Long range bombers and support

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

But apparently nobody wants to even play the RIO in the F-14.

“Apparent” to whom? Based on what? Because here in the real world, it's readily apparent if you bother to look around bit that people actually do that.

Again, this is just you making assumptions based on your preference rather than any sort of observation of reality.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

So why would they want to be the Navigator or EW officer in the bomber?

For the same reason you'd want to play the RIO in the F-14. Or the pilot, for that matter: because it's fun to play with other people, because it's an interesting task, because there's a challenge in the teamwork, or just because it's a lot of buttons to press.

 

43 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But such a mission would only be suitable for the B-52 itself as any lightly defended objectives will just get stolen by the attack planes

What attack planes? The ones that are needed for completely different tasks? The ones making sure that the objective is only lightly defended by the time the BUFF gets there? The ones that are simply too few or too lightly armed to be able to make any kind of worth-while dent in the target?

Once again, you're only offering an appeal to incredulity: you refuse or are just incapable of imagining something so therefore it is impossible and cannot exist, even if (especially if) it actually already exists. Unfortunately, in the real world, your lack of imagination is not a limiting factor to everyone else, so these things exist in spite of your wishing they didn't.

43 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s not that missions can’t be made,  it’s that the Buff doesn’t fit into general MP and so it would have limited use and appeal. 

The BUFF is inherently MP — you even say so yourself, and need to make up your mind — so it very clearly fits in. Doubly so if you design missions that are not airquake (which is what “general MP” must mean to you) but rather ones that are suited to the full set of modules included.

43 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What Nick Grey himself said in the video. Why design a full fidelity module where not enough players will want to use all the crew positions? And DCS only does full fidelity. 

That's not something Nick said, though, now is it? That's the interviewer shooting the question down based on his own narrowminded and non-generalised preferences — something that explains why you like the argument because it's just like the ones you're offering, and just as wilfully ignorant and fallacious. Or did you do that thing you do, again, where you didn't actually listen to or read the source you were referencing? Unlike what the interviewer says, DCS isn't actually “ultra-realistic”; it's shock-full of simplifications and shortcuts and systems being skipped over or just not included at all. That's just the nature of the game. What Simon says is that it's not currently their niche. That is all. And in fact, when he tries to challenge some of the assumptions and baseless assertions of the interviewer, he's immediately silenced and being talked over so he doesn't get a word in…

If you pay attention a bit, you'll notice that DCS does not only do full fidelity, so that's a stupid and just outright false assumption to base any argument on to begin with. Moreover, who's to say that all crew positions must necessarily be simulated at all, much less “full fidelity”? And guess what — players clearly want that. So why design a module with sufficient fidelity to draw in the crowd, where you can choose to fill additional crew positions as needed?

Because it sells. Not to you, perhaps, but you are irrelevant.

 

Your basing your argument on a wholly ignorant view of the game;, on a wholly irrelevant generalisation of your own very narrow preferences; on a catastrophically incomplete level of experience with all aspects of MP, SP, and mission design — anythign outside of airquake, really, by the sounds of it; and now you're also adding outright lying about what the devs are saying to that illustrious list of things that are useless as a basis of any kind of rational argumentation or thought. Again, as always, you are just trolling because you don't want to see DCS be improved by additions that do not specifically cater to your minute and reductive playstyle.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Tippis

[MAXsenna]

3 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

This is a wishlist item .. why keep debating with people that can't understand the concept? .. better to wait until he makes a wish and then troll his thread 

Hehe! That's a thought.
I have a new handle for him.
"The Grinch That Trolled the Wishlists"

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Edited April 24, 2022 by MAXsenna

[MAXsenna]

What Nick Grey himself said in the video. Why design a full fidelity module where not enough players will want to use all the crew positions? And DCS only does full fidelity. 

Well, we'll see what happens when the Lancaster module drops. The C-130 seems to be so popular that an FF transport module has been confirmed.
I assume the Lancaster might be even more popular, so I'll predict the B-17, right here, right now.
Some people in MP just wants to participate and have a nice time feeling being part of something.
I don't remember have many hours I have in the old Microprose F-19, and me and my friend did multiplayer on the same keyboard. I flew, he dropped bombs or whatever. The missions could sometimes last for 3-4 hours on that old 8088 with CGA (4 colour) graphics. Fantastic times!
Reminds me I should call him tomorrow and grab a beer. Were still buddies after 40 years, and he lives a few Kms away.
Yeah, I know I'm lucky!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

13 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Well, we'll see what happens when the Lancaster module drops.
 

Guarantee everyone on this thread wants a B-52 or a Lancaster so they can fly it. Not so they can sit for an hour manning a gun position or something. And it looks like the Lancaster is a mod, not commercial i.e. doesn’t have to be profitable.

Edited April 24, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Guarantee everyone on this thread wants a B-52 or a Lancaster so they can fly it.

Nope. Quite the opposite: I'd probably have a hard time convincing anyone to be the bus driver for any of those things…

If that's the quality of your guarantees, make sure you stay out of the insurance business.  

Edited April 24, 2022 by Tippis

[Exorcet]

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Guarantee everyone on this thread wants a B-52 or a Lancaster so they can fly it. Not so they can sit for an hour manning a gun position or something.

 

Why are we restricted to one position? I've used both seats in the F-14 and I've used the gunner position on the UH-1 because I enjoy them. People are asking for a B-52 to have a B-52 module.

[SharpeXB]

42 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Why are we restricted to one position? I've used both seats in the F-14 and I've used the gunner position on the UH-1 because I enjoy them.

Yeah but you probably aren’t the norm. 

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah but you probably aren’t the norm. 

And how do you know what the norm is?

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Guarantee everyone on this thread wants a B-52 or a Lancaster so they can fly it. Not so they can sit for an hour manning a gun position or something. And it looks like the Lancaster is a mod, not commercial i.e. doesn’t have to be profitable.

 

No, it's not a mod. It's a community module made from scratch.

Are you saying people needs to be 3rd parties to make good stuff? 

[Tippis]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah but you probably aren’t the norm. 

Now apply that to yourself.

You, more than anyone, needs to learn how to do that since that is the only thing your non-existing arguments are based on.

Oh, and just about everyone I've talked to who has the F-14 module has been in both seats. It's kind of the point of the module, after all…

[SharpeXB]

54 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And how do you know what the norm is?

Simon from ED and Grim Reapers seemed to have an idea. You can listen to this interview with Eagle Dynamics themselves on this very topic and they have the same conclusion. 

49 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

No, it's not a mod. It's a community module made from scratch.

This here says it’s a “mod”

https://youtu.be/FIS-tPl9QdM

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

13 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Simon from ED and Grim Reapers seemed to have an idea.

What GR say should, as always, be taken with a steamer trunk of salt, and neither they nor Simon actually say anything of the kind. Unless you're referring to some completely new source rather than your own invention when your previous assumptions of what was and wasn't said were shown to be wrong… in which case, [citation needed].

Again, you really should stop generalising from yourself and putting your words in other people's moths.

13 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

This here says it’s a “mod”

…in the same sense as the Hornet is a mod.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Tippis