Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[flyingfisch]

why aren't SAS's tools open source in a public repository?

All the tools you need are publicly available. You just need to search, or ask.
I started modding around 2008. The first tools I used were sfs extractor and mshconvertor to extract an existing stock model and study its structure.
My first model was created using a stock model as a guide.
For model creation I use Max, Photoshop and TextPad --- not IL2 tools.
Export to IL2 format uses Maraz Exporter - a publicly available tool.
and Kumpfels Matrix Tool - a publicly available tool.

So Flyingfish, lack of publicly available tools is not a problem to you, so get modding.

I would mod, I just don't have time at the moment.

I know the binaries for the tools are available to anyone, my question was why the source code isn't. Note that I'm asking it off curiosity, not because I think there's anything inherently wrong with it.

That said, the philosophy that there is intellectual property in mods that could be "stolen" by opening the source code could probably be fixed by licensing the source with a license that requires attribution. I'm pretty sure no one makes money on these mods, so I don't see anything more than attribution being necessary.

As far as training modders goes, you don't have to guide them by the hand, you just need to make tutorials that are open to the general public without having to join forums or modding groups to view them.

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

[SAS~Storebror]

I'm pretty sure no one makes money on these mods, so I don't see anything more than attribution being necessary.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but you should really read a little before you make such statements.
Attribution actually is all we're about when it comes to "copyrights for mods", we call it "proper credits" and it's clearly written in our site rules which any user is supposed to have read.

As far as training modders goes, you don't have to guide them by the hand, you just need to make tutorials that are open to the general public without having to join forums or modding groups to view them.

"Just". Lol Sorry.
I've made a couple of tutorials and I know what I'm talking about.
It takes about one week to make a good beginners tutorial for IL-2 Java modding.
Another week to make a tutorial for beginners about installing the programs and utilities required.
The latter becomes obsolete every half a year.
Once you publish the "fool proof" tutorials, the next 10 fools come around and proof you wrong in thinking it'd be "fool proof". That's another two weeks just for explaining the obvious to the first 10 readers.
While you're trying to get these 10 started, the next 20 come around with virtually the same questions.
Really I know what I'm talking of.
Anything but taking one modder at a time and guide him through it step by step will just drive you insane, that's all.

Concerning source code for IL-2 modding tools:
As explained before, many tools ship with sources.
But that's not the deal here.
We're talking about TD deliberately holding back anything that's required to mod the same parts of the game like they do.
They have "da toolz" and don't share them, period.
We're not even asking for the source code of these tools, we'd be happy already to have them at all.

See: We (modders) = Share all tools (also with TD), most of them with sources.
TD = Share nothing (no tools, no content, nothing), period.

Best regards - Mike

[SAS~GJE52]

As a modder who developed his skills at SAS step by step over some time, I fully agree with what has been said in the previous post. Creating additional content for IL2 requires 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration....  In reality, those who actually make the best modders are those who only need advice rather than be "lead by the hand"... 

  * Polygon counts for ordinance, ground objects, aircraft, etc. must be limited to more or less conform to the original computer requirements to run the game. There has been some relaxation of the rules here, but basically any object developed for DT has to be relatively lower in polygons compared to mods

.. which is a function of the game engine, and so far is still a limiting factor. However, early models were very low poly as well as low res textured to run on what were then "middle of the road" machines ....   (arguably not even good enough to qualify as "low end" machines these days). Things have moved on a long way ....  and recent well crafted, "unofficial"  mods have shown that the poly barrier - although unchanged - does not stop the creation of visually acceptable models, especially when used with the newer 2048x2048 "high res" textures. It must also be noted that the significant effort that has gone into the development of flight characteristics to allow for the introduction of more modern aircraft has moved the original game to a whole new level.

This is the new reality .... you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Those who for whatever reason are trying by any means (but especially underhand tactics  ) to hold back this kind of natural progress cannot be unaware that their actions will eventually kill off the huge community following that this old game still commands.

G;

[MrMojok]

Thanks Pursuivant, for the well thought-out response. Now I understand the situation. Thanks again to the whole SAS team for all your work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[max_thehitman]

...and recent well crafted, "unofficial"  mods have shown that the poly barrier - although unchanged - does not stop the creation of visually acceptable models,
especially when used with the newer 2048x2048 "high res" textures.

G;

Yes indeed, very true. They can also use 4096x4096 textures in aircraft skins, all static-models and all maps, if the person wishes to use them.

[Uzin]

It takes about one week to make a good beginners tutorial for IL-2 Java modding.
Another week to make a tutorial for beginners about installing the programs and utilities required.
The latter becomes obsolete every half a year.
Once you publish the "fool proof" tutorials, the next 10 fools come around and proof you wrong in thinking it'd be "fool proof". That's another two weeks just for explaining the obvious to the first 10 reades.r
While you're trying to get these 10 started, the next 20 come around with virtually the same questions.
Really I know what I'm talking of.

I have the same experience with writing tutorials, both in Il-2 and outside its area.
It is simple as that:
PEOPLES DO NOT READ.
Aka RTFM .

[Koty]

Not only that, Uzin. Some people just don't see the logic in things programmers see as logical. Etc. You may think you explained everything, but then someone discovers a hole, maybe his coputer doing shit, maybe the person made an error along the way and just did not notice - you see, people are not perfect.

[Uzin]

Some people just don't see the logic in things programmers see as logical.

Well written tutorial takes it on account.
When the tutorial takes only the programmers point of view on account, it is not well written.
Writing tutorials requres a bit other capabilities than programming alone.

[Pursuivant]

Quite a good summary, Pursuivant, we can also add, although nobody here has ever seen the allegely signed contract (renewed ...?) between DT and 1C Games, that DT cannot make any plane that is already included in CoD, like the Avro Anson, Wellington, Fiat Br20, to name a few ...

Same with the Channel/Northern France map ...

Actually, according to DT members on the "banana forum", neither of these things is true. Initially there was a block on such content, but since CloD failed as a commercial release the restrictions were lifted. As an example, notice that there is a Wellington III in the 4.12 patch.

Additionally, once upon a time there were restrictions on Korean War content, but since that project went by the wayside they have been lifted. (Of course, the NG consent decree makes an "official" IL2 Korean War add-on pretty much moot. Basically, almost no US Navy content.)

Also that the poly count barrier (3000 polys max per mesh, if my memory is good) dates back when IL2 was released, at a time when a 64 Mb graphics card was considered as "middle of the road", and a 128 Mb one was a must ...

Exactly. That's the reason for the 8- or 12-sided radial engine cowls and tires, and why the oldest models in the game, like the MiG-3, Ju-52, and IL-2, look like they got hit with the ugly stick.

The polygon count restrictions on aircraft are now a bit more flexible - up to about 3,500 for a large airplane, IIRC - but still quite low compared to a modern flight sim.

The advantage of this rule, however, is that you can put a lot of airplanes in the sky with even an bottom end 2016-era computer, and still get great FPS.

I also think that the polygon limit is a very good design policy, since it makes 3d artists work as hard as they can to eliminate redundant elements from their mesh. But, for some items - like ships and multi-engined airplanes - you just need to exceed the limits.

Going forward, I'm wondering if the best way to make the game look good isn't just higher resolution textures for everything. A detailed, good-looking skin can make a very simple mesh look good. Doubling the size of existing meshes (i.e., from 1024 x 1024 pixels to 2048 x 2048) would result in a quadrupled demand to the graphics processing unit, but graphics cards these days seem to be really good at serving up static graphical images without much strain. What really messes up graphics cards is dynamic 3d rendering, which means things like moving objects and particle effects.