RHS T-64 MBT pack v.0.9 ( Preview )

[andersson 285]

& what's the point of making interiors for tanks? I really don't get it - when BIS decided not to add interiors for tanks I was pleased 'casue in the good old OFP days many addonmakers had a very hard time making interiors, and that was one the main reasons why many good addons were never relizd...

Here are some valid points IMO http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view.php?id=2815

[Shadow NX 1]

I agree that interiours are important for the atmosphere but also like Suma said in the bugtracker they cause quite some work and thats why we decided to add them later.

@sickboy

Sorry about the PM, will ask kenji if he gives his ok.

[Maddmatt 1]

Enlighten us on the how to and well gladly include it, or i send you the next update and you can make sure all is like it should be.

If im honest me and Kenji are rather dumb when it comes to scripting and config work

Pretty much the same I did for your weapons in that config I sent you. It just inherits any extra values that were given to the BIS stuff, so that mods can recognize that, for example, the round being fired is a tank shell.

I'll do it for you if you want, but I'm not sure I'll be able to do it before next week.

Sorry this is more a question for Maddmatt but why won't your Fx be working on these tanks? Does your fx go off type of cannon ie D81 or M256 and not Class CannonCore? If so all they would have to do is Define their main gun off the D81 Class? Oh well sure someone can helpthem with this, no real biggie

I add my own settings to the BIS stuff in the config. I add a "MatH_Effects" value to the ammo, which contains the name of the function to be called by the fired eventhandler.

Example: 'class ShellBase' looks like this

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> class ShellBase: ShellCore

{

MatH_FX = "Cannon";

};

So it will launch the effect for the cannon. If the addon inherits its ammo from 'ShellBase', then it inherits this setting so that the tank muzzleflash effect (and anything else i might add in future) will work with the addon. I can't add it to "Shellcore" because ArmA doesn't allow you to modify that (access=0 in the main config).

This is describing how the version on my hard drive works by the way, not the old version 0.4

Similar stuff will work with the vehicles in my next update. If it inherits from 'class tank' it will work with some other effects. Inheriting from the T72 might be even better.

Sorry for the slight thread hijack.

[.COMmunist 0]

Ah, finaly! T-64s! Thanks guys! have been waiting for these for a long time. Thanks for all your hard work. Really liked the T-64B. Beautiful model, except the number on it. Seems a little too red, too bright. Perhaps dimmer color or better yet, white color. Don't remember seeing red numbers on our tanks at the base I was stationed in. Also the armor of the t-64B seems a bit weak. It should be stronger than the T-72 that we have in Arma, but seems like it takes just one shot to destroy the 64B. I believe it should be at least 2 shots. I don't know if it possible to implement in Arma, but if I remember correctly from my army days, the commander in the tank could operate all the weapons from his commander sit. Don't know all the details though. Is it even possible to do in the game? I know it is a beta version, hope to see all the new features that people are suggesting.

Oh ye, another thing! You know that tanks can create the smoke screen, when they are retreating, by burning the oil and having these huge black exhaust smoke screens. Is it doable in Arma also?

[manzilla 1]

Oh ye, another thing! You know that tanks can create the smoke screen, when they are retreating, by burning the oil and having these huge black exhaust smoke screens. Is it doable in Arma also?

The Leopard in the HWM has a smoke function and I believe XAM has defensive smoke screen for the Abrams too. I'd love to see this function on this tank as well.

After the complaining you two have encountered I just wanted to say thanks. Although I'm no expert, this early version to me looks wonderful. Definitely a WIP, but hell I think it's safe to say that's why you wrote (preview) in the title. I just wanted to throw in another vote of support. Thanks for all you guys have given us so far.

[NonWonderDog 0]

I don't know if it possible to implement in Arma, but if I remember correctly from my army days, the commander in the tank could operate all the weapons from his commander sit. Don't know all the details though. Is it even possible to do in the game?

I think, actually, that it is. It will take a few hundred lines of script and a lot of very specific and very complicated model animations, but it should be doable. I'm going to try to add that exact thing to the Abrams in my Tank FCS mod (I don't know if there are any T-72 variants with a main gun sight for the commander, but ours isn't one). Probably not for the next version, but hopefully the one after that. If and when I have it figured out I'll share how to do it for other tanks, although it might be easier just to add it to addon tanks myself--what I have in mind is stupendously complicated.

You can actually do a lot more with tanks in ArmA than I ever thought possible, it's just not going to be easy...

[343rdBadger 0]

Heres an alternate paint scheme if anyone's interested..Rusky Camo

pic:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/Badger343rd/T-64Camo.jpg

I'll upload it here the latest and final version:

http://download.yousendit.com/CD45BFA449F8FF77

edit...added some more details

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/Badger343rd/TheBear.jpg

[Shadow NX 1]

Please dont release reskins of the vehicles that arent authorised.

I just dont want versions float around on the net that use same pbos but have different files in it.

Also if a server uses addon signing then you will get kicked cause you use altered files.

But most may be happy if i tell them that Kenji is makign new textures atm thanks to lots of help from Maa who sent us samples of his work and lots of good advises.

---

About commander controlled T-64 weapons, i think thats in the Ukrainian upgrade versions, dunno if russia still uses any of these since the ukraine today isnt their best friend.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Shweet, can't wait to see what Kenji will pull outta his hat for the next version.

PS. Shadow - what happened to Soul Assassin and Boris the Blade? They were rarely seen enough on these forums as it was.

[Shadow NX 1]

Soul Assassin is very busy with his job it seems but from what he told me he still works on his BTR-80 and a aircraft that im not allowed to name

Btw, Boris the blade was his custom forum name if i remember right.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

<smacks self in brain> D'oh.

Was there another rarely seen RHS member I was referring to? I totally forget. :\

[343rdBadger 0]

Well...if ya  go back through this thread,most of the critique are on the skin itself,and most of your replys to those critiques implied "if ya think you can do a better one ...do so", or that you didn't think you could do a better job than you did.I mainly got this impression when you replied to miles teg but you refered to this notion before hand.And when you think of it...doesn't the beta itself do the same thing?It will be different just as mine is,which is only a texture edit.So what happens if people like the previous version compared to the future one???Anyways...with that said,what do you think of this version? like it,don't like it??I myself  can't help thinking it looks like a tiffany lamp ...I'm trying to solve that today.Anyways,If the future version is going to be such a greater looking tank,then all this is mute, as everyone will use it instead,including myself.So no conflicts.

[sickboy 13]

Well...if ya  go back through this thread,most of the critique are on the skin itself,and most of your replys to those critiques implied "if ya think you can do a better one ...do so", or that you didn't think you could do a better job than you did.I mainly got this impression when you replied to miles teg but you refered to this notion before hand.And when you think of it...doesn't the beta itself do the same thing?It will be different just as mine is,which is only a texture edit.So what happens if people like the previous version compared to the future one???Anyways...with that said,what do you think of this version? like it,don't like it??I myself  can't help thinking it looks like a tiffany lamp ...I'm trying to solve that today.Anyways,If the future version is going to be such a greater looking tank,then all this is mute, as everyone will use it instead,including myself.So no conflicts.

It's simply not friendly (& "not done") to change something and then release it seperatly without the consent of the original author. That's about it

[.COMmunist 0]

The commander control was implemented almost imediately when the tank was designed. It was designed in the Ukraine, but it was part of the USSR. In those days there were no such thing as Ukranian, Russian or Estonian design, it was all the Soviet design. Factories were scattered around the contries and many of them were in Ukraine (Kharkov factory in Ukraine had designed T-64's and T-80's, Antonov planes were also designed in Ukraine and many other factories). But this commander feature was common among most of the T-64 varians. T-64 was a revolutionary design not just in the USSR, but also around the world. It influenced most of the modern tanks designs in our days. So, you guys are safe to implement this feature for the Russian tanks. SLA should not have these tanks though, because T-64 were never exported. But hell, SLA has Su-34's, so lets pretend they got a special package from Russian arms dealers!

New reskins sounds good. The T-64 75 looks kind of odd. I liked the T-64B color much more. and if you are working on T-64BV, that's just the best news ever!

[343rdBadger 0]

Well...if ya  go back through this thread,most of the critique are on the skin itself,and most of your replys to those critiques implied "if ya think you can do a better one ...do so", or that you didn't think you could do a better job than you did.I mainly got this impression when you replied to miles teg but you refered to this notion before hand.And when you think of it...doesn't the beta itself do the same thing?It will be different just as mine is,which is only a texture edit.So what happens if people like the previous version compared to the future one???Anyways...with that said,what do you think of this version? like it,don't like it??I myself  can't help thinking it looks like a tiffany lamp ...I'm trying to solve that today.Anyways,If the future version is going to be such a greater looking tank,then all this is mute, as everyone will use it instead,including myself.So no conflicts.

It's simply not friendly (& "not done") to change something and then release it seperatly without the consent of the original author. That's about it

Theres nothing unfriendly about it ,and it is done .In fact ,I 've modded in all sorts of games as well as here,where produceing and releaseing something has led to co-operative work with original authors.Its all in the context.So if your implying that its some sort of unfriendly attack or something ,well thats just ...stupid. In fact its quite the opposite,its done in the spirit of helping them and the willingnes to contribute rather than just critisize.Something that this community could do alittle more of IMO.I'm pretty sure that I,m in no way shape or form ,a threat to anybody for painting a tank

[sickboy 13]

Ur not hearing what im saying

Cooperation is great, helping is great, being of help is great and you should get a medal for it. Sharing your work is also great, but do it then behind the scenes by sending it directly to RHS, and maybe post screenshots in the thread. Ask for permission if you may share their edited work, and if you get it, then post it.

Anyway, this is not my addon, project nor my team etc. etc. Im just pointing out that IMHO one should not release edited work to the public without consulting the author about it first. Which seems to also be the authors point of view:

Quote Shadow NX: "Please dont release reskins of the vehicles that arent authorised."

[sdoc 0]

it's interesting that i hardly ever see addon content put under art or software licenses, like copyleft, GPL or LGPL.

Or a BIS community created license, based on GPL being created.

A lot of confusion could be saved that way. Particulary as mod groups split up, and people leave the scene. After a few years it can become difficult to contact them to ask for permission. The transfer with other modding communities could also only benefit from a clear licensing system.

I'm really looking forward for the improved version of the tank! Particulary with improved configs. I don't mind the textures, they're just eyecandy, and in the actual game, with it's typical engagement ranges beyond a kilometer, you're either inside the tank or you're so far away that you don't see them anyway.

Thanks Kenji, and Shadow NX!

[343rdBadger 0]

Yeah,well it could also be said,judging by the thread history, that the author had  conflicting points of view.Atleast thats how I view it at this point.And MAYBE,if there wasn't so much territorialism in this community,we wouldn't have the flameing modder wars that we've seen in the past.Its sad to think how much work will never be seen  because of it.My moto has always been "Rule of the North". BTW...I did post screenshots wayyyy back in the thread.

Anyways,I'm still workin on the tank and its looking better,by reducing the saturation,its looks alot more believable.That maybe the reason people were not likeing the first version rhs released.It glowed too much.Atleast thats what I thought comparing to to the arma xtreme t-72's.Lowering saturation seems to make it less obtrusive.Might wanna consider that in the next version.I'm hopeing someone will comment on the "metal" aspects on textures.Is that something thats a result of the model material process or the texture process?

[Shadow NX 1]

To make it short, leave the tank to us please.

I said it before and dont plan to preach this again and adain, the addon is signed and i dont want edited versions that conflict with that.

Also i find this texture discussion more than stupid, people cheered for completely uggly textured stuff before and here you got a good looking addon and after one guy starts to moan all bash the textures.

[343rdBadger 0]

Now see THAT'S unfriendly...

[ShadowY 0]

Also i find this texture discussion more than stupid, people cheered for completely uggly textured stuff before and here you got a good looking addon and after one guy starts to moan all bash the textures.

Well maybe he was right

This is not OFP anymore, it`s ArmA

btw. still nice tank(s) can`t wait for more

[Gedis 0]

Nice work! Glad Kenji made this so fast

P.S. Kenji, if you need "something", just ask... ^^

[MEDICUS 0]

Now see THAT'S unfriendly...

Why? Cause he sad no?

Well ... ithat's his right to do so.

[Shadow NX 1]

Now see THAT'S unfriendly...

Excuse me?

I just asked you to PLEASE not release retextured tanks without a permission from the maker especially cause the addon is signed.

I try to be friendly to everyone here and then get forced by such completely unnecessary stuff to get into discussions that end up with people thinking oh hes so unfriendly.

Personally im surprised that people still make addons for ArmA cause nothing is good enough anymore.

So far this release just made me headaches and made me wonder why we spend so many hours on this.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Dear 343rdBadger

Quote[/b] ]Heres an alternate paint scheme if anyone's interested..

Its not that friendly! Keep it simple - PM the author like "I have some new texture for your addon! Will this (*include pics thats show new stuff) help you?" Thats better way and for this case won't be trouble with permissions/credits.

Shadow NX isn't it a good idea to write "beta" and "preview" stuff in Addons & Mods: Discussion? When final make an extra thread in "Complete" - nobody should get wrong.