M16A4 Example

[max power 21]

I have full understanding for that. "As long as it works, why fix it" :)

Only thing it can do by being messy is maybe complicate something down the line, so it's no big issue.

Fixing it is not even on the table. The more time it takes, the more expensive a project is, so no one cares how messy or not the UVs are. Assets aren't created with the intent to try to accommodate some potential future need that may or may not come to pass... and it's impossible to predict what the asset might be rehashed for anyways. Getting the project done in a reasonable amount of time is much more important.

[braveblades 1]

model looks promising, but imho the texture is.. a bit blur or low-res.

[Binkowski 25]

model looks promising, but imho the texture is.. a bit blur or low-res.

I think the textures are holding their own in comparison to the unit that is holding it. The only thing that I may suggest ToadBall would be possibly updating the Bump mapping on the M16?

[slatts 1978]

model looks promising, but imho the texture is.. a bit blur or low-res.

(Assumption) I'd bet they are the BIS Arma 2 textures.

[sabre 244]

(Assumption) I'd bet they are the BIS Arma 2 textures.

Which in some form actually date back to VBS 1, just VBS 1's were downsized in the final product and the ArmA series made use of the higher resolution ones.

So given that, there doing ok and credit to Earl for doing them so well so long ago :D

With the addition of some normal's and maybe some touch-ups here and there they'd be more than ok.

Looking good ToadBall.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Sabre

[AlexVestin 24]

Fixing it is not even on the table. The more time it takes, the more expensive a project is, so no one cares how messy or not the UVs are.

I kind of disagree with you on some points. I am aware that there is no fixing needed to be done. It works like intended.

Some things in general actually need 'caring' to save resources, though, so you're wrong on that part if that's what you're saying.

This model might not need it.

Assets aren't created with the intent to try to accommodate some potential future need that may or may not come to pass...

Well. That does not go for all assets. Depends on planned usage. It's true that not all are.

Many things are planned to be modular, therefor split up into sections if better GPU memory usage can be achieved, as an example.

and it's impossible to predict what the asset might be rehashed for anyways. Getting the project done in a reasonable amount of time is much more important.

If I were to create a "base model" meant to be used in many different ways, I personally wouldn't rush it all too much.

Might end up having to re-make it all from the ground up. Wich in some cases will take longer, others just be for the better.

Altough your statement is still true. Expense outweights time.

This particular model from the M16 family feels rushed and made use of as things went along. Could be time/deadline related.

I see ArmA as a game/semi-sim in need of optimization to be at its best considering the thousands of things rendered at once.

So some 'caring' should be done and kept in mind for the assets use further down the line.

There has already been some thought put into this M16 version and the M4s. Just saying more is possible. That was all.

Edited March 28, 2013 by AlexVestin

[AmericanFAC 1]

A brief update on things.

hand animations

May I ask with what? It seems the A3 character models are animated via FBX exports from 3DSmax. And in my experience, trying to use the A2 BI character to animated results in the hands experiencing strange contortions. So what are you using?

[max power 21]

Some things in general actually need 'caring' to save resources.

How the model is created would be based on the original asset parameters, created during the preproduction process.

Well. That does not go for all assets. Depends on planned usage. It's true that not all are.

Many things are planned to be modular, therefor split up into sections if better GPU memory usage can be achieved, as an example.

That would (also) be in the original asset parameters.

If I were to create a "base model" meant to be used in many different ways, I personally wouldn't rush it all too much.

Might end up having to re-make it all from the ground up. Wich in some cases will take longer, others just be for the better.

How much time it would take would be in the original task estimate, based on the work done in prepro.

[hascoman 1]

I don't know if it's possible at this time or not, but you should move the front hand back so it holds the receiver as in the example images. This offers higher accuracy when aiming down the sight, especially when holding your breath.

Example images:

The way weapons are held in Arma has always disturbed me a bit, though front hand grips reduced that annoyance quite a lot, it still feels wrong for a simulator.

[instagoat 133]

I think the grip is alright. Magwell hold really isn´t helpful in such a long barreled rifle especially when you have all the tack mounted up front, light lasers or flashlights, because when you move quickly all that mass is moving on a long lever, far away from the control of your hands.

It would be tiring to hold the rifle out in front all the time, but realistically, you´re not running around with your rifle up all of the time. Note that all of these in your pictures have the rifles propped up or are prone.

Note the grip out in front of the rifle. These apparently are SOF in Afghanistan, fetched from milphotos. There´s more, and the more high speed people get, the more out front the grips seem to go.

The middle-ish hold is okay. In fact, I wouldn´t even mind an all out thumb over bore rifle isosceles style grip on an addon rifle. Magwell holds in CQB maybe work on MP5s or really really short carbines, but with all the moving around people do in Arma 3, the more far-out grips make more sense at least from a physics standpoint. Realistically it would be up to the shooters preference, though, so an addon taking the middle ground is sensible.

[fluttershy 2]

hascoulijn, you are aware that the soldiers that hold the Rifle like that are all prone, expect the one soldier that is deploying his Magazin on top of the Wall.

How a Soldier deploys his rifle depends on a mix of preference and useability. Holding the Rifle far up front is very good for CQB because your movement feels more natural. Holding the Rifle further in the back gives you a more compact feel, especially used for precise shooting (thats why its all Marines in your Picture). A SF Operator would hold the rifle the same way for a medium to long distance precision shot.

regards, a Marksman.

Edited April 3, 2013 by fluttershy

[Remi .A 8]

Toad any plans to release this with 5.56 recoil like the FHQ_M4 pack did? as of right now its running the 6.5 recoil of the MX and its not supposed to.

[toadball 35]

At present I'm fairly busy away from ArmA and have most of my ArmA time invested in in-house addon and mission making at a community. As such any updates to this are likely to be postponed until ArmA 3 moves out of Alpha and into Beta or my current work queue is significantly reduced.

As stated in the original post, the source files are there for those who want to work with them and develop their own version.

[MonsterISR 10]

Noob question, but how can you use it ingame? Do you need VAS?

[Soldat20 0]

I also believe the front hand should be moved back near the mag, just a my opinion.

Here is 274 pages of Marines holding the M16A4 and many other weapons in various positions.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?167027-The-United-States-Marine-Corps/page274

[oliie 1]

How about doing it like in Project Reality? Normally the gun would be held more or less like it is now, but once you aim down the sights, the hand moves onto the receiver. Would that be possible to do?

[spectrersg 9]

I apologizing for relatively necro-posting here but the M-16's have no firing sound running the most recent stable version. 0.60.106070

Any chance we can get this updated to resolve the issue?

[mantls 2]

I apologizing for relatively necro-posting here but the M-16's have no firing sound running the most recent stable version. 0.60.106070

Any chance we can get this updated to resolve the issue?

Change the soundfiles extension from wav to .wss

[scarecrow398 43]

Change the soundfiles extension from wav to .wss

For the uneducated/lazy

Dropbox link to fixed version

Edited June 12, 2013 by Scarecrow398
Me fail url tags? that's unpossible.

[spectrersg 9]

Thanks Scarecrow!

[scarecrow398 43]

Oh, also forgot to mention in the above version most if not all FHQ attachments should work with it too.

[spectrersg 9]

I wasn't sure if I was going crazy regarding the FHQ accessories or not. Thanks for clarifying and doing that

[toadball 35]

I've had some time to redo the example config files as the previous ones, besides being out of date, are absolutely atrocious.

The updated example files (model, config.cpp, and model.cfg) can be found here: Link

Change log:

config.cpp & model.cfg: Tidied up and updated for the recent changes to weapon sounds.

While this is now relatively redundant with the release of sample models and configs by BI, it should still serve as a rudimentary example of a very basic method for getting a weapon in game.