WarFX : Blastcore

[viper[cww] 14]

woow nice vid ...whats that for a soundmod ?

I guess you failed to watch the first 10 seconds of the video :cool:

[Maio 293]

That is pretty sweet looking lighting for the streetlights, etc. What mod is that?

It's the default Arma2:Operation Arrowhead lighting .

[Westsailor 10]

Can't you just turn off the ACE2 tracers?

---------- Post added at 07:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 AM ----------

Can't you just put the mod folder with the warFX .pbo after @ACE2 in the shortcut target line? Wouldn't this make WarFX override the ACE2 effects?

Apparently not. I've been using warfx_tracers for a while and everything was or seemed fine (ACE ball tracers off and loading after anything ACE related) until the R1 version.

Since I d/l'd Blastcore_tracers R1 they're back to the big 'Starship Troopers Plasma Ball' size. And yes, ACE ball tracers are checked off and anything WarFX/Blastcore related loads last.

Doesn't make sense but nonetheless Blastcore_Tracers are going back on the shelf for me unless I figure out or someone can show me how I'm f***ing something up.

Also it seems WarFX/Blastcore 'something' affects aiming and/or the ability to hit targets with ACE. I just know when I (and others) run under ACE I get far more hits/kills without the Blastcore/WarFX mods running than when they are.

It's a shame too because OpticalSnares visual effects simply cannot be beat. But it seems if you run under ACE you either have to choose between it working or being pretty .

Who knows? TBH, it could very well be the combination of various WarFX/Blastcore mods being used. For example, I have the following to choose from in my library of warfx/blastcore mods:

@blastcore_soundfx_beta

@warfx-blastcore_beta

@warfx_particles_beta_1.41

@blastcore_visuals_R1.2

@blastcore_visuals

@warfxparticles

@warfx_blastcore

@warfx_lighting

@warfx_sunlight

@warfx_tracers

@blastcore_tracers

@tracers (warfx/blastcore?)

WTF? Now one might logically assume to simply use the latest & greatest release and be done with it, right? Not necessarily since one mod may/may not have what another mod does not/does. e.g. warfx_tracers is a separate mod to be used in conjuctin with other blastcore mods. Or at least that's what I understand.

It's VERY confusing

for instance, right now I'm running (in this order)

@blastcore_visuals_R1.2 (epic)

@warfx_particles_beta_1.41 (nicest/most particles)

@blastcore_tracers (going back to warfx_tracers)

@blastcore_soundfx_beta (can't wait till the R version)

Seems the best overall (for me) but I am constantly experimenting to find the best combo and if anyone has any advice I'm all ears.

[manzilla 1]

It works fine with ACE2 for me but I don't use everything. I've never experienced the aiming trouble with ACE2 and Blastcore. It could just be that the wind drift in ACE2 was higher one try and maybe non existant in the other attempt.

I suggest you try just WarFXPE.pbo, WARFXVeh.pbo and WarFXWeps.pbo. See if you still have troubles with that combo. That's all I use and it works great. It's basically just the effects.

[Westsailor 10]

It works fine with ACE2 for me but I don't use everything. I've never experienced the aiming trouble with ACE2 and Blastcore. It could just be that the wind drift in ACE2 was higher one try and maybe non existant in the other attempt.

I never thought about a potential issue between ACE & Warfx/Blastcore & aiming/hitting until someone mentioned it. As you, I just thought it was me, having a harder time hitting something it being ACE and all.

Once it was mentioned though I started picking up on it. Kinda hard to overlook having to unload half a mag into an nme about 100yds away to get a hit/kill.

I suggest you try just WarFXPE.pbo, WARFXVeh.pbo and WarFXWeps.pbo. See if you still have troubles with that combo. That's all I use and it works great. It's basically just the effects.

OK, those .pbos are within a number of various warfx/blastcore_addon folders. You mean the latest of them, i.e. the ones in Blastcore_Visuals_r1.2?

I'll try your advice and five it a shot, drop everything but Blastcore_visuals (R1.2?) and of course the Blastcore_soundFX_beta.

I don't mean to sound critical. I love the WarFX/Blastcore mods otherwise I wouldn't bother trying to sort it out. Besides, defining your own custom Arma 2/OA is icing on the cake :)

[SPC.Spets 21]

well, looks like we are not going to have any update soon, because he is bussy in a secret mission... I heard :/

[OrdeaL 10]

Gayness i was wondering why this all went quiet.

[huxfluxd-luxe 10]

Oooh nooeeessss... what does this mean ? Our deadliest enemy - the women - are attacking ?

[bigpickle 0]

for instance, right now I'm running (in this order)

@blastcore_visuals_R1.2 (epic)

@warfx_particles_beta_1.41 (nicest/most particles)

@blastcore_tracers (going back to warfx_tracers)

@blastcore_soundfx_beta (can't wait till the R version)

Are you running both war_fx1.41 & blastcore_visualsR1.2 at the same time?

[Westsailor 10]

Not unless war_fx1.41 is one of those files in the list. I don't have a 'war_fx1.41'.

Otherwise is warfx_particles_beta_1.41 a complete FX mod (w/ smoke, explosions, etc.) like warfx_blastcore or blastcore_visuals?

I 'assumed' by the name it was just particles alone and not containing any other FX elements ala warfx/blastcore_tracers.

Like I said, given all the various releases (some complete, some individual) and inconsistent naming it's hard to ensure which of his many releases to use, especially in conjunction with (or not) with his other mods.

For example, should I use his latest Blastcore_tracers (standalone tracer FX) with his latest Blastcore_visuals_R1.2 (full visual FX)?

Do the latest full visuals include the earlier standalone lighting & sunlight components (i.e. warfx_lighting & warfx_sunlight)?

And again, I don't mean to be critical. I love his stuff. Maybe it's just me but I just think OpticalSnare needs to get a handle on his 'brand name' and define his 'product line' better, explain what is exactly what, what can/should be used (or not) in conjunction with his other all too similar mods.

I'm sure it would prevent many unintentional problems that might arise when someone like me tries to use his mods (mods in the plural being the operative word).

[no use for a name 0]

Not unless war_fx1.41 is one of those files in the list. I don't have a 'war_fx1.41'.

Otherwise is warfx_particles_beta_1.41 a complete FX mod (w/ smoke, explosions, etc.) like warfx_blastcore or blastcore_visuals?

I 'assumed' by the name it was just particles alone and not containing any other FX elements ala warfx/blastcore_tracers.

Like I said, given all the various releases (some complete, some individual) and inconsistent naming it's hard to ensure which of his many releases to use, especially in conjunction with (or not) with his other mods.

For example, should I use his latest Blastcore_tracers (standalone tracer FX) with his latest Blastcore_visuals_R1.2 (full visual FX)?

Do the latest full visuals include the earlier standalone lighting & sunlight components (i.e. warfx_lighting & warfx_sunlight)?

And again, I don't mean to be critical. I love his stuff. Maybe it's just me but I just think OpticalSnare needs to get a handle on his 'brand name' and define his 'product line' better, explain what is exactly what, what can/should be used (or not) in conjunction with his other all too similar mods.

I'm sure it would prevent many unintentional problems that might arise when someone like me tries to use his mods (mods in the plural being the operative word).

Everything is explained in the first post, it took me all of ~5min. to read and DL from the links.

Edited July 21, 2011 by No Use For A Name

[purepassion 22]

I can ensure you that his "brand name" and "product line" will not change due to such reasons...

All the readme's and pbo names are there for a reason

Edited July 22, 2011 by PurePassion

[domokun 515]

Does anyone know if OS' new tracers (Blastcore_Tracers.rar) compatible with BD's Tracer Lights?

[Muscular Beaver 0]

Is there a way to delete only the bullet dust clouds from your addon? I found them extremely hard to see them on thermal view and 1k+ distance, I literally wasted 5 mags on my AS50 and I still had no clue where they hit.

[Militant1006 11]

I find them easier to see normally, for me the problem is the game very rarely shows bullet impact effects, which makes sniping without tracer very hard.

[purepassion 22]

I think they also dont appear on every shot for performance reasons but when they appear seems sometimes very random (not like tracers=tracerEveryXY)

[kylania 567]

Is there a way to delete only the bullet dust clouds from your addon? I found them extremely hard to see them on thermal view and 1k+ distance, I literally wasted 5 mags on my AS50 and I still had no clue where they hit.

Trying to snipe with a thermal scope is your first problem. Not having a spotter is your second. :)

[bigpickle 0]

Not unless war_fx1.41 is one of those files in the list. I don't have a 'war_fx1.41'.

Otherwise is warfx_particles_beta_1.41 a complete FX mod (w/ smoke, explosions, etc.) like warfx_blastcore or blastcore_visuals?

I 'assumed' by the name it was just particles alone and not containing any other FX elements ala warfx/blastcore_tracers.

Like I said, given all the various releases (some complete, some individual) and inconsistent naming it's hard to ensure which of his many releases to use, especially in conjunction with (or not) with his other mods.

For example, should I use his latest Blastcore_tracers (standalone tracer FX) with his latest Blastcore_visuals_R1.2 (full visual FX)?

Do the latest full visuals include the earlier standalone lighting & sunlight components (i.e. warfx_lighting & warfx_sunlight)?

And again, I don't mean to be critical. I love his stuff. Maybe it's just me but I just think OpticalSnare needs to get a handle on his 'brand name' and define his 'product line' better, explain what is exactly what, what can/should be used (or not) in conjunction with his other all too similar mods.

I'm sure it would prevent many unintentional problems that might arise when someone like me tries to use his mods (mods in the plural being the operative word).

Cut out warfx_particles_beta_1.41, dont use it with the new blastcore stuff. Basically the warfx beta stuff was an beta version of Blastcore visuals.

Hope it helps.

Also dont wanna be a nagger, was wondering how it was going OS, the quietness made me wonder if you ran into problems.

Regards Bp

[Opticalsnare 12]

Im on holiday :)

[viper[cww] 14]

Trying to snipe with a thermal scope is your first problem. Not having a spotter is your second. :)

+1

The adding of TWS seem's to have given a false sense of security to those of sniping, yes they can find there targets faster, but can they bring them down faster? I think not.... :D

[Muscular Beaver 0]

Trying to snipe with a thermal scope is your first problem. Not having a spotter is your second. :)

This is a game with lots of options and ways to play it and not everyone plays always like you want them to. Keep your ignorance and elitism to yourself.

After further testing it is indeed not showing bullet impacts very often, no matter if thermal or not. Only like every 6th or 7th. That is not normal at all. Without Blastcore it only skips one like every 10 or so.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Muscular Beaver

[Steakslim 1]

This is a game with lots of options and ways to play it and not everyone plays always like you want them to. Keep your ignorance and elitism to yourself.

Uh, regardless of how many ways you can play this game, there are still some things that are really not recommended. Since Arrowheads release, seeing your own bullet impacts through FLIR was been tricky unless what you are shooting at is near by, with or without Bastscore, hence the suggestion of a spotter (assuming you're playing with friends that can spot for you). Also the TWS is really only useful when trying to find targets in places with dense cover and/or nighttime for your sniping/marksman needs, beyond that a normal rifle optic would be just as effective of not more with the more detailed reticles (if you're using ACE you can use the MX-2A to find thermal signatures).

[Muscular Beaver 0]

Uh, regardless of how many ways you can play this game, there are still some things that are really not recommended. Since Arrowheads release, seeing your own bullet impacts through FLIR was been tricky unless what you are shooting at is near by, with or without Bastscore, hence the suggestion of a spotter (assuming you're playing with friends that can spot for you). Also the TWS is really only useful when trying to find targets in places with dense cover and/or nighttime for your sniping/marksman needs, beyond that a normal rifle optic would be just as effective of not more with the more detailed reticles (if you're using ACE you can use the MX-2A to find thermal signatures).

Wrong. They are perfectly visible without Blastcore. Just tested it too.

Blastcore: Every 5-8th bullet is visible.

OA: Every 5-8th bullet is NOT visible.

Thermal or not does not matter at all, unless you fire beyond visibility range.

Sure, they are harder to spot in thermal, but they are still visible.

So if you still didnt get it: The thermal view was only the situation where I first noticed it. Because I didnt use a spotter and instead tried to calibrate it with a shot somewhere that has the same range as the target.

I dont use ACE2 either. Thus my comment that you can play this game with thousands of gameplay options.

But Ill remember to take 2 sniper rifles with me next time. One with thermal and one without. :partytime:

WTF is this about anyway? I have to explain my playing style and get stupid troll comments even though I only mentioned a (hopefully) bug? Get a life.

So much for ArmA having a mature community...

Edited July 22, 2011 by Muscular Beaver

[exikutioner 10]

Wrong. They are perfectly visible without Blastcore. Just tested it too.

Yeah it is visible, if you like shooting like a Somail pirate with a stockless AK.

But Ill remember to take 2 sniper rifles with me next time. One with thermal and one without. :partytime:

No explanation needed. You summed that up yourself.

WTF is this about anyway? I have to explain my playing style and get stupid troll comments even though I only mentioned a (hopefully) bug? Get a life.

So much for ArmA having a mature community...

Mainly, due to the fact that your reasons are ridiculous. Round impacts in FLIR are hard to see if your using anything less than 20mm. Your request for round impacts so you can snipe with TWS...wow. It's no bug.

[UGLY58 10]

Most of the available Thermal Imagers that fit on rifles are very low resolution something like 320x240. Now extrapolate that to 700m and imagine the kind of image quality you are going to get through magnification. It is nowhere near the quality of a TWS and you would not see bullets.

As I have been saying for sometime Arma needs to reduce the quality of Thermal Imagers across the board.

Thankyou ACE team :)