JdB Addon Releases

[krzychuzokecia 717]

Looks cool! Though I'll be crying after conventional variant... :cry2:

[JdB 151]

Three images of the final design (yeah yeah I think we all know it might go through a few more minor changes :o) and the old pic showing the very first version of the bullpup. Also displayed are the magazines, the 20rd from the FN FAL and the 30rd from the L4A1 Bren (SASR adapted this for use with their FALs in Vietnam) in 7,62x51 and the 30rd 7,62x39.

[krzychuzokecia 717]

Nice! I like that You've finally went with proper shape of the rails - it's the only flaw I could find on Your other weapons. I think that You could also ditch brass deflector on the left side - since in Armaverse everybody is right-handed, there's no need for any sharp part to stick into one's cheek! ;)

[JdB 151]

Nice! I like that You've finally went with proper shape of the rails - it's the only flaw I could find on Your other weapons. I think that You could also ditch brass deflector on the left side - since in Armaverse everybody is right-handed, there's no need for any sharp part to stick into one's cheek! ;)

Thanks. The good thing is that now that I've got it properly measured out it's just a copy and paste onto each future addon since everything but a stick has rails these days :rolleyes:

I've had a look and the deflector never goes into the soldier model at all. When it's on the "back" (traditional anims or those from Sanctuary) then obviously it sticks into the back, but so would any of the attachments.

While the rails are scaled 1:1 the magazines are slightly smaller then they should be (10-15%). That's one of the main problems with a 7.62 bullpup I guess, the space between the stock and the handgrip is just not big enough on a carbine sized weapon to accommodate magazines with more than 20rds.

Edited May 8, 2015 by JdB

[Nugis 16]

Well done, looks very good.

[JdB 151]

I've decided to remove the Schmidt & Bender and the PSO-1M2 from the planned scope variants as they just don't fit well on a bullpup. They will be completed eventually, but not used on this addon.

On the subject of optics I've been putting a lot of thought into how I've been doing close combat optics and now that scopes are being added I thought about them too. Most addons had just the black screen with a circle in them and the crosshairs. I've come up with some alternatives that imo represent magnifying scopes better within the limitations of the engine. The centered Eotech is for reference (magnification 1x) and in the same way I've been doing optics since the Mk.10. This particular scope is the ACOG which is magnification 4x, the blocks representing the game world. Option 2 is close to the "conventional" way of doing scopes but with a part of the scope visible and with the surroundings only visible for about 5% (just about possible to spot movement). Option 4 is similar but with a more narrow field of view. As far as realism is concerned this comes closest for combat scopes (non-sniper) imo. Makes magnifying scopes useful but not suited for everything so the optics offer a significant difference over optics.

1 and 3 are added as alternatives, but imo make close combat optics largely irrelevant as they offer too much awareness of the surroundings.

[JdB 151]

Funny I've noticed as I was going to post this that it's been 8 months to the day since my last update, and to be honest the amount of work that has been done is reflected in the number of updates that I've posted here. That's right, I haven't done any work on the two remaining projects and now they're both cancelled. I always try to go for unique things and realism and that's really where the problems lie. I though that the Dingo hadn't really been done before, but since posting about it I've come across at least two that have been released and so I see little point in adding a third (like M4 pack #273). I've always wanted to go with things that may or may not exist, but at least they could be possible and I'm sad to say the SPAR really isn't that. I've had to make compromises in the size of certain parts like the magazines (smaller since otherwise they wouldn't fit) which is already about as much as I was willing to compromise, but the recoil that I mentioned earlier is compounded by something else. 7,62 (and 5,56 for that matter) subsonic does not deliver the power required to cycle the bolt and chamber a new round. So either there's a huge load of recoil which is difficult to control since there is so much mass at the rear half of the gun or the gun won't cycle which really makes it a bolt-action. This makes the entire premise of the weapon flawed which is just one of the reasons why it's also cancelled. The accessories, magazines and the rails can be reused, but I wouldn't count on it ...

Not sure on what to do now as I'm afraid that whatever I make will turn out to have been done before.

[krzychuzokecia 717]

(...) I haven't done any work on the two remaining projects and now they're both cancelled. (...) I though that the Dingo hadn't really been done before, but since posting about it I've come across at least two that have been released

 

That's a shame really. :( I mean - the only two Dingos I know are from 1) WWIIEC Caen demo (so that means vehicle can't be used "standalone" not to mention the fact that mod in it's state is rather unusable) and 2) DKMM UK Pack which contains Dingo-a-like Fox (and this one is filled with some wonky scripts and lacks any interior LODs). So having one that doesn't need any big mod, and is just-rightly finished, would be great.

 

(...) I always try to go for unique things and realism and that's really where the problems lie. (...) I see little point in adding a third (like M4 pack #273).

 

I think that's kind of wrong attitude. Yeah, it's great to make something really new and original, but such things rarely happen. Afterall, isn't modding all about "hey! I can make this better!"? You shouldn't feeld bad because there are two different Dingos already - as I've noted these addons aren't perfect (from gameplay point of view), and one more wouldn't hurt. Especially if this third one could be actually playable.

 

What I mean by all that is - if You are really fed up with making something (Dingo in this example), then just stop doing it. I also lost patience to several projects I've started, and they never seen the light of day (that's probably why I haven't released anything yet :P). But if You feel that You need to stop only because someone other already made the thing - then it's not healthy. It changes modding into some saddening chore.

 

(...) I've always wanted to go with things that may or may not exist, but at least they could be possible and I'm sad to say the SPAR really isn't that. (...) 7,62 (and 5,56 for that matter) subsonic does not deliver the power required to cycle the bolt and chamber a new round.

 

Well, maybe the fact that there's no subsonic 7.62x39 cartridge will get Your hopes up. But that never stopped Russians from making suppressed weapons in this chambering (OC-14 Groza vel OTs-14 comes to mind). The same applies to 7.62x51 (I don't count commercial variants, mil-std only).

 

Additionally, problem with too low pressure to reload happens mostly in gas-operated firearms that lack any kind of gas pressure regulator. There are lots of civillian owners in US who use subsonic rounds in specially modified ARs and other rifles. Since SPAR is a fictional weapon, adding such regulator is not a problem, isn't it?

 

Actually, what is a problem with running subsonic variants of conventional cartridges in suppressed military weapon, is lack of projectile energy at "the receiving end". That's why there are several specially designed rounds such as .300 Whisper or .300 Blackout (vel 7.62x35). Militaries and law enforcement agencies around the world use these in conversion sets for their standard 5.56x45 rifles. Whisper is a little more prevalent among Mil/LE (there are conversion sets for most of popular rifles such as M4, G36, HK416, SIG SG55x), but Blackout (which won civillian market lately) is also rising in popularity.

 

I don't know if this will renew Your faith in SPAR, but I hope it's at least interesting.

[JdB 151]

That's a shame really. :( I mean - the only two Dingos I know are from 1) WWIIEC Caen demo (so that means vehicle can't be used "standalone" not to mention the fact that mod in it's state is rather unusable) and 2) DKMM UK Pack which contains Dingo-a-like Fox (and this one is filled with some wonky scripts and lacks any interior LODs). So having one that doesn't need any big mod, and is just-rightly finished, would be great.

There is one other pack that also contains one (forgot the name) and Spad's release also has one.

I think that's kind of wrong attitude. Yeah, it's great to make something really new and original, but such things rarely happen. Afterall, isn't modding all about "hey! I can make this better!"? You shouldn't feeld bad because there are two different Dingos already - as I've noted these addons aren't perfect (from gameplay point of view), and one more wouldn't hurt. Especially if this third one could be actually playable.

... But if You feel that You need to stop only because someone other already made the thing - then it's not healthy. It changes modding into some saddening chore.

I've always thought like this. I don't like adding to the pile.

 

I don't know if this will renew Your faith in SPAR, but I hope it's at least interesting.

No and yes ;)

[krzychuzokecia 717]

Ah, I've forgot about Spad's one.

 

Well, what I can add - good luck in Your search for new excitements! Afterall, it's modder who should get most of the fun from modding! :)

[JdB 151]

Well, what I can add - good luck in Your search for new excitements! Afterall, it's modder who should get most of the fun from modding! :)

 

I've already started on a new thing, to equip the AA-12 with some of the optics. Might do a third paintjob as well.

[JdB 151]

Quick progress yay!

 

[krzychuzokecia 717]

That is MARS ITL sight, am I right? Very nice.

 

If you are willing to tinker with it a little more, IMHO it would be a good idea to change charging handle to a low-profile G36 style. This way optics rail could be lowered and red dot sight plane would be on height similiar to original iron sights.

[JdB 151]

That is MARS ITL sight, am I right? Very nice.

If you are willing to tinker with it a little more, IMHO it would be a good idea to change charging handle to a low-profile G36 style. This way optics rail could be lowered and red dot sight plane would be on height similiar to original iron sights.

Yeah I know. It will probably be lowered a little bit eventually after I've edited the original model and texture. Changes on the SOCOM model are the addition of the rail, changing of the charging handle to a more traditional handle that sticks out to the right and the addition of a flash suppressor. Thankfully they haven't changed anything else. The rail leaves on the actual weapon don't go all the way forward but I've compromised on that since there's more space for attachments this way ... and it just looks better :p

[JdB 151]

Lowered rail, added flash suppressor and charging handle. The height of the red dot on this sight is now exactly the same height as on the iron sights. Of course with other optics that might not be the case ...

[WarhammerAT 117]

Can anyone reupload LCA, Kel-Tec Sub9 and latest version of Bastions?

[JdB 151]

18 hours ago, WarhammerAT said:

Can anyone reupload LCA, Kel-Tec Sub9 and latest version of Bastions?

 

I have been updating links and changing the layout of the opening post so that all addons are included, but I haven't gotten around to those addons. The version 1.1 of the Hescos could be a problem as I'm still looking for that addon myself ...

[JdB 151]

On 3/21/2015 at 5:39 PM, JdB said:

I haven't done much work on any project as I couldn't find the motivation for several reasons, one of which is that I am having doubts about the entire Mk.5 concept. The first problem being the calibre and secondly (and related) the dimensions of the frame and it's impact on the user. Originally the M5 concept from ITM that I used as a base was chambered in 7,62x51 and 7,62x39. Using such powerful rounds would cause a lot of problems in controlling the weapon in the case of the longest version and make it exceedingly difficult to fire and prone to malfunctioning in all of the other (shorter) versions. That has to be the main reason why it never went into production and no one that I'm aware of has seriously looked into it again. HK and FN both see 17" barrels as the ideal length for a 7,62x51 rifle. Anything half that length and (considerably) less just wouldn't be usable in any real world situation.

Ok so apparently the above appears to be false. Not that I'm going to claim credit for this idea or anything 😒

 

 

I still don't think it will be all that useful though. No matter how many modern material are used the powder still isn't going to be burnt up in that 8" barrel and the muzzle velocity will be no where near that of a full length 7,62x51 or even 5,56. A compact flamethrower.