WIP: Stuff you are working on 2!

[Jill_311 0]

As we all know just it's just a game and none of the addon makers deserved to be bashed. It doesn't matter how good or bad a addon is I couldn't make it so I love everyone's stuff.

[enad 11]

i thought this is the WIP thread though.

Regarding comments, Enad was rude(but it sort of expected from his part). Darkhorse wasn't in the real sense.

I was rude? I didn't even know I was part of this argument, If your talking about me calling Animalmother butthurt, its just a joke me and him are good friends.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

@Defunkt - My comment regarding ACE wasn't meant as rudeness towards ACE, I simply thought that they wanted it to be ACE only. I am in cramped quarters, very stressed, and having to use my phone only right now. It was a simple misunderstanding.

As for my comment regarding Takko, I don't regret it and I won't edit it. His addons were crap. Admittedly there is a slim chance he got better, but what I have seen of his work (I can't get VTE for another month) it's just not worth the hard drive space.

[daman3 19]

Praha V3SS

This is an early, localised version of the infamous Praha V3S, which is more cubic.

This is one addon I started one month ago, picked it up again. Atm I'm fixing the errors of it.

I'll probably scrap it.

[sabre 244]

...or they just being selfish and don't want any one else to have it.

That's the bit I find funny, it's very rare that you'll find an addon maker that makes something soley for themselves, I had a good laugh when hearing that people thought that about me because I don't release stuff that I post up in screenshots.

For me the reason that they arn't out is because I don't like releasing innaccurate stuff, and I admit it's my fault and lack of patience that I don't have the skills to make the others changes. However it's rare to get offers of help just questions of when or can I have :p

Now on topic;

Looking good NZX and DaMan3 look forward to seeing some more progress shots.

[topas 1]

@DaMan3

Is this truck fictional? Asking, because I'm not aware of any V3S's with cubic cabins..

PS: A Praha S5T (V3S's larger sister) would be nice..guess I'll post it in the request thread :)

[kage74 10]

they just being selfish and don't want any one else to have it

HAHA! Well, I wasn't wanting to accuse anyone of that. It's just I see some of these addons that are considered a WIP and some of them are just incredible and I practically start to drool. I just wanna download them but they're not done yet for whatever reason.

I check the date and some of these things are WIP for like half a year or more since the last update was released. Just from looking at the YouTube videos the addon looks flawless, but the author has decided it's not ready for release yet. So we just have to wait till they feel it's time to unleash their baby on the world.

I just wanted to let the addon makers know we appreciate all their hard work and if we gotta wait a bit longer for the "final release" of an addon that's fine. It's just weird to see some beautiful WIP drop off the face of the Earth all together.

That makes me a saaad panda. :rolleyes:

[max power 21]

There are a lot of reasons why addons might not be released. Peoples' personal lives change, their interests change, etc. It's a fairly work intensive hobby.

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

the interior may be a bit generic since i haven't seen much on it.

M-ATV

[Fox '09 14]

cool.. i like those trucks in the back of the 1st pic

[m1n1d0u 29]

really nice ! do you release a full package or only the m-atv ?

[lo0se 10]

Those oshkosh's look sweet NZX!

[thearies 12]

yeah !!!

looks fantastic...the package would be great !!!

the main reason i ask for ace compatibility was to have comparable armor values

is it practical to entrench an universalised matrix like stanag

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STANAG_4569

so any modder could use this like shoe size, is there anything like that ???

...you see i´m simply an enthusiastic sandbox player ;)

greetings

[vilas 474]

yeah !!!

looks fantastic...the package would be great !!!

the main reason i ask for ace compatibility was to have comparable armor values

is it practical to entrench an universalised matrix like stanag

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STANAG_4569

so any modder could use this like shoe size, is there anything like that ???

...you see i´m simply an enthusiastic sandbox player ;)

greetings

all mods should have compatibility in armor values

i don't know present ACE values, but i think that majority of modders keep rationality in armor values of weapon power

it has nothing to ACE or not ACE, rationality in values of armor/hit/range is something universal

but i remember 2 cases of addons related to ACE that not kept this what you want

in Arma1 they had BMP or BMD 1 (cant remember which one) as strong as T72 (armor values and ammo speed of 76mm low speed grenade cannon) and now in Arma2 - PLA tanks are twice stronger than Abrams, they are indestructible when play with T90 or Abrams etc. cause opposite to all tanks "structural armor = 2" they have "=4" which makes their tank twice stronger ,

and you say that addon must be compatible with ACE ?

hey, PLA is , while PLA tank is such twice stronger than it should be (maybe it was fixed)

for home-use i had to edit PLA config, otherwise platoon of Chinese tanks destroys all and win whole big battles without any harm (i play in home my own strategy missions using high command for example, i am toying in strategy and balancing forces etc. )

in begining of Arma1 modding time , i tried to ask community moders about keeping sense values, keeping rational ranges of weapons, keeping armor values balanced to allow mix between mods

some people than told that this is not funny

in OFP time you had WW2 addons/mods which had "uber" values, and other had realistic and low which caused mess/horror when mixing them

i believe now modding is more realistic when it comes to common values of range, power, armor etc.

i know that probably still we have some addonmakers who make "my army better" addons (maybe of patriotism or what ?) but it is minority as i suppose (i havent tested all addons, not checked all configs to see range or ammo or armor values)

but of course lack of compatibility with common vanila Arma values can spoil any fun and mixing addons in mission

of course in Arma1 we had BIS mistakes too (BMP2 stronger than T72, 7 bursts from BMP cannon to destroy BMP2, 5/6 bursts to destroy T72) , but simply than we should make our own mod BMP2 weaker for mission (as done in P85 for example, where BMP is weak comparing to T72 )

we should keep eye on every addon, one mod will not guarantee it, as it not even guaranted keeping PLA to keep sense value, and 2 tanks from PLA pack destroys 2 platoons of enemy tank without any harm (tested on SP editor, downloaded first release version)

people should keep

300-400-max 500 m range for rifles of any kind (without optics, depending of accuracy)

50-100-max- 120/150 m for submachineguns for pistol ammo depending also if it is short barrel open bolt or longer barrel hammer mechanism submachinegun

keeping accuracy, keeping armor values, keeping etc.

look at this:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=52803

topic, ring any bell ? yes, the same problem

Edited November 17, 2010 by vilas

[thearies 12]

...ok

cause i test around alot with different charges and ballistics and i found that the most mods are too variable in the armor values

arma2 combops 1.55, ace2 1.6, baf 1.01:

e.g.

nammans maxpro withstand 2x 122mm artyshell under chassie without losing mobility

ace2 stryker do it with ace_fab250 under chassie without loosing mobility...

since arma2 ao arma differ blast and kinetic penetration ?!

so a generalised armor matrix could help for a more realistic battlefiled for all those great addons and for all players ???

[vilas 474]

please do F5 and re read my post

you typed while i was editing, look at link i posted, reaction was not "we agree" in all cases

and dont say that all must follow one mod, cause i will say that "make it compatible P85" , people from RACS will say "make it compatible with RACS" , people from Pedagne will say "make it compatible Pedagne" , People from BW MOD will say...

there is no "one god called ACE" , especially when i see PLA and ACE and PLA tanks overpowered armor bug (unless ACE fixed it , and only self-standing release had bug) , while P85 is balanced within and BMP in it is much weaker than T72

but if you say about different armor/penetration/hit whatever between OA and Arma2 - those are 2 games, which as i see are not 100% compatible

it is not matter of ACE , but BIS which made some things not compatible (for example custom hand animations do not work in OA, for example my addons work perfectly in Arma2, while friends report ctd when approaching to one or another vehicle in OA ) etc.

BIS screwed some thing by forgetting about compatibility (those not working anims, those ctd when approaching to helicopter when i have OA installed on Arma2 (CombinedOperation ? )

i had reports about problems since 1.08, which i must check etc.

Edited November 17, 2010 by vilas

[sickboy 13]

PLA has been deprecated for ages because it was not continued development.

ACE uses CAVS values, and a custom armor simulation system which is scripted, handles penetration better, things like ERA, weak spots, and other protective systems, fires in tanks, broken systems etc. etc.

With this system, you can't blow up tanks anymore with just bullets and handgrenades etc. (Something you have been talking and complaining about for years, Vilas).

http://ace.dev-heaven.net/wagn/Vehicle_Damage_System Surely it isn't perfect, nobody is claiming that.

Generalizing the system and making it available outside ACE could perhaps be discussed.

But no system will suit/fit all, everyone has different opinions and different researched data on armor; a general system will be hard accepted.

Many people used JAM (magazines/ammo) and some also CAVS (for armor and ammo damage) back in OFP etc. I haven't seen it for ArmA and ArmA 2.

The problem vilas, is that one can either stick to BIS value compatibility and will be limited to it's limitations.

Or you try to do something different, perhaps something special, and you become somewhat less BIS value compatible.

It's a choice, and it's free to everyone. In my opinion, due to the size and scope of ACE mod,

it is the excellent place to make such changes as there is a great range of assets already included and supported in the system, and available to everyone in MP.

Vehicles that don't have special ACE armor values, will revert to BIS system; supporting the advanced armor system is an added bonus.

Addon makers don't have to add these values. Anyone can add these values; us (ACE), 3rd parties, users, server owners, anyone.

Addon makers should create their works the way they want them, and not specifically for ACE, or any other Mod.

Though if they like ACE features, they can add support for them if they like. (Sorry but this is simply unavoidable, basic systems will work everywhere, but more advanced systems simply will require some work).

But in any case; 3rd parties can adjust the vehicles, override config or otherwise, to fit into whatever is needed, or perhaps a license could be given for integration into the Mod.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Sickboy

[vilas 474]

but i don't want download 1.5 GB (or how big it is now) and have 10 FPS (cause CPU eaten by scripting) to have for example such vehicle as shown on screen

addons should be released for game and second version (probably only config matter) for ACE, it would solve problems, and for example you as ACE would take care about this second config version

i think that such kind of agreement like "releasing addon with separate file for config" would be good

i for example prefer vanila Arma and low CPU usage and have my 30 FPS, with slow internet - not download 1.5 GB of anything to have one truck, one apc etc. (situation is different when addon contain whole army of country X, like Pedagne, FFAA , Swedish forces etc.)

for example - i have nothing against someone making config of P85 or whatever of my addons ACE-compatible (or it demands selections in models ?)

but generally people who vote about including something into ACE annoys me cause:

i would like to have such vehicle apart from 1.5 GB download (which is whole day or two days download for me ) and CPU eaten by scripts

i like to play some strategic own mission - large battles, 100-200 units, for me every percent of CPU is important ;]

[sickboy 13]

Well as said, generalizing the vehicle damage system to be useful outside (/without) ACE is perhaps an option, but will have to be discussed with the author.

Still I think I have some valid points regarding everyone having their opinion, vision and research data on armor etc; it could be very hard to reach consensus.

Re the configs for compatibility to specific mods, there are 3 parties involved and somehow benefiting from compatibility, either directly or indirectly;

- Original author

- The mod (ACE in this case)

- Server Owners and Players

In my opinion, any of these 3 groups can handle the supplemental support config. You can almost write such config faster than requesting 'ACE' or whatever compatibility in a thread.

(The original config doesn't have to be seperate from the model pbo btw, because you can simply create 'override' configs, much like the replacement configs for many vehicles/weapons).

Re FPS and scripts; since ArmA 2, scripts are running asynchronous and do not eat any FPS anymore.

Only functions called from e.g Eventhandlers are still running synchronous, and could have effect on FPS.

We also put much effort in performance, MP compatibility and using advanced coding techniques to try and bring the best possible experience.

Re mod size: @ACE is 100 MB. Additional assets @ACEX, etc are a lot bigger, but you don't need that to enjoy the armor damage system or any of the features of ACE mod :)

Edited November 17, 2010 by Sickboy

[thearies 12]

...could we expect p85 ace configs sickboy ? i love the t-80´ies ;)

but really thats what i like to hear cause it solves so many problems

so it would be great to see for e.g. a namman maxxpro ace config etc.

thanks for explaination :)

[vilas 474]

T64, T80, 2S1, BMP1, M109 etc are in separate small addon called vilas_m12 (short from M1, M113, M109, M2, M2A2, M6) and vilas_st (Soviet Tanks)

i see no problem in giving Sickboy MLODs if it requires changes of selections

simply i run out of free time and hardly have no time for addons (little exception you seen W3 Sokol helicopter, Skoda Octavia)

so i see no problem in ACE T64, T80, M109, BMP1, 2S1... etc. now

i dont know their structure (selections names etc., config values) and i have no time to do it myslef

[pauliesss 2]

Wow, looks great NZX, cant wait for release! :bounce3::bounce3::bounce3:

[jadehorus 10]

That M-ATV looks incredibly good!Really nice work, NZX!

[sickboy 13]

@thearies;

Would be a joint venture operation I think.

We don't mind assisting people with questions on howto's, or system specifics, but it would be most excellent if people who would like to use it, to work on it themselves as well.

Perhaps we need to setup some supplemental documentation for that.

@Vilas;

MLOD's are only necessary if the selections aren't in order etc. If they are, then nothing is needed but the classname and type of the unit. Anyone can then make an 'override' config like;

class CfgVehicles {
 class Tank;
 class vil_t64: Tank  {
   	ace_dmgsys_enable = 1; // if 0, default hitpoint system will be used for this vehicle. Default setting for classes Tank and wheeled_APC is 1
	ace_minimalhit[] = {40,100};	//[min dir hit of ke/heat ammo,min indir hit of HE ammo]
	ace_era = 1;	//is equipped with era
   // etc. etc. etc.
 };
};

The cool thing is the config inheritance. If you have a a vil_t90, based on bis class t90, then the values will simply be inherited and there is very little or even nothing needed for vil_t90 to work well with the armor system. Given that the selections in the model are in order, and properly setup in config with class HitPoints.

But my main point is that neither original addon author, nor ACE need to make these configs.

Anyone can, and I think with the gazilions of addons, armor sources, and what not out there, it will simply need cooperation of people.

Some time ago [sR5] Tactical for instance provided such configs for RobertHammer's weapon packs; http://ace.dev-heaven.net/wagn/ACE_Features_for_3rd_Party_Addons_RH_Weapons

And there are plenty of people who are writing replacement configs to replace units and weapons of the game with 3rd party addon ones.

Great initiative imo.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Sickboy

[vilas 474]

i still use "otocvez" selection, sometimes i have "sklo" instead of glass, "motor" instead of "engine" , still using OFP selections names

probably default refers to "mainturret" , "engine", "fuel"

this can cause need to rework MLODs and write own cfg_hit

"era" is "era" selection (that hit will go to era, not in wheel or rear side without era) but rest probably won't fit without someone spending time on "turret" from "vez" work