3D pilot models - black and females

Don't you think it's weird how many white men think it's a waste of time giving representation to women and minorities, while women and minorities think it's a good idea.

I wonder why it is that the two groups have such different opinions about it.

 

That's only your judgment. How can you speak for the whole female and black community? Have you really asked all of them?

 

Now, let me turn the discussion the other way around. I'm white, I'm a man. When I fly the P-51 with a Red Tails livery, I get a black pilot. Do I even care? Hell no! It has never crossed my mind, ever, that there was something that felt wrong about it. Now if I can have my pilot with a different skin tone than mine and not even frown a single eyebrow, I'm sure there are other reasonable people who can do it too.

AMERICAN RED TAILS

 

RUSSIAN FEMALE PILOTS WWII

 

FEMALE PILOT WWII SPITFIRE

 

MODERN RUSSIAN FEMALE PILOT

 

FIRST ITALIAN WOMAN PILOT FIORENZA DE BERNARDI AND FATHER MARIO DE BERNARDI.

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2019 by Xilon_x

Katya' Budanova Movie of istoric female russian pilot

 

@ Xilon_x: What's your intention behind posting those video links? Proving that female, male, black, white and what so ever coloured pilots exist? I think we'll all believe your point without those videos, too. We're rather talking about wether it makes sense to implement pilots of different colour and gender in DCS or not.

 

On a pilot model wearing helmet, visor and oxygen-mask there isn't really much of a skin surface to be seen anyway, so I don't understand what all the excitement here is about... :huh:

@ Xilon_x: What's your intention behind posting those video links? Proving that female, male, black, white and what so ever coloured pilots exist? I think we'll all believe your point without those videos, too. We're rather talking about wether it makes sense to implement pilots of different colour and gender in DCS or not.

 

On a pilot model wearing helmet, visor and oxygen-mask there isn't really much of a skin surface to be seen anyway, so I don't understand what all the excitement here is about... :huh:

 

 

if the pilot is colored, he can be seen from the skin of the neck if he does not have a dark visor can be seen from the skin of the face and eyes.

as far as a pilot woman is concerned, you immediately recognize her from shoulder width. from a lock of hair that comes out of the helmet you also recognize it from the size of the chest.

a woman's neck is thinner than a man's. if the woman does not have a dark visor, you immediately recognize it from her eyes.

if the pilot is colored, he can be seen from the skin of the neck if he does not have a dark visor can be seen from the skin of the face and eyes.

as far as a pilot woman is concerned, you immediately recognize her from shoulder width. from a lock of hair that comes out of the helmet you also recognize it from the size of the chest.

a woman's neck is thinner than a man's. if the woman does not have a dark visor, you immediately recognize it from her eyes.

 

 

I'm fascinated... :smilewink:

 

And this is important for a flight simulator?

"things that are important to xilon_x" in itself kind of says everything

I thought for more than once before opening this thread. I’ve expected the possible reactions of users like 98abaile who will be outraged of this “progressive” and “hypocritical” request. I’m glad to see that there are many who think the contrary – it’s a low hanging fruit that require little time investment and got a potential to make the game more immersive for major non male/white audiences.

 

I think it’s funny that users post their priorities in this post like it’s the absolute truth. Defend them and prove how the developers should first do X instead of Y. Meanwhile, I’ve seen no response what so ever from the developers. What I did see is multiple development photos of the carrier deck crew. There are colored personal there… in HD. Meaning – the developers DO see the importance and put some work into it. Moreover, RAZBAM had even put the time to create a very detailed pilot model. Meaning – the developers do see the pilot model as an important item.

 

Bottom line, this thread was intended as a request for the developers (and I'd appreciate their response). If you don’t like the idea/don’t care about this – don’t waste your time on mentioning how much you don’t care. Instead, open a thread with your own request for the developers.

[...]

Bottom line, this thread was intended as a request for the developers (and I'd appreciate their response). If you don’t like the idea/don’t care about this – don’t waste your time on mentioning how much you don’t care. Instead, open a thread with your own request for the developers.

 

Good point. For me having diverse pilot models is very low on my personal priority/wish list, but it's still a very rasonable proposal.

 

I myself have made wishlist threads about way more minor aspects to be added or changed and normally they get 2 replies ("+1") before they vanish in obscurity...

I think it’s funny that users post their priorities in this post like it’s the absolute truth. Defend them and prove how the developers should first do X instead of Y. Meanwhile, I’ve seen no response what so ever from the developers.

 

Yes because nobody has ever disagreed on a DCS wishlist thread before... That just doesn't happen...

 

"Meanwhile, I've seen no response what so ever from the developers." Oh for.... then why are they doing it then? Su-34? Ural-375? Fire Truck (seriously)? A-10C?, Ka-50? Kuznetsov? Nimitz?

 

What I did see is multiple development photos of the carrier deck crew. There are colored personal there… in HD. Meaning – the developers DO see the importance and put some work into it.

 

Or it could be that diversity here (as I've said for the billionth time already) makes a hell of a lot more sense than the in-cockpit pilot model, something that even IF you turn on (it seems a lot don't from YouTube, from screenshots), in most cases you are very hard pressed to notice the difference, if it's perceptible at all. Okay then what about from outside? Well then it's exactly the same argument, pretty much verbatim about any outdated model, regardless of exactly what. My question is what is more noticeable and what is more important, that's what most of the discourse is, not a load of 'racist, sexist white men outraged at political correctness', reality check: there's a grand total of 1 post on this entire thread with anything resembling that opinion, so anything beyond that is probably straw man territory.

 

For me, well I'm a fan of consistency, and I'm drawn to beautiful graphics like a moth to a flame... I care not just about things feeling real, I care about them looking real - when I play DCS I do it so that I can get as close to flying something that I can't, on consumer hardware. Things looking real goes a long way into the effectiveness of escapism and the apparent suspension of reality that I get playing a computer game. Not only that, when I see very decent models like the Su-24, MiG-31, E-2 etc and then I look at Half-Life 1 (1998)/IL-2 Sturmovik (2001) quality models such as the Tu-95/142, S-3, SH-60B, M60A3 etc I don't so much go 'that looks bad' I'm more likely to go 'that looks wrong' It's almost like I've been teleported somewhere else, somewhere I don't recognise (excuse the melodrama), that's why it's an issue to me.

 

Moreover, RAZBAM had even put the time to create a very detailed pilot model. Meaning – the developers do see the pilot model as an important item.

 

Oh my...

 

"Moreover, ED had even put the time to create very detailed train models. Meaning – the developers do see the train models as an important item."

 

Seeing the problem?

 

If you don’t like the idea/don’t care about this

I fully agree with the sentiment and your reasons for doing this, I can see why people might find representation a matter of importance to them. But there are areas in DCS either lacking or absent where diversity is way better suited to, like the aforementioned deck crews, but also communications that would vastly improve immersion for everyone not only that but these very things are items that have been requested by tonnes of users, for years and years and years, that is the reason.

 

don’t waste your time on mentioning how much you don’t care. Instead, open a thread with your own request for the developers.

There have been requests for improvements, the developers are now finally working on it (all we asked was it to be improved) we don't need to open more, but when there are requests like this, which would go hand in hand with features currently being worked on, that's why I post. And yeah, you are just going to have to accept that people are going to disagree with you and they're going to voice they're disagreements and objections. They have as much right to voice a disagreement as you do to voice to yours, in exactly the same breath, you have as much right to disagree with whatever I post as I do to post it.

 

Look, if I post something and you or anyone else thinks it's trivial, unimportant, low-priority or even stupid, I fully support your right to call it such and voice your opinion. People are allowed to have other priorities than me and they're allowed to be vocal about it, as well as voice their concerns and their objections. In DCS we have limited resources, almost far more limited resources than a lot of the competition out there, so having priorities that most people agree with is very important in almost every way you can think of. And developers are more likely to consider something if lots of people want it and agree with it, of course it's a far stretch from being the only thing, but I imagine developers are going to be more swayed with what's most requested and what's considered most important (among other things), developers ultimately get paid by their customers, so satisfying said customers will do ED well as a viable business.

 

I've posted plenty of probably trivial and low-priority requests, I even describe them as low-priority in my OPs or if not further down the line. You will almost always get disagreement so long as people think there's something else they'd rather see first, I was in the exact same boat as you when I posted this https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191121.

 

The bottom line is that while this is a reasonable proposal, it's implementation would be far better suited to other areas which have been requested by tonnes of people for years on end and a request like this would go perfectly with them. That is all.

Edited August 17, 2019 by Northstar98

And yeah, you are just going to have to accept that people are going to disagree with you and they're going to voice they're disagreements and objections. They have as much right to voice a disagreement as you do to post, just like you have as much right to disagree with whatever I post as I do to post it...

 

This.

Never expected a 1.7 thread could grow that long.

Never expected a 1.7 thread could grow that long.

 

I'm probably to blame for that :no_sad: