Request for Community to update B52, B1, S3, CH-53E models as ED can't seem to do it

[Hairdo1-1]

We have been seeing/hearing about these updated models for 2 years+ now and yet are never included in the updates... this community pumps out an amazing new model every day/week it seems....

[Timex3]

On 8/24/2023 at 7:02 PM, Hairdo1-1 said:

We have been seeing/hearing about these updated models for 2 years+ now and yet are never included in the updates... this community pumps out an amazing new model every day/week it seems....

You have couldnt agree more. Currenthill is way better at creating Mods, that's just my opinion!

[G.J.S]

They ARE being worked on, just give them some slack. They do have an entire sim to work on to keep (most) people happy, not just a mod.

Failing that, you could maybe submit a resume? 

 

Or just enjoy what you have whilst waiting for that which will come.

[KrazyPilot]

Currenthill buys pre made 3D models which is entirely different concept than building them from scratch as ED has to do with their models as far as I understand. That is how CH is able to pump them out so quickly. All he has to do is a bit of coding to add the weapons models correctly and tweak the basic FM of stuff.

What you could do instead is request CH to buy and implement 3d mods of those aircraft for AI and put it in DCS if all you want is visual improvement. Or buy them and implement them yourself. But, you wont have access to the AI and advanced FM stuff to make them true ED quality.

[Tank50us]

29 minutes ago, KrazyPilot said:

Currenthill buys pre made 3D models which is entirely different concept than building them from scratch as ED has to do with their models as far as I understand. That is how CH is able to pump them out so quickly. All he has to do is a bit of coding to add the weapons models correctly and tweak the basic FM of stuff.

What you could do instead is request CH to buy and implement 3d mods of those aircraft for AI and put it in DCS if all you want is visual improvement. Or buy them and implement them yourself. But, you wont have access to the AI and advanced FM stuff to make them true ED quality.

This. Also keep in mind that we don't know how many people ED have working on these projects, vs projects that ultimately make them money (the modules). I don't have an issue with ED focusing on making sure the game is financially stable. Now, that said, I think ED should make some a better mod support system, so that we players can better contribute to DCS, like how the Skyhawk guys did.

[Hoirtel]

I think ED should buy the static mods that meet thier specs from the modders that make them and include them in the game. Or allow modders to sell asset packs as a third party, just need to ensure that people without these packs can still join a server with them on otherwise it's a pain to try and do MP.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Hoirtel

[currenthill]

5 hours ago, KrazyPilot said:

Currenthill buys pre made 3D models which is entirely different concept than building them from scratch as ED has to do with their models as far as I understand. That is how CH is able to pump them out so quickly. All he has to do is a bit of coding to add the weapons models correctly and tweak the basic FM of stuff.

What you could do instead is request CH to buy and implement 3d mods of those aircraft for AI and put it in DCS if all you want is visual improvement. Or buy them and implement them yourself. But, you wont have access to the AI and advanced FM stuff to make them true ED quality.

Haha, thanks for the deep insight regarding my process. Unfortunately you couldn't be more wrong, and I'm not a big fan of assumptions to be honest.

There are a couple of main reasons why I can release assets at a high pace. The fact that I buy the basic 3d mesh isn't the secret sauce. The main reason is that I prioritize the release of new AI assets, which (understandably) ED don't. They are a company and need to make money to keep running. If ED wanted to release AI assets, they could release them in numbers that immensely would surpass mine. But in order to do so they would more or less have to shift all their business priorities.

Back to my process, here is an overview from the FAQ on my site.

HOW DO YOU CREATE ALL THESE ASSETS - DO YOU MODEL THEM?

• It's a combination. I first try to source a suitable model (checking format, vertices, quality of the mesh etc). But even in the best case scenario where I find a really nice model, there's a lot of work that I need to do with the mesh. I restructure the model, group objects, split objects, rig it for animation, create uvs, add missing details, add additional objects, replace stuff that doesn't look good. I then either increase of decrease the amount of vertices. Lastly I animate it and export the uvs to SP and continue with creating the textures (I make my textures from scratch).
• In some cases where I really want an asset and there's no suitable 3d model available, I make it myself. But since I have bought a fair share of models and already created a lot of stuff I can often put stuff together with what I have. That's what's good with the military stuff, there is a lot of standardization going on. And that really makes my life easier. 
• So while the work on the model (mesh) is a lot of work, that's just one part of the process. I also model more or less every missile/projectile myself.

Here's a quick overview of all the steps involved:

• 1) Research, 2) Mesh, 3) Uvs, 4) Animations, 5) Textures, 6) Code, 7) Sound, 8) Destroyed model, 9) Collision model, 10) Testing, 11) Documentation, 12) Publish, 13) Support
• I have created a very efficient workflow, which relies on me being the only developer. But as I mentioned in the forum thread, I cut some corners since I do this as a hobby and do not work for ED. For example, at the moment I don't create several LODs, and I don't spend too much time on optimizing the model (mesh and textures). This makes my assets pretty heavy to run. 
• But these are cons I'm prepared to accept to keep getting now assets released. But that is all I'm prepare to accept, I really try to keep the quality high in regards to realism of the weapons, I make every ammunition and weapon type myself so that I can tune and optimize their performance. I add all the details like small detailed animations on the assets, custom sounds etc. I'm not interested in creating the same assets with different 3d models. 

And as to the part of a "bit of coding", I don't copy paste code. I have written and maintain almost 100 000 lines of code for my assets at the moment. Another thing that takes time is R&D, since I have to invent new ways to emulate modern weapons in DCS. A lot of my weapons or systems doesn't have an equivalent or template in core DCS to use.

And finally, in regards to AI aircraft. ED hasn't released the new AI flight model (General Flight Model, GFM). So until then, all AI aircraft share the same basic flight model (SFM). The SFM configuration doesn't become more advanced because an ED employee enters the numbers. 

Edited August 27, 2023 by currenthill

[Joey_Destroyah]

Speaking of weapons not emulated, could you publish a public version of Rapid Dragon please?

It could have the AGM-154 JSOW, JDAM ER, or the AGM-158B/D JASSM/LRASM.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Joey_Destroyah
Grammar

[KrazyPilot]

On 8/27/2023 at 3:35 AM, currenthill said:

Haha, thanks for the deep insight regarding my process. Unfortunately you couldn't be more wrong, and I'm not a big fan of assumptions to be honest.

There are a couple of main reasons why I can release assets at a high pace. The fact that I buy the basic 3d mesh isn't the secret sauce. The main reason is that I prioritize the release of new AI assets, which (understandably) ED don't. They are a company and need to make money to keep running. If ED wanted to release AI assets, they could release them in numbers that immensely would surpass mine. But in order to do so they would more or less have to shift all their business priorities.

Back to my process, here is an overview from the FAQ on my site.

HOW DO YOU CREATE ALL THESE ASSETS - DO YOU MODEL THEM?

• It's a combination. I first try to source a suitable model (checking format, vertices, quality of the mesh etc). But even in the best case scenario where I find a really nice model, there's a lot of work that I need to do with the mesh. I restructure the model, group objects, split objects, rig it for animation, create uvs, add missing details, add additional objects, replace stuff that doesn't look good. I then either increase of decrease the amount of vertices. Lastly I animate it and export the uvs to SP and continue with creating the textures (I make my textures from scratch).
• In some cases where I really want an asset and there's no suitable 3d model available, I make it myself. But since I have bought a fair share of models and already created a lot of stuff I can often put stuff together with what I have. That's what's good with the military stuff, there is a lot of standardization going on. And that really makes my life easier. 
• So while the work on the model (mesh) is a lot of work, that's just one part of the process. I also model more or less every missile/projectile myself.

Here's a quick overview of all the steps involved:

• 1) Research, 2) Mesh, 3) Uvs, 4) Animations, 5) Textures, 6) Code, 7) Sound, 8) Destroyed model, 9) Collision model, 10) Testing, 11) Documentation, 12) Publish, 13) Support
• I have created a very efficient workflow, which relies on me being the only developer. But as I mentioned in the forum thread, I cut some corners since I do this as a hobby and do not work for ED. For example, at the moment I don't create several LODs, and I don't spend too much time on optimizing the model (mesh and textures). This makes my assets pretty heavy to run. 
• But these are cons I'm prepared to accept to keep getting now assets released. But that is all I'm prepare to accept, I really try to keep the quality high in regards to realism of the weapons, I make every ammunition and weapon type myself so that I can tune and optimize their performance. I add all the details like small detailed animations on the assets, custom sounds etc. I'm not interested in creating the same assets with different 3d models. 

And as to the part of a "bit of coding", I don't copy paste code. I have written and maintain almost 100 000 lines of code for my assets at the moment. Another thing that takes time is R&D, since I have to invent new ways to emulate modern weapons in DCS. A lot of my weapons or systems doesn't have an equivalent or template in core DCS to use.

And finally, in regards to AI aircraft. ED hasn't released the new AI flight model (General Flight Model, GFM). So until then, all AI aircraft share the same basic flight model (SFM). The SFM configuration doesn't become more advanced because an ED employee enters the numbers. 

 

Well, as much as I stand corrected I would not call it a deep dive insight as I was relaying MY understanding at the time of how you implement the models into DCS. Understandably with the number of Assets ou must maintain at any given time the amount of code is absolutely more than just a bit but I think that was more of an understatement on my end as being far from the average or typical modder that you are I can imagine the ones who have less than a handful of Asset specific mods under their belts probably dont typically accumalate that kind of coding. Such as using weapons that are already available in DCS and getting them to work with something seperate or let alone improving on the models that are already in existince in DCS. As for FM, my thought process was more for those of Flyable Mods and the tweaking required even of the SFM there is always tweaking required. But, my point was not to insult here as much as it was to explore ones options into jumping in to modding themselves as well to understand that the process goes both ways and excuse my sarcasm for much of what it was.. Just That. Side Note - The amount of requests you get is beyond anything I feel most would be comfortable receiving but I feel people should understand that you are not a Machine that just spits stuff into existance 24/7 LoL. Hopefully, I explained myself a bit better and thank you for the insight.

Edited August 31, 2023 by KrazyPilot

[currenthill]

8 hours ago, KrazyPilot said:

Well, as much as I stand corrected I would not call it a deep dive insight as I was relaying MY understanding at the time of how you implement the models into DCS. Understandably with the number of Assets ou must maintain at any given time the amount of code is absolutely more than just a bit but I think that was more of an understatement on my end as being far from the average or typical modder that you are I can imagine the ones who have less than a handful of Asset specific mods under their belts probably dont typically accumalate that kind of coding. Such as using weapons that are already available in DCS and getting them to work with something seperate or let alone improving on the models that are already in existince in DCS. As for FM, my thought process was more for those of Flyable Mods and the tweaking required even of the SFM there is always tweaking required. But, my point was not to insult here as much as it was to explore ones options into jumping in to modding themselves as well to understand that the process goes both ways and excuse my sarcasm for much of what it was.. Just That. Side Note - The amount of requests you get is beyond anything I feel most would be comfortable receiving but I feel people should understand that you are not a Machine that just spits stuff into existance 24/7 LoL. Hopefully, I explained myself a bit better and thank you for the insight.

 

No worries, I just thought it would be a good opportunity to explain my process. Since there seem to have been a lot of confusion of how I do things.

Thanks for clarifying your thought process.

[NineLine]

On 8/24/2023 at 4:02 PM, Hairdo1-1 said:

We have been seeing/hearing about these updated models for 2 years+ now and yet are never included in the updates... this community pumps out an amazing new model every day/week it seems....

We are creating highly detailed models from scratch. They have to be at a level that can be somewhat future-proof for years to come. That all said, we would love it if modders submitted their work to be added to the core game, but it requires they own or are allowed to distribute the work. Things do take longer than anyone wants, but I am not seeing new models every day as you suggest. 

[SkateZilla]

On 8/24/2023 at 7:02 PM, Hairdo1-1 said:

We have been seeing/hearing about these updated models for 2 years+ now and yet are never included in the updates... this community pumps out an amazing new model every day/week it seems....

Small Correction,
The Community Modder's License Models and roughly convert them to DCS every week. (Mainly from TurboSquid),
In Which case, most of those Models have a non-commercial license agreement which prevents it from being integrated into the sim commercially.
and most of the time, when I say "rough" conversion, I mean textures adjusted, and main things (Gear, Canopy) animated, w/ zero to no damage modelling, or work put into a proper integration.

That's not to say there are teams that build their own models, but at the Level of Detail needed for DCS< I highly doubt they build, separate, animate, and have it 100% in game in less than a few months.

Edited August 31, 2023 by SkateZilla

[Citizen]

The year is 2039.
The community is upset that DCS uses old models from 2023.

"I went up to it and licked it and it didn't even taste like anything!  complete placeholder flavor profiles."

With that being said, I think we've been seeing the same B-1B in promo material for over a year now.  I can't wrap my head around what could be causing the holdup on an AI asset that looked great a year ago, but there's a lot I do not know.

[SkateZilla]

1 minute ago, Citizen said:

The year is 2039.
The community is upset that DCS uses old models from 2023.

"I went up to it and licked it and it didn't even taste like anything!  complete placeholder flavor profiles."

With that being said, I think we've been seeing the same B-1B in promo material for over a year now.  I can't wrap my head around what could be causing the holdup on an AI asset that looked great a year ago, but there's a lot I do not know.

Proper Integration,
AI and Systems, etc.

Use the Current B-1B and B-52 and tell me they are used properly by the AI.

[currenthill]

24 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Small Correction,
The Community Modder's License Models and roughly convert them to DCS every week. (Mainly from TurboSquid),
In Which case, most of those Models have a non-commercial license agreement which prevents it from being integrated into the sim commercially.
and most of the time, when I say "rough" conversion, I mean textures adjusted, and main things (Gear, Canopy) animated, w/ zero to no damage modelling, or work put into a proper integration.

That's not to say there are teams that build their own models, but at the Level of Detail needed for DCS< I highly doubt they build, separate, animate, and have it 100% in game in less than a few months.

 

Well, I would argue the TurboSquid models are allowed to use commercially (in DCS), if you do it correctly. Check the license details. In the case of DCS, the requirement would be to export to the EDM format. But I agree, if I for example were to build every model from scratch, it would take a lot longer to release a new asset. But that would only add the mesh creation time. I know for a fact that I can create everything else in my described process at a rather high pace, because as I mentioned before, it's my main priority. That is the key. I have released over 100 (in my opinion) high quality assets this year.

Just to be clear, I'm only speaking for myself and my own work, I don't want to criticize or review others.

Quote

Distribution in Games and Software: This is allowed for most uses (including games made with Unity and Unreal) so long as the 3D files are part of a larger creation and not in an open format which would allow others access to the underlying 3D Model’s data. Giving away the 3D Model file itself is not allowed.

 

Quote

 

Games Uses

Allowed games uses: Console, PC, web, mobile games; Virtual and augmented reality; Game mods; Closed MMOs and closed Virtual Worlds..

Prohibited games uses:

• Redistributing or otherwise making TurboSquid 3D Models available to end-users.
  If you are redistributing something that includes actual 3D Model files, the 3D Model files must be incorporated into a larger creation and not in an open format that others can be downloaded. Most game engines, such as Unity and Unreal, handle this automatically. In general, to prevent your end-users from obtaining TurboSquid 3D Models, you should use proprietary formats that cannot be extracted, exported, or decompiled without reverse engineering.
• Using TurboSquid 3D Models in Virtual Worlds.
  This use is prohibited if the virtual world-type is an open MMO, like Second Life. However, the use is allowed if the MMO is a closed MMO, like World of Warcraft. More specifically, the 3D Model may not be exported or sold.
• Using TurboSquid products in Browser based games.
  TurboSquid allows using 3D Models in the following WebGL browser-based applications: Unity, Unreal, and Lumberyard. Others may be approved on a case by case basis.
• Additional use in WebGL applications.
  TurboSquid allows content to be used in WebGL applications IF the customer/application converts the content from the DCC format to a JavaScript/other non-standard format prior to porting to the WebGL program, subject to the following guidelines: A) the format has no known reverse engineering methods and/or B) The textures and topology of the mesh have been modified in such a way to make it a substantially different product. These uses must be approved in advance by contacting us through email or our Support channels.

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by currenthill

[SkateZilla]

3 minutes ago, currenthill said:

Well, I would argue the TurboSquid models are allowed to use in the commercially, if you do it correctly. Check the license details. In the case of DCS, the requirement would be to export to the EDM format. But I agree, if I for example were to build every model from scratch, it would take a lot longer to release a new asset. But that would only add the mesh creation time. I know for a fact that I can create everything else in my described process at a rather high pace, because as I mentioned before, it's my main priority. That is the key. I have released over 100 (in my opinion) high quality assets this year.

Just to be clear, I'm only speaking for myself and my own work, I don't want to criticize or review others.

 

•  

 

IMHO, Coming from someone that does Cinematic Rendering as well as Models for Games:
Mesh Creation and UVW Unwrapping and Texture Template Creation is 90% of the work.

So, not to sound like I'm belittling anyone's work, Licensing a Prebuilt/textured model is basically jumping to the finish line sort to speak,

The standard 200 Arg Animations for DCS, I can do in a day, if the connectors and pivot points are already rigged in the model.
if not it will likely be around a week, to properly align and rig all the controllers, connectors, and pivot points for each item that will be animated.

now if I want to do damage and expanded animations (likely 500+) it would take even longer.

Edited August 31, 2023 by SkateZilla

[currenthill]

4 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

 

IMHO, Coming from someone that does Cinematic Rendering as well as Models for Games:
Mesh Creation and UVW Unwrapping and Texture Template Creation is 90% of the work.

Yep, as I said, if you create everything from scratch and have high quality standards, it will take time. And that's part of the issue, when is good enough?

Edited August 31, 2023 by currenthill

[SkateZilla]

1 minute ago, currenthill said:

Yep, as I said, if you create the everything from scratch and have high quality standards, it will take time. And that's part of the issue, when is good enough?

Graphics Rendering is never ending, in the time it takes you to build the model and animated it, the technology has changed, and you have to go back and revise it,

If the community had any idea how many times I had to go back and re-do the Super Hornet Model to confirm to new standards, they'd lose their minds.

But that's me, my Level Of Detail / Standards are very high, to the point where, the source model I licensed is likely going to be augmented by laser scanned datapoints to correct the shape, and re-doing the UVW Maps and moving to higher resolutions etc.

Edited August 31, 2023 by SkateZilla

[currenthill]

4 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Graphics Rendering is never ending, in the time it takes you to build the model and animated it, the technology has changed, and you have to go back and revise it,

If the community had any idea how many times I had to go back and re-do the Super Hornet Model to confirm to new standards, they'd lose their minds.

That is actually a good point. I mean, think in LODs. Maybe the module aircraft should have the highest of quality, the AI aircraft a bit less, and the ground/sea units could have a somewhat lower (not to confuse with low) good enough standard. The old compromise/balance between quality and actually getting things released. 

Edited August 31, 2023 by currenthill

[Citizen]

41 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Proper Integration,
AI and Systems, etc.

Use the Current B-1B and B-52 and tell me they are used properly by the AI.

'Properly used by the AI' in terms of tactics?  I would argue that none of the DCS assets are used properly by AI by that standard so it's a bit of a moot point.  'Properly used by the AI' in terms of what the AI can do with other, more modern assets?  That's a few weeknights of work.

I suspect that the real holdup is somewhere with - as you said above - damage states and animation, along with a healthy dose of dev/artist time being diverted to triage more pressing issues.  But I don't know for certain.

[Chap2012]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

We are creating highly detailed models from scratch. They have to be at a level that can be somewhat future-proof for years to come. That all said, we would love it if modders submitted their work to be added to the core game, but it requires they own or are allowed to distribute the work. Things do take longer than anyone wants, but I am not seeing new models every day as you suggest. 

KS-19 is the only thing ED has added in the last two years. Correct me if I'm wrong. However, if I am right. This is a clear indication that assets are close to last on the list. Also saying that, ED is well behind on many things that can make the game far more enjoyable. If we have to live off of community mods for awhile that's just fine. Currenthill, Admiral89, and others are doing a fantastic job with it. Just recognize that it is not a priority of yours, and be honest with your community. 

[NineLine]

26 minutes ago, Chap2012 said:

Just recognize that it is not a priority of yours, and be honest with your community. 

This couldn't be farther from the truth, Please recognize that the time and effort going into these models and many others is far from it not being a priority. I apologize for the time it takes, but this is not something that can be rushed nor do we want to push out subpar models that will be outdated in a short time after release. 

As for what we have added in the last two years, please take into account all aspects of the game. Not only AI models but weapons, pilots, new modules, etc. Because our 3D artists are working on all these things. 

 

Here is a quick and dirty scan of the changelogs, this doesn't include fixes, changes like textures for FLIR, etc. I am sure I missed or have some errors, but you get the point I hope. 

• C-47 Skytrain aircraft is added to the WWII Assets pack
• Introducing DCS: AH-64D in the Early Access now!
• Added technicals (armed pickup trucks):
  • Scouts with mounted DSHK 12.7mm or KORD 12.7mm
  • MLRS with BRM-1 80mm Rocket
  • Air defense with mounted ZU-23
• Added: Type-59 Medium Tank.
• Black Shark 3 by Eagle Dynamics
• Added Ropucha-class landing ship BDK-775.

[Chap2012]

4 minutes ago, NineLine said:

This couldn't be farther from the truth, Please recognize that the time and effort going into these models and many others is far from it not being a priority. I apologize for the time it takes, but this is not something that can be rushed nor do we want to push out subpar models that will be outdated in a short time after release. 

As for what we have added in the last two years, please take into account all aspects of the game. Not only AI models but weapons, pilots, new modules, etc. Because our 3D artists are working on all these things. 

I am taking account for all aspects of the game. Out of all the things listed. Assets are last on that list, that's all I'm saying. Do what you guys are doing, just know everything has been touched other then AI assets in the last two years. Including how they act and react. In all my missions I have to code AI to the point its all I do in a night. Only to have it broken in the next update. I love this game and what you guys do, but either the hardships need be acknowledged, or more help needs to be hired. 

[NineLine]

Just now, Chap2012 said:

I am taking account for all aspects of the game. Out of all the things listed. Assets are last on that list, that's all I'm saying. Do what you guys are doing, just know everything has been touched other then AI assets in the last two years. Including how they act and react. In all my missions I have to code AI to the point its all I do in a night. Only to have it broken in the next update. I love this game and what you guys do, but either the hardships need be acknowledged, or more help needs to be hired. 

Please see my updated post, but anyway AI reactions in missions are far different than making models, if you have issues please report them to the appropriate section with a track and/or mission file. 

I would love community-based model packs added to the sim, but it's up to them to reach out and apply for such work. We will continue to do the best we can not only in quality but time frame. 

[currenthill]

14 minutes ago, NineLine said:

This couldn't be farther from the truth, Please recognize that the time and effort going into these models and many others is far from it not being a priority. I apologize for the time it takes, but this is not something that can be rushed nor do we want to push out subpar models that will be outdated in a short time after release. 

As for what we have added in the last two years, please take into account all aspects of the game. Not only AI models but weapons, pilots, new modules, etc. Because our 3D artists are working on all these things. 

I personally think you're doing a great job, especially at keeping the quality high. I mean, the change logs clearly tells the story with all fixes, changes and additions!

And I don't mean to be argumentative, but if you were to put all your resources at creating AI assets, wouldn't the outcome have been very different? Hence, that is per se the definition of prioritization. That said, I don't disagree with your priorities, it's a balance act for sure.