RKSL Studios

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

The OFrP team released a C-160 Transall which imho was 'cleverer' than what BAS achieved, for transporting loads such as vehicles and pallets of ammo crates, fuel drums etc which could then be para dropped by the player or even by AI (dont quote me on the AI part though. It's a strictly 'IIRC' )...

Perhaps have a word with them, for your Herc project and woes?

It’s hardly a woe.  There is a simple fix for this; we remove the roadway and stop you from entering the cargo deck and all the problems go away. It would make all our lives easier. But several people specifically asked to be able to move around inside while static.

From memory the OPrF system wasn’t that MP or AI friendly. And as far as I remember used almost the same proxy system as BAS.  The failing was the code being unable to pass the cargo's status properly in MP.

[UNN 0]

how did BAS get over this problem with their choppers in ofp?

They used some of the work a rounds I mentioned. It's been a while since I looked at the BAS system and didn't go into to much detail. I think, because they were only supporting their own units and perhaps BIS units? They could use a dummy infantry model, for infantry sat in cargo positions.

would their be a method how a addon maker can make his vehicle loadable on your Hercules with out going through you? For example i make my version of a UK laddie after your release, however i wish to allow mine to load on it. would their be away of adding a small compatibility file or extension to your file without creating incompatibility issues in MP?

I think the method we have chosen offers the best all round flexibility. Each cargo and transporter has to be registered with the system, but that can be done by anyone.

Any addon that’s already been created, or is going to be created, can be configured to work with the system. By either the original addon maker or a third party. Every thing can work on proxies and inheritance alone, so no need to package or modify someone else’s work. In most cases no need for other peoples objects in MLOD format e.t.c

The only skills required will be, moving proxies around in O2, creating a pbo and using a text editor. In most cases you can just copy an existing configuration and do a quick search and replace for the model and class names.

Maybe a wild step in the dark, but have you guys did a test with a 'locking' geo/roadway cage?

The MI26 was the only addon I ever saw using that method in OFP. But I didn't want to go down that route for a variety of reasons. It was limited to a single cargo object, would prevent a combination of cargo and infantry. Could in some cases, cause damage to both cargo and transporter. Would potentially cause major problems in MP.

Gnats system has different requirements, so the two can't really be compared.

Any idea what causes that? Because for the vulcan its kind off strange that it causes an error while the 113 wont...

Will the antenna of the vehicles be visible thrue the aircraft skin while loaded? The humvee have got a larger antenna, the stryker also has larger antenna I believe...

Hard to say without all the Arma MLOD's. I suspect the Strykers mass is offset?

Yeah, antennas are a problem. In the case of the humvee, seen as we have the MLOD version, I could create a proxy with the antenna in a stowed position. If someone was making a vehicle that has antennas, with our system in mind. Then it's better to assign thier textures as a hidden selection and reveal them via the configs init event. That way they would remain hidden as cargo. For the other scenarios you may have to put up with it. It's annoying, but there is only so much that can be done without the MLODS.

The OFrP team released a C-160 Transall which imho was 'cleverer' than what BAS achieved, for transporting loads such as vehicles and pallets of ammo crates, fuel drums etc which could then be para dropped by the player or even by AI (dont quote me on the AI part though. It's a strictly 'IIRC' )...

Perhaps have a word with them, for your Herc project and woes?

Yeah, as Rock said. So far the only real issues are, how the cargo will appear during the load process and what vehicles work.

As you saw with the Stryker, it's not really suitable for driving into that type of vehicle. In that respect, automatically loading cargo without driving into the back, would avoid both problems. We could make life easy for ourselves and just support our relativly small number of UK addons. But we want the system to be as flexible as possible, only that flexibility comes with some compromises.

[Synide 0]

you're probably having problems with the strykers and vulcan etc. 'cause yeah... their Geo Lods are pretty 'basic'... (black lines are the geo-lods)

[bravo 6 0]

just saw the cago video problem. Its sad its not working.

It looks like the same problem remains since OFP.

I would like to say, that you made a fantastic work.

I hope you can find the right path to make it work.

wish you all luck for this beloved project.

[Hoot1988 0]

Quote[/b] ]you're probably having problems with the strykers and vulcan etc. 'cause yeah... their Geo Lods are pretty 'basic'... (black lines are the geo-lods)

I think they are using the BI RACS Jeeps, not the tanks but the problem could still be the same

I may be wrong but i don't think you can fit a M113, stryker or a abrams in a herc. thats what Galaxy's are for.

Thanks for the replie rock good to hear.

[Pathy 0]

Awesome stuff as always.

[bravo 6 0]

Quote[/b] ]you're probably having problems with the strykers and vulcan etc. 'cause yeah... their Geo Lods are pretty 'basic'... (black lines are the geo-lods)

I think they are using the BI RACS Jeeps, not the tanks but the problem could still be the same

I may be wrong but i don't think you can fit a M113, stryker or a abrams in a herc. thats what Galaxy's are for.

Thanks for the replie rock good to hear.

Yup they can fit

High RES (5708243 bytes)

note: its not a c-130. It's a C-17 and thats a Abrams!

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

@ Synide, thanks for that it was kinda what I suspected.

@ Hoot1988 you’ve misunderstood what I was showing you. It wouldn’t make the slightest bit off difference what vehicle I used to demonstrate the geocage issue.  And btw M113 and strikers are designed to fin inside C-130s.  Abrams aren’t.  But they do fit in the C-17 and C-5A.

just saw the cago video problem. Its sad its not working.

Its not the cargo system that is the problem.

That video doesn't even show the cargo system.  It only shows the geo lod on the vehicles clashing with the C-130.  The Cargo system will fix the problem it just means you wont be able to drive the Stryker etc into the rear hold.

The question we need answered is:

Here's a couple of pictures I took of a 4x4 driven into the cargo bay:

The pic on the left is the internal view from my player object, sat in a cargo position. The second is the command view from the same player object looking at the same vehicle.

In the first pic, even though it draws the 4x4 at the correct scale, it's rendered as though it's outside of the aircraft

There are some lengthy work a rounds we could do to avoid this, so the questions are:

-Is it something you could put up with?

-Is it something we should avoid by not allowing vehicles to be driven into the back, prior to loading?

-Do we go for a simple solution that switched a players view to that of the aircraft, once the player enters a cargo position and only return the camera once  the player disembarks.

-Do we add possible overheads to the scripting, mp performance and object count. To avoid, what is essentially eye candy? Assuming there is not a p3d based fix we can apply.

[Hoot1988 0]

well i never new that, spose i never seen a m113 or stryker up close so couldnt see them going inside. didnt think the indise of the hercs were that big, inside. but i only been in a US hurricane hunter one at fairford.

could be a armed assault flaw? i can only assume it is something to do with the cargo view lod?

[[aps]gnat 28]

Gnat @ Sep. 02 2007,14:15)]

Quote[/b] ]This is NOT a Flight Sim import

...but I know ArmA players won't give a rats arse where an addon comes from so long as a) It has permissions and b) Its released!

I find that remark to be a rather sad reflection of this community.  Its attitudes like that then ruined the FS2002/4 community for a lot of people I know.  And frankly it’s also that attitude that stopped me releasing stuff for OFP.  If the "I dont care where it came from attitude" starts to be in the majority among the actual addon makers around here I'll just stop modding.

Sorry Rock, but I think you've over simplified something that is very complicated.

While I don't disagree at all and I too have overly simplied the community analysis above, you on the other hand seem to be expecting to get/acheive a community where everyone knows everyone elses work.

A huge percentage of the OFP community had no idea who the "regular" addon makers were (well maybe BAS ) and certainly had no true respect for the hard work.

I don't see ArmA being a well support game unless there is a similar percentage of heathen users. If you didn't, you'd just have a dead community of Arty types.

... anyhow, on the conversion thing. I myself have only pursuied FS aircraft that are of a quality nature that blend with ArmA (as the pictures should show). Also as any addon maker would know, pulling a 3d model and few textures from FS is the quick and easy bit!!!! Theres a shyt load more work refining the addon for ArmA, including lots of mesh repairs and modifications, new textures and a whole lot of physics tuning.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Gnat @ Sep. 04 2007,16:19)]

Sorry Rock, but I think you've over simplified something that is very complicated.

While I don't disagree at all and I too have overly simplied the community analysis above, you on the other hand seem to be expecting to get/acheive a community where everyone knows everyone elses work.

No mate I think you’re reading too much into what im saying. I really don't care what the general player thinks or wants.  I’m referring solely to the “addon makersâ€.  I just want people to respect the work that people do to make addons.  Put a simply as possible I want:

a) Addon makers to Credit and acknowledge their sources and contributors properly

b) Actually ask and receive permission before converting/importing or adapting other people’s work no matter the source.

c) Respect the wishes of the addon makers when they say “we don’t want you to modify and re-release our workâ€

Gnat @ Sep. 04 2007,16:19)]

... anyhow, on the conversion thing. I myself have only pursuied FS aircraft that are of a quality nature that blend with ArmA (as the pictures should show). Also as any addon maker would know, pulling a 3d model and few textures from FS is the quick and easy bit!!!! Theres a shyt load more work refining the addon for ArmA, including lots of mesh repairs and modifications, new textures and a whole lot of physics tuning.

I understand that but in recent months there have been lots of threads on this board made by people claiming to have made something and asking for help to finish it.  When its clear that its been grabbed from FS/CSS/Quake or any other source.  Frankly as long as people ask for and receive permission to take other people models I don’t care.  But I know that several people in the FS community are now looking at these forums to see what is getting ported.  There are questions being asked about the “Securite Civile Mod†on the FlightSim members forums. They appear to have taken various models from FS2004 without permission.  Its situations like that and the recent UNA Mod debacle I’d like to see stopped.  At the end of the day its really only basic respect and good manners.  If people here cant manage that then they really shouldn’t be let out on thier own in this day and age.

[4 IN 1 0]

even with the geo lod problem get fix there is still no hope to simply walk into the plane and take a ride, the engine doesnt allow us to do so, unless someone kind enought to open a new road to it

[Tankbuster 1747]

UNN and I (I'm such a name dropper! came against similar problems with the Antonov. Never did fix it.

Rock, I think you missed an opportunity in that video; "He's fallen in the water!"

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]came against similar problems with the Antonov. Never did fix it.

You can learn a lot in a year or so. Failure is the mother of success

I think this is heading towards, fix the eye candy at all costs? We just have to come up with a way of crushing the toes, of anyone who wants to sit in on the loading of Land Rover

[BraTTy 0]

Good luck with the cargo. I plan on working on it some if/when I ever get rolling.You guys are already so advanced its scaring me.

(many planes in cargo of a carrier) And I was thinking along the lines that you land your plane on moving carrier and then it goes into cargo.

On the topic of importing addons from other games.I am totally against any involvement with them.But I would still like to see/use planes from FS. I would use them.

Creator/importer to be carefull about importing from active companies (no Lucasarts stuff they actively look for copyright violations)

For example the CnC stuff is going to use textures from CnC.I still would like the mod. Just can't/don't help towards it.Great modelling a shame to import textures.

Just using the name alone.

Another example is planes I make. Using the name alone is copyright...Curtiss SB2C Helldiver etc...

If I made for profit someone would be suing me just for that

If I made a super looking Helldiver but yet game so and so paid dearly for copyrights from Curtiss, made their game model look sad....they would try to stop my addon (free or not)

Its a touchy subject

Rockofsl addons look so good, he is close to getting sued (lol)

Probably more likely to just offer him money for his addons

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

On the topic of importing addons from other games.I am totally against any involvement with them.But I would still like to see/use planes from FS. I would use them.

Creator/importer to be carefull about importing from active companies (no Lucasarts stuff they actively look for copyright violations)

For example the CnC stuff is going to use textures from CnC.I still would like the mod. Just can't/don't help towards it.Great modelling a shame to import textures.

So what you are saying is that you are against importing addons from other games apart from FS. You are happy to use illegal content as long as it’s not made by companies or people that will actively sue you?

For example: If you were to import my FS200X models you’d be just as liable for damages as if you took the model from Microsoft. And I’ve got news for you, that’s irrespective of whether you tried to make money from it or not. I admit it would be harder to prove the case but its still a breach of IP and Copyright. But it does breach the FS EULA and the EULA of the MS sponsored tools not just the model owners rights.

Just using the name alone.

Another example is planes I make. Using the name alone is copyright...Curtiss SB2C Helldiver etc...

If I made for profit someone would be suing me just for that

If I made a super looking Helldiver but yet game so and so paid dearly for copyrights from Curtiss, made their game model look sad....they would try to stop my addon (free or not)

Its a touchy subject

Sheesh. You’re missing the point completely. Regardless of whether the actual owner is willing to sue you or it’s a guy in the pub that made the original addon It’s still not right or fair just to adapt or modify it without permission. If you want to modify someone’s addons or models you need to:

a) Addon makers to Credit and acknowledge their sources and contributors properly

b) Actually ask and receive permission before converting/importing or adapting other people’s work no matter the source.

c) Respect the wishes of the addon makers when they say “we don’t want you to modify and re-release our workâ€

Rockofsl addons look so good, he is close to getting sued (lol)

Probably more likely to just offer him money for his addons

Is that a compliment or a Dig?

[BraTTy 0]

It was absolutely a compliment.Your models are top-notch professional quality

What I was saying is someone imports a few plane addons from FS.I would try them.Not any chance I would get in trouble. I had nothing to do with it.

The other points I were getting at are beyond the scope of your topic here.

What I am getting at is:

If I make an accurate model of a m16 and make everything myself and call it a m16 is a copyright infringement upon the original makers.

Notice in GTA they call the cars different names than Ford,Chevy etc... they didn't get manufacturers permission and pay royalties for using the name

back on topic: I am totally impressed with your work and addons.

[Tankbuster 1747]

-Is it something you could put up with?

-Is it something we should avoid by not allowing vehicles to be driven into the back, prior to loading?

-Do we go for a simple solution that switched a players view to that of the aircraft, once the player enters a cargo position and only return the camera once the player disebarks.

-Do we add possible overheads to the scripting, mp performance and object count. To avoid, what is essentially eye candy? Assuming there is not a p3d based fix we can apply.

To answer your questions;

1. If it can't be fixed, yes. The option to drive cargo up the ramp is the whole point of having a cargo lift aircraft.

2. To remove a function because it looks poor is cutting ones nose off to spite the face.

3. If that's an easy solution, yes, but I rather think you don't like easy solutions.

4. Not sure what the question is.

To summarize: Surely, if we have a C130 without a vehicle airlift function, then *that is* purely eye candy. If we can have it, but it looks a awkward to player seated in the aircraft, then yes, either remove their 3rd person viewpoint, or just put up with it.

Given that it's being rendered as if from outside, while sitting inside (if I've understood the problem) then there may not be a fix, but given the functionality we get in return, I for one, can live with it.

[CodyLang 0]

The models and such look AMAZING...will this be a full mod with maybe a campaign or 2 also?

[Kristian 47]

I personally dont care about that bug, (I mean that I cant see the 4x4 or eny other vechiles from inside, at inside.

if I transport vechiles, I will be in pilots place, not in cargo.. and is it possible to carry something actually in cargo? havent seen that in OFP...

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I personally dont care about that bug, (I mean that I cant see the 4x4 or eny other vechiles from inside, at inside.

if I transport vechiles, I will be in pilots place, not in cargo.. and is it possible to carry something actually in cargo? havent seen that in OFP...

Ok It seems none of you really understand the bug we're talking about...

1) You can drive every vehicle list in my post into the back of the C-130

2) You can't drive the Vulcan or Stryker into the C-130 as it clashes with the Geo lods causing the plane to tilt or be pushed along.

3) The bug shown in

is nothing to do with the RKSL Cargo System.  It is solely a problem with GeoLods on BIS' models clashing with the C-130.

4) The Cargo System bug is about drawing objects on the outside of the model.  It’s a cosmetic issue.

[Flat!!! 0]

If you script a cargo sys transporting vehicles should be possible altho now to what you asked:

Well I think you should only see the car from the back or from inside when driving in. GTA style...

[landdon 0]

Rock,

I have been a fan for years, and I can't wait to see some of your stuff finally released. First, I would like to say that the ability to drive some vehicles into the back of the aircraft is better than none that is my view point. If we have to use alternate method to carry them (Styker and Vulcan) around then so be it, there is bound to be some limitations.

I am not a modeller so bear with my ignorance please, would it have the same effect on your C-17 release? If not then there is that method that could be used as well.

[UNN 0]

@BraTTy

Quote[/b] ]Good luck with the cargo. I plan on working on it some if/when I ever get rolling.You guys are already so advanced its scaring me.

(many planes in cargo of a carrier) And I was thinking along the lines that you land your plane on moving carrier and then it goes into cargo. .

Cheers, I'm sure some of what we have planned for Carriers will come in handy for your Pacific War stuff. It's that particular theatre, that inspired me in the first place.

@TankbusterSPAFF

Quote[/b] ]1. If it can't be fixed, yes. The option to drive cargo up the ramp is the whole point of having a cargo lift aircraft.

For me, the point is to move resources from A to B. But it does play a major part in the look and feel, so it's not something I would want to willingly exclude.

Quote[/b] ]2. To remove a function because it looks poor is cutting ones nose off to spite the face.

I could live with the odd person, who happens to be sat in a cargo position, seeing some graphical glitches while a  vehicle is being driven onboard.

What I can't really live with, is the problem Rock highlighted with the Stryker. Graphics are one thing, but having some unsuspecting player wreck their mission, because one or two vehicles cause the transport to tip over and destroy half the units in the surrounding area...

Quote[/b] ]3. If that's an easy solution, yes, but I rather think you don't like easy solutions.

I do prefer easy solutions But I don't mind writing extra scripts to avoid problems. As long as those scripts don't hog any resources for extended periods of time.

Quote[/b] ]4. Not sure what the question is.

Some of the possible solutions are pretty drastic.

4) The Cargo System bug is about drawing objects on the outside of the model.  It’s a cosmetic issue.

Yeah, imagine how Arma decides which objects should be drawn behind which. When a player is sat in a cargo position, Arma makes the assumption that, everything contained in the cargo LOD is to be drawn last. Everything else outside the LOD is drawn first. A vehicle being driven into the cargo bay, is classed as being outside the vehicle. The engine only starts to draw it correctly, once our system loads the vehicle into a cargo position.

After more testing, I’ve decided to not allow any vehicle to be loaded or unloaded, if infantry are sat in cargo positions. Your going to have to move your guys out, before you drive anything in or out of the cargo bay. So that avoids that problem and I'm sure the same restrictions hold true to real life to.

[Tankbuster 1747]

Quote[/b] ]1. If it can't be fixed, yes. The option to drive cargo up the ramp is the whole point of having a cargo lift aircraft.

For me, the point is to move resources from A to B. But it does play a major part in the look and feel, so it's not something I would want to willingly exclude.

Quote[/b] ]2. To remove a function because it looks poor is cutting ones nose off to spite the face.

I could live with the odd person, who happens to be sat in a cargo position, seeing some graphical glitches while a vehicle is being driven onboard.

What I can't really live with, is the problem Rock highlighted with the Stryker. Graphics are one thing, but having some unsuspecting player wreck their mission, because one or two vehicles cause the transport to tip over and destroy half the units in the surrounding area...

Quote[/b] ]3. If that's an easy solution, yes, but I rather think you don't like easy solutions.

I do prefer easy solutions But I don't mind writing extra scripts to avoid problems. As long as those scripts don't hog any resources for extended periods of time.

Quote[/b] ]4. Not sure what the question is.

Some of the possible solutions are pretty drastic.

4) The Cargo System bug is about drawing objects on the outside of the model. It’s a cosmetic issue.

Yeah, imagine how Arma decides which objects should be drawn behind which. When a player is sat in a cargo position, Arma makes the assumption that, everything contained in the cargo LOD is to be drawn last. Everything else outside the LOD is drawn first. A vehicle being driven into the cargo bay, is classed as being outside the vehicle. The engine only starts to draw it correctly, once our system loads the vehicle into a cargo position.

Quote[/b] ]@TankbusterSPAFF

Quote[/b] ]1. If it can't be fixed, yes. The option to drive cargo up the ramp is the whole point of having a cargo lift aircraft.

For me, the point is to move resources from A to B. But it does play a major part in the look and feel, so it's not something I would want to willingly exclude.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]2. To remove a function because it looks poor is cutting ones nose off to spite the face.

I could live with the odd person, who happens to be sat in a cargo position, seeing some graphical glitches while a vehicle is being driven onboard.

What I can't really live with, is the problem Rock highlighted with the Stryker. Graphics are one thing, but having some unsuspecting player wreck their mission, because one or two vehicles cause the transport to tip over and destroy half the units in the surrounding area...

Agree with your point reference graphic glitches seen by one or two players. The Strykers and Vulcans. That is a big problem. I'm sort of assuming it's a recently discovered problem with the addon? Are there options available yet?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]3. If that's an easy solution, yes, but I rather think you don't like easy solutions.

I do prefer easy solutions But I don't mind writing extra scripts to avoid problems. As long as those scripts don't hog any resources for extended periods of time.

Yes, I sort of meant that having been lucky enough to see your and Rock's work in the past, I get the impression you are perfectionists and might not necessarily take the easy option, especially when a harder, but superior one might be available.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, imagine how Arma decides which objects should be drawn behind which. When a player is sat in a cargo position, Arma makes the assumption that, everything contained in the cargo LOD is to be drawn last. Everything else outside the LOD is drawn first. A vehicle being driven into the cargo bay, is classed as being outside the vehicle. The engine only starts to draw it correctly, once our system loads the vehicle into a cargo position.

I'm no programmer (at least, not since COBOL stopped being a mainstream language) but I do understand what you are saying and how and why it happens that way.

Quote[/b] ]After more testing, I’ve decided to not allow any vehicle to be loaded or unloaded, if infantry are sat in cargo positions. Your going to have to move your guys out, before you drive anything in or out of the cargo bay. So that avoids that problem and I'm sure the same restrictions hold true to real life to.

I think that's a good compromise.