UK Special Forces released. Ideas/Input/Descussion welcome

[pre-Vet 10]

Goos, thank you for giving us some good BAF SF :)

I noticed they look really good with the czech faces!

Good job!

[seba1976 98]

The first few lines of my first post pretty much answered this

Alright now I feel stupid. Somehow I forgot to read the first post :D.

[Goos 0]

Just a heads up on the update for the pack.

I won't just be bolting on US camo units as the general feedback about the initial addon was "We don't care about filesize just make em awesome!" so with that in mind I'm actually going over all the units again. Some changes will be small but others will be large enough to notice. Basically I want a lot of variation and I slacked off a bit on the first release. This time however expect units to be more destinguishable (pretty sure I spelled that wrong) from each other. Not so much the sfsg they will remain more generic but sas will clearly be set apart and the use of the MTP camo will be very limited this time!

On the subject of the MTP I was never really happy with it and I've been working on a more convincing attempt. It still won't be technically accurate as it seems to be impossible to find a swatch on the web that's worth a damn (all too small and don't show enough of the pattern) but I hope it'll do the job better than the last one.

I'll also be adding a desert camo Bergan (don't know why I didn't before). I won't be working on it like mad as I have other things on my mind but it'll come so keep an eye out.

[seba1976 98]

Wonderful news, Goos. Thanks a lot for your time.

Does anybody knows if bigger sized addons have some impact on the engine performance?

[R0adki11 3945]

@seba1976 regarding engine performance shouldn't be much difference, as long as the addon is packed correctly

[HR4 Elite 10]

Does anyone know if this is likely to end up on the Six Updater list ?

Looks like a great mod...

[Goos 0]

Does anybody knows if bigger sized addons have some impact on the engine performance?

There are a few factors to take into account when measuring this. Primarily the power of the PC in question especially the graphics card when it comes to visuals like textures or models.

Basically big texture files or a LOT of big texture files are the enemy when ballancing performance which is why BIS make a lot of units use similar models or textures so as not to put a strain on the graphics cards memory. This is also why we compress textures.

If for example you got a hundred guys each with completely unique textures running around on screen at once it would have a bigger impact than say a hundred guys using only 25 unique textures and the bigger the size of the textures the bigger the hit. An important thing to remember as well is each surface doesn't just have 1 texture these days it has several like the colour texture, a normal map and a specular texture for example.

For the increase of filesize in this addon I doubt anyone would see any difference.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Goos

[seba1976 98]

Thanks for the answers. That explains a lot. I have a test mission where 60 units march slowly crossing you LOS. BIS's USMC units have near zero impact on FPS, BIS's US Army have some impact but it's also negligible (-2). Binkowsky's USMCs have some undetermined problem that drops up to -15 FPS (with ups and downs); while the TF86 units are the heaviest, producing a sustained low of -20 fps. My hardware has much to do of course, but the models do vary performance a lot, just like you said they would.

There's the thing about LOD too, which I never understood completely, but I guess there's enough OT already, so my apologies :) (but feel free to continue if you have no problem with that :D).

[Goos 0]

LOD is actually an easy one but I've seen quite a few people have trouble understanding it.

"Level Of Detail" or LOD is something that's been used in games for years to optimise performance. Simply put a 3D model in a game in this case lets say a soldier standing right next to him you see him in full detail but if you walk backwards and reach say 10-20 meters away the engine will replace that soldiers 3D model with a less detailed one with less polygons and as you continue to move back another 10-20 meters it replaces it again with an even lesser detailed model. This will happen multiple times the farther away you get from that 3d model. Thats what LOD's are different versions of the same model less and less detailed to be used at varying distances because the less detailed the model the less impact on performance basically allowing you to have a lot more going on in the background.

A similar thing happens to textures. they become less detailed the farther away you get. If you look closely at things in games and move away or towards you might notice them change as they switch model it tends to be more noticeable the more things are on screen at once. Hope this clears it up for you. And now back on topic :P

I'm probably gonna change the assault SAS guys to use mixed UK and US camos and have the light versions in 2 variations namely pure UK camo versions AND UK/US mix. any thoughts on this would be apreciated.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Goos

[STALKERGB 6]

Just to chip in on this discussion, one of the most important factors for performance is section count.

This is the number of different textures and materials used on the model (but it's also increased by blank, untextured bits of model such as proxys). Most infantry models only have between 4 and 10 (I think most BIS ones are around 5 or 6). The more that are on a model the slower the game will run, certainly noticed it on some old models I had that were around 20 sections. Anyway, it's largely irrelevant if you are retexturing such as Goos is because you are only really replacing the textures that are used (rather than adding more).

To use a similar example as Goos, 100 models with 4 sections are better on performance than 50 models with 8 sections (AFAIK :p) :)

[Goos 0]

And Stalker covers the points I cannot my knowledge of the ArmA engine itself is limited.

And a screenie of SAS guys in my newer version MTP which aint massively different but better than it was.

Click me

Edited August 13, 2011 by Goos

[STALKERGB 6]

And Stalker covers the points I cannot my knowledge of the ArmA engine itself is limited.

And a screenie of SAS guys in my newer version MTP which aint massively different but better than it was.

Click me

Haha well you say that but I've never retextured anything so you're one up in that field of knowledge :p

Looking really good, the MTP is looking very nice! The brown in it seems maybe a bit too prevalent or saturated, or maybe dominant against the greener tones. Although that might just be me lol

Out of interest have you made the MTP from scratch or did you manipulate photos/swatches (not that there are many) to get to what you have? I certainly know how hard making decent looking MTP is! Need to sit down and crack out a version of my own at some point for an update to my infantry...

[seba1976 98]

I don't quite see why I hear so often about how little photo material is available. A simple goggle search gave me more results than I can handle. This one, for example. Of course I must be wrong because that's probably the more easy thing to do, but I don't know where's my mistake.

If a comparison between that picture and your camo is valid, then I think I see too much green in your rendition, and maybe more light brown is needed, but it's already good IMHO.

One last thing regarding LOD (I swear :p). The explanations given where great, thank you both, but may I ask what's the relation with the "Detail Level" selector in the video options? Does it change the distance at which the engine will use the different complexity models?

[Goos 0]

Haha well you say that but I've never retextured anything so you're one up in that field of knowledge :p

Looking really good, the MTP is looking very nice! The brown in it seems maybe a bit too prevalent or saturated, or maybe dominant against the greener tones. Although that might just be me lol

Out of interest have you made the MTP from scratch or did you manipulate photos/swatches (not that there are many) to get to what you have? I certainly know how hard making decent looking MTP is! Need to sit down and crack out a version of my own at some point for an update to my infantry...

The actual process to my MTP was I created a DPM swatch of my own using a reference image then after creating a desert version I took the woodland one and manipulated the layers (i seperated each colour into a seperate layer) obviously using different colours and ended up with this pattern with various overlapping effects.

It's been a nightmare to do to be honest. finding a right ballance of colour, tone and making sure there aint too much brown or too much green has been a right cow. If you want mate I can send you my swatches once I have them done and dusted and you can use/edit them for your own purposes I don't mind.

I don't quite see why I hear so often about how little photo material is available. A simple goggle search gave me more results than I can handle. This one, for example. Of course I must be wrong because that's probably the more easy thing to do, but I don't know where's my mistake.

If a comparison between that picture and your camo is valid, then I think I see too much green in your rendition, and maybe more light brown is needed, but it's already good IMHO.

it's not that there are no images of MTP the problem is there are no good swatches to work from to get a good pattern. A swatch being an image of a material sample such as.. this the problem is these swatches are small sections of the pattern and not large enough to make something that doesn't look too prepetetive.

As for too much green in comparison with that image that is true but the pattern varies with each individual article of clothing no 2 shirts look alike for example. BUT my MTP is a bit heavy on green I admit and this was partially because in game if it didn't look too green it looked too brown it's such a complex pattern it's nigh impossible to recreate accurately but I have been trying. Looking at the flat tiling swatch I made there is actually an even ammount of green and brown the problem is they are clumped too seperatly and not intermingling enough.

That said I'd like you all to take a look at this image. *CLICK ME* On the left my MTP in it's current rendition and the right an MTP made from a swatch found on the web (slightly altered) what do you guys think looks better? don't pay too much attention to the colours as the one on the right is screwed up it needs better colour ballance and it's a bit heavy on the green but I can fix that INSTEAD look at the patterns and render judgement I need fresh eyes on this because I've stared so much at MTP I'm going blind to it lol.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Goos

[STALKERGB 6]

@Goos, Thanks for the offer of your swatch, I think I'm gonna try and have a go at doing it (need to practise my texturing a bit anyway) although I might end up dropping you an email in the future if my attempts don't cut the mustard!

For your comparison image, personnally I'd say the one on the right is more balanced so none of the colours overpower each other (what swatch is that taken from by the way?) but then the one on the left looks pretty nice too. It's very hard to say lol

@seba1976, yeah mainly it's trying to find a decent front-on/top down image in neutral lighting to work out colours and pattern shape.

[Goos 0]

It's actually from the example swatch I linked above ;) I literally painted over the top of it, removed the black/dark brown and white speckles and replaced them with my own. Finishing up with making the edges blend for tiling purposes. I'm working on fixing it right now to see if I can get better results. It does repeat quite a lot on the model but to be honest it's not particularly noticeable.

On a side note I removed the light sand/pinky colour entirely and again added it in again myself in key places.

*EDIT*

Now this rendition is starting to look more like it.

Click me.

Colours are blending well and no colour seems to be dominating the other anywhere. Possibly a bit light overall but will do some testing and see how well it does in differing environments and adjust accordingly.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Goos

[seba1976 98]

I think the pattern "per se" is actually bigger that the uniform, I understand now what your problem is and why it's a complicated camo to do. Having said that, and despite lightning conditions (very difficult thing to do), your last rendition looks more than enough to me. I'd saturate the colours just a little bit, but I de-saturate the whole game from the Catalyst anyway so :p.

[wiggie 24]

Been playing around with the units for a while now but I just noticed today that none of the units in the pack seem to be affected by the overpressure and noise generated by ACE 2 mod.

Usually when I open up with the M240 without earplugs, I am half deafened by the third burst, with these troops, it seems that nothing can deafen me :S

Anyone else noticed this?

[Batmansfear 1]

Oky so I'm a bit behind because I just found the UK special forces addon by goos a week ago

And buddy I think you are the man, cause I've been waiting for SAS (british especially) units to play with.

Particularly in a military simulated game as realistic as the Arma franchise..

There is however one detail that I would like throw in the air.

Do you think it might be possible to somehow incorporate the official SAS beret on the units or maybe make it an option as headwear.

Link to see SAS beret:

http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5012

It's just I think it would add a bit more excitement if the player can see ingame that he/she is actually playing with an SAS unit.

Just a suggestion would like to know what you think

[Goos 0]

Oky so I'm a bit behind because I just found the UK special forces addon by goos a week ago

And buddy I think you are the man, cause I've been waiting for SAS (british especially) units to play with.

Particularly in a military simulated game as realistic as the Arma franchise..

There is however one detail that I would like throw in the air.

Do you think it might be possible to somehow incorporate the official SAS beret on the units or maybe make it an option as headwear.

Link to see SAS beret:

http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5012

It's just I think it would add a bit more excitement if the player can see ingame that he/she is actually playing with an SAS unit.

Just a suggestion would like to know what you think

Apologies for the late reply I've been WAY out of touch for months now.

First up I'm glad you like the addon as for adding a beret it's impossible I'm afraid. That would require altering the 3D model and that can't be done in this case because I used models from the game and they cannot be altered. My expertise in arma are limited strictly to re-texturing models so I'm afraid my hands are tied there.

ON A SIDE NOTE TO EVERYONE I had been intending to update the pack and it never came to be as unfortunatly life got in the way as it likes to do. That said I have been tinkering with the addon on and off over the months and there is a chance of an updated pack. I won't make any promises as I'm very distracted with other things but there is a chance I'll release what I have been doing at some point.

If I do the update would feature re-done textures especially a completely re-done MTP camo as well as mixed camo removed completely (I ended up going off the idea of units wearing multiple camo items) The SAS/SBS guys at present come in 3 camo variations DPM, Desert DPM and Multicam. The SFSG guys on the other hand will come in DPM, desert DPM, MTP with desert gear and MTP with woodland gear. The light SAS/SBS guys are currently just in DPM and desert DPM. I may add light units with Multicam or possibly throw in Multicam bits on the light desert units it depends what mood I'm in.

[folgore_airborne 1]

Welcome back Goos! I d-loaded this pack recently and it's a damn good job! An updated version would be awesome! ;)