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

[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.

[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.

[mkubani]

Originally Posted by 13th Hsqn Protos

Stop coding for 2004 systems.

How about stop making 2009 models for 1999 game engine?

Two points:

1. Regarding the modelling specs - DT is not going to reject a plane that might be 30-40% over the polycount limit, if it is made properly and the increase is justified. But yes, we will reject planes that are 300 or 400% over the limit. These limits were respected by DT for 4.09 modelling. And I don't see reports coming in that the new plane models look obsolete or ugly because of the lower poly limit used.

2. Many times, the inexperienced modelers sort of "hide" behind the increased polycount. I am saying it in general, no finger pointing. Believe it or not, it is actually harder to model low-poly when you have a limited modelling budget (polycount) and tech. specs to follow. Take a look at the Gladiator or Fokker XXI models. They are +- within the original specs and they look perfect. Show me a high-poly model made for IL-2 that could beat them. It's about modelling skills, not about polycount.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

Originally Posted by mkubani

How about stop making 2009 models for 1999 game engine?

Valid point. But as long as they work - I fail to see why arbitrary restrictions should be put into place.



1. Regarding the modelling specs - DT is not going to reject a plane that might be 30-40% over the polycount limit, if it is made properly and the increase is justified. But yes, we will reject planes that are 300 or 400% over the limit. These limits were respected by DT for 4.09 modelling. And I don't see reports coming in that the new plane models look obsolete or ugly because of the lower poly limit used.

Vpilots were happy to get anything after so many years. Few are going to be ungrateful enough to criticize publicly. I am happy for your work. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see better - especially when I know you can and are being held back.

2. Many times, the inexperienced modelers sort of "hide" behind the increased polycount. I am saying it in general, no finger pointing. Believe it or not, it is actually harder to model low-poly when you have a limited modelling budget (polycount) and tech. specs to follow. Take a look at the Gladiator or Fokker XXI models. They are +- within the original specs and they look perfect. Show me a high-poly model made for IL-2 that could beat them. It's about modelling skills, not about polycount.

Again you make a fair point. However that does not mean that all high poly work is being 'hidden' behind lack of talent. Many times it is often the opposite.

I stand by my statement and I reiterate. Poly count restrictions should be broken. The game is cpu not gpu limited. My understanding is that many of your team are modders on the side. I greatly respect Oleg, but he was wrong on mods - he is also wrong here.

** Regardless, I am happy to have your work. My comments are meant to inspire - not negate your efforts. Please keep up your great work.


.
.

[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.