Possibility of other 109 Models as an addon?

[Echo38]

that the whole point in DCS is not, and never was, any kind of balance but simulation accuracy and realism, and the reason is obvious, accuracy and realism doesn't depend on what we want to model but on the data available about a certain model.

 

I've explained this approximately a hundred times, now: you (pl) keep saying that balance isn't as important as simulation accuracy & realism, as though it were a "this or that" choice. But, as I've said over and over again, it isn't a "this or that" choice. It is possible to have both. I've made it more than clear that my wish is for "balance, without reducing simulation fidelity."

 

Furthermore, I've also mentioned that I agree that competitive balance isn't as important as accurate modelling & historical accuracy. Happily, as I've pointed out again and again, the former is not mutually exclusive with the latter.

 

I've made it as clear as space. Repeatedly. At this point, anyone who doesn't understand this either isn't reading my posts (at best, skimming them with intent to disagree), or is intentionally pretending not to understand it, out of ... I don't know, sheer contrariness? Desire to see their preferred ship stay at the top, perhaps?

 

I'm losing my patience with this discussion. I don't mind explaining things when people don't understand them, but when people deliberately try to not understand, or are pretending to not understand, that does annoy me. I think I've explained things well enough that anyone approaching this honestly, or with an open mind, or whatever, can figure out things from here, without further input from me. Good morning!

Edited April 25, 2017 by Echo38

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I've explained this approximately a hundred times, now: you (pl) keep saying that balance isn't as important as simulation accuracy & realism, as though it were a "this or that" choice. But, as I've said over and over again, it isn't a "this or that" choice.

Well, turns out it IS, since you can't choose what models data can be found, or not :smilewink: .

 

No mate, of course no intention to be disagreeing just because it's you. To be honest didn't realise at first it was you, with whom it's true I had some discussion regarding the subject in the past (just once from my part, don't make a fuss out of it).

 

 

So, back on topic. My point is, it's not I wouldn't like to see many other models of 109 (now you say, isn't this whole thread a dejavu? :huh: :megalol:), of course G6, early and late models, G14, G10, and so. No mate, I would like to see them all in-game, and many more, even I dare to say we all including ED staff would like so. But the day it happens, it will be (like in any other module we have seen into DCS so far, as well as expected ones, you can check the list) a matter of what data I can find rather than what model would better fit for a balanced gameplay. No, you cannot choose what model you'll find data for, the kind of data a simulator like DCS needs of course, and closing one's eyes to that reality won't make it change.

 

 

S!

[philstyle]

Anyway, I think it was Pman who explained not far ago that the whole point in DCS is not, and never was, any kind of balance but simulation accuracy and realism, and the reason is obvious, accuracy and realism doesn't depend on what we want to model but on the data available about a certain model. To go further, current planeset, IMHO, has demonstrated that anything can happen in the sky. So, I believe it's not a question of "balance", but suitable and historically matching planeset now we talk about IA. Of course, with regard to any full module, it's gonna be harder than that due to data availability.

 

 

 

You're right, it's not DCS's job to design "balance". However, it would be good for DCS to recognise the following:

1. DCS is not the platform is was 6 years ago. Multiplayer simming has come a long way, and the online PvP combat environment has some market value

2. Mission builders and server owners are the ones who are responsible for "balance" or "hiatorical immersion". ED/DCS should therefore consider making sure that mission makers have the tools to do this (either buld balanced missions, or asyemmetrical missions/campaigns if they want to) .

3. If the most common fighters over Normany area were the Westrop P13-E, the Skittlefire Mark III and the Herrscmidt FZ45-B Then DCS should probably have a plan to make those three machines available - not for the sake of "balance", but for the sake of mission makers and servers.

 

 

Looking at the recent Normandy video that Wags put out, he says that the coastal forts and grass air-bases will be customisable. This means that the map can be used for not only Spring/ summer 1944, but all the way back to 1940, in theory. It makes sense to think about planetsets prior to summer 1944 then, especially given that normandy was no longer a battlefield after August/Sept 1944.

 

 

It seems to me that ED/DCS are moving increasingly to at least facilitating coherent "historical" scenarios. This appears to me to be a move away from simply providing high-fidelity machines to "sim" in.

[Echo38]

If the most common fighters over Normany area were the Westrop P13-E, the Skittlefire Mark III and the Herrscmidt FZ45-B

 

For some reason, this comment made my day. : D

[Talisman_VR]

You're right, it's not DCS's job to design "balance". However, it would be good for DCS to recognise the following:

1. DCS is not the platform is was 6 years ago. Multiplayer simming has come a long way, and the online PvP combat environment has some market value

2. Mission builders and server owners are the ones who are responsible for "balance" or "hiatorical immersion". ED/DCS should therefore consider making sure that mission makers have the tools to do this (either buld balanced missions, or asyemmetrical missions/campaigns if they want to) .

3. If the most common fighters over Normany area were the Westrop P13-E, the Skittlefire Mark III and the Herrscmidt FZ45-B Then DCS should probably have a plan to make those three machines available - not for the sake of "balance", but for the sake of mission makers and servers.

 

 

Looking at the recent Normandy video that Wags put out, he says that the coastal forts and grass air-bases will be customisable. This means that the map can be used for not only Spring/ summer 1944, but all the way back to 1940, in theory. It makes sense to think about planetsets prior to summer 1944 then, especially given that normandy was no longer a battlefield after August/Sept 1944.

 

 

It seems to me that ED/DCS are moving increasingly to at least facilitating coherent "historical" scenarios. This appears to me to be a move away from simply providing high-fidelity machines to "sim" in.

 

Good post. Very much agree.

 

Happy landings,