Ideas to improve mods

[upyr1]

The community has a some great assets and modules. As you know I view mods as the answer to the redfor question. I know there are limitations on what ED can do with a sdk. However here are my ideas. 

• More categories on the user file page
• A mod manager especially one that can point to different file hosting services like Dropbox and Google drive 
• A hosting url tag that could be used with the mod manager 
• A line in the required asset tag that will open the mod manager with the url 
• The ability to assign a stand in asset from dcs core. I could see two options

1. Multi-player you see the stand-in instead of the mod. This could be set by a tag in the lau file or admin
2. Single player a total swap. This could be done by a tag in the file or set by the mission designer 

• A service date tag that will allow mods to show up using historical mode
• The ability to filter out servers that use mods and asset packs we don't own  

Edited August 16, 2023 by upyr1

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

As you know I view mods as the answer to the redfor question.

We know because you just posted about it yesterday, three times and I think you got the explanation why that’s not feasible. 

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

The ability to assign a stand in asset from dcs core.

And again, this just makes no sense. I see an Su-27 but surprise! It’s actually an amateur-made cartoonish mod Su-57! And it thrust vector turns on me I’m sure that’s what everyone wants to see in DCS. Surprise encounters with inauthentic mod planes

Edited August 15, 2023 by SharpeXB

[bies]

Amateur made, totally unrealistic, fictional MODs, made by a single guy in a few days, by changing some random values, without any data, any SME input, with completely fictional avionics, weapons, sensors, flight models, performance - are fun to fly once or twice.

But they are absolutely not any answer to "Redford question". 

Flying some Su-57 "patriotic" MOD Mach3 at 80,000ft (without semi-ramjet engines and with duralumin skin...) and turning 360° all day without losing any energy or without any laws of physics like some flying sorcerer becames cheap after 1-2 flights and it is not compatible with rest of DCS in any shape or form.

It's nice MODs work and me or you can make Mach 4 NGAD superfighter in a few days, changing some random numbers in F-15 file and adding some free 3d model, but it doesn't mean it should be integrated into DCS.

Full fidelity MiG-17, Su-22, MiG-23, maybe MiG-29 some day, are answer to "redfor question", not some arcade 100% fictional amateur made completely unrealistic Su-something MOD.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by bies

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, bies said:

some arcade 100% fictional amateur made Su-something MOD.

 that’s masquerading as a different aircraft if you didn’t download it

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, bies said:

Amateur made, totally unrealistic, fictional MODs, made by a single guy in a few days, by changing some random values, without any data, any SME input, with completely fictional avionics, weapons, sensors, flight models, performance - are fun to fly once or twice.

But they are absolutely not any answer to "Redford question". 

Flying some Su-57 MOD Mach3 at 80,000ft (without semi-ramjet engines and with duralumin skin...) and turning 360° all day without losing any energy or without any laws of physics like some flying sorcerer becames cheap after 1-2 flights and it is not compatible with rest of DCS in any shape or form.

It's nice MODs work and me or you can make Mach 4 NGAD fighter in a few days after work changing some random number in F-15 and adding some 3d model, but it doesn't mean it should be integrated into DCS.

MiG-17, Su-22, MiG-23, maybe MiG-29 some day, are answer to "redfor question", not some arcade 100% fictional amateur made Su-something MOD. 

 

You are really missing the point of the thread, one of the items on the list  

• The ability to filter out servers that use mods and asset packs we don't own  

It is there so people can ignore the mods they don't want to interact with. So please let's agree to disagree about the Su-57 or any other specific mod out there. While I would agree official modules are always the better solution the point of the thread was how to improve life for the DCSers who want to use mods so please focus on the list. 

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

We know because you just posted about it yesterday, three times and I think you got the explanation why that’s not feasible. 

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

As stated before the fact you don't want to use a mod and I am willing to do so is irrelevant to the discussion as it is about making life easier

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

And again, this just makes no sense. I see an Su-27 but surprise! It’s actually an amateur-made cartoonish mod Su-57! And it thrust vector turns on me I’m sure that’s what everyone wants to see in DCS. Surprise encounters with inauthentic mod planes

I don't think anyone would be willing to see that which is why I also requested 

• The ability to filter out servers that use mods and asset packs we don't own  

If you are willing to connect to someone's 5th Gen server without the mods then you get what you deserve. Your thoughts on the total replacement idea for single player for example when the A-7 comes out, and you down a mission with the A-4 they might get replaced with A-7s if you lack the A-4 and the designer set an them as an alternative or for that matter anything else on the list we can and should agree to disagree about the Su-57 

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

 that’s masquerading as a different aircraft if you didn’t download it

I would also like a filter too,  if you are willing to connect to a server with the Su-57 without downloading it, then you get what you deserve. Now how about everything else on the list. The fact you don't like the Su-57 mod is rather irrelevant as the point here is not discuss the Su-57 rather simply mod support  

Edited August 16, 2023 by upyr1

[SharpeXB]

12 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The ability to filter out servers that use mods

 I can’t imagine most people wanting to use mods online. Especially if they’re fantasy aircraft. So I don’t think it’s worth the effort from ED to implement this.

14 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Your thoughts on the total replacement idea for single player for example when the A-7 comes out, and you down own a mission with the A-4 they might get replaced with A-7s

Doesn’t make sense for single player either. They’re different aircraft. 

[SharpeXB]

8 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

if you are willing to connect to a server with the Su-57 without downloading it

I don’t think many players want fictional aircraft in DCS, especially in multiplayer. I wouldn’t want to see MP junked up with separate mod downloads every time you try to join online. It’s a terrible idea and I don’t think the majority of players want that either. Mods are a pain to deal with and can cause stability problems and interfere with troubleshooting. Many of them are poor quality. They aren’t worth the trouble and are not a good solution for adding content. 
 

[upyr1]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

 I can’t imagine most people wanting to use mods online. Especially if they’re fantasy aircraft. So I don’t think it’s worth the effort from ED to implement this.

19 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Your opinion doesn't change the fact they exist. Maybe the only people using them on line are the Grim Reapers may be not. Anyway  If you don't think the graphical replacement is a good idea that's fine that is actually contributing to the discussion. However the mod/asset filter I think should be automatic as there are people who don't have the WWII asset pack. 

 

16 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Doesn’t make sense for single player either. They’re different aircraft. 

  They are different but the issue is how much flexibility is a mission designer willing to give to ensure the mission is playable by more people. Which goes back to the reason the filter request exists. 

[Paganus]

Stability, security, and legal reasons make most of your asks impossible. More categories in the file section, maybe. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

If you are willing to connect to someone's 5th Gen server without the mods then you get what you deserve.

Indeed nobody would do this. So why bother with a “substitution” feature?

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Indeed nobody would do this. So why bother with a “substitution” feature?

If you don't think anyone would be willing to connect to a server that is running a mod they don't own then there should be an option to hid servers with asset packs or mods an individual doesn't own. 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Paganus said:

Stability, security, and legal reasons make most of your asks impossible. More categories in the file section, maybe. 

mind going over why you think my list is impossible in more detail? The main difference between what we have now and what I am asking for would be an official mod manager and a filter to hide servers that use mods and asset packs we don't have or to substitute them. Stability issues are inherent to mods, the security and legal issues- I believe ED currently curates the user file section so this could be curated as well. You use mods at your own risk 

[draconus]

@upyr1 Man, you started over 200 wishlist threads in a recent years. Do you even play? Seems like you just want to turn DCS into something it's never meant to be. Sometimes enough is enough.

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, upyr1 said:

If you don't think anyone would be willing to connect to a server that is running a mod they don't own then there should be an option to hid hide servers with asset packs or mods an individual doesn't own. 

Since these mods are unofficial, ED wouldn’t be able to create a filter for them. There are about 13,000 mods for DCS, how would ED filter these? Such a filter would only be possible for official content like asset packs. And since the vast majority of players wouldn’t use mods online, it’s a waste of effort to make such a filter. 

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Stability issues are inherent to mods

Right. So trying to promote their widespread use in multiplayer is a terrible idea. It would just make a big mess for everyone. 

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Since these mods are unofficial, ED wouldn’t be able to create a filter for them. There are about 13,000 mods for DCS, how would ED filter these? Such a filter would only be possible for official content like asset packs. And since the vast majority of players wouldn’t use mods online, it’s a waste of effort to make such a filter. 

It will take a lot less time than you imagine, here is a screenshot of a mission I am working on that uses mods. If you notice there is a box that has the words "this mission uses units from the following modules" then proceeds to list the Iowa-class battleship, LPD and LSD. Then if you look at the second screenshot showing the installed modules we see Iowa class 1980 and other modules that aren't official modules. Now if computers could only compare two lists which  I would imagine would look something like this 

int main()
{

    int iar1[] = {1,2,3,4,5};
    int iar2[] = {1,2,3,4,5};

    if (iar1 == iar2)
        cout << "Arrays are equal.";
    else
        cout << "Arrays are not equal.";

    return 0;   
}

especially if it could be done over a network. This advanced technology could also be useful for people who don't use mods, it might be used to filter out the WWII asset pack or search for a pilot slot for a particular aircraft

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Right. So trying to promote their widespread use in multiplayer is a terrible idea. It would just make a big mess for everyone. 

I've never said mods are the ideal solution I have only said they exist and sometimes they are the only solution available and you also use them at your own risk. In my experience, the stability issues often are caused by out-of-date mods, which is why I want to see a mod manager that will check for and download updates.      

 

[SharpeXB]

15 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

If you notice there is a box that has the words "this mission uses units from the following modules"

Yes but ED won’t know what these are and it’s not their job to keep track of them. 

18 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I've never said mods are the ideal solution

Yet you’re trying to promote them as some sort of semi-official content. It’s not ED's job to manage these or determine which are broken or out of date or whatever.

Your ideas would just make a mess out of the game for everyone. 

[Silver_Dragon]

It's like trying to create a "ST*** Workshop", have ED give you the SDK, take responsibility for it and create all the infrastructure, and on top of that it becomes a kind of W*/W** and the realism disappears...... 

 

 

 

[SharpeXB]

58 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

you also use them at your own risk.

Right. Your own risk and time to manage and deal with. Not ED’s. They’ve got more important things to focus on. 

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

@upyr1 Man, you started over 200 wishlist threads in a recent years. Do you even play? Seems like you just want to turn DCS into something it's never meant to be. Sometimes enough is enough.

I do play DCS and I like to use mods to cover missing assets.  I will also post here to talk about the short comings. The biggest issue with DCS is the lack of assets, the Korean era is for example has no RedFor apart from the MiG-15, also the I-16 is the only thing in its era then we have the lack of naval assets.  As we will never have modern redFor aircraft apart from AI the only possible way people are going to fill that gap in PVP will be with mods. I'm way more interested in the cold war than the modern era as we have most of the cold war MiGs either in DCS or in development. However we have people who want to fly PVP with modern and they are complaining about the lack of contemporary RedFor. Even in the cold war era, we still have some mods like the A-4 Skyhawk and the OV-10 Bronco.  

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes but ED won’t know what these are and it’s not their job to keep track of them. 

DCS already keeps track of what mods you have installed 

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Yet you’re trying to promote them as some sort of semi-official content. It’s not ED's job to manage these or determine which are broken or out of date or whatever.

Your ideas would just make a mess out of the game for everyone. 

I never said ED should determine if mods are out of date, that would be for the mod user and developer. They key things I want to see to improve mod support, as I keep saying are the following 

1. A mod manager that will watch the DCS user files and a few other ED-approved servers
2. A filter that will enable users to hide assets they don't have

As I keep saying we have the mods now, some like the A-4 are really good others are crap. we also have a mod section on the user file section and in the forum. The mod mess is already here I'm proposing something that would help deal with it- mainly the mod manager and the filter. 

 

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

It's like trying to create a "ST*** Workshop", have ED give you the SDK, take responsibility for it and create all the infrastructure, and on top of that it becomes a kind of W*/W** and the realism disappears...... 

 

I have never asked for the SDK, so drop that strawman right now. I know others have asked for some sort of SDK light. As I keep stating the ekey things I want are a mod manager that checks the user file section and a few other ED-approved servers and the ability to hide assets we don't have installed whether those are mods or official asset packs. If you look at the forum right now there is a section for modding 

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/69-dcs-modding/

Then if you look at the user file section there is a filter for mods and possibly 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/type-is-mod/apply/

They have not destroyed DCS- I fail to see why a mod manager or a filter to hide mods would do so. Please stick with things that are actually in the post.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Right. Your own risk and time to manage and deal with. Not ED’s. They’ve got more important things to focus on. 

ED already has  mod sections in their user files and forum. Your answer to anything that might make DCS better is to oppose it, it is up to ED to decide where they want to spend their time.   

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Then if you look at the user file section there is a filter for mods

When you filter that down there’s still about 150 different mods for the F-18 alone. How would ED know what these all are in order to filter out what you have or don’t have?

Mods are a gigantic pain to deal with but they’re your pain. It’s not something ED should be burdened with. 
 

11 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Your answer to anything that might make DCS better is to oppose it

I’m all in favor of things that would actually make DCS better. Mods are not a good way to do that at all. 

[upyr1]

51 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

When you filter that down there’s still about 150 different mods for the F-18 alone. How would ED know what these all are in order to filter out what you have or don’t have?

Mods are a gigantic pain to deal with but they’re your pain. It’s not something ED should be burdened with. 

ED doesn't need to know what all these files are in order for the filter to work

. As I pointed out DCS already ready compiles a list of the mods used in a mission and the mods being used, all they would need to do is add some code to compare both lists. then hide the servers where the lists don't match. As for updating files, all ED would need is to have the mod manager look at a URL.

51 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m all in favor of things that would actually make DCS better. Mods are not a good way to do that at all. 

You are also against using an old-fashioned graphics wizard, a tool to set the most common controls, checklists, 

Edited August 16, 2023 by upyr1