Ranger79 Base Objects Pack (Hesco's + others)

[shagrat]

Another tiny little detail the "customers" of this community mods are missing, is the fact, that most of the time only the original modder has the source model and can recompile/add new layers/fix parameters of the models and no one else.

Even if it would be available there is the problem of copyright to the original artists work, etc., etc.

Now, interestingly the civil aircraft mod (CAM) still seems to work, so it is not impossible to update/build a model that loads and works in DCS, you guys just need to kindly ask both modders (mod teams) to tell you how they're done the mods, give you access and grant rights to their old sources, then someone needs to invest his time to adapt it to the way the Civil Aircraft Mod is compiled instead of barking up the wrong tree.

Ultimately that is the reason, why ED recommends a clean install, with no mods. They break things, are regularly abandoned and often they are not even featuring a decent LOD and bring down performance with "customers" complaining about the "bad game", not even knowing it is the cool armed technical 4x4, that has no LOD, loads a handful of textures not even used in the model any more, speaking of textures, use textures with ridiculous detail and size, all required in memory and processed... and no it is not Ranger79s "fault", nor his "job" to fix this. It is our "chance" as a community to either find a way to improve the mod or move forward, and create a new, up to par with the new graphics engine.

As a paying customer I take stability, better performance and new features/effects over "backwards compatibility with ancient abandoned mods" anytime.

[jef32]

But it revives the debate:

ED knows what these mods are containing and that many users (customers like me) are using the items contained in these mods.

 

 

I've often asked an asset pack with this kind of objects and civilians objects and characters too. I'm pretty ready to pay for that and in this way we could have he same evolution for these items with the improvement of DCS. See: ED claims to be a combat simulation but don't hesitate to sell a plane like the Christen Eagle having nothing to do with military stuffs. Why are they so opposite to create a civilian asset pack ?

Edited June 10, 2019 by jef32

[shagrat]

But it revives the debate:

ED knows what these mods are containing and that many users (customers like me) are using the items contained in these mods.

 

 

I've often asked an asset pack with this kind of objects and civilians objects and characters too. I'm pretty ready to pay for that and in this way we could have he same evolution for these items with the improvement of DCS. See: ED claims to be a combat simulation but don't hesitate to sell a plane like the Christen Eagle having nothing to do with military stuffs. Why are they so opposite to create a civilian asset pack ?

No problem. Found a company, acquire the necessary licenses and design rights for the assets you want to model and apply as a 3rd party. DekaIronworks did it to add the China Asset Pack, Ugra Media did it for the WWII asset pack.

As a contracted partner you will maintain and upgrade your asset pack and everybody will be happy.

I doubt ED can spare resources and investments into producing this stuff, as they are busy creating more relevant content, like Iranian assets, the Carrier environment, the F-16CJ and likely other stuff we don't know, yet.

Anyway, it is absolutely unfair to blame ED for issues with abandoned free community mods, at least that's my point of view.

[Snoopy]

No problem. Found a company, acquire the necessary licenses and design rights for the assets you want to model and apply as a 3rd party. DekaIronworks did it to add the China Asset Pack, Ugra Media did it for the WWII asset pack.

As a contracted partner you will maintain and upgrade your asset pack and everybody will be happy.

I doubt ED can spare resources and investments into producing this stuff, as they are busy creating more relevant content, like Iranian assets, the Carrier environment, the F-16CJ and likely other stuff we don't know, yet.

Anyway, it is absolutely unfair to blame ED for issues with abandoned free community mods, at least that's my point of view.

 

You act like becoming an official 3rd party is easy. Specific to the 476th range objects, we’ve talked a couple times about looking into making them official but at the same time we want to retain complete control and keep the mod free to the community.

 

Just a simple message from ED to the community in a news letter stating something alone the lines of “with the release of DCS World X.X.X 3d models will be required to be compiled with XYZ” would allow the community to update or acknowledge the fact the mod will no longer work. Communication is key.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Snoopy

[shagrat]

You act like becoming an official 3rd party is easy.

No it's not, but it is what is required to have contracted and reliable mod support. And it sounded from the comments, like that is what is needed so mods, don't get abandoned and no longer updated by their developer(s)...

He said he would gladly pay for any “asset pack". First thing coming up with any paid(!) asset pack is a shitstorm about something splitting the community, so in fact people want OTHERS than themselves time and effort into free mods, but won't accept the downside of this concept, rather blaming ED for it, demanding fixes for mods ED even can't legally touch?

So if they add paid asset packs they get a shitstorm, if they don't they get blamed for not giving the community the assets they crave?

What would you do?

[jef32]

Just a simple message from ED to the community in a news letter stating something alone the lines of “with the release of DCS World X.X.X 3d models will be required to be compiled with XYZ” would allow the community to update or acknowledge the fact the mod will no longer work. Communication is key.

 

 

I think you have the good solution.

A news letter to the moders, eventually a private message with the tool to allow them to re-compil with the new plugins could be a good solution, some days before the releasing of a new version.

 

 

Today, I continue to use the release version but it will be soon the hour of choice. All the missions I've made will become obsolete. I've spent hours to establish good triggers, to make templates US and RUS for each airfield and each harbour at least on Caucasus. Yesterday I've tried to see, with the ME in 2.5.5 which item will continue to run or not and I think that things are worst that I thought in first. Because in the ME, some objects have no more a picture view,and for these one, the message is clear, they will not run anymore. But others have yet a picture, so you could think that they're okay. But when you place them and launch the mission, the mission stays as if it was paused and nothing to do to unpause. So the amount of items which will not run anymore is higher that I thought in first. As BadCRc said for him previously in this topic, it's a total disaster for me too.

[Snoopy]

It doesn’t even need to be specific to the mod makers, just mentioned in the weekly news letter is more than enough notice. Mod makers take their time to do things to enhance the game, sometimes with things ED should include themselves, so a little communication would go a long way.

 

What would you do?

 

First thing I would have done is read my entire post, because I already answered this question.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Snoopy

[shagrat]

I think you have the good solution.

A news letter to the moders, eventually a private message with the tool to allow them to re-compil with the new plugins could be a good solution, some days before the releasing of a new version.

 

 

Today, I continue to use the release version but it will be soon the hour of choice. All the missions I've made will become obsolete. I've spent hours to establish good triggers, to make templates US and RUS for each airfield and each harbour at least on Caucasus. Yesterday I've tried to see, with the ME in 2.5.5 which item will continue to run or not and I think that things are worst that I thought in first. Because in the ME, some objects have no more a picture view,and for these one, the message is clear, they will not run anymore. But others have yet a picture, so you could think that they're okay. But when you place them and launch the mission, the mission stays as if it was paused and nothing to do to unpause. So the amount of items which will not run anymore is higher that I thought in first. As BadCRc said for him previously in this topic, it's a total disaster for me too.

That is exactly one reason the openbeta is designed for. Now the mods need to be updated in time before the release version is updated!

In addition there is a clear point about community (as in not supported by ED) mods and that you use them at your own risk, they may break at any time, negatively affect DCS World if interfering with stuff and scripts and clearly that if you need support from ED you should deinstall all unofficial modifications to the game.

If you need the mods you can always keep a compatible version of DCS, or fix it inside the community. Just don't blame ED for not fixing other people's stuff. They can't do that and if they keep "compatibility" we will have an unstable mess of a software that is even more difficult to maintain.

Even if they wanted to, they would need legal clearance and permission by the original developer and model creators, to name just two. If it comes to models like some of them used in Rangers pack I think they were originally lend from the ArmA modding community for Ranger, but not (!) for commercial use.

Now, as far as I know, Ranger79 abandoned this mod years ago and even if ED had informed him a month before he likely wouldn't have updated?

We need to accept this is the usual risk when using mods.

[shagrat]

It doesn’t even need to be specific to the mod makers, just mentioned in the weekly news letter is more than enough notice. Mod makers take their time to do things to enhance the game, sometimes with things ED should include themselves, so a little communication would go a long way.

 

 

 

First thing I would have done is read my entire post, because I already answered this question.

They did mention the move to a new branch! That is why now the modders need to update their mods and test in Openbeta(!!!) before the change is moving on into the release version! :doh:

[shagrat]

It doesn’t even need to be specific to the mod makers, just mentioned in the weekly news letter is more than enough notice. Mod makers take their time to do things to enhance the game, sometimes with things ED should include themselves, so a little communication would go a long way.

 

 

 

First thing I would have done is read my entire post, because I already answered this question.

I have cited your whole(!) post at that time, wisecracker. It was just that one sentence... though you added some stuff 10 minutes after(!) I answered it. ;)

[Snoopy]

They did mention the move to a new branch! That is why now the modders need to update their mods and test in Openbeta(!!!) before the change is moving on into the release version! :doh:

 

Saying they’re moving to a new version is not communication that 3d models need to be complied on a later version for them to work . What isn’t clear about that. You’ll defend ED (and VEAO) no matter what is said so don’t expect another response from me to you on the topic.

 

As I’ve said three times now, a little transparency and communication would go a long way.

[shagrat]

Saying they’re moving to a new version is not communication that 3d models need to be complied on a later version for them to work . What isn’t clear about that. You’ll defend ED (and VEAO) no matter what is said so don’t expect another response from me to you on the topic.

 

 

 

As I’ve said three times now, a little transparency and communication would go a long way.

Testing compatibility of their mods in the openbeta version and sorting out problems is one reason to have a BETA. It is open to the community in part to give the modders a chance to test and fix problems before the relrase!

The only issue is nobody understands the concept of a BETA release any more, as everyone uses it as a supposed release, to get their hands on new stuff and new features ASAP totally ignoring the downside of the beta concept (bugs, changes, issues testing).

You are being made aware that there is a new openbeta release, a minimum 2 weeks before it hits the RELEASE! Testing your mod brought up issues. So you can now fix them and ask ED for advise.

Any earlier notification would require you to have developer access to fix/test stuff. So in the end you still need to wait for the openbeta to test.

[gunterlund21]

Guys Shagrat is right. Modding is a risk. Just like in other products like Arma. Its not ED's responsibility to watch over this. Users do this because they go in and hack the ED code to create their own. Its a risk you live with. That is why I never publish missions with mods. I thought we all learned something with Bezcl mods years ago when he made the beautiful set of ground units then left the community.

[shagrat]

Maybe I should add, that I am not happy with all the broken mods either, only I tend to accept the risk inherent by using them.

I would love bunch of civilian/military/technical assets and add ons from ED to spice up the mission creation, but I can accept, that simply the process of clearing intellectual property, and licensing is a lot of work for a company, where community members can easily pull the "no commercial interest" Joker.

What I would love to see, is an official process for single community models to be cleared, signed off to ED if legal possible and integrated into DCS, so a lot of the incredibly talented work is accessible to us with no installation and mods requirements in missions.

Still this isn't something that is easy to do, I guess, and some modders as Snoopy said, want to be in control of their mods and thus won't follow that path.

[Snoopy]

Guys Shagrat is right. Modding is a risk. Just like in other products like Arma. Its not ED's responsibility to watch over this. Users do this because they go in and hack the ED code to create their own. Its a risk you live with. That is why I never publish missions with mods. I thought we all learned something with Bezcl mods years ago when he made the beautiful set of ground units then left the community.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3942840&postcount=571

 

Y’all can’t expect ED to be responsible for unofficial mods that the original designer doesn’t support. I used a lot of these mods too but it’s a risk I took knowing that they eventually may not work.

 

I obviously agree it isn’t EDs responsibility to make sure community mods work, ALL I’m saying is maybe if ED communicates a little better mod makers could have a version of their mod ready to test in Open Beta before its release than reacting after and Behring surprised.

 

ED making a statement in a weekly news letter “with the release of version 2.5.5 we will be updating all our models with the latest tool compiler.” Boom, if I was actively supporting a mod that would be enough of a heads up to be ready to test once it hits open beta. Doesn’t require me to have access to the testers branch.

[Rudel_chw]

Maybe I should add, that I am not happy with all the broken mods either, only I tend to accept the risk inherent by using them.

I would love bunch of civilian/military/technical assets and add ons from ED to spice up the mission creation, but I can accept, that simply the process of clearing intellectual property, and licensing is a lot of work for a company...

 

Hello,

 

I agree with you and I understand ED's limits on this matter.

 

I'm fortunate that I use Rangers' Mod just on a few of my Missions, and the owners of the Mods that I use the most (476th Target Range and VPC Airfield Objects) are willing to update them.

 

But I will surely miss the older Mods that related to the Cold War era, as there is almost nothing to replace them with :(

 

Best regards,

 

Eduardo

[Gerritboom]

VPC and Ranger79-Mod

 

Hello,

 

I agree with you and I understand ED's limits on this matter.

 

I'm fortunate that I use Rangers' Mod just on a few of my Missions, and the owners of the Mods that I use the most (476th Target Range and VPC Airfield Objects) are willing to update them.

 

But I will surely miss the older Mods that related to the Cold War era, as there is almost nothing to replace them with :(

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

Eduardo

 

 

Hello everyone, if you use DCS World instead of the OpenBeta version, then the mods will run

 

I tried it and it works fine

[Rudel_chw]

Hello everyone, if you use DCS World instead of the OpenBeta version, then the mods will run

 

That is just a temporary solution ... yes, I could stay at 2.5.4 and never update again, but I will lose every new feature that DCS adds from here on: no fw-190A, no Viper, no 50% increase in VR, no fancy carriers, etc, etc.

 

For me its better to edit my missions so that they dont make use of the affected Mods .. tough I will wait for Snoopy’s update of the 476th target range and VPC’s update of the airfield Mod, as their mods I use on too many of my missions.

 

Cheers.

[jef32]

Hello,

the owners of the Mods that I use the most (476th Target Range and VPC Airfield Objects) are willing to update them.

Eduardo

 

 

If you're sure about that, especially for VPC-Airfield, it's a very very good new for me as it's the mod I've used the most in my missions. More than Ranger pack and I don't despair about an update from Uputaut's mods ( That I've used intensively too).

[Rudel_chw]

If you're sure about that ...

 

I've e-mailed the developer of the VPC mod, and he has answered that he will check his Mod ... no one can be sure-sure if he will in fact be able to update it .. That will depend on how much work is required and what is the amount of time that he can put on this.

 

But at least, the developer is now aware .. it's a much better situation than other Mods where its author has passed away (like Lilkiki's) or is now away from DCS (this seems to be the case of Ranger79 and Crazy Eddies)

 

:(

[dimitriov]

Make me a list of what is really missing to you from the Ranger et Crazy Eddie pack here : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242793

 

i will do my best in the following weeks to replace some content so that you can keep some few nice things. It won't be as wide as the Ranger but at least you will get something... :(

[TheFinn87]

Hello people how can I install the mods?

[BaD CrC]

You can't. This mod is not working anymore.

[Snacko]

It would really be cool if ED would have a built-in Mod Manager for certain types of mods, like all these objects. Like other games have that allow you to install/enable mods in the options. And have a repository for them. Like many have pointed out, these types of mods(objects) can break missions, but also add a lot of realism and immersion to the game. It would make the game better and remove the workload of creating these objects from ED. Yea, it's one more thing they have to do... But it would add 10x to the realisim and end user experience. Just my 2¢

[Rudel_chw]

To this Section's Moderator:

 

 

Please, add "[Obsolete]" as prefix to this thread'd title, so that new users dont spend time trying to make it work. Thank you :)