Jump to content

ED, tell us where DCS is going (are we just customers, or friends?)


dali

Recommended Posts

  • ED Team
IMO modding can bring some good ideas on the table by using code variants in order to improve base sim. I think that community manager could sometimes perhaps talk a bit more about some mods to the ED team simply because some mods are made as "showcases" of what could be done better for some assets ingame.

 

We do all the time, but we cant haphazardly add a bunch of stuff we can't support, or add a modder and then they get bored and we are stuff supporting more than we can handle. I saw the mods you were working on, I liked them, I believe BigNewy has sent them to the team, but really if you want to add content to the game, especially something as complex as an asset pack, the best road to travel is a 3rd Party agreement, even if you don't want to make money on your offerings.

 

I would love more units and 3rd Party support for CA.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your mods are awesome. I think you misinterpret the direction of the thread. Read the OP, he's complaining that Mods break and drawing a line between the SDK access and that reasoning. What he didnt understand was that it's nothing to do with the SDK's. The support process of licensed products is different and should be! In many cases ED is still trying to improve their communication around that topic but you would expect they talked to their paying third parties first, right? Re exporting due to a texture change has happened before and it will happen again most likely and ED will strive to support their licensed 3rd party devs foremost. So the concept is simple; go for a license and get that support and you'll have that time in advance to make the changes. ED would like more developers to become licensed third parties. But you have to do it by ED's book and rules and that's a product standard. Fairly straightforward.

 

We've all seen script authors disappear and their scripts fall into broken, it is the same with old mods. If a modder wants to commit, then they do it by ED's rules. And that sets the standard for DCS. And that forces the entire point of what at least I was saying about SDK and licensing being a joint benchmark 'gate' that should be protected. A modder is either in, or out, its a committment barrier. If the SDK and the final part of getting a mod to full ED standard is the parts of the SDK that allow interfacing with radios or whatever feature is unobtainable, then it's good its not given away because it allows an easy distinction between what is a public mod and what is part of ED's core game and guarantees ED wont be left trying to figure out someone elses work, which they have had several times now.

 

Obviously this is more about flying plane modules than assets. AI Assets are interesting because there has to be a limit on the number that ED can support. If texture types changes in the game and they have 200 rather than 100 of them, its got to be a sizable chunk of work to take ownership of these. I'm not completely sure, but the China assets pack looks to me like a way of not onboarding too many objects to support, it's clearly a massive support overhead. Consider all that work if the core game changes soemthng that requires each asset updated! Another example could be the WW2 assets pack, which has it's own funding.

 

Terrain is a different kettle of fish completely. I think this is primarily protecting a revenue stream. I understand that, even if I don't like it myself.

 

The folks talking about mods being bad are probably refering to bad mods, in absolute fairness there are many to pick from, despite the obvious effort it takes. But there are good ones too, many I count on absolutely.

 

FWIW, if you think you have everything for a LeClerc, the right team, contacts, the Proof of concept, talk to Wags and do it.

 

IMO modding can bring some good ideas on the table by using code variants in order to improve base sim. I think that community manager could sometimes perhaps talk a bit more about some mods to the ED team simply because some mods are made as "showcases" of what could be done better for some assets ingame.

 

People who simply say "Modding is always worse than official content" simply never modded anything and lack a lot of respect toward those who spend thousands of hours working hard with one idea in head : improve base experience. Let me take my own example on this :

 

I am making a Leclerc tank with full interior and external API in order to have a complete C4ISR system able to communicate datas with other planes and practicaly replace most of the basic "half done" Combined Arms GUI, using the real life manual. Model I make for the Leclerc uses real measurements, working with RL instructors, and is 386 000 triangles with 4K PBR textures, which is already more than most aircraft paid models you have ingame. Interior too uses thousands of reference pics in order to get the most accurate result you could get in any sim whatsoever. Meanwhile the Abrams or Leopard 2 models don't have the right measurements (12.5 m long for a Leo 2A5 instead of 10.97 m) and the global CA is extraordinarily limited. Extraordinarily more limited. Because it is left aside of dev work for years now.

 

What's the purpose of such mod I make ? Is it to say "Ow look at my beautiful Leclerc I am so good xoxoxo #IamGod" ? It is to try to show ED that CA has a lot of potential and that some time could be spent on it. I would not have any problem in helping them on my own time. Is ED able to do far better than what I do ? Of course they are, they have all the core coding tools that I don't have. The sole purpose is to show them that it's already possible to do great things with not much and so that spending few hours on improving their code could allow great things. I know that there are some mod assets which are sometimes quite limited, but when I read this :

 

"at the end of the day modded content is bad. they cause problems and they have low quality standards. even the most well-constructed mod does not come close to matching a professional production. i honestly could not give any less of a rat's wet fart if they ceased to exist."

 

I simply want to ask : Who are you to insult other people work ? People criticize the "expert armchair man who gives advices to ED" but don't have any problem to insult the persons who actually simply make better quality stuff than what's in base game for FREE. It is better quality stuff. There is nothing to say about it, it is made and thought to be better in order to show ED that there is more potential in their modules than what they sometimes seem to think.

 

The purpose of many modders is to try their best to bring new and sometimes better content than the original one. It's not always true, it's even rarely true, but again, if there any CA users here, is this Leclerc project a downgrade compared to what exists today ? Wouldn't you like to get this kind of work, this kind of dedication by default on the sim ?

 

This whole thread is one of the main reasons I post less and less on this forum : people think that because you mod, then it's necessarily lower quality content. It is not always true, really. Some people set quality levels for their product that they use in their current job in sometimes far wealthier companies than ED (with all respect to ED itself). So please be respectful toward each other work because this kind of post I quote is nothing else than pure insult and I don't even understand why @Bignewy you allow this kind of thing to happen. We work for free, on our free time, to bring people nice content. Nothing else.

 

For the remaining part of the topic, no SDK is asked by anyone, though sometimes someone to answer some very simple questions could be nice. Bignewy, I asked you a simple question by PM, is there a possibility to one day get an answer, even if it is a simple "NO !" ? What's the result of producing such very high quality showcase ? More CA sells for example at least in French community. Does ED complain about this you think ?

 

Again, it is made in the intent to make some showcases of the sim potential, nothing more. There is no ego involved in this, simply passion and the pleasure to share it.

 

Nicolas

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but really if you want to add content to the game, especially something as complex as an asset pack, the best road to travel is a 3rd Party agreement, even if you don't want to make money on your offerings.

 

wait wait wait , is this a viable way to relate with ED?

 

A team (or an individual) can get a 3rd party status and declare that dont want make money on content released?

What are the pros and cons of that?

Does that apply also on possible aircraft modules?


Edited by beppe_goodoldrebel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wait wait wait , is this a viable way to relate with ED?

 

A team (or an individual) can get a 3rd party status and declare that dont want make money on content released?

What are the pros and cons of that?

Does that apply also on possible aircraft modules?

 

You can use CAP as example

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...