MiG29A camo\skins

[aaronwhite]

21 hours ago, golani79 said:

Substance painter isnt working with DCS modules cause you would need them as fbx or obj and afaik you only have access to the files as .edm?

Yeah, I'm admittedly not skilled on the integration of stuff for Substance Painter, since I've never had a reason to pay to use it without it working with DCS.

My guess would be that they would need to create some sort of plugin that works with the ED game engine and allows Substance to access the model and texture files while modifying the textures. I have no idea how plausible it is or anything like that, it's just a "If I'm wishing for things to make my life easier creating skins, here's my fantasy". 

That said, I'll absolutely settle for just being able to easily load up the models using the tried and true Model Viewer.

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

NineLine

• 
• ED Team
• 
• •  32.5k
  •  134

• Author
• ED Team

Posted 7 hours ago

  7 hours ago, EchoOneOne said:

Releasing it in this format only hurts the community. You could have developed a method for encrypted viewing of the model in the model viewer and then released the full version. Another "feature" released to "fill the hole".

It is not up for discussion here, we have already stated what we are going to try to do elsewhere. Please keep the discussion on the MiG-29 FAQ here, thanks. 

Let's discuss it here then (or the F-5E thread)...

 

I'm still not clear what the projected solution is from the team. I can say that the overwhelming majority of Livery makers want a Model Viewer revision that will read the encrypted files. Most (myself included) think that it is entirely possible. If you say that it's not possible please explain as to why not. It seems that y'all consider that being able to refresh the skins in game will be a solution but that is simply not true as a number of us have explained in the past. I have bumped the issue several times with @NineLine and @BIGNEWY @tags without response. It may be that you don't know or are not ready to share but the lack of response feels like gaslighting.

 

Please note that I have previously purchased the F-5 upgrade and have also pre-purchased the MiG-29 as a token of support.

Edited 13 hours ago by II.JG1_Vonrd

[Mach3DS]

Can I ask a legitimate question here? I'm not trying to bait anyone, or be a jerk.  I'm obviously extremely disappointed with this decision as it's opening an entire host of issues which were clearly not previously thought through.   

Question:  Who exactly is pushing for this encryption of models and textures? 

Surely it's NOT the devs, right? 

They should be fully aware that it does not protect your IP. 

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction by someone else who is completely unaware of how the sim software interacts with the PC hardware. 

This is literally only causing a problem for legitimate customers and good faith community members.  You all know that right? Those tech savvy enough who could do it before are still tech savvy enough to still do it.

Please take this as a frustrated but good faith inquiry from a long time supporter, customer, tester, content creator and texture artist.  It's become so astonishing to me that it's gone down this road. 

You will literally KILL livery making for your sim. 

This is taking a generational step backward.  That's not hyperbole. 

Again, I earnestly plead with ED to reconsider this ineffective IP theft measure, and just walk it back.  The livery/texture community will be greatly affected by this over arching policy decision.  Why? Because you're making it impractical and extremely painful to down right impossible to continue in this hobby with your future products. And frankly if this is how it's going to be in the future, then I've come to the end of my contributing rope.  It's not reasonable and it's down right disrespectful to those who put it so much time FOR FREE to make your community vibrant and diverse with content - to ask them to spend 5x more time on something that will ultimately be much worse in quality.

I bought the F-5E and the remastered version. I've purchased most product until now.  I have been more than happy to support DCS.  This makes me want to completely reconsider my future purchases and support.

Respectfully, 

A long time customer.

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, II.JG1_Vonrd said:

NineLine

• 
• ED Team
• 
• •  32.5k
  •  134

• Author
• ED Team

Posted 7 hours ago

  7 hours ago, EchoOneOne said:

Releasing it in this format only hurts the community. You could have developed a method for encrypted viewing of the model in the model viewer and then released the full version. Another "feature" released to "fill the hole".

It is not up for discussion here, we have already stated what we are going to try to do elsewhere. Please keep the discussion on the MiG-29 FAQ here, thanks. 

Let's discuss it here then (or the F-5E thread)...

 

I'm still not clear what the projected solution is from the team. I can say that the overwhelming majority of Livery makers want a Model Viewer revision that will read the encrypted files. Most (myself included) think that it is entirely possible. If you say that it's not possible please explain as to why not. It seems that y'all consider that being able to refresh the skins in game will be a solution but that is simply not true as a number of us have explained in the past. I have bumped the issue several times with @NineLine and @BIGNEWY @tags without response. It may be that you don't know or are not ready to share but the lack of response feels like gaslighting.

 

Please note that I have previously purchased the F-5 upgrade and have also pre-purchased the MiG-29 as a token of support.

I am sure it is possible, but it will not be priority over other things on going with DCS right now. A majority of our programmers are working on things like Vulkan right now and cannot just stop to create whatever may be the final decision on what we do here. While we understand its important to a number of people, there are a lot of things important to people, and this one may not be at the top of everyone's list. So its not gaslighting or anything else if I do not have an answer or news right now, there is simply no news to share, and when we have something to share, we will. We cannot have this reaction each new model, this protection is here to stay, and we will look at things to help out the livery community when we can. Thanks. 

[Awacs_bandog]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

We cannot have this reaction each new model, this protection is here to stay, and we will look at things to help out the livery community when we can.

You're going to get this reaction til the problem is fixed, Just telling us to stop whining isn't gonna work. As it stands, It would appear ED Leadership didn't see an issue with what happened with the F-5 Competition if thats the response we're going with.

[Wyvern]

Ill laugh so hard whenever someone comes around with a ripped model of the new F-5 and other EDCE models, aswell as the MiG-29 when its out.
Simply because then you'll have to explain what the point of this measure is.
Whoever made the decision to implement this, does not understand that the moment the model is on a users screen, it WILL be ripped by someone.
ED is unnecessarily starting a fight with its content creators.

We have seen this with the modding community:
First when 2.5.6 came out, a lot of the scripts got encrypted. Making modding a lot harder and limited. That wasn't this bad until FC2024 came around.
FC2024 has killed a lot of mods, and only raised the entry bar, so only those that where actually doing their own stuff without mostly relying on FC3 would be able to make stuff.
Some mods literally only work because people reverse engineered FC3.


You've seen it with the F-5 livery comp.
Nobody will actually make stuff anymore.
Especially not high quality skins.
The RCAF camo was the best entry, and even that was still far from being good. The creator himself said that he cant work like this.


But hey
Me and a few friends have an idea:
We will make Liveries like this if ED will code the game in notepad from now on.
Because that is essentially what you're telling us to do.

There is a reason nobody believes you when you say that ED is trying to come up with a solution.
The same thing was said back with 2.5.6 about the files for all the weapons and planes.
And look where those are.

Possibly its just me being pessimistic.
But i dont see ED doing anything in this situation, because they simply dont care.

Maybe thats why they keep thanking us for our "Passion and support", because the passion is slowly dying on their end.

I wonder if Tishin (Rest his soul) would have allowed any of this.
 

Edited 7 hours ago by Wyvern

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

48 minutes ago, Wyvern said:

ll laugh so hard whenever someone comes around with a ripped model of the new F-5 and other EDCE models, aswell as the MiG-29 when its out.

I'm sure that it's already been done. I'd wager that Ed is aware but are burying their heads and in denial that the encryption is accomplishing what they hope for.

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

am sure it is possible, but it will not be priority over other things on going with DCS right now.

OK, that's an honest statement and I can accept that making the MV functional is a low priority. I personally would be appeased if you assured me that it will eventually (within a reasonable timeline) be the solution instead of the much less desirable measure of coding the game to allow refreshing of skins only.

As for the statement r.e. gaslighting, well that's what it feels like when request's for news are not responded to.

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

We cannot have this reaction each new model

That's very wishful thinking until this issue is resolved. See my statement "(within a reasonable timeline)" above. "Years" is not reasonable. Your statement implies that it will be several model releases before we see the solution. That certainly sounds like "years" to me.

Bottom line, I am and have always been supportive of ED. I own most modules and almost always pre-purchase. My passion is Livery making and I have submitted numerous skins to UF for the enjoyment of the DCS community. I really enjoy the skin contests and am proud and grateful to have awarded in each one that I have entered. 

So, that is why I'm upset. I believe that I've been courteous and diplomatic in voicing my displeasure and am grateful for your responding in the same fashion.

Edited 7 hours ago by II.JG1_Vonrd

[EricJ]

8 hours ago, Mach3DS said:

Can I ask a legitimate question here? I'm not trying to bait anyone, or be a jerk.  I'm obviously extremely disappointed with this decision as it's opening an entire host of issues which were clearly not previously thought through.   

Question:  Who exactly is pushing for this encryption of models and textures? 

Surely it's NOT the devs, right? 

They should be fully aware that it does not protect your IP. 

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction by someone else who is completely unaware of how the sim software interacts with the PC hardware. 

This is literally only causing a problem for legitimate customers and good faith community members.  You all know that right? Those tech savvy enough who could do it before are still tech savvy enough to still do it.

Please take this as a frustrated but good faith inquiry from a long time supporter, customer, tester, content creator and texture artist.  It's become so astonishing to me that it's gone down this road. 

You will literally KILL livery making for your sim. 

This is taking a generational step backward.  That's not hyperbole. 

Again, I earnestly plead with ED to reconsider this ineffective IP theft measure, and just walk it back.  The livery/texture community will be greatly affected by this over arching policy decision.  Why? Because you're making it impractical and extremely painful to down right impossible to continue in this hobby with your future products. And frankly if this is how it's going to be in the future, then I've come to the end of my contributing rope.  It's not reasonable and it's down right disrespectful to those who put it so much time FOR FREE to make your community vibrant and diverse with content - to ask them to spend 5x more time on something that will ultimately be much worse in quality.

I bought the F-5E and the remastered version. I've purchased most product until now.  I have been more than happy to support DCS.  This makes me want to completely reconsider my future purchases and support.

Respectfully, 

A long time customer.

NineLine answered that on the first page

[thepod]

6 hours ago, NineLine said:

I am sure it is possible, but it will not be priority over other things on going with DCS right now. A majority of our programmers are working on things like Vulkan right now and cannot just stop to create whatever may be the final decision on what we do here. While we understand its important to a number of people, there are a lot of things important to people, and this one may not be at the top of everyone's list. So its not gaslighting or anything else if I do not have an answer or news right now, there is simply no news to share, and when we have something to share, we will. We cannot have this reaction each new model, this protection is here to stay, and we will look at things to help out the livery community when we can. Thanks. 

With all respect @NineLine is anyone at ED aware that the "protection" doesnt actually work ? If they have not figured it out yet, the encrypted models were cracked months ago so this does nothing to prevent the people who really interested in obtaining an effectvely useless 3D model, and just irritates the tens of thousands of people t hat make skins, campaign writers, content creators and 3rd party developers. We all appreciate that the chief coder / development manager in Minsk most probably does not spend much time on the forums listening to the people they write code for - which is why they have community managers - probably a frustrating and sometimes thankless task. We are trying to help, we all want to help ED fix the problem, but the problem is redundant. the decision to attempt to encrypt models must have been taken by the level of Kate Perederko not a middle level local coder, and any fix can be resolved very easily. As a project manager, you do not delay a 1 day task by a year because the bigger task is a priority, you delay the 12 month long task by 0.3% of its life by resolving other problems before they become more significant. This topic will be brought up EVERY SINGLE time it happens because  the people that pay for it - the customers - do not want it and with BMS, Titan, Falcon5, Microprose and UE snapping at the heels of DCS, there wont be a monopoly on the genre and ED will not be able to afford to continue to dismiss their customers concerns.  Thank you           

[thepod]

On 5/21/2024 at 2:52 PM, Gierasimov said:

For sure the usual - past and current operators that are within DCS and make sense in DCS. Plus a ton of official / non-official ones from the community and possibly a screenshot contest to include community works in the core of the module. 

hello there, there will be no user skins for the fulcrum. ED decided to prevent people from making skins for new models. They had the competition for the new F5 and only one person tried to make a skin for it so ED had to swallow their pride and cancel the competition. Unless you know anyone senior in ED who can sort this, it wil laffect all modules from now on sadly

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, thepod said:

it wil laffect all modules from now on sadly

do you know if only ED modules, or will it also affect third-parties? I’m looking forward to the La-7 and would hate to have to skip it like I did with the Mig-29

[Wyvern]

7 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

do you know if only ED modules, or will it also affect third-parties? I’m looking forward to the La-7 and would hate to have to skip it like I did with the Mig-29

Afaik its up to the third party, and i believe they are not too interested

[Fisherman82]

1 hour ago, thepod said:

hello there, there will be no user skins for the fulcrum. ED decided to prevent people from making skins for new models. They had the competition for the new F5 and only one person tried to make a skin for it so ED had to swallow their pride and cancel the competition. Unless you know anyone senior in ED who can sort this, it wil laffect all modules from now on sadly

Do they realise that they are killing of a bit of the interest for flying DCS by doing this? it would be fine by me if they would add liverys for aircraft that are needed to create realistic missions for the maps but they are not doing that. As far as I know there is only one S3 Tanker livery for example.

[thepod]

27 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

do you know if only ED modules, or will it also affect third-parties? I’m looking forward to the La-7 and would hate to have to skip it like I did with the Mig-29

im not in charge, but i saw a comment asking this, and im sure it was nineline that replied with something like "all of our ED models will be encrypted, it is up to 3rd parties if the ychoose to or not" i cant see why ED would care in any way if someone stole one FlyingIron's models, im sure they would nto aprpove becuase it is clearly wrong, but it wont reduce ED's income. none of  this IP theft argument stands up - stealing a model has ZERO effect on sales. 

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, thepod said:

With all respect @NineLine is anyone at ED aware that the "protection" doesnt actually work ? If they have not figured it out yet, the encrypted models were cracked months ago so this does nothing to prevent the people who really interested in obtaining an effectvely useless 3D model, and just irritates the tens of thousands of people t hat make skins, campaign writers, content creators and 3rd party developers. We all appreciate that the chief coder / development manager in Minsk most probably does not spend much time on the forums listening to the people they write code for - which is why they have community managers - probably a frustrating and sometimes thankless task. We are trying to help, we all want to help ED fix the problem, but the problem is redundant. the decision to attempt to encrypt models must have been taken by the level of Kate Perederko not a middle level local coder, and any fix can be resolved very easily. As a project manager, you do not delay a 1 day task by a year because the bigger task is a priority, you delay the 12 month long task by 0.3% of its life by resolving other problems before they become more significant. This topic will be brought up EVERY SINGLE time it happens because  the people that pay for it - the customers - do not want it and with BMS, Titan, Falcon5, Microprose and UE snapping at the heels of DCS, there wont be a monopoly on the genre and ED will not be able to afford to continue to dismiss their customers concerns.  Thank you           

They are aware that most anything can be cracked, it doesn't mean you should still not have protection on your stuff. Should we not have protection for our paid modules because people can crack those? Should we not have locks on our doors because someone can break in through the window?

The bottom line is we have addressed that we will try to find a better solution when we have time. I know that doesn't make some of you happy, and I wish I could tell you what you want to hear but this is how it is and will be for the time being.