not planned Move the C-47/DC-3 out of the WW2AP

[Tank50us]

As the title suggests, I think it would be a wise move to take the C-47/DC-3 out of the WW2 Assets pack, as the aircraft is still used today around the world. The production numbers, over 16,000, are just staggering, and the fact that hundreds are still in use says something about that airframe. To that end, given that the aircraft is still in wide service, I requiring the WW2AP to have one in the mission should be a thing of the past as it just serves too many roles to exclude in missions.

• The C-47 was still used in Vietnam, flying into remote air strips or as the AC47 Spooky.
• C-47s are still used in military service by a few nations (notably El Salvador and South Africa)
• DC-3s are still flown to remote locations both for cargo and passenger service
• C-47s have been used as command aircraft, as well as observation aircraft all over the world.
• C-47s have been used by both sides in the War on Drugs, making them perfect for anti-NarCo missions
• and much more

Basically, I think that it should be a regular aircraft in the game, rather than requiring the WW2AP. As a side, it would also be nice if different variations of the airframe can be added in order to represent the different versions of the plane that's seen service throughout the decades.

[upyr1]

I'd only support this if we get the AC-47 though I believe the transport module will be the C-47

[Mike_Romeo]

As much as I love more free content but lets be realistic, the developers and artists deserved it to get paid for their work.

[Ercoupe]

So. if they did this, what would you do with it? What would be the point, really?

[Boosterdog]

16 hours ago, Ercoupe said:

So. if they did this, what would you do with it? What would be the point, really?

It depends on your imagination limits I guess. I could  see its use as airfield "dressing" and perhaps as an AI to escort/intercept/cargo transfer in drug running/developing world/back of beyond scenarios (provided there are skins for such)

I dont thnk it should be free though. I agree with @Mike_Romeo and would add that it would not even be in DCS without its promised, albeit late, inclusion in the WW2AP (currently $14.99). For the price of a (decent) Kebab and a beer, even if I only used it to create 3 or 4 decent 70s/80s fictional missions,  I dont think its a high price. (EDIT - though it should be free with the WW2 maps these days)

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Boosterdog

[Callsign112]

As a community, we seem to be drifting in an out from one extreme to the next. If we aren't all up in arms over news that a server shut down, we are demanding that what is probably by now hundreds of millions if not billions of lines of computer code to be fixed simultaneously by yesterday for free.

The WWII assets pack is not just an add-on to make your missions look more realistic, it also serves as a Combined Arms extension for anyone interested in getting into the WWII ground war.

I think instead of picking the WWII assets pack apart, what they need to do is continue adding to its value. No offense intended to the OP, or anyone else that has contributed to this thread, but anyone interested in adding the C-47 to their missions for immersion should consider picking up the WWII assets pack which is currently on sale for $14.99. In addition to the C-47, the WWII assets pack hosts a long list of other features that continue to be added to.

Even WarThunder has a business model, it wouldn't be free otherwise.

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

As a community, we seem to be drifting in an out from one extreme to the next. If we aren't all up in arms over news that a server shut down, we are demanding that what is probably by now hundreds of millions if not billions of lines of computer code to be fixed simultaneously by yesterday for free.

The WWII assets pack is not just an add-on to make your missions look more realistic, it also serves as a Combined Arms extension for anyone interested in getting into the WWII ground war.

I think instead of picking the WWII assets pack apart, what they need to do is continue adding to its value. No offense intended to the OP, or anyone else that has contributed to this thread, but anyone interested in adding the C-47 to their missions for immersion should consider picking up the WWII assets pack which is currently on sale for $14.99. In addition to the C-47, the WWII assets pack hosts a long list of other features that continue to be added to.

Even WarThunder has a business model, it wouldn't be free otherwise.

Ed's business model is producing modules. I figure the best solution to the asset pack problem is more modules.

This is why I think we need dcs fleet ops and combined arms II.

These should actually be a line of modules each featuring playable ships and vehicles from a particular theater and era. The first might be the modern era. They would be as detailed as possible while still being reasonable for an anthology. 

[Tank50us]

11 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I think instead of picking the WWII assets pack apart, what they need to do is continue adding to its value. No offense intended to the OP, or anyone else that has contributed to this thread, but anyone interested in adding the C-47 to their missions for immersion should consider picking up the WWII assets pack which is currently on sale for $14.99. In addition to the C-47, the WWII assets pack hosts a long list of other features that continue to be added to.

This isn't the point of my statement. The C-47, like the Sherman, PzIV, Bofors, and other bits of the WW2AP that were moved out of it, is something that's been used in multiple theaters and conflicts since its inception, and in some cases, is still in use to this day to some degree. So my issue isn't with the pack, it's with putting objects in it that served in multiple conflict zones and decades in said pack. If it were limited to things that only saw active service in WW2, such as the various Tanks and AI aicraft, I'd have no issues. But given that some of the things in that pack are still in use today, I wonder why they're there in the first place. Now, if the pack were to expand to the early Cold War era (the time of the Saber and Mig15), I'd be fine with that, but I just think that assets that can realistically be used in any scenario (IE, who's going to believe a PzIII could defeat a modern Tank?), modern or past, should be part of the base sim.

Alternatively, I think many of these asset packs should be, as you said, be extensions of Combined Arms, in that those without the pack, can see it, and shoot at it (or be shot at by it). But those that have the pack get to do more with it, such as take direct control of the unit in question, or direct it to perform certain actions.

[Boosterdog]

11 hours ago, Tank50us said:

This isn't the point of my statement. The C-47, like the Sherman, PzIV, Bofors, and other bits of the WW2AP that were moved out of it, is something that's been used in multiple theaters and conflicts since its inception, and in some cases, is still in use to this day to some degree. So my issue isn't with the pack, it's with putting objects in it that served in multiple conflict zones and decades in said pack. If it were limited to things that only saw active service in WW2, such as the various Tanks and AI aicraft, I'd have no issues. But given that some of the things in that pack are still in use today, I wonder why they're there in the first place. Now, if the pack were to expand to the early Cold War era (the time of the Saber and Mig15), I'd be fine with that, but I just think that assets that can realistically be used in any scenario (IE, who's going to believe a PzIII could defeat a modern Tank?), modern or past, should be part of the base sim.

Alternatively, I think many of these asset packs should be, as you said, be extensions of Combined Arms, in that those without the pack, can see it, and shoot at it (or be shot at by it). But those that have the pack get to do more with it, such as take direct control of the unit in question, or direct it to perform certain actions.

The C47 was never anything other than a pack asset and was developed for the pack exclusively.  Its not something ED has decided to just throw in there to push sales. Without the pack, there would be no official C47.  Like it or not, whilst the asset pack is being charged for, the items promised back when adam was boy will likely remain exclusive to it. 

 

[Callsign112]

@Tank50us, I got your point and respect your opinion even though I completely disagree with some aspects of it. And I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the few assets that were taken out of the WWII AP were to help customers of DCS WWII better enjoy the base game. You can buy a War Bird and use it on the free Caucuses/Marianas maps with a few free assets, or you can use the free TF-51D and do the same. If you want more, you can add additional planes, maps, and assets to your collection. It's up to the individual customer to decide what they want to add if anything.

My comments were not so much directed at you personally, but to the general umbrella the concept that everything should improve for free hides under within this community.

Case-in-point, I don't know the people that were behind the SoW server, but only came to know Phil because he was responsible for some of the best DCS YouTube content out there.

I also have no idea how the people running the SoW server felt personally about the WWII AP, but I believe owning it was a requirement to join the server.

All I can gather from the discussion that followed the news that SoW was shutting down was that there were at least two major problems. The first being the thankless job of maintaining the MP environment after each patch release with seemingly little support, or response from ED in terms of timely fixes for a growing list of issues. And the second was the toxic behavior from some individuals that make the job of maintaining a MP server thankless.

But read the now locked thread about the shutdown, and you will see that it didn't take too long for someone to label the WWII AP as the reason. And I see threads like this one as simply an extension of the same problem, and this is why:

We all want things to improve, get more immersive, be closer to the real deal. The question is, how is the constant cycle of improvement supposed to happen? My presumption based on some of the comments made here are that parts of this community simply expect it after purchasing a module/modules.

So here is the reality of where we are. Say you bought the F18 at DCS v2.5, but naturally 2.5 isn't going to cut it, and eventually you will want even more realism, better textures, enhanced sound effects with better explosions, damage models ect... The customer/merchant relationship in this exchange could be handled in a couple of different ways I suppose.

One way for certain would be that ED forgets about any and all updates related to DCS itself, and simply finishes/fixes/completes the modules under that version, or it could take the high road and add value for its customers by continually improving the entire Eco-system for anyone that bought into DCS regardless of when, realizing of course that each update is going to require additional unpaid-for-work to maintain that plane/jet/helicopter the customer bought several DCS World versions ago. 

Just 2 recent examples of the point I am making are FLAK and FLIR. I have no idea what ED's response will be to the request that the free FLAK asset no longer works. It may be that after reworking FLAK, and I'm not sure who paid for the work that had to go into making that happen, they will get back to fixing the free asset when they have the time.

The same goes for FLIR. As a Combined Arms supporter, I sincerely hope we see the recently announced updates that are coming make it to CA, but I would also understand with great disappointment if ED said, look we would love to port all of this work to CA but it just isn't supported enough by the community to justify the overhead to do so. Realizing of course that all the work that had to go into fixing FLAK, improving FLIR under the current DCS version will likely have to be redone AGAIN after some future update meant to enhance the user experience gets implemented.

And this is why I completely disagree with your opinion that people who haven't paid for a map/asset should be able to use it for free. The suggestion would be a little like expecting free entry to the movies, but your happy to pay for popcorn if you get hungry.

I think the best solution I heard to date was that ED allow people that haven't paid for the WWII AP see the vehicles as colored blocks that they can dive down and target with their guns/bombs except have no damage model/kill count. That way anyone interested could join a MP server, get the feeling of being involved in the coordinated attack with their squadron, but if they want more realism (see the actual vehicle explode) and get credit for the kill, all they have to do is add the assets.

And this leads to what I see as possibly one of the biggest motivating factors for the argument. I can't say I know why you formed the opinion you have, but a common argument tossed around in these type of threads is that another WWII SIM puts it all together in a package deal. There are two important issues never mentioned though, and that is one, the argument is comparing apples to oranges, and two the other SIM/game is doing the exact same thing ED is doing just in another way. You get two free but very watered down tanks to drive around in, but if you want the happy meal, you have to pay for it.

Both products have their place, but in the end they are both still two completely different products with completely different business models. I think we are all fully aware of who's version of the Mustang/Anton we're flying when we open DCS, and I see no point in comparing something that can't be compared as a product, business model, or otherwise. The areas where the other SIM is strong in, DCS is not well represented by design. The areas where DCS is strong in, the other SIM is also not represented by design.

So yes I own both products, and yes, I want to see both improve and be successful. But anyone who understands the mission, purpose, and direction of this product would be able to understand why the C-47 is what it is.   

Edited January 30, 2022 by Callsign112

[Boosterdog]

On 1/30/2022 at 4:39 PM, Callsign112 said:

@Tank50us, I got your point and respect your opinion even though I completely disagree with some aspects of it. And I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the few assets that were taken out of the WWII AP were to help customers of DCS WWII better enjoy the base game. You can buy a War Bird and use it on the free Caucuses/Marianas maps with a few free assets, or you can use the free TF-51D and do the same. If you want more, you can add additional planes, maps, and assets to your collection. It's up to the individual customer to decide what they want to add if anything.

My comments were not so much directed at you personally, but to the general umbrella the concept that everything should improve for free hides under within this community.

Case-in-point, I don't know the people that were behind the SoW server, but only came to know Phil because he was responsible for some of the best DCS YouTube content out there.

I also have no idea how the people running the SoW server felt personally about the WWII AP, but I believe owning it was a requirement to join the server.

All I can gather from the discussion that followed the news that SoW was shutting down was that there were at least two major problems. The first being the thankless job of maintaining the MP environment after each patch release with seemingly little support, or response from ED in terms of timely fixes for a growing list of issues. And the second was the toxic behavior from some individuals that make the job of maintaining a MP server thankless.

But read the now locked thread about the shutdown, and you will see that it didn't take too long for someone to label the WWII AP as the reason. And I see threads like this one as simply an extension of the same problem, and this is why:

We all want things to improve, get more immersive, be closer to the real deal. The question is, how is the constant cycle of improvement supposed to happen? My presumption based on some of the comments made here are that parts of this community simply expect it after purchasing a module/modules.

So here is the reality of where we are. Say you bought the F18 at DCS v2.5, but naturally 2.5 isn't going to cut it, and eventually you will want even more realism, better textures, enhanced sound effects with better explosions, damage models ect... The customer/merchant relationship in this exchange could be handled in a couple of different ways I suppose.

One way for certain would be that ED forgets about any and all updates related to DCS itself, and simply finishes/fixes/completes the modules under that version, or it could take the high road and add value for its customers by continually improving the entire Eco-system for anyone that bought into DCS regardless of when, realizing of course that each update is going to require additional unpaid-for-work to maintain that plane/jet/helicopter the customer bought several DCS World versions ago. 

Just 2 recent examples of the point I am making are FLAK and FLIR. I have no idea what ED's response will be to the request that the free FLAK asset no longer works. It may be that after reworking FLAK, and I'm not sure who paid for the work that had to go into making that happen, they will get back to fixing the free asset when they have the time.

The same goes for FLIR. As a Combined Arms supporter, I sincerely hope we see the recently announced updates that are coming make it to CA, but I would also understand with great disappointment if ED said, look we would love to port all of this work to CA but it just isn't supported enough by the community to justify the overhead to do so. Realizing of course that all the work that had to go into fixing FLAK, improving FLIR under the current DCS version will likely have to be redone AGAIN after some future update meant to enhance the user experience gets implemented.

And this is why I completely disagree with your opinion that people who haven't paid for a map/asset should be able to use it for free. The suggestion would be a little like expecting free entry to the movies, but your happy to pay for popcorn if you get hungry.

I think the best solution I heard to date was that ED allow people that haven't paid for the WWII AP see the vehicles as colored blocks that they can dive down and target with their guns/bombs except have no damage model/kill count. That way anyone interested could join a MP server, get the feeling of being involved in the coordinated attack with their squadron, but if they want more realism (see the actual vehicle explode) and get credit for the kill, all they have to do is add the assets.

And this leads to what I see as possibly one of the biggest motivating factors for the argument. I can't say I know why you formed the opinion you have, but a common argument tossed around in these type of threads is that another WWII SIM puts it all together in a package deal. There are two important issues never mentioned though, and that is one, the argument is comparing apples to oranges, and two the other SIM/game is doing the exact same thing ED is doing just in another way. You get two free but very watered down tanks to drive around in, but if you want the happy meal, you have to pay for it.

Both products have their place, but in the end they are both still two completely different products with completely different business models. I think we are all fully aware of who's version of the Mustang/Anton we're flying when we open DCS, and I see no point in comparing something that can't be compared as a product, business model, or otherwise. The areas where the other SIM is strong in, DCS is not well represented by design. The areas where DCS is strong in, the other SIM is also not represented by design.

So yes I own both products, and yes, I want to see both improve and be successful. But anyone who understands the mission, purpose, and direction of this product would be able to understand why the C-47 is what it is.   

 

I think we are on the same page but, forgive my dull old brain,  Im not sure I fully follow some of your points. 

In the round the WW2 Asset pack has, for a small cost, produced a number of good looking, user interactable items. I had no real probem buying it at the time of its launch and have no particular problem with its sale price.   I bought the Normandy map and the pack as a bundle for $47.99 which is more than in line with a "modern" map (the NTTR map I bought for $49.99 six months before).  For a long time bundles existed but I think none were quite as good as the original deal (except in the sales). 

At ts launch back in 2017 DCS WW2 had limited products to support asset development but since then DCS WW2 has expanded. A new map and 3 new modules should all presumalby increase the opportunity of ED to maintain income streams to better support asset development (remembering that this is a not case of a new item being put out monthly or even annually sometimes). Additionally we will soon have another module in the shape of the F4U and a map expansion that will likely be paid DLC. 

Whilst it may still not be at a  level where the pack could be intergated into the core game for free it is possibly at a point where the reintroduction of maps and even aircraft bundles of equitable costs to thier modern counterparts could be considered as a permanent offer (the latter taking the argument that whilst jets are more complicated and therefore more expensive to develop, an element of the cost must surely reflect the fact that they have a maintained environment provided for them to fly in with appropriate assets ) 

Also remember ED went  on record in 2019 to state WW2 was (at the time at least) a more profitable venture than modern aircraft for them so this isnt an altruistic thing. 

 

[Gambit21]

On 1/27/2022 at 2:47 PM, Ercoupe said:

So. if they did this, what would you do with it? What would be the point, really?

How about creating content that takes place during the 60's or 70's like I'm doing?

These aircraft were still in heavy use. I find myself in the position of not being able to utilize it for scenery because it's part of the WWII AP.

 

I own the Asset's Pack, however I can't very well require players to own the WWII assets pack just for the sake of C-47's operating in the background/as scenery in a 1970's campaign.

So yes count me in the "please remove it from the WWII AP pack" category.

 

 

[Callsign112]

8 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

How about creating content that takes place during the 60's or 70's like I'm doing?

These aircraft were still in heavy use. I find myself in the position of not being able to utilize it for scenery because it's part of the WWII AP.

 

I own the Asset's Pack, however I can't very well require players to own the WWII assets pack just for the sake of C-47's operating in the background/as scenery in a 1970's campaign.

So yes count me in the "please remove it from the WWII AP pack" category.

 

 

I also bought the WWII Assets pack. And why should I, and everyone else that wants to see WWII grow and improve have to wait through longer development cycles because your friends don't want to support it?!

[upyr1]

The problem I have with the WWII asset packs, is what to do with assets that served beyond WWII. There are a few options

1. More playable modules 
2. take items out of the asset pack
3. more asset packs 

More modules is never a wrong answer the people who want the module get it, those who don't get a free AI asset. So as long as the developers profit we're all happy.

The problem with removing things from the asset pack is it will make it less of a must have. The problem with more asset packs is people end up complaining. 

[Beirut]

I don't see the Assets Pack as presenting any kind of problem whatsoever. I posted a thread to gift an Assets Pack, and after 24 hours and 100 views, not one single person inquired for a free WWII Assets Pack.

 

Not... one... single... person. 

 

That the Assets Pack presents any kind of problematic situation is a myth, dead and buried.

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Not... one... single... person. 

Go figure

[Beirut]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Go figure

 

I thought someone would want one. I guess everyone who actually wants it, has it. 

 

The next time someone goes on a tear about how horrible it is to have to buy the WWII Assets Pack, yeah, well... no. 

[Bremspropeller]

On 1/27/2022 at 7:29 PM, upyr1 said:

I'd only support this if we get the AC-47 though I believe the transport module will be the C-47

Even though I wouldn't say no to a good versatile Dak built, I'd prefer a C-130 or C-160 - mostly because you could use those as tankers, too.

We're kind of missing the jungle gravel-runways that a C-47 transport would fit so well into.

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

That the Assets Pack presents any kind of problematic situation is a myth, dead and buried.

Nah, you just saw the consequence of that situation: it is almost universally useless because of the lock-in and community-splitting it creates.

Your experiment illustrated the problem more than anything.

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

Nah, you just saw the consequence of that situation: it is almost universally useless because of the lock-in and community-splitting it creates.

Your experiment illustrated the problem more than anything.

 

On the contrary, I like the WWII Assets Pack a great deal. I think it's a solid module. That said, the idea that it creates some form of division and "splits the community" is a myth.

 

 "The WWII Assets Pack splits the community!!!"

 

 One free WWII Assets Pack to give away.

 

 . . . crickets . . . 

 

There is no split community. It's a myth. There is only the echo of whining accompanying the myth.

[Tippis]

14 minutes ago, Beirut said:

On the contrary, I like the WWII Assets Pack a great deal.

That's not really a contradiction though. And the fact that it splits the community is… well… just inherently a fact. It is unavoidable and it does so by very definition. There are the haves and the have-nots. The module is purposefully designed to split the community that way, and there is no way or argument around this.

You are just on one side of that split and can no longer see what it's like on the other side of the split. All your experiment does is give you an insight into the other side (well… insight, that is, unless you choose to wilfully ignore or think about the well-established reasons for the outcome), where no matter how much you think it's a great deal, it just ends up being worthless to too many people because of the equally inherent consequences of that intentional split. The mechanisms of this have already been explained to you in full and no amount of sticking your head in the sand will make this split become the myth you so desperately want it to be. Every time you've tried to prove this, you've managed to illustrate the exact opposite of what you intended.

Again: by its very design, by its very intent, by its very means of distributions — it splits the community. It's what it is meant to do. No amount of wishing it were a myth will make it one. The only way for it to be a myth would be if your experiment was impossible to perform, but since you could perform it, the split simply cannot be a myth.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Tippis

[Beirut]

21 minutes ago, Tippis said:

That's not really a contradiction though. And the fact that it splits the community is… well… just inherently a fact. It is unavoidable and it does so by very definition. There are the haves and the have-nots. The module is purposefully designed to split the community that way, and there is no way or argument around this.

You are just on one side of that split and can no longer see what it's like on the other side of the split. All your experiment does is give you an insight into the other side (well… insight, that is, unless you choose to wilfully ignore or think about the well-established reasons for the outcome), where no matter how much you think it's a great deal, it just ends up being worthless to too many people because of the equally inherent consequences of that intentional split. The mechanisms of this have already been explained to you in full and no amount of sticking your head in the sand will make this split become the myth you so desperately want it to be. Every time you've tried to prove this, you've managed to illustrate the exact opposite of what you intended.

Again: by its very design, by its very intent, by its very means of distributions — it splits the community. It's what it is meant to do. No amount of wishing it were a myth will make it one. The only way for it to be a myth would be if your experiment was impossible to perform, but since you could perform it, the split simply cannot be a myth.

 

 

Mechanisms of splitting and consequences of intentional purposefulness and well established outcomes and... and... and... and... and...

 

 Oy vey!

 

It's $14. Deal with it.

[Tippis]

10 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Mechanisms of splitting and consequences of intentional purposefulness and well established outcomes and... and... and... and... and... It's $14. Deal with it.

Sure, and the way to deal with it is exactly why you got the outcome you saw, where restrictions that split of the community mean it's not worth-while to create a lot of content using those assets, which in turn ends up reducing the value proposition of the module to the point where you're having problems giving it away for free — the $30 value it it supposed to provide just isn't there. This is bad for everyone, even for you who feel you got your money's worth (but only at half cost). Again, and just like before, you're just illustrating the point that was made all along: the price is not the problem; the inherent and deliberate community splitting (or more specifically, the restriction on participation that is the underlying cause said split) is because it gives rise to the very thing you experienced.

The split is still not a myth. Your experiment demonstrates this better than an entire essay on my part could.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Tippis

[Beirut]

Just now, Tippis said:

Sure, and the way to deal with it is exactly why you got the outcome you saw, where restrictions that split of the community mean it's not worth-while to create a lot of content using those assets, which in turn ends up reducing the value proposition of the module to the point where you're having problems giving it away for free — the $30 value it it supposed to provide just isn't there. This is bad for everyone, even for you who feel you got your money's worth (but only at half cost).

 

I buy groceries on sale when possible. I buy my tools on sale when possible. And if I can get DCS modules on sale, I will buy them when they are. I bought almost all my DCS modules on sale. They does not mean they aren't worth the full price, it only means I like a good deal. 

 

Just now, Tippis said:

 . . . the price is not the problem; . . . 

 

Please read the following carefully:

 

If... the... price....................... is... not... a... problem.............................. then.....................................

 

Buy it!

 

Problem solved,. No problem exists. No split. It really is just a myth. Case closed. Have a lovely day. 

[Tippis]

Just now, Beirut said:

I buy groceries on sale when possible.

Then you should quote the actual value whenever you're discussing it. Otherwise, you are indeed suggesting that the full value isn't what the module is worth.

Just now, Beirut said:

If... the... price....................... is... not... a... problem.............................. then.....................................

Buy it!

I already own it, and you know this already.

And since the price isn't the problem, buying it does not solve the problem. The problem exists whether you buy it or not because buying it does not remove the inherent split between haves and have-nots that comes from having restrictions on participation — it just shifts the two groups around a tiny bit. This has been explained to you a gajilliion times but you refuse to try understand it.

The split is still not a myth. Deal with it.
If it were, your proposed solution wouldn't be necessary — hell, it wouldn't even exist.