RKSL Studios : Reloaded

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

I really don't think VIP teams or "payware" addons are the way to go. I know its worked in the FS community (which i was a part of for many years) but the prospect of making money from addons - in the early days at least - just meant a lot of content was stolen form various sources to make a fast buck.

What is needed is a better awareness of the rules and consequences. With those rules and consequences applied globally and fairly across the community.

This isn't BIS fault. Its up to the community to police itself. BIS wrote the software we use, they don't own the community. We do. So its up to us to do something to fix it. Now the big news sites and a lot of addon makers are coming together to discuss this and work out a proposal for the community. So please no more "boycotts" or payware discussions. Lets keep addons free and work towards a better community that's safe (ok safer :P) for everyone.

If it work thats awsome.

I was just thinkin outloud about the payware and VIP teams :bounce3:

[mankyle 372]

First of all, saying that I really like your work and that I'm extremely unhappy whith what has happened. One thing that's unacceptable is to mess with someone's means of living. If that person has "taken" something you rely on for earning your living and has obtained profit from it, then that's called "THEFT" and it's not acceptable.

And regarding the game, I have a question regarding the Flare system. Could it be possible to use and modify the flare system code to create something like the australian NULKA system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulka

If it is not already enabled in VSB2 you could create this system and add it to the ANZACs and "bill" for it. I don't think it such a big effort for you and it would probably be an easy sale.

Anyway, keep up the good work guys and congrats for a very good work!!!!

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

First of all, saying that I really like your work and that I'm extremely unhappy whith what has happened. One thing that's unacceptable is to mess with someone's means of living. If that person has "taken" something you rely on for earning your living and has obtained profit from it, then that's called "THEFT" and it's not acceptable.

Thanks for the support. But its still theft even if it doesn't affect your income. Taking anything without permission is theft. In the last few weeks I've had some interesting emails from people defending theft in the modding communities. None of which i can see any justification for.

And regarding the game, I have a question regarding the Flare system. Could it be possible to use and modify the flare system code to create something like the australian NULKA system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulka

If it is not already enabled in VSB2 you could create this system and add it to the ANZACs and "bill" for it. I don't think it such a big effort for you and it would probably be an easy sale.

Anyway, keep up the good work guys and congrats for a very good work!!!!

UNN and I discussed this already, All the British Ships use a system called SeaGnat. The application is exactly the same. So yes it could be adapted. it would require a greater distance between the ship and "flare" but it wouldn't be a problem in theory.

Although with the imminent release of ArmA2 and the change in the engine limits we will probably wait to see what changes before adapting the existing scripted systems.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Although with the imminent release of ArmA2 and the change in the engine limits we will probably wait to see what changes before adapting the existing scripted systems.

I've never modded for ArmA. Can you give a quick summary of some of the limits that you've come across?

I heard something about only being allowed three ground textures in ArmA or something, and that the terrain cell size prevents ditches and 'micro-terrain'.

I remembered you mentioned that the flight-model of an aircraft is determined by its size, not by values the modder sets?

Which ones are going to be changed or you would most like changed?

Thanks!

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I've never modded for ArmA. Can you give a quick summary of some of the limits that you've come across?

I heard something about only being allowed three ground textures in ArmA or something, and that the terrain cell size prevents ditches and 'micro-terrain'.

I remembered you mentioned that the flight-model of an aircraft is determined by its size, not by values the modder sets?

Which ones are going to be changed or you would most like changed?

Thanks!

Modelling and Terrain generation as two very different skill sets. There are so many issues and limits you have to consider its not really easy to answer in a single post as most issues will require quite a lot of explanation. And Island making presents a whole new set of rules, which honestly I am still struggling to come to terms with.

I did start writing a blog/guide to engine limits and best practice a few weeks ago before all this theft issue became such a big problem. I might resurrect it at some point but at this late stage and with ArmA2 on the near horizon it might have to wait.

But to illustrate the point I made earlier in relation to ArmA2 changes and limits:

- Since OFP and in ArmA1 you can only have one proxy weapon type per aircraft. IE you could have mavericks, rockets and guns. But you couldn't have Sidewinders and Mavericks on the same plane. Now, look at the pics of the A-10 in ArmA2: it shows Mavericks and GBUs. Likewise the Harrier now shows Mk-82s and Sidewinders. So unless BIS have resorted to a scripted solution this classic limit might be fixed

- Recently BIS made a post that rang some potentially ominous bells for those of us that heavily scripted systems and Mods: http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Editing#Forward_Compatility What all that means is that scripted systems will now have to run within their own namespace reducing possible clashes (which is good) But will mean that existing scripts will have to be adapted or rewritten (which might be awkward). And the frame rate limits will potentially limit what can practically be achieved with scripts in MP.

As for ArmA2 features etc. I don't really know any more than anyone else. I would like:

- Improved flight model dynamics. I realise that by default the FM needs to be balanced so that the majority of people will be able to fly. But I would like the ability (either in the config or game settings) to have a more realistic FM available.

- Improved damage system - not just hit points but damageable zones.

- Improved AI both on the ground and in the air. Specifically with the use of vehicles. Not just how they drive them but how they use the weapons.

- Improved Weapons dynamics - bombs, missiles etc

- Extended target types: ie not just IR or Laser but radar sources, and radar returns.

- Improved HUD options e.g. CCIP and Gun sight

- Indirect fire support for artillery and mortars built into the engine - While some people have managed to script solutions they weren't always 100% MP compatible.

I could go on but that's really better suited to the ArmA2 forums. And i'm not really sure its worth speculating at this late stage. I'm just sitting quietly waiting to see what Marek, Suma and the devs give us before i start getting excited or upset.

I like the sound of what is coming in most cases. I'm a bit concerned about the changes that affect scripting but until we see the actual product I'm not going to speculate.

Edited May 3, 2009 by RKSL-Rock
typo

[awotter 0]

Sorry you wasted your time and effort, but since it was always a possibility (and more likely a probability) that theft would occur you should have put your business obligations first it seems.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Thanks Rock, interesting stuff :) I hope the script FPS-limiter is able to be disabled.

When it first appeared, OFP was astonishing in its scope for scripts and addons, but there have been well-known limitations carried on into ArmA. It seems to me that a true sequel of OFP should have a few times the possibilities in terms of missions, mods and scripts. As you say, though, we can only tell on release.

[sk3pt 0]

I realise that by default the FM needs to be balanced so that the majority of people will be able to fly.

I don't think anyone really finds it hard to fly in Lock On, FSX or IL-2 once they get in the air, so that's hardly an excuse for a bad FM.

Edited May 3, 2009 by sk3pt

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

...you should have put your business obligations first it seems.

That's the perverse thing about this situation. I did. Making addons has always been part of the plan. Like a lot of other modders in many communities have found, the modding scene is increasingly becoming a shop window for Games and Sim developers. I got my first 3D contracts from my FS models modding is always good for the profile.

In my defence, ArmA's P3d format was considered quite secure. Which made the "perceived risk" virtually nill. While I was aware of several MLOD tools I hadn't realised they were quite widespread which I admit given the scale of addon trading going on was rather naive.

Sadly in this case 1 client out of 30+ had a single concern. Which has now been settled and turned out to be irrelevant in their case. (More about that in another blog I think.) So we are getting closer to a return to normal operation. However, as with UKF, there are still some issues causing concern with some members of the community. And we are working with several other team and the major news sites to work around those.

I don't think anyone really finds it hard to fly in Lock On, FSX or IL-2 once they get in the air, so that's hardly an excuse for a bad FM.

I don't know I've seen some pretty dire pilots in arma :P

My comment was indirectly related to Marek's statement about the FM in a recent ArmA2 announcement. Personally I would love an FSX/IL2/Lock-on style of complexity. I suspect it would draw far more customers in from those communities. The combined arms aspects of OFP and ArmA are what drew me in. And I know a lot of other people would enjoy the flight sim and FPS integration if it were at all possible.

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

It is possible...EVERYTHING is POSSIBLE...

The question is, how much do you want it?

How much are you willing to pay as a player?

I find it verry hard to belive an integration with lets say MS.FSim and a FPS

would be that hard to make.

[xav 0]

- Improved damage system - not just hit points but damageable zones.

We kinda have this already:

Shoot a tire and the car/truck won't go as well

Likewise shoot the rear rotor of a helicopter in Arma2 and it will start spinning.

On tanks too: turrets or tracks can be damaged independently

[PhilippRauch 0]

Well, VBS2 can already interface with Steelbeasts Pro, a tank simulation. But it has the needed interface and you need another Software for it. I dont know if such thing can be done via Armalib already, i know Falcon and other Flightsims can put out datavalues to another application, even via network.

Basically you would need Arma to somehow translate the sent data from the Flightsim into/onto some Plane inside Arma and the other way around including the same landscape with objects and incidents happening...

[wipman 1]

Hi, only read about all that datas fluid make me horny, it's like porno for me . Let's C ya

[UNN 0]

We kinda have this already:

Shoot a tire and the car/truck won't go as well

Likewise shoot the rear rotor of a helicopter in Arma2 and it will start spinning.

On tanks too: turrets or tracks can be damaged independently

Yeah we have those you listed along with some more. But it's not necessarily a case of adding new ones, but being able to interact with them via scripts and animations e.t.c. Look at just two additions to VBS:

HitPart Event Handler:

Runs when the object it was added to gets hit by a weapon. It returns the position and component that was hit on the object within a nested array, this is because the model may have more than selection name for the hit component.

Passed array: [ [target, shooter, bullet, position, velocity, selection, ammo, direction, radius, surface, direct] ]

* target: Object - Object that got fired at

* shooter: Object - Unit that fired shot

* bullet: Object - Object that was fired

* position: Position3D - Position the bullet impacted

* velocity: Vector - 3D speed at which bullet impacted

* selection: Array - Array of Strings with named selection of the object that were hit.

* ammo: Array - Ammo info: [hit value, indirect hit value, indirect hit range, explosive damage, ammo class name] OR, if there is no shot object: [impulse value on object collided with,0,0,0]

* direction: Vector3D - vector that is orthogonal (perpendicular) to the surface struck. For example, if a wall was hit, vector would be pointing out of the wall at a 90 degree angle

* radius: Number - radius (size) of component hit

* surface: String - surface type struck

* direct: Boolean - true if object was directly hit, false if it was hit by indirect/splash damage

And the setHit command.

Take tires on a truck, that actually needs to work properly, never mind being improved. AI still doesn’t respond to a repaired vehicle in MP.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

;1279509']It is possible...EVERYTHING is POSSIBLE...

The question is' date=' how much do you want it?

How much are you willing to pay as a player?

I find it verry hard to belive an integration with lets say MS.FSim and a FPS

would be that hard to make.[/quote']

It is possible.

Will it happen?

How long would it take to develop?

How much will it cost?

Those are pointless questions. Until the civilian developers know there is sufficient demand for it nothing will happen outside of military sims.

Well, VBS2 can already interface with Steelbeasts Pro, a tank simulation. But it has the needed interface and you need another Software for it. I dont know if such thing can be done via Armalib already, i know Falcon and other Flightsims can put out datavalues to another application, even via network.

Basically you would need Arma to somehow translate the sent data from the Flightsim into/onto some Plane inside Arma and the other way around including the same landscape with objects and incidents happening...

Using gateways wasn't exactly what i was getting at. The chances of 3 software house cooperating to provide a common gate way is about the same as me being voted Supermodel of the year :) (I look like a shaved down bigfoot btw)

No i was suggesting a "complete combined arms sim". Its a massively complex task. One that OFP and ArmA have made good inroads into but the gaming market isn't really demanding it. You have different genres and so far no one game has managed to bridge the flight sim and FPS gap.

I am saying that would be my dream bit of software.

We kinda have this already:

Shoot a tire and the car/truck won't go as well

Likewise shoot the rear rotor of a helicopter in Arma2 and it will start spinning.

On tanks too: turrets or tracks can be damaged independently

Yeah I know but i was thinking more along the lines of shoot at a specific area like a wing and the damage shows there. Crash a truck in to a wall and the bumper is damaged.

Another application is RPG cage armour. IE shoot the vehicle and the armour is damage but the basic operation of the vehicle is ok. But the armour is trashed.

So its more of an improvement on how the current system works. One that we can customise and exploit a bit more easily.

[PhilippRauch 0]

....

No i was suggesting a "complete combined arms sim". Its a massively complex task. One that OFP and ArmA have made good inroads into but the gaming market isn't really demanding it. You have different genres and so far no one game has managed to bridge the flight sim and FPS gap.

I am saying that would be my dream bit of software.

....

YEAH, mine too. Dangerous waters did also nicely, although it wasnt really a flightsim. But again from a very small developer company...

And wasnt there this sub sim which could be combined with a fregate sim from some other developer??

But again nothing as compleat as we NEED ;) ...

[NoRailgunner 0]

RKSL-Rock that nice "complete combined arms sim" dream will come true after the first holodecks are sold to public. ;)

There are now more casual players out there - who dont want/demand (realistic) simulations. Think that the majority of players will be confused about vast amount of choices + possibilities. They are somehow spoiled by mainstream-console games/shooters.

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

Sorry Rock dont agree with you..

They are not pointless...

As long as the community is content there will be no development

other than the usual...

I´ve just have had an disagrement with a MAJOR employer, and i found

out that, the more you argue and dispute the more will happen...

Dont just sit back and take what you get. And say Thank you.

BUT, as long we pay for what they provide and is content with that.

No, nothing will happen..