II.JG1_Vonrd

Yes. And they have no problem allowing their Model Viewer to be in use. They have vastly more models that DCS but I haven't seen any hand wringing from them. Additionally, I've seen comments by DCS 3rd party devs saying that, while they have seen their models on sites such as Roblox they aren't particularly worried, just annoyed.

Well said Sir! It's good to know that 3rd party modules might remain as is. Well, tariffs on my Tequila and Model Viewer as good as dead. I'm going to open my bottle of Gran Centenario and miserate.

OK Doc. Thanks for the honesty. Just expand on #1. 3rd party modules included? Will all modules become "protected models" and if so, how quickly? Please continue your efforts. Thank you!

@NineLine Thank you! That's a much better answer. So give it to me straight Doc... I can take it. I just want to know: 1. Is this to be the new normal for all modules including 3rd party? 2. Is the MVR Dead? 3. Is there a possibility of something comparable to the MV (even if the replacement is missing some capabilities, and if so what will be missing)? $. If you had to place an urgency factor to coming up with a solution (what you think the team would assign), what would it be from 1 to 10 with ten being the highest urgency?

That's the crux of it, isn't it? It really seems that there isn't a whole lot of willingness. I do appreciate that a solution will take time but all I've seen is that it has been "asked" for those things that you have listed to be implemented. What are the responses to those questions from the Dev team. I have a suspicion that the answer is "go pound sand". Please tell me I'm wrong if you can. I'm sure that I'm not alone in feeling that the difficulties incurred by encryption are now to be the new "Normal" and that Skinning is now back to the Dark Ages. Again, not attacking you personally but you're the only Dev addressing the issue.

I second that. I'm sorry if anything I said is perceived as being directed at you personally. What I say is directed to ED / DCS as a business entity. Never to any person.

THIS!

7. Generate UV wireframe (when needed and when possible) 8. Navigation feature to see where specific files are located In a perfect world, just duplicate the MV. Could you please explain why (as to a child ) why the MV can't be modified in order to use the encrypted files without endangering the said files to piracy? So, by that logic, the competition was to get the skin community pissed enough to "get good feedback"? If that's the case I guess your cup runneth over.

Please don't associate anything that I have said with what @thepod is saying.

Completely true. It's just that I would really have liked to enter this competition (any livery competition for that matter) but I just can't see being able to make the same quality skin that I can when being able to use the MV. I tried using the F-5 template with the ME view but it was sooooo slow that it would be maddening and would completely remove any of the joy I get from skin-making. I don't just use the MV for pattern matching. I use it for color matching, roughmet matching and normal matching between the various UV files that make up a livery. I can vary the light angle as well as the environment. And what about weathering? Getting exhaust trails to match for example. I guess I could do a factory fresh with no weathering but I spent years learning how to do weathering in a believable fashion. So, it IS my choice but it's the correct one for me. I do feel disappointment that I won't be able to contribute and really wish that ED had waited until they had a solution before initiating a competition. What's the rush? Wasn't the B-17 competition years after the B-17 came into existence?

Exactly!

Sorry to hear that Bud but I completely understand.

You have a point. Those who wish to participate, regardless of the hardships in doing so, I hope that they will produce some stellar skins. I will probably be in awe of the results and maybe even envious. I have many other projects which do allow the use of the MV and will focus on those. I just hope that the situation will have an eventual satisfactory remedy.

In the past, I have enthusiastically participated in skin contests and, as some may know, have been lucky enough to be in the winner's circle. I will not be participating in the F-5E contest as a protest to the current situation of being unable to use the Model Viewer for it's intended purpose. While I understand ED's need to protect their IP by encrypting, I think having a competition while the issue is non-resolved is a bit of a slap to the skinners. I've made several posts in the forum regarding the issue and tried my best to be diplomatic. 9L's statement about refreshing liveries in game or ME gave me slight hope but he padded it by saying that they "didn't have programmer time available". I was willing to wait and see but with a contest being issued it seems that applying any programming time to a solution is at the very bottom of priorities. Those currently making F-5 skins, (while impressive and, especially so, due to the greatly added difficulty of not having the MV to work with) are exacerbating the problem by prodding ED to come up with a solution. 9L and BN will say "see, if they can do it, why can't you?" Participation in the contest will just reinforce that mindset.

Thanks for the reply. It looks like it's going to be a ways down the road then. I'm still hopeful for a positive solution.

Looking forward to the fully capable version (all FC aircraft). Does RedK0d's original mod still work?

While these are truly beautiful skins and all the more impressive since being accomplished without the use of the MV, I just hope that ED doesn't consider the issue solved. I haven't tried using the view in the Mission Editor hack (and doubt that I will be satisfied with it). Would @theRealTrickFlare and @VPS_Choki really not prefer being able to use the MV instead? @NineLine is there any news about being able to use the MV again in the (hopefully not to distant) future?

Obviously I haven't taken the time to look at the template since I consider it pointless until we get the ability to use MV back or a similar replacement. It's good that they included them though. I'd really like to make some F-5 skins in the future.

You do have a point r.e. the OP's question. As for the "hijack"...I doubt that they want a new thread but maybe that's needed.

Regardless, it doesn't solve the main issue of not being able to use the MV in the skin making process and he is pointing out an additional problem regarding the UV unwrapping. I don't want ED to think that if a few people have been able to struggle through and make some basic skins that the issue is solved. Even the header to this thread is marked as "Solved" but it has most certainly not been solved. Solved by NineLine, December 4, 2024

Once again a pretty nice skin but super simple. The roughmets could really use work but I don't know if you can even access the RMs. Asking again for the current status even if it's "Nothing at this time but we're still working on it". @NineLine?

Depicted is a Luftwaffe F-4F-53-MC, 38+66, SN 72-1276, CN 4784 of JG71 painted in NORM 72 camouflage with red rudder, stabilizer tips and fuselage patch to ease identification during air combat training. As photographed during the 1979 Neuburg air show. It would subsequently be one of the Phantoms in the "Phantom Pharewell" send-off celebration on June 27, 2013 at Wittmundhafen Air Base, Germany. All Phantoms were subsequently retired from service with the Luftwaffe. This depiction was based on the default skin "37+36_N72_JG74" with some variation of the camouflage as noted in period photographs of this particular airframe. Some items of note: * All placards / stencils re-done in text and graphic vectors. * Crew given period orange flight suits with appropriate patches and orange flight suit visible in the the first person pilot view. The default command to turn the pilot body on / off is LShft+P. * Crew given period Luftwaffe side caps (garrison caps). * Crew's gloves specified as white gloves by custom args and gloves depicted as worn and grimy. * Engine exhausts darkened to reflect the appearance in period photographs. Colors match the default skin "37+36_N72_JG74" and were kindly provided by Ben_Der. RAL 9006 Weissaluminium: a1a1a0 FS 34079 Forrest Green: 3e3a30 RAL 7012 Basaltgrau: 525658 RAL 9006 Weissaluminium has a RGB 204 / hex cccccc Value of Metallic in the Blue Roughness Channel Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3343745/

Exactly. Well said! Now if someone could accomplish a skin in full digital camo without suffering a brain hemorrhage... So, asking again... any progress?

Looks good! I assume that you did it by checking progress in game and not the Model Viewer... correct? This is a fairly simple skin without camo or intricate graphics which would be tasking to get right if having to check and re-check in game. @NineLine, any progress from the team regarding getting MV to work?

Nope, the issue came back. Doing as noted in the other thread did work: Go to Windows "Network And Sharing Centre" Ethernet Status -> Properties Select IP protocol version 4 (or TCP/IPv4) Under "General", select "Use the following DNS server addresses:" Write: Preferred DNS Server: 8.8.8.8 Alternate DNS Server: 8.8.4.4