Not participating

[Awacs_bandog]

11 minutes ago, NineLine said:

No, the competition was not intended to get feedback, I have not seen anything really new from when the model first came out. The intention was not to piss anyone off. People are already creating liveries for the F-5, even with the extra work. 

To your first question, no I cannot explain it, I am not sure everything should be explained when it comes to exploiting protection or what we are and aren't willing to do.

No

I see no example relevant to what we are talking about to take to management. 

OK i'll break it down.


Programmers use Integrated Development Environments, thats your IntelliJ, Eclipse, Visual Studio, etc. With these IDE's, we can (Generally) compile code, catch syntax errors, and do half a dozen other basic functions fairly easily. This is analogous to Model Viewer, where we can reload skin changes on the fly, get master luas and UV Unwraps, and have near total control of viewing the model.


What you have presented to us as a "Solution", is instead of using the IDE Tool that does everything we really need to do our Programming (Or in this case artistry) job, is to use Notepad.


is it theoretically Possible to write a game on the scale of DCS in Notepad and then use a compiler? Absolutely. Would your programmers probably throw a conniption fit of biblical proportions if you told them to do that? Yeah. I'd bet my entire years salary on that one.


If that doesn't make sense I'll be happy to rephrase it.

Edited April 5 by Awacs_bandog

[NineLine]

6 minutes ago, Awacs_bandog said:

OK i'll break it down.


Programmers use Integrated Development Environments, thats your IntelliJ, Eclipse, Visual Studio, etc. With these IDE's, we can (Generally) compile code, catch syntax errors, and do half a dozen other basic functions fairly easily. This is analogous to Model Viewer, where we can reload skin changes on the fly, get master luas and UV Unwraps, and have near total control of viewing the model.


What you have presented to us as a "Solution", is instead of using the IDE Tool that does everything we really need to do our Programming (Or in this case artistry) job, is to use Notepad.


is it theoretically Possible to write a game on the scale of DCS in Notepad and then use a compiler? Absolutely. Would your programmers probably throw a conniption fit of biblical proportions if you told them to do that? Yeah. I'd bet my entire years salary on that one.


If that doesn't make sense I'll be happy to rephrase it.

Sorry, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. 

[Awacs_bandog]

Just now, NineLine said:

Sorry, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. 

Explain then what we are talking about then? Cause I thought we were here talking about the fact ED isn't letting us use the tool expressly made for this stuff, and then when we complain we're told to use a method that doesn't really work for what we are being asked to do.


But maybe I walked into the My Little Pony thread and missed it... Applejack is clearly best pony in that case. 

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

18 minutes ago, NineLine said:

what we are and aren't willing to do.

That's the crux of it, isn't it? It really seems that there isn't a whole lot of willingness. I do appreciate that a solution will take time but all I've seen is that it has been "asked" for those things that you have listed to be implemented. What are the responses to those questions from the Dev team. I have a suspicion that the answer is "go pound sand". Please tell me I'm wrong if you can. I'm sure that I'm not alone in feeling that the difficulties incurred by encryption are now to be the new "Normal" and that Skinning is now back to the Dark Ages.

Again, not attacking you personally but you're the only Dev addressing the issue.

[NineLine]

6 minutes ago, II.JG1_Vonrd said:

That's the crux of it, isn't it? It really seems that there isn't a whole lot of willingness. I do appreciate that a solution will take time but all I've seen is that it has been "asked" for those things that you have listed to be implemented. What are the responses to those questions from the Dev team. I have a suspicion that the answer is "go pound sand". Please tell me I'm wrong if you can. I'm sure that I'm not alone in feeling that the difficulties incurred by encryption are now to be the new "Normal" and that Skinning is now back to the Dark Ages.

Again, not attacking you personally but you're the only Dev addressing the issue.

Maybe poor wording on my part, there was a reason given why we cannot simply add DRM to the MVer, I cannot go into why because I am not sure it's something I can share outside our internal discussions, somethings based on how things are protected are not shareable.

So it's not lack of willingness in this case it's that it would not be secure enough.

And too add, most of our guys that would work on such a thing are deep in Vulkan, they will not and cannot be pulled off what they are doing. Please stop suggesting they would tell any of our customers to "go pound sand" or anything like that. It's simply not the case.

[Awacs_bandog]

Just now, NineLine said:

So it's not lack of willingness in this case it's that it would not be secure enough.

And as others have already noted: What you've implemented already isn't secure. Anyone or company dedicated enough is going to break your Encryption and get your models. All ED has managed with this change is to punish the community creators who weren't the problem in the first place. 



So in short: You still will have this problem, while Also alienating your fanbase. Which seems to me to be a lose-lose proposition.

But like I said before, All the answers we've gotten in this thread scream that ED isn't willing to budge on the issue and perhaps this has just been a Sisyphean effort. 

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

@NineLine

Thank you! That's a much better answer. So give it to me straight Doc... I can take it. I just want to know:

1. Is this to be the new normal for all modules including 3rd party?

2. Is the MVR Dead?

3. Is there a possibility of something comparable to the MV (even if the replacement is missing some capabilities, and if so what will be missing)?

$. If you had to place an urgency factor to coming up with a solution (what you think the team would assign), what would it be from 1 to 10 with ten being the highest urgency?

Edited April 5 by II.JG1_Vonrd

[NineLine]

9 minutes ago, Awacs_bandog said:

And as others have already noted: What you've implemented already isn't secure. Anyone or company dedicated enough is going to break your Encryption and get your models. All ED has managed with this change is to punish the community creators who weren't the problem in the first place. 



So in short: You still will have this problem, while Also alienating your fanbase. Which seems to me to be a lose-lose proposition.

But like I said before, All the answers we've gotten in this thread scream that ED isn't willing to budge on the issue and perhaps this has just been a Sisyphean effort. 

As I have said, requests are reported and I just said above what the team is busy with.

4 minutes ago, II.JG1_Vonrd said:

Thank you! That's a much better answer. So give it to me straight Doc...

1. Is this to be the new normal for all modules including 3rd party?

2. Is the MVR Dead?

3. Is there a possibility of something comparable to the MV (even if the replacement is missing some capabilities, and if so what will be missing)?

$. If you had to place an urgency factor to coming up with a solution (what you think the team would assign), what would it be from 1 to 10 with ten being the highest urgency?

1. I assume so

2. The Model Viewer is still used for its original intended purpose, it was not made as a public livery tool. It still works for many tasks outside viewing our protected models 

3. Anything is possible, but until our programmers can really dig into it, I can't say what that might look like, a MV lite? A built in MV in the game, I don't know. All I can do is ask and bug and see what we can get.

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

OK Doc. Thanks for the honesty. Just expand on #1. 3rd party modules included? Will all modules become "protected models" and if so, how quickly?

9 minutes ago, NineLine said:

All I can do is ask and bug and see what we can get.

Please continue your efforts. 

Thank you!

Edited April 5 by II.JG1_Vonrd

[NineLine]

8 minutes ago, II.JG1_Vonrd said:

OK Doc. Thanks for the honesty. Just expand on #1. 3rd party modules included? Will all modules become "protected models" and if so, how quickly?

Please continue your efforts. 

Thank you!

I think it would be up to the 3rd Party if they wanted to protect them, I am not sure we would force them to protect them if they didn't want to, but I cannot say for sure.

I will keep pushing, I was a livery painter back in the old days when I didn't know anything about no MV  So I know the pain, and I know as models and liveries have become more complex its become more painful, I get it. But we just need to find a solution that does both. Its not lost on me that most times, things like this punishes the innocent harder than the guilty. 

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

Well said Sir!

It's good to know that 3rd party modules might remain as is.

Well, tariffs on my Tequila and Model Viewer as good as dead. I'm going to open my bottle of Gran Centenario and miserate.

Edited April 5 by II.JG1_Vonrd

[Night Owl]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb NineLine:

To further clarify, this is what I have requested for in-game options

Not completely sure if it's comprised in your list, but a massive advantage of the MV for creating complex and high quality liveries is also the ability to view single channels and raidly switch between them. 

Only with such a functionality can you in my view create optimal roughmets and normals. 

[Wyvern]

Im just wondering about one thing.
If someone comes around tomorrow, and figures out how to crack the new models, (which I have been told is already possible)
What then?
I understand the IP protection argument, even if I personally think its nonsense. If someone REALLY wants the models, they WILL get ripped, its not a "if", but rather a "when".

There are so many issues with DCS, even if you focus on the models.
-Some of the new Su-27 liveries missing half their stencils,
-the Su-33s tailnumbers missing the Normal map support,
-the J-11A being almost completely abandoned by both Deka and ED
-the Su-27 and Su-33 templates havent been updated since 2013
-the "decal" layer on most planes missing PBR support
-the Su-27 bortnumbers being assigned glass properties instead of decal properties
-All FC3 planes missing a few net_animation values for things like brakechutes (ironically the J-11A has them)

Those are just a few smaller issues that I could think of from the top of my head, with 3 planes only. There are MANY more issues that I wont name here now, as it would be a list thats just too long to put here.
Most of those things above could probably be fixed within a day -even within one or two hours - by a single dev. 
Instead, they are tasked with creating "fixes" for things like this, where it sadly just inconveniences people and takes time away from other issues.


Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, Awacs_bandog said:

 You still will have this problem, while Also alienating your fanbase. Which seems to me to be a lose-lose proposition.

 

100%. Given the outstanding issues ED has to address, it really doesn't need to be creating more issues.

The good will that would be created if they just listened here seems like an easy W.

[Mach3DS]

15 minutes ago, Wyvern said:

Im just wondering about one thing.
If someone comes around tomorrow, and figures out how to crack the new models, (which I have been told is already possible)
What then?
I understand the IP protection argument, even if I personally think its nonsense. If someone REALLY wants the models, they WILL get ripped, its not a "if", but rather a "when".

There are so many issues with DCS, even if you focus on the models.
-Some of the new Su-27 liveries missing half their stencils,
-the Su-33s tailnumbers missing the Normal map support,
-the J-11A being almost completely abandoned by both Deka and ED
-the Su-27 and Su-33 templates havent been updated since 2013
-the "decal" layer on most planes missing PBR support
-the Su-27 bortnumbers being assigned glass properties instead of decal properties
-All FC3 planes missing a few net_animation values for things like brakechutes (ironically the J-11A has them)

Those are just a few smaller issues that I could think of from the top of my head, with 3 planes only. There are MANY more issues that I wont name here now, as it would be a list thats just too long to put here.
Most of those things above could probably be fixed within a day -even within one or two hours - by a single dev. 
Instead, they are tasked with creating "fixes" for things like this, where it sadly just inconveniences people and takes time away from other issues.


Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
 

Yes, unfortunately, this action does not actually protect anything.  That's why so many devs in other games have essentially realized that unless the business is selling the model itself for use by others that it's basically a lost cause to constantly be trying to protect it in this way.  If someone wants to rip any of these models they're going to do it.  As has been described by others already.  So in the end this just ties the hands of the community members who want to support the projects anyway.  For crying out loud, you can literally check any users account to see what they've purchased.  If it's really that important why not just tie in MV with the launcher?  Add it to the launcher and make it only able to load encrypted models and textures when launched from the launcher with a good account check...  is that not possible?

@NineLine Thank you sir for your honesty.  It really is appreciated.  I think many of these feelings represent how much of a passion there is among the creators for making liveries and how emotionally connected people actually are to it.  So just know that none of my comments are directed at you personally.  I love painting in DCS and so the prospect of losing that ability in the frankly great way that we've been able to experience up to now is very demoralizing to say the least. And I think many people are having that visceral reaction to it as well.   

[Nodak]

So why can't a skin select menu option be added to the library?  It already selects a new livery every time you flick back and forth between two airplanes, objects, or vehicles.  In it you can zoom and rotate with nice inspection ability already there, to easily line paint parts up.  It's quickly accessible and far faster than firing up missions and having to fly the things to examine them. 

Right now the library is not very handy, but only because you can't self select the skin, how hard would it be to give that option, could be a quick fix temporary solution.

[Mach3DS]

Having the entire game loaded plus Photoshop or whatever other editor you use is not ideal at all.  No offense to this idea.  But changing what we have is putting livery making back to the stone ages.  That's not compromise and it's honestly not a good idea.  The ED devs know this already.  There's no way they don't.  

Plus you absolutely DO NOT have the same inspection ability in the sim as you do in Model Viewer.  If we did, this thread and the numerous threads in Reddit and Facebook etc. wouldn 't exist.  Because it wouldn't be an issue.  

That's to say nothing if the plethora of other features that make MV such an amazing tool.  

[Nodak]

I did say temporary solution, as of now you got squat, its definitely slightly better than nothing.  Besides it wouldn't be a bad feature for the library in itself.

[Dragon1-1]

Implementing MV into the library would solve the problem with DRM, but honestly, it's all getting decrypted and loaded into RAM at the end of the day. No way around it, and there's no way of securing the RAM other than running the graphics on a remote server and streaming the image. That is not really feasible for DCS.

Given that, how about, instead of trying to do the impossible, doing just enough due diligence to satisfy the lawyers, while minimizing the impact on the community? Nobody's going to care if the lock on the door is crap if there's a massive, permanently open loading ramp right beside it. Nobody here is out to steal the models, people just want to make quality liveries.

[Megalax]

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.

[Mach3DS]

13 minutes ago, Megalax said:

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.

100% Concur on all points.  

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

16 minutes ago, Megalax said:

 All of Il2's models are also all encrypted BTW.

Yes. And they have no problem allowing their Model Viewer to be in use. They have vastly more models that DCS but I haven't seen any hand wringing from them.

Additionally, I've seen comments by DCS 3rd party devs saying that, while they have seen their models on sites such as Roblox they aren't particularly worried, just annoyed. 

[theRealTrickFlare]

23 minutes ago, Megalax said:

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.

Absolutely, I have 64Gbs and Had multiple issues with loosing progress due to gimp crashing. To avoid it I had to run DCS on lowest setting in window mode and only work one template at a time. So for the F5 it was something like 6 templates. 
The entire first few sets were with the wire frame on to minimize the guess work lining up the seams.
Then I had to remove the wire frame and do it all over again in high setting to confirm Roughmets/Normals and all the fun stuff was even close.. It was physically painful to realize the bolts around the collision lights on the tail are mapped separately from the tail it's self and they were green on the blue so then I had to find it and re colour and ........ 

 

[Awacs_bandog]

50 minutes ago, Megalax said:

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.

exactly this. 

I think my PC might actually catch fire if I tried my MV workflow with the full game running 

29 minutes ago, II.JG1_Vonrd said:

Yes. And they have no problem allowing their Model Viewer to be in use. They have vastly more models that DCS but I haven't seen any hand wringing from them.

Additionally, I've seen comments by DCS 3rd party devs saying that, while they have seen their models on sites such as Roblox they aren't particularly worried, just annoyed. 

I didn't even know Roblox was still a thing... let alone the game engine being capable of handling a model from DCS.

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

3 minutes ago, Awacs_bandog said:

exactly this. 

I think my PC might actually catch fire if I tried my MV workflow with the full game running 

I didn't even know Roblox was still a thing... let alone the game engine being capable of handling a model from DCS.

I saw a few F-14 models there that look like maybe HB. You have to join and I wasn't about to.