RH weapons

[roberthammer 582]

I done some changes on that "old" ak47 , Darkstorn u have right , allmost all CSS modelers and skinners are doing awesome and real stuff weapons

About that golden and silver : It will be only reskined with gold and silver colour , this versions are for fun and who watched cool Lord of War movie

[Darkstorn 0]

One could equally say I've never seen anyone in the CS community create vehicles, entire buildings (not just the outer shell), or such large or varied terrains as the ArmA community.

And you would be absolutely correct.

Quote[/b] ]

It really is apples and oranges, and trying to compare the two is a fruitless task (excuse the pun).

Um, well Vilas WAS comparing them already... My point was that you don't have to have absolute realism in order to have good graphics.

And comparing Arma/CS models is QUITE fair in fact, considering 99% of all the gun models ever released for both Arma and OFP ARE in fact from CS. Even the more realistic ones. I for one do not sacrifice realism for looks.

Quote[/b] ]Edit to add:

Uhhh, what? SO it would be better for me to hang a 105mm howitzer off the tail ramp of the MH-47, because it would "look more badass" even tho its not done in real life? Riiiight...

I'm not going to dignify this with an answer; Instead i'll ask how old are you?

Ps. 316.60 posts per day? 2000 posts within a week or so?! I can't see anybody posting that much meaningful stuff... So i'm assuming most of your posts are in fact redundant.

[Money 0]

Gold plated AK are often owned by the wealthy

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/AK/AK_IraqiGoldPlated.jpg

Would be great to see them in ArmA!

[dm 9]

I'm not going to dignify this with an answer; Instead i'll ask how old are you?

Ps. 316.60 posts per day? 2000 posts within a week or so?! I can't see anybody posting that much meaningful stuff... So i'm assuming most of your posts are in fact redundant.

If you checked my profile you would see.

Also, those posts are transfered over from my previous account, originally registered in 2002, so is more like 1.40 Posts per day, and actually, postcount has very little to do with it. A little reseach into who I am might not go amiss.

I for one do not sacrifice realism for looks.

Yet you're happy for models to be altered in order to look better, as evidenced here:

Sometimes better can be less accurate in terms of realism.

Even if these alterations are not realistic? I see...

[Darkstorn 0]

and actually, postcount has very little to do with it. A little reseach into who I am might not go amiss.

actually it was just a random thought, you don't think it's weird to suddenly see a person who joined in january and has almost 3000 posts? And no, i have no idea who you are.

Quote[/b] ]Yet you're happy for models to be altered in order to look better, as evidenced here:

Yes i am, what's wrong with it? I just don't do it for my own stuff. I like realism, but as a graphics artists i also like good looking stuff.

For example, if there were two guns for you to choose; One that was 100% ultrarealistic but looked like total crap, and a model that is only 70-80% realistic but looks insanely awesome, would you STILL choose the first one only for the sake of realism?

If you say yes, you're playing the wrong game my friend. And i'm not saying you can't have a 100% realistic model that looked good, there are several but rarely are they among the best. Vilas' stuff is indeed realistic, it just looks extremely bland and boring.

Quote[/b] ]

Sometimes better can be less accurate in terms of realism.

Even if these alterations are not realistic? I see...

Yes, although you obviously are thinking of unrealistic as something totally unreasonable(like that retarded comment about a howitzer in a chopper).

Just the same way a totally unrealistic painting can look better than one that aims for realism; I'm talking about LOOKS only, not how 'badass' or 'cool' such additions are, graphics only. You wouldn't understand.

And by changes of realism i mean extremely small stuff; Such as scaling, and slight alterations. Not even Arma's default stuff is 'DM-approved-realistic', let alone OFP's...

[roberthammer 582]

Here's pics of 1st version golden and silver aks47

What do u think ? Maybe if i found good tutorial to get better gold

[Igor101AD 0]

WOW the golden AK looks great! I love it! I can't wait to frag some US guys

[dm 9]

and actually, postcount has very little to do with it. A little reseach into who I am might not go amiss.

actually it was just a random thought, you don't think it's weird to suddenly see a person who joined in january and has almost 3000 posts? And no, i have no idea who you are.

Yes, it is. Since there is flood protection against that sort of thing, it isnt entirely possible to achieve.

The next natural step (if it bothers you enough to comment on) is to find out who the person is. It may help you here.

Quote[/b] ]Yet you're happy for models to be altered in order to look better, as evidenced here:

Yes i am, what's wrong with it? I just don't do it for my own stuff. I like realism, but as a graphics artists i also like good looking stuff.

Whats wrong with it is that on one hand you claim to "not sacrifice realism for looks" yet on the otherhand you are quite happy to sacrifice realism for looks? It just doesnt make any sense. Your logic is flawed.

For example, if there were two guns for you to choose; One that was 100% ultrarealistic but looked like total crap, and a model that is only 70-80% realistic but looks insanely awesome, would you STILL choose the first one only for the sake of realism?

Uhh, so a model that is both 2 and 3 dimensionally accurate will look like total crap? Yes, this may be true if the real world item looks like total crap, but then the game version should too. To alter the model enough to look "good" or "cool" would cause so many changes as to no longer be realistic, or even have anything to do with the original real-world object. Again your logic is fundamentally flawed.

If you say yes, you're playing the wrong game my friend. And i'm not saying you can't have a 100% realistic model that looked good, there are several but rarely are they among the best. Vilas' stuff is indeed realistic, it just looks extremely bland and boring.

Well no offense to Vilas ot Topas, but thats because their work tends to be "bland" and "boreing", its a visual style, and it works. Military equipment is rarely "shiny" and "cool" in graphical terms, since they get beaten around in the dirt all day every day.

I get the feeling you want to make things "pop" and "zing" visually, which unless they are in number 1, freshly polished and painted parade condition, they simply dont.

To say that you strive for realism, and then say that the realistic artwork is "bland and boreing" so you will "spruce it up" in order for it to look "cool" is a logical failing. It can either be REALISTIC and thus "bland" or FICTICIOUS and thus may "look better". Once again, there is a failing in your logic.

Quote[/b] ]

Sometimes better can be less accurate in terms of realism.

Even if these alterations are not realistic? I see...

Yes, although you obviously are thinking of unrealistic as something totally unreasonable(like that retarded comment about a howitzer in a chopper).

Just the same way a totally unrealistic painting can look better than one that aims for realism; I'm talking about LOOKS only, not how 'badass' or 'cool' such additions are, graphics only. You wouldn't understand.

And by changes of realism i mean extremely small stuff; Such as scaling, and slight alterations. Not even Arma's default stuff is 'DM-approved-realistic', let alone OFP's...

I purposefully chose an extreme example to prove a point. Things can either be realistic and look "bland" or they can be "spruced up" in order to look better. But to claim the "spruced up" versions are realistic is a lie, plain and simple, because they do not adhere to the "specifications" of the real-world example.

My point is, once again, things can EITHER be "realistic" and thus "bland" or they can be modified (and therefore no longer "realistic") and look "cool". To claim that something which has been modified from the original specifications is still "realistic" is a logical fallacy.

I wouldn't understand? Really? If you knew who I was, what I used to do, and what I do now, you'd know that I understand this aspect of artistry very well.

On Topic: Robert - try adding an RVMAT with very high specular power to achieve the "glossy" finish that the electrolitically plated AK's have. Otherwise, interesting work, it certainly beats the kitbashing thats been going on around here.

[Darkstorn 0]

Whats wrong with it is that on one hand you claim to "not sacrifice realism for looks" yet on the otherhand you are quite happy to sacrifice realism for looks? It just doesnt make any sense. Your logic is flawed.

I don't sacrifice realism for looks on MY stuff, i was talking about what i would be USING. And i thought i was being clear...

*hint* I do not use my own stuff *hint*

My logic isn't flawed, it's your ability to understand what others say that is flawed.

Quote[/b] ]Uhh, so a model that is both 2 and 3 dimensionally accurate will look like total crap?

I was actually only talking in the third dimension, Vilas was as well. Mostly because it's totally impossible to create a texture that would be even 90% realistic in all situations.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, this may be true if the real world item looks like total crap, but then the game version should too.

You don't have much modeling/texturing experience, do you? It's very possible to make something that in real life looks good, and then suddenly bad ingame even if it's totally realistic. There's so many things that could potentially go wrong.

Quote[/b] ]To alter the model enough to look "good" or "cool" would cause so many changes as to no longer be realistic, or even have anything to do with the original real-world object. Again your logic is fundamentally flawed.

No. You have no idea what you're talking about. My logic is NOT flawed, no matter how you look at it; You're just misunderstanding EVERYTHING i say.

I say it again; I mean SMALL changes to models in order to make them look better, not changing the whole damn thing. For example scaling; Sometimes a perfectly scaled model will not work properly ingame in Arma.

Quote[/b] ]

Well no offense to Vilas ot Topas, but thats because their work tends to be "bland" and "boreing", its a visual style, and it works. Military equipment is rarely "shiny" and "cool" in graphical terms, since they get beaten around in the dirt all day every day.

They are also rarely light grey... Exactly how Vilas' work is. But i too do not want to insult him, it's my opinion; I'm from the old school of modelers and texturers, who do not leave stuff to be done by the engine itself. We make it work even in the oldest possible games with the same visuals. Vilas' stuff would NOT work in a game that doesn't have a proper dynamic lighting for example.

Quote[/b] ]I get the feeling you want to make things "pop" and "zing" visually, which unless they are in number 1, freshly polished and painted parade condition, they simply dont.

Wrong.

I only mean in a case where making it more realistic would cause harm for the overall good look. I do not like brand new looking models and textures, and it's exactly why i don't like Vilas' stuff; Not enough texture, too much depending on the engine itself. Bland can mean unrealistic as well...

Quote[/b] ]To say that you strive for realism, and then say that the realistic artwork is "bland and boreing" so you will "spruce it up" in order for it to look "cool" is a logical failing. It can either be REALISTIC and thus "bland" or FICTICIOUS and thus may "look better". Once again, there is a failing in your logic.

I'm starting to think you have dyslexia, i've tried to explain it many times but you still keep grasping onto something i have NOT said myself...

I said unrealistic things CAN look better, and that some authors choose to sacrifice realism for looks, especially for CS. There is NO REASON IN THE UNIVERSE why an unrealistic model CANNOT look better than a realistic one. However, with realism you'll have limitations.

And i never said realism equals to bland, i said Vilas' stuff is bland and that i think it's sad he has to come to this thread and make himself believe his own stuff is better(he's done it before too); Vilas' stuff is more realistic than RH's converts, but they aren't even nearly as impressive. Neither ingame or from an artists' perspective.

Quote[/b] ]

I purposefully chose an extreme example to prove a point. Things can either be realistic and look "bland" or they can be "spruced up" in order to look better. But to claim the "spruced up" versions are realistic is a lie, plain and simple, because they do not adhere to the "specifications" of the real-world example.

Your way of thinking is pretty black-and-white it seems. I NEVER said realistic stuff is always better than unrealistic, and that adding random crap to things makes them automatically better.

I said:

Unrealistic stuff CAN look better than realistic stuff. There is no rule, it can be the other way around too. I also never claimed unrealistic stuff is realistic, which is rather obvious...

You're the one saying random things and then claiming i said it...

Quote[/b] ]

I wouldn't understand? Really? If you knew who I was, what I used to do, and what I do now, you'd know that I understand this aspect of artistry very well.

You wouldn't understand, and you DO NOT understand. This post only proved it... I never said anything unreasonable, i ONLY EVER CLAIMED THAT UNREALISTIC STUFF CAN STILL LOOK BETTER THAN REALISTIC IN ORDER TO COUNTER VILAS' POINT; HIS POINT WAS NOT ONLY WRONG, IT WAS UNREASONABLE. HE TRIED TO DEFEND HIS OWN WORK BY CLAIMING THAT ALL CS AUTHORS ALWAYS MAKE UNREALISTIC STUFF.

What have you EVER done that has anything to do with modeling or texturing?

There, understand now?

Quote[/b] ]

My point is, once again, things can EITHER be "realistic" and thus "bland" or they can be modified (and therefore no longer "realistic") and look "cool". To claim that something which has been modified from the original specifications is still "realistic" is a logical fallacy.

I DID NOT CLAIM ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Stop putting words into my mouth.

[RabidStoat 39]

Calm down guys! Aren't we supposed to be dicussung Rob Hammer's weapons here?

@RH - I don't suppose you've any intention to expand on the british armoury in any of your packs?

[Darkstorn 0]

Sorry, i only ever said that 'unrealistic'(according to Vilas) models can look better than realistic ones, nothing more, nothing less. It's humanly impossible to argue about things like that, but he's still doing it, mind you, putting words into my mouth nonetheless and grasping on points nobody ever said. He's arguing with himself so to speak.

[W0lle 1050]

Would you both take this to PM please instead of hijacking the thread?

Darkstorn, please refrain from typing in all capital letters. If you want to highlight something use the bold or underline formatting.

Something on-topic:

I don't see any problem if RH wants to add some, not so realistic, weapons as additional goodies to his package. The only question there is: Who in the world could afford such a weapon on Sahrani?

Also, while the textures looking good there are too many scratches on the metal for that type of weapon.

[bakkis 0]

@RH those models look wicked!

@Darkstorn your TRG looks great, would love to see more of your work, and about your point "Unrealistic stuff CAN look better than realistic stuff" WORD! Thats true as long as everything is in sensible measures (not too polished and too shiny)

[Darkstorn 0]

Darkstorn, please refrain from typing in all capital letters. If you want to highlight something use the bold or underline formatting.

Something on-topic:

I don't see any problem if RH wants to add some, not so realistic, weapons as additional goodies to his package. The only question there is: Who in the world could afford such a weapon on Sahrani?

Also, while the textures looking good there are too many scratches on the metal for that type of weapon.

Sorry, i only did it because dyslexic people have trouble reading regular sized text if there's lots of it. And i assumed he's dyslexic because he argues about things i didn't say.

I just thought RH's addons do look extremely good ingame, no matter how realistic or not they are. Vilas was clearly trying to undermine his work, what other purpose would there be in randomly coming in and claiming RH's stuff is unrealistic?

I say keep at it RH, but do keep asking permissions though. The more unrealistic models we get, the more open and friendly this place might become... I've seen lots of flaming ONLY due to the fact that some random person didn't think something was quite as realistic as he wanted it to be.

RH, wanna convert my Galil into Arma btw? It is unrealistic, but only due to an accident.

[dm 9]

Whats wrong with it is that on one hand you claim to "not sacrifice realism for looks" yet on the otherhand you are quite happy to sacrifice realism for looks? It just doesnt make any sense. Your logic is flawed.

I don't sacrifice realism for looks on MY stuff, i was talking about what i would be USING. And i thought i was being clear...

*hint* I do not use my own stuff *hint*

You never made that distinction in the first place, which is where the problem lies. A lack of communication.

Quote[/b] ]Uhh, so a model that is both 2 and 3 dimensionally accurate will look like total crap?

I was actually only talking in the third dimension, Vilas was as well. Mostly because it's totally impossible to create a texture that would be even 90% realistic in all situations.

Then here we can agree.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, this may be true if the real world item looks like total crap, but then the game version should too.

You don't have much modeling/texturing experience, do you? It's very possible to make something that in real life looks good, and then suddenly bad ingame even if it's totally realistic. There's so many things that could potentially go wrong.

Yes, well, like I said before, it might do you well to find out who I am, what I used to do, and what I do now before coming to such conclusions.

The fine art of modelling real-world objects in a game is to model them in such a way that you do not need to make massive or even tiny alterations to the design of the object in order to have it functional and accurate within a game engine.

Quote[/b] ]To alter the model enough to look "good" or "cool" would cause so many changes as to no longer be realistic, or even have anything to do with the original real-world object. Again your logic is fundamentally flawed.

No. You have no idea what you're talking about. My logic is NOT flawed, no matter how you look at it; You're just misunderstanding EVERYTHING i say.

I say it again; I mean SMALL changes to models in order to make them look better, not changing the whole damn thing. For example scaling; Sometimes a perfectly scaled model will not work properly ingame in Arma.

I based my "your logic is flawed" statements on the simple fact that in one post you said "I do not sacrifice realism for looks" and in your very next post you said "Sometimes less accurate can be better in terms of looks". That to me, without a clarification is a logical failing.

Quote[/b] ]Well no offense to Vilas ot Topas, but thats because their work tends to be "bland" and "boreing", its a visual style, and it works. Military equipment is rarely "shiny" and "cool" in graphical terms, since they get beaten around in the dirt all day every day.

They are also rarely light grey... Exactly how Vilas' work is. But i too do not want to insult him, it's my opinion; I'm from the old school of modelers and texturers, who do not leave stuff to be done by the engine itself. We make it work even in the oldest possible games with the same visuals. Vilas' stuff would NOT work in a game that doesn't have a proper dynamic lighting for example.

Well then this is your "problem", new features and functionality in rendering allow us to create much more dynamic and "better" looking models and textures, which dont rely on the "old school" baked in lighting details.

Quote[/b] ]I get the feeling you want to make things "pop" and "zing" visually, which unless they are in number 1, freshly polished and painted parade condition, they simply dont.

Wrong.

I only mean in a case where making it more realistic would cause harm for the overall good look. I do not like brand new looking models and textures, and it's exactly why i don't like Vilas' stuff; Not enough texture, too much depending on the engine itself. Bland can mean unrealistic as well...

There, clarification, and I agree with you.

Quote[/b] ]To say that you strive for realism, and then say that the realistic artwork is "bland and boreing" so you will "spruce it up" in order for it to look "cool" is a logical failing. It can either be REALISTIC and thus "bland" or FICTICIOUS and thus may "look better". Once again, there is a failing in your logic.

I'm starting to think you have dyslexia, i've tried to explain it many times but you still keep grasping onto something i have NOT said myself...

Sorry, i only did it because dyslexic people have trouble reading regular sized text if there's lots of it. And i assumed he's dyslexic because he argues about things i didn't say.

No dyslexcia here, I went on what you said in two of your posts, and drew a conclusion. Since you have clarified, that conclusion has been prooven to be incorrect.

There is no need to get "personal" about it. Although it is always amusing to see peoples "arguments" resort to personal attacks when they know they are wrong.

I said unrealistic things CAN look better, and that some authors choose to sacrifice realism for looks, especially for CS. There is NO REASON IN THE UNIVERSE why an unrealistic model CANNOT look better than a realistic one. However, with realism you'll have limitations.

And I never said they couldn't. Now who isnt reading the posts? All I said is that your claim of "realistic" yet "slightly modified" was a fallacy, since its either one or the other.

And i never said realism equals to bland, i said Vilas' stuff is bland and that i think it's sad he has to come to this thread and make himself believe his own stuff is better(he's done it before too); Vilas' stuff is more realistic than RH's converts, but they aren't even nearly as impressive. Neither ingame or from an artists' perspective.

Agreed, but more often than not, realism DOES equal bland. This isnt always the case.

You're the one saying random things and then claiming i said it...

Actually I quoted 2 of your posts in context. Never made anything up at all.

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't understand? Really? If you knew who I was, what I used to do, and what I do now, you'd know that I understand this aspect of artistry very well.

You wouldn't understand, and you DO NOT understand. This post only proved it... I never said anything unreasonable, i ONLY EVER CLAIMED THAT UNREALISTIC STUFF CAN STILL LOOK BETTER THAN REALISTIC IN ORDER TO COUNTER VILAS' POINT; HIS POINT WAS NOT ONLY WRONG, IT WAS UNREASONABLE. HE TRIED TO DEFEND HIS OWN WORK BY CLAIMING THAT ALL CS AUTHORS ALWAYS MAKE UNREALISTIC STUFF.

What have you EVER done that has anything to do with modeling or texturing?

Again, find out who I am, what I used to do and what I do now before you go spouting off things like this.

I DID NOT CLAIM ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Stop putting words into my mouth.

Based on the 2 quotes from your posts that I made at the time, it certainly seemed like you did. Since you have now clarified the point, its no longer an issue.

Edit: Was typing this reply while W0lle posted. Will no longer reply unless my character or credentials are questioned.

[Darkstorn 0]

Agreed, but more often than not, realism DOES equal bland. This isnt always the case.

And that's why i ever said unrealistic stuff can look better.

In this case RH's guns are from CS: S which has a limited lighting system(improved nowadays because of phong and other stuff), and thus all lighting and highlights must be painted onto the texture.

Which usually results in a better looking thing even if the engine knows how to light it properly; It's not realistic, but it'll look better. I personally make stuff that is half way between totally bland and painted lighting. Effectively meaning my stuff looks still relatively good in both Arma and HL2(only one of my things have ever made into Arma though, and it's old), but not in Hl1 for example.

(last post about the issue)

[mr.g-c 6]

Here's pics of 1st version golden and silver aks47

[*img]http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6619/untitled1qu7.jpg[/img]

[*img]http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3162/untitled2yu2.jpg[/img]

[*img]http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9461/untitled4it8.jpg[/img]

[*img]http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5558/untitled3hj1.jpg[/img]

What do u think ? Maybe if i found good tutorial to get better gold

Hmm not bad but also dont good.... Maybe cut parts of the photographies of the rifles, make it larger and use them?

I have about 20 pictutes of golden AKs and Dragunovs....

Also the "silver" version isn't looking silver, it looks more like "steel" currently....

I know there are some guys out there who already made golden textures and "nickel" ones, and they looked good....

Also they need foldable buttstocks and should be based on the AKMS, so add the recognizable muzzle-break please.

For the "nickel" version, could you also please make this white "part" into the fore-grip and the pistol-grip like on this picture:

Also here are two other golden textures, maybe try them?

and

I wish you good luck!

Thanks in advance, Christian

[roberthammer 582]

Thx for feedback

Those are 1st versions , i still trying to do better gold and silver too , if i got something new i will tell

[GAU-8 vs Life 0]

The only question there is: Who in the world could afford such a weapon on Sahrani?

The local oil mafia?   aka da King of South Sahrani...

[echo1 0]

and the pistol-grip like on this picture:

Should chime in here, these AKs are Yugoslav M70s. If you want some pics of the fore-end and pistol grip, google it up. In fact, theres a great thread on a gun site forum that has amazing hi res photos of all sorts of AKs if you want me to link it to you.

[mr.g-c 6]

and the pistol-grip like on this picture:

Should chime in here, these AKs are Yugoslav M70s. If you want some pics of the fore-end and pistol grip, google it up. In fact, theres a great thread on a gun site forum that has amazing hi res photos of all sorts of AKs if you want me to link it to you.

I don't think that the yugoslaws had this black-painted and with a white "nike-like" stripe painted foregrip and pistolgrip, as they were special gifts from saddam hussein for the republican-guards....

But anyway, point me to that site....

[echo1 0]

and the pistol-grip like on this picture:

Should chime in here, these AKs are Yugoslav M70s. If you want some pics of the fore-end and pistol grip, google it up. In fact, theres a great thread on a gun site forum that has amazing hi res photos of all sorts of AKs if you want me to link it to you.

I don't think that the yugoslaws had this black-painted and with a white "nike-like" stripe painted foregrip and pistolgrip, as they were special gifts from saddam hussein for the republican-guards....

But anyway, point me to that site....

I was refering to the other ones. But here, Not suitable for dialup users..

[vilas 477]

about Yugo handgrip I wrote already,Robert, look at google

about shine on my weapons - sorry for offtopic but:

i know many kids like weapons in games with scars, with shining textures, that look like cromium painted

but how many of you saw REAL M16, AK, UZI in real life, how many of those who like such scratched effect weapons had real gun in hand ?

i had many times for 5 years, and on AK , Tantal, RAK that i had some times in hands, there was no scratches, it was not shining like mirror

PK was poor made , it had many scrates, yes, but it was from 1970

I had pistol P-64 from 1971 and it had almost no scratches

modern Russian AK are even painted some kind of non-shining paint, rest od weapons made in world is oxydium steel, not chromium after puting for quarry as showel

if I had scratches on AK my officer would kick one part of my body very very strong, because soldier/policeman/scout must care about weapon

scrates you can see in museum on 70 years Garand or G43 or in AK used for many years in Afgan mountains

sorry for offtopic, but less "hollywood" in ARMA which is "military simulator" , not Max Payne 3 or "post armagedon shooter"

[roberthammer 582]

Hi all ,

**PLZ NO OFFTOPIC THX**

Here are pic of new version golden ak47

Silver version is on WIP and no pic right now.

Now golden ak47 have strong rvmat light as u see in the pics ,

If u saw the texture without rvmat , is too much golden

btw what do u think ?

[RN Malboeuf 12]

Very nice work!

That is a good gold colour sheme.