Here's the thing you don't get: At no point is your "contribution" necessary. You can cry "not retail enough" all you want, but your input really isn't needed for the model to be made. You can and will be ignored, and no one will notice. You could stop posting entirely, and no one would notice. These threads are a courtesy. They are not required. Nor are the MVPs.
FSU depends 100% on the people making models for it. In no way does it depend on you or anyone who claims to "safeguard the purity of Volition's designs". And if it's you that FSU listens to, then people will simply stop making models for the MVPs. The only ones who stands to lose here are people like you.
BTW, having seen what you call "distinctive features", you're paying me a wonderful compliment.
I did some modeling (don't think I ever released anything here, certainly nothing playable), but I'm certainly not good enough to make replicas. I know my limits. Aside from the fact I've mostly moved on to KSP modding (lost interest in FS for a long time, as you might figure from my activity lately), I'm not that good of a modeler and I never pretended otherwise. What I really never managed to figure out is texturing and UVing complex shapes. I know that I couldn't make a replica, so I don't make them. It's even harder than making something with complete creative freedom, and I'm not even too good at the latter.
FSU doesn't only depend on modelers (though it does need them). There is an Ursa already, and it doesn't look
that bad. FSU really depends on players, fans of FS who are actually going to
use the models in question (modders don't even play much outside of testing, usually their own creations. I've had this happen to me, too, in two games, no less). Some of them have respect for
and their vision of FS. Many also have fond memories of playing FS, with all its design quirks. It seems to me that most peoples' positions are either "don't care if its one way or the other" or "it's better to keep true to
". Positions that actually advocate changing stuff over keeping it the same (as opposed to being fine with it either way) are much fewer in numbers (TBH, this stance seems pretty much confined to modelers themselves, for some reason...). In the end, a much smaller group of people "loses" if
's vision is respected.
The question here is: Is FSU making its own game, or trying to improve on FS2? IMO, its crucial that FSU keeps being an upgrade, not a remake. It fixes bugs and makes the game prettier, but makes no fundamental changes in gameplay, designs or missions. Ideally, there would be no arguments like this. If you like FS2, you should like FSU at least equally as much. FSU has always been an
upgrade project, not a
reimagination project. Now, I can't say I wouldn't play the latter (there were some missions done in that vein, better remakes of retail missions), but the "U" in FSU stands for "Upgrade" and I'd prefer it to remain that way.
