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

[ramstein]

DD team,
is it possible to program the AI planes not to Kamikazee you in a dogfight... it's not realistic!
they will head-in you in a dogfight much of the time,,,

thanx,

[Zorin]

This comparison shows the result of following TD rules set for ordnance meshes regarding texture size and triangle count. As you can see, the details had to be deleted, along with the refined transition of shell body and rear assembly. Additionally, due to the fact that the tail assembly should be created via Alpha Cut, the skin had to be resized to 256x256, yet including an alpha channel keeps it equal with the 512x512 skin that doesn't need a Alpha channel.

Further more, the next smaller bomb needs to be build with less than 200 triangles, which can only be achieved by reducing the 12 sided cylinder base mesh, which in turn leads us back to the eight sided cylinder the old mesh was represented by.

Let us not forget that all bombs should at best share the same skin file. This leads us to having the same tail assembly on all bombs (historically incorrect), the same lettering (historically incorrect) and a further reduction in skin quality, to keep the resolution on different sized bomb bodies equal.

I don't see the point in spending month on research and building to end up with something that looks like build in the year 2000. That is no my idea of improvement.

My models have been in game with all mod packs and as separate downloads and therefor are in use by, most likely, every MOD user out there and not ONE has had a complaint so far. They were used on simulated mass bombing raids and had no negative effect, so why should I not build them the way I did?

Just give me ONE GOOD reason.



Let me add as a final note: I highly appreciate your work, the insight you want to give us and I usually am the last person not to follow given rules, but I need to see at least a tiny bit of good reason in it. This is sadly, and I'm being honest, not the case here.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Let me add as a final note: I highly appreciate your work, the insight you want to give us and I usually am the last person not to follow given rules, but I need to see at least a tiny bit of good reason in it. This is sadly, and I'm being honest, not the case here.

Zorin, thank you for investing your time and trying it out and the comparsion shown is also very much appreciated.

The reason you're asking for is very simple: it makes no sense to waste such a huge amount of polygons (and therefore PC's resources) on details like bombs etc.

The bomb is just a bomb that hangs and then it flies down as you drop it, there is not much time to examine how beautiful the fuse is nor to read the stuff written in army stencil font around it. This is not the improvement we need, mate.

The technical specifications were not set by DT, they exist from the day 1 and the've been raised according to modern PC's specs since. These are very reasonable. Unfortunately, your work is a still massive overkill and it's not acceptable at all - especially for a low priority models.

Thanks very much for trying anyway, I am sorry that you're not willing to revise your otherwise great work in order to be (perhaps) included in an official release. But I completely understand that modelling within specs is very demanding task and requires a really skilled modeller.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by Robo.

But I completely understand that modelling within specs is very demanding task and requires a really skilled modeller.

Could you stop this offensive nonsense!

I can easily stay within the limits, but as you can see in the comp, there is no point in it.

Besides, ordnances should never be low priority, it is like designing a beautiful car and putting wooden wheels from an old carriage on them. The game environment needs to be coherent in quality.

You are also discrediting all the skin creators and movie makers out there, by saying this game is not about the visual quality. Really, you lot need to change you tone and rethink how you approach US as target audience.

No one in his right mind would insult someone who spent ages on researching and building stuff for your game and offering it FOR FREE like you did by constantly questioning his abilities. At least in my profession, which is all about design and customer care, this would get you fired and not in a deciders position.

Think about it, you lot have been very fortunate to be in the position you are in now, perhaps owning up to it is in order...

[Bulgarian]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Could you stop this offensive nonsense!

"Offensive nonsense"?

Zorin,Robo is nice with you.Noone here is talking to you in offensive manner.Actually it's only you who is posting the offensive content here.
Stop acting pessimistically.

Originally Posted by Zorin

The game environment needs to be coherent in quality.

IL-2 already is.
But since you're introduced so well to the 3D modeling,you must make the difference between Game Industry/Developing and CGI Industry/Developing!
The thing we're doing here,is Game Industry and Developing.You follow the technical specs,or leave.Simple as that.
It's a rule that is set by the game engine itself,and it's capabilities.We can't do anything about it.

Originally Posted by Zorin

it is like designing a beautiful car and putting wooden wheels from an old carriage on them.

Ferrari are building a sport car using this method,but what's the connection between this and the topic here?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Could you stop this offensive nonsense!

Excuse me please, but what do you mean?

I believe I approached you in a very polite manner, I complimented your work and expressed my pity that you're not willing to revise it in order to be used in an official patch. I also answered your question and named you a reason why the models need to be done in certain way. If there is anything else you saw in my previous post, you happened to add it yourself (and I am quite wondering why...)

If it's the quoted sentence that made you feel offended, I assure you I was not referring to you personally. It is indeed a simple fact that it requires great skill to do a good low-poly 3D model and stay within limited specs perserving great looks. Wouldn't you agree with that?

You probably feel insulted by what I wrote because you found yourself in that rather innocent remark of mine, but I did not mean to insult you and I really had no intention to argue with you about anything.

I would also like to remind you that I am what you call 'skin creator' and I assure you that exactly the visual appearance of the game is my only area of working within DT.

I do not wish comment anything you wrote in anger in this thread because it would not lead anywhere, I'd just like to repeat that simple question:

Would you mind trying to reduce the amount of polygons of your bomb models as per specs given, so the Daidalos Team can include them in the next patch, please?

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Zorin

...This comparison shows the result of following TD rules set for ordnance meshes regarding texture size and triangle count...

Could you show us wire frame views of these two meshes, Zorin?

[Viikate]

Those bomb meshes are pretty clean & nicely done. I value a good reseach and doing something properly than doing something with "frankenstyle". So Zorin is on a right track here.

I'd say that the bombs are just slightly too "fat" and feel like unfinished & un-optimized. Most don't have any LODs or shadows meshes and textures don't really need to be that big. This is a flight sim, not an ordinance sim. Is it really necessary to see all small prints on a bomb, but you cannot see equally big texts on a plane?

Pretty much all bombs could be optimized with small work to be few hundred polys lighter. I modified for test one Luftwaffe bomb and in five minutes it lost about 200 polys without changing the shape at all.

Well 200 polys for modern GPUs is nothing, but if everyone ignores the specs and go totally overkill with polycount & texture size, then we will soon have sim that doesn't run well on older PCs. This isn't overkill, but something like over 1000 polys for cannon barrel or ~200Mb textures for pit is.

Here's another quick edit of that US bomb:

378 polys, 256x256 texture (no alpha layer). Just by removing obsolete polys and mapping it so that it wastes less space so text can be bigger. Basic shape is still same. Same number of "cylinder" segments, except in the front where they are not needed.

After all this is old game with many very low poly planes. I don't see much point of attaching something high poly to a low poly plane (1000 poly cannon barrel is good example). It's all about keeping the balance with existing stuff.

[mkubani]

Zorin,

let's summarize.

1. You have asked TD for specs - we have provided them to you within 24 hours.

2. I have asked you if you model all required LODs - you did not answer.
(We have checked your LW bombs - only 1 LOD out of 4 is modelled)

3. I have asked you for a model sample - you did not send us anything.

4. One of our members spent his free time to search for your models, downloaded it, and reworked it to show you how the model and texture could be optimized quite significantly without any major loss of quality. Viikate can send you the model as a sample reference if you want.

From the very beginning we have acknowledged you have done a very good research job. You have met the historical accuracy and quality requirements, but as I told you already few times, you have overdone it and did not finish your models properly from the technical aspect.

I am finished with this topic Zorin. We have showed you how your work could be improved. It's not personal, it's pure technical. You have a good opportunity to learn more lean 3D modelling techniques and we have no problem supporting you on this. However, if you just keep fighting back, it will be impossible to find a common language.

Please, keep in mind that the 3D modelers at TD are either professional or semi-professional and worked on several commercial or non-commercial projects for IL-2 and SoW. So, I dare to say we know what we are talking about when it comes to modeling for IL-2. Thus, we will provide constructive criticism when we see a need for it.

Last but not least, the offer still holds. If you change your mind and will align your work with the posted specs, we will have NO PROBLEM with adding your work to our patches. So, it is your call.

[mkubani]

@David, all I can suggest is to follow the IL-2 modeling "bible" that is commonly available. It has been put together by 3rd party modelers for a reason. So follow it. When you finish your basic plane model and texture mapping, send it to us and we will give you our honest evaluation and will suggest what to improve or what to do next.