The ability to pick and choose skins.

[Czar66]

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Are you talking about some way of enforcing livery installation in multiplayer? Because I recognise that under certain circumstances, it might be useful to enforce liveries be installed/unmodified. In that case, I would certainly be open to having them be something the integrity checker checks for, at the discretion of the server owner or mission designer.

Yes. If you let the user chose which livery is installed, there is no way of keeping them to only installing the brightest airshow/aniversary liveries on enemies planes for visibility advantage.

Edited May 26, 2024 by Czar66

[Northstar98]

2 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

Yes. If you let the user chose which livery is installed, there is no way of keeping them to only installing the brightest airshow liveries on enemies planes for visibility advantage.

In that case - yes, definitely reasonable.

[MAXsenna]

That's what I advocate for the most and why I mentioned a livery manager on that format. But also, the user choice can't alter multiplayer camouflage usage. Example, having only silver or white livery for MiGs against a forest background.

One can already cheat that way...

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Beirut]

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Let's see if an analogy will help you out (probably not because you won't read it). Let's pretend for a minute that DCS, when an update or a repair is run, resets your controls and settings back to their defaults.

 

I read what you write. I just don't agree with it.

 

Deleting some skin files that cause you no headache at all as far as storage goes and are quick to delete - as you yourself said - bears no resemblance to being forced to repeatedly remap your HOTAS. It's not in the same ballpark. It's not even on the same planet. It is, in effect, a non-analogy.

 

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I definitely appreciate you not arguing against it though, for seemingly no reason whatsoever.

 

I can't imagine that my argument against it is of any less weight than your argument for it. I believe it to be a non-problem. A feather amongst lead weights. A sardine amongst sharks.  A loin cloth amongst well tailored suits. 

 

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, the only thing I'll say here is it should be up to the user what's more important to them.

 

As we have both done. Everything is fine. 

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, Beirut said:

I read what you write. I just don't agree with it.

You see, you say that, but several times now (and indeed even now), you're still arguing against points I've already addressed or are misrepresenting what I said, so I don't believe you.

It's completely fine to not agree with it - there's no problem there whatsoever. What is a problem though is making irrelevant points that have already been addressed and arguing against a misrepresention.

If you were reading what I said, I doubt you would've typed this:

9 hours ago, Beirut said:

Deleting some skin files that cause you no headache at all as far as storage goes and are quick to delete - as you yourself said - bears no resemblance to being forced to repeatedly remap your HOTAS. It's not in the same ballpark. It's not even on the same planet. It is, in effect, a non-analogy.

See, if you actually read what I said, it means you would've got the fact that it's not having to do it the once that's the problem - it's having to do it over and over again, meaning the time adds up and adds up. I'll quote myself again:

Quote

I am fine with making edits and adjustments myself. It doesn't take much time to make them the once.

But, because there isn't a livery manager, any edits get overwritten, so they need to be done over and over again.

So the time adds up and adds up.

If there was a livery manager, not only could I choose what I install, but it would also mean that any fixes I decide to make only need to be made once.

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

So let me get this straight:

You think having to do something that doesn't take a massive amount of time to do once, but is something you have to do repeatedly, when you should only have to do it the once, bears no resemblance whatsoever and is completely incomparable to having to do something that doesn't take a massive amount of time to do once, but is something you have to do repeatedly, when you should only need to do it the once?

Have I got that right?

9 hours ago, Beirut said:

I can't imagine that my argument against it is of any less weight than your argument for it.

I'm not surprised that you can't imagine that. You don't even seem to understand what the argument for it even is, you're either not reading it or you're misrepresenting it.

Also, what argument against it? You've so far told me something completely and demonstrably irrelevant and a non-sequitur, you've now just told me that you think this is minor? None of those are arguments against it. Hell, I even agree that this is minor, certainly in comparison to things like working on the AI, or the damage modelling, or clouds blocking LOS, data cartridge functionality and dozens and dozens of other major, gameplay-impacting updates. But I'm capable of advocating (even strongly advocating) for things that are both major and minor.

Edited May 27, 2024 by Northstar98

[Beirut]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

See, if you actually read what I said, it means you would've got the fact that it's not having to do it the once that's the problem - it's having to do it over and over again, meaning the time adds up and adds up. 

 

See, if you actually read what I said, it means you would've got the fact that I realize it has to be done repeatedly. But you yourself said it takes very little time. You're doubtlessly spending far more time writing about how much time it takes than the time it takes to actually do it.

 

And I would repeat that your analogy to remapping your HOTAS is a non-analogy.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

You don't even seem to understand what the argument for it even is, you're either not reading it or you're misrepresenting it.

 

I read what you write and I understand what the argument is. You've repeatedly asked why you should have to have files on your PC that you don't want or use. My response is somewhere between "That's the nature of software" and "Life isn't fair". 

 

And as by pretty much everyone's account this qualifies as verrrrrry low on the to-do list, and presents no real problem at all to anyone, I feel at liberty to point that out.

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

But I'm capable of advocating (even strongly advocating) for things that are both major and minor.

 

And you exhibit an ability to advocate for solutions to non-problems with a level of precision and vehemence that is unmatched. Kudos.

[Northstar98]

10 hours ago, Beirut said:

See, if you actually read what I said, it means you would've got the fact that I realize it has to be done repeatedly.

So how exactly is it a non-analogy then?

That was the key part of the analogy.

Your responses either appear to demonstrate either a miscomprehension of the analogy or appear to be at odds with each other.

10 hours ago, Beirut said:

But you yourself said it takes very little time.

But as I've said several times now, it's time that unnecesarily adds up with subsequent updates. You would have a point here if I only had to do this the once, but I don't, so you don't.

It takes me very little time to bind my HOTAS and set my settings up, but if I had to do it over and over again, when I should only need to do it the once, then that would be a problem and that's exactly what the problem is here.

10 hours ago, Beirut said:

You're doubtlessly spending far more time writing about how much time it takes than the time it takes to actually do it.

That's rather ironic - you're spending quite an amount of time pointlessly arguing against it seemingly purely for the sake of it, despite the fact that you don't actually care about it. What gives?

10 hours ago, Beirut said:

and presents no real problem at all to anyone, I feel at liberty to point that out.

If it presented no problem to anyone, then why do we have multiple threads asking for such a thing? Just because it isn't a problem for you doesn't mean it's not a problem (even if it's only a small one) to anyone else.

10 hours ago, Beirut said:

You've repeatedly asked why you should have to have files on your PC that you don't want or use.

And don't need to store and come at little to no consequence to me if I don't store them.

10 hours ago, Beirut said:

My response is somewhere between "That's the nature of software" and "Life isn't fair".

Only it demonstrably isn't the nature of software, as again, similar managers exist in DCS for items that also represent a small part of the total install size, that fundamentally have the exact functionality requested. So that's just false.

As for "life isn't fair" - it's a fundamentally useless point which could apply to everything. You could stand in the way of any kind of progress or improvement with that attitude.

Edited May 27, 2024 by Northstar98

[Beirut]

8 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

That's rather ironic - you're spending quite an amount of time pointlessly arguing against it seemingly purely for the sake of it, despite the fact that you don't actually care about it. What gives?

 

The eternal quest for truth. 

 

I find it fascinating when non-problems are elevated to the rank of near disaster by the same people saying it's a non-problem, requiring a long series of even longer posts to elucidate. Like all that nonsense with some people saying the Assets Pack was "splitting the community", even though they said the cost of the Assets Pack was in no way the issue, and yet were bothered that people had to buy it, even though they said the cost was in no way the issue, but were still bothered that people had to buy it, even though they said the cost was in no way the issue...  

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Beirut said:

I find it fascinating when non-problems are elevated to the rank of near disaster by the same people saying it's a non-problem

Perhaps if you'd stop dishonestly misrepresenting what they say, maybe you'd find it less fascinating?

3 hours ago, Beirut said:

requiring a long series of even longer posts to elucidate.

Posts that wouldn't exist, if people would stop misrepresenting what was said, so they can argue against something that they, by their own admission, don't care about, for seemingly no reason whatsoever.

See also: Brandolini's law.

3 hours ago, Beirut said:

Like all that nonsense with some people saying the Assets Pack was "splitting the community", even though they said the cost of the Assets Pack was in no way the issue, and yet were bothered that people had to buy it, even though they said the cost was in no way the issue, but were still bothered that people had to buy it, even though they said the cost was in no way the issue...

There you go again...

Edited May 27, 2024 by Northstar98

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Perhaps if you'd stop dishonestly misrepresenting what they say, maybe you'd find it less fascinating?

Posts that wouldn't exist, if people would stop misrepresenting what was said, so they can argue against something that they, by their own admission, don't care about, for seemingly no reason whatsoever.

 

I'm just taking you at your word. You've said this is a problem that isn't really a problem, and I agree. Yet you write about it at great length, for days. If you are going to do that then it is reasonable to expect a response. And we are both free to respond - or not - as we see fit. 

 

And at this point I think the time you have spent writing about the "problem" has far surpassed the time required to handle the problem. So efficiency remains an issue.    

 

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

See also: Brandolini's law.

 

Good name for a premium pasta sauce. 

 

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

There you again...

 

...being correct. It's a heavy burden, But I manage it. 

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, Beirut said:

I'm just taking you at your word. You've said this is a problem that isn't really a problem, and I agree.

No you aren't and no I haven't. Nowhere have I said that this is a problem that isn't really a problem. Once again, dishonestly misrepresenting what I've said for only God knows how many times.

7 hours ago, Beirut said:

Yet you write about it at great length, for days.

Well right back at you! You don't even care about this, yet here you are.

Again, which wouldn't have happened:

9 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

[...] if people would stop misrepresenting what was said, so they can argue against something that they, by their own admission, don't care about, for seemingly no reason whatsoever.

I'm only left to conclude that all I've actually been doing for days is feeding a gish galloping troll. I'm absolutely beyond tired of having everything I say dishonestly twisted by you seemingly just so you can keep baiting a response from me over and over again and that's even when you acknowledge anything that was said at all.

I haven't added anyone to my ignore list up to now, but I'm not going to engage with trolls any more.

[Beirut]

32 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

No you aren't and no I haven't. Nowhere have I said that this is a problem that isn't really a problem. Once again, dishonestly misrepresenting what I've said for only God knows how many times.

Well right back at you! You don't even care about this, yet here you are.

Again, which wouldn't have happened:

I'm only left to conclude that all I've actually been doing for days is feeding a gish galloping troll. I'm absolutely beyond tired of having everything I say dishonestly twisted by you seemingly just so you can keep baiting a response from me over and over again and that's even when you acknowledge anything that was said at all.

I haven't added anyone to my ignore list up to now, but I'm not going to engage with trolls any more.

 

You're both angry and accusatory. I suggest more flying and less posting.

 

And with the time you save posting less often, you can delete those files that seem to bother you. It's a win all around.