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

[zaelu]

Originally Posted by mkubani

Of course Zealu, it's just one big conspiracy.

Again, read the SimHQ interview more carefully, ok? We didn't provide the email contact for no reason.

You misunderstood me... but maybe all was due to some language barrier and insufficient explanations. But all is fine now!

Cheers!

[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.

[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.