Battle of Malta or Mediterranean - why not?

Originally Posted by csThor

The blind faith in "release the tools and topnotch models will appear" is getting old, people. In the 1946 world there were a handful of people (as in - 10 at the max) who could and did produce models which did fit the technical specifications and which did not have to be corrected. In the new engine model detail has gone up another few notches and I severely doubt anyone could do such a model on his own within a reasonable timeframe ... Making a 3D model for a game is not so much about looks (and getting Oooh!s and Aaah!s in some message board) but about sticking to technical specifications and adhering to them like superglue. That, coupled with the enormous detail and the interior structures, makes modelling for the CloD engine very laborious.

If you read my post again, I said that things like buildings, trees, and vehicles the player would never drive could be modeled by the community so the devs could focus on the aircraft so we get more flyable content. Creating a Russian peasant's house would be easy, so would creating a hundred other buildings. Static vehicles as well could be fine. I imagine that AI controlled land vehicles would be more difficult, but they would be a million times easier than aircraft.

[bongodriver]

Quite agree.

and to say the 'release the tools' argument is getting old? I can only think of 1 flight sim series where tools were available to the wider public and the add ons for that series are flooding in.

[csThor]

Quite honestly after reading countless times that this or that object (3rd Party, remember) in 1946 fails to meet the specifications or goes far beyond the specifications I no longer believe that even buildings are easy to model. Or maybe it's just not easy to overcome the laziness of one's weaker self and adhere to specifications. I don't know.
Tanks, vehicles and ships (especially them) are even worse since they're technically intricate and - in CloD - need a high level of details to match what is already there in the game.

I am not arguing against people trying their luck, I am arguing against people thinking that creating any objects for CloD will be an easy undertaking.

[bongodriver]

That's fair enough, not sure anybody said it would be easy though, would just be nice to have a crack.

[Ploughman]

Quality objects will require a professional approach and Maddox Games themselves will provide the benchmark for content, hopefully some of the software houses that provide pay ware content for sims like FSX will be inclined to do so for the CloD series. It doesn't all have to have DMs either, if the sim ever lives up to its promise then the FMs and recreation of physics of flight should allow it to become attractive to simmers who are not interested in combat such as sport or aerobatic fliers, imagine a 'Reno: Air Racer' add-on? Be a while though, given the current state of the sim it's hardly a 'market' to invest in.

Originally Posted by csThor

Quite honestly after reading countless times that this or that object (3rd Party, remember) in 1946 fails to meet the specifications or goes far beyond the specifications I no longer believe that even buildings are easy to model. Or maybe it's just not easy to overcome the laziness of one's weaker self and adhere to specifications. I don't know.
Tanks, vehicles and ships (especially them) are even worse since they're technically intricate and - in CloD - need a high level of details to match what is already there in the game.

I am not arguing against people trying their luck, I am arguing against people thinking that creating any objects for CloD will be an easy undertaking.

You give someone a poly/texture size limit and some general outlines and requirements and you can have a hundred buildings submitted in a week. I'm not saying that there isn't going to be need for quality control and maybe some tweaking, but how do you mess up 4 walls and a roof? The same with static vehicles. Not all them have to be movable. If they are doing a battle of moscow there should be maps with dozens or hundreds of knocked out vehicles on the side of the roads. Why insert a dev made truck, then set the damage to "dead" when there is nothing more you can do it it? It's already busted, why not use a static vehicle made by a fan? That way you also have some variety so not every single destroyed vehicle on the side of the road is "lend-lease jeep" or "5 ton truck".

As for vessels, fishing boats, tugs, barges, etc only need one damage setting, "destroyed". That doesn't require a bunch of crazy compartments or intricate internal detail. As for larger naval vessels, if the tools are available, the requirements and constraints are clearly established, then it shouldn't be a problem for the devs to get dozens of usable (maybe with slight tweaking) larger vessels.

Battlefield 1942: Forgotten Hope mod added hundreds of vehicles, all of them high quality, meshing with the game perfectly, and with realistic damage values (or the closest approximation you could get with that engine).

Silent Hunter III: Lots of additional content, just as good or better than the stuff included in the game.

I could go on, but I figured those were the two most would remember. I'm not saying fans can make the planes and cockpits, but static objects and the vehicles that the player will never pilot. If MG released the tools and a few of their existing building, vehicle, gun, and ship models then the model makers out there could examine them, see what they need to do and replicate them for their new content.

This has been done before in hundreds of mods. I'm not saying that MG should just let anyone email them their models, but maybe create a subforum where good models, that meet the quality and requirements of the game could be examined and then moved to a developer viewed thread by the mods where only the best of the best make it.

Couldn't hurt. Or are MG intent on keeping all of their tools a closely guarded secret until after they go out of business because nobody wants to buy a game with 4 flyable planes, no decent missions, and 2 different tanks you can attack?

[csThor]

I am no modeller but I have watched enough TD discussions on the matter to know that there is more to a modelling specification than just texture size and poly count. There are also such things as model breakup (in specifically named parts), materials to be used, specific regulations for animations and and and ...

But, quite honestly, before MG diverts any manpower into the SDK I'd rather see them use it to fix the goddarn engine bugs ... and the AI.

[bongodriver]

I am a modeller and all that is true, release an SDK with a good white paper detailing the required specifications and modellers will be able to work something out.

But youre right.....fix the game first.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by csThor

I am no modeller but I have watched enough TD discussions on the matter to know that there is more to a modelling specification than just texture size and poly count. There are also such things as model breakup (in specifically named parts), materials to be used, specific regulations for animations and and and ...

But, quite honestly, before MG diverts any manpower into the SDK I'd rather see them use it to fix the goddarn engine bugs ... and the AI.

Agreed, for a user to make a new A/C or even a cockpit for an existing A/C and to the incredible standard they have set will take a few months unless you can work on it full time and it would still take a long time.

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Agreed, for a user to make a new A/C or even a cockpit for an existing A/C and to the incredible standard they have set will take a few months unless you can work on it full time and it would still take a long time.

Much longer than six months I would say. Oleg mentioned several times that it took his team that long to produce a simple aircraft for the old Il-2.