ofp | acwa OFP/ACWA - facts | myths | findings | experiments | prototypes | tutorials | protection

[RozekPoland 591]

 

[Macser 776]

Adding user values to your models will increase the section count dramatically.

 

I never used the user value system for any of my more recent models. So I didn't notice anything odd about it. Anything I'd done prior to that would've been mostly O2light with Blender. Or just O2light.

 

Recently I decided to put in some user values, to get a model showing damage. Namely the hull, tracks, turret and gun. The model started out with 4 sections. That's three textures and the unmapped proxies. Which is expected. But after thowing in the user values, the section count shot up to 52. So I tried resetting the values for the entire mesh to 0 and the section count went back to 4.

 

I did this a few times, with a few different models. It's consistent. So it's worth bearing in mind. For me it's not worth it, just to make the model brown and black. Section count can have an affect on performance , especially when it gets that high. And becomes apparent when you start adding more of that particular model to a mission. I thought this might be a good place to mention it.

[JdB 151]

4 hours ago, Macser said:

Adding user values to your models will increase the section count dramatically.

 

I never used the user value system for any of my more recent models. So I didn't notice anything odd about it. Anything I'd done prior to that would've been mostly O2light with Blender. Or just O2light.

 

Recently I decided to put in some user values, to get a model showing damage. Namely the hull, tracks, turret and gun. The model started out with 4 sections. That's three textures and the unmapped proxies. Which is expected. But after thowing in the user values, the section count shot up to 52. So I tried resetting the values for the entire mesh to 0 and the section count went back to 4.

 

I did this a few times, with a few different models. It's consistent. So it's worth bearing in mind. For me it's not worth it, just to make the model brown and black. Section count can have an affect on performance , especially when it gets that high. And becomes apparent when you start adding more of that particular model to a mission. I thought this might be a good place to mention it.

 

To me the ArmA2 way is much preferable anyway. Sure it might be tricky to figure out whether or not a vehicle is knocked out sometimes, but it's still a lot better looking + immersive than a vehicle that blows up all the time and turns into a black distorted mass.

[Macser 776]

I agree. Considering the potential number of sections that may be added, it's probably as efficient to use a script to replace the model with a destroyed version. If that's something people are interested in.

 

With tanks I consider them a threat until they're on fire. Regardless of what parts are a bit brown. 

[RozekPoland 591]

Update on my work-in-progress project.

 

[RozekPoland 591]

 

[krzychuzokecia 719]

Ah, the old anims done by @smookie and famously used in Silent War mod trailer (few years ago there was a YT copy of the trailer but now it's gone apparently). As one can see Smookie made climbing anims for various heights of fences, and a vaulting anim (several types IIRC) for lower obstacles. These anims were included in 2006 SW beta, but apart from playMove there was no way to activate them. But in trailer it was really impressive! 

 

I wonder if it'd be possible to make a script which would allow to dynamically change climbing animation to a variant proper for nearest obstacle height. @kenoxite did a function for calculating nearest object height, so half of the job is done - what's left is forcing player character to play proper anim, instead of one defined in config for WW4 anim jump (may be possible with animChanged EH?).

[RozekPoland 591]

The animation was created by @smookie but it required some editing to make it useful (actually to make the player successfully climb over the wall). Unfortunately, It also applies to other of his climbing animations. It seems the animations were not meant (designed) to be used in a regular (non-scripted) way as I would like them to and I've shown in the video.

[RozekPoland 591]

 

[RozekPoland 591]

Level of water depends on date (month, day, time of the day: morning, afternoon, evening, night).

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yes, you have the tides and sun/moon formulas there.

[RozekPoland 591]

 

[RozekPoland 591]

@customfix: BEFORE and AFTER airstrike (comparison)

 

 

[prototype1479 63]

does it customly fix it? i dont get it? XD

[RozekPoland 591]

6 hours ago, prototype1479 said:

does it customly fix it? i dont get it? XD

Customfix is just a name of the mod. As I stated in the video description, building destruction is one of many other features of this mod. I'm going to provide more info about it soon. Stay Tuned 

[RozekPoland 591]

 

[RozekPoland 591]

@customfix: before and after airstrike (comparison)

 

[RozekPoland 591]

Deployed objects for obscuring AI view in the debris of the forest (after airstrike).

 

 

[R0adki11 3949]

@RozekPolandthis is an inspiring project, are you planning on updating the textures of the islands and vegetation etc?

[RozekPoland 591]

On 1/26/2018 at 12:36 PM, R0adki11 said:

@RozekPolandthis is an inspiring project, are you planning on updating the textures of the islands and vegetation etc?

I don't plan any of it. It has already been done by a number of addonmakers whose skills at modelling and texturing are way better than mine  I have been focused on building new features and breaking some limitations for vanilla (core) gameplay. There are dozens of units, islands and replacement mods but none of them move the game forward in terms of gameplay. We have been playing the game by the same rules for over 16 years. The idea behind @customfix is to provide tweaks/improvements that lead to the overhaul of the game.

[prototype1479 63]

I too work on a project that is similar to yours improving gameplay and some things that people has not figured out/done yet and I do all of these in vanilla.

 

If you are interested it's about AI taking cover inside buildings/sandbags getting suppressed and AI being more tactical like flanking and using hills as cover and if the enemy units are close then AI should stand up instead of going prone.

 

And some enhancements for players like when the players stay behind an object and use its corner as cover and using that AI doesn't see the player or can shoot the player but i will make it possible.

[prototype1479 63]

HandGunGetIn and HandGunGetOut is missing at https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint:_Moves_List

 

;_;

[RozekPoland 591]

On 2/7/2018 at 11:11 AM, prototype1479 said:

HandGunGetIn and HandGunGetOut is missing at https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint:_Moves_List

 

;_;

I have added the HandGunGetIn/Out Car/Tank missing classes. Thank you for pointing that out 

[prototype1479 63]

So was that a myth or finding or experiment or prototype?

 

I also discovered those missing classes when I was making this thing:

 

 

There is more stuff in my channel you can check it out.

[RozekPoland 591]

On 2/7/2018 at 4:57 PM, prototype1479 said:

So was that a myth or finding or experiment or prototype?

The 2nd one, definately. I suppose the list may be lacking more than just these two classes. In this case I prefer to work with the CfgMoves config list.
Have you noticed there are no GetOutCar classes for any of animation variants while there are GetInCar classes? GetOutCar entries (in ***Actions sections) are usually filled with regular stances like Combat, HandgunStand, Civil:

getInCar = "CombatGetInCar";
getOutCar = "Combat";

 I'm just giving you a hint to experiment more with this game and build a prototype one day 

On 2/7/2018 at 4:57 PM, prototype1479 said:

 

 

This is quite an interesting idea. Good utilisation of @faguss' DummyBullet in practice. The problem with such a feature is unfortunately very common in each case you build some new actions/possibilities in this game. Adding new actions to the already overloaded action menu causes an issue for players. They tend to accidentaly start this action while their intention was to do something else. Action prioritisation in this game is a myth. Due to this you have to figure out a workaround for this problem (as long as you want to release it and expect it to be used by other players in their missions/mods). That's why I've decided to link new animations for vaulting/jumping-over-the-fence animations to diagonal movement entries that are in a regular use of any leaning animations mods. They don't need any extra scripts, eventhandlers and so on so it's way more performance-friendly.