Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by mkubani

Hello Zorin,

I can tell you right now that we won't spend time on remodelling the loadouts.

I know you have done an extensive work on it and I don't doubt they are historically correct. The problem is (and I have told you this before over PM) that your work is overdone and out of the tech. specs even for SoW engine. If you are willing to reduce the polycount of your models to a more acceptable levelm, we can discuss it further. That's all I can suggest.

I respect that. This doesn't mean I appreciate nor agree on that stance, but it is not my decision.

All I know is that ten-thousands of people use my MODs and not a single one has complained about them slowing down their game, reducing their frame rates or any other form of impairment in game play.

Therefor I have no reason to start at point blank again to produce a product of lesser quality.

[Baron]

Well. if u think the tech specs makes "your" work low quality, u can allways submitt it to MS.

They dont seem to worrie much about poly counts. (I think they WOULD worrie about copyright issues though)



I mean, why on earth would u listen to somone with full access to the game code.



jeeze.



Sillyness aside. The man is TELLING u the specs for work implemented in the game, and u argue with him?

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by Baron

Well. if u think the tech specs makes "your" work low quality, u can allways submitt it to MS.

They dont seem to worrie much about poly counts.



I mean, why on earth would u listen to somone with full access to the game code.


This know it all mentality is getting somewhat enoying.



jeeze.

You are missing the point here. It has never been about being a know it all. My work has proven its validity and therefor gives no reason to question its suitability for the game.

If, during the extensive testing, there would have been a single sign of impairment in game play, I would have adopted, but as that wasn't the case I had no reason.

[Baron]

Originally Posted by Zorin

You are missing the point here. It has never been about being a know it all. My work has proven its validity and therefor gives no reason to question their suitability for the game.

If, during the extensive testing, there would have been a single sign of impairment in game play, I would have adopted, but as that wasn't the case I had no reason.

Sry, edited my post before i saw your reply, got said what i needed to say (blow of steam)

Point beeing: u know what i takes to get your work implemented in the game, take it or leave it. Simple.

If they change thire minds about tech specs/poly counts, im sure they will let u know.

[Bulgarian]

Originally Posted by Baron

Point beeing: u know what i takes to get your work implemented in the game, take it or leave it. Simple.

Well said.

[mkubani]

Zorin, ok, let's close it this way:

1. If there is an exception given to you with your high poly loadouts, why shouldn't other people ask for the very same exception (with high res. textures, etc.)? Why shouldn't we then accept a 20k poly plane model with 2048x2048 textures to match your high poly loadouts? This is the point you might be overlooking.

2. You are telling me that following the specs would require from you to start from scratch. We both know it is not true or it should not be true depending on how you have done your homework. Because if you have made your models properly (in terms of LODs), you should have at least 2 more LODs after your high polygon LOD_0 models for each loadout. So maybe your LOD_1 or LOD_2 (if you have them) could just fit within the normal specs of the game. I don't know, you tell me.

3. And let's be reasonable. How often do you look at the loadouts from such a close distance to even appreciate such high fidelity? This sim is intended for virtual flying, not for taking screenshots. I am 110% for historical accuracy and quality (trust me, maybe even more than you are!), but I am also against wasted HW/SW resources. I dare to say you could do a very similar quality job on your loadouts with 30-40% reduction and most people wouldn't even notice the difference.

In conclusion, you have done a great historical job, no doubt about that, but you did not implement it properly for the IL-2 environment. And it puzzles me even more because I have mentioned this to you few months ago already. All I can say, please think about point #2.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Zorin

My work has proven its validity and therefor gives no reason to question its suitability for the game.

Your work has proven its validity on a forum where the folks tend to clap to any sh***y looking stuff presented as new MOD. If that's enough for you, that's allright. But if you want to do a proper job, you simply gotta stay within the specs given and it's not too difficult to do it once you've got all the LOD's ready.

[ElAurens]

The DT gentlemen have a very valid point here.

Many of the new, high poly visual effects, particulary explosions and fires, are pretty big frame rate killers. When you have several players online attacking an airfield, for example, the drop in frame rates is totally unacceptable, yet the mostly offliners who make these things have no clue what their pretty explosion effects are doing online, as they never fly there and never check their frame rates.

I realize that for the offline majority of modders and mod players this is not an issue, a stutter or ten is of no consequence, but online it is death.

[Bulgarian]

Vpilots were happy to get anything after so many years. Few are going to be ungrateful enough to criticize publicly.

Protos,don't try to make a point when you're not prepared with the situation,ok?
First I want to point out that I (as some other DT members) were on the both sides of the fence.
Anyhow,I can tell you that 70% of the subjects that are still using mods,are less then 16 year old.I don't have anything against the youngsters (I'm 19),but they don't know what is quality and what isn't,in the game industry.So they're happy with everything they get.

The ungrateful to mods left quickly IL-2 and the gaming at all,just when the mods came up.Why?'Cause they're mature,and respect the official devs.
I don't know about you but as many others (who aren't here now),I'm around this hood for a long time and I can tell you that 80% of the dedicated IL-2 gamers are long gone.Most of them are now playing RO.

...especially when I know you can and are being held back

Please stop these non-senses.Noone is holding DT back!
DT is simply following the tech.specs,created by lots of programmers/coders/3D modelers/3rd party modelers and many other people who worked for years over the IL-2's official development.

Now,Protos,in order to make the said above clear to you,I'll try to generally explain you what official game development term means.

The main idea of the game development is to keep the 3D models with reasonable (meaning to keep the model with as low polygon level as possible,without damaging the model's appearing) amount of polygons,so there will be more physical and memory space for effects,and other cookies.
Take for example Crytek 2 engine.FYI it's the engine,powering Crysis game sequel.Anyhow,even there with that powerful new engine,the team that developed Crysis was still keeping strict laws on the polygon level,otherwise there wouldn't have been those nice big explosions,great graphics,large world,physics and so on,that I bet a lot of people here enjoyed.
I don't think you have noticed that the weapons in crysis were "low poly",right?
All this wouldn't 've been possible if the Crysis team was thinking the same way as some/most of your beloved modders do.
Don't doubt in my words.Many other games (actually all) were created in the same way.The creator of the maps,3D models and textures of HL-2 and the rest of the sequel,was/is a Bulgarian.I personally have spoken to him about this type of things and it is true,believe it or not.

The key to develop a game is the following of strict rules,and not doing whatever you like to.

With thus said,I hope that the problem with the "low poly" jargon is settled up,and that It's not about "poly count",but simply about following the tech specs for the particular game engine.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Clearly I hit a nerve.

Take a breath my boy and don't take yourself so seriously. Save your strength for the ladies.

** I think you might have been all of 9-10 years old when I started flying this game