Cut-Out Player Faces Megapack
Our Cut-Out Faces Megapack is the biggest collection of Football Manager Player Faces available. All players are available in the default cut-out style. When you download our Cut-Out Faces Megapack, you'll receive over 480,000 player faces to spice up your copy of Football Manager.
- 482,917
- 2025.01 - Released on 04 Dec 2024
hjs
Now you get notified when someone is making your request and when it's finished.
Great job guys
mons
All credits to Rob
It's still a work in progress as there's a couple of small features still to be added in due course to increase functionality but this is broadly how the system will be from now on - and I'm very happy with the way it's all turned out
Any more feedback anybody has, now is the time to say it
Turin Turamarth
I just have one question: is there something similar to the ID search tool in the new request section? I mean not just for searching requests but also old cuts, I can't find it and if there isn't I think that the old search tool topic should remain sticky.
mons
There's an easy way how to search for cuts; just have a look at the attached screengrab
hjs
thanks,didn't noticed it either
Turin Turamarth
Ernesttico
I have a suggestion (but I don't know if it's already on your to-do-list): I think you could implement a button to upload a new version of the cut (and maybe make it available only for the cutter who originally cut the image). Sometimes it happens that after I upload my cuts,I find some little inaccuracies (e.g.: too much neck) that can easily be fixed. But,as of now, I can't re-upload the edited cut, unless I just post it below, in a comment.
Would it be possible to add this kind of feature?
Thanks again and keep up the good work!
jorge7379
Footygamer
Editing a submission would be good, i'll add it to the list
mons
I can imagine it's a bit difficult to code, for example for deciding who can be allowed to submit cuts. You can always re-submit an amendment to a previous submission under separate cover too.
We don't have a limit as such, but please be reasonable. If you have a large amount of requests, it's best to collect them and request them as a mixpack. Based on your most recent requests, please also try and make sure you submit the best sources available
hjs
IAmTheStag
Cheers
mons
When they are completed, you will receive a notification telling you about it. Any resulting cuts will be compared with the existing megapack cuts, if applicable, and any deemed as improvements (as well as any missing images) will be added to the next update pack
mons
The Chelsea team mostly have recent cuts from high-quality sources; they don't really need new cuts. If you manage to find new images which are genuine improvements, then I'm sure they'd be cut quite quickly
IAmTheStag
that's great thanks for the quick explanation
Footygamer
That already does happen, unfortunately it only works for zips not rars
Baja
Kruna
Footygamer
Baja
That's sounds great mate.I think that 5 would be good,no matter if they are missing or improvements.Or if we need to put separate limit on each one of those two submissions then 3 sounds good.Ofc when some of those requests are completed or rejected,that means that requester have one or two less,so he can request again...Looking forward to this,and thank you very much in advance
mons
Footygamer
Baja
Top work sir!
mons
Can I suggest two minor amendments?
a) possess is spelt like this (pedant alert!)
b) Could you insert another sentence along the lines of: "If you would like to make more requests, you are still able to collect source images and request them as teampacks or mixpacks". ?
Lebohang Mokoena
It's easier for everybody.
IAmTheStag
Is there any way to removing requests from the request page once complete instead of just marking the file as completed in green?
There are currently 77 pages worth of requests and it is growing quickly each day with a lot of uncompleted requests being lost inside those 77 pages. Wouldn't this help clearly display the requests outstanding and help clear down the list of 'to do's?
Thanks
AlwaysAStag
mons
This is quite easily doable by filtering by status, as per the attached screenshot. It's thus easily to see at a glance what still needs to be done
Sopel
That's where my complaint comes from - not all the cuts have the quality of the megapack as they're done by unexperienced cutters. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that someone puts their time and effort into making the cuts that were too hard to do them myself or simply I hadn't have time to make them. But when I make I request I would like to get the cuts done to have some quality.
For example, I made two requests, provided sources good enough to make a decent cut
These requests were:
https://sortitoutsi.net/graphics/request/1369
https://sortitoutsi.net/graphics/request/2839
My requests were completed but the cuts' quality was... disputable.
First one had some weird shadows behind it and the rule of "just-to-the-chin" wasn't kept
The second one was in overall ok, but the cutter didn't frame the cut-out at all, leaving the whole torso with it's arms cut off
These cuts are bearable at best but it's deffinitely not up to the quality this megapack is associated with
I think that we should encourage people to try to pick up making cuts but this should be made under some moderation
In the past, when the requests were posted in the form of posts in the forums this wasn't an issue as if some unexperienced cutter submitted a cut that was deemed "no good enough", other cutters corrected his cuts or made them from the scratch to fit the standards. Nowadays if the cut is uploaded it goest straight into the pack as seen in the first example.
In my opinion this should be somehow moderated - f.e. I thought of a new status for the members like "cutter". Basically if someone uploades his first cut it should be reviewed by the moderator to check if it fits the standards. If the moderator decides that the person knows how to cut, he could give him a status that would allow him to upload completed requests freely. If the cut wouldn't have the needed quality the moderator should reject it, give some feedback to the cutter and the request should be left opened.
It's just my feedback both as a user and an occasional cutter
mons
On the other hand, however, ever since I have been taking care of the MP, I have tended to include all new images supplied for the very simple reason that I believe that a poor cut is better than no cut at all. When there is not an equivalent MP image, a cut has to be really atrocious for me to not consider adding it. It's not easy to strike a balance between keeping the quality of the MP high and not pissing off budding cutters, after all. On the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong, and it happens quite frequently, that we speak to a cutter in order to assist him in improving his cutting technique and therefore increasing the quality of his output. I can name plenty of regular cutters whose work started off quite poorly but which has improved considerably since then.
Therefore, I have to disagree with your assertion that the new system is leading to all the cuts going straight into the pack, irrespective of quality. Believe you me, worse cuts than those were included in the MP, even in recent weeks.
Rest assured, however, that we moderators have already flagged this issue in many cases. Without wanting to mention names, for example I know of two separate cutters in the past couple of days whose cuts were not considered as doing justice to the source from which they are cut. The good thing about the completed requests section is that it allows me and BajaHater to see if there's a "new" name completing cuts and whose cuts may thus potentially not be as good as we are used to. What I can do, and I certainly intend to start doing more frequently, is to manually individually check all completed missing cuts on a regular basis to ensure that the sources are dealt with "appropriately" and that cases similar to yours' don't slip through the net without some sort of remedial action. I agree with your assessment for those two cuts and have put them back on the market, so to speak. We're closing in on 100 pages of images in just over 2 months, so you can appreciate there's bound to be some which get by me and BajaHater, as in these cases.
We did consider a system such as the one you're proposing when the new request system was being formulated but iirc it involved a lot more work on the programming side of things than was strictly viable and so it was shelved.
I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage you and all requesters to let us know if a source you have provided has not been cut to as good a standard as you deem possible, either via PM or through the comments system. Although if you use the latter system, please use the @name system when speaking to me, as there's no way of knowing if requests on older pages have comments added to them other than going through all the pages all the time, which I'm sure we can agree is not very practical
lichunter
I love this package, every year I downloaded and play with it
So, in order to collaborate with this package, I'm sending a humble input with a few new faces that doesn't exist in the current package.
Regards, Lichunter.