Page 1 of 1
Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 12 Dec 2021, 01:59
by Edvinator
While I love the changes to the default hills, it would also be great to jump with a snow inrun track on those who have been updated with a ceramic track over the recent years. Could this option be implemented?
Alternatively, I could edit the hills myself, but I can't open the default hill files like the custom ones with a text editor.
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 12 Dec 2021, 17:54
by J.MIRO
Good point. Still I don't really know why Strbske Pleso is covered with ceramic inrun, in times when it was in used nobody headr about such thing.
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 17 Dec 2021, 00:29
by Lechoo
Stop Dreaming. Koskela is too lazy for a more in-depth updates. Just watch the main screen - the same old DSJ3 photo of Lahti hills ... No comments
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 17 Dec 2021, 01:46
by J.MIRO
As far as I know, Mr Koskela is not responsible for making and accepting new hills anymore.
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 21 Dec 2021, 00:45
by NieGrzegorz
It's a good idea and important matter. I'd like Kuusamo, Bischofshofen HS 140 and other hills with snowtrack. I hope good hillmakers will create all this default hills in xml, like for example Patryk Szajer made Sapporo. I wish make World Cup 2005-2010 with CPU players, but now not much hills are suitable for this.
PS. I think it's wrong and unfair to say, that Jussi is lazy. Nobody's done more for ski jumping games than him.
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 21 Jan 2022, 17:40
by Andrej šunkar
Hello. I don't know which column to write under, but I decided to do it. I wonder how it is that the hills that are updated some very quickly ranked others and by no means yet. DSJ3 hills are spinning very fast, and hills that are realistic or fictional take so long.
If we look at the hill Brzeg 105, approved on 13. 12. 21. Oberstdorf 235, approved on 4. 1. 22 no one has been listed yet. I am also waiting for the update of Vikersund 240, Lviv 142 and Tromso 142. Please answer?
Have a nice day, Andrej
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 21 Jan 2022, 21:15
by Xinitiao
Andrej šunkar wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 17:40
Hello. I don't know which column to write under, but I decided to do it. I wonder how it is that the hills that are updated some very quickly ranked others and by no means yet. DSJ3 hills are spinning very fast, and hills that are realistic or fictional take so long.
If we look at the hill Brzeg 105, approved on 13. 12. 21. Oberstdorf 235, approved on 4. 1. 22 no one has been listed yet. I am also waiting for the update of Vikersund 240, Lviv 142 and Tromso 142. Please answer?
Have a nice day, Andrej
DSJ3 hills are being verified far from quickly, they have been done for a long time;
For Vike, Lviv and Tromso you need to ask their authors to make an update for them;
Brzeg and Oberstdorf are in the verification process (as an aside, I have no idea why Obe HS137 and HS106 have passed verification with their lack of quality in 2022)
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 21 Jan 2022, 22:08
by Andrej šunkar
Thanks for the reply, and at the same time I am asking the authors of these three hills for an update.
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 21 Jan 2022, 22:18
by Xinitiao
Andrej šunkar wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 22:08
Thanks for the reply, and at the same time I am asking the authors of these three hills for an update.
Go ask them on the official hillmaking discord, these three are all gorisek hills.
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 23 Jan 2022, 15:56
by Patryk Szajer
Xinitiao wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 21:15
Andrej šunkar wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 17:40
Hello. I don't know which column to write under, but I decided to do it. I wonder how it is that the hills that are updated some very quickly ranked others and by no means yet. DSJ3 hills are spinning very fast, and hills that are realistic or fictional take so long.
If we look at the hill Brzeg 105, approved on 13. 12. 21. Oberstdorf 235, approved on 4. 1. 22 no one has been listed yet. I am also waiting for the update of Vikersund 240, Lviv 142 and Tromso 142. Please answer?
Have a nice day, Andrej
DSJ3 hills are being verified far from quickly, they have been done for a long time;
For Vike, Lviv and Tromso you need to ask their authors to make an update for them;
Brzeg and Oberstdorf are in the verification process (as an aside, I have no idea why Obe HS137 and HS106 have passed verification with their lack of quality in 2022)
All DSJ3 have been updated and accepted by HIT team, As for your comment about Obe HS137 and HS106. It's you personal taste, both hill's are with in the limit of our criteria thus they were accepted. I don't know why are you also complaining about them. I don't want to remind you that you accepted hill's like Olomouc HS102 with let's be honest with each other compared to other hills that were accepted it's a even below low quality hill.
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 23 Jan 2022, 16:37
by Xinitiao
Patryk Szajer wrote: ↑23 Jan 2022, 15:56
All DSJ3 have been updated and accepted by HIT team
https://dsj24.pl/hills/141
Patryk Szajer wrote: ↑23 Jan 2022, 15:56
As for your comment about Obe HS137 and HS106. It's you personal taste, both hill's are with in the limit of our criteria thus they were accepted. I don't know why are you also complaining about them. I don't want to remind you that you accepted hill's like Olomouc HS102 with let's be honest with each other compared to other hills that were accepted it's a even below low quality hill.
Level of detail is an objective metric. The quality of all three Oberstdorfs fit the year 2012 not 2022 and in my opinion should not get verified in this state. As for comparison to Olomouc, it's a fictional hill, so comparing this to real hills is like comparing apples to oranges.
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 23 Jan 2022, 17:44
by Patryk Szajer
Xinitiao wrote: ↑23 Jan 2022, 16:37
Patryk Szajer wrote: ↑23 Jan 2022, 15:56
All DSJ3 have been updated and accepted by HIT team
https://dsj24.pl/hills/141
Patryk Szajer wrote: ↑23 Jan 2022, 15:56
As for your comment about Obe HS137 and HS106. It's you personal taste, both hill's are with in the limit of our criteria thus they were accepted. I don't know why are you also complaining about them. I don't want to remind you that you accepted hill's like Olomouc HS102 with let's be honest with each other compared to other hills that were accepted it's a even below low quality hill.
Level of detail is an objective metric. The quality of all three Oberstdorfs fit the year 2012 not 2022 and in my opinion should not get verified in this state. As for comparison to Olomouc, it's a fictional hill, so comparing this to real hills is like comparing apples to oranges.
Canada was not updated by rzym so it's not our problem he was pined at least 3 times to update it. As to quality of Oberstdorf hill's. Again it's your quality mesurment is an objective metric as you said. Our criteria are trying to eliminate that, do they do that
not always. My point is that those hills are good enough to be veryfied as they complay with every criteria point so not veryfing them would go against what criteria is trying to achive and that is to eliminate objective metrics.
Re: Snow track on updated original hills
Posted: 23 Jan 2022, 18:06
by Xinitiao
Patryk Szajer wrote: ↑23 Jan 2022, 17:44
Canada was not updated by rzym so it's not our problem he was pined at least 3 times to update it. As to quality of Oberstdorf hill's. Again it's your quality mesurment is an objective metric as you said. Our criteria are trying to eliminate that, do they do that
not always. My point is that those hills are good enough to be veryfied as they complay with every criteria point so not veryfing them would go against what criteria is trying to achive and that is to eliminate objective metrics.
& my point is the criteria are designed in a way that leaves as much space for interpretation as possible, which I disagree with.
Patryk Szajer wrote: ↑23 Jan 2022, 15:56
criteria is trying to achive and that is to eliminate objective metrics.
They should eliminate
subjective metrics and have as many objective ones as possible.