Military Assets for DCS by Currenthill

[RaptorFighter]

I started a separate disk for a full copy of the previous version. I'm tired of fighting these problems over and over again. I caught myself thinking that I only have time to fix bugs and inconsistencies in updates and test whether units in mods work correctly. I haven't gotten any pleasure from the game for a long time.

[tripod3]

22 minutes ago, RaptorFighter said:

I started a separate disk for a full copy of the previous version. I'm tired of fighting these problems over and over again. I caught myself thinking that I only have time to fix bugs and inconsistencies in updates and test whether units in mods work correctly. I haven't gotten any pleasure from the game for a long time.

This is their secret plan, a conspiracy against modders - to disappoint and tire the able-bodied

In a couple of years we will draw liveries and nothing else

[Strikesabre98]

i personally spent money to buy some 3d model first to learn to use blender, then i started to use some free model on the web,i always want to share my work and start a little crew, but i think this is not the right moment. 

[Virpx21]

Well, the update sure broke a good bit as expected. Very glad for backups and feel sorry CH has to work to try and fix it again. I did very limited testing with my Hypersonic vs complete CH USA Sam assets and they all seemed to "work".

Biggest issue I noticed was with THAAD and it's inability to track at distances greater than 40nm against the incoming 9M723s. It would do much like the S-400 and engage the incoming targets at the appropriate distance of 90nm+ but all missiles would explode shortly after taking off, I'm guessing due to a new radar issue.

Reverting back to 2.9.5 and they work just fine again. I saw CH released a fix for MM104, so maybe the fix for AN/TPY-2 will be updated soon as well. 

Probably won't go back to 2.9.6 though as FC aircraft mods are also broke.

Edited July 12, 2024 by Virpx21

[ArielSharon]

On 7/12/2024 at 11:49 AM, Ironghost said:

After the update the smoke can no longer be seen well.

Same issue here  any fix for this?

[Abburo]

@currenthill patch after patch is obvious that even your passion and determination in getting things done might fade way, as seems like it begins to be a full time job only fixing the current assets.

How can we help you as your supporters? 

Kind of signing an open letter asking ED to consider your assets as part DCS core, similarly with the Massun92? I suppose also could be good enough if ED could at least provide you some of the tools as an "official moder" . Any other ideas?

[tripod3]

4 minutes ago, Abburo said:

Kind of signing an open letter asking ED

Great idea. When I asked alone they just gtfo me. But if the whole community asks, perhaps the answer will be more satisfying

[clanitho]

"Kind of signing an open letter asking ED to consider your assets as part DCS core"

Bad idea, CurrentHill must be given the flexibility to publish and manage its mods as it sees fit.
On the other hand, yes, ED needs to communicate seriously with modders and give them all the tools and information they need for updates.

[Abburo]

11 minutes ago, clanitho said:

Bad idea, CurrentHill must be given the flexibility to publish and manage its mods as it sees fit.
 

"Bad idea"...  maybe ... if having a big assumption that CH will quit his real job and dedicate entirely to a hobby  ... 

[Timex3]

2 hours ago, Abburo said:

@currenthill patch after patch is obvious that even your passion and determination in getting things done might fade way, as seems like it begins to be a full time job only fixing the current assets.

How can we help you as your supporters? 

Kind of signing an open letter asking ED to consider your assets as part DCS core, similarly with the Massun92? I suppose also could be good enough if ED could at least provide you some of the tools as an "official moder" . Any other ideas?

I couldn't agree more! ED could sure learn a lot from CH. ED has been a disappointment when comes to their assets! ED doesn't even come close to CH and his high-quality Mods. That being said, it's really up to CH! In my opinion, I think that CH just likes the freedom to create his own Assets as he sees fit!

Timex 3

[Urbi]

2 hours ago, Abburo said:

@currenthill patch after patch is obvious that even your passion and determination in getting things done might fade way, as seems like it begins to be a full time job only fixing the current assets.

How can we help you as your supporters? 

Kind of signing an open letter asking ED to consider your assets as part DCS core, similarly with the Massun92? I suppose also could be good enough if ED could at least provide you some of the tools as an "official moder" . Any other ideas?

Once again, this is just stupid talk. I don't know of a single model from CH that he modeled himself. CH is a master at duplicating and animating models he has acquired from the internet to implement his assets. He has always emphasized this in his texts. ED has given certain criteria for such a step of incorporating them into the core of his game, which are not met here with CH.

[currenthill]

1 hour ago, Urbi said:

Once again, this is just stupid talk. I don't know of a single model from CH that he modeled himself. CH is a master at duplicating and animating models he has acquired from the internet to implement his assets. He has always emphasized this in his texts. ED has given certain criteria for such a step of incorporating them into the core of his game, which are not met here with CH.

It's not stupid talk. Outsourcing time consuming mesh work is a rather efficient way of reducing time to market as well as cost. You are correct in the fact that ED has taken upon themselves to create their meshes in-house, which naturally also applies to third parties or them integrating others work. It's their decision, but that doesn't mean it's a good decision. I understand that ED wants to have the native (editable) produced mesh with full rights to ensure the ability to maintain and develop it over time (think source code escrow).

The other part he mentions, about providing tools for 'official modders' isn't stupid talk either. It's been proven rather successful in other platforms. 

I know that you're well versed in DCS modding and therefore you're also well aware of the fact that implementing DCS assets takes a lot more than a mesh, so please refrain from calling me a master at duplicating. 

That said, let's get back to what this thread is about. 

Status update

• As you might have guessed, there are new issues with the latest DCS update which have to be fixed.
• I'm getting very close to releasing the updated German asset pack. So I'll do my best to juggle the two at once. 

[Zahnatom]

48 minutes ago, currenthill said:

It's been proven rather successful in other platforms. 

yet ED seems to be determined to make it harder and harder for us

[Urbi]

currenthill! ED has made it clear that third-party work should not be used. Only work that clearly names the creator of the model created by the modder. Please name a single model that you yourself modeled as the creator. When purchasing a model from a seller, the buyer is subject to the terms of the license specified there, which basically means that you cannot sell your work unless you purchase the full license for a model.

 

[currenthill]

53 minutes ago, Urbi said:

currenthill! ED has made it clear that third-party work should not be used. Only work that clearly names the creator of the model created by the modder. Please name a single model that you yourself modeled as the creator. When purchasing a model from a seller, the buyer is subject to the terms of the license specified there, which basically means that you cannot sell your work unless you purchase the full license for a model.

 

Did you even read what I wrote? 

Not this again, we've had this conversation before. You seem astonishing immune to the information I give you every time you bring this up. 

You still seem to be under the impression that my mods are purchased 3D models which I release. I know you understand this better than this, so why play this game? But okay, I'll describe it for anyone else reading this. The models you purchase comes in an editable format (for example Blender, Max or FBX), they sometimes come with textures (which I rarely use), sometimes with UVs, but never with animations, code, sounds, collision models, destroyed models, documentation, testing etc which are needed for a well working asset. When I'm done with the mesh, adding the UVs, materials, textures, animations, connectors etc I export it to EDs proprietary EDM format. A format that doesn't allow editing without reverse engineering (which by EDs T&C is forbidden). 

For example, if you buy a 3D model from CGTrader, they will most likely come with what they call a Royalty free license. Here is how they describe the license T&C:

"Royalty Free License allows you to use the product without the need to pay royalties or other license fees for multiple uses, per volume sold, or some time period of use or sales. You can use it as long as it is incorporated into the product and the 3rd party cannot retrieve it individually in either the digital or physical form. You cannot resell the model you bought in the digital or printed form, but can use it in your commercial projects multiple times after paying for it just once."

"21A.2. The Buyer’s license to Product in this paragraph is strictly limited to Incorporated Product. Any use or republication, including sale or distribution of Product that is not Incorporated Product is strictly prohibited. For illustration, approved distribution or use of Product as Incorporated Product includes, but is not limited to:

- as rendered still images or moving images; resold as part of a feature film, broadcast, or stock photography;

- as purchased by a game’s creators as part of a game if the Product is contained inside a proprietary format and displays inside the game during play, but not for users to re-package as goods distributed or sold inside a virtual world;"

"21A.3. If you use any Product in software products (such as video games, simulations, or VR-worlds) you must take all commercially reasonable measures to prevent the end user from gaining access to the Product. Methods of safeguarding the Product include but are not limited to:

- using a proprietary disc format such as Xbox 360, Playstation 3, etc.;

- using a proprietary Product format;

- using a proprietary and/or password protected database or resource file that stores the Product data;

- encrypting the Product data."

You see, you need to separate Product from Incorporated Product. One can use the EDM without any issues, but one cannot redistribute or transfer the native editable model file. In the case of ED (as I mentioned in my earlier post), they have decided that they want to own the native editable model file, so that they can maintain it over time. If a third party would create models (like Massun or the Deka Chinese Pack) they could sell/transfer the native editable model file to ED because they own it. Let me reiterate - I know the EDs DCS T&C very well (Edit: It's actually TFC Ltd and not ED), and I know their requirements, that doesn't mean they're perfect. They can be changed in an instant if that's what they want. Believe me, I've written hundreds of contracts where IPR is a crucial part. That's why I commented on you calling it stupid talk. 

Does this make sense to you?

Edited July 14, 2024 by currenthill

[Urbi]

Currenthill! To be clear again. Your assets will never be included in the core game by ED, as you are not the author of the models used in your assets. My first comment was not about everything you noted in the previous text. Nobody is forbidding anyone from acquiring your assets. They are good works as assets. And once again, you owe me an answer. Name a model in a mod for DCS that you created as the sole author.

[tripod3]

Very interesting, but you are talking about a little different things. Moreover, users would simply like to see ED provide more support to modders, or at least clarify its policies, and not sneakily degrade the released mods.

[Abburo]

39 minutes ago, Urbi said:

Currenthill! To be clear again. Your assets will never be included in the core game by ED, as you are not the author of the models used in your assets. My first comment was not about everything you noted in the previous text. Nobody is forbidding anyone from acquiring your assets. They are good works as assets. And once again, you owe me an answer. Name a model in a mod for DCS that you created as the sole author.

@Urbi have you had a bad night buddy? What's to be so hatred having a discussion?

CH transparency was always spot on. He never claim he modeled the 3D stuff. And also spent a lot of his own money and time for making those available in DCS... why are you so black hearted about this? .. Actually I don't care why you are acting like that, but definitely you may hold your horses ...

So, I do really apologize creating this debate... 

[Zahnatom]

8 minutes ago, tripod3 said:

Very interesting, but you are talking about a little different things. Moreover, users would simply like to see ED provide more support to modders, or at least clarify its policies, and not sneakily degrade the released mods.

primarily for the code side

a pretty model is of no use if its impossible to write the proper code for it

[Esac_mirmidon]

Urbi, please be kind, CH is doing a wonderful work with the assets. This kind of debate is out of place. 

 

 

[currenthill]

1 hour ago, Urbi said:

Currenthill! To be clear again. Your assets will never be included in the core game by ED, as you are not the author of the models used in your assets. My first comment was not about everything you noted in the previous text. Nobody is forbidding anyone from acquiring your assets. They are good works as assets. And once again, you owe me an answer. Name a model in a mod for DCS that you created as the sole author.

Wow, you managed to disregard or misunderstand my post completely. Didn't I already say I completely understand the DCS T&C and EDs reasoning behind it, even if I don't agree with it myself?

But you still seem to think the mesh is the mod. To humor you, I can tell you that the (common) license T&C I mentioned as an example in my post doesn't require me to mention the creator of the native editable mesh file. In the case I use a mesh with Creative Commons license type, I credit the author as by the license type in the README. Just like ED does when they use open source software. I even think I've credited you for some liveries. 

And what's up with the straw man about me naming a model? I've never said I create my meshes myself, it's even spelled out in my FAQ on my site. 

We should be more interested in how the modding possibilities of DCS are steadily declining. A couple of posts earlier I mentioned that even the weapon schemes are now encrypted. I just want to have the tools to make the best DCS mods possible. 

Well, it's been a pleasure, but I have to continue working on my assets now.

Edited July 14, 2024 by currenthill

[NightHawk1867]

Hi, a small note. A file in 'CH Military Asset Pack Ukraine 1.1.0' failed the integrity check for a multiplayer server. I have temporarily removed this mod. Wish I could be more specific about the file but do recall 'su-24 collision' and then the file string appeared. Thought you would like to know.

Date July 14 2024 fully updated DCS (clean install).

 

[aztec01]

Urbi

"once again, you owe me an answer..."


CH "owes" you nothing.  Not even the time of day.

[Urbi]

am not interested in the following explanations from CH, as my post was only referring to abburo's initiative. ED made a clear statement about the acquisition of Massun92's assets. To make it clear again, CH's assets will never be included in the core of ED. By the way, I also do not agree with modders tinkering with the weapon data. CH is partly to blame for the fact that the luas are no longer available for all ED data. ED also made a statement about this step, which was then ignored by some modders. CH = currenthill

6 hours ago, aztec01 said:

Urbi

"once again, you owe me an answer..."


CH "owes" you nothing.  Not even the time of day.

Thank you for your wisdom. It's actually just a confirmation that a CH hasn't created a single model himself.

Edited July 15, 2024 by Urbi

[tripod3]

49 minutes ago, Urbi said:

You are, among others, to blame for the fact that the luas are no longer available for all ED data.

Hi, why do you think so?