Megalax

The problem that arises with the Solomons is the fact that the area went through extensive change throughout the campaign. That's why in Il2 1946 there are 5 maps, to encompass the variation the area experiences through to 1945.

This makes you a legend in my books.

To be fair to both of you, the modding world was opened by some software cracking back in 2008-2009. I know because I was part of the team that made the Solomon Islands map that was eventually included in the game officially. Official game support was delegated to a team of dedicated individuals called Team Daidalos. Their last official patch was released in 2022. It may very well be abandoned now, but it sure as hell had a long life for a game that came out 24 years ago.

I know, I know...

You are correct on the rest but not on this. If the texture is missing from either the folder or that the description.lua it will come out with the green pixel camo pattern. Thats why the green texture has the words "missing texture" all over it. However, if for whatever reason your texture file is not one that DCS recognizes even though it is brought up in the description.lua properly it will come out completely black. Try for yourself, make a texture that is 4096x4099 and call it per usual in your lua file it will turn out black. Just because you've never come across something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it's wrong. Maybe after you try it out and see for yourself what I'm talking about you'll understand why I made the assumptions I did. Actually here, let me show you: I made the external 1 diff texture 4096x4099 which is a pure white dds. Comes out black. Almost like I was right... at least about that. I pointed out that it needed to be 4096x4096 because as a general rule, that is the size DCS textures normally are. You are correct that even 8192x8192 works as well as all those other sizes. If there is camo in your screenshot, apologies for not realizing that I needed to zoom into your 1000x678 pixel image which takes up less than a quarter of my screen to notice what might or might not be camo. Also apologies that I made assumptions about you and your knowledge, and I will completely eat that, I should not have worded it that way without doing a thorough background check.

Thats not "super dark", thats black. All black means that DCS doesn't recognize your file, and usually its a matter of not having the proper pixel size. Make sure your exported textures are 4096x4096.

Probably because your approach is off. I've never seen texture files at 1000x130 pixels, they're usually in sizes divisible by 8 (16/32/64/128/256...) If your textures come out as all black it means DCS doesn't recognize them or their size is completely wrong. It seems to me from what I've read so far of your approach is that you just went in blind to this. The Hornet Borts for example are 256x2048, and are apparently the same as the new F-5E borts, so try those to start. As far as alpha channels and all that jazz, try using masks instead of meddling with channels in Gimp. Gimp works better if you work on the alpha as a mask I find.

The wing roundels are the modern 2:1 ratio versions, the WW2 Type B had a 5:2 ratio as seen here:

Allegedly they are the same as the Hornet bort numbers.

Thank you 9L.

I ran some tests for RAM usage, and one template open plus MV uses about 14-17 Gb of RAM. Running the same test with the game open in mission editor I'm at 31.9 Gb of RAM usage, which means people who only have 32Gb of RAM will likely overstress their system and run the risk of having either the game crash, or their image editing software crash mid way through creating a skin. I don't know about you guys, but usually I have all the templates from a particular module open at the same time in order to make sure I have all my weathering and colors matched. So people who have less RAM will have to suffer through saving and possibly closing their templates before checking their work in game. All this is time consuming and honestly frustrating to work through. MV is invaluable not only for time savings, but the fact that is less heavy in resources than checking stuff in sim is another point for you to push to the rest of the dev team. I hate to point to a competitor sim, but Il2's model viewer has basically what I'd envision the DCS MV should have, which is a drop down menu to access the models, rather than searching for them through numerous folders. All of Il2's models are also all encrypted BTW. There are several reasons why I'd much prefer to keep using MV, which in no particular order are: -F functions, where I can check any changes to the diffuse texture, all roughmet channels as well as normal maps to see if I have any potential issues -Quick manipulation of the model, as well as manipulating the args in order to check control surface deflections, landing gear, or checking internal bays to check for added details -Ability to check various lighting conditions via the environment bar -Ability to refresh the textures without having to use all my available RAM -Generating a fresh description.lua for the model, so that I can add extra details if I wish to do so Using the refresh textures with a panel finder texture in order to locate specific details of a skin is extremely useful, coupled with the ability to quickly manipulate the model allows me to line up camouflage patterns or any patterns for that matter while editing the texture in real time. Making a few good skins takes on average 30-40hrs of time per skin, so having to use the sim to check our work more than doubles that. All this means is that the people who would care about having their work included in the core game probably value their time and would rather pass in order to concentrate on something far less frustrating. I will gladly continue to upload things to the User Files section, but I'll sit this competition out.

They want valid points, so let's make valid points.

Helmet is not a 100% match. Some elements are out of place if you compare all of them.

This is part of the problem with us not having access to the base textures. We have no idea what the numbers texture is supposed to look like. Is it horizontally aligned like the old one, or is it vertically aligned like the Hornet? Seeing your screenshot I'd say the numbers texture doesn't match the alignment the model is looking for. Whatever used to work on the original F-5 won't necessarily work on the 2024 version as they completely redid everything. If you're not intending on using a roughmet you can just dash out the line too. The name of the texture doesn't matter as long as it matches in the descripton.lua if your line is set to false.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3343826/

When doing Bort numbers you also need to indicate the texture under the borts, usually both a diffuse texture and the roughmet if you're using your own. Its not just the number decal you need. For example: {"F-5E3_Numbers_Nose", DIFFUSE , "f-5-e3_dif", false}; {"F-5E3_Numbers_Nose", ROUGHNESS_METALLIC , "f-5-e3_dif_roughmet", false}; {"F-5E3_Numbers_Nose", DECAL , "f-5-e3_new numbers", false};

They're literally in the template.

Yes.

How feasible would a drop down menu for model viewer be? Like in Mission Editor right now there is no hunting for edm models, you just load it from the menu.

That would be a severe limitation to creation of content, and its not a solution I'm willing to be a part of. Up until recently, skinners such as myself have had the freedom to change anything and apply the details that they saw fit to add to their textures. You see to most livery makers, its not just about slapping on some camo and some roundels and then calling it good, its about adding or fixing details that even the devs either got wrong or wouldn't necessarily think of adding. Again, this severely limits the creativity potential of livery makers. Devs are currently way too busy on their own projects anyway to be making and maintaining a list of liveries that users submit and want. The fact they are busy is also the reason why they periodically reach out to the community of livery makers to help them, or why they run livery competitions in the first place. All I would like is that some form of transparent discussion between livery makers and the dev team be open so we can come to a consensus on what either side needs to do what they do without hindering the other.

You can, when the model is not encrypted. The new F-5E is currently unviewable in model viewer.

As you know by now the template is already out, but until we get a working description.lua with all the required entries, its actually quite useless. ED gave us a figurative cart, but no horse to pull it with.

Agree to all the above, but to your number one point, could the model viewer be updated to have a drop down like the Mission Editor for models? So we may still access the model for viewing without loading the game? Model Viewer has many advantages and functionality that opening and closing the game multiple times to see a change in a livery is a big hassle. Perhaps ED can open a discussion with livery artists in order to see what it is that we would require to give out content?

All of my publicly available works are here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/user-is-megalax/apply/ I do not have any skins made for this particular mod however.