Stryker Overhaul

[Ryujin 0]

No he's talking about the fake stryker in the xbox versions of GRAW. So, nope, not on the to-do list.

EDIT: Said fake too fast, evidently GM has a few strykers that are closer to their LAV III origins, but they're not fielded by the army. (look in the interior pics and it seems its not a straight LAV III, it has FBCB2 stuff) http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtes....ex.html

[xnodunitx 0]

Thermal WIP

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums....-23.jpg

Is that actual FLIR testing or are the soldiers just textured white?

[max power 21]

Thermal WIP

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums....-23.jpg

Is that actual FLIR testing or are the soldiers just textured white?

If a texture replacement script isn't your idea of 'actual flir', then, pray-tell, what would actual flir be?

[Maddmatt 1]

Thermal WIP

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums....-23.jpg

Is that actual FLIR testing or are the soldiers just textured white?

If a texture replacement script isn't your idea of 'actual flir', then, pray-tell, what would actual flir be?

Do you have any idea how much work a 'texture replacement script' for realistic FLIR would be? It sure takes a hell of a lot more than just a script to achieve. If that works by replacing textures, then it's not going to be very usable. All units (including addons) need will need model changes to allow them to switch textures.

Of course it could be done without a 'texture replacement script' (maybe not properly in ArmA). I highly doubt the VBS2 FLIR works be replacing textures on everything. Shaders would make more sense.

Too bad we can't make custom shaders for ArmA.

@Ryujin: How did you get the soldiers to show up white? Are they just textured white or did you find another way?

Edit: Added some stuff.

[Ryujin 0]

Currently using no texture, and my plan for getting them to turn white is to try to "break" the addon (somehow untexture it ingame) and switch it to a white face. This method I'm hoping will work with most units. I don't think it can be done in any other way in arma. If anyone knows anything about how to do that, please share lol. I'm hardly a scripting expert .

[GodHammer 0]

I think you are doing a great job, keep us informed on updates I loved the interior details, a lot

[manzilla 1]

I thought I saw this mentioned a few pages back but I didn't see it when I went back over the thread. Anyway, the last version and the most recent(I think) versions of XAM have a "thermal" type vision in strykers, tanks, etc. I believe it's called thermal in the Mod.

If you haven't check it out already, I'd advise you to do so. It's pretty cool.

[Maddmatt 1]

Currently using no texture, and my plan for getting them to turn white is to try to "break" the addon (somehow untexture it ingame) and switch it to a white face. This method I'm hoping will work with most units. I don't think it can be done in any other way in arma. If anyone knows anything about how to do that, please share lol. I'm hardly a scripting expert .

So you are not modifying the units model/textures, but doing something in-game to make the texture white? How do you do that?

So does the unit look normal again when you turn off the FLIR?

I'm sure a lot of people would love to be able to get thermal vision working properly in ArmA. The game doesn't really allow for it

[Benoist 0]

Check XAM 1.4, it has a good termal vision

[frederf 0]

Check XAM 1.4, it has a good termal vision

No, XAM has a good gray nightvision. The IR vision myself and Ryujin are discussing would make the Mapfact and XAM IR systems look like cheap hacks by comparison.

The current hypothetical scheme is something like procedural retexturing of units during mission runtime using the setObjectTexture command. This would allow advanced things like faces and engines to be visible as hotter than the rest. Telling a tank with engine off from one with engine on (or recently on).

Other effects such as shadows and lightsources are being considered. Temporarily changing the local player to a particularly moonless night is one solution for a proper look to the image.

Headlight illuminations on terrain should not be visible under IR like they are visually. To be short there are a lot of considerations to make. Obviously all features may not be possible, but many normally not-considered aspects of IR be being considered.

[xnodunitx 0]

So you are not modifying the units model/textures, but doing something in-game to make the texture white? How do you do that?

So does the unit look normal again when you turn off the FLIR?

I'm sure a lot of people would love to be able to get thermal vision working properly in ArmA. The game doesn't really allow for it

Not without that DX9 feature to the core it probably won't, which is possible for Arma2 if BIS decides to include it..(*crosses fingers*)

But thats mostly what I'm getting at, how it will look on and off the camera, will it be swappable betwee normal colors or FLIR and so on. If it can be done however then I'm all for it and I do hope for only the best on the FLIR project, as it would be another limitation broke and one hell of a step in all forms of modern warfare viewed form vehicles.

[dslyecxi 23]

No, XAM has a good gray nightvision. The IR vision myself and Ryujin are discussing would make the Mapfact and XAM IR systems look like cheap hacks by comparison.

I would reserve the bravado until you've actually done it, versus just "discussed" it. Ripping on other mod teams in public like this is rather poor form, especially when all you've shown is a picture of three white infantry with the rest of the scene looking exactly like the "gray nightvision" you're so readily slamming.

[max power 21]

Thermal WIP

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums....-23.jpg

Is that actual FLIR testing or are the soldiers just textured white?

If a texture replacement script isn't your idea of 'actual flir', then, pray-tell, what would actual flir be?

Do you have any idea how much work a 'texture replacement script' for realistic FLIR would be? It sure takes a hell of a lot more than just a script to achieve. If that works by replacing textures, then it's not going to be very usable. All units (including addons) need will need model changes to allow them to switch textures.

Of course it could be done without a 'texture replacement script' (maybe not properly in ArmA). I highly doubt the VBS2 FLIR works be replacing textures on everything. Shaders would make more sense.

Too bad we can't make custom shaders for ArmA.

I'm not sure you understood what I meant. I think the guy I was replying to was asking, 'is this actual FLIR, or just some guys painted white'. I was saying asking what about swapping textures wasn't 'actual flir'.

The amount of work doesn't really factor in to the discussion.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]Dslyecxi, your formality is paper-thin. Yes, you met someone who didn't think you were the Second Coming. Congratulations on blocking me on AIM like we were 13, holding a grudge, and dragging your luggage into this thread. We're all very proud of you for not moving on. Criticizing my form while trying to single me out as a witch is rather hypocritical.

Also again I'd like to point out that you're making something out of nothing and then arguing against it. I'm no "XAM-hater" or "Mapfact-hater", but to read your post I obviously am. Quit doing this kind of skewing. I must not be the only one that notices it.

I've seen XAM and Mapfact's IR, thank you, and it is commendable that they do function and are actually released. I'm not trying to rag on them. Instead I'm trying to counter this ignorant notion that "Dur, IR's been done, why you do it again?" XAM and Mapfact's IR systems are very low-concept executions which have the benefits of being quick, easy, and rather trouble-free. They are black and white night vision, essentially.

If I could draw a parallel. Map-click, spawn grenades kind of artillery is easy and it works too. It should be appreciated that real flight artillery is distinctly different, more difficult, and ultimately a uniquely valuable addon.

I'm sure you could understand that frustration of trying to develop real flight artillery and having someone come into you thread and post "You should check out John's Mapclick Artillery. It's great!" And then after explaining that there is a real difference between existing technology and what you are attempting, and being hounded by someone like yourself in the way that you do.

My apologies to Ryujin and the viewing public. I reserve the above words for the antagonistic Mr. Dslyecxi alone.

The idea is indeed lofty and largely theoretical. The next stage would be to implement the texture switching on a simple object (cube?) in a series of tests. My confidence in the scheme is not very high, but it's infinitely more likely to succeed if the idea is followed through as opposed to abandoned.

[frederf 0]

I'm not sure you understood what I meant. I think the guy I was replying to was asking, 'is this actual FLIR, or just some guys painted white'. I was saying asking what about swapping textures wasn't 'actual flir'.

The amount of work doesn't really factor in to the discussion.

Ah, awesome, a critical but not antagonistic post with a point.

Is this actual FLIR? No, it's a computer simulation of IR imaging (FLIR being a special case). Painting guys white is not an accurate description of the project either. Ultimately we try to mimic the end result picture as closely as possible with functionality concerns being the more pressing.

One of the biggest functionality shortfalls of previously designed ArmA addons (Mapfact, XAM) are that human targets are approximately the same color as the terrain while in actual IR they are notably different. Paintin' people white achieves that end better than existing tech.

Now once white painting is accomplished then our attention can be turned to having different selections of various models be various colors and then ultimately having an "IR skin" in "full" detail (most color map details are lost under IR anyway) can be generated and used for all BIS and 3rd party units and vehicles.

The use of non-generic textures does have the downside of increasing the size of the proposed addon.

For your edification and prompting for input, other topics of discussion have been:

1. Discrimination of visible wavelength light sources.

2. Lacking of visible wavelength shadows.

3. White hot and black hot modes

4. Light levels as the relate to the presence, non-presence of the Sun.

[Maddmatt 1]

I'm not sure you understood what I meant. I think the guy I was replying to was asking, 'is this actual FLIR, or just some guys painted white'. I was saying asking what about swapping textures wasn't 'actual flir'.

The amount of work doesn't really factor in to the discussion.

Alright, no problem

The current hypothetical scheme is something like procedural retexturing of units during mission runtime using the setObjectTexture command. This would allow advanced things like faces and engines to be visible as hotter than the rest. Telling a tank with engine off from one with engine on (or recently on).

So you're making custom versions of every single unit so you can give it a white texture

That just doesn't seem practical. If you want that method to be compatible with addons, well that's another big problem.

I just don't have much confidence in it, or any attempt at FLIR in ArmA.

IMO it doesn't add enough to gameplay to justify the amount of work involved.

[Ryujin 0]

Well, it seems in a worst case scenario, addons will need a small chunk of text added to the config. Obviously our goal is to make this as much of a "plug and play" system as possible.

*Also note that the picture posted above in this thread is proof of concept, and does not represent final quality

@Dyslexi/Frederf: I'd prefer not to have you guys go at it in this thread. So if you have any personally directed comments, that's whats PMs are for. However, all constructive comments are appreciated. Thank you.

[dslyecxi 23]

(all sorts of nonsense)

Frederf, I'm amazed and impressed that you are continuing to try to turn this (and other things) into something personal. My apologies if I don't descend to your level in a reply.

The comments stand. You dismissed the work of others, proclaimed how fantastic your "FLIR" is going to be, and yet you have nothing of substance to show about it. Save the bravado for when you've actually accomplished something.

If you want to have a personal pissing contest, you're welcome to take it up in PMs. Until then, I'll take the high ground and avoid getting personal, and you can keep throwing in out-of-context personal stuff in an attempt to justify your comments.

edit: Additionally, come on. You're begging for public attention with this line:

Quote[/b] ]My apologies to Ryujin and the viewing public. I reserve the above words for the antagonistic Mr. Dslyecxi alone.

If you really intended to "spare the viewing public", you would have sent a PM, instead of drama-bombed with a post in this topic. Your intent is crystal clear and that line is as transparent as they get.

[franze 196]

Frederf and Dslyecxi - the next personal vendetta either one of you brings out into the public gets you a four week vacation. That especially goes for you, Frederf.

If you have beef with one another, keep it to yourselves.

[max power 21]

I'm not sure you understood what I meant. I think the guy I was replying to was asking, 'is this actual FLIR, or just some guys painted white'. I was saying asking what about swapping textures wasn't 'actual flir'.

The amount of work doesn't really factor in to the discussion.

Ah, awesome, a critical but not antagonistic post with a point.

Is this actual FLIR? No, it's a computer simulation of IR imaging (FLIR being a special case). Painting guys white is not an accurate description of the project either. Ultimately we try to mimic the end result picture as closely as possible with functionality concerns being the more pressing.

One of the biggest functionality shortfalls of previously designed ArmA addons (Mapfact, XAM) are that human targets are approximately the same color as the terrain while in actual IR they are notably different. Paintin' people white achieves that end better than existing tech.

Now once white painting is accomplished then our attention can be turned to having different selections of various models be various colors and then ultimately having an "IR skin" in "full" detail (most color map details are lost under IR anyway) can be generated and used for all BIS and 3rd party units and vehicles.

The use of non-generic textures does have the downside of increasing the size of the proposed addon.

For your edification and prompting for input, other topics of discussion have been:

1. Discrimination of visible wavelength light sources.

2. Lacking of visible wavelength shadows.

3. White hot and black hot modes

4. Light levels as the relate to the presence, non-presence of the Sun.

I'm not too sure what you mean by your first comment but it paints the rest of your post as being kind of antagonistic and sophomoric.

At any rate, the method of replacing unit textures or rvmats with some texture that points to white or other coloured texture file, and using the set aperture command + setting the time to night, seems to be a sensible solution to creating adequate contrast between your points of interest and the background. Actual FLIR is simply a method for doing exactly that. I think Ryujin's solution should be quite adequate- it's not a retexture script but more of an untexture script, by the sounds of it. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that it will take the form of a script, I am not a programmer, but that detail, I think, would be the least important one.

I'm confused as to why you're jumping all over me about this. I was attempting to figure out what xnounitx meant by his comment...

[Ryujin 0]

well, I'm experimenting with hidden sections and I'll post a more indepth report early next week after I have the weekend to take a shot at a first build of this. We have a few ideas floating around and some more work will be involved before we can nail down the plan. I can confirm that the date/time change wil lbe part of it, the texture part is what I'm currently working on.

[frederf 0]

I'm trying not to be antagonistic plaintiff. Obviously recent discussions involving you have understandably gotten me defensive.

It remains to be seen exactly how the retexture procedure will go (or even if it will go). You basically said the idea in a nut shell. Extra features are not ruled out though.

Quote[/b] ]So you're making custom versions of every single unit so you can give it a white texture

That just doesn't seem practical.

Practical or not that seems to be the only way this would work. Due to class inheritance and the possible regular naming scheme of BIS models, the work could be as simple as <100 lines of text config that simply defines hiddenSelection and hiddenSelectionTexture entries based on pre-existing selection names within the model. Then it would be a simply matter to hook into those hiddenSelection arrays with the texture-setting scripts. So it's less making custom versions of every unit and more hooking into existing work with minimal code.

Unless of course this might expand into wanting to redo every "heat-activated" model file to be compatible, that would increase the work some but not to an inhuman degree.

[max power 21]

Making actions in photoshop should do it quite quickly. You can likely automate the process almost completely.

[Ryujin 0]

well, we don't want to make a billion new textures, we just want to add a code bit and have it use an existing texture set which will work for everybody, as BDUs, ACUs, and such all look the same in IR. Just bright skin textures and somewhat darker body cloth textures. Ideally, we'd like to do it without modifing the config, but thats looking unlikely.

[sdoc 0]

quite interesting concepts for thermal vision. good luck wiht it frederf and ryujin! I did not think it would be possible to do such a thing before.

the first preview looks quite promissing.

explosions and effects should also look quite different in thermal vision, with most importantly smoke invisible. Good that Maddmatt is also in this thread, he's probably the right man to make the arma effects compatible with it. (eg switching smoke off when IR is active.)

EDIT: fixed typo in Maddmatt's name.