Default models too thin

[Malke 0]

I remember from my service time that the rigid fatigues and assorted gear made even the most skinny look like like small bloated dwarfs.

Okay maybe a slight exaggeration, but my point is that I find the default ArmA models to be a bit out of proportion with real, average soldiers. Especially the SLA and the US sniper models seem a bit too slim.

Compare with any screenshot from the screenshots topic.

[zee-ub00r-assi 0]

came to my mind , too ...

i hope i can get the modelling and texturing skills to build some new units or , at least, modify the stock ones with additional ammo bags and stuff

one thing that really bugs me in this genre is that all of the soldiers have the same physical appearance , i mean , nobody weighs the same , has the same amount of muscles or is 1.80m tall

the armored vehicles and cars in arma also need a bit more individuality

of course there shouldn't be these clishés like the seargant with a big cigar huge sunglasses o the medic with thick glasses and his harvard diploma on his helmet or whatever ... u know what i mean

every soldier should have different equipment and a different

outward appearance

that would mean a lot of work for modellers and texture artists and coders ( maybe something like a script that randomly assigns the proper equipment to soldiers that have random models , from a bit fat to thin and tall and so on ) , but i think the modding community is strong and big enough for this task

my 2cents , max

[william1 0]

i think real soldiers are fat

[Malke 0]

Quote[/b] ]every soldier should have different equipment and a  different

outward appearance

That would really hurt frame rate  

Ghost recon got it right (funny to see how the graphics look sooo old compared to ArmA now):

Ghost Recon Screen

Compare with this shot (great textures by the way):

Russian ArmA

[Second 0]

It would be nice to have loose sleeves in jacket and pants... When hit to them means that you will get wounded or dead.

When you strip soldier from his clothes there's usually slim guy beneath... They are average joes, not body builders, after all.

EDIT: Now i understand why shooting enemy in Ghost Recon was so easy ... Comparing to ArmA or OFP it was turkeyshooting...This ofcourse applies vise-versa too.

[Malke 0]

Quote[/b] ]They are average joes, not body builders, after all.

My point is that military fatigues make average joes look bigger

[abs 2]

His point is that looser clothes will still count as part of the arm. A bullet will not go 'through' your loose sleeve, but will count as a hit on your arms. AKA: Larger targets = better targets.

Abs

[Second 0]

Quote[/b] ]They are average joes, not body builders, after all.

My point is that military fatigues make average joes look bigger

Not sure what you mean by fatigues... I'm not native english speaking... So i might understand you saying complitely wrong.

But here it goes:

That extra "mass" isn't flesh or bone... That stuff which needs to be hit so that one cannot function.

This is what ArmA represents... It doesn't seperate flesh and cloth. If your get hit somewhere -> your dead or wounded.

EDIT: Just like Abs said.

[Malke 0]

Ah ok, funny consideration. Didn't think about that!

But then again to follow this philosophy you should only model naked persons and supply them with bodypaint to keep the hit area 100% realistic

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Quote[/b] ]every soldier should have different equipment and a  different

outward appearance

That would really hurt frame rate  

Why would it hurt frame rate?

[AfrographX 0]

Quote[/b] ]They are average joes, not body builders, after all.

My point is that military fatigues make average joes look bigger

Not sure what you mean by fatigues... I'm not native english speaking... So i might understand you saying complitely wrong.

But here it goes:

That extra "mass" isn't flesh or bone... That stuff which needs to be hit so that one cannot function.

This is what ArmA represents... It doesn't seperate flesh and cloth. If your get hit somewhere -> your dead or wounded.

EDIT: Just like Abs said.

I'm not sure but don't soldiers have like vehicles to some kind of firegeometry or geometry LOD which is responsible for hit detection? If that's the case you could simply make the geo LOD thinner than the actual modell.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

That extra "mass" isn't flesh or bone... That stuff which needs to be hit so that one cannot function.

This is what ArmA represents... It doesn't seperate flesh and cloth. If your get hit somewhere -> your dead or wounded.

But for all you know ArmA may as well be simulating your

clothes getting shot to ribbons but just not showing it.

It can't even show you realistically where you're hit anyway.

[Mr Sarkey 0]

It'd be extremely hard to have different sized soldiers becuase all the animations would need to be changed. But I think that they're all wearing skin tight clothes.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

It'd be extremely hard to have different sized soldiers becuase all the animations would need to be changed. But I think that they're all wearing skin tight clothes.

I'm sure with bit of extra effort maybe two or three different

statures (and sets of anims) could have been done, and it'd

have added some realism (but I do find it rather hard to

sweat over this when there are so many other more crucial

deficiencies in the simulation).

As regards everyone in skin-tight clothes; I think BIS were

perhaps expecting more from their normal mapping than was

actually delivered, which is why the figures all look like they

are wearing inflatable trousers.

[Malke 0]

Quote[/b] ]every soldier should have different equipment and a  different

outward appearance

That would really hurt frame rate  

Why would it hurt frame rate?

Because putting a lot of different geometry models+textures sucks up more RAM and CPU capacity. Please correct me if I'm wrong  

[abs 2]

Quote[/b] ]They are average joes, not body builders, after all.

My point is that military fatigues make average joes look bigger  

Not sure what you mean by fatigues... I'm not native english speaking... So i might understand you saying complitely wrong.

But here it goes:

That extra "mass" isn't flesh or bone... That stuff which needs to be hit so that one cannot function.

This is what ArmA represents... It doesn't seperate flesh and cloth. If your get hit somewhere -> your dead or wounded.

EDIT: Just like Abs said.

I'm not sure but don't soldiers have like vehicles to some kind of firegeometry or geometry LOD which is responsible for hit detection? If that's the case you could simply make the geo LOD thinner than the actual modell.

Mmh....good point. I hadn't thought about that.

Abs

[Col.Flanders 0]

lol...well imagine being lumped with the 6ft9 dufus model in a no-respawn mission. Your squad is crouched behind cover...all lined up against a wall...concealment is good....except...wait...what's that? The top of a helmet...the deformed profile of a size 17 boot awkwardly bursting out, clearly crushing its wearer's toes...

[Second 0]

I'm not sure but don't soldiers have like vehicles to some kind of firegeometry or geometry LOD which is responsible for hit detection? If that's the case you could simply make the geo LOD thinner than the actual modell.

Infact i think that in OFP resistance guys had that sizable rucksack (is this correct term?) which could be shot at but bullet just went past it... Not sure was it vanilla OFP or FDF's russian MVD-troops.

So yeah, i think that your right in this.

[nephilim 0]

rofl...they are just right...

the us guys just buy their stuff some sizes of so their bdu looks baggy..

if you look at other countries youll see that they "normal" in terms of size..

i dont know how its in other countries but in germany youll get into trouble if you would walk around like that..

i dont want to step on someones toes but if yanks say someons too thin they maybe just want to say that theyre prolly too fat themselves hihi

also having different gear on each soldier is possible..

but i simply thing you cant incorporate it right atm in arma..

setobjectexture does come into my mind but best solution would be something like a proxymodel like used for the missiles on planes.

also different sizes arenta big prob.

but theyd have to be done individually.

my mercenaries were all different heighted and i didnt do custom anims for them..

actually or body height is basically only dependand on our thigh and shin length.

cheers

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]every soldier should have different equipment and a different

outward appearance

That would really hurt frame rate

Why would it hurt frame rate?

For very geometry intensive scenes, a graphics card can do what they call instance geometry. This allows the card to render copies of the same mesh over and over again in the same pipeline, while it renders their different parameters (such as animation frame and position) in another. This has a positive effect on render speed for reasons beyond my comprehension. If you make the meshes different, then the number of meshes you are instancing will decrease and framerate will increase. This is, of course, all dependent on whether or not you have geometry instancing enabled.

[=JoKeR= 0]

ArmA 3d models are a total crap,the only accurate ones,for what I saw are the evil guy vehicles,but are a perfect copy of Czech vehicles,like T-72 and Shilka.The rest are awful

Harrier looks like an Harrier,but the nose,seat,canopy,weapon pylons and loadouts are a total crap

Su-34 is totally wrong,long vertical stabs used on SU-35 instead of the short ones used on Su-27,tail cone/sting too long,pylons are not accurate for that kind of weapons and so on

A-10 has a Maverick in a wrong spot,3d model is really poor,too fat for me and same statement above for weapon pylons and maybe for loadout too

The Abrams looks like a pimped one,his profile is too low for me and is an strange hyibrid too

Crapped Assault it isn't?

[abs 2]

ArmA 3d models are a total crap,the only accurate ones,for what I saw are the evil guy vehicles,but are a perfect copy of Czech vehicles,like T-72 and Shilka.The rest are awful

Harrier looks like an Harrier,but the nose,seat,canopy,weapon pylons and loadouts are a total crap

Su-34 is totally wrong,long vertical stabs used on SU-35 instead of the short ones used on Su-27,tail cone/sting too long,pylons are not accurate for that kind of weapons and so on

A-10 has a Maverick in a wrong spot,3d model is really poor,too fat for me and same statement above for weapon pylons and maybe for loadout too

The Abrams looks like a pimped one,his profile is too low for me and is an strange hyibrid too

Crapped Assault it isn't?

You, sir, are an undignified twat. All complaints belong in the ArmA is so disappointing thread.

Abs

[sniper pilot 36]

Actually it is possible to set properties, as I shot at an OPFOR's helmet and all it did was ricocheted off, man was I angry and surprised as he killed me a mili-second later...

[Malke 0]

Please let's not turn this topic into one of general critisicm. I hoped to start a constructive debate, and I do find most other aspects of the 3d models high quality.

[Jack-UK 0]

Size 0 models come to ArmA it seems?

But yes i also thought like you did, they're pretty slim and not baggy, they all got fairly skintight stuff :S

Problem is if u start to make 'baggy' models it would look stupid becuase the baggyness wouldnt be animated, and if it were to move about in the wind or when the player is moving then it would hurt your frames i should think...