Civilians

[wilsonov]

A variety of civilian people

[jef32]

Absolutly agree with Wilsonov

[Johnny_Rico]

+1 have to agree civ people models would be good

Also a NEUTRAL side would be great as well to go along with this

[Northstar98]

+1

 

Firstly we need more than 2 coalitions, preferably 4, BLUFOR, REDFOR, Neutral and Civillians (even better if we could, add, delete, rename and set allegiances with ME, or even make allegiances and countries within those coalitions able to be controlled via triggers).

 

Then we can start populating it with civilian units.

 

And this is not just for an aspect of IDing targets and collateral damage, even interception/counter narcotic missions. It will also be useful for SAR missions, such as air-sea rescue involving military units - such as the now disbanded FAA 771NAS as well as the countless RAF SAR squadrons, but also the numerous military coast guard forces around the world.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Northstar98

[Mustang]

Also animals, livestock in fields and the occasional wild animal like deer (we have birds flying around already)

[DieHard]

Opening up a can of worms...

 

Civilians injured during combat infers judges, courts and insurance companies...

[Horns]

Opening up a can of worms...

 

Civilians injured during combat infers judges, courts and insurance companies...

 

+1, we should totally have worms too :P

[jef32]

JM1 or DieHard, if you pass your virtual life by flying at 35000ft and above mach 1, don't be mocker with people flying with helicopters on low altitude and low speed. I share absolutly Wilsonov's request and civilian people is a reasonable request for DCS.

But perhaps you're thinking that worms are people that aren't thinking like you ?

[Horns]

JM1 or DieHard, if you pass your virtual life by flying at 35000ft and above mach 1, don't be mocker with people flying with helicopters on low altitude and low speed. I share absolutly Wilsonov's request and civilian people is a reasonable request for DCS.

But perhaps you're thinking that worms are people that aren't thinking like you ?

 

I think you might have missed the fact I was playing on the “can of worms” expression being used. If anyone has a right to get offended it’s DieHard. If you think I’ve breached forum rules take it up with admin.

[jef32]

If you think I’ve breached forum rules take it up with admin.

 

I don't think you broke the rules but I'm a little bit edgy when I see people just thinking to their needs and having no consideration to people wanting anything different. You have always a mission editor, if you want to delete civilian people ( by admitting that they will exist one day) on missions downloaded on the user's files section.

[DieHard]

JM1 or DieHard, if you pass your virtual life by flying at 35000ft and above mach 1, don't be mocker with people flying with helicopters on low altitude and low speed. I share absolutly Wilsonov's request and civilian people is a reasonable request for DCS.

But perhaps you're thinking that worms are people that aren't thinking like you ?

 

I fly the copters...

 

Anything DCS does is OK with me. Currently DCS is the only game/sim I play.

[Horns]

I don't think you broke the rules but I'm a little bit edgy when I see people just thinking to their needs and having no consideration to people wanting anything different. You have always a mission editor, if you want to delete civilian people ( by admitting that they will exist one day) on missions downloaded on the user's files section.

 

So tell me, what are my needs? What did I say that pointed to what my needs may or may not be?

[jef32]

So tell me, what are my needs? What did I say that pointed to what my needs may or may not be?

 

What I want to say, or what I've understood is that the request about civilian people seems to be for you and DieHard, as superfluous as if Wilsonov had request worms in DCS.

 

We can built missions with civilian people ( transport, rescue or else ) and this request is not pointless at all. We can give life to DCS with people on civilian airports ( I think to KLAS) with luggage workers, or anywhere else like fishermen to place on the shores of the lakes.

[Horns]

What I want to say, or what I've understood is that the request about civilian people seems to be for you and DieHard, as superfluous as if Wilsonov had request worms in DCS.

 

We can built missions with civilian people ( transport, rescue or else ) and this request is not pointless at all. We can give life to DCS with people on civilian airports ( I think to KLAS) with luggage workers, or anywhere else like fishermen to place on the shores of the lakes.

 

You are incorrect about my statement, but I'm not sure explaining the joke a second time will help. The only one who has made any assumptions about how people think - or worms, as you mentioned - is you. I actually spend my virtual life below 1500 feet and much of the time I'm below 100 - admittedly, not as low as a heli would be, but certainly low enough to notice what is or isn't happening on the ground.

 

While I hadn't actually formed an opinion before now, Wilsonov eludes to something very relevant in civilian casualties. Along with all the extra assets ED would have to create, all the extra logic that would need to be coded, all the extra processing power that users' PCs would use and all the extra mission outcomes that would be required, there would be a huge risk that some people would create missions that were strikes against civilians and post the outcome on YouTube. ED requires agreement from government before releasing a module, and a lot of governments would be hesitant if there was community anger towards DCS, not to mention the fear that the next civilian kill video would feature their hardware.

 

Instead of making this thread even more about our disagreement I'll yield the floor now in case anyone else would like to write re Wilsonov's suggestion.

[jef32]

Ok. excuse me if I hadn't understood the joke. I'm french and I can't understand specifics US jokes sometimes.

 

I see what you mean about casualties. And why not making civilians invulnerable ?

As you're saying, some of us will take pleasure to kill civilians and if it's done on purpose, it's insane mostly if it's posted on youtube after. But even with no civilians in ED for now, strikes missions above cities can kill civilians even if we don't see them, they're supposed to be under the bombs.

 

Now, I'd never played to some games but I think that players can kill civilians in GTA or other games. I don't see videos about that on youtube.

 

On DCS we are all virtual pilots and some of us are real pilots too and as pilots, virtual or not, we have a sort of ethics. DCS is less easy to use than "call of duty" and if we use it, we have invested time ( and money) to learn how piloting each aircrafts we have bought. it's not a game for basic players or kids, so I can't believe that some of our community could do what you're afraid with youtube. Especially that in some countries like mine, this sort of behaviour can be punished by law, if videos are containing incitation to mass murder or terrorism, even with a virtual support. You surely knows and surely you're using it, the fabulous mod giving us the possibility to include heavy liners in DCS. Have you already seen on youtube, a DCS video showing a DCS player shooting down in flame an heavy liner, supposed to be full of civilians ? For me, the answer is No !

Edited March 31, 2018 by jef32

[Weta43]

I think that's a non-issue.

 

There are already civilian trains and cars, and we blow them up - no governments complain.

 

Being able to place civilian units as both 'atmosphere', and to ensure that players adhere to specific ROE on pain of mission failure would only be a plus to the SIM.

 

IRL, civilians exist in and around combat zones. Not killing them, or minimising the number of deaths, is an important part of military action.

[jef32]

I think that's a non-issue.

 

There are already civilian trains and cars, and we blow them up - no governments complain.

 

Being able to place civilian units as both 'atmosphere', and to ensure that players adhere to specific ROE on pain of mission failure would only be a plus to the SIM.

 

IRL, civilians exist in and around combat zones. Not killing them, or minimising the number of deaths, is an important part of military action.

 

Totally agree with you ! Hope that ED will include civilians one day.

[Horns]

Ok. excuse me if I hadn't understood the joke. I'm french and I can't understand specifics US jokes sometimes.

 

I see what you mean about casualties. And why not making civilians invulnerable ?

As you're saying, some of us will take pleasure to kill civilians and if it's done on purpose, it's insane mostly if it's posted on youtube after. But even with no civilians in ED for now, strikes missions above cities can kill civilians even if we don't see them, they're supposed to be under the bombs.

 

Now, I'd never played to some games but I think that players can kill civilians in GTA or other games. I don't see videos about that on youtube.

 

On DCS we are all virtual pilots and some of us are real pilots too and as pilots, virtual or not, we have a sort of ethics. DCS is less easy to use than "call of duty" and if we use it, we have invested time ( and money) to learn how piloting each aircrafts we have bought. it's not a game for basic players or kids, so I can't believe that some of our community could do what you're afraid with youtube. Especially that in some countries like mine, this sort of behaviour can be punished by law, if videos are containing incitation to mass murder or terrorism, even with a virtual support. You surely knows and surely you're using it, the fabulous mod giving us the possibility to include heavy liners in DCS. Have you already seen on youtube, a DCS video showing a DCS player shooting down in flame an heavy liner, supposed to be full of civilians ? For me, the answer is No !

 

I didn’t consider that the reference to the expression might have been lost in translation, so I

apologise.

 

I understand the point you and Weta43 are making about civilian traffic, I think people may respond differently to images of people (as opposed to vehicles) being engulfed in flames. ED may approach things differently to Rockstar (makers of GTA) and other parties because they require permission from governments, who may be affected by public reactions, where other games don’t. I agree that we don’t have a Call of Duty type player base, but in any large group of people one would expect a few idiots.

 

What I can say is that if the development and technical impacts can be minimized it may be worth doing. I have no personal problem with civvies being in there and I would love to see ED have relationships robust enough to withstand the possible effect of a few idiots.

[jef32]

For presence of civilians, we all have said what we're thinking. For me, it's not an issue, that's all and you're right, we can find some idiots in a community but for now, I havn't seen. For me, the debate is closed.

 

But the worms joke, I'll try to explain how I felt what you said.

 

You said " we should totally have worms too"

 

And I explain how I've understood what you said, perhaps falsely:

 

For you, the civilian request in DCS was totally superfluous and you took the worm's example to exagerate the uselessness of this request for you.

 

That's how I understood what you've said. Maybe i'm wrong and you wanted to say anything else.

[Horns]

For presence of civilians, we all have said what we're thinking. For me, it's not an issue, that's all and you're right, we can find some idiots in a community but for now, I havn't seen. For me, the debate is closed.

 

But the worms joke, I'll try to explain how I felt what you said.

 

You said " we should totally have worms too"

 

And I explain how I've understood what you said, perhaps falsely:

 

For you, the civilian request in DCS was totally superfluous and you took the worm's example to exagerate the uselessness of this request for you.

 

That's how I understood what you've said. Maybe i'm wrong and you wanted to say anything else.

 

Indeed, we have voiced our opinions, I'm happy to let the debate rest too.

 

I'm sorry that my initial comment appeared dismissive. I'll try to explain better:

 

There were several suggestions earlier in the thread about different things that the civilians could be doing, adding different coalitions and even animals, so when DieHard used the expression "can of worms" I just did the deliberate misunderstanding thing, a common comedic device in English but perhaps not in French, pretended to think he was literally talking about including worms as well and 'agreed'. It wasn't meant to suggest the original request was frivolous or reflect on any comments made in the thread. I was just seizing an opportunity for what I'd hoped would be a light-hearted joke.

[jef32]

Ok I have an explanation of the mistake.

 

In french, "can of worms" means simply a box containing worms, for fishing, as a literally translation.

But I just used the google translator, and the french translation of "can of worms" as a complete expression, is "Pandora box". wink to greek antic mythology when Pandora opened the box and all disasters of the world escaped, just the hope, dressed in green stayed here.

 

I understand now our lack of understanding.

[Horns]

Ok I have an explanation of the mistake.

 

In french, "can of worms" means simply a box containing worms, for fishing, as a literally translation.

But I just used the google translator, and the french translation of "can of worms" as a complete expression, is "Pandora box". wink to greek antic mythology when Pandora opened the box and all disasters of the world escaped, just the hope, dressed in green stayed here.

 

I understand now our lack of understanding.

 

Oh ok, I see why my comment would have caused offence now, especially as I used the word "worms" on its own originally. I didn't have such a deep knowledge of the meaning of "Pandora's box" before, but I do know someone speaking English could replace one with the other. I'm glad we got that figured out, happy Easter :)

[jef32]

happy Easter :)

 

You too !

[Dav IRL]

A variety of civilian people

 

I would like large crowds of terrorists and civilians that can be selected as a unit in the editor (so we can bomb them with the A10 :)))

[Weta43]

Deaf ears ?