Not participating

[NineLine]

20 minutes ago, thepod said:

Not at all making up anything so do not call me a liar in public thank you, so please show some respect. I do not insult you or any other individiual. You (ED) DO remove posts, lock threads and close down discussions, always when it gets challenging and ED are in a corner,  or caught out being disingenuos. Its understandable, its human nature to be defensive, but it does not engender trust or cooperation and all of the most successful companies are ones that do.

 

We have rules, if the post breaks the rules it will be removed. If you do not like or do not want to follow the rules, you can choose not to post. If you had something removed that you disagree with, you can send a DM, but its not on topic in this thread. So please stick to the topic here. 

12 minutes ago, thepod said:

it has nothing to do with asset protection. ED doesnt sell its 3d models and even stolen 3d models can only be used in very limited ways, adn none of those take revenue away away from DCS. Players who want to play DCS MUST have a module, so have to pay. If they want the 3d asset, they can get that online cheaply. If they want the model then they wont bother buying a game module. The end product is that ED spends time making a 3D model, puts it into the game and its stolen. but that is not stolen revenue, because the model was never a saleable item. the game module that is the saleable item continues to be sold. if there are 50,000 people who buy the F18, how many times do you think it is stolen, by people that would have ONLY bought the F18 module to access t he 3d model? its basically zero. ED may try to claim that the time spent building a model and losing it is a waste and it is, but the investment in the model was used to add comemrcia lvalue to the module....so there is no loss. you can dress it up as a loss to try and justify financial decisions but thats just not true.  

 

On a side topic, if the claims by RB that ED dont pay them were false, ED would have sued them imemdiatley. They didnt. so a company that is so keen to protect its assests and reputation is happy to be defamed ? No. so its highly likley that ED did not pay razbam at all. the point or agument is the reason ED is attmeping to use to justify it is that RB broke the terms of the contract, adn RB say they didnt. thats actually really easy to sort out.

But this whole encryption farce is nothing to do with finances, thats for sure

You are wrong on each count, again, please stick to the topic, this is not about RAZBAM, or your opinion on why we decided to protect our models. Maybe take a break and come back to this thread when you have cooled down some. 

[NineLine]

Look, guys, I want to leave this thread open, I want you to be able to share your opinion on the loss of the MV, but if we are going to get carried away, and make wild claims about how we don't care about you and are destroying your experience or our game, then there is no point. Make valid points about why you need the MV or options like the MV, and leave it at that. I have requested almost everything you want to see happen back when this module was first released, but getting carried away will not help, especially when a few of you have post histories of getting mad at other livery users for using other people's work which is the whole point it protecting our models, protecting our hard work on these models. I would think, even with the issue of the MV, you would have some empathy about work being stolen when you have experienced this yourself.

If it's not clear, not all our models are created by staff, some of its contracted, those same people if they wanted their work in other games, or sold on the internet would like to do so themselves, not by someone ripping their models. So I hope you can have some understanding of this. 

[freehand]

23 minutes ago, thepod said:

On a side topic, if the claims by RB that ED dont pay them were false, ED would have sued them imemdiatley. They didnt. so a company that is so keen to protect its assests and reputation is happy to be defamed ? No. so its highly likley that ED did not pay razbam at all. the point or agument is the reason ED is attmeping to use to justify it is that RB broke the terms of the contract, adn RB say they didnt. thats actually really easy to sort out.

But this whole encryption farce is nothing to do with finances, thats for sure

Shame you decided to scrape the bottom of the barrel just to have dig at ED.

[Awacs_bandog]

15 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Look, guys, I want to leave this thread open, I want you to be able to share your opinion on the loss of the MV, but if we are going to get carried away, and make wild claims about how we don't care about you and are destroying your experience or our game, then there is no point. Make valid points about why you need the MV or options like the MV, and leave it at that. I have requested almost everything you want to see happen back when this module was first released, but getting carried away will not help, especially when a few of you have post histories of getting mad at other livery users for using other people's work which is the whole point it protecting our models, protecting our hard work on these models. I would think, even with the issue of the MV, you would have some empathy about work being stolen when you have experienced this yourself.

If it's not clear, not all our models are created by staff, some of its contracted, those same people if they wanted their work in other games, or sold on the internet would like to do so themselves, not by someone ripping their models. So I hope you can have some understanding of this. 

Well seems clear to me ED doesn't want to handle this in any amount of good faith, Not sure what I expected. 

We have done all that you've asked in this thread and others, you ignored us. That's why we're here now.

Edited April 4 by Awacs_bandog

[ejectman]

20 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Look, guys, I want to leave this thread open, I want you to be able to share your opinion on the loss of the MV, but if we are going to get carried away, and make wild claims about how we don't care about you and are destroying your experience or our game, then there is no point. Make valid points about why you need the MV or options like the MV, and leave it at that. I have requested almost everything you want to see happen back when this module was first released, but getting carried away will not help, especially when a few of you have post histories of getting mad at other livery users for using other people's work which is the whole point it protecting our models, protecting our hard work on these models. I would think, even with the issue of the MV, you would have some empathy about work being stolen when you have experienced this yourself.

If it's not clear, not all our models are created by staff, some of its contracted, those same people if they wanted their work in other games, or sold on the internet would like to do so themselves, not by someone ripping their models. So I hope you can have some understanding of this. 

This guy doesn't properly convey the voices of the users and spends all day chatting with his close friends on ED Discord
 

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

We are not asking anyone to do anything they do not want to do. The competition is optional. We are working on a solution, it will take some time, and that's it. 

Completely true. It's just that I would really have liked to enter this competition (any livery competition for that matter) but I just can't see being able to make the same quality skin that I can when being able to use the MV. I tried using the F-5 template with the ME view but it was sooooo slow that it would be maddening and would completely remove any of the joy I get from skin-making. I don't just use the MV for pattern matching. I use it for color matching, roughmet matching and normal matching between the various UV files that make up a livery. I can vary the light angle as well as the environment. And what about weathering? Getting exhaust trails to match for example. I guess I could do a factory fresh with no weathering but I spent years learning how to do weathering in a believable fashion.

So, it IS my choice but it's the correct one for me. I do feel disappointment that I won't be able to contribute and really wish that ED had waited until they had a solution before initiating a competition. What's the rush? Wasn't the B-17 competition years after the B-17 came into existence? 

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

Please don't associate anything that I have said with what @thepod is saying. 

[Megalax]

They want valid points, so let's make valid points.

[NineLine]

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

 

1) Reload Textures within game 
2) Scene Tools for Viewing ( FOV Tools, Environment, Lighting)
3) Argument Viewer ( possible to do like other debug windows maybe?)
4) LiveriesToolPlugin
5) CONNECTOR_TOOL_PLUGIN
6) Generate Lua File

25 minutes ago, II.JG1_Vonrd said:

So, it IS my choice but it's the correct one for me. I do feel disappointment that I won't be able to contribute and really wish that ED had waited until they had a solution before initiating a competition. What's the rush? Wasn't the B-17 competition years after the B-17 came into existence? 

Well, The B-17 competition came after me begging for it to be one for many years so that is not a good comparison. The F-5 could have waited as well, but also we will get good feedback on what is needed with this new way of doing model protection. Its cup half full vs half empty. 

38 minutes ago, Awacs_bandog said:

Well seems clear to me ED doesn't want to handle this in any amount of good faith, Not sure what I expected. 

I am sorry this is what you took away from what I wrote. 

[Mach3DS]

I'm not participating.  For the same reasons.   Anyway, I want to do my best work.  It's not possible.  Sure, people have proven that you can put paint on the asset.  It's not their best work.  It CAN'T be their best work.  And the work flow is simply unreasonable in terms of time wasted doing things that could be done in 10x less the amount.  The fact that people never knew about model viewer is irrelevant.  They have simply been missing out, and have not been doing their best work. 

 

This competition by the nature of even being held is saying that you don't care about having high quality work included in your product.  Your willing to fully accept liveries that are misaligned etc. There .ight be someone who decides to spend 100 hours of their life to accomplish what could have been done in 10.  Yes.  I realize that.  That's not reasonable. 

 

My biggest fear, and I've said it before, is that you will move ahead with this as the new model for all business in the future.  Converting older assets with updates that lock out files.  Why do I want to spend that much time on something which can't be my best work?  Honestly, it feels like the "MV can't load encrypted files" is an excuse.  I'm not trying to be rude.  It just does.  It comes off that way.  

 

Anyway.  For me this has little to do with the F-5, and everything to do with setting a precedent and future direction full of uncertainty if we can even participate in livery making in way that allows the best work we can do to be used.  I don't want to do anything other than my best work and I don't want to share with anyone that which I know is sub par.  So to me this is a competition about who can submit their best looking sub par work.  That's not an insult.  It's a fact, as outlined.  And not an insult either.  I know.leople.are.doimg the best work they can with the circumstances. (So please don't delete this post). No one can produce their best work because it's physically not possible to inspect areas of the model in the game the same way you can in the MV. And the host of other functions that it provides.  Which is phenomenal.  That's why for the life of me I don't understand this decision.  

 So I get it.  You need to do what you need to do.  That's your business and your IP.  I respect that.  I can't support it.  I hope that ED will not wait years to implement a solution while still pushing out updates and content that further place a wedge into the community.  This isn't just a livery artist thing.  It affects everything from campaign designers to special liveries where this direction simply makes doing the task un enjoyable and more difficult than it needs to be.  And harder to find people who will want to do it under these circumstances.

Respectfully,

Mach3DS

[Kondor77]

52 minutes ago, Awacs_bandog said:

Well seems clear to me ED doesn't want to handle this in any amount of good faith, Not sure what I expected. 

We have done all that you've asked in this thread and others, you ignored us. That's why we're here now.

Well said. ED asks us for our opinion. We give it (and most do it respectfully) because we're all nerds for this stuff and know it's a niche within a niche. 

But then to have our comments either in discord or in a thread sent to the ether with this kind of attitude really leaves a sour taste. 

This specific issue with the MV has been known since the release of the remaster. To then knowingly hold a livery competition knowing full well the plethora of disappointed livery makers was just too much to let slide without some pushback. 

We all want to keep making this game great. And a huge part of that is the work and love community members put in making missions, skins, apps etc etc. 

[Mach3DS]

22 minutes ago, NineLine said:

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

 

1) Reload Textures within game 
2) Scene Tools for Viewing ( FOV Tools, Environment, Lighting)
3) Argument Viewer ( possible to do like other debug windows maybe?)
4) LiveriesToolPlugin
5) CONNECTOR_TOOL_PLUGIN
6) Generate Lua File

Well, The B-17 competition came after me begging for it to be one for many years so that is not a good comparison. The F-5 could have waited as well, but also we will get good feedback on what is needed with this new way of doing model protection. Its cup half full vs half empty. 

I am sorry this is what you took away from what I wrote. 

9L I know you're doing what you can and that you're not the decision maker.  I thank you.  

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

11 minutes ago, NineLine said:

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

 

1) Reload Textures within game 
2) Scene Tools for Viewing ( FOV Tools, Environment, Lighting)
3) Argument Viewer ( possible to do like other debug windows maybe?)
4) LiveriesToolPlugin
5) CONNECTOR_TOOL_PLUGIN
6) Generate Lua File

7. Generate UV wireframe (when needed and when possible)

8. Navigation feature to see where specific files are located

In a perfect world, just duplicate the MV.

Could you please explain why (as to a child ) why the MV can't be modified in order to use the encrypted files without endangering the said files to piracy?

24 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Well, The B-17 competition came after me begging for it to be one for many years so that is not a good comparison. The F-5 could have waited as well, but also we will get good feedback on what is needed with this new way of doing model protection. Its cup half full vs half empty. 

So, by that logic, the competition was to get the skin community pissed enough to "get good feedback"? If that's the case I guess your cup runneth over.

 

[Mach3DS]

What I don't understand is that is it really EASIER to have to code all that new functionality into DCS, or would it be easier to simply code a account login into Model Viewer?  It doesn't make sense to me.  You have all the functionality you need in the tool.  Now you want to code all this other stuff into the base game?  It seems like pie in the sky requests for stuff that already rxists.  And all this taking up RAM  over and above what it already takes to load a shell for working purposes in MV already, let alone having to run the editor also.  Just a thought.  

Edited April 5 by Mach3DS

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

8 minutes ago, Mach3DS said:

For me this has little to do with the F-5, and everything to do with setting a precedent and future direction full of uncertainty if we can even participate in livery making in way that allows the best work we can do to be used. 

THIS!

[II.JG1_Vonrd]

12 minutes ago, Mach3DS said:

9L I know you're doing what you can and that you're not the decision maker.  I thank you.  

I second that. I'm sorry if anything I said is perceived as being directed at you personally. What I say is directed to ED / DCS as a business entity. Never to any person.

[Awacs_bandog]

22 minutes ago, Mach3DS said:

Anyway.  For me this has little to do with the F-5, and everything to do with setting a precedent and future direction full of uncertainty if we can even participate in livery making in way that allows the best work we can do to be used.

absolutely this

[VZ_342]

4 hours ago, Night Owl said:

As everyone who has previously made complex liveries will agree, making a high quality livery without access to the model viewer is practically unfeasible, since it would take much more time and effort and would necessarily end up with a worse result. 

While I can understand the need for filr encryption and that it may take a while to implement a decent solution, I cannot comprehend the decision to launch a livery competition at this state, despite the issue not having been resolved yet and despite the previous claims that a solution was been searched. 

Since I would anyways not have participated in this competition, the best thing I can do to support this valiant protest is to remove my liveries from the user files. 

This a few of us livery creators have done today, as a temporary measure while we wait for a satisfactory solution.

Players can of course continue to access said liveries through the discord link. 

I do hope that the strong community reaction today helps in showing ED management the importance of finding a solution. 

I can see one reason: to show what can be done with limited resources. I trust they will eventually find a fix for the MV, but in the meantime....maybe there will be really good skins made using some ingenious technique (even if it's just a high level of patience). Sure, they probably won't be as good as when advanced skinners (who know how to use all the tools and things that the MV provides) make skins with the MV, but really, that's one aspect of conflict: You make do with what's available, to the best of your ability.

 

If you're not willing to do what is needed without the MV due to annoyance, lack of patience, etc., that's ok. That is your choice. All that is needed to say is "I won't be able to do my best without the MV, so it is not likely I will be making liveries for the locked modules." The lack of high-quality skins (if that happens) will be a strong reaction in itself.

 

Or perhaps....maybe "the pros" are worried that skins will be made that are comparable in satisfaction to the average user?

[Mach3DS]

So additional features needed:

1. Mouse and keyboard functions for rotation and movement of the model in free space. Including zoom and Orthogonal views.  

2. Texture inspect, all the Texture views. Full shader, Diffuse, wireframe, Normal, Roughness, Metallic, AO, Cavity, Material Errors etc. 

3.  Textures loaded and inspect window with locations.  

4.... You can see where I'm going with this.  You guys designed a great tool and it was well thought out.  It can't be easier to make all this in the base game rather than simply code the DRM I to MV.  That seems hard to believe for me.  And we get to keep the full functionality of all that work that went I to the tool to begin with.  

Edited April 5 by Mach3DS

[Doughguy]

35 minutes ago, VZ_342 said:

Or perhaps....maybe "the pros" are worried that skins will be made that are comparable in satisfaction to the average user?

a viewing tool doesnt make you better.... making textures isnt just about aligning some funny lines ya know...

Edited April 5 by Doughguy

[Mach3DS]

31 minutes ago, VZ_342 said:

Or perhaps....maybe "the pros" are worried that skins will be made that are comparable in satisfaction to the average user?

No offense intended or taken.   This has nothing to do with that.  What the "Pros" see that you guys may not is that by going out of your way to create anything, no matter how much effort and especially no matter the time that goes into it, is feeding the beast.  Because it doesn't stop with the F-5.  What the "Pros" are concerned about, isn't the competition at all.  It's the continuation of being able to make art in the best most efficient way possible.  No one needs to feel bad about doing anything, but you should at least understand that spending 10x more time on something for less quality than it would take the alternate way is moving backward not forward. And it tell ED indirectly that they infact do not need to change anything because people are willing to do it no matter the cost.  Which I am not.  So that's .y perspective.  I don't consider myself a pro, just an old guy whose been burned in deals in the past and would rather negotiate a win win rather than something else, if possible.  

Edited April 5 by Mach3DS

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Frankly, I don't suspect we'll get much more than the "project managers have the best view" but I do not blame a single livery maker for stopping.

This is utterly ridiculous. Whoever decided this was the way forward was objectively wrong and the solution? Just reverse on it.

This'd better not become a pre-cursor to skin monetization. That's when I stop buying anything ED related or adjacent.

Edited April 5 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Awacs_bandog]

Maybe Nineline can pass this example on to the higher ups.

Can you write all of the game's code without the support of an IDE? Sure, theres compilers that you can feed text files into and spit out executable machine-code. 

Does writing code with an IDE make your life way easier? Also yes. 


Thats model-viewer for us. It doesn't make us good skinners, but it certainly helps us actually do our ""jobs"".

 

45 minutes ago, VZ_342 said:

 

Or perhaps....maybe "the pros" are worried that skins will be made that are comparable in satisfaction to the average user?

 Look Mom, I'm a Pro! This is what I told you when I dropped out of 11th Grade English!

I honestly don't care about the F-5E in this particular instance, I care about what this whole Encryption and ED's reaction to our ire has been. We have a tool, a good tool, but We're no longer allowed to use said tool for reasons that, as others have noted, removing use of the tool will do 0 to actually stop. 

I'd love to work on the upcoming F-15C, F-35, Maybe the MiG if i'm feeling frisky enough, but the way things stand, It won't be worth the headache. 
 

[RustBelt]

1 hour ago, II.JG1_Vonrd said:

Could you please explain why (as to a child ) why the MV can't be modified in order to use the encrypted files without endangering the said files to piracy?

I have a suspicion that the model viewer2 may have been one of those “Contracted” jobs. So they may not have the ability to make those changes. Either by license, or by not having the source code itself.

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, II.JG1_Vonrd said:

7. Generate UV wireframe (when needed and when possible)

8. Navigation feature to see where specific files are located

In a perfect world, just duplicate the MV.

Could you please explain why (as to a child ) why the MV can't be modified in order to use the encrypted files without endangering the said files to piracy?

So, by that logic, the competition was to get the skin community pissed enough to "get good feedback"? If that's the case I guess your cup runneth over.

 

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.

49 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

I have a suspicion that the model viewer2 may have been one of those “Contracted” jobs. So they may not have the ability to make those changes. Either by license, or by not having the source code itself.

No

56 minutes ago, Awacs_bandog said:

Maybe Nineline can pass this example on to the higher ups.

Can you write all of the game's code without the support of an IDE? Sure, theres compilers that you can feed text files into and spit out executable machine-code. 

Does writing code with an IDE make your life way easier? Also yes. 


Thats model-viewer for us. It doesn't make us good skinners, but it certainly helps us actually do our ""jobs"".

 

 Look Mom, I'm a Pro! This is what I told you when I dropped out of 11th Grade English!

I honestly don't care about the F-5E in this particular instance, I care about what this whole Encryption and ED's reaction to our ire has been. We have a tool, a good tool, but We're no longer allowed to use said tool for reasons that, as others have noted, removing use of the tool will do 0 to actually stop. 

I'd love to work on the upcoming F-15C, F-35, Maybe the MiG if i'm feeling frisky enough, but the way things stand, It won't be worth the headache. 
 

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