NineLine

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.

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.

Yeah, everything worked as expected for me. We escorted the Su-25s back.

So I just flew this mission and everything worked as I expected. We resumed escort when stated and the mission was completed as expected (even with my poor landing). If you try again and have the same problem, save a track and I can take a look. Thanks!

reported, thanks

reported, thanks!

Reported, thanks.

Guys, if you do not have a legitimate source to share on this, then that is fine, but harassing a volunteer member of our team is not going to help you get the changes you want. Mentioned above was a manual to a Su-25K, while this might be a reasonable source, it is only usable if there is a legally shareable source of this. If not, it cannot be used. If you have a reasonable reason why this feature should be added, I am happy to ask the team. If you want to just be sassy or make sassy comments, I will close this thread. If you have a link to a manual, and you are unsure if its legal to share, send me a DM and I can have a look. Let me know what you want to do, thanks.

We still plan to model the hydraulic system, but I do not have a timeline sorry.