WW4 Modpack 1

[riffleman 20]

Whats about aircraft?

[zulu1 145]

Whats about aircraft?

Geez, give the guy a break. After all he has contributed to the OFP commuinty you ask for more.

DMA team

Numerous animations

GRAA

WW4

For an eight year old game it is truly amazing that anyone still has any interest in it.

[riffleman 20]

So he forum ofp addict social group.his mod is great.

[rellikki 7]

Another thing I noticed in the animations is that when you're sprinting with the gun pointing forward and try to move to front-left, the character first takes a step right before doing so.

By the way, the new vehicles in the video look good. Looking forward for them!

Edited August 19, 2009 by Rellikki

[sanctuary 19]

I will look into this, i just hope it will be a simple fix.

EDIt : it was a bug fortunately a simple one

Look for

class AimCombatSprintFActions:CombatActions

scroll down a bit you'll see :

fastLF="AimCombatSprintRF";
fastRF="AimCombatSprintRF";

That's of course very wrong, it should be :

fastLF="AimCombatSprintLF";
fastRF="AimCombatSprintRF";

And no more wrong side step

Edited August 19, 2009 by Sanctuary

[R0adki11 3949]

impressive work as always Sanctuary. Looks like Nogova will have some competition with the new Everon Armour. I unfortunately am on an addon making hold, due to new PC and purchasing Arma2.

[Addonis 10]

Ha! Those vehicles are looking very interesting. And BTR-80 with AGS-17! Perfectly as always Sanctuary!:bounce3:

Edited August 21, 2009 by Addonis

[sudayev 27]

How about adding good old M113 for Everon force? Such veh would fit perfectly to their army profile, it's light yet fast and versatile.

[Addonis 10]

Everon Force already have amphibious APC-ACVE. M113 is amphibious too so other vehicle will be better in my opinion.

[sanctuary 19]

edit : oops did not noticed Addonis already replied with the same thing i wanted to say.

In term of gameplay, the ACVE is very similar to a M113 with a better turret and better armor.

[R0adki11 3949]

An interesting idea for an APC for everon could be something similar to the IDF Achzarit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Achzarit.

Just a suggestion, either way keep up the good work :)

[sanctuary 19]

That's nearly the same vehicle as the BTR-T actually (use a T55 chassis and remove the turret)

[BronzeEagle 2]

sanc have you checked the compatibility between the new sci fi mod dunnodunke's doing and yours? i think theres something about the animations that both mods don't work together.

[sanctuary 19]

If his mod features a bin folder with a config inside, they are not compatible.

If not, if his animations config are contained inside his own pbo, i am not sure why they shouldn't be compatible.

EDIT : i see the problem :

i will only focus on the modeling first coz i'll be using the wh40k guardsmen animation for the time being...

If i remember well, the wh40k guardsmen were not using the default BIS stance in O2, that means they need very specific animations and then they are not visually compatible with BIS based anims that are made for the BIS soldier structure and its special stance in O2.

WW4 anims are made for models that are using the BIS ugly stance from O2, it means they will not be compatible with soldiers using a completely different stance in O2 like those scifi soldiers are certainly using.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Sanctuary

[BronzeEagle 2]

so we should get the word out that these two mods are incompatible then, right?

[sanctuary 19]

Unless those scifi soldiers models are all reworked to have the same default stance, selection names, etc... as BIS units in O2, both mods are not compatible visually.

[BronzeEagle 2]

thanks sanctuary, i disabled ww4 and it worked perfectly. i guess its one or the other. we'll be sure to mention that in our briefing from here on out. thanks for the heads up though. come around the forum thread sometime.

your friend,

bronze

[Addonis 10]

@Sanctuary

Long time ago I was asking you about dexterity values to HMGs and LMGs but i forget about something. Will you change any dexterity values in any AT launchers? Do you think it's good or bad idea?

[sanctuary 19]

It will need some testing first to see how the AI react with "heavier" launcher.

[stgn 39]

I think it would mean slower reaction time having made rifles lighter than normal AI seems able to quicker point the rifle and shoot, than normal dexterity. what it will meant for accuracy I don't know.

STGN

[Addonis 10]

OK. I've just thought that is easy like changing dexterity values in MGs.

[R0adki11 3949]

I know main battle tanks are way off yet for WW4 mod, but i was wondering are you going to only addon one type of tank per main faction as it were? As im trying to make my addons as compatible and balance as possible with the WW4 mod, i was wondering what type of size of tanks you would be looking at ie t80/m1a1 etc?

Cant wait for the new 1.5 release, finally reinstalled OFP. It really flies with my new dual core PC, especially with my ATI 4800 graphics card :)

[sanctuary 19]

I am aiming at implementing a "light" and a "heavy" tanks for each side.

The main problem will be the balancing in regard to rocket launcher, heavy launchers and possible incoming ATGM, as the BIS armor/damage system is very arcade as it does not simulate penetration, just degrading armor and hit points.

Currently i made it so the amphibious APC (AAVP/BTR80/ACVE) by example can resist 1 BIS LAW/RPG direct hit (but not 2 ) with people hurt inside, while BIS APC would explode in 1 hit of those weaker rockets.

I will very likely make the heavy tanks more resistant than the BIS heavy, and the light tanks more resistant than BIS lighter, as if i want to implement ATGM, the "lower" class of launcher will then not be able to kill a tank as easily as a BIS armor.

[riffleman 20]

I am aiming at implementing a "light" and a "heavy" tanks for each side.

The main problem will be the balancing in regard to rocket launcher, heavy launchers and possible incoming ATGM, as the BIS armor/damage system is very arcade as it does not simulate penetration, just degrading armor and hit points.

Currently i made it so the amphibious APC (AAVP/BTR80/ACVE) by example can resist 1 BIS LAW/RPG direct hit (but not 2 ) with people hurt inside, while BIS APC would explode in 1 hit of those weaker rockets.

I will very likely make the heavy tanks more resistant than the BIS heavy, and the light tanks more resistant than BIS lighter, as if i want to implement ATGM, the "lower" class of launcher will then not be able to kill a tank as easily as a BIS armor.

I agree with your thinking about armor.but what about resistant of armor of each side(east,west and resistance),is it equal for each side or like BIS MIAI which easliy destroy T80?

[sanctuary 19]

In reality every kind of armored vehicles feature different kind of material or electronic defensive systems and armor, that would not be really simulated ingame without lot of scripts that i don't want to have built in the vehicles as it would defeat my low hit on ressources usage purpose of my project.

So each side counterparts will have their armor/hitpoints values will be +/- the same.

edit : a new version of the "move over" animation, i believe it is better than the current one.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Sanctuary