What bose said. It's my understanding that the maps are no longer compatible with the current build of LFS and need the graphics update to work. This is because the maps are entirely converted to new materials.

I think scawen have also said that it would be too much work to separate the WIP tire physics update from the graphics update to release one without the other.

Quote from versiu :

Honestly Blender have A LOT of tools that saves a lot of time compared to modeling from 90s or early 2000s when model creators was building models polygon by polygon or even in text files by puting vertex positions etc.

Yea, Blender is the most efficient 3D program in my opinion when you're used to the key bindings.

Quote from Kanade :

It looks amazing!

Thank you!



I've done some work optimizing the body. The full exterior (with everything visible in the video) is now at 33k tris which leaves another 30k tris for interior, wing mirrors and the other missing details like muffler.

I've also begun setting up the suspension and frame and all that stuff.

Thanks guys!

Got more progress done.



Next documentation video will be uploaded when I got a bit more progress yet.

I've moved onto the interior now. I'm using photogrammetry from youtube clips as reference.

Quote from Scawen :

Hello mod creators,

We have discussed the situation of 'retopology' where mod makers attempt to reproduce models from another game. They create a new mesh by a process of 3D tracing using the original model as a guide. This is then claimed as 'original work' because the mod maker built every triangle.

For a while this was considered to be a grey area and some mods were allowed after being built this way. But it involves the use of a model extracted from another game and therefore we have decided that we cannot allow such models to be stored on our servers.

Please read the special thread with a full explanation of the clarified rule.
The Live for Speed mods system, what is allowed...

We are sorry for mistakenly allowing some mods to be published that were built using the retopology process. We realise the creation of these mods involved a lot of work but the models we distribute from our servers must be fully legal and not borrow the work of other games or simulators.

I have a question about what your stance is on image references.
Is it allowed to use someone elses image to trace for example a gauge cluster? I would imagine that's considered fair use.

To take that a step further. Is it allowed to use a short video snippet from youtube (not from a game, but real video from a private uploader) and use a series of screenshots from this video to produce a photogrammetry point cloud? In this day and age such things are possible, and quite handy for modellers. I would also like to point out that the geometry information is quite crude and unrefined from this method. This could potentially also fall under fair use since you use only a few seconds of said video, but I'm not sure.

And finally. What about deriving suspension geometry information using the previously mentioned method.
I did this on my S15 from a couple of seconds off a youtube video as can be seen here:


Of course in this case I'm only looking for a couple of point coordinates. But in all fairness, it's very hard to obtain this information if you're not allowed to use creative methods or own the vehicle you're making.

Last edited by pärtan, Thu 15 Sep 2022, 21:24.

Quote from versiu :

New S15 for derivatives builds! Damn, this looks amazing!

Thanks!

Hello everyone
Back again with another project. I know my EG project is still not finished, but I like to juggle several balls at once. I also figured that a car I'd currently like to make even more than the EG is an S15. And I'd like to prioritize this car over the civic project for now. And I also figured that I'd do it right this time with absolutely all proof necessary to make it as clear as possible that I have full ownership of my model.




The model itself is as you can see based on the Nissan Silvia S15 Spec-R aero. A car I feel is necessary to be in the game. And with retopos now being officially banned I figured it was a good time to step in and make a decent version of my own.

It was made using blueprints. So far I have 6 hours and 30 minutes into it.

The workflow involves making a highpoly model with subsurf workflow.
And then to retopo or optimize this model into a more game friendly model but still retain the visual quality.

Here is a 16x timelapse of the current modelling progress. This is the 6 hours condensed into a 20 minute video. The drum and bass music I felt was fitting because it's nostalgic for the old days of LFS drifting video edits


This mod will be under the LFS derivative license in the end and hopefully become a platform for S15 mods.

Quote from Flame CZE :

I’d say you should be fine, you seem to have posted a lot of evidence and explanation about progress. If it’s purely made from blueprints and doesn’t come from the game retopo'd mesh, it’s OK

Good job on the model!

Thank you!

Quote from Gutholz :

I am not "a reviewer", just normal forum, but here is my opinion:
It would indeed be nice to have better evidence.
The matching blueprint and details about modeling technique seem believeable to me, even though it would be possible to fake that. But it would not be as trivial as as some of the "just delete parts of the model" fakes done by others.
Also important, and I realize this is not based on technical facts but subjective:
In the beginning I used to believe everyone who said they had made an original model. Over time, some people lost that trust and I became more sceptical in general. In your case, you did seem like a honest person in the threads about downloaded/retopo'ed models.
So far, I find it all plausible.

Thank you. I'm doing my best to prove it indeed, but the lack of feedback from reviewers is frustrating because I don't know if I'm in for a huge waste of time or not.

The blueprint matching is really the only source of proof I have. Well that and the fact that no reviewer will be able to find a match for the mesh in either geometry and topology.


I did a more detailed matching of the blueprint to the earliest save of the mesh. The features gets a bit harder to identify from the blueprints in the up to date mesh because I have changed details, and slightly tweaked some proportions based on reference images.

The evolution of the mesh basically went like this:
I modelled the EG a long time ago (7 years ago to be exact) and it was one of my first decent beginner models.
Since then i learnt new techniques such as using subsurf modifier and support loops. So I simplified aspects of the models base state to make it behave nicely with a subdivision surface modifier.

(By simplify the base model, I mean make it rely heavier on the subsurf modifier. For example the wheel arches, roof, door handles are quite low poly and all rely heavily on the subsurf modifier)
Look at these examples:


This however means that the current state of the model have several hundred thousands tris which now leads me to the third stage of the model where I retopo the subsurf version with the higher visual quality. The third step forward is documented in video.

All in all, this is my model that I have put most time into. I would just really hate to waste my time on something that would end up inconclusive with the lack of better evidence. Although other than a video from start to finish, I do not know what good evidence is. This aspect of the modding process is very muddy in my opinion. Which is why a vouch from a reviewer would give me more incentive to continue working on it.


And to post a bit of an update on the modelling too

I remade the headlight housing interior for something of higher visual quality. The process for this is also recorded but I will upload that at a later time.

Last edited by pärtan, Sat 10 Sep 2022, 01:10.

Quote from Kanade :

I personally hope that some unaccessible or some unexpected areas will still have collisions, I bet that the community can come up with amazing things with the editor.

I would assume alot of the areas have collisions, in the style of Westhill.
Keep in mind that alot of "backstage" regions are also covered in screenshots and made detailed.

There are also official LFS videos from the various parking lot buildings. So they are indeed accessible.

Retopoing my subsurf based highpoly model to a game compatible lower poly model
Episode one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q3I3XDgXvk

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Yes, I was talking about those who do it in the leadership of their countries. Not people in general. Perhaps this is an inaccuracy on my part. But this also applies to those who support it.

That's fair enough. I guess it was just a typo on your part. But yea, even in our democractic systems where officials aren't poisoned by other officials. We as citizens don't have a great deal of influence military stuff other than how much money to allocate.

And I don't have anything against russians as long as they aren't kremlin supporters.

Quote from Bean0 :

Here you go...

Thank you

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

As we all understand, most of these sentiments are due to the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. But is worth understanding that the absolute majority of Russians did not start this war, it was started by the government leadership. I hope you understand that Government is not equal to the country. Like many Russians, I am against it. But the interesting thing is that many Western people are for it, even if they say "no war" with words, they say "yes war" with deeds.

Ironically you really emphasized the distinction between government and people in Russia. But then went on to say that the western people support war with their deeds.

Can you post the wireframe in non PSD format?

I'd like some feedback this early in fact from a reviewer. I don't wanna spend time on something if it turns out I don't have enough evidence for my ownership of my mesh.

Used blueprint:


Old state of model placed under blueprint.


Orthographic comparison view of newst (2022 save) and oldest (2015 save)


Proportional and topological changes have been done. But some edge loops can be identified between the two iterations.

Please also do notice that the 2022 version use subsurf tricks, especially at the roof and door handle which wouldnt make sense in any other circumstance than a self modeled mesh.
You can also see that the dashboard is heavily subsurf based.

Last edited by pärtan, Sun 4 Sep 2022, 17:24.

Quote from Gutholz :

Debatable, for example different scan resolution will give a different shape and different topology. Then the laser-scans might have absurd high polygon count that has to be reduced, making the models different etc.
But let's not get sidetracked. What matters in my opinion is that one can not say: "Oh yes, my model looks exactly like this one from that game. They laser-scanned the same vehicle as I did."
When someone has created a laser-scanned model then they can still post pictures of their work progress. eg The setup with the real-world vehicle and scanner hardware, the raw data, pictures of the clean-up process.

Yes, that is a problem and sadly some problems do not have a solution.
In a perfect world it would be possible to just take someone's word for it but we saw how that got abused.
Maybe in the future instead of "I found it on the internet for free" it will be "I found it on my old computer."
There should hopefully be any traces of the creation process. Old file versions, reference pictures, matching orthographic reference pictures included in the file etc. If there is literally nothing then... well, honestly sorry but bad luck.

Hmm not really. The scan itself have no impact on the topology. The scan gives a very messy high poly mesh that then has a new topology imposed upon it. The scan data is something which very closely resemble the shape of the real, mass produced vehicle and so two different laser scans can be hard to tell apart. The retopology is technically the only artistic attribute of such a mesh. Thus second retopology could be considered a different interpretation of the original scan data.

Point is it makes the cube analogy somewhat accurate as it is also a shape you can reproduce in an identical manner for two separate parties.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that retopos should be allowed. I simply don't agree that the cube analogy is inaccurate in the case of laser scanned models.

And about the part where we should just suit ourself for not having prepared our 7 year old meshes for proof of ownership in the future. Just make me aware if I'm about to waste my time on modding before I'm done modding is my point. Because the level to which I have to redeem myself is very vague and abstract.

Quote from Gutholz :

I am not sure what you are trying to say.
We are not talking about primitive cubes but about models with several thousand polygons. It feels more like a philosophical question to discuss cubes or how maybe two models are similar in certain places. I do not see how this contributes much to the discussion.
It is virtually impossible that by chance two people create the exact same mesh.

I don't agree with this, especially when dealing with cars. A car is a mass produced tangible object with a very specific geometry. For example, every single 1995 opel corsa (just as an example) will have exactly the same geometry and dimensions with the exception of panel fitment or potential damages.

This means that when you use the methods of large game studios which is to do a very detailed laser scan process, your mesh don't deviate from the real geometry. Thus it's no longer unique to that game studio. Anyone with access to decent photogrammetry or laser scanning would be able to reproduce a mesh that is indistinguishible from a retopology of the other games laser scanned mesh. Because they share the fact that they are both essentially just measured data from a real mass produced object.

The only unique aspect of such a model is its topology, which is completely disregarded in the retopology process. Think of it like doing a retopology on a raw laser scanned model but with extra (and controversial) steps. So in that sense I think the cube analogy isn't entirely off base.

With that being said, if the devs don't wanna allow this, that's up to them. Because the laser scanning job is unarguably something that costs money to do.

Quote from Gutholz :

That is actually a good question. What if a game has a viewer-mode like LFS and you take screenshots from all sides? What if you enable wire-mode and trace the mesh from the screnshots?
I have no idea but it might be better to stay away from such grey areas.

Exactly. Using screenshots of potential orthographic mesh views from games. Or high quality blueprints that are potentially based from ripped models falls under the same legal problems (or moral) as retopoing a model. It's something that might sound silly, but is worth thinking about.

Quote from Gutholz :

My opinion:
You have to somehow convince people that you actually created the model.

A video can work, nowadays it is easy to screencapture so it can never hurt.
WIP screenshots work, if they are the right kind.
You should show something that only the original modeler can show, not something that everybody can fake in a few seconds.
If the screenshots look like you just deleted parts of a ripped model and now you are posting them in reverse order, it will not convince people.
If you post a partly finished mesh in editor but there are no reference-sideview-photos then it might look as if you are just doing a retopo and have hidden the original mesh.

On other hand, look at these WIP pictures:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/post/1971286
We can follow how the model gets made: from a pencil drawing to a basic 2D-ish outline to a 3D model.
similiar:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/96594-DH-Chorus-Avante---%2794-%2798-Mira---Cuore-Replica-%5BRenamed%5D
The first pictures are a very blocky model (wheel arches are like 5 polygons) and then everything gets progressively smoother.

This is problematic in some cases. For example if you have an old, blueprint made model that you're sitting on and want to turn into an LFS mod. This model could lack the "documentation" and you're back to taking someones word for it. In the case of my Civic EG model, I do have some documentation in the form of older blender files, but historically I have not thought about having to prove ownership of my model in the future so wip screenshots and videos are not to be found in this case.

The whole burden of proof thing that has come up here could essentially force you to having to start over and making new models for your LFS mod projects. I feel that this could potentially turn into a problem for my EG project. Of course I hope it's gonna be smooth. But putting 10, 20, 30, 40 hours into something with nothing but hopes that it's gonna go smoothly phrankly isn't good enough.

I think a solution to this could be to get reviewed earlier in the development process. Like as soon as you post the wip thread with whatever information you have about your mesh. Then get the green light to go from there.

Last edited by pärtan, Sat 3 Sep 2022, 21:48.

Quote from NENE87 :

Dotmoon in case of datsun? that's an amazing job!

Oh, its not a Datsun, it's a Honda.
Thank you very much Long running project. One of my oldest projects

Quote from versiu :

Amazing model! Bring back Civics in LFS!



It can... Look at GT-V32 SC mod for example: https://www.lfs.net/files/vehmods/4EA759

Thank you!

The project is a car based on the Honda Civic 5th generation.

My previous project was a retopo of another game mesh. I have since learned that those mods are not appreciated by the developers. So instead I thought I'd pick one of my blueprint made models. And this one is made from start to end by me.
I don't have a huge backlog of WIP images, but I have older blend files from earlier in the progress (dating back to 2015).



I have picked it back up a few times to bring it up to standard as my modelling skill have improved.

I have attached a comparison of the same model from 2015 compared to now.


It will take some work to bring this model to a game ready standard as it's currently heavily subsurf based.
But here are some images of how the model look.








Just for fun I thought I'd show the gauge cluster I made for it, because I think it looks good. It can obviously not be used in LFS though


If you have a better naming idea, let me know.

Last edited by pärtan, Fri 9 Sep 2022, 16:38.

Quote from evandroPRO123 :

it is already possible

It is? I haven't found this attachment type.

But to go along with this. The ability to not render / use the generated wheel barrell and spokes. And in place use subobs for wheels.

The biggest problem for me isn't whether or not retopos are allowed. But it's just not made clear enough. I did take a look before starting my retopo project which included reading a list of banned model sources. I also asked in the LFS discord where I got the impression that retopos would be allowed. Especially considering there are retopos in the game already.

Then I found this whole discussion mostly contained in various mod review threads.

So what is needed is more clear communication, and more easily accessed guidelines which explain your stance on retopos and state that they are not allowed. It's a good way to stop alot of it. I wouldn't have started on my retopo project had this been the case for example.



Now, before I start on my next mod. I would like to know a few things which seems to have been indicated already:
What sort of blueprints are banned / allowed? If I find a blueprint that have been rendered from an unlicensed game model, does that fall under the same legal category as a retopo?

Do I have to video the whole modelling process to prove that I have not made a retopo in the future?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I just wanna know what I have to think about considering we invest our time into modding.

Last edited by pärtan, Tue 30 Aug 2022, 18:08.

Just to play devils advocate.

The workflow many games use to make high quality car models involve laser scanning a real vehicle. It's not a particularly artistic process, but a technical one. The geometry very closely resemble the real object (car) that have been scanned, and the 'personal touch' comes from their topology. That is essentially the only unique attribute their mesh have versous other models scanned from the same object.

A retopology disregard that attribute, and only utilize the geometry data of said model which again very closely resemble the geometry of the real car.

But of course, it is true that the creator of the original mesh have invested in the scanning technology/process.

A correct version of the tracing analogy in my opinion would be: You want to trace a painting, but don't have access to it. So you trace an already traced version of the painting instead because it yields better results than trying to hand draw the painting.

Either way, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. But what would be a good idea is a clear set of rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed in a pinned thread touching on the following things:

Retopology
Blueprints (which blueprints are okay to use)
Image-modeler (it's a powerful tool to make car models, but it's no longer attainable trough legal means)
Also, what about image licensing for modelling with Image Modeller.
Resemblance of real cars. Is there a limit to how close you can go.

These things might sound silly. But it's good to have a solid set of guidelines to refer to since it's time consuming to make mods whichever method is used.

This one just came to my mind.

What about using OBJ materials to create dummy mappings.
And the same thing for importing LFS models (saved mappings)

Then also have existing mappings of the object you're overriding being inserted to the mapping slots of the object you import.

I'm putting this project on hold. I worked on this project under the assumption that retopos was tolerated. But it seems that it's not certain they are. So I will not work further on this until I know what's going on with that.