Those bomb meshes are pretty clean & nicely done. I value a good reseach and doing something properly than doing something with "frankenstyle". So Zorin is on a right track here.

I'd say that the bombs are just slightly too "fat" and feel like unfinished & un-optimized. Most don't have any LODs or shadows meshes and textures don't really need to be that big. This is a flight sim, not an ordinance sim. Is it really necessary to see all small prints on a bomb, but you cannot see equally big texts on a plane?

Pretty much all bombs could be optimized with small work to be few hundred polys lighter. I modified for test one Luftwaffe bomb and in five minutes it lost about 200 polys without changing the shape at all.

Well 200 polys for modern GPUs is nothing, but if everyone ignores the specs and go totally overkill with polycount & texture size, then we will soon have sim that doesn't run well on older PCs. This isn't overkill, but something like over 1000 polys for cannon barrel or ~200Mb textures for pit is.

Here's another quick edit of that US bomb:
http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/~vii...b378_polys.jpg
378 polys, 256x256 texture (no alpha layer). Just by removing obsolete polys and mapping it so that it wastes less space so text can be bigger. Basic shape is still same. Same number of "cylinder" segments, except in the front where they are not needed.

After all this is old game with many very low poly planes. I don't see much point of attaching something high poly to a low poly plane (1000 poly cannon barrel is good example). It's all about keeping the balance with existing stuff.

1. I currently manage to fit in a fair amount of simming around the rest of my life, so I should be able to find at least an hour per day if needed to work on this aircraft.

2.This would be my first Il2 standard aircraft, but I have a reasonable amount of experience in 3D MAX, also one of my Uni classes is Computer Science, so I can always get advice from lecturers and other students if needed. I also have a friend who is very good with computers (Uni put him into second year of Computer Science because they judged that with his level of experience he did not need to go though first year), and he has said he would be happy to help out.

3.Thanks

Zorin,

let's summarize.

1. You have asked TD for specs - we have provided them to you within 24 hours.

2. I have asked you if you model all required LODs - you did not answer.
(We have checked your LW bombs - only 1 LOD out of 4 is modelled)

3. I have asked you for a model sample - you did not send us anything.

4. One of our members spent his free time to search for your models, downloaded it, and reworked it to show you how the model and texture could be optimized quite significantly without any major loss of quality. Viikate can send you the model as a sample reference if you want.

From the very beginning we have acknowledged you have done a very good research job. You have met the historical accuracy and quality requirements, but as I told you already few times, you have overdone it and did not finish your models properly from the technical aspect.

I am finished with this topic Zorin. We have showed you how your work could be improved. It's not personal, it's pure technical. You have a good opportunity to learn more lean 3D modelling techniques and we have no problem supporting you on this. However, if you just keep fighting back, it will be impossible to find a common language.

Please, keep in mind that the 3D modelers at TD are either professional or semi-professional and worked on several commercial or non-commercial projects for IL-2 and SoW. So, I dare to say we know what we are talking about when it comes to modeling for IL-2. Thus, we will provide constructive criticism when we see a need for it.

Last but not least, the offer still holds. If you change your mind and will align your work with the posted specs, we will have NO PROBLEM with adding your work to our patches. So, it is your call.

@David, all I can suggest is to follow the IL-2 modeling "bible" that is commonly available. It has been put together by 3rd party modelers for a reason. So follow it. When you finish your basic plane model and texture mapping, send it to us and we will give you our honest evaluation and will suggest what to improve or what to do next.

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/waffengo.jpg
That or the 2x MK103 we have already.

The thread below has been updated once again, this time with a very glaring error within the cockpit (a rather large control that never existed, it actually being American)

http://78sentai.org/forum/viewtopic....1&p=1934#p1934

K2

What have you done with the Ta-152C?

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/ta152c-perf.jpg

Ta-152C wing area corrected from Fw 190D-9 values (~1.2m²) -> slightly improved turn performance

It climbs worse and is a lot slower now. Pretty useless...

€dit: OK, doesn't seem to be that much off:

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/page154chart.jpg

It's too slow at high altitudes at least. And the Chart is for Sondernotleistung.

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/63...ctionspeed.jpg

Here's the max speeds for Kampfleistung and MW-50. So it's quite OK down low (oh yes, it was too fast), but at altitude, it's not.

Thanks, I already have the modeling bible, so I will get back to you as soon as I have something worth showing.

I almost forgot... is it possible for you to fix the "FFB goes off when Alt-Tabbing"-bug? This is really nasty, and no other sim I tried so far has it.
Another simple thing: Do you often see yourself twiddle with the throttle just to get it exactly at 50% or some other value? Why are there just increments of 2-3%? I'd like to be able to set it at a desired value without rocking it forth and back until I can have it at 100% instead of 99 or 101. If you can change this, just do it :D. Basically it would just mean to have a more precise polling of the inout axes. This would also be nice for the control axes.

This would actually be great... it is something that was not always in the sim.. I think after one of the 3.xx patches it started..

I would also like to know if it is possible to alter the scoring system as well.. but I am thinking in terms of adding a two tiered server settable scoring system... as in Team scores or individual scores. If you could make it like the scoring system in the QM mode.. where numbers are no involved.. but icons per item... and perhaps make them smaller to reflect the potential for greater numbers in a team environment.. I think that would be great. In CFS this was doable.. you could set the type of scoring in the beginning of a mission to either team or individual.. in the FFA (free for all) rooms we went in it actually encouraged team play to some extent...