Block 70 coming?
-
How close to KTO have any of these models and countries been? In miles.
KTO is whatever happens a fictitious campaign… My point is not what have been, but what would likely to be !
-
Entirely off-topic, I know. Sorry.
What I’d like to show is that there is expeditionary countries, and non expeditionary countries. France, UK, Belgium and Netherlands for example are traditionally expeditionary countries. They have a place in KTO IMHO.
KTO is whatever happens a fictitious campaign… My point is not what have been, but what would likely to be !
Realistically speaking, I doubt any EPAF country (even the ones you mention) would be able to deploy anything to a Korean conflict, if they were not yet forward-deployed. Taking into account the time it would require for governments to take a decision, and then for the jets, materials and pilots to be flown or shipped over, it would already take approximately 1 - 2 weeks for the fighters to just arrive in the theatre.
By that logic alone, yes, I could understand and even support the motion to remove the jets from a default KTO. The problems start with KTO being the only default theatre, however. In no time, you’d have a lot of virtual squadrons each modifying their database so that KTO does include their favourite jet, and MP compatibility between virtual squadrons or lone pilots would be entirely lost because of it.:
If it’s all fictitious anyway, I don’t see why it would matter which aircraft types are in there, so why remove or withhold any aircraft at all?
Correct … that is why some of us wished to suppress them from KTO DB (and some has been indeed suppressed). But … Hummm, it has not been really appreciated LOL … so at least, we will try to limit and, if possible, avoid that kind of airframes/varients in the future (speaking about regular KTO DB only.)
I know you don’t generally speak about this until release, but can you shed some light on what airframes/variants have been or are on the shortlist to be removed? Will those aircraft be gone entirely, or just “suppressed” in KTO but ready for use in other theatres by changing a few parameters?
-
this conversation is moot as the LM pitch to india was rejected as is public knowledge and the current position of the Modi administration, India will fly almost exclusively sukhoi, has no interest in the f35, and will supplement with dassault for carrier based and multi role, as is publicized just recently and the scuttlebutt over the in trading with dassault right before the order was placed.
the requirements for the F35 and the long term upkeep of an LM fleet, in addition to all the carte blanche the DOD wanted with the ASTRA system, any work on SSTO out of india, as well as the advancements in meta, both in optics and materiel, was a cost deemed too steep by the Modi cartel, and it is…a cartel.
-
Realistically speaking, I doubt any EPAF country (even the ones you mention) would be able to deploy anything to a Korean conflict, if they were not yet forward-deployed. Taking into account the time it would require for governments to take a decision, and then for the jets, materials and pilots to be flown or shipped over, it would already take approximately 1 - 2 weeks for the fighters to just arrive in the theatre…
Much quicker than you think in some cases…
For example, with France, if French President give order to deploy (he decides by him/herself), things will be extremely quick after. It was then proved that Rafale and Mirage 2000D can conduct war actions in less than 24h, from France to Mali, beyond French President order.
For South Korea, it would be totally possible to send Rafale there in less than 72h, with Air Operation Support Group (GAAO) and Expeditionary air base (BAP) on any South Korean base. France could even built (25th Air Engineering Regiment (25ème RGA) a brand new runway in approximately 15 days, for a coalition.
Even if Russia don’t want European countries to fly over their territories, it’s 100% possible to make a stop over in Canada, and continue to South Korea and land there.
It would then be extremely quick for French Air Force to go there (same for Belgium, as long as they would be supported by USA and France if necessary).
What I want to prove is that some countries in Europe has great military capabilities. We shall not take them lightly. To me, EPAF, Rafale and Mirage 2000D definitely have a place in KTO.
Kind regards,
Radiulm
-
Just to clarify something : we’re talking about removing planes from the database, aren’t we. Wouldn’t this debate rather reflect how the vanilla KTO, or any supported KTO, should start - the .cam file, technically?
What are the ramifications of leaving Jas 37 in the DB (to take an example, cockpit modeled or not) ? And more importantly, what are the ramifications of not leaving it? I suppose you guess where I’m coming from, other theaters not officially supported (although I hear contradictory voices on that matter) benefit from a larger database. I was happy to equip Hungary with Viggens in my Baba Yaga campaign.
To anticipate a bit on that, obviously, if there were only F16 flying in the BMS sky, crash reports would be easier, debugging less painful and modding from the community less diverse. At what price? I have my own answer, and my only priviledge is to say it :).
-
Much quicker than you think in some cases…
For example, with France, if French President give order to deploy (he decides by him/herself), things will be extremely quick after. It was then proved that Rafale and Mirage 2000D can conduct war actions in less than 24h, from France to Mali, beyond French President order.
For South Korea, it would be totally possible to send Rafale there in less than 72h, with Air Operation Support Group (GAAO) and Expeditionary air base (BAP) on any South Korean base. France could even built (25th Air Engineering Regiment (25ème RGA) a brand new runway in approximately 15 days, for a coalition.
Even if Russia don’t want European countries to fly over their territories, it’s 100% possible to make a stop over in Canada, and continue to South Korea and land there.
It would then be extremely quick for French Air Force to go there (same for Belgium, as long as they would be supported by USA and France if necessary).
What I want to prove is that some countries in Europe has great military capabilities. We shall not take them lightly. To me, EPAF, Rafale and Mirage 2000D definitely have a place in KTO.
Kind regards,
Radiulm
Or they squadrons could be deployed there before start of combat operations if there is enough strategic warning and buildup, like in desert storm.
-
Upgrading BMS to include BLK60 and BLK70 is useless step, IMHO. There are lot of things to still simulate in the current -more popular- blocks.
-
my 2 cents:
I use basically three simulators in my free time: Falcon 4 BMS, DCS and Command CMANO. By far, the database approach performed by the CMANO is in my opinion the best one! The DB is locked and if someone desires something new, people asks in the forum by provinding information on the platform/weapon/etc. There are basically two DB, one Cold War (1946-1979), and another for Modern Warfare (1980 onwards). When one creates a scenario/campaign, he chooses the DB.
Falcon 4 could also have something similar. We could have a Master DB with all entities and this should be maintained by someone within the BMS team, for example. From that Master DB, any theather developer could create his own DB for a specific theather/campaign by importing (not editing!) the platforms/weapons that he wants to use on it. This theater DB is the one that would be shipped with the Theather install. The import from the Master DB should be done by using a software specific for that use when the Theater is being developed.
This would provide many things:
- Same platforms in different theathers, with same names, but different specs would not happen anymore. If I face a SA-2E mod.2 etc in one theater, it would have the same specs in another theater.
- If the DB fields change because the code change (e.g. in 4.34), the Master DB/software to import would be updated by the DEVs automatically, and the theater decs, would not bother with that.
- DB of theaters would be much more clean and not the mess that is today (in some cases).
- 3D Models would not be locked in the DB, so theater devs would still be able to use what they want.
Implementing this Master DB is not difficult. I tried to do that in the past here in this forum but figured out that it does not make any sense to do that without a close cooperation with those changing the code and potentially the fields of the DB.
We could start small, just adding what is right now used in the campaigns of all major theaters relased, and with time, one could think about expanding it following the steps of CMANO.Is anyone interested on perhaps putting together a proof-of-principle? Perhaps to “convince” the BMS guys that this is the way to go?
-
Is anyone interested on perhaps putting together a proof-of-principle? Perhaps to “convince” the BMS guys that this is the way to go?
This is indeed one thing we are/were thinking about. But … nothing has been really really seriously been discussed yet. IIRC, Falcas has some good ideas about it. Maybe one day. (?)
… Anybody if free to give a try about creating a tool able to manage a “master database” like described above …
-
I have to agree with Eagle-Eye who sums up the whole debate in one fell swoop… If it’s all fictitious, what difference does it make which aircraft remain in the DB even if they aren’t used in that particular campaign?
As a development team, I would think your focus should be centered more on CREATING avenues for the community to enjoy the game in whatever way they find that pleases them, not pigeon-holing them into a “My way is the only ‘Right’ way” approach. Is that the entire point of being able to modify and create theaters and campaigns? I completely understand not putting squadrons in the campaign for the units you don’t see fitting into your idea of a KTO CAMPAIGN. But to remove the aircraft completely from the DB seems silly in a dozen different ways, almost to the point of arrogance, unless their existence is preventing some other object from being added to the DB.
KTO is the “starting point” for almost every other theater out there. Removing things from the DB entirely does little more than stifle potential community development for those out there who want to develop theaters and campaigns for other historical and geographical settings. Truth be told, KTO is a prime target for a more modern, and potentially feasible future conflict theater in the game. It would be hard to argue that of all the possible air war scenarios that might happen in real life over the next 10-20 years that a Korean AOR would not be one of the 3 most likely, and that it would be a relatively large and drawn out conflict–lest we forget the Korean War never technically ended, and could in theory ramp back up to a full scale conflict at the drop of a hat. So why not enable someone out there to do a modern-ish campaign in Korea with modern aircraft from all over Europe/SWA/US? The reality is, if the theoretical conflict lasted more than 2 weeks they would probably all be involved in some way or another.
-
what difference does it make which aircraft remain in the DB even if they aren’t used in that particular campaign?
RAM used for textures, 3DDB size, … man-work to maintain the core DB, parents allocations and textures IDs (17 funking variants of F-4s ! …) … who is doing the job? … you?
But to remove the aircraft completely from the DB seems silly in a dozen different ways, almost to the point of arrogance, unless their existence is preventing some other object from being added to the DB.
Dam! I am falling off my chair! … you are speaking about arrogance!?! … but mate, feel free to do whatever you want with your install. Extract the 3D models and data from your 4.32/4.33 and replace it into your own future 4.34 install if you like to have the AH-1 Skyraider in KTO or in any other theaters … but please, don’t tell us what we have to do with KTO.
4.33 DB is plenty of shit, garbage, non working and unfinished stuff that nobody cared since years …
VS
Where do you prefer to work Mortesil?
Cleaning it a little bit is a good point to start thinking about adding more in a cleaner and proper way and add thinking only if they have reached a correct level of accomplishment.
Tidy up and cleaning up a little bit that thing sounded a good idea to our DB guys … even if still way way imperfect and lot of things could be done.
Feel free to finish your own project before considering giving us some lessons about the way we are managing our.
Once done … you will be truly welcome to start working on a tool making the work of adding/replacing CT entries in a easy way and we will be able to discuss more seriously bout a master DB with the hole words inside.
Seriously?!! …
I know I am bit emotive those last weeks, but this one is killing me. Just about to vomit on the community. I can’t believe I am still “part” of it.
-
Hummm… guys…don’t overact. It is just a DB…let’s keep positive and try to find solution. I am totally for approaching that problem again. DJ and Falcas, are you up to do some brainstorming together? !
-
You’re diverging into a completely different logic than what you said before. Cleaning out unused or non-functional objects from the DB is an entirely different scenario than removing things because you don’t think they “fit” the campaign environment. “Cleaning Up” is always a good idea, and if you had said that from the beginning I would not have made a comment about it all. But that’s not what you said, you said:
Grrrrrrrrrrr !!! ….
No prob to have many different aircraft in DB especially when they fit with theater or are useful. It is rather having tons and tons of variants (or similar) which might be a pain … But, honestly, I would not be against an F-16A nor a F-16CB60/70. (ok ok … I admit that I am not really in favor of Qatari F-16 in standard KTO DB … mmm … I have nothing against Qatar, it is just an example of course, which, BTW, could be a bad example if one day we have a brand new kicking ass “Operation Desert Strom” theater …)
Correct … that is why some of us wished to suppress them from KTO DB (and some has been indeed suppressed). But … Hummm, it has not been really appreciated LOL … so at least, we will try to limit and, if possible, avoid that kind of airframes/varients in the future (speaking about regular KTO DB only.)
RAM used for textures, 3DDB size, … man-work to maintain the core DB, parents allocations and textures IDs (17 funking variants of F-4s ! …) … who is doing the job? … you?
Cleaning it a little bit is a good point to start thinking about adding more in a cleaner and proper way and add thinking only if they have reached a correct level of accomplishment.
Tidy up and cleaning up a little bit that thing sounded a good idea to our DB guys … even if still way way imperfect and lot of things could be done.
Two completely different arguments. One has merit, the other does not.
PS… My project IS done. I have my reasons for not pushing it out to the community yet, not the least of which being the impending release of an update which very well may require some serious changes to it.
-
You are of course free to express what you think … so do I.
You want arrogance? … let me give you some :
One has merit, the other does not.
I do not owe you anything Mortesil and I think what we are doing with core DB is not your concern. What we are doing on our free time is nothing but our own call. I will not dictate you how to deal with your tool. And we don’t need to justify any of our choices.
You will make your own mind about the 4.34 once released. If it will please you => Good. It won’t => I couldn’t care less. Again … feel free to feed your own DB as you wish as long as DB is not locked or encrypted.
Definitively … talking about development here is something toxic for modjo.
Now please excuse me … I need to leave the place … I’m running out of air.
-
Boyz IMHO there is no need to take personal point-of-views as attacks, moreover get in a dogfight with written-language comments that as we all know and experience in the past is can be easily misunderstood depending the good-or-bad day of the reader. BMS will evolve with time to whatever will be, no individual opinion can stop or influence the future, a feature, a db, a cockpit, whatever that might be.
-
Hi Raptor,
I agree with your words !!!malpaso
-
Suggestion for New DB fields:
Theater id.
Campaign id.
And you can even combine them to one.
Sure will need a table for theaters and campaign to store the ID’s.Then you can have all the garbage in the world in your DB.
If its ID’s are null no one will use them and it will just take space.No master, no locks no encryption.
U want encryption? Encrypt only the kto and campaign ID’s. U could do it in a third field named enc_id or if u want quick access theater_enc_id campaign_enc_id. And provide a sample for the rest unencrypted entries so guys to have a starting point.
That way no new entries for the kto from 3dparty guys unless they brake the 256 or 128 encryption.
Encryption will add resources needs. And test troubles to theater devs like I want to try something new in kto. they will have to edit only current records or do the tests on another unencrypted theater.
I’m sure u guys have better ideas, just thought to share mine
Sent from my MI 5 using Tapatalk
-
and if you had said that from the beginning I would not have made a comment about it all.
Uhm, I don’t believe that for one second!!!
C9
-
my 2 cents:
Is anyone interested on perhaps putting together a proof-of-principle? Perhaps to “convince” the BMS guys that this is the way to go?
So because it is your 2 cents and you believe it is the way to go, then it, by all means, the BMS team should be convinced to do what you feel is the way to go??
Hmmmm, seems to make sense……SAID NO ONE EVER!!!
C9
-
Cloud, with all due respect, it is a suggestion to be discussed. As I wrote, it works very well in CMANO and, yes, I believe it could work somehow in F4.
There is no need to attack my post per se/person. Attack my suggestion and it’s content (as Arty did), that is the way to go, yes, I believe.