NineLine

Why would they not if they have the time and resources? Makes sense to me as MSFS has a huge base and offers a different experience.

You will hear what we can share (as you have), we won't get into details, we want a healthy ED and RB when this is done, pitting you against one side or the other by share bits and pieces is not healthy for the long term, even if it feels like us being quiet is not what you want. Bottomline, and I know it's a broken record now, lawyers don't want this open for public debate, we are doing it the professional and way described by this process.

Yes I understand everything I say. As others have said already and I said before we are working on the situation with in the legal confines laid out. I am not sure how us continuing to work on our products relates to any of this. We want RB back, and their modules fully supported, if we didn't we would not continue on the current path.

Sorry you are not convinced.

I think it would be up to the 3rd Party if they wanted to protect them, I am not sure we would force them to protect them if they didn't want to, but I cannot say for sure. I will keep pushing, I was a livery painter back in the old days when I didn't know anything about no MV So I know the pain, and I know as models and liveries have become more complex its become more painful, I get it. But we just need to find a solution that does both. Its not lost on me that most times, things like this punishes the innocent harder than the guilty.

As I have said, requests are reported and I just said above what the team is busy with. 1. I assume so 2. The Model Viewer is still used for its original intended purpose, it was not made as a public livery tool. It still works for many tasks outside viewing our protected models 3. Anything is possible, but until our programmers can really dig into it, I can't say what that might look like, a MV lite? A built in MV in the game, I don't know. All I can do is ask and bug and see what we can get.

Maybe poor wording on my part, there was a reason given why we cannot simply add DRM to the MVer, I cannot go into why because I am not sure it's something I can share outside our internal discussions, somethings based on how things are protected are not shareable. So it's not lack of willingness in this case it's that it would not be secure enough. And too add, most of our guys that would work on such a thing are deep in Vulkan, they will not and cannot be pulled off what they are doing. Please stop suggesting they would tell any of our customers to "go pound sand" or anything like that. It's simply not the case.

Sorry, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

No, the competition was not intended to get feedback, I have not seen anything really new from when the model first came out. The intention was not to piss anyone off. People are already creating liveries for the F-5, even with the extra work. To your first question, no I cannot explain it, I am not sure everything should be explained when it comes to exploiting protection or what we are and aren't willing to do. No I see no example relevant to what we are talking about to take to management.

This is hardly what is happening, the only thing we are not doing is making public statements as it is, once again, a legal matter to be dealt with in the appropriate way. I am not sure if we made a similar statement to what was made today that would help anything. We still aim to resolve as we have from the start.

To further clarify, this is what I have requested for in-game options: 1) Reload Textures within game 2) Scene Tools for Viewing ( FOV Tools, Environment, Lighting) 3) Argument Viewer ( possible to do like other debug windows maybe?) 4) LiveriesToolPlugin 5) CONNECTOR_TOOL_PLUGIN 6) Generate Lua File Well, The B-17 competition came after me begging for it to be one for many years so that is not a good comparison. The F-5 could have waited as well, but also we will get good feedback on what is needed with this new way of doing model protection. Its cup half full vs half empty. I am sorry this is what you took away from what I wrote.

Look, guys, I want to leave this thread open, I want you to be able to share your opinion on the loss of the MV, but if we are going to get carried away, and make wild claims about how we don't care about you and are destroying your experience or our game, then there is no point. Make valid points about why you need the MV or options like the MV, and leave it at that. I have requested almost everything you want to see happen back when this module was first released, but getting carried away will not help, especially when a few of you have post histories of getting mad at other livery users for using other people's work which is the whole point it protecting our models, protecting our hard work on these models. I would think, even with the issue of the MV, you would have some empathy about work being stolen when you have experienced this yourself. If it's not clear, not all our models are created by staff, some of its contracted, those same people if they wanted their work in other games, or sold on the internet would like to do so themselves, not by someone ripping their models. So I hope you can have some understanding of this.

We have rules, if the post breaks the rules it will be removed. If you do not like or do not want to follow the rules, you can choose not to post. If you had something removed that you disagree with, you can send a DM, but its not on topic in this thread. So please stick to the topic here. You are wrong on each count, again, please stick to the topic, this is not about RAZBAM, or your opinion on why we decided to protect our models. Maybe take a break and come back to this thread when you have cooled down some.

Yet you posted and it is still here, I only removed posts from the submission thread as that thread is only for submissions. It's been the same for every contest. So I get it, you are frustrated, but please don't make things up. We are not asking anyone to do anything they do not want to do. The competition is optional. We are working on a solution, it will take some time, and that's it.

This competition will be over before we see a change added to DCS, all I can tell you is I have a report into the devs on what everyone wants to see.

This is something we requested, but the nature of the Model Viewer doesn't make this a valid solution. So once again, its not a matter of not wanting to solve this, its finding the right solution and having the time to make it happen. As a side note, are you also the same person who asked me on Discord if you could password-protect your submission file so no one could steal your work? The answer is of course yes like I told you there, we are happy to have you protect the hard work you have done if you have concerns about someone using it. Thanks.

While I understand your frustration with the newest constraints, please do not put words in our mouths. We have given every bit of feedback through at us to management on this, but as of right now, this is the current process of creating skins today. Will it change? I hope so. Can it change? I hope so. We have requested everything people have asked for, such as removing the protection on the models. That is all we have right now. And those that want to take part in this contest as it is, should not be made to feel bad either. So your opinion is your's, everyone can share it but do not speak for anyone else, or make people feel bad if they do not agree with you.

This thread is for submissions only, thanks.

I hope so to, I am not a big user of mods but this one I really enjoy kicking around DCS in.

You might be happy...

It's progressing.

To be fair, his wishlist item is for HB, so he is posting it in the HB section, best to let them answer if they like. Thanks.

If they want to access the SDK they need to apply for a 3rd Party status, we cannot give away the SDK, sorry. IL-2: 1946 is really not a reasonable example, 1) As far as I know, the team behind 1946 is not supporting and making new content for this game, it's basically an abandoned game that people are supporting on their own, such as Falcon 4. 2) We are not just talking DCS, but we have other professional usages of our SDK and IP that need to be protected.

Hey guys, we cannot reproduce this, can someone supply a track without any user mods included? Thanks.

Ok, I will check again. Thanks! Oh side note, I realize now I checked this in an internal build, so its possible it was an issue that's been fixed already.