Zuti MDS Still Not Ready For Prime Time.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Fafnir_6

Hello,

I approached Lowengrin about replacing DGen/NGen with DCG in a future DT patch a few months ago and he seemed receptive to the idea. I also requested the same thing in DT's request thread but I have yet to hear back from them (no doubt they are busy getting 4.10m ready for release). If anything comes from this, we will hear about it after 4.10 is released.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Lowngrins DCG is as important as Zuti's MDS

Would be cool to have both working together

[Fafnir_6]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Lowngrins DCG is as important as Zuti's MDS

Would be cool to have both working together

Agreed . It would likely be a pain to get this debugged, though. We can always hope. With 4.09m, DT delivered in a big way. 4.10m will rule as well. In the future, the sky is the limit and it is a good time to be a flight simmer .

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

I was in belief TD does not get paid or does not pay for this further IL-2 development. So how does this paid/monetary thing step in here on IL-2, SaQSoN?

That is how: the core DT programmers and 3d artists either currently are, or were at some point professional IT industry workers and have related commercial projects experience. Though their work for DT is free, they use during this work their professional skills and aim for the same quality, they would, should the DT project be commercial and they get paid for their work.

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

Find it a bit arrogant to state that 95% is crap

I didn't grow up in a politically-correct environment, so, fortunately, I use to call things what I see them be. So, when someone would poop into a jar and bring it to an art exhibition, I wouldn't run around and shout "Oh, what an amazing piece of art! Good job!". I'd just call it a "crap in a jar".

Originally Posted by csThor

LoBiSoMeM

Since you have apparently some troubles understanding what was posted here's the short form (again):

Yeah, whatever, he knows better anyway. If he says "minor glitch", that it is so. Who do we think, we are to argue? Pft...

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

Well, "massive work" if you want no glitches at all, and I can understad that. He's a perfeccionist. And his team is working in a NEW TITLE WITH FULL 6DOF SUPPORT. Keep this in mind. DT is working in an "old" sim engine. And this "old" engine can handle 6DOF, but at some cost.

To the folk who said about 3D models, please don't assume everyone who talks with you is an idiot about some subject you believe you are some "mastermind" of universe, be more humble.

It's just a point of view issue:

- Some people believe isn't up to IL-2 standards have 6DOF with glitches, because the cockpits was moddled with 3DOF parameters in mind;

- Some people believe isn't up to IL-2 standards don't have 6DOF at all.

And I DOUBT any serious simmer like to fly without 6DOF. Please make official patches but stop assuming that peole are stupid. I'm the final user of the sim, the customer. If the "official opinion" goes opposite of the final consumer, it's a really strange marketing strategy.

Thanks!

While i partially agree with you, you are also making a mistake yourself. Just because you, me and a lot of other people want an official 6DOF implementation and would be happy to live with the occasional glitch, it doesn't mean that this opinion is shared by everyone

I think the current situation is very good. We have officially produced and tested content being released which we know will always work well. If we want to make some compromises in quality or resource use, we also have the chance to use other, non-official content as well. However, just because i am willing to read documentation to try to make it work and live with the occasional glitch, it doesn't mean that this view is shared by everyone in the community.

Like i always say, choice is a good thing. Just like i would be disappointed if suddenly TD locked the game and made mods non-working, i believe there are thousands of users who would be disappointed as well if they were forced to learn the technicalities of maintaining a mod installation or had to live with features that are not done to an industrial standard. Forcing my opinion on them is just as bad as them forcing it on me.

In that sense, i believe TD is doing the right thing. They spend their time on implementing changes that need access to original coding resources to work well and fluidly, like mission triggers, radio navigation, guided weapons and radar.

I'm sure some prodigy modder could do it too, but it's better if you have the game's developer helping you. Doing it on your own would present more problems and the solution would be harder to achieve due to the lack of official resources.

Since this is what this thread is about let's use this example, just look at the progression of Zuti's awesome work. It's not that Zuti can't deliver a flawless MDS version, the guy is obviously a very smart and dedicated fellow and i believe he can. So why are people having problems with MDS? Simple, because when Zuti started working on MDS he didn't have Oleg Maddox to tell him all the inside info and little secrets of the game engine's code.
If he had access to that information, i bet we'd have an all-in-one MDS version with dynamic online campaigns by now. Adding a new flyable might be time consuming, what with the 3d modelling and flight model research, but now people know how to do this. Adding new features and mechanics the original engine was never intended to support however is a totally different type of work, the more help you have from the people who originally wrote that code the better you will do.

That's the advantage of DT, they have access to the developer. And since the developer asks for something in exchange, they have to stick by the standards he asks of them, or they would risk losing that channel of communication.

So, TD is focusing on implementing new game mechanics, with the occasional new flyable or fixes to an old one done at a very high standard thrown into the mix.
They are also open to making mods official, as long as the modders are willing to bring their work within the specs requested by Oleg Maddox. Finally, they leave the door open to the rest of the modding community to do as they please and the users to choose what they want to run in their installations. This gives us users total freedom of choice to tailor our installations to what we want to do with IL2, which is not only downright awesome, but also contrary to the way most gaming software companies treat their customers today. We get all this stuff for free, while other people have to pay for individual units in a strategy game, individual maps in an FPS, individual armor sets in an RPG or individual aircraft in their sims. Wanting more is good, it's what drives the hobby forward, but let's have some perspective here as well, shall we?

I think this is the best compromise. I'm not saying TD or the modders are better/worse codders. All i'm saying is that TD has access to in-house development tools and data, so it makes sense for them to work on the stuff that need these resources more, as well as use these resources to help modders "transform" unofficial game mechanics enhancements like MDS into official ones.

You don't need Oleg Maddox to tell you how a 109 looks like if you know where to look for technical drawings, but you need him to tell you how he coded that part of the game 10 years ago if you want to add new game mechanics, because it might conflict with what you are trying to do.
It's one thing to create a new slot flyable and another thing to cram new gameplay mechanics and features into a 10 year old engine, doing the second one benefits much more from having the "secret" knowledge of the developer himself than the first one.

I wouldn't mind at all if TD released updated cockpits, in fact i would be grateful, but i don't need them to . If i want to fly a fw190 with high resolution cockpit textures, 6DOF and no cockpit bar i already have that with the mods. It's better to let them work on the things that modders won't do due to a lack of the necessary in-house resources, or use their insider information to help transform the best of these mods, like MDS, into official additions to the core game engine.

I don't see this situation as competition between TD and modders, i see it as making the best allocation of those talented community members, both TD and modders, according to the tools they have at their disposal.

Remember, just because some features are important to you and me doesn't mean they are important to everyone. Or they might be, but others are even more important for them. Sure, widescreen support would be a very good feature, but i believe there are hundreds of people out there who would like it but still consider something else a bigger priority. For example, i have a 16:10 monitor and a TrackIR, so for me, it's not such a big deal to lose some of that vertical rendering. However, for someone else who flies without a TrackIR, it is going to be a big deal and guess what, we would both be right
When you say that TD's priorities are wrong, it looks like you are trying to speak on behalf of the entire community and that is in poor taste because frankly, there are other people around here that have totally different priorities than you and me.

Widescreen support, MDS, new flyables, new game mechanics, we all agree that all these things are desirable new features. This is the part of the argument that's based on logic and we can more or less say what is "true" and "false".
However, deciding the priorities of what feature should come first at the expense of the other ones is the "personal opinion and taste" part. Right and wrong doesn't apply to this, because even when all of the people here will like these features, the majority will like different things the most and other things not so much.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Remember, just because some features are important to you and me doesn't mean they are important to everyone. Or they might be, but others are even more important for them. Sure, widescreen support would be a very good feature, but i believe there are hundreds of people out there who would like it but still consider something else a bigger priority. For example, i have a 16:10 monitor and a TrackIR, so for me, it's not such a big deal to lose some of that vertical rendering. However, for someone else who flies without a TrackIR, it is going to be a big deal and guess what, we would both be right

I fly using FreeTrack and all the others folks who fly online with me believes wider FOV into IL-2 core will be great. Widescreen monitors are default today.

And the point here is: IT'S SIMPLE TO DO, if you have access to code and dev support.

Why don't include that? And why the subject is always ignored by TD? I don't understand.

I'm OK if something will cause a big trouble and work to be putted in IL-2, but simples things, it's beyond reason.

In what world better skis on some plane are a priority in a patch and widescreen full support isn't?!?!

[klem]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

While i partially agree with you, you are also making a mistake yourself. Just because you, me and a lot of other people want an official 6DOF implementation and would be happy to live with the occasional glitch, it doesn't mean that this opinion is shared by everyone

I think the current situation is very good. We have officially produced and tested content being released which we know will always work well. If we want to make some compromises in quality or resource use, we also have the chance to use other, non-official content as well. However, just because i am willing to read documentation to try to make it work and live with the occasional glitch, it doesn't mean that this view is shared by everyone in the community......................................... .....

Well summed up BD.

The restrictions placed on TD means they will never deliver in IL-2 the wider expectations of a 'current Simming community', too much work is involved. That community is served by the modders in the rare circumstances of even being able to blend in TDs work.

Those vehemently anti-mod are trapped between what TD are able to deliver (for the reasons BD gave) and what they may be enjoying in other sims. Their choice.

You only have to look at Hyperlobby to see the extent of interest in the mods and that is a fact of life even Oleg has to live with albeit without his blessing. It would be churlish of him/TD to lock out the modders because of the offence it would cause his future customer base for SoW so the wiser thing is for everyone to just quietly accept the situation, make our choices and wait for SoW. We have the best of both worlds.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

IT'S SIMPLE TO DO

Who says that's true? do you code, or are you just guessing? Coding is not simple.

[Tempest123]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

So, Daidalos was founded for some reason but can't deliver 6DOF and wider FOV?

Those two aspects are beyond Team Daidalos, and that's OK. Daidalos don't need to be the salvation army, but mods either have to be the evil in earth or modders a bunch of amateurs doing trivial stuff.

If 6DOF (even with glitches) and wider FOV don't "worthy addition" to some official patch, I don't know what must be into these patches. Those two simple things (yes, it's SIMPLE, you can have glitches - not major bugs - in first person view into cockpits, but that's all) change the way people with head tracking devices and widescreen monitors fly in IL-2.

The only trouble I have with 6DOF and wider FOV is the fact that the mod to change FOV are subject to freezes. By God, why TD can´t put some better control to FOV in IL-2? Because we maybe can see "holes" in one wing, a "missing" panel edge, or some minor distortion?

I'll never get this point, sorry. Even you try to ask for the customers/community if they can live with these glitches? I can.

So after the *piles* of work that TD is putting into 4.10 on their own free time, for the community, and trying to implement a high level of quality control, it's all useless if they can't get 2 features working to a certain level of stability? There have got to be at least 20 new features in 4.10, and I can't imagine it was ever a choice between "cool skis" or a completely different topic like widescreen support. For the record I have a widescreen, its works okay, and I'll live if it isn't in 4.10, because I am looking forward to all the other unique features.
I really don't understand the problem with these Mod debates, it's **not** about whether DT or the community likes this one and not that one, or if modding is good or bad, or if it's works well or is buggy etc. It's all about copyright violation and intellectual property, its in the EULA and everywhere you see the © symbol.
If DT represents 1c Maddox games, then they cannot endorse modding no matter however good they may be, end of story. So if people want mods to be incorporated into official patches, the creators will have to approach the dev. team, and I hope some of them do.

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

Yes, very simple. IL-2 will never have official support for 6DOF. The "quality standards" today say it's OK to have a dated sim engine in a discontinued project without 6DOF. IL-2 will last forever without it, people even not like to have 6DOF at all.

And we widescreen users will never have minimum decent official support, we will live with a "chop" screen up and down, something that accomplish the "quality standards" of TD and 1C Maddox Games.

I can be sarcastic too. I really like the work of Maddox Games in IL-2 and BoB will be fantastic, but after 1946 the support for IL-2 is over. That's fine, but the posture of the "official patching team", who can't delivery nothing really important, is a shame. Maybe the lack of widescreen support can be a good trade for better skis on planes or assign radiator control to an axis. Daidalos can deliver great ADDON material, but "patch"? Without solving ancient issues? What is a mod and what is a patch?!?!

I paid for IL-2, at least I want decent widescreen support. But if I can't have it "officially", it's a shame and the "official" support maybe have to think a little about all the time talking about "standards"... Cut a lot of my default view to use widescreen resolution is YOUR standards, and a really low one, not mine or others. By the way:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/15320

People still buying IL-2 1946. Can please put in big letters in those sites that IL-2 1946, in 2010, don't have real widescreen support? Make it "official". And rename the "patch" 4.10 as the "official MOD" 4.10, please.

Thanks! Keep the good work!

So your complaining that a 10 year old game that hasn't been updated 3 years and is being sold for 10 bucks in the bargain bin because of that doesn't have all of the features you want? Really? Really? Then you insult the people who are spending their own time and resources to make improvements to said game because you aren't getting what you want? Really?

Pull your head out of your ass and take a look around, you'll find it refreshing. Really.

[II/JG54_Emil]

@ Tempest:

And it seems to be about pride and arrogance, judging by some post here.