Dragon1-1 Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 My position is this: if it's possible but not permitted, it should be possible in the sim, and the reason why it's not permitted should be simulated. So, S-5 is possible to attach and launch, but was withdrawn because it was crap, and therefore, it should be available, and should be as crap as it was IRL. Extra HARMs on the Viper should be available to ferry, but not to fire (we do have the travel pods, after all). Simulation should only include technical restrictions, not bureaucratic ones, which differ between operators, anyway. And if it's such a problem for server owners that people take unrealistic loadouts in MP, let the owners restrict them on their end. Problem solved. "Low number of aircraft" is a good reason to allow those loadouts. Remember, any limitations here also affect the AI variants. In many cases, it's useful for the mission maker to fudge things a little when it comes to those, and our Mi-8 can be highly useful as a stand-in for all Mi-8 and Mi-17 variants when flown by AI. In the end, any argument against the S-5, except perhaps the multiplayer-centric ones, is an argument against most of the skins that the modules come with. MiG-21 went a bit overboard, but overall, I prefer a more flexible approach. I just wouldn't use the Grom in my missions (it's not terribly useful, anyway), and I don't care for MP one bit. And if I needed an AI LanceR or other variant, the skin is there, at least. 1
zerO_crash Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said: My position is this: if it's possible but not permitted, it should be possible in the sim, and the reason why it's not permitted should be simulated. So, S-5 is possible to attach and launch, but was withdrawn because it was crap, and therefore, it should be available, and should be as crap as it was IRL. Extra HARMs on the Viper should be available to ferry, but not to fire (we do have the travel pods, after all). Simulation should only include technical restrictions, not bureaucratic ones, which differ between operators, anyway. And if it's such a problem for server owners that people take unrealistic loadouts in MP, let the owners restrict them on their end. Problem solved. "Low number of aircraft" is a good reason to allow those loadouts. Remember, any limitations here also affect the AI variants. In many cases, it's useful for the mission maker to fudge things a little when it comes to those, and our Mi-8 can be highly useful as a stand-in for all Mi-8 and Mi-17 variants when flown by AI. In the end, any argument against the S-5, except perhaps the multiplayer-centric ones, is an argument against most of the skins that the modules come with. MiG-21 went a bit overboard, but overall, I prefer a more flexible approach. I just wouldn't use the Grom in my missions (it's not terribly useful, anyway), and I don't care for MP one bit. And if I needed an AI LanceR or other variant, the skin is there, at least. My position is this, DCS is a mil-sim that strives for realism, therefore no. A specific bort Mi-8 is made, and let´s stick to this. This has nothing to do with the efficiency of S-5, only with Soviet Union not using them anymore, or having in inventory at the time this bort was made. Partly yes, but a Mig21Bis inn LanceR skin does not represent an opponent with the capabilities of a LanceR, rather a Mig21Bis. Again, therefore the confusion as to what this module is supposed to represent. It´s not only KH-66, it´s gunpods, it´s RS-2US, it´s RN-24/-28 atom bombs... But again, leave it be. Hopefully it will fixed at some point. Edited May 1, 2021 by zerO_crash 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Dragon1-1 Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 I hope you realize what that "specific bort number" thing is doing to our aircraft selection. In the real world, you will have a mix of various variants, different lots, and an occasional field modification. In DCS, whole types are represented by exactly one single aircraft, with a few notable exceptions. If you get hung up on that, you'll realize a realistic scenario is impossible in DCS, because we lack the exact specific variants of aircraft that such a scenario would involve. If realism means for you "a specific variant of the aircraft from a specific country from a single year", then you can, at most, fly around on an empty map (and not even all of them PG is too modern for nearly everything we have). If you want to make a mission, you have to accept a certain amount of wiggle room, and TBH, it's actually more realistic in the end, because reality is never a perfect, exact situation, either. 2
Art-J Posted April 30, 2021 Posted April 30, 2021 1 hour ago, zerO_crash said: I for one am partly Russian, I speak and write Cyrillic. My grandfather worked at a factory creating Mig15´s and Mig21´s, specifically the tail-units, in Poland under a certificate known as Lim-15 and Lim-21. I have a pretty good idea about what I´m talking about when it comes to Russian/Eastern modules. Whatever I don´t know, I search it or ask relevant people (either online, or F2F) and get my answers, instead of assuming anything. Ehm, I'll just chime in for a second. I'm not against your quest for accuracy (I share the same opinion about MiG-21 choices made by the devs), and kudos to your grandpa, but please double check some things before claiming your "pretty good" knowledge about Eastern aircraft. Poland manufactured MiG-15, -15Bis, -17F and -17PF under license, with designations Lim-1, -2, -5 and -5P respectively (not counting their later, domestic, non-licensed developments). Never the -21, though (Czechs got the license) and never anything with designation "Lim-15" or "Lim-21". It's irrelevant in this particular discussion, but just wanted to point it out friendly... Things like that might affect how seriously your posts are treated here. i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.
zerO_crash Posted May 1, 2021 Posted May 1, 2021 4 hours ago, Art-J said: Ehm, I'll just chime in for a second. I'm not against your quest for accuracy (I share the same opinion about MiG-21 choices made by the devs), and kudos to your grandpa, but please double check some things before claiming your "pretty good" knowledge about Eastern aircraft. Poland manufactured MiG-15, -15Bis, -17F and -17PF under license, with designations Lim-1, -2, -5 and -5P respectively (not counting their later, domestic, non-licensed developments). Never the -21, though (Czechs got the license) and never anything with designation "Lim-15" or "Lim-21". It's irrelevant in this particular discussion, but just wanted to point it out friendly... Things like that might affect how seriously your posts are treated here. I was a bit quick there on the trigger yesterday night, remembered the designations wrong. WSK Mielec was making LIM-1, -2, -5 and -6. I know they were working at some point with making the tail units for mach 2 capable Mig21s. Not sure how long the workshop was making them though. All of those were going to the Soviet Union for further installment in the final planes. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
lmp Posted May 1, 2021 Posted May 1, 2021 I fail to see how giving the Mi-8 S-5s, the Viper extra HARMs or even the MiG-21 all those fantasy loadouts hurts players who want realism. You don't have to use it. I'm against giving aircraft unrealistic features that you can't turn off - if the particular Hind we're getting didn't have an SPO-15, then it shouldn't have it in the game - but in case of weapons, you can just ignore them. Like external views, instant reload and repair and all the other highly unrealistic features that I'm sure all the purists are ignoring already. I never loaded an RS-2US on my MiG, or even the highly popular Grom. However if someone wants to use the MiG-21bis as a stand in for the MF in their historical (or fantasy) scenario, who am I to say he's doing something wrong. 5 1
admiki Posted May 1, 2021 Posted May 1, 2021 2 hours ago, lmp said: I fail to see how giving the Mi-8 S-5s, the Viper extra HARMs or even the MiG-21 all those fantasy loadouts hurts players who want realism. You don't have to use it. I'm against giving aircraft unrealistic features that you can't turn off - if the particular Hind we're getting didn't have an SPO-15, then it shouldn't have it in the game - but in case of weapons, you can just ignore them. Like external views, instant reload and repair and all the other highly unrealistic features that I'm sure all the purists are ignoring already. I never loaded an RS-2US on my MiG, or even the highly popular Grom. However if someone wants to use the MiG-21bis as a stand in for the MF in their historical (or fantasy) scenario, who am I to say he's doing something wrong. This. I don't see a reason to drop some option in the name of realism. If a player wants his aircraft to be as real as possible it's a simple selection of realistic loadout. Nothing more, nothing less. 3 1
Fri13 Posted May 2, 2021 Posted May 2, 2021 On 4/26/2021 at 10:20 AM, Dragon1-1 said: It's not that it's rare, it could be pretty common, but obscure, being lumped in with "Mi-8MTV" or the Mi-17V (which is the export designation) in most sources. It could be rare, or could be obscured... On 4/26/2021 at 10:20 AM, Dragon1-1 said: The entire MTV series is far from rare, and they are incremental upgrades from one another. I think it's the 6 hardpoints might have been the reason we have this particular variant, MTV-3 onwards has four. Yes that I know that it was quickly gone to just four hardpoints in later models. On 4/26/2021 at 10:20 AM, Dragon1-1 said: It's MTV-2, not MTv2, BTW. The "V" is not "version", but "Vysotnyy" (high altitude). It's a high altitude version of the Mi-8MT. I don't talk it about V as Version, it has just stuck to me that it is MTv2 as it was so written in the Steam pages and otherwise as MTV2 (and not as MTV-2 as specification). Have not remembered that what the V stand for, so thanks for reminding about it. It was odd that the MTV-2 was fairly short lived before MTV-3 appeared with only four pylons (like previous ones as well) but had three times more weapon profiles than MTV-2 had, and then they jumped to MTV-5. Seems that -2 and -3 were manufactured simultaneously for some time. i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S. i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.
zerO_crash Posted May 9, 2021 Posted May 9, 2021 (edited) On 5/1/2021 at 10:44 PM, lmp said: I fail to see how giving the Mi-8 S-5s, the Viper extra HARMs or even the MiG-21 all those fantasy loadouts hurts players who want realism. You don't have to use it. I'm against giving aircraft unrealistic features that you can't turn off - if the particular Hind we're getting didn't have an SPO-15, then it shouldn't have it in the game - but in case of weapons, you can just ignore them. Like external views, instant reload and repair and all the other highly unrealistic features that I'm sure all the purists are ignoring already. I never loaded an RS-2US on my MiG, or even the highly popular Grom. However if someone wants to use the MiG-21bis as a stand in for the MF in their historical (or fantasy) scenario, who am I to say he's doing something wrong. I don’t really get the short-sightedness. You have to understand that DCS is a simulator, and an ecosystem. If imaginary units start to become the norm, then yes, it doesn’t fit for me to fly around in the Mi8MTV2 and see a TIE-fighter fly near or above me. Yes, even though I don’t fly it, it ruins the scope, the feel and generally the authenticity of the sim. Just because you don’t use something, doesn’t mean that it will have pretentions and affect everything and everyone around it. That goes for tactics used and even mission designing. DCS right noe is authentic and really the only simulator in its class. That however is on the verge of ruining because the masses are just too empty in their heads to accept the limitations of a given aircraft. Instead we are now making transformers because the crowd (mindless masses, “1984” George Orwell) demand so. Nobody wants to fly something real with strengths and weaknesses. No, in this day and age of egoism, egocentrism and return of illiteracy everyone wants to fly a transformer that is multirole, even if it doesn’t exist. Keyboard warriors going on forums about how they would change the military and air-force and show everyone out there how it should be done. If only every aicraft had “MWS, AMRAAM, R73/77, AIM54, a nuke and of course the RWR” then you’d see how they would change the military for the better... #Sarcasm The prerogative is that “if some modules are permitted, why shouldn’t we allow others...?”, whilst it should be about accepting that such uncalled-for choices were made, but that we are all here because of DCS’s (so far) superb reprojection of a battlefield in a virtual space, and that it is realism that we seek. People come here and comment on modules based on their escapades from Quake-servers or PvP where F-16 is on both sides, because some cannot handle to not have multirole. What is happening is that those who joined in the recent 2-3 years have misunderstood where this sim comes from, and what it’s aspirations are. They want yet another Ace Combat. And all that because; “You don’t have to use it if you don’t want to”, nevermind seeing a flying saucer passing me. What is happening now is idiotic, and so are the arguments for it. With those arguments, future for sure is Apache with AIM120, because “you don’t have to use it if you don’t want to”... From now on, one better check what a module includes or doesn’t, because whereas before, you could buy one and know that this is the most realistic consumer-grade stuff, and that it will have all the quirks, nit-picks and features, now you will get a transformer that has nothing to do with reality. Yet another sim went to shit because of the “masses”. Sweet... Now you can dispose off your manuals in the garbage bin, when they cannot even explain and justify how eg. a Ka50 has wiring and a firing-computer that can handle a 3-pylon wing (which the real one never had). Throw away NATOPS’ manuals, because they too get useless with crap like this. But hey, “you don’t have to if you don’t want to”. That argument is just plain wrong, demagogy. Nero - “Bread and circuses” (Give them the basics, even if an illusion, and they will sit silent and accept everything else) Edited May 9, 2021 by zerO_crash 3 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
zerO_crash Posted May 9, 2021 Posted May 9, 2021 Before, you needed to think and use tactics to achieve your goal. Today, it’s; “I want to be invincible, and I want it now”. That is not a simulation, that’s just laziness. Everything today turns more and more towards mindless, stupid and easy. So far, DCS still remains as something worth investing time in. Sadly, I don’t think it will last. 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
lmp Posted May 9, 2021 Posted May 9, 2021 (edited) This is a continuum fallacy. If you really believe that, you should be protesting the existence of external views, the reload and repair system and any and all helpers that the game has and always had - that are far more TIE fighter like. And don't even get me started on why are Hornets able to fly on the Normany map... wouldn't a Hornet be like a TIE fighter to a 1945 pilot? Come to think of it, was our particular Hornet bort number ever in the Persian Gulf or Syria? Because I don't know if I should be allowed to fly it there... I stand by what I said. I don't see how being able to (but not being forced to - key distinction) mount "unrealistic" weapons on a DCS aircraft hurts the ultimate realism crowd. Unless the knowledge itself that someone, somewhere is playing the game "wrong" bothers you so much. It really shouldn't, get over it. Unless you're playing on public servers, but then the S-5s on the Mi-8 or RS-2US on the MiG-21bis pale in comparison with all the other unrealistic shenanigans going on when people are just trying to rack up kills rather than recreate history. Whether you like it or not, we ALL push realism one way or another. I don't know that you could create a single mission (at least using the modern assets) without something being unrealistic. The particular aircraft bort number we have never flew on that day from that airbase and dropped that particular JDAM variant on that particular T-55 variant. And yes, we are on this level of nitpicking if we're asking ourselves if it's ok to put S-5 pods on a Mi-8MTV2 which is based on a Russian machine that could but never did carry them, if a near identical Polish Mi-17-1V flew with them all the time in Afghanistan. 2 hours ago, zerO_crash said: the masses are just too empty in their head (...) the crowd (mindless masses, “1984” George Orwell) demand so. (...) Keyboard warriors going on forums Please don't insult people you're discussing with, this is distasteful and breaks the forum rules. Edited May 9, 2021 by lmp 2
lmp Posted May 9, 2021 Posted May 9, 2021 38 minutes ago, Desert Fox said: Your choice if you feel included there. Don't make it other peoples fault. It's distasteful and against the forum rules whether I'm part of the "masses" or not. Again, I see ridicule, I see insults, but what I don't see is arguments that hold any merit against my statement - allowing, but not forcing players to use weapons that were not carried by the particular bort number that is being modeled does not hurt players wanting full realism in any meaningful way. "I don't want other players playing the game wrong" is not a valid argument, it's an obsession with other people's choices. "S-5s on the Mi-8 will lead to TIE fighters" is not a valid argument, it's a continuum fallacy. 3
IronChancellor Posted May 9, 2021 Posted May 9, 2021 IMO DCS should model everything that is physically realistic. Let the mission designer dictate what is allowed by command/doctrine. If the ground crew could put an S-5 pod on the pylon and it would function, then it should in DCS as well. 3
zerO_crash Posted May 9, 2021 Posted May 9, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, lmp said: This is a continuum fallacy. If you really believe that, you should be protesting the existence of external views, the reload and repair system and any and all helpers that the game has and always had - that are far more TIE fighter like. And don't even get me started on why are Hornets able to fly on the Normany map... wouldn't a Hornet be like a TIE fighter to a 1945 pilot? Come to think of it, was our particular Hornet bort number ever in the Persian Gulf or Syria? Because I don't know if I should be allowed to fly it there... I stand by what I said. I don't see how being able to (but not being forced to - key distinction) mount "unrealistic" weapons on a DCS aircraft hurts the ultimate realism crowd. Unless the knowledge itself that someone, somewhere is playing the game "wrong" bothers you so much. It really shouldn't, get over it. Unless you're playing on public servers, but then the S-5s on the Mi-8 or RS-2US on the MiG-21bis pale in comparison with all the other unrealistic shenanigans going on when people are just trying to rack up kills rather than recreate history. Whether you like it or not, we ALL push realism one way or another. I don't know that you could create a single mission (at least using the modern assets) without something being unrealistic. The particular aircraft bort number we have never flew on that day from that airbase and dropped that particular JDAM variant on that particular T-55 variant. And yes, we are on this level of nitpicking if we're asking ourselves if it's ok to put S-5 pods on a Mi-8MTV2 which is based on a Russian machine that could but never did carry them, if a near identical Polish Mi-17-1V flew with them all the time in Afghanistan. Please don't insult people you're discussing with, this is distasteful and breaks the forum rules. I already explained before in this thread that the consequences of flying in the wrong period and in the wrong parts of the world are nothing compared to creating fantasy-loadouts on an aircraft. It changes the dynamic of the module, thus you start seeing a lot of weird stuff online. Mostly it’s nice to stay on our own server, but it’s also nice to go out public and meet new fellow aviators and share the fun. Again, in the sense of the whole eco-system, it gives the wrong impression of an aircraft and kills immersion. The effects are far greater than a different skin or wrong map (Although how people even fly modern modules in a WWII scenario with everything pre-historic around is beyond me, but to each their own). The problem again is the credibility of the sim. That is an authority that DCS holds near and dear. However with such practices, it’s going to level-out. Worse yet, I already told you that the effects of introducing such unrealistic features promotes applying more unrealistic features down the road. The effect being that we completely shift from what’s defining this sim. Right now you could go to an airshow and, astonished as one get’s, look up and imagine the ride that the pilot has. You know the systems, you know the general feeling. When stuff get’s made up, all that is lost. You start wondering what is actually real and what is not about the module. In the end, you could put anything on each and every aircraft, however there is the economical part that dictates what aircraft get what equipment. Ultimately, you could mount everything on each and every aircraft, if one wanted and had the money. However it is neither tactically needed, nor economically lucrative. That’s why the argument with “everything could be mounted in the field with some mods” is a fallacy that just takes ridiculous turns each time it’s being brought up. As for the rest of your arguments, they are countered against in my previous posts. My words are not meant to insult, but they are harsh, and properly so. The amount of errors keep getting accumulated and pretty soon you will pay 80-100USD for a fantasy module that is 50% real. Let everyone judge it for themselves, but ultimately that’s not what we pay money for. You can disagree with me Imp, it’s your choice. However ask yourself what keeps you in DCS, what merits keep you here, because I’m sure it has to do with authenticity, flight modelling, systems modelling, and hell, even knowing that you can read a real manual and apply that knowledge here. S-5 is not the biggest of issues, there are worse, but it contributes to lowering the authenticity-value of this sim. That and as a further argument to again make more disconnects from the realm of reality. I respect your point of view, but I disagree with it wholeheartedly. There is something magic about flying “that” specific Mi8, or be it something else. Edited May 10, 2021 by zerO_crash 1 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
lmp Posted May 9, 2021 Posted May 9, 2021 6 minutes ago, zerO_crash said: I already explained before in this thread that the consequences of flying in the wrong period and in the wrong parts of the world are nothing compared to creating fantasy-loadouts on an aircraft. This is your take on realism and the problem is, if we take the "one module represents only one very specific aircraft configuration" approach too far, it'll be the only take on realism that the sim will support. I like to create realistic, or at least plausible scenarios and having existing DCS aircraft stand in for other (often very similar) aircraft is the unfortunate reality of what I have to work with. The addition of UB-32 pods to the Mi-8's arsenal would give me the option to create more realistic scenarios which involve Mi-8/17s operated by countries other than Russia. For example, if we ever get an Afghanistan map, I would love for our Mi-8 to stand in for Polish Mi-17-1Vs. They are VERY similar airframes in terms of capabilities and equipment, the key difference being, the Polish birds never used the B-20 pods. At this point you could say, create scenarios where the existing modules fit perfectly, but that is pretty much not possible or at least severely limiting. Our selection of modules, maps and assets simply doesn't support that approach well. You could try with WW2 scenarios but pretty much anywhere else you'll be squinting hard. Considering all this, I think being able to use some weapons which are pushing the realism a bit is a good compromise. It would help players focused more on the historical realism/plausibility without really taking away anything from those who focus on the aircraft simulation aspect. Would I rather have a vast roster of perfectly realistic versions of each aircraft which would let me make the most out of the existing and future maps? You bet. But that's not going to happen. So I'd like to have a bit more wiggle room with the weapon loadouts because otherwise I have to figure out how to make a 1990s Russian Mi-8 and Mi-24 and a 2002 US Army Apache Longbow work on a 2009+ Persian Gulf Map or a Syrian Civil War Map without a time machine. I believe the concern that this will lead to further liberties with realism is unfounded as long as the rule that no departure from realism should be forced on players is kept. I don't want a single unrealistic panel, piece of avionics or weapon that cannot be disabled in the Settings/ME. This should be the line in the sand. As for public multiplayer... I think public multiplayer is a bit like watching Star Wars... You have to ignore that there's no sound in space or you won't have any fun. Suspension of disbelief. But I would be fine with a rule that any not perfectly realistic weapon doesn't give an unfair advantage. So, Walleye is good, 4 HARMs on a Viper is not. That should keep the public server randos away from them. 6
evanf117 Posted December 26, 2021 Posted December 26, 2021 On 3/30/2021 at 8:18 PM, Reros said: Hello everyone! Currently the Mi-8MTV2 can only carry S-8 80mm rocket pods in game. However, S-5 (57mm) and S-13 (122mm) rocket pods are universal, so they should be able to be carried too. Here is a MI-8T, which has the same mountings, carrying S-5. For the Mi-8MTV2 in game, could we have these rocket pods as well? It would add some nice diversity. It should barely be any work, as the pods already exist and are also already coded onto the Hind, and theres no internal computer or anything. Anyway, thanks for reading my post. Have a good one! yea, pitty no lua edits no more, we can edit the save files of miz'es but that takes for ever and only works if your a server admin, convincer a server admin or for single player why couldn't they just move the Mi-8 lua into CORE MODS
evanf117 Posted December 26, 2021 Posted December 26, 2021 (edited) On 4/11/2021 at 5:34 AM, zerO_crash said: That is a wrong way to think about it. If ED was supposed to adjust itself to you only, or the masses, then we should have every possible loadout on every possible aircraft. And every possible aircraft should have the possibility to take off it´s wings, take out the engines, swap with a propeller and make a lawnmover, just because "my scenario". This doesn´t make any sense. This simulator strives for realism, and even as Art-J mentioned, there have been some liberties on (3-4 modules), however they were heavily criticised for a good reason. Hopefully with an understanding that people want ultimate realism here, not fantasy. This is a simulator for a good reason, and not a "build it yourself" game. either change the broken planes and helos or make them all the standard of was possible, it irritates me more that its a mix of real and logical extent than anything else, i like Groms on the MiG and i like editing luas for the odd fun, i wish ED would move the Mi-8 Lua to COREMODS and then we could edit it for our own enjoyment so then partypoopers could have their muh realisum and i could have my Indian MI-8 with UB-16/32, also if we are talking realism then what about the mavs on the vig and triple racks on the F-16, also then you should also ask for game mode to be removed, i say we make everything the standard of logical extent or better yet just unlock the Mi-8's luas. Edited December 26, 2021 by evanf117
evanf117 Posted December 26, 2021 Posted December 26, 2021 @Fri13@Dragon 1-1 they had access to adlest one MI-8 On 5/1/2021 at 7:08 AM, zerO_crash said: It is unfortunate that ED gave into this, based on a couple loud children on the forums that have no idea about practices IRL and what was permitted as valid loadout. Kids posting pictures of test-aircraft from Eglin AFB (tail prefix "ET" and "OT") with 6 mavericks and proving to the experienced how f*** clueless they are. This is what forums become when the sim becomes accessible to the average Joe, as sad as that sounds. More is not always better. The ridiculous threads that start infesting these forums are practically mostly by inexperienced and new members that really have no clue what DCS is and what it strives for. Their whining and stupid suggestions are what´s making the IRL-relevant mechanics, pilots, crew chiefs and others stop bothering to engage in open discussions and rather join their closed enclaves. These SME´s have much valuable info that get´s lost between tons of irrelevant and idiotic posts which bring nothing more than "I want x", regardless of whether it´s realistic or not! Even if that is the case with F-16 and F-18 (Mig21Bis as well), we should strive for realism, not claim those cases as an evidence that ED should expand on the practice and include each and every loadout for each and every aircraft, no matter how unrealistic it is. The idea is only stupid for you if you don´t understand it. This can definitely be corrected with time, and it ought to be said that the module still is in Early Access, therefore, let´s wait until it´s finished before making any final statements. As to Mi-8MTV2, you really don´t understand the significant difference between a fictional paint and actually altering loadout of a given aircraft thus changing, expanding or shrinking it´s combat abilities. It gives a wrong perception of the given aircraft, its doctrine and what role it was meant to fit. No, restricting weapons or systems to what this specific aircraft carried IRL is not stupid, it is realistic. Read what that word means. It has nothing to do with your unfulfilled wishes of flying an aircraft that was run in a different configuration with some different systems in other countries. What it has to do with, is finding manuals and actually confirming that those were the only differences between them. This is precisely what was made wrong with the Mig21Bis as a third party module. Half of the weapons on this module were never used by the PVO Mig21Bis. The weapons were initially added by Leatherneck simulations because they believed that this was the only Mig21-model that would enter DCS for a long time to come, if ever at all. Thus, allow "us" to pretend like we are flying a different Mig21 with different weapons. The amount of confusion it made with weapons that physically cannot be guided by that radar (Saphir RP-22 SMA), or pylons that lack wiring for certain others is criminal. The intention was good, but for a study sim where IRL SME´s and pilots are asking about the color of each wire and how a system interacts with another is just asking for problems down the road. Instead, from the very beginning, a foot should have been put down to create a specific bort Mig21Bis and no imaginary loadouts. Half of what you write are assumptions, not anything specific, besides the comparison with F-16 and F-18. I for one am partly Russian, I speak and write Cyrillic. My grandfather worked at a factory creating Mig15´s and Mig21´s, specifically the tail-units, in Poland under a certificate known as Lim-15 and Lim-21. I have a pretty good idea about what I´m talking about when it comes to Russian/Eastern modules. Whatever I don´t know, I search it or ask relevant people (either online, or F2F) and get my answers, instead of assuming anything. You have to ask yourself if it is DCS at all that you wish to fly, and nothing something else, more arcade where all your wishes for imaginary loadout will be fulfilled. This is a mil-sim, not quasi like Arma. (No one stated anything about what the "V" stands for. In case you don´t know, "M" stands for modernised (in practise, TV3 engines, among some other general improvements) and "T" for transport. That is not the discussion here.) On 5/1/2021 at 7:22 AM, zerO_crash said: They made a good choice with regards to LUA´s being locked (my personal opinion). People have to start asking themselves if it is really realism that they want. Sure, a fictional livery should not be permitted, but due to the low amount of aircraft, so be it. That is not intrusive. Custom systems and loudouts, that is however something completely different. But yes, they have diverted from their strict rules and policy recently, something that I am not too fond of, because again, it just creates confusion in the long run. At the same time, one has to remember that hey have a business to run, and if 6 vs 4 mavericks will get them that many more customers, then sadly, that is a decision overruled by the business-model. Sad but true. bro you need a new hobby, lighten up, also i think we should have the freedom to edit the loadout section of a lua, what if i want it for a cinematic
evanf117 Posted December 26, 2021 Posted December 26, 2021 On 5/2/2021 at 9:18 AM, Desert Fox said: Ah, no one expected the "SimPLy dONt uSE iT" argument. Multiplayer would like to have a talk here. Yeah, i know: we pesky realism dudes who'd like to have a simulator realistic can happily lock behind a password protected server. This gum has been chewed so many times guys, it's beyond getting old. you can also restrict loadouts at the .miz level, its what i do in my server to make people diversify what country they fly under instead of just picking the closest to the action
Kang Posted December 26, 2021 Posted December 26, 2021 I love how you necro an eight months old thread mainly to tell someone whose opinion differs from yours that he should go find a different hobby. 3
Recommended Posts