Count them, and see then if I am unreasonable, or just pointing out that they might - shock horror - simply be wrong and unfair in their appraisal!

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=aircraft+battle+damage&espv=2&biw=2115&bih=1003&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdgeTTysTKAhUKPxQKHcJgARkQsAQIHg&dpr=0.9

Edited January 25, 2016 by NeilWillis

[Enduro14]

Look again TomCatMucDe, I criticise what I consider unreasonable statements as a direct result of previous witch hunts that have been conducted against other developers.

 

If criticism is based on empirical data, or obvious and reproducible flaws, that is called a bug, and that is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss.

 

If however a contributor merely has an opinion which is based on nothing but spurious opinion, then that is just an opinion, and has no place in error reporting.

 

For example to say that "there are too many bullet holes - a module simply couldn't fly like that" and to draw that conclusion based purely on a hunch rather than looking at actual battle damage images and whether or not an airframe could make it home. That is purely an opinion, and speculation.

 

If you don't believe a slightly damaged plane could fly, take a look at actual battle damage, and see just how durable some aircraft are. There are loads of examples out there, and if you saw one without knowing the facts you'd say they could never fly. And yet they did. F-15 minus a whole wing, B-17s with all the fuselage forward of the cockpit completely missing, A-10C with an entire side of the empennage missing.

 

Shrapnel damage to a fuselage may of course render an airframe unflyable, but then again, it could miss every single essential system, or just remove a few. So to say it couldn't or could fly is utterly spurious.

 

To top it all, the M-2000C - which was released very recently in DCS World terms - has loads of actual issues that need fixing right now, none of which is less important than a cosmetic issue that RAZBAM are no doubt already aware of.

 

The alternative to challenging the stupid comments is to allow the forum to delcare open warfare on the developers, and that results in far more sinister outcomes than you or anyone else here who imagines all criticism is fair criticism.

 

I don't say don't criticise, even if you feel there are too many bullet holes. However, when someone says something crass and purely speculative, why shouldn't they have that pointed out to them?

 

Peoples careers have been affected by our comments here, never forget that! That is someone with a family to support, and I am afraid that is far far more important than how many or how few bullet holes constitute feasible damage. Why is it so terrible to redress the balance occasionally?

 

Just what percentage of comments and criticisms do I take issue with? 5%, 10%? Count them, and see then if I am unreasonable, or just pointing out that they might - shock horror - simply be wrong and unfair in their appraisal!

Fact and well said, let's move on to better things in regards to this aircraft. A request to the dev's as a Nvidia 3dvision user is their a way you could maybe tweak some settings with hud and than the pca lights, even with the great mod to fix said problems m2000c had an issue with his and others lights not on same plane if makes sense. Hard to explain as I'm not very tech on subject but the 3dvision thread in mods section has good data.

[sedenion]

I think the problem, after many hours of observations, is that when the word "realism" or "realistic" is written, and whatever the core subject... people get mad.

 

You can say "hum, there is too much bullets holes i think, it's strange", but not "hum, there is too much bullets holes, this is not realistic"... But i can't tell more, this is professional secrecy :D

[Rlaxoxo]

My head hurts from reading these arguments lol