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

[Zorin]

Ok, now I have a request myself.

After having spent a fair amount of time with the loadouts and ordnance models in-game, I can only come to one conclusion: "Chaos"

There are tons of weird reuses of meshes that need sorting.

The FAB-50 is a 100lb for the US or a 50kg for the Italians.

The torpedoes are shared through out nations and mixed on different planes.

75% of all the other ordnance objects are plain wrong in shape, size and positioning on the plane or inside the bomb bay.

Please, get this in order.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Please, get this in order.

Have you thought about submitting your ordnance meshes to TD, Zorin, they're excellent?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

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.

This is the primary problem with 1c. The unwillingness to push poly count is really hurting them.

Oleg generally gets it right. But on this issue he is wrong.
The mod community has done a tremendous amount for the game. They have done MANY things we were told were impossible to be implemented. Why ? cause Oleg was unwilling to push high poly - so as to keep the game playable on base systems. His choice - but not the right one for many vpilots.

I urge ALL modelers and coders to reject low poly restrictions.

I keep hearing about Cinematic or HD quality sim. Well my response is that it won't be built on 15 inch monitors

Stop coding for 2004 systems.

[FC99]

Originally Posted by 13th Hsqn Protos

I urge ALL modelers and coders to reject low poly restrictions.

For official patches no work will be accepted if it doesn't fit technical requirements for Il2. It's very simple really, out of specs=out of the game and this rule is not going to change.