What do you *HOPE* will be in ArmA modding?

[oneoff 0]

[dream] I'd like to see specific building rubble. If it exists, use an event handler to detect the destruction of a building, get it's type, location, and orientation, and as the model sinks into the ground and dust builds, the building specific destroyed model climbs up into the dust to replace it.

[/dream]

To anyone capable of making that happen

i am sure that and more will happen looking at what happened in ofp

here

[Dallas 9]

I'm hoping modding will contribute and add to the game and not turn it into a race, which makes it impossibly for new players to join any server.

...and zombies ofcause.

[dm 9]

little one but maybe hard to achieve...

have back the tank cockpits...

The reason BI didn't include interors for Tanks was time.

AFAIK the LODs for Pilot, Gunner, Commander and Cargo still exist in the engine (otherwise how would any of the other interiors work) but BI never made any artwork for the tanks.

[Vikingo 0]

little one but maybe hard to achieve...

have back the tank cockpits...

The reason BI didn't include interors for Tanks was time.

AFAIK the LODs for Pilot, Gunner, Commander and Cargo still exist in the engine (otherwise how would any of the other interiors work) but BI never made any artwork for the tanks.

thanks for reply DeadMeatXM2!

got it, I mean when I say "game engine" I ask myself if the option to "v" is still there (while inside tanks) or the game now pass from external view (or turn out) directly to "optics view"....

and even if you mod the graphics of the cockpits you can´t use that option anymore... because the game don´t let you... Or in the other way, maybe is just a config matter and you just change something there and you can have the "v" option for can go OFF optics view and see inside the tank...

hope you understand what I try to say with my poor english...

In all videos I saw the view pass directly from outside to optics... that is why I fear that maybe we can have the graphics back but cant´s see them... just still pass from outside to optics in a fixed way... (locked by game engine)

what to you think DeadMeatXM2?

[dm 9]

As far as I know, from poking around some files in the Czech version, there are several config commands which should allow us to have interior models for our tanks. Afterall, the M113's have interiors, and they are tank type simulations, so its not linked to the simulation type.

[Vikingo 0]

As far as I know, from poking around some files in the Czech version, there are several config commands which should allow us to have interior models for our tanks. Afterall, the M113's have interiors, and they are tank type simulations, so its not linked to the simulation type.

Those are really GOOD NEWS!!

and please about the M113 that you name to have interiors.... when you are driver at turn-in position you can look inside the unit? or just the optics like in tanks? (I know in M113 cargo you see the other soldiers/interior of course...)

thanks again DeadMeatXM2 !!

[iguanapl 0]

I would like to see a Fallout game like mod.I don't demand any rpg's stuff just the objects to create cool postnuclear world...Map desert=lag free map

If somebody in future want to make such mod I'm in as a map maker

[llauma 0]

Would is be possible that BIS would be nice enough to allow us to assign a voice to a certain behaviour mode? So when being in stealth mode the player will use the stealth voices and when in combat mode the players will shout the orders.

I don't demand or hope that BIS actually records all those new voice files but merely that they add the posibility to do so in a future patch. If it's made possible the community can take it from there. Imagine the immersion of having whispering soldiers in stealth missions and shouting grunts when in combat. If this was possible it would also be easy to make suitable expressions depending on mode. A safe soldier doesn't have the same vocabulary as one who is being fired upon.

So I would appreciate if some BIS guy could give it a thought and if it's not too complicated add the modding posibility.

[Blanco 0]

Hmm, thats a great idea Llauma

[DaSquade 0]

Quote[/b] ]TeRpEnTin

Posted: Oct. 26 2006,16:23

I hope there is some kind of dynamic proxies:...etc

I tried to get those in VBS by suggesting...

I tried to get those in ArmA by suggesting...

Afaik, BI still didn't picked up the idea (but maybe to hard to implant, who knows...). One thing is sure, that is one of my dream features too. Not only it would make things easier, lighter and better performence wise (->data base, instead of multiple identical files in different addons etc), but it would add a lot more possibilities ingame (gear selections, weapon selections, etc...). Hopefully one day this will be possible...

As for the other thingy 'mods-database' (use of models/textures as database): I'm all up for that. If there is one thing i hated is to see 20 M4's with an ACOG for example, but all different models/textures. Offcourse, this won't be accepted by all, sometimes for logic reasons, sometimes for ...

But yeah, in the end who's model/texture will be the 'best' (what is best: game optimized or realistic, high poly or...) and like Deadmeat mentioned, there is the cfg part aswell.

Anyway, like mentioned in an other post (weapons in ArmA) i somehow hope we modders will get some kind of list with updated old OFP limites, new features etc. So we don't need to find it the hard way...

Pretty hard to make stuff now for ArmA not knowing what is really possible. Hopefully BI or other people will post this info soon (on Biki wiki or here on the forum). Somehow i don't dair to post all of my modelling questions (no specific post ).

[binkster 0]

One thing that I hope for in ArmA is I would like to see people stop making addons that require other addons. It really is a pain in the a$$.. When i made a custom addon CtI the addons used was around 500mb but i only needed around 300. For example 1 addon would require these units... and another addon would require other units.... Just hoping some may feel like I do

[dm 9]

As for the other thingy 'mods-database' (use of models/textures as database): I'm all up for that. If there is one thing i hated is to see 20 M4's with an ACOG for example, but all different models/textures. Offcourse, this won't be accepted by all, sometimes for logic reasons, sometimes for ...

But yeah, in the end who's model/texture will be the 'best' (what is best: game optimized or realistic, high poly or...) and like Deadmeat mentioned, there is the cfg part aswell.

It'll never happen, maninly because people make what they want to make (namely it seems to be the M4)

Until addon making is (god forbid) payed for and structured like a business, people will make what they want to, and since its a hobby for most people, who are we to say "you can (not) make this addon" ?

Another reason that a "database" will never happen, is that people (especially addon makers) usually prefer their own work to that of others. I know I do, and that is why I am reluctant to use other peoples work, and I know a lot of other people who are just like it. Until you can totally repress peoples egos and their personality, we will continue to see 323423423 billion M4 addons, just the way of the world.

[Shashman 0]

But what I don't understand, is what goes through the guy's head as he's sitting there thinking about what he wants to make? Does he not see that there are 64 other M4s already out there, 2 of which maybe are of excellent quality?

I mean, when I've dabbled in addon creation (and I have made an SA-80. This when there weren't any out yet) one of my main thoughts has been of what's not been done before, what are we lacking...

Why don't we have a decent C-17, the US' main transport aircraft? Why don't we have a Chapparal, one of the main air defense systems of the US armed forces of the 80s? Why don't we have a finished AN-12, Russia's main transport aircraft? I could go on really. Hope you get my point

[EiZei 0]

Because a giant cargo plane is tad harder to make than a M4?

Anyways, I think those things are a little bit too "strategic" in size, they do make good props and mission objectives but arent useful as a C-130, for example.

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]we will continue to see 323423423 billion M4 addons

i'm not sure for the first years because that will be harder to make addons for Arma,. After 1 or 2 years, yeah of course we will have 323423423 billion M4

[dm 9]

But what I don't understand, is what goes through the guy's head as he's sitting there thinking about what he wants to make? Does he not see that there are 64 other M4s already out there, 2 of which maybe are of excellent quality?

He does, and he continues to make his addon because he thinks that his addon will be better/more realistic/more technically accurate than all the other addons out there, which is part of his drive to make it.

Also, a lot of people make the same addon, config edits, texture edits (especially based off of other peoples work) because it is a quick and easy way to "make" an addon to quickly gain "popularity" within the community.

I mean, when I've dabbled in addon creation (and I have made an SA-80. This when there weren't any out yet) one of my main thoughts has been of what's not been done before, what are we lacking...

Most people couldn't give a crap what we're "missing". They want to make what they think is cool, awesome, "the sex" or whatever. Very few addon makers are driven by the "we need this because we dont have one yet" ideal.

Why don't we have a decent C-17, the US' main transport aircraft? Why don't we have a Chapparal, one of the main air defense systems of the US armed forces of the 80s? Why don't we have a finished AN-12, Russia's main transport aircraft? I could go on really. Hope you get my point

Because no one thinks they're "cool" enough to make? People want to focus on the "OMG D3lta!!11!!11!!1!!" or the "OMG Speshul Forces!!11!!1!1!!" remakes of addons that have been hacked up over and over and over and over...

[Hawke 0]

But what I don't understand, is what goes through the guy's head as he's sitting there thinking about what he wants to make? Does he not see that there are 64 other M4s already out there, 2 of which maybe are of excellent quality?

He does, and he continues to make his addon because he thinks that his addon will be better/more realistic/more technically accurate than all the other addons out there, which is part of his drive to make it.

Also, a lot of people make the same addon, config edits, texture edits (especially based off of other peoples work) because it is a quick and easy way to "make" an addon to quickly gain "popularity" within the community.

I mean, when I've dabbled in addon creation (and I have made an SA-80. This when there weren't any out yet) one of my main thoughts has been of what's not been done before, what are we lacking...

Most people couldn't give a crap what we're "missing". They want to make what they think is cool, awesome, "the sex" or whatever. Very few addon makers are driven by the "we need this because we dont have one yet" ideal.

Why don't we have a decent C-17, the US' main transport aircraft? Why don't we have a Chapparal, one of the main air defense systems of the US armed forces of the 80s? Why don't we have a finished AN-12, Russia's main transport aircraft? I could go on really. Hope you get my point

Because no one thinks they're "cool" enough to make? People want to focus on the "OMG D3lta!!11!!11!!1!!" or the "OMG Speshul Forces!!11!!1!1!!" remakes of addons that have been hacked up over and over and over and over...

what shows impressively that this community isnt nearly as adult as we' d like it to be

[Blackblood 0]

Very few addon makers are driven by the "we need this because we dont have one yet" ideal.

Let's hope we're not that few. But yeah, some of your remarks -be they slightly cynical - is probably true.

[mattxr 9]

Hold On, Hold On, people remake addons to make them better. Lets say when BAS released the Delta/Rangers and everyone said oki we have them we don't need anymore to be made would we be playing with Lasers beautiful delta/rangers now no... you see.. remaking already existing addons have got us this far check out FFUR for example without people remaking addons would FFUR have gd quality addons in there pack, no.. Its a Good thing in the long run!!

[Daniel 0]

Hmm, true. But Shashman's point still stands. We miss various critical pieces of equipment while others get repainted.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Some people do make stuff that others wont but I don’t think it’s as simple as saying "Very few addon makers are driven by the "we need this because we don’t have one yet" ideal".

A large proportion of this community are still learning the basics and to do a plane/tank/unit well takes a lot of time and effort.  Whereas a basic M4 is easy to make and to modify making it a good way to learn.  I think it’s a lot more about the effort to make the addon practical, scripted and in game.  It’s the same with a lot of other cool stuff not just planes.  

I knew someone with a fully modelled and textured "bridge layer".  It’s in game and drivable but the scripting was beyond him and others at the time so he abandoned it and began making pistols because they were easier to get in game and more fun to play with.

When we get the ArmA tools and a English language version of ArmA (or at least a non starforce version I can frig) 'we' will have:

C-130

C-17

IL-76/78

AN-12/Y-8

AN-70

With the exception of the AN-70 I’ve had the others modelled for ages but without a practical cargo script system they have stalled in favour of simpler projects.  But once we get the BETA FCSS and VTOL systems in game then we will be focussing on Cargo carrying etc.

[Straw Dog 0]

'We' think that sounds good, RockofSL...and RockofSL.

[dm 9]

Let's hope we're not that few. But yeah, some of your remarks -be they slightly cynical - is probably true.

Yeah, 4 years of this lot have made me somewhat cynical

@Matt - I'd get into a lengthy reply about progress and whatnot, but I'd get labled as protecting BAS. Sure, I like the idea of progress but surely we can progress in different areas and not the same M4 every single time...

@Rock - Ballenced, valid points as usual. I don't think labling small arms as "easy" validates the 32434x M4 addons, there are plenty of other weapons which have gone un-modded in the game...

Anyho, thats enough cynacism from me for today

[Shashman 0]

Ah well... I've decided to get into addon making for ArmA once we get the necessary tools and English ArmA and I think I've found my 'studio's' motto....

NO...NOT OMG Speshul Forces!!11!!1!1!!

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

'We' think that sounds good, RockofSL...and RockofSL.

Is there an echo in here?

@Rock - Ballenced, valid points as usual. I don't think labling small arms as "easy" validates the 32434x M4 addons, there are plenty of other weapons which have gone un-modded in the game...

Anyho, thats enough cynacism from me for today

Nothing validates all the M4s but lets face it most of the ones out there now are based however loosely on the INQ M4 contrustion kit... If we should blame anyone its him!