Make all skins available and not tied to a faction/country

[ustio]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

It applies to both the list is just as cluttered in the rearming and refuelling menu, while being inaccurate, as it is in the mission editor.

ANd again, what's the point of even selecting a country in the first place, if the only bearing it's going to have is a flag in the infobar?

I brought it up because I would only be in favour of the request, if there was a filter and if that filter was enforceable.

The livery selection is just as cluttered on the rearming menu, and while you're already facilitated with the CJTF "countries", I on the other hand am not when it comes to aircraft where the liveries are available to everything, making selecting that country in the first place pretty pointless.

It applies to both equally.

Again, what's the point of selecting a country in the first place if it doesn't change anything?

And again, you're already catered for - as far as the current system goes, this is a mission editing problem.

Then mission editors should make sure they select the appropriate country for their clients.

Just like they should make sure they select appropriate aircraft for their clients.

Again, you're already catered for.

Why not?

As I said previously, a lot of that is due to how IFF is currently magic, and there's only 2 combative sides, meaning doctrine and ROE are essentially moot concepts.

And VIDing an aircraft doesn't have to be the primary way, so long as it is a valid way of doing it (which it clearly is).

If it wasn't so simple, then VID may become more important with ambiguous targets.

And?

That doesn't mean that it's invalid as a concept, it is an edge case but it's a perfectly valid one.

And the exact same thing applies for scenarios which may be more likely:

Let's say you've set up a US vs Iran mission and you get into a furball with several US and Iranian F-5Es.

How do you tell which is which?

To GCI and AEW&C aircraft, you'll appear as merged, so they probably won't be much help (even if they can magically identify who is who, owing to magic IFF implementation); neither sides' F-5Es have IFF interrogators, so that's out of the question too.

My only option is to VID my targets before commiting to an engagement.

If I want to mitigate the possibility of friendly fire, it would be better for the liveries to be restricted to only be those appropriate for whichever side. If they're completely wide open it would be possible for players to pick liveries that are more ambiguous, or even those from the opposing side - which invites more chance for friendly fire which is undesireable. I'm okay with them changing liveries or even using custom liveries - so I don't necessarily want to lock them out of changing them - just so long as the livery has whatever country's markings.

Of course if I don't care about this (and there are situations where I don't), I could just set BLUFOR to be CJTF blue and REDFOR to be CJTF red, and not worry about the liveries, leaving them completely open. In the above system I suggested, I would select the unit without filtering for country, which should have everything available, I could then reserve the country for naming of the side.

 

With the current system whereby liveries are restricted to appropriate countries (or at least should be), both possibilities are catered for: if I want liveries to be restricted to mitigate friendly fire (or even just for the sake of accuracy in this regard) I can do so (usually). If I want liveries to be completely open, I can do so - both are facilitated and so both sides of the aisle are happy basically without compromise.

With your system, I lose that ability, I would have to lock people out of changing their liveries outright, which while desireable in maybe strictly historical missions, wouldn't be completely necessary in others.

If people however want to mod their installs to have custom liveries, I'm in favour of it - but if a client doesn't have said livery, it should appear as the default for the country selected.

Based on?

So not only can you already do this using stuff already available to without any mods, there's also a mod that does it too. So long as said mod doesn't break the IC (which I don't think it should as I think liveries are off limits), what's the issue?

 

Before I go any further. Do you even play MP? Because apologies you seems to assume alot how the MP community and how online public server plays.

[upyr1]

I would rather have ways to lock down the liveries. For example if I want the option to use vma-214 harriers adding an option to unlock liveries like the Combined task forces would work.

[Northstar98]

On 4/17/2022 at 1:17 PM, ustio said:

Before I go any further. Do you even play MP? Because apologies you seems to assume alot how the MP community and how online public server plays.

The only thing that matters is the following:

1. Are there valid scenarios where limiting livery availability is desirable?
2. Are there valid scenarios where limiting liveries isn't necessary/not desirable?

If the answer to both is yes, then both should be facilitated, however way you go about it.

 

Personally, how I'd go about it is to have units and liveries only be available to applicable countries and to have countries where every livery is available, and then have certain countries where everything is available, and allow every country to be available to every side.

 

Right now however, you seem to be saying that unless it conforms to your personal anecdotes about the select servers you play on, it's completely invalid.

And it's not like this doesn't apply to SP either, it applies less so, but less so != 0.

 

I'm not interested whatsoever in how rare you think people who wish to set up their missions in a way your not familiar with are - it's irrelevant. People should be able to set their missions up however they want and the easier that is, the better.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Tippis]

59 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I meant more with regard to liveries themselves.

Other than, is it not just units of measurement and default ATC languages, and of course the flag that appears on the infobar?

If so, then like I said, these settings should probably be something mission editors can override if desired (and for units it of course depends on what the users own settings are set to).

Maybe, but that's a hell of a lot more work than what's being suggested here — something so simple that it can already be uglyhacked in with user modding. There's pretty much no reason not to have this option, given how it's a single switch for some that's already there as opposed to adding three different switches that do something completely new.

There are literally no downsides, and I don't even see much in the way of argument against it other than “there are workarounds”. The thing about workarounds is that they're… well… workarounds. They generally point towards something not being sensibly done since it needs to be worked around.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Tippis

[Northstar98]

6 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Maybe, but that's a hell of a lot more work than what's being suggested here — something so simple that it can already be uglyhacked in with user modding.

It would be, though ATC is supposedly WIP, and unit settings can already be overridden as desired (so long as it works).

6 minutes ago, Tippis said:

There's pretty much no reason not to have this option, given how it's a single switch for some that's already there as opposed to adding three different switches that do something completely new.

You've lost me I'm afraid.

That there's no reason to have liveries restricted? Because I'm going to disagree with you on that one, for the reasons I've highlighted above, especially when the option for it to be unrestricted already exists in the CJTF countries.

With the units, users already have the ability to override it, it just can't be done on a per-aircraft basis, which would be more preferable (and even so, IMO that should depend on the aircraft itself, not necessarily the country it's flying for).

With the ATC language, that's more difficult - not really sure how to tackle that without making an override.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Northstar98

[ustio]

10 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And you don't?

And I'm sorry but this is irrelevant; your personal anecdotes about how the servers you play on work don't suddenly invalidate anything else that doesn't conform to that.

And this it's not like this doesn't apply to SP either.

 

you are trying to make a counter arguement on how a skin in MP really affect gameplay from a baseless assumption which honestly it doesn't, and not a lot of people care anyway

But the fact of the matter still stands. 5000 user download the mod and workaround to unlock all skins. Which mean a lot people migh saw friendly skin on the opposing team, and i never heard any complains that the opposing player use the same skin as the friendly unit from various public server discord.

 

[Tippis]

12 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

It would be, though ATC is supposedly WIP, and unit settings can already be overridden as desired (so long as it works).

“As long as it works” is exactly the point: what can be done now is fragile and may very well suddenly be gone from one day to the next. So why not let the game inherently handle it, the way we know it can?

12 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

You've lost me I'm afraid.

Option one, add:

• …a switch that removes country restrictions — we can discuss if it should be a group flag, a mission flag or maybe even a server flag — which is already something the game can do, as shown by the workarounds.

Option two, add:

• …a switch that changes the displayed country on a group (no idea if this is even possible in the game, so it might require coding new functionality)
• …and add a switch that changes the instrumentation units on a group (this can be forced in game options but need to be moved and possibly recoded to be group-specific)
• …and add a switch that changes ATC language (there is obviously something that picks the language, but it's unclear to what extent this can be overridden with new functionality)

Exposing something that already exists vs an unknown amount of coding of new functionality that may or may not even have existing hooks or might require some very ood changes to core assumptions, and which necessitates the mission creator to fiddle with three things per group rather than just set it as a general mission override.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Tippis

[Callsign112]

13 minutes ago, ustio said:

you are trying to make a counter arguement on how a skin in MP really affect gameplay from a baseless assumption which honestly it doesn't, and not a lot of people care anyway

But the fact of the matter still stands. 5000 user download the mod and workaround to unlock all skins. Which mean a lot people migh saw friendly skin on the opposing team, and i never heard any complains that the opposing player use the same skin as the friendly unit from various public server discord.

 

I apologize for initially commenting without realizing the existence of a mod. I thought the workaround you were referring to could be handled by the CJTF feature built into the game.

But I am curious, if you want to use a skin assigned to the opposing MP team, why don't you just join that team to use the skin. Again there might be something here that I don't realize, but I think in terms of a game mechanic I think what is currently implemented in game makes sense.

In the broader scheme of things, ED has to consider the concept of opposing teams/factions, and I can't see how having opposing units represented by the same country would be helpful in a combat simulator. While it may be true that 5000 people downloaded a mod to do this, it says nothing about the number of people that haven't downloaded it.

If the CJTF actually allows you to achieve what you want, but the server being used doesn't use that faction, then what your suggesting would be analogous to asking ED to break its code to accommodate a MP server. With the number of servers out there, requests like this would quickly become unmanageable.

[Northstar98]

On 4/17/2022 at 1:40 PM, ustio said:

you are trying to make a counter arguement on how a skin in MP really affect gameplay from a baseless assumption which honestly it doesn't

Oh, so you are in fact saying "if it doesn't conform to my personal anecdotes, it can be completely dismissed". Yeah, talk to me about things that are baseless.

I gave you a scenario where the livery in question is absolutely a valid concern, you saying "but that isn't the case for the servers I personally play on" doesn't change that one iota.

Again, what I proposed facilitates both, yours only facilitates the latter.

On 4/17/2022 at 1:40 PM, ustio said:

and not a lot of people care anyway

And you know that, how?

MP is said to be a minority anyway.

On 4/17/2022 at 1:40 PM, ustio said:

But the fact of the matter still stands. 5000 user download the mod and workaround to unlock all skins.

Then use that then.

Or heck, just ask your server editor to use appropriate countries.

You are already catered for, and so far the only caveat we've discovered is ATC language, though ATC is incredibly limited anyway, and is currently WIP - it's not certain how the new system will work, and we can't really have that discussion until we can test it. But perhaps something could be considered to make it more flexible.

On 4/17/2022 at 1:40 PM, ustio said:

Which mean a lot people migh saw friendly skin on the opposing team, and i never heard any complains that the opposing player use the same skin as the friendly unit from various public server discord.

Oh, so long as you've personally never have heard a complaint, that definitely means that there can be no circumstance where it's any concern whatsoever.

I think you might want to take a look at this.

 

And, that was just one scenario I dreamt up in my head, if that scenario is a valid one (and so far you've only said that it's not something you personally run into which is honestly a laughable argument for demonstrating invalidity), then we've got a valid argument for restricting liveries.

The same applies for missions where the mission editor wants to enforce accuracy - maybe it's roleplaying a historical event. The point is there are valid scenarios where restricting liveries makes sense, especially when it's already perfectly possible to have all liveries available with the tools available as they already exist.

You don't have to restrict liveries if you don't want to, and there should be a way that facilitates both, instead of your way which goes from semi-facilitating both, to only facilitating one.

On 4/17/2022 at 1:41 PM, Tippis said:

“As long as it works” is exactly the point: what can be done now is fragile and may very well suddenly be gone from one day to the next. So why not let the game inherently handle it, the way we know it can?

Well, if the game already handles this, then the units of measurement is more or less a moot point. But honestly, this is clearly something separate to liveries.

On 4/17/2022 at 1:41 PM, Tippis said:

Option one, add:

• …a switch that removes country restrictions — we can discuss if it should be a group flag, a mission flag or maybe even a server flag — which is already something the game can do, as shown by the workarounds.

Sure, do that.

Though the option for all liveries and units is available as is, and so far the only concerns are ATC language and the units of measurement (the latter of which can already be overridden, just globally and subtitles are available for ATC).

On 4/17/2022 at 1:41 PM, Tippis said:

Option two, add:

• …a switch that changes the displayed country on a group (no idea if this is even possible in the game, so it might require coding new functionality)

Don't remember asking for that - you might've misplaced side/coalition with country.

If we were to adopt a C:MO style coalition system (which is already something fairly important if you want anything more complicated that just red vs blue, and the ironic thing is that we already have a map which IRL has way more than 2 belligerents on it), it would be desireable to be able to change the allegiance (what side/coalition the unit belongs to), solely in the case of missions where a unit is captured or a unit is defecting.

This is obviously something that's going to be further in the future - but I'm speaking in ideals.

On 4/17/2022 at 1:41 PM, Tippis said:

• …and add a switch that changes the instrumentation units on a group (this can be forced in game options but need to be moved and possibly recoded to be group-specific)

Just for clarity, here's how I envisage this would work (we're going more off-topic, though I was the one who brought this up).

First you have the current setting in the options - this should be the default setting (i.e native, imperial or metric, and native should be aircraft specific, which last I checked was the guess, aside from cases where it's bugged).

Then, in each aircraft's special settings, there's an option to override this on a per aircraft basis (either default - use the setting in the game options, or override for that aircraft).

On 4/17/2022 at 1:41 PM, Tippis said:

• …and add a switch that changes ATC language (there is obviously something that picks the language, but it's unclear to what extent this can be overridden with new functionality)

Well, the new ATC system is in the works, and there will supposedly be further differentiation (WWII and something more modern day).

And saying we shouldn't do x because it necessitates changes to core game isn't really much of an excuse, and we can only speculate on how it works.

Fortunately, there are radio subtitles, so it shouldn't be too much of a non-starter.

On 4/17/2022 at 1:41 PM, Tippis said:

Exposing something that already exists vs an unknown amount of coding of new functionality that may or may not even have existing hooks or might require some very ood changes to core assumptions, and which necessitates the mission creator to fiddle with three things per group rather than just set it as a general mission override.

It wouldn't necessitate mission editors fiddle with three things at all - it should default to whatever is set in the game options.

But it may be of utility to have mission editors be able to override the language for certain countries if they desire.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Northstar98
spelling

[ustio]

58 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

 

But I am curious, if you want to use a skin assigned to the opposing MP team, why don't you just join that team to use the skin. Again there might be something here that I don't realize, but I think in terms of a game mechanic I think what is currently implemented in game makes sense.

That is just an extreme example that happen on a particular server. Most of the time is not like that. For example, i want to fly a Polish Mig-29 on a cold war server because why not its a Warsaw Pack factiom so still make sense. But because the server owner set the faction to Russia, I have to download a mod or edit .lua to be able to fly a Polish Mig-29.

 

Its the simple things like that that would make everyone happy. And Honestly, I would prefer to have a clean install than having my DCS fill with mods. And editing .lua gets reset after every update

[Callsign112]

37 minutes ago, ustio said:

That is just an extreme example that happen on a particular seerver. Most of the time is not like that. For example, i want to fly a Polish Mig-29 on a cold war server because why not its a Warsaw Pack factiom so still make sense. But because the server owner set the faction to Russia, I have to download a mod or edit .lua to be able to fly a Polish Mig-29.

 

Its the simple things like that that would make everyone happy. And Honestly, I would prefer to have a clean install than having my DCS fill with mods. And editing .lua gets reset after every update

I agree completely with your preference concerning mods. I really like everything the mod community does. I would actually pay for almost all of it, but not being a computer wizard that enjoys system maintenance, using unsupported content is just too much work for me. I know because I tried.

But while I perfectly get and understand the request you are making, and would even go as far to say it is a vary reasonable request, the problem as you describe it has more to do with a server then it does ED. I think this problem should be addressed at a server level. And just a question because I don't play MP, is there a reason servers don't allow the use of the CJTF faction?

Edited April 17, 2022 by Callsign112

[ustio]

6 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

 And just a question because I don't play MP, is there a reason servers don't allow the use of the CJTF faction?

 

Unfortunately I dont own a server so I cant answer that. But if I have to guess, they probably just pick the first Nation that has the aircraft that they want to add on the slot and not bothering to choose a specific nation. 

And unfortunately, i think this is why this discussion gets heated up. It seems most people in here doesn't have a clue how multiplayer server works in terms of skin. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, if the game already handles this, then the units of measurement is more or less a moot point

What the game already handles is the ability to make all skins available at once. It handles this the CJTF Red/Blue way, where they're just not restricted (but that's limited to four countries), or it handles it via mods, or it handles it by an ugly lua hack that just assigns availability of everything to everyone.

What it doesn't handle, but clearly can since we know those three exist, is the ability to use any skin irrespective of the unit country designation. And sometimes you want that country designation because it does other things.

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Don't remember asking for that - you might've misplaced side/coalition with country.

No, I mean country. That's what determines the flag (and also a column in the slot selection), and every now and then you want that. It's one of the three things you mentioned as being a function of country selection, which would be lost if you had to restrict yourself to one of the all-unit countries.

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

First you have the current setting in the options - this should be the default setting (i.e native, imperial or metric, and native should be aircraft specific, which last I checked was the guess, aside from cases where it's bugged).

Then, in each aircraft's special settings, there's an option to override this on a per aircraft basis (either default - use the setting in the game options, or override for that aircraft).

That's an awful lot of work once you start getting into the hundreds of aircraft compared to just flipping a single mission option flag and going to town.

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, the new ATC system is in the works, and there will supposedly be further differentiation (WWII and something more modern day).

I'll believe it when I see it. And there's nothing to suggest that it would include such a capability and disconnection from the language designation standard set so far.

 

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

And saying we shouldn't do x because it necessitates changes to core game isn't really much of an excuse, and we can only speculate on how it works.

That's not the argument, though. The argument is, if there is an utterly trivially implemented pre-existing option to make something happen with a single setting, and an unknown-complexity, three-part setting, O(N)-design complexity to end up with the same thing, the former is an infinitely more intelligent way of going about your business. Especially when there's no reason not to do it.

The other options could conceivably be implemented as well at some point, but they wouldn't even be needed by then because it has already been handled.

 

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

It wouldn't necessitate mission editors fiddle with three things at all

Yes it would. They're overrides — they have to be set on a per-group (or even on a per-aircraft, per your suggestion) level. Multiply those three settings with the number of groups (dozens) or aircraft (easily into the three figures for more complex setups) and that's an utterly insane amount of overriding that the mission maker would have to do in order to achieve something that could be far more easily, simply, and robustly done with a single mission option.

Yes, the default would be the default but that's wholly irrelevant here because we're talking about how to activate an override — i.e. not the default. So I mean, yes, you're right… of sorts: it wouldn't be three settings. It would be three hundred, as opposed to just one.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Tippis

[Callsign112]

30 minutes ago, ustio said:

Unfortunately I dont own a server so I cant answer that. But if I have to guess, they probably just pick the first Nation that has the aircraft that they want to add on the slot and not bothering to choose a specific nation. 

And unfortunately, i think this is why this discussion gets heated up. It seems most people in here doesn't have a clue how multiplayer server works in terms of skin. 

Is this something that could be requested by the servers community? It makes sense that if the feature already exists in-game, and servers have access to it if and when desired, could the people using the server request that the feature be unlocked on the server?

[Northstar98]

On 4/17/2022 at 4:11 PM, ustio said:

And unfortunately, i think this is why this discussion gets heated up. It seems most people in here doesn't have a clue how multiplayer server works in terms of skin. 

Well a good way of heating a discussion up is to tell people their opinions and scenarios are completely invalid based on nothing but your own narrow, personal anecdotes.

Kinda as if you're saying that the only valid way of playing the game is the one you personally subscribe to - that kind of thing is pretty unpopular regardless of which way you play the game - and that's precisely why everyone should be able to set their missions up in whichever way they want to. The more options there are and the easier it is to achieve that, the better.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Northstar98
grammar

[Rudel_chw]

16 hours ago, ustio said:

Curious, which aircraft gives you trouble sorting out skin because there are to many?

 

It's not really a trouble, more of a nuisance when you have to look inside a really long list of skins before selecting the skin you want for the aircraft that you are placing into the mission editor, then multiply that for the quantity of aircrafts that you are placing ... for example, let's say I have a fictional argentinian Viggen on my mission, to select its livery I would have to select amongst just a couple of liveries (actually a bit more, as most of the Viggen built-in liveries show up for every country), it looks like this:

 

 

Now, lets say that I change the aircraft for a swedish one, then the livery list displays mostly swedish skins, as expected .. note that now the list is much longer, as I have 31 custom skins for sweden:

 

However, if this wish were granted, my livery list for the Viggen would now grow up to over 67 skins:

 

So, having the skins filtered by country is actually very useful when editing your own missions, and saves a lot of time.

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

On 4/17/2022 at 4:32 PM, Tippis said:

What the game already handles is the ability to make all skins available at once. It handles this the CJTF Red/Blue way, where they're just not restricted (but that's limited to four countries)

Well, we only need 2 - one for each side.

The only issue so far seems to be the ATC language, which is currently based on the country (at least from my testing - I hardly use the ATC as I find it to be useless for just about everything but turning airfield lights on in the dark).

So all we would need to have is a setting for the CJTF ATC language - which is desireable to have regardless, as currently they're both set to English.

On 4/17/2022 at 4:32 PM, Tippis said:

What it doesn't handle, but clearly can since we know those three exist, is the ability to use any skin irrespective of the unit country designation. And sometimes you want that country designation because it does other things.

No, I mean country. That's what determines the flag (and also a column in the slot selection), and every now and then you want that. It's one of the three things you mentioned as being a function of country selection, which would be lost if you had to restrict yourself to one of the all-unit countries.

That's an awful lot of work once you start getting into the hundreds of aircraft compared to just flipping a single mission option flag and going to town.

I'll believe it when I see it. And there's nothing to suggest that it would include such a capability and disconnection from the language designation standard set so far.

That's not the argument, though. The argument is, if there is an utterly trivially implemented pre-existing option to make something happen with a single setting, and an unknown-complexity, three-part setting, O(N)-design complexity to end up with the same thing, the former is an infinitely more intelligent way of going about your business. Especially when there's no reason not to do it.

The other options could conceivably be implemented as well at some point, but they wouldn't even be needed by then because it has already been handled.

Yes it would. They're overrides — they have to be set on a per-group (or even on a per-aircraft, per your suggestion) level. Multiply those three settings with the number of groups (dozens) or aircraft (easily into the three figures for more complex setups) and that's an utterly insane amount of overriding that the mission maker would have to do in order to achieve something that could be far more easily, simply, and robustly done with a single mission option.

Yes, the default would be the default but that's wholly irrelevant here because we're talking about how to activate an override — i.e. not the default. So I mean, yes, you're right… of sorts: it wouldn't be three settings. It would be three hundred, as opposed to just one.

Right because I've apparently gone above and beyond in badly explaining it, let's start over again.

 

With regards to units of measurements:

At the moment it's set globally by the gameplay settings, where native is handled on a per aircraft basis. I'd make the suggestion to also have the setting for each aircraft type so that you can have exceptions to the rule set it the gameplay settings if you so desire.

As units are aircraft type specific anyway, and can already be overriden by the user, it's kinda moot here.

 

With regards to ATC languages:

These are set based on the country of the selected unit - this is fine for the overwhelming majority of countries (which should use the appropriate language already), but there's a problem with the CJTF "countries" as they're both set to English, which may not be desireable in certain circumstances.

What would be good is to A.) have something similar to the units of measurements, allowing it to be overridden globally and B.) have the ability to set the language for the CJTF "countries" inside the mission.

The only scenario we've left out are things like defecting units and capturing units - with the former it would be useful to have the ATC voice be unit dependent, so you could change it mid-mission for a select unit - you absolutely wouldn't need to go an override everything 300 times (to be honest I don't know where you got that one) - you'd have to override 1 thing, once, and only for missions where this is the case.

If you don't need to override it, then you don't need to override it... You can use the current settings.

 

Another way of doing it (which I brought up previously) is to have assigned per airbase, but that's perhaps more of a long-winded approach (though probably the one that offers to be the most representative of reality).

 

Having countries like the CJTFs have everything available and having actual countries only having stuff appropriate for them satisfies both sides and offers the most flexibility for both use cases.

The OP's wish satisfies his own and everyone agreeing, and nobody else. The current system already facilitates his wish, with only a few arguably minor caveats that the ATC language may not be as desired, the flag on the info bar will be different and the debrief will show that country in the list of events.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Northstar98