aaronwhite

I feel like it's just one of those things that always happens, which is why I understand when developers default to the usual response of "It's done when it's done. Hell, thinking back to the original Il-2 forums where "Two weeks, be sure" was the running gag anytime someone was curious about a release date for a product or patch. Too many people see "We hope to release by x" and think "Oh, cool. They're promising me that it's going to be in my hands on x date!" instead of realizing it's a goal in the world of flight sim development where unexpected issues or changes can easily derail your entire plan.

Yeah, I'm admittedly not skilled on the integration of stuff for Substance Painter, since I've never had a reason to pay to use it without it working with DCS. My guess would be that they would need to create some sort of plugin that works with the ED game engine and allows Substance to access the model and texture files while modifying the textures. I have no idea how plausible it is or anything like that, it's just a "If I'm wishing for things to make my life easier creating skins, here's my fantasy". That said, I'll absolutely settle for just being able to easily load up the models using the tried and true Model Viewer.

I definitely understand why ED wants to encrypt things, and I don't think the encryption itself is bad or anything. It makes it easier for ED to protect their products and prevent them from being snatched up and used in other games or anything like that. I just really hope making the model viewer work with the encrypted files is a priority as well. I can't remember if I mentioned it here or in another thread, but I would love if there was a way to use a tool like Substance Painter too. I imagine that could help speed the painting process up by a ton, assuming it works the way I imagine it does. Unfortunately, since I don't have a way to really use it with DCS or Il-2's models, I've never had an excuse to really get it and try it out for skin creation. But if I could just paint on the actual 3D model and not have to play the "Let's line up this straight line that's rendered slightly differently between these two different texture files" ever again, I certainly wouldn't be mad about it.

My history on here probably shows as much, but I love throwing together fun skins for the various modules we get. Especially since it's impossible for ED or the various third parties to conceivably cover all of the different liveries out there (not that our hard drives would want them to anyway) and it's really a lot of fun, even if it turns into hours of frustration trying to line up two pixels on the weird wing joins of the F-14 to get a stupid line right. I'm really hoping if the models are going to be archived going forward, which I understand the point of from ED's perspective, that they are going to at least update the model viewer before that become the norm, so we can at least continue working. Even on my relatively beefy computer, having to run multiple high resolution templates in Photoshop with the potentially hundreds of layers on each one, while opening DCS and having to load a mission just to go "Oh, no, that line is still 3 pixels too far off" is really time consuming and frustrating, to the point of being enough to kill my enjoyment and make me not want to do it at all. I've thrown together skins for the F-14, MiG-21, Mi-24 and the Ka-50, and I would love to have the MiG-29 added to the list with all of the great variety we would have doing some of the IRIAF skins and the really interesting weathering you can see on current Syrian Air Force examples. But if it become a chore, I just don't see myself putting in the time. That video really is full of them. This looks damn near like a real life photo, which would have been hard to even imagine back when I was playing Flanker 2.5 or the original Lock On back in high school. I thought the graphics back then were mind blowing. I still remember seeing the DCS update about the new Mi-24 model and textures back in Lock On and having my mind blown that the tires actually looked bulged from the weight of the thing. null

That's a good point I hadn't thought of that will definitely affect my purchase. If ED wants to encrypt everything, that's fine, but it would be nice if there was either an update to Model Viewer before that became the norm, so skinners can still do work. It would also be cool if they would embrace something like Substance Painter and create a plugin that would allow us to use that program to load the files and textures and just eliminate the need to load and re-load the model in the model viewer entirely.

Yeah, I think Steam requires a firm date to be set and then they also sometimes have a slight delay in posting things.

I like to live in the fantasy world where it might.

Yeah, the Dynamic Campaign's going to be a massive addition. It'll be great to just have it create missions for you on the map so you can just go out and fly into a mystery world.

It really does make you feel like you're trying to throw a massive helicopter around the skies, and while I've never flown a real Mi-24, or even a real helicopter, it just feels right to my unqualified brain. Can't wait to take the MiG-29A up soon too. I'll finally be able to have the full fidelity experience while taking on Bluefor and not feel like I'm completely outclassed. There's definitely no way I'm getting any kills against a Hornet while piloting an F-4 or a MiG-21.

The Hind was one of those helicopters that I thought was cool as a kid, but wasn't really sure it would be that cool to fly in DCS, since it didn't have a lot of the bells and whistles of a modern attack helicopter. Boy was I wrong. I'm so glad I purchased that thing. Now I'll always love flying around in the Soviet Murder Bus.

Looking forward to this one. The MiG-29's been a favorite forever, and it's great that it'll finally be available in full fidelity. Now all that's needed to be added to the collection is the Su-25.

I didn't see any IRIAF ones, but I'd be shocked if they didn't have some made. And if not, I'll be firing up Photoshop as soon as the templates drop.

I'm with you. I would absolutely love to have one and rekindle the Apache vs Havoc days when I was a kid, but with how things have gone with just selling the Russian helicopters in DCS and the cool upgrades for the Ka-50III like the President-S system getting the last minute axe, I'm guessing the odds of an Mi-28 are about as high as my odds of ever flying one in real life...

One of the easiest ways I've found to check is just to open the controls page and then select the axis that's giving me trouble and start moving everything. Move my head with TrackIR going, move any axis switch on my joystick/throttle and in case you play other games on your PC using a controller, be sure to check those too. Back when I was playing FIFA 23 (still mad at EA for taking that one out of the store...) I would have to play this game of disconnecting my Playstation controller when I was flying in DCS and then when I wanted to play FIFA I would have to unplug everything else to make sure there wasn't any conflicts.

Pure speculation on my part, but given the AI improvements and the importance they've placed on the dynamic campaign, along with them posting that survey a little while ago gauging interest in a SAM simulator (or something like that, I'm trying to remember the specifics) it makes me think they're almost certainly going to be improving the IADS and SAM systems to become more realistic. They've already added some things into the Mission Editor that let you make the SAMs do a little more than just turn on at mission start and wait to be destroyed, but there's still a gap between what we've got now in the stock game and what something like Skynet IADS can add to the game. But I have to imagine it's something they are working on to make more realistic, since realism in the SAM threat is going to be one of the biggest parts of the dynamic campaign outside of the AI planes and vehicles moving in realistic ways. And to echo what others have said, I would honestly be fine settling for an AI F-4G where it can run whatever default EW AI protocols that ED hopefully work into the game for AI SEAD and DEAD packages, but I can also understand that being a lot of extra work for Heatblur. But if they ever wanted to throw together a Go Fund Me to collect some funds to donate to paying one of their 3D modelers and texture artists for a little extra work to modify the F-4 we have into the F-4G, I'd certainly toss some money their way just to have it as an AI asset to throw into missions.

I can upload it to Google drive if you're interested!

Nothing too fancy. Just the latest skin I put together after hating having blank Abkhazian Air Force MiG-21s in my missions. Figured I would give them a free upgrade.

I'm looking forward to the day when the waypoint options to mark battlefield stuff like power lines and target areas/targets become something we can manually add in the Mission Editor. It'll make Apache missions so much more immersive, at least from a single player standpoint. I would love to mark all of those types of things in the system now, but it's just brutal having to manually input all of that stuff yourself. It would be so cool to be able to designate the target areas and no-fire areas like in the demos for them, and then as extra icing on top of the cupcake, have it so you can tell your AI wingmen to engage in their designated areas.

I guess that's kind of the crux of the whole issue at hand, isn't it? Personally, it would depend. If I was developing for a game that I knew required me to turn over my source code, as I've been developing with them for years and I just either never turned it over or eventually stopped providing them updated source code, then no, I wouldn't be shocked to see that my money flow from the company I'm working with suddenly stopped. On the other hand, if I was working and meeting all of the requirements and expectations, then for some reason they just suddenly stopped paying, at that point I wouldn't turn over anything. The thing that makes it harder for me to take the Razbam side of the argument at full face value is, if I'm remembering correctly, seeing their main developer/company leader come out and say they have not and will never provide their source code to anyone. That just leads me to believe that the potential reason this all happened at all is because ED has been asking developers for years now (following the VEAO debacle with the Hawk) to provide them the source code so that ED can keep it and in the worst case scenario with a third party developer where they suddenly decide to close up shop or just stop producing for ED at all, ED can at the very least step in and maintain the modules as the core game grows and develops. Which this Razbam debacle kind of illustrates the need for beautifully, as we're now left with a potential handful of modules that may just be cursed to a slow death. I guess from my perspective, it feels much more likely that ED has been trying to work with Razbam to get the source code for a while now, or that they were getting the source code and it just stopped for whatever reason, and then they finally resorted to the only real leverage they have as a developer, which is cutting off payments until they get the source code and reach an agreement, or until things get settled in court. For me, it feels less likely that ED just randomly decided to stop payment to a third party developer who is one of the longer running third party developers with the game, who have made some of the most popular modules in the Harrier and F-15E, which just ends up hurting both ED and Razbam. That seems way less likely to me, especially with Razbam's comments about how they won't share their source code. It would also be oddly hands-on for ED, who generally seems (from my point of view at least) to be more hands-off in letting developers do what they want. With all of the public pressure on someone like Polychop regarding the flight model for the Gazelle, ED seemed to largely defer to the developer and leave it up to them to make it as accurate as they felt it should be. It strikes me as odd that ED would just suddenly go after one developer and stop payments if they didn't have a pretty substantial reason to cause such headache for both parties. That's just my two cents on everything. Like I've mentioned in other comments, without fully knowing the details, it's hard to say. So I can only go off of what little has been said publicly, and my personal opinions on the way Razbam's comments have shaped my view of what's going on.

I don't think Razbam will outright kill it, but if they do leave DCS and stop supporting their modules, it's possible the Harrier and other Razbam modules could die a slow death. If there are any core gameplay changes that might involve AI, radar, FLIR or whatever else ED might change over the years, there's the possibility that the modules just stop working with the game and eventually have to be removed. I'm hoping Razbam and ED can figure out a nice solution to the current issue, but with Razbam saying they aren't going to share their source code with anyone I'm definitely concerned about the future of the modules.

My assumption would be that they want to move their stuff to something like MSFS or maybe another combat flight sim that's in development. Personally, I think either would be a bit of an odd choice, but it's not my place to tell them how to run a company. It's certainly frustrating as a fan of the Harrier to read, because Razbam has made some great modules. But ED has smartly made it so that companies have to provide these things for this very reason we're seeing right now. If the third party developer stops development for whatever reasons, the ED players are left in a bind where they have a product that may work for the time being, but likely will slowly devolve until there's just game breaking bugs that require it to just be removed from the game entirely. While we don't know the whole legal argument going on behind the scenes, if Razbam isn't willing the share their source code for any reason at all, then it's just kind of a frustrating admission from them that they don't intend to develop for DCS. I don't see a world where ED wants to break this logical agreement they have with developers that allows them to continue development of modules or at the very least keeping them updated in the game if the developer finds themselves wanting to switch to another sim entirely or if a magical vortex suddenly opens and sucks up all the developers.

Unfortunately, given the age of the other modules that are all in a finished state, I don't know that there's much ED can do that wouldn't require them to (unfairly in my opinion) take a big financial loss for things that are beyond their control. The F-15E at least is something that was still launched and in development, whereas their other modules are at least much more polished and pretty much finished, with the potential for Razbam to have included new features (stuff like the IR detection for the HUD or the APKWS rockets) but otherwise are good to go and would just require updates to stay functional in the changing game world. It sucks for the end user, but I don't really know how ED can "fix" that issue, since this obviously isn't something that they want to have happen. I'll keep enjoying the Harrier and hoping that things can be patched up. If the day comes where there's a game breaking bug that means I can't fly it anymore, and ED isn't able to fix it (since they don't have the source code needed, which seems to be the sticking point of the whole thing) then I'll have to begrudgingly shelve the Harrier and hope that someday ED or some other third party can come along and potentially make us a new Super Harrier or just re-make the Harrier we have now.

Thanks, NineLine! I wasn't sure if I was misunderstanding what they meant by not sharing their source code, and if that potentially ran opposed to the way you guys work now (Post VEAO at least) where the ED Devs need access to source code to allow them to jump in and at least improve things in a Developer for whatever reason is no longer able to. I'm glad to hear the work continues! Here's hoping everything comes together in the near future.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, so NineLine or anyone else, feel free to correct me, but this kind of reads like a statement saying they aren't going to be able to find common ground for the way ED wants their developers to work. If Razbam isn't sharing their source code, and never will, I don't see how there's ever an agreement to be struck between the two. Without the source code, ED is in a place where they are entirely stuck hoping a developer never folds or runs into any issues that causes them to suddenly uproot and leave the DCS ecosystem, which isn't realistic. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the way ED wants to work with third parties, this would make it really difficult, if not impossible, for ED to be able to work on modules and keep them updated and improved as the game itself grows and improves in terms of flight models, FLIR modeling, whatever it might be. Bit of a bummer if that is indeed the case. The Harrier's always been a favorite of mine, and it sucks to think it might just have to slowly age out over time and might eventually reach a state where it's just too outdated to have fun flying.

I appreciate the kind words! I've been meaning to wrap up some other skins I've been working on. I made some "default" Abkhazian Air Force skin for the MiG-21 that I need to just wrap up a few things on.