Integrating the highest quality mods like Community A-4 into DCS

[HWasp]

I have no problem with people, who disagree with my post for any reason.

 

What I don't like is toxic shit attitude for no reason. There is also no need for voluntary hobby moderators to come and bark at people.

8 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

 Having the A-4 installed doesn't interfere with you joining servers, but yes, many servers opt not to bother with mods because it requires everyone joining to also have the mod. Not all, though, there are servers that use it, and others that occasionally do so. It's the same with every other game on the net : if a given server doesn't use your pet mod, find one that does. Or start one.

  

  Yep, that's true, and I'm sure they are since it's such a well worn topic and answered in the mod's FAQ, and the developer of it has explained at length before why they don't want to incorporate it into DCS proper. It's a wishlist yes, but that doesn't mean only people who support it are allowed to post on it.

 

[Mars Exulte]

Nobody's barking at you, including me, nor is anyone moderating you. You're more than welcome to make whatever threads you want, but when you choose one of the ''every two weeks'' topics, that's even addressed in the FAQ of the very thing you're requesting... You can expect there will be at least a chance that not everyone's going to jump on your happy happy bandwagon @@

[VTJS17_Fire]

39 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  A licensed and authorised developer, yes. It isn't hard to grasp what the difference is.

 

It was just an opinion/idea. I'm in vanilla DCS.

[Evoman]

25 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

Nobody's barking at you, including me, nor is anyone moderating you. You're more than welcome to make whatever threads you want, but when you choose one of the ''every two weeks'' topics, that's even addressed in the FAQ of the very thing you're requesting... You can expect there will be at least a chance that not everyone's going to jump on your happy happy bandwagon @@

I concur with this. That is why it is encouraged to at least do a simple search for other related topics before anyone starts a new thread. The answer may have already been given in one of those other thread discussions. Another topic that ranks at the top that keeps coming up that has been talked about countless times is why is there not more modern Russian aircraft.

[upyr1]

Since including the full A-4 module is out of the question, would using the 3d model be out of the question as well as part of some sort of community asset pack?

Edited February 22, 2021 by upyr1

[probad]

remember when the a-4 mod was a grassroots community effort?

and remember when it demonstrated that grassroots community efforts are utter jokes because it takes too much effort to walk instead of talk?

so gospadin had to turn it back into a properly managed closed project?

 

but here we are full circle with the community popping up again going full ideas man on it

the irony is delicious, i love it

[HWasp]

1 hour ago, Mars Exulte said:

Nobody's barking at you, including me, nor is anyone moderating you. You're more than welcome to make whatever threads you want, but when you choose one of the ''every two weeks'' topics, that's even addressed in the FAQ of the very thing you're requesting... You can expect there will be at least a chance that not everyone's going to jump on your happy happy bandwagon @@

 

Ok, maybe that is just the normal way you communicate with people. I find it unusual, but who am I to judge?

If there is a thread you don't like for some reason, you can always just ignore it, very easy solution. ED mods are perfectly capable of deleting/merging useless threads like this, they do it all the time.

 

I do agree though, I should have searched first. 

 

That being said it was interesting to see, how a thread with a positive message (even if unnecessary and useless) turns into shit on this forum.

[probad]

just because it sounds positive doesnt make it a positive though and maybe that sounds weird to you

but disregarding the will of the mod team roughshod is inherently rude, even if you present it politely

 

how can anyone talk about not hurting the feelings of forum members at the same time callously treating the developers' wishes? are they not human because, in rendering a service to society, they have suddenly degraded themselves to mere servants?

 

disgusting.

Edited February 22, 2021 by probad

[HWasp]

4 minutes ago, probad said:

just because it sounds positive doesnt make it a positive though and maybe that sounds weird to you

but disregarding the will of the mod team roughshod is inherently rude, even if you present it politely

 

 

There was no intention to disregard the will of the mod team. This was not a demand. If it sounded like a demand, then there is a misunderstanding, simple as that.

[Mars Exulte]

3 hours ago, Eight Ball said:

I cant think of any other game where the community is so eager for new content and so anti-mods.

  I don't think it's antimod, though. The mod section is overflowing and lots of people use it, including many of the people in this thread (me, too). Equating ''a couple of the most popular servers don't bother cause it might hurt their all important numbers'' to a wider ''anti mod'' current is inaccurate.

 

  I think the issue is that people see all these 3rd party developers and have absolutely no f'ing idea about the effort, expense, and legality of actually doing any of that. They equate legal, licensed 3rd party devs as ''glorified modders'', especially when they see stuff like the MB-339 getting made official. Problem is, they completely ignore the part where the MB-339 was not just ''officially accepted'', it was ALSO licensed and is being substantially rebuilt to make use of the SDK.

 

  In other words, armchair enthusiasts with ''an idea'' and no notion how any of this actually works. And to be honest, that's really common around here, anyway. People routinely complain about bugs that are actually features (asymmetric wings on MiG-15 causing roll at transonic speeds) cause they don't read the manuals, and very often don't appreciate the complexity of the actual working simulation. They just think ''War Thunder with jets, wooooo!'' The ignorance is excusable to a point, until it just starts stemming from laziness.

59 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Since including the full A-4 module is out of the question, would using the 3d model be out of the question as well as part of some sort of community asset pack?

  That would still be up to the developer of the mod, which people seem to keep forgetting in all this. It is not up to the community or ED, it doesn't belong to them!

 

  But from a technical standpoint, implementing just an AI model with some spreadsheet characteristics is a lot easier and does not require the maintenance that a full module does, nor is it likely to run into the substantial legal hurdles.

 

  But again, everyone is ignoring this is not community or ED property. It BELONGS to the A-4 mod team.

[probad]

some of us i think are hostile because we're aware dcs exists in a rather hostile environment -- a greater social undercurrent where quantities have trumped qualities. talks of simply "more content" ignore the burning issue of "of what quality?"; arguments in favor of "more players" disregard the unfortunate problem of "of what interests?"

 

i think at least that there is an obligation to turn the discourse to pay attention to these devilish details, even if it is discomforting, as they are the nucleus of what makes dcs stand apart from the crowd

Edited February 22, 2021 by probad

[Mars Exulte]

28 minutes ago, HWasp said:

 

Ok, maybe that is just the normal way you communicate with people. I find it unusual, but who am I to judge?

  No hard feelings on either side, hopefully.

 

28 minutes ago, HWasp said:

If there is a thread you don't like for some reason, you can always just ignore it, very easy solution.

  Likewise with responses you don't like.

 

28 minutes ago, HWasp said:

ED mods are perfectly capable of deleting/merging useless threads like this, they do it all the time.

  Yep. 

 

28 minutes ago, HWasp said:

I do agree though, I should have searched first. 

  No big deal.

 

28 minutes ago, HWasp said:

That being said it was interesting to see, how a thread with a positive message (even if unnecessary and useless) turns into shit on this forum.

  It didn't turn into shit. It was pointed out the legal issues inherent with your request and the fact you are COMPLETELY DISREGARDING the owners of the property in question, namely the A-4 developers themselves.

 

  Case and point this sort of ''this belongs to ME'' approach (it is not communal property, it belongs to the people who made it of which you aren't) was specifically mentioned as one of the big reasons they did NOT want to make it official. They did not want to deal with all the people thinking they're entitled to it, being rude when it doesn't work right or has glitches, etc. Go look at any module's bug threads, or anything in RazBam's forum section, and you'll easily see why maybe, just maybe, some people don't want to out up with all that bs.

[probad]

in the spirit of reconciliation i should say that its not lost upon me the underlying goodwill of this proposal as a way to compliment the a-4 devs on a job well done. its just unfortunate that the realities make it a counterproductive suggestion.

[HWasp]

Having almost all the DCS modules for comparison, I must say that the new A-4 2.0 is a great quality mod, the new flight model feels great, effects, sounds are really nice, everyone should try it. Dev team did an amazing job.

 

I think this thread was blown way out of proportions, makes no sense to discuss this any further.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  In other words, armchair enthusiasts with ''an idea'' and no notion how any of this actually works. And to be honest, that's really common around here, anyway. People routinely complain about bugs that are actually features (asymmetric wings on MiG-15 causing roll at transonic speeds) cause they don't read the manuals, and very often don't appreciate the complexity of the actual working simulation. They just think ''War Thunder with jets, wooooo!'' The ignorance is excusable to a point, until it just starts stemming from laziness.

  That would still be up to the developer of the mod, which people seem to keep forgetting in all this. It is not up to the community or ED, it doesn't belong to them!

 

  But from a technical standpoint, implementing just an AI model with some spreadsheet characteristics is a lot easier and does not require the maintenance that a full module does, nor is it likely to run into the substantial legal hurdles.

 

  But again, everyone is ignoring this is not community or ED property. It BELONGS to the A-4 mod team.

I understand that, but the question is if anyone on the team had even though about that as a possibility? 

[Baco]

7 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I understand that, but the question is if anyone on the team had even though about that as a possibility? 

 Yes they did, they said so, and they decided they do not want the trouble associated with an official module. (community bitching, legal hurdles, etc...) 

 

I am as frustrated as every one, I want a full module of any A-4, but hey, its their lives, their decision...

[Eight Ball]

It looks like the folks from the Aerobatic Online servers have found a workaround.

I joined their modded server this afternoon and the mods you dont have are replaced with placeholders:

 

I assume there are some limitations right now, since the Su-27 isnt really the closest thing to a MB-339 but this might be something ED could look into.

Enabling a config file for modders or server admin to define which placeholder to use for missing mods (or...assets pack?) allowing anyone to join any server.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Eight Ball

[Silver_Dragon]

On 2/21/2021 at 4:41 PM, HWasp said:

 

Are we certain that all the DCS modules are licenced by the aircraft manufacturers? Did Mikoyan (RSK MiG company) licence the Razbam MiG-19, or the LN MiG-21? 

Does the M2000C we have licence from Dassault? What about all the warbirds? 

 

 

-RAZBAM Mig-19P coming from the "Cuban Team" as the Mig-23, and some suspices has been "aproved" by Cuban Air Force (RAZBAM has tell on some interviews, your modules has use for military training, and others modules as the SuperTucano has builded with Ecuador Air Force Colaboration)
- Aviodev C-101 and Earnes Mirage F-1 has been aproval by Spanish Air Force.
-Leatherneck/M3 Mig-21bis was build by a Servian Air Force pilot colaboration and use for training the Serbian Air Force.
-Meanwhile initially Razbam M2000C was "unkwnow aproval" the RAZBAM module has use by the Armée de l'air as Procedure Training on Fighter Squadrons, and has required make changes on RAZBAM module to put them more near to real aircrafts.
- ED DCS World modules has use for military training by some Air Forces arround the world include Air National Guard, USAF, Canada, Norway, etc as A-10C, A-10C II, F/A-18C, F-16, UH-1H, Mi-8, Ka-50 (aproval by Kamov), etc, and the incoming Mi-24 and AH-64.
- Warbirds coming under the "aproval" of Fighter Collection, with conserve, maintaing and reapair warbirds from near 50-60 years ago (Nick Grey, the ED COO has the FC COO).