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

[mkubani]

Originally Posted by zaelu

And this discussion is on topic as it is trying to establish your exact attitude in regard of moding community and they workings.

I am not going to get dragged into this discussion any further, but to be honest I don't think we have the attitude here. BTW, do yourself a favour and search for the 4.09 interview on SimHQ to see what Oleg and I have written there regarding what DT intends to do and who is the target "audience". It includes an invitation to those who share the same idea. And as said by Robo there are 3 basic criteria we require from ourselves and others: 1. Historical accuracy, 2. following tech. and quality specs defined for this sim, 3. content that will not be vetoed by 1C/MG. If many mods don't comply with this, then sorry, it's not our fault.

@Sita: We can give our limited support to the modeller if he contacts us through our email: daidalos.team@gmail.com

@Jermin: We may try looking at LOD switching distances, we would remodel only the critical ones.

[David603]

Originally Posted by Bulgarian

David,it's hard to see the logic behind your words and their connection with the topic here.
Martin pointed out very well in pure English that DT's objective is not (and never have been) to compete with the mods.

If the IL-2 community respected the official developer of the sim, there would only 1 standard today - the closed official version 4.08 or 4.09. IL-2 was never intended as an open-architecture sim, no matter how many pro or con arguments there might be.

I was refering to this sentence within the post, not the issue of competing with the mod community. Maybe I should have made this clearer.

[Bearcat]

DT.... this may sound like a silly request.. but in your next upgrade.. can you drop the X.xxm designation from then on and simply go with X.xx. If my memory serves me correctly the only reason we got the m in the version info in the first place was because initially PF was capable of being run either merged with FB or as a stand alone. That is no longer a consideration ... and now many think that the m means modded.. and there is just a lot of confusion on it.. I know it is a small issue but it is also a very very simple one to adjust.


and .. zaelu.. with all due respect.. is there any benefit at all to be gained from the ongoing "discussion" you are having ie mods/DT? It all seems like a waste of time and totally counterproductive.. IMO solutions and possibilitiesp are far more appropriate for this thread than rehashing old gripes that have been beaten to a pulp already.. and actually rendered moot by the establishment of DT (especially considering some of it's members.. like FC & Zuti .. among them to name a few..) in the first place.. so lets just enjoy the sim we are all so passionate about and continue to contribute to it's ongoing success in whatever way we can.

[jermin]

Hi, TD

Are you considering upgrading the LOD models in the game? The current LOD models are too coarse for modern computers. I've heard that the sim uses different models at different distances. The model become less detailed when distance increase and finally become a dot at about 3 km.

And there is an serious bug in such LOD system. The LOD models of some planes appear larger than it should be at the same distance (near 3km) where the models of some other planes are so tiny that it is extremely hard to see.

The most typical examples are Bf 109 and Spitfire. Although spit fire has a much larger wings that 109, it appears much samller at the same distance (even not so great) and is extremely hard to see when it blends into the background.

And it is harder to see dots in gunsight view than in wide view in the game, which is not logical for me. I sincerely hope that you can add more LOD models so that we don't need dots anymore.

BTW, please fix the tracer smoke delay bug in the next patch if possible.