Le Beaufighter montré est équipé radar/cache flamme d'échappement = chasse de nuit durant BoB; on peut l'imaginer comme AI seulement; là aussi il prendra (au prix de quelques modifs assez mineures du modèle 3D, et moins mineures du FM) de l'importance en Méditerranée, mais je ne vous apprend rien...
Le Defiant sera présent (en AI).
En ce qui concerne ceci:
"Par contre, il faudra bien avoir en tête que le cahier des charges pour les avions sera quasi impossible à respecter pour une personne seule dans un temps raisonnable. Plusieurs (posteurs n'ayant aucun lien avec 1C) ont déjà affirmé qu'il faudrait une équipe pour sortir un avion : 6 mois de travail pour un cockpit, pour un modeleur d'1C ou RRG"
je ne sais pas pourquoi tout le monde se monte le bourrichon avec ça...le niveau de détail est plus élevé, certes, mais pas pire que pour FSX (au moins pour le modèle 3D). La complexité sera plus au niveau du DM, et encore...si tu connais suffisamment ton appareil pour faire un modèle 3D à la hauteur, tu n'auras quère de difficulté à établir le DM (bien qu'une connaissance de la mécanique avion et du vol soit bien utile).
J'admet volontiers que le FM est la vraie partie "difficile" car là les connaissances deviennent pointues et ne sont pas très faciles à acquérir en autodidacte....
mais ce n'est pas impossible!
Tout dépendra d'un SDK de bonne qualité et je me demande si ce n'est pas ce qui a manqué à IL2: il suffit de voir l'explication de SaQsoN (modeleur en chef de RRG) pourquoi certains appareils péchaient lors de l'intégration dans IL2. Voici mon post initial sur SimHQ:
>>>>>> Hello SaQSoN! You are certainly right when you say that the 3D models for SoW series games are much more detailed and long to make than the Il2 ones having modeled for Il2 and being modeling for SoW-BoB!
However I have the distinct feeling you and some others (including MG team) are underestimating the real potential of knowledge available in the so-called Il2 (soon SoW) community…
I suspect that the real problem is not about finding highly skilled modelers able to understand aircraft mechanics, internal structures and damage model issues (a lot of aeronautical engineers are already or more than able to learn those skills with relative ease; many of them are also well conversant with flight mechanics and aerodynamics as well) but a lot more about having as quickly as possible at least a basic but well written SDK (at a minimum the part about 3D, DM and texture).
I have always been wondering why so many models for Il2 were rejected because not “up to the standard of MG”? I have lost count of the times when I read this excuse a long time ago…but I am still waiting to see good explanations about why generally these models were found wanting? Hence my mention of a “well written SDK”…
If MG studios are really willing to see one of these days free third-party 3D models available online (which means I believe MG-fully sanctioned! and this I do not doubt will happen) it becomes most urgent to have the SDK available (possibly a limited one at first, if some competition related IP issues are feared), something to start with…
Another issue I think is the level of detail of the model…what happens if a model is very much wished and/or needed but there is just not enough/too hard to get documentation at the proper level of detail? Must this model be forgotten or will a well-educated attempt at reconstructing the missing details be accepted for integration (I am thinking about several French or Japanese airplanes here)?
I hope some reasoning of the sort is already taking place in the higher MG decision circles…
Time is of the essence…knowledge about old times is eroding fast…and if nothing happens soon the competing hobbies the present and future modelers have at their disposal may very well discourage them to rise to the challenge of making SoW models…and this would be a great loss indeed!
JVM <<<<<<
Et la réponse de SaQSoN:
>>>> There were written tons of documents for IL-2 modelling comunity, hundreds of posts, describing how things should be done, with pictures and exhamples. And still people were doing it wrong.
More over, I don't see a need of explainign an obvious modellng things, such as: vertexes should be welded; there should not be a holes between parts and/or polygons in the model; the retracting parts should fit their respective wells; a supposedly moveable parts should be detached from supposedly non-moveable parts; an instrument faces should be round, but not elliptical; an instrument needle should be parallel to the instrument face and so on.
Those and many alike were the main and most common errors in the user-made models. But all those errors are pretty obvious to even a 3D modelling starter, even to anyone with a common sence, as I see it.
Or, here is another exhample. One freelance modeller, who was paid for his models was recieveing a bug-lists from his emploer. The list contained a detailed instructions about what should be fixed in the model, plus pictures with additional instructions. It was written in the modeller's native language.
Now, the guy soon sent back a "fixed" model, where half of the list was simply ignored, about 5% fixed as asked, some other errors were left in because the modeller didn't think, they should be fixed, for few others he haven't had time and so on.
This guy was paid for his work. Now what you expect from those, working for free? No SDK and no instruction (no matter, how detailed it will be) won't work for them, if they don't have skill and determination.
There is no rush for the SDK release either. Without the game it is useless anyway. <<<<<
La réponse était très intéressante....C'est de l'anglais, d'accord et si vous le souhaitez je peux le traduire!
Du coup la donnée essentielle, c'est le temps: qu'est ce qui est "raisonnable" pour un créateur bénévole? Qu'il mette 1 an ou 2 au lieu de 6 mois comme les pros a-t-il la moindre importance dans le grand schéma cosmique?
Le vrai problème sera d'aller jusqu'au bout sans se décourager, et c'est là que seront séparés le bon grain de l'ivraie...
Par contre, sans parler d'équipe constituée dès le départ je ne serais pas surpris qu'apparaissent très vite des spécialistes capables (et désireux) d'aider leur petits copains, et on pourrait le moment venu envisager d'établir une sorte de groupe-ressource via ce forum pour rassembler les compétences?
JV
